MachCU (4:21:40 PM): How are you voting?
mungojelly (4:22:03 PM): i'm probably voting for Cobb
MachCU (4:22:08 PM): a
MachCU (4:22:09 PM): h
mungojelly (4:22:12 PM): & whoever the green is in the hinchey race, if that makes any difference
MachCU (4:23:03 PM): ah
mungojelly (4:23:13 PM): how about you? any interesting elections in MA?
MachCU (4:24:31 PM): Not very interesting, I think.
MachCU (4:24:38 PM): I'm planning to vote for Bush
MachCU (4:24:42 PM): for pres
MachCU (4:24:51 PM): and the Republican candidates for the local offices.
mungojelly (4:24:56 PM): really?
mungojelly (4:24:57 PM): why?
MachCU (4:25:05 PM): Mainly because I support his foreign policy.
MachCU (4:25:18 PM): But, as a side issue, I think he's better than Kerry on most other issues as well.
mungojelly (4:25:26 PM): yeah? are you a multinational?
mungojelly (4:26:08 PM): his foreign policy seems fundamentally colonial to me
MachCU (4:26:55 PM): no, I'm just American
mungojelly (4:27:20 PM): well i mean actually his administration has done ok on a lot of things, colin powell's pretty good at handling the scraps they toss him
MachCU (4:27:22 PM): What's colonial about deposing dictators and giving people democracy?
mungojelly (4:27:37 PM): well they have no intention of giving anyone democracy, is the basic answer
mungojelly (4:27:52 PM): democracy in iraq would mean a sunni majority
MachCU (4:27:57 PM): Why do you think that? And how do you reconcile that with the recent election in Afghanistan?
MachCU (4:28:05 PM): No, Sunnis are minorities in Iraq. Shi'ites are the majority.
mungojelly (4:28:15 PM): they had an election in the one or two cities they still control, right? that was my understanding
mungojelly (4:28:25 PM): i believe they hand picked the candidates too
MachCU (4:28:29 PM): Also, democracy is more than just rule of the majority. It's rule of the majority with constitutional limitations such as respect for human rights.
mungojelly (4:28:33 PM): yeah sorry that's right
mungojelly (4:28:55 PM): ok so by "democracy" you mean "constitutional republic"
MachCU (4:29:03 PM): Well, yeah. I meant representative government.
MachCU (4:29:09 PM): The details can be worked out.
mungojelly (4:29:12 PM): so then the question becomes, why exactly is it OK to impose our idea of government on people who have their own ideas?
MachCU (4:29:17 PM): One or two cities? Even Afghan refugees in Pakistan were voting.
mungojelly (4:29:30 PM): i mean islam has a traditional form of government, spelled out in some detail
mungojelly (4:29:46 PM): well of course, we've got pakistan wrapped around our dick these days
MachCU (4:29:55 PM): Because the dictators don't represent the will of the people. A country is not a monolith. It has millions of people with all different ideas. Most of them want some form of democracy.
mungojelly (4:29:58 PM): but most of the country officially labeled "afghanistan" is out of our control now
MachCU (4:30:09 PM): I don't think you're right about that.
mungojelly (4:30:16 PM): obviously saddam hussein doesn't represent the iraqi people, but neither do the puppets we put it
MachCU (4:30:31 PM): Perhaps not, but Iraq hasn't had an election yet.
mungojelly (4:30:31 PM): the bush administration actually had a "proconsul" of iraq
mungojelly (4:30:41 PM): i mean you know some history, right? proconsul? could they make it more obvious?
MachCU (4:30:57 PM): heh. that's just semantics.
mungojelly (4:30:59 PM): and they never will have an election, if we have anything to say about it
mungojelly (4:31:10 PM): not even as much of an election as we have here
MachCU (4:31:19 PM): OK. So if they do have an election, you'll change your view?
mungojelly (4:31:42 PM): if they had a free & fair election i would change my view, sure
mungojelly (4:31:47 PM): but in that case they would probably nationalize their oil
mungojelly (4:31:53 PM): & then their democracy would not last very fucking long
mungojelly (4:32:20 PM): you really don't think we're in it for the oil?
MachCU (4:32:21 PM): Why wouldn't it?
mungojelly (4:32:33 PM): well, um, look at what happened to Iran?
MachCU (4:32:37 PM): No, what reason is there to think that? If we wanted the oil we could've just lifted the sanctions and not invaded.
mungojelly (4:33:01 PM): because we want a friendly government in charge of it
MachCU (4:33:07 PM): Why?
MachCU (4:33:14 PM): Oil is oil.
mungojelly (4:33:21 PM): so we get the money, duh
mungojelly (4:33:39 PM): saddam was all good when he was playing by our rules, that's how it works
MachCU (4:33:44 PM): You think it's been a good investment so spend hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq for a small piece of the oil profits?
mungojelly (4:33:54 PM): what do you think of the pictures of rummy shaking hands with saddam?
mungojelly (4:34:12 PM): how can you trust that these people are opposing dictatorship? what about all the dictators they're friends with right now?
MachCU (4:34:20 PM): There are pictures of Roosevelt shaking hands with Stalin too.
mungojelly (4:34:33 PM): we're not spending oil companies' money, we're spending taxpayers money
mungojelly (4:34:50 PM): that's what our government is these days: a free protection service for american corporations
mungojelly (4:35:02 PM): but he didn't just shake hands with him, we were allies with him
MachCU (4:35:09 PM): We were allies with Stalin.
mungojelly (4:35:12 PM): we gave him all the weapons that we later used as a pretext to invade his country
mungojelly (4:35:40 PM): well that's not right is it now? that doesn't make roosevelt a swell person, does it? it rather speaks badly of him, that he was friends with stalin, i would say??
MachCU (4:36:45 PM): No, I don't think so. I think it says he was realistic in opposing Hitler. Sometimes you have to ally with people you don't like to achieve necessary goals. For the record, I think supporting Iraq against Iran was a tactical mistake, but I don't think it demonstrates anything terrible about the moral character of our leaders. And if anything, it only increases our responsibility to take down Saddam's government.
mungojelly (4:37:25 PM): you don't think that it has to do with the explanations they gave, though, do you?
MachCU (4:37:37 PM): You mean WMD?.
MachCU (4:37:49 PM): and freeing the Iraqi people
MachCU (4:37:53 PM): And stopping support of terrorism?
mungojelly (4:37:58 PM): WMD for instance? or the supposed links to al-queda?
mungojelly (4:38:16 PM): freeing the iraqi people was a post hoc explanation, though, right?
MachCU (4:38:26 PM): no
MachCU (4:38:29 PM): It wasn't post-hoc.
mungojelly (4:38:35 PM): i mean obviously iraq supports "terrorism" if by "terrorism" you mean palestine, etc
mungojelly (4:38:58 PM): but saddam certainly didn't support bin laden
MachCU (4:39:11 PM): Al Qaeda support is not a closed book.
mungojelly (4:39:23 PM): really?
MachCU (4:39:25 PM): There are reasonable arguments on both sides.
MachCU (4:39:26 PM): yes
mungojelly (4:39:27 PM): but they hate each other
mungojelly (4:39:40 PM): i mean bin laden referred to saddam all the time as an "infidel"
MachCU (4:39:52 PM): That's the trendy thing to say. "Saddam was secular. Osama was religious. They hated each other. They'd never ally."
mungojelly (4:40:02 PM): is it just trendy? i thought it was accurate
mungojelly (4:40:08 PM): i've seen the things osama said?
MachCU (4:40:08 PM): But allies of convenience are perfectly common. I mean, as you pointed out, even democracies engage in them. Certainly tyrants would.
mungojelly (4:40:40 PM): what about the fact that america has been systematically oppressing the rest of the world for generations?
mungojelly (4:40:43 PM): is that relevant at all?
MachCU (4:41:03 PM): I don't think that's true.
mungojelly (4:41:10 PM): weird
MachCU (4:41:15 PM): But I don't see what that has to do with Osama and Saddam either.
MachCU (4:41:17 PM): btw
mungojelly (4:41:24 PM): what about when we were doing it without even hiding? like when we took the phillipines, for instance
MachCU (4:41:30 PM): February 26, 2003:
MachCU (4:41:33 PM): http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html
MachCU (4:41:40 PM): The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq.
MachCU (4:41:43 PM): ...

The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life.
MachCU (4:41:47 PM): ...

Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state. The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated.
MachCU (4:42:40 PM): That's not post-hoc.
mungojelly (4:42:55 PM): it's not true, either
MachCU (4:43:00 PM): But it was said.
MachCU (4:43:12 PM): So whether you disagree with it or not, at least acknowledge it was said before the invasion.
MachCU (4:43:18 PM): It's not like they made up other rationales afterwards.
MachCU (4:43:35 PM): They might have placed more emphasis on those rationales, when no WMD stockpiles were found.
MachCU (4:43:55 PM): WMD was sort of the legal argument at the U.N., similar to how tax evasion was the crime Al Capone was busted on.
mungojelly (4:44:18 PM): speaking of the UN
mungojelly (4:44:32 PM): do you think that we have the right under international law to invade whoever we think is a "threat"?
MachCU (4:44:51 PM): I think that the U.N. is a corrupt body without much legitimacy.
mungojelly (4:45:13 PM): so the UN is just to be used to punish nations we don't like, & if it doesn't agree with us we should toss it out?
MachCU (4:45:28 PM): The emphasis should be on substance, not process.
mungojelly (4:45:29 PM): that doesn't connect with you with the idea that we're oppressing the rest of the world?
mungojelly (4:46:07 PM): well i mean we could agree with other nations about the fate of the world in any manner we please, we're not limited to the U.N.
MachCU (4:46:12 PM): If someone's walking around your neighborhood murdering people, and you think he might murder you, yes I think you have a right to stop him, regardless of whether people 1,000 miles away think you don't.
mungojelly (4:46:45 PM): they're closer to saddam than we are, though?
mungojelly (4:46:49 PM): which sort of messes with the analogy?
MachCU (4:47:00 PM): Not really. It's not the distance that's important, exactly.
mungojelly (4:47:07 PM): the thing is, we've been SUPPORTING him murdering people
MachCU (4:47:10 PM): What's important is how real the threat is.
mungojelly (4:47:22 PM): i don't understand how that can not give the lie to the idea that we're taking him out as a favor to some defenseless someone or another
mungojelly (4:47:43 PM): we're taking him out to help the KURDS? but we SUPPORT turkey in killing the kurds, we obviously don't give a FUCK about the kurds
MachCU (4:48:06 PM): So basically we should be paralyzed with inaction because we've made mistakes in the past?
mungojelly (4:48:30 PM): bush goes on TV saying over & over how he gassed his own people, without ever mentioning that WE gave him the weapons AND the targetting data
mungojelly (4:48:46 PM): i'm trying to get you to understand that you are supporting a corrupt empire
MachCU (4:48:50 PM): can you substantiate that claim?
mungojelly (4:48:56 PM): it's commonly known
mungojelly (4:49:11 PM): are you saying you don't think we gave chemical weapons to saddam?
MachCU (4:49:12 PM): So you say. But can you substantiate it?
MachCU (4:49:33 PM): Certainly we didn't give him targeting data to gas innocent civilians. I doubt we gave him chemical weapons, too.
MachCU (4:49:36 PM): But can you substantiate either one?
mungojelly (4:49:47 PM): oh my well i could if i took a while
mungojelly (4:49:54 PM): it would be some work to find primary sources
mungojelly (4:50:10 PM): what about the saudis?
mungojelly (4:50:19 PM): i mean you don't contest that the bushes are in bed with the saudis, right?
mungojelly (4:50:31 PM): but they are easily as corrupt a dictatorship as iraq was
MachCU (4:50:46 PM): ok. Well you expect me to believe things about a society that completely contradicts my firsthand experience, living in that society. Things that, contrary to your claim, aren't well-known (even if true). So I'd like some evidence.
mungojelly (4:51:07 PM): they're well known to people who pay attention
MachCU (4:51:13 PM): I agree we ally with the Saudis. I don't think the Saudis are as bad as Saddam was, but I think they're pretty bad.
MachCU (4:51:28 PM): Well, I try to pay attention. Can you help me by showing me the evidence?
mungojelly (4:51:36 PM): not just that we ally with them, but that the bush family particularly does business with them personally
mungojelly (4:51:59 PM): sure, i suppose i could look into that
mungojelly (4:52:04 PM): i'm sure you could find it yourself if you looked
MachCU (4:52:33 PM): Because it sounds to me like you believe all these "well-known" things, which are probably well-accepted among people of your ideological bent, but which few people have ever bothered to actually confirm the truth of.
mungojelly (4:52:44 PM): http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
MachCU (4:53:00 PM): yes, I've seen that picture before
MachCU (4:53:15 PM): that's not what I'm asking for
mungojelly (4:53:31 PM): that seems to me to be an article about what i was talking about?
mungojelly (4:53:50 PM): i don't happen to have original memos from the bush sr administration on hand..
mungojelly (4:54:01 PM): so i can't really give primary evidence
mungojelly (4:54:11 PM): other people have looked into it, though
mungojelly (4:54:18 PM): i mean i feel like i understand the underlying principles
mungojelly (4:54:34 PM): america supports whoever it's in our interest to support, & we give them whatever they need to get the job done
mungojelly (4:54:45 PM): we have no basic respect for life or international law & we never have
MachCU (4:55:06 PM): Nothing in that URL says that the U.S. gave targeting data for innocent civilians. Nor does it suggest that we gave them chemical or biological weapons. The only thing that's remotely relevant is that it raises doubts about whether or not Rumsfeld voiced complaints about Iraqi possession of chemical weapons, in a meeting with Saddam.
mungojelly (4:55:11 PM): you know that we supported Osama bin Laden a few years back?
MachCU (4:55:37 PM): I don't want primary evidence. Just something.
mungojelly (4:55:55 PM): how's this: http://www.rense.com/general29/wesold.htm
MachCU (4:55:58 PM): I know we supported Osama a while back against the Soviets.
mungojelly (4:56:36 PM): i suppose at the time you would have said we were doing the right thing because the soviets are the bad guys?
mungojelly (4:56:46 PM): that seems to be the moral level on which this is all taking place
MachCU (4:56:59 PM): Well, it may have been a tactical mistake.
MachCU (4:57:02 PM): Given hindsight.
mungojelly (4:57:17 PM): did you notice how pakistan became the good guys in fighting afghanistan, as soon as they rolled over & started kissing our ass?
mungojelly (4:58:18 PM): tactical mistake? what does that mean? i mean it seems like you're implying that our goals were noble
MachCU (4:58:22 PM): Yes. It's called being realistic. I mean look at this from the point of view of the people actually responsible for making decisions. If you think tons of governments are terribly repressive, what do you do? You try to use all means available. That includes diplomatic means. So we give incentives for governments to do certain things, and we call them our "allies". As in Pakistan.
mungojelly (4:58:53 PM): what are the noble goals? the only way we're noble is if you assume that communism is "evil", that fundamentalist islam is "evil", that anyone who doesn't play ball is evil
mungojelly (4:59:01 PM): no, no, that's not what you do
mungojelly (4:59:13 PM): what you do is you attempt to form international laws that people can respect
MachCU (4:59:16 PM): Communism is evil.
mungojelly (4:59:28 PM): so that the world can deal with repressive regimes & other threats in a sane way
MachCU (4:59:31 PM): The desire to conquer the world and repress dissenting political views with murder and torture is evil.
mungojelly (4:59:35 PM): you don't go invading whoever seems least good to you
mungojelly (4:59:43 PM): that's fucking insane
MachCU (4:59:55 PM): We're not invading Pakistan. You were objecting to being nice with Pakistan.
mungojelly (5:00:01 PM): anyone who invades another country thinks that the country did something wrong to them
mungojelly (5:00:09 PM): you don't go invading people because you think they're swell
mungojelly (5:00:14 PM): but that doesn't give you the fucking right
mungojelly (5:00:20 PM): any more than you have a right to go shooting people you don't like
MachCU (5:00:47 PM): Alright, let me ask you some questions about how your ideal world would work.
mungojelly (5:00:50 PM): sure
MachCU (5:00:57 PM): We have a body of international law?
mungojelly (5:01:36 PM): hmmm
mungojelly (5:01:50 PM): well i wouldn't say that international law per se is my ideal, but i think it's a good step from here, absolutely
MachCU (5:02:05 PM): Alright. I didn't mean ideal world, exactly.
MachCU (5:02:11 PM): Obviously no one gets to decide how the whole world works.
MachCU (5:02:33 PM): I meant how your ideal American policy would work, and that includes the international structures that it would be a part of.
mungojelly (5:02:45 PM): there is already a body of international law, though, we don't have to go to my ideal world to find it
mungojelly (5:02:53 PM): the US is a signatory to a bunch of treaties
MachCU (5:03:00 PM): OK, you mean the U.N.?
mungojelly (5:03:22 PM): well, we're involved with the UN yes, but there are treaties outside of that
mungojelly (5:04:05 PM): we're a signatory to the geneva convention, for instance
mungojelly (5:04:20 PM): which admittedly i've only read part of
MachCU (5:04:23 PM): OK. What's good about the U.N.?
mungojelly (5:04:26 PM): there's an obscene amount of international law, really
mungojelly (5:04:29 PM): what's good about it?
mungojelly (5:04:34 PM): well obviously it's easier to say what's bad about it
mungojelly (5:04:43 PM): what's good about it is that it's an attempt at international dialogue
MachCU (5:05:00 PM): OK. I'd agree with that.
MachCU (5:05:08 PM): What rights would you say the U.N should have?
mungojelly (5:05:11 PM): the problem is that the superpowers, the US included, have no respect at all for it, won't give over any power to it
MachCU (5:05:14 PM): In terms of making law.
MachCU (5:05:20 PM): Alright, well what powers should we give it?
mungojelly (5:05:26 PM): hmm, right now?
MachCU (5:05:37 PM): or in the near future
mungojelly (5:05:52 PM): i think it would make sense to give the UN, or some similar international body, a veto power over the ability of any country to invade any other
mungojelly (5:06:18 PM): that is, if you want to go "help" a country by bombing many of the actual people of that country, you have to first agree with the majority of the nations in the world that it's really a good idea
mungojelly (5:06:45 PM): in fact i believe we've signed over that right at some point or another
MachCU (5:06:56 PM): OK. Should every nation have equal vote?
mungojelly (5:07:06 PM): preemptive war isn't really allowed under international law, everyone's signed on to those sorts of things
mungojelly (5:07:27 PM): hmm well i could write a system that i liked, but that wouldn't mean much
mungojelly (5:07:52 PM): at the moment the UN gives veto power to the superpowers, which makes sense in a way, because they have that power militarily so might as well put it into law
mungojelly (5:08:08 PM): i mean the underlying power dynamics really have to change
mungojelly (5:08:41 PM): i think it would make sense right now to start taking apart the US army & putting a lot of that force into a multinational peacekeeping force
mungojelly (5:09:13 PM): you have to take the teeth out of the US power machine
mungojelly (5:09:20 PM): but the important thing is WHY you have to do that
MachCU (5:09:36 PM): alright alright, but I mean more basically
mungojelly (5:09:39 PM): which is that the US is extremely imperialistic & has been for a long time
MachCU (5:10:07 PM): You believe that any invasion of another country should require a majority vote in the General Assembly?
mungojelly (5:10:16 PM): sure that would be a good start
MachCU (5:10:22 PM): OK. And some countries have veto power?
mungojelly (5:10:34 PM): look, it's not really "should"
mungojelly (5:10:38 PM): there's a system
mungojelly (5:10:46 PM): i'm not so hep to exactly how the U.N. works
mungojelly (5:10:52 PM): but you know, we went in & we tried to use the system
mungojelly (5:11:02 PM): and the system said: come on, you're just trying to take their oil
mungojelly (5:11:06 PM): so we said screw that
mungojelly (5:11:18 PM): that's not just me talking, that's how the whole rest of the world sees it
MachCU (5:11:32 PM): Alright but I'm trying to get away from this particular issue.
MachCU (5:11:43 PM): It's easy to criticize. I'm trying to understand how you'd do things.
mungojelly (5:12:00 PM): i wouldn't do things
mungojelly (5:12:09 PM): i wouldn't be a nation trying to decide whether or not to bomb another nation
mungojelly (5:12:11 PM): i don't think that way
mungojelly (5:12:22 PM): who i would be is a human being, trying to dismantle all of the systems of power
mungojelly (5:12:26 PM): get rid of all of the weapons
mungojelly (5:12:36 PM): starting with the worst ones, like nuclear weapons, land mines, etc
MachCU (5:12:41 PM): I understand. But right now I'm asking how you'd organize the UN to decide whether other people can do that.
MachCU (5:12:46 PM): OK. How will you get rid of them?
mungojelly (5:12:53 PM): the rules should be, & in fact are: never ever
MachCU (5:12:58 PM): ok
MachCU (5:13:04 PM): So how do we get rid of all the weapons?
mungojelly (5:13:07 PM): never ever can you initiate aggression
mungojelly (5:13:44 PM): well the first place to start in the world as it is now, would be to give the former USSR nations the money they need to dismantle their nuclear weapons
mungojelly (5:13:59 PM): they want to get rid of them at this point, because they're just a financial drain, & we just need to help them do that
MachCU (5:14:21 PM): OK. So we give all willing countries the money necessary to dismantle their nukes, and we dismantle our own, I assume.
MachCU (5:14:26 PM): What about unwilling countries?
mungojelly (5:14:30 PM): i also think the US should sign the anti landmines treaty that was going around recently, like most of the world did, & start trying to enforce it
mungojelly (5:14:59 PM): the countries that have nuclear weapons are mostly just trying to tell us to back off
MachCU (5:15:26 PM): All of them?
mungojelly (5:15:37 PM): well, india & pakistan have their own issues
MachCU (5:15:44 PM): agreed
mungojelly (5:15:49 PM): i'm not really sure how US power fits into that, we might be a 3rd party
mungojelly (5:16:12 PM): though we're more closely allied with india as far as i know
MachCU (5:16:25 PM): The nuclear powers I know about are:
U.S., Russia, England, France, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, and soon Iran
MachCU (5:16:49 PM): Which of those have nukes to tell us to back off, do you think?
mungojelly (5:16:58 PM): israel doesn't really count, it's basically just an arm of the US
mungojelly (5:17:12 PM): north korea, iran, possibly pakistan
MachCU (5:17:20 PM): ok
MachCU (5:17:23 PM): And the others?
MachCU (5:17:27 PM): Why do they have nukes?
mungojelly (5:17:50 PM): well, russia & china were playing along with the whole "cold war" business
mungojelly (5:17:54 PM): seems like who has the bigger dick, to me
MachCU (5:18:18 PM): OK. But they have no use for them now, and they'd dismantle them if we gave them the funds?
mungojelly (5:18:34 PM): russia would dismantle most of them, just because they're broke
mungojelly (5:18:41 PM): not china
mungojelly (5:19:08 PM): it's symbolic, basically, that they're protecting themselves against being made subservient to the US
mungojelly (5:19:15 PM): & vice versa, back when that was a reasonable option
MachCU (5:19:18 PM): OK. So which countries won't dismantle their nukes if we dismantle ours?
mungojelly (5:19:24 PM): we were saying "you can't touch us, we've got nukes"
MachCU (5:19:41 PM): I mean, I'm not asking you to put money on this or anything. Just asking which you suppose won't.
mungojelly (5:19:42 PM): but at this point we're the undisputed emperor of the world basically
mungojelly (5:19:59 PM): i don't know
mungojelly (5:20:10 PM): i'm not entirely sure that it would make sense to completely eliminate our arsenal
mungojelly (5:20:19 PM): but at the moment it's such ridiculous overkill
MachCU (5:20:29 PM): alright
mungojelly (5:20:41 PM): we could get rid of 90% of it and still have enough to kill everyone on earth dozens of times
MachCU (5:20:46 PM): Well, instead of saying specifically which countries wouldn't, do you believe that there would be any countries that wouldn't?
mungojelly (5:21:11 PM): anyway a nuclear deterrent is clearly a different issue than actually USING nuclear weapons
mungojelly (5:21:30 PM): such as all the DU we've been using
mungojelly (5:22:01 PM): or the bush administration's tactical nukes plan
MachCU (5:22:02 PM): DU?
mungojelly (5:22:07 PM): depleted uranium
mungojelly (5:22:23 PM): we use it to harden shells so they can penetrate better
MachCU (5:22:27 PM): ah
MachCU (5:22:59 PM): OK, but surely you see a difference between traditional nuclear weapons, and tactical nukes or DU-enhanced weapons, no?
mungojelly (5:23:13 PM): um
mungojelly (5:23:19 PM): well obviously there is a difference, which i'm aware of
MachCU (5:23:23 PM): I mean, in terms of the level of destruction.
MachCU (5:23:27 PM): You said start with the nukes.
mungojelly (5:23:36 PM): i just don't think it's a good idea to make a fuzzy boundary, you know, these are the "OK" nuclear weapons
MachCU (5:23:51 PM): I understand, you said get rid of all weapons. But we have to start somewhere.
mungojelly (5:24:14 PM): DU has killed & sickened rather a large number of people & i'm not convinced it's a worthwhile tradeoff
MachCU (5:24:20 PM): ok
mungojelly (5:24:34 PM): in fact, it seems to me to be bad on both sides
MachCU (5:24:38 PM): I'm still curious as to whether you think there would be some countries which wouldn't go along and dismantle their own nukes.
mungojelly (5:24:54 PM): first it kills someone, & then it sickens other people who are exposed to the uranium.. hm
mungojelly (5:24:58 PM): of course
mungojelly (5:25:03 PM): if they have any sense they wouldn't
mungojelly (5:25:12 PM): unless the structure of international power changed fundamentally
mungojelly (5:25:32 PM): it's a bargaining chip they have in trying to stake out some territory away from the american empire
MachCU (5:26:24 PM): ok
MachCU (5:26:48 PM): So we should dismantle our nukes first, as a show of good will, and then dismantle our more conventional weapons, and then they'd start dismantling their nukes probably?
mungojelly (5:26:53 PM): "The documents show that the U.S. not only protected Iraqi plans, it actually abetted them. American companies were allowed to sell chemical precursors to the Iraqis. Washington in the 1980s licensed dozens of other firms to ship biologicals to Iraq ? deadly viruses and toxins, the sort of stuff Washington is now demanding Iraq destroy." -- that's from cbc.ca they're pretty reliable right?
mungojelly (5:27:22 PM): first i would dismantle all civilian nuclear programs, & the vast majority of weapons
MachCU (5:27:33 PM): I think they're pretty reliable
mungojelly (5:27:38 PM): then try to set up international control systems to keep countries from developing or expanding their nuclear programs
mungojelly (5:28:00 PM): at some point i would want the US's nuclear arsenal put in control of an international body
MachCU (5:28:01 PM): OK, does that include nuclear power programs?
MachCU (5:28:05 PM): or just weapons?
mungojelly (5:28:08 PM): nuclear power is an awful awful idea
mungojelly (5:28:13 PM): which we should stop as soon as possible
mungojelly (5:28:19 PM): it's never even been cost-effective
MachCU (5:28:55 PM): Actually, it is in France and some other countries that don't regulate it as much as the U.S. It's not cost-effective in the U.S. because of regulation, which is why very few nuclear plants are being built these days.
MachCU (5:29:23 PM): Now, one can make an argument that the regulation is worthwhile, or that it should even be increased (or that the power plants should be banned entirely). But the point is, it can be cost-effective.
mungojelly (5:30:03 PM): well, depending on how you tilt the balance, sure
mungojelly (5:30:12 PM): anything is cost-effective if you subsidize it
MachCU (5:30:22 PM): I don't believe France subsidizes it.
MachCU (5:30:27 PM): I think they just don't regulate it as much as the U.S.
MachCU (5:30:31 PM): Could be wrong, though.
MachCU (5:30:37 PM): That's a tangent, anyways.
mungojelly (5:30:41 PM): nuclear power requires more regulation & protection now than ever, i think.. it's a major terrorist vulnerability at this point
mungojelly (5:30:53 PM): life is a tangent
MachCU (5:30:58 PM): heh
MachCU (5:31:07 PM): OK, so we dismantle all our nukes and nuclear power programs.
MachCU (5:31:11 PM): And so do allied countries.
mungojelly (5:31:21 PM): the main problem with nuclear power though is that it produces waste which we've not yet discovered any way of getting rid of
MachCU (5:31:39 PM): What's next after nuclear stuff?
mungojelly (5:32:09 PM): chemical, biological, landmines
mungojelly (5:32:19 PM): i'm not an expert in it, though
mungojelly (5:32:30 PM): there are international bodies that have been discussing this sort of thing for decades now
MachCU (5:32:39 PM): Alright. But basically we get rid of the most destructive weapons first, and work our way down?
mungojelly (5:32:49 PM): they just can't do anything about it because the US won't play by the rules
MachCU (5:33:15 PM): Right. I'm trying to understand what a world in which playing by those rules would look like.
mungojelly (5:33:22 PM): i think it's more like, the weapons with the most devastating side-effects
MachCU (5:33:35 PM): I don't understand the distinction.
mungojelly (5:33:48 PM): landmines for instance stay around for years & kill & maim people, on & on
MachCU (5:33:52 PM): ok
MachCU (5:33:59 PM): alright, I understand
mungojelly (5:34:01 PM): nuclear weapons, obviously, leave places uninhabitable for years & years
MachCU (5:34:06 PM): ok
MachCU (5:34:35 PM): If you could have it your way, would this happen as fast as is technically possible, or is there a legitimate argument for keeping some weapons around for a while even if we're capable of dismantling them?
mungojelly (5:34:58 PM): well i think we can easily get rid of landmines
mungojelly (5:35:13 PM): i don't see why we would "need" to mine anywhere at the moment
MachCU (5:35:25 PM): OK, so we get rid of all landmines.
MachCU (5:35:29 PM): But I'm talking about all weapons.
MachCU (5:35:36 PM): Fighter jets, tanks, rifles, etc.
MachCU (5:35:47 PM): Assume we can get rid of everything tomorrow if we chose to. Is there some stuff we should keep, at least temporarily?
mungojelly (5:36:05 PM): well if you could get rid of all of them in the world, then sure
MachCU (5:36:17 PM): Well, that's not technically possible.
MachCU (5:36:22 PM): Without persuasion, at least.
MachCU (5:36:25 PM): I mean the ones we control.
mungojelly (5:36:35 PM): in practice it's a matter of balancing various forces & factors
mungojelly (5:36:59 PM): like in the UK cops don't have to carry guns, because the populace has been effectively disarmed
mungojelly (5:37:24 PM): here in the US obviously you couldn't just disarm cops as the first step
MachCU (5:37:44 PM): ok
MachCU (5:37:50 PM): That's what I was getting at
MachCU (5:38:07 PM): So you'd keep the guns in the hands of cops until other steps happened first, in that case, for example.
mungojelly (5:38:18 PM): right
MachCU (5:38:23 PM): ok. What steps?
mungojelly (5:38:25 PM): but that doesn't mean you encourage cops to shoot people
MachCU (5:38:36 PM): I understand
mungojelly (5:38:45 PM): hmm well in the US you need first a major cultural shift
mungojelly (5:39:03 PM): because a lot of the people here are having some crazy love affair with guns
MachCU (5:39:15 PM): ok
MachCU (5:39:22 PM): That sounds like a decades-long process.
mungojelly (5:39:34 PM): absolutely
MachCU (5:40:36 PM): And would we take guns from people by force, or just try to convince them to give them up?
mungojelly (5:41:16 PM): well obviously you have to be at a point where most of the people agree that not having guns is a good choice
mungojelly (5:41:31 PM): you don't really have to try to get anyone to "give up" their guns
mungojelly (5:41:43 PM): if there's nobody mass producing them that'll do, you know?
mungojelly (5:42:19 PM): i mean i don't really think we should get rid of every functional gun, even ones in museums & so forth
MachCU (5:42:25 PM): ok
mungojelly (5:42:34 PM): it's a beautiful device & i'm sure there will always be a few of them around
mungojelly (5:42:41 PM): it's just crazy to have one in every person's home
MachCU (5:42:44 PM): But we should shut down gun factories and such?
mungojelly (5:43:06 PM): i dunno, who's we?
mungojelly (5:43:22 PM): i think probably i'd like to see every factory in the world shut down
MachCU (5:43:24 PM): Well, you tell me.
mungojelly (5:43:33 PM): factories haven't been so good for humanity on the whole
MachCU (5:43:44 PM): Alright, well, lemme rephrase:
MachCU (5:43:52 PM): Should all the means of producing guns be shut down?
mungojelly (5:44:52 PM): at some point, yes
MachCU (5:45:29 PM): Would you say this would probably happen after most of the military weapons are dismantled?
mungojelly (5:45:30 PM): are guns really made in factories? that seems crazy to me somehow
mungojelly (5:45:34 PM): i mean i know that's how this society works
mungojelly (5:45:38 PM): but who really needs that many guns?
MachCU (5:45:53 PM): Individual guns seem like less destructive weapons than tanks and stuff.
mungojelly (5:45:54 PM): it only takes one bullet from one gun to kill a person, how many people exactly are we trying to kill with these weapons
mungojelly (5:46:31 PM): i think that in My Ideal World, dismantling the military equipment would be more of a side-effect of various domestic programs
mungojelly (5:46:46 PM): & international programs
mungojelly (5:46:52 PM): but generally a change in priorities
MachCU (5:47:19 PM): ok
MachCU (5:47:29 PM): I'm just trying to understand the timeframe
MachCU (5:47:39 PM): like
MachCU (5:47:46 PM): Do we dismantle our tanks before North Korea dismantles their nukes?
mungojelly (5:48:28 PM): long before we come to that sort of question, we need to come to the table with them
MachCU (5:48:45 PM): and talk about what?
mungojelly (5:48:46 PM): & "we" should mean the international community, with the US participating but not ruling
MachCU (5:48:57 PM): ok
mungojelly (5:48:58 PM): oh various stuff
MachCU (5:49:19 PM): Well right now there are talks with the U.S., Russia, South Korea, Japan, and North Korea
mungojelly (5:49:29 PM): disarmament, how best to help the people of north korea, the weather
mungojelly (5:49:48 PM): sounds good to me
MachCU (5:50:15 PM): What if it seems like the North Korean dictators are only interested in their own power?
mungojelly (5:50:20 PM): the thing is, i think those talks would actually go well, if we were actually on the side of the people of north korea, you know?
mungojelly (5:50:35 PM): hmm well
mungojelly (5:50:41 PM): it might still be possible to work with them
mungojelly (5:51:09 PM): but at that point we might consider economic sanctions, etc
mungojelly (5:51:16 PM): it worked well with iraq, for instance
mungojelly (5:51:28 PM): we successfully disarmed them, as bush has accidentally proven lately
MachCU (5:51:32 PM): You support the Iraq sanctions?
mungojelly (5:51:52 PM): they weren't run the way i would run them, but i think i'd support them in theory
MachCU (5:52:04 PM): Did they do more harm than good, would you say?
mungojelly (5:52:13 PM): oh my well that's a difficult question
mungojelly (5:52:19 PM): they were badly designed & terribly corrupt
MachCU (5:52:29 PM): alright
MachCU (5:52:34 PM): What do you think of the sanctions currently on North Korea?
mungojelly (5:52:37 PM): it requires answering difficult questions like, what would iraq have done with their weapons if they were allowed to keep them?
mungojelly (5:52:44 PM): you could imagine situations that would have been worse
mungojelly (5:52:52 PM): i'm not familiar with the details actually
mungojelly (5:53:16 PM): anyway i would support any sanctions program with a large amount of aid to the people of the nation being sanctioned
MachCU (5:53:30 PM): OK. Aid like food and medical supplies?
mungojelly (5:53:33 PM): right
MachCU (5:53:44 PM): How does the aid get delivered?
mungojelly (5:53:49 PM): in trucks!
MachCU (5:53:54 PM): lol
MachCU (5:54:13 PM): I mean, do we deliver the aid directly to the individual people?
MachCU (5:54:22 PM): Or do we deliver it to the North Korean government and let them distribute it?
mungojelly (5:54:23 PM): what i would do, if i was put in charge of the world, is start fighting Peaces instead of Wars
mungojelly (5:54:34 PM): send in armored trucks delivering food
mungojelly (5:54:50 PM): all the dictators could do to stop you would be to shoot at you & try to get you to stop giving out food
mungojelly (5:54:58 PM): & how popular would that make them?
mungojelly (5:55:10 PM): i think we could work it
MachCU (5:55:29 PM): What if the claim the trucks contained bombs?
mungojelly (5:55:39 PM): they wouldn't, though
MachCU (5:55:43 PM): why not?
mungojelly (5:55:46 PM): & we'd be genuinely trying to help everyone in the world
mungojelly (5:55:58 PM): you could tell, if the US started working for the good of the world instead of against it
mungojelly (5:56:00 PM): everyone would feel it
mungojelly (5:56:12 PM): anyway really i tend to think of politics as just one little branch of economics, you know?
mungojelly (5:56:15 PM): that's what it's about
mungojelly (5:56:29 PM): like, the US is fighting these wars in the gulf to protect oil supplies there
mungojelly (5:56:33 PM): it's mostly about the economics of oil
MachCU (5:56:50 PM): well I mean
mungojelly (5:56:54 PM): if we just stopped importing oil, the wars would stop, & the whole political system of that part of the globe would transform
MachCU (5:57:39 PM): You think dictators will care about whether we're trying to help their people?
MachCU (5:57:44 PM): Maybe they want their people to hate us.
mungojelly (5:58:31 PM): the first thing i think we should do to end dictatorship is stop supporting dictators
mungojelly (5:58:35 PM): i think that's dead obvious
MachCU (5:58:54 PM): Well, I'm referring specifically to Kim Jong Il, who we're not supporting.
mungojelly (5:58:58 PM): that would be a more sensible first step, don't you think, than attacking a couple of dictators who we used to support but who aren't towing the line anymore?
MachCU (5:59:13 PM): We never supported North Korea.
mungojelly (5:59:23 PM): true, they were supported by the Other Side
MachCU (5:59:33 PM): not really anymore
MachCU (5:59:37 PM): I mean a little bit by China.
MachCU (5:59:41 PM): but not much
mungojelly (5:59:43 PM): but that's how we got here, is what i'm saying
MachCU (5:59:53 PM): OK. But where do we go from here?
mungojelly (5:59:58 PM): we supported half of the corrupt regimes in the world & the commies supported the other
mungojelly (6:00:02 PM): & we played them like a game of chess
MachCU (6:00:03 PM): How do we deliver the food to the North Korean people?
mungojelly (6:00:04 PM): now we're in a mess
mungojelly (6:00:10 PM): in trucks!
MachCU (6:00:18 PM): What if the destroy the trucks?
mungojelly (6:00:39 PM): they won't, though
mungojelly (6:00:43 PM): they wouldn't be able to, politically
MachCU (6:00:49 PM): why not?
mungojelly (6:01:01 PM): because people can tell who's on their side
MachCU (6:01:07 PM): how?
mungojelly (6:01:14 PM): we'd start by helping out south korea
mungojelly (6:01:23 PM): & we'd get them up to the same level of wealth as america
MachCU (6:01:36 PM): South Korea's pretty wealthy actually.
mungojelly (6:01:48 PM): but you see my point
MachCU (6:02:08 PM): no
mungojelly (6:02:10 PM): well really once we've helped out all the nations that we're in a position to be able to help, the US won't have the money & power left to make that kind of decision
mungojelly (6:02:18 PM): the power will be spread around the world, along with the money
mungojelly (6:03:11 PM): so then an international coalition would be able to make those sorts of decisions in a free way
mungojelly (6:03:43 PM): i'm sure the people in that region have a clearer idea how to deal with north korea than i do, or you do, or certainly than mr bush does
mungojelly (6:03:50 PM): so we'll all sit down & i'm sure we'll come up with something
MachCU (6:04:41 PM): So you think the dictators will have no choice but no let the trucks of food in, once the international community demonstrates its desire to help people?
mungojelly (6:04:54 PM): dictators can do all sorts of things
mungojelly (6:05:08 PM): but i don't think they would last long in a world that was really being democratized
mungojelly (6:05:39 PM): they survive off of markets, you know, that sort of thing
mungojelly (6:06:17 PM): at this point i'm not sure dictators are doing a worse job than democracies
MachCU (6:06:28 PM): alright. Roughly how long do you think it'll take before those dictators collapse?
mungojelly (6:06:29 PM): i mean you have cuba on the dictator side, & the US on the "democracy" side
mungojelly (6:06:46 PM): i have no idea
MachCU (6:06:57 PM): well, I mean very rough estimate
mungojelly (6:07:10 PM): i have no idea at all
MachCU (6:07:13 PM): Like, within a factor of 3.
MachCU (6:07:21 PM): maybe a range then?
mungojelly (6:07:26 PM): maybe in a few generations it will dissolve into a communist utopia
MachCU (6:07:31 PM): as in "between 10 and 200 years" if that's all you can say
MachCU (6:08:02 PM): alright
MachCU (6:08:12 PM): before that happens
MachCU (6:08:25 PM): What should we do about North Korea?
mungojelly (6:08:29 PM): did you say that communism is evil? did i hear that correctly?
MachCU (6:08:36 PM): yes
MachCU (6:08:44 PM): But I'm trying to understand your point of view
mungojelly (6:08:44 PM): i don't really think i'm qualified to say
mungojelly (6:08:47 PM): i mean i could guess
mungojelly (6:09:01 PM): but i don't think even the US, unilaterally, is competant or justified in making those sorts of decisions
mungojelly (6:09:07 PM): i think we should have a broad consensus
MachCU (6:09:43 PM): btw, just looked up South Korea. It's 38th richest country per capita.
MachCU (6:09:59 PM): $19,497.17 per person per year, compared to $35,991.96 for the U.S.
MachCU (6:10:25 PM): OK. So how about five countries in multilateral talks with North Korea?
MachCU (6:10:34 PM): Like, say, the U.S., Japan, Russia, China, and South Korea?
mungojelly (6:10:52 PM): i don't really know
mungojelly (6:11:02 PM): i'd say we should whatever kinds of talks north korea is willing to agree to
mungojelly (6:11:14 PM): there's no reason to say no to talking
mungojelly (6:11:31 PM): we should ask mr Il who he'd like to talk to
MachCU (6:11:33 PM): What if China says they'll leave the multilateral talks if we have bilateral talks with North Korea directly?
mungojelly (6:11:44 PM): did they say that?
MachCU (6:11:46 PM): yes
MachCU (6:11:51 PM): well
mungojelly (6:11:52 PM): china's a bitch
MachCU (6:11:58 PM): they said multilateral talks are the only viable option
MachCU (6:12:07 PM): In response to Kerry's proposal for bilateral talks
mungojelly (6:12:20 PM): they might be right
mungojelly (6:12:34 PM): i mean if i was in charge of north korea i wouldn't be very impressed with what the US has to say
mungojelly (6:12:44 PM): china & japan would be a lot more relevant to me
mungojelly (6:13:16 PM): what's wrong with kim jong il again? except that he's a dictator
mungojelly (6:13:31 PM): i mean dictators come in all different flavors
mungojelly (6:13:39 PM): he's a serious isolationist, right?
MachCU (6:13:46 PM): starves his people. kidnaps south koreans and japanese. wants to build nukes. traded nuclear and missile technology with pakistan and iraq
MachCU (6:13:50 PM): to name the things that come to mind
MachCU (6:14:12 PM): represses political dissent
mungojelly (6:14:30 PM): well of course he represses dissent
mungojelly (6:14:39 PM): communism is a different perspective on these things
MachCU (6:14:46 PM): Do you agree that there would be some period of time between when the U.S. and other countries gave up their nukes and other weapons, and the time when dictators such as Kim Jong Il were forced out of power by their people because of political realities?
mungojelly (6:14:53 PM): i mean it's possible for it to be corrupt, but you have to look at it on its own terms
MachCU (6:15:33 PM): You think it's okay for communist countries to repress dissent?
mungojelly (6:15:33 PM): he just has nukes because he wants to maintain independence, right? i mean what did he say about them?
mungojelly (6:15:43 PM): what's ok? like morally ok?
MachCU (6:15:48 PM): yeah
mungojelly (6:15:53 PM): i don't think it seems to work so well, as far as their aims
mungojelly (6:16:04 PM): but you have to understand that they're working within that ideology
MachCU (6:16:33 PM): Well I mean, do you want them to stop?
mungojelly (6:16:56 PM): i suppose
MachCU (6:17:02 PM): ok then
mungojelly (6:17:05 PM): well
mungojelly (6:17:20 PM): i would want them to switch from being communist dictatorships to being some sort of anarchosyndicalist federations
mungojelly (6:17:39 PM): i guess on the whole a communist dictatorship with free expression would be better than one without
mungojelly (6:17:43 PM): but it's a weird question
mungojelly (6:18:09 PM): it's like, would capitalism be better with laws against usury?
mungojelly (6:18:14 PM): i think so, but then that doesn't really get to the heart of it
mungojelly (6:18:42 PM): there are different ways of seeing the world, & peoples act out the ways that they've been conditioned into
mungojelly (6:19:01 PM): you can't really change one element of a worldview, they're not seperable
mungojelly (6:19:33 PM): i assume that north korea is a democracy, right?
mungojelly (6:19:39 PM): like they hold sham elections?
MachCU (6:19:39 PM): I'm gonna watch the news in 10 minutes, btw.
MachCU (6:19:45 PM): I don't believe so, no.
MachCU (6:19:55 PM): It's possible, but I've never heard of it.
mungojelly (6:19:58 PM): i thought they elected the Korean Workers Party every once in a while
MachCU (6:20:00 PM): Iraq held sham elections, I know.
MachCU (6:20:03 PM): could be
mungojelly (6:20:16 PM): pretty much the same as US elections, i think
mungojelly (6:20:27 PM): except we were clever enough to think of having two parties
mungojelly (6:20:29 PM): that's golden
mungojelly (6:20:46 PM): then you can switch to the other one whenever people get upset, but keep marching ahead with the same policies
MachCU (6:21:59 PM): Surely you see a difference between:
1) A society where there are two dominant parties, with little difference, that the people support, but can choose to vote for another party if they want.
and:
2) A society where you can be shot if you vote for other than the singular party.
MachCU (6:22:21 PM): I mean at least the people have the power to change things if they want to.
mungojelly (6:22:27 PM): effectively they're the same
mungojelly (6:22:38 PM): the idea is just to concoct some system that keeps the same people in power all the time
MachCU (6:22:41 PM): (I don't actually think the Republicans and Democrats have no substantial differences, but that's a separate matter)
mungojelly (6:22:41 PM): & those are both ways to do it
MachCU (6:22:58 PM): So, you don't care whether the same people are kept in power by consent of the governed or not?
mungojelly (6:23:13 PM): well no not really
mungojelly (6:23:20 PM): consent of the governed is pretty cheap
mungojelly (6:23:25 PM): people will agree to anything
mungojelly (6:23:52 PM): there's lots of dictatorships where everyone says they love the dictator & would elect them if an election was held
mungojelly (6:24:14 PM): why not? the dictator's had all the "political advertising" wrapped up for decades
MachCU (6:25:07 PM): Well, ultimately, people have a mind of their own, no? I mean, if they trust that their ballots are truly anonymous, might they vote some dictators out of office despite advertising?
mungojelly (6:25:35 PM): sure
mungojelly (6:25:41 PM): but if history is any guide, they'd vote in some other fool
mungojelly (6:26:01 PM): george w. bush or john kerry, for instance
mungojelly (6:26:03 PM): fucking wankers
mungojelly (6:26:20 PM): lol sorry
MachCU (6:26:24 PM): heh
MachCU (6:27:01 PM): So, do you care about the will of the people?
MachCU (6:27:20 PM): Wasn't that the purpose of international law? The will of the people?
mungojelly (6:27:33 PM): i think the will of the people is important
mungojelly (6:27:39 PM): but it has to really be their will, their intelligence
mungojelly (6:27:58 PM): you can't just tell them to pull a level every once in a while & assume that represents their best judgement & their whole human understanding
mungojelly (6:28:21 PM): like the crazy idea of US presidents that if they're elected that represents a "mandate" for... well whatever they want it to be a mandate for
MachCU (6:28:27 PM): OK, so other people decide for them what they really believe?
mungojelly (6:28:40 PM): it just means people pressed that button.. maybe they liked the pretty way that name looked, who knows
mungojelly (6:28:58 PM): people apparently elect whoever is taller, according to some studies
MachCU (6:29:03 PM): Is that sort of like people telling kids they don't really want to play outside, they'd rather study math?
mungojelly (6:29:28 PM): no, i don't think we need less democracy, i think we need more, we need democracy where people actually decide things
MachCU (6:29:28 PM): I'm gonna watch the news now. Do you mind if I put this conversation online? (I can remove your name if you want)
mungojelly (6:29:41 PM): where decisions are made locally & affect directly the process of life
mungojelly (6:29:48 PM): sure no problem
mungojelly (6:29:52 PM): you can leave my name
MachCU (6:29:54 PM): ok
MachCU (6:29:56 PM): thanks
MachCU (6:29:58 PM): good talking
mungojelly (6:29:58 PM): enjoy the news
MachCU (6:30:00 PM): see you later
mungojelly (6:30:03 PM): don't trust them though :P
mungojelly (6:30:06 PM): c-ya
mungojelly (6:30:21 PM): peace
MachCU (6:30:27 PM): hehe