Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Roark, I am quite curious to know why you would be on a Forum that brings together people that love Costa Rica and have lived or wish to live there considering that CR has actually abolished its military forces and shows no signs of wishing to re-instate them within its borders? If an “invader” mentality is spinning fairy tales in your head at the thought of the US overpowering the will of the Costa Rican people based on heaven knows what ill conceived ideas (similar to those constructed to attack other countries illegitimately), may I suggest you read up on William Walker, a bully and US sponsored terrorist that was taught a much needed lesson by the usually peace loving people of CR…
There is very little long term hope for a nation that does not respect life. As much as Jefferson hated war, he knew that SOMETIMES it was inevitable and as much as he thought the institution of slavery was demeaning, he was a man living in a context where slavery was part of everyday life–We’re all products of our times and our principles, but he actually fared better than most when decisions about each had to be made because he actually had principles beyond the context of his time (something I think I made perfectly clear in my post).
You obviously find no other principle more important than to crush whomsoever dare to challenge or be different from the US even if that involves the shedding our own soldiers’ blood and the hemorrhage of civilian blood to prove a point that was based on false data = lies (acknowledged by everyone, including those within this administration) –my heart truly aches for both of these circumstances. Tyrants only know how to flex muscle and easily turn on “friends” (so you better watch your back Roark…) at the drop of a hat because that’s the strategy that’s worked for them–until one day it no longer does. Truly wise leaders, government or otherwise, use their intelligence to formulate other options and will only resort to violence in self defense…Bullies intimidate because they lack true substance of character, lack compassion for others, know that fear can rule (at least for a while) and ALWAYS lack a well rounded intelligence—I say this Administration is a posterchild for bullies….just remember a lesson learned in every grammar school playground, sooner or later, every bully has to pay the piper when he’s successfully confronted by the group or a truly brave soul that makes a mockery out of him—unfortunately, there is no compassion in anyone’s heart left for him at that point…. Conscience needs to be practiced, you and this administration should give it a try….
Apparently Roark, you and I, have something in common, we both admire Thomas Jefferson which happens to be one the greatest statesmen and mind that the US has ever produced so I shall not challenge your thoughts with mine, but with his. First, by addressing why government should be questioned–which IS exactly what Mr. Jefferson expected of US citizens. Second, to reiterate to you that being a man who appreciated honesty, justice and believed in the intrinsic rights of others, he is by no means in the same league with this current administration. Mr. Jefferson had very precise thoughts about what government should be and about the use and abuse of power which is why intervening the way we have and using our power so unwisely would not have been a political nor a moral option for him. Read some of his own thoughts on these topics for yourself:
ABOUT QUESTIONING GOVERNMENT:
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free no one ever will.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.
If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.
I find the pain of a little censure, even when it is unfounded, is more acute than the pleasure of much praise.
Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error.
One man with courage is a majority. (I add:including the courage to question)
The man who fears no truth has nothing to fear from lies.
Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.
The liberty of speaking and writing guards our other liberties.
The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to.
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.
ABOUT WHAT A NATION AND GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE:
The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.
Freedom of the person under the protection of habeas corpus. I deem one of the
essential principles of our government.
(which this administration has taken from us all!!)The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority. It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all.
It is the great parent of science and of virtue: and that a nation will be great in both, always in proportion as it is free.
Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people.
Political interest can never be separated in the long run from moral right.
Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.
Liberty…is the great parent of science and of virtue; and…a nation will be great in both always in proportion as it is free.
There is…an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents…. The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provisions should be made to prevent its ascendancy.
The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it.
The art of governing consists simply of being honest, exercising common sense, following principle, and doing what is right and just.
Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.
About what our foreign policy should be and thoughts on war:
Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it.I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
My views and feelings are in favor of the abolition of war…
ABOUT ETHICS AND PRINCIPLES:
Our principles are founded on the immovable basis of equal right and reason.
I consider ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man.
On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock.
I sincerely… believe… in the general existence of moral instinct. I think it the brightest gem with which the human character is studded, and the want of it as more degrading than the most hideous of the bodily deformities.
Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise…and that exercise will make them habitual.
The greatest honor of a man is in doing good to his fellow men, not in destroying them.
I have never been able to conceive how any rational being could propose happiness to himself from the exercise of power over others.
No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.
*******In the end, I don’t know what lies ahead for the US and it breaks my heart to know that I live in a near fascist state, something I would have never believed in a thousand years if someone had told me this 10 years ago! It may come down to saving some while sacrificing others, but whatever administration follows I hope it will show a glimmer of Thomas Jefferson’s character and principles. Now this doesn’t mean that I think the man was perfect, for goodness sake he was a slave owner even if he wrote quite eloquently about the horrors of that endeavor—after all, he was a man of his time, as we are people of this moment in time, but he also dared to question and to stand on principle. Consequently, when we question not, it puts us in really good company Roark…
Edited on Nov 13, 2007 18:30
I worked for an org founded by Ralph Nader, NJPIRG, back in the 80s and I grew to have a lot of respect for that man; unfortunately, we have an electoral system in place that barely allows for dissension and on a federal level, the president has only been and mostly likely come from (until some changes are made) the 2 major parties at play. The money & marketing required for any presidential hopeful is massive and we don’t have to beat a dead horse on the head by restating that big business backs up the big gov’t guns in the US, getting a third party president although not impossible is highly improbable, at least for now, but it may at least be enough to inform the American people about other options and get some changes on the Congressional level. I’m not that sure of Mr. Paul’s US border ideology, not because I can’t read his website, but because issues like this are often diluted in a campaign and the real feelings and details only surface after the election dust has settled. I certainly understand Sprite’s frustration, especially after the last two elections…
mmesier2, you might want to check with a CR immigration attorney or even the CR Consulate in your area about that option. When I lived in CR people did this all the time and before I had my residency granted, I went to Panama or to San Andres–so it has been a viable option, but I do believe the CR gov’t is fully aware that some people use that option to actually live in CR and they don’t care for it. I’ve heard that CR is trying to limit this behavior by questioning the amount of times you go in and out of CR a year. Please check before you make a permanent move to CR based on this and then find yourself in a bind and with all your belongings “chunches” in CR.
To anyone that wonders why people from all walks of life question US military intervention in Iraq: I would also like you to consider that even when you are a military member, you have a profound and basic duty to NOT to comply with orders, no matter who gives them, if they are NOT legitimate. This isn’t something new and I know that for a soldier anywhere, it must be a difficult choice not to obey the orders of a superior, but when something is wrong you just can’t accept it because it’s a military order from your superior–no matter how high the rank of origination. That’s what the world told Nazi soldiers after WWII and that’s what the conscience of the world demands of ALL soldiers. Both my father and my grandfather were military lifers in Cuba and as such had seen various administrations come and go, including previous Batista administrations that had been legitimately voted in on the island, but when the Cuban people elected another president and Batista gave a coup d’etat and took over the island government illegitimately, both of them resigned their posts even though at the time they were in charge of a large jail complex in Isla de Pino (which held mostly civilians but also had some political prisoners). When Batista asked my grandfather, “Comandante Aragón Medinilla, why are you resigning when there is so much to be gained by all in charge, he answered, “I will gladly work for you, as I have done in the past, as long as you’re respecting the will of the people you are supposed to represent and you know very well that is not what has happened here.” I still can’t believe he made it out alive from that office, but I guess Batista actually respected a man (at least this time) that acted on principle even if Batista had very few of his own. Later, the fact that they stood by their principles actually saved my father’s life when they were hoping to execute him there. The former prisoners of that jail, civilian and political, were the ones that provided a physical barrier to defend my dad and later effectively gave testimony of my father’s fairness of character to the point that he was released.
So when the Commander in Chief of any country tells his soldiers to act out his illegitimate orders, it’s the duty of not just every citizen to question it, but also of every military man and women because before any form of nationalism/patriotism we must be loyal to basic human principles of fairness, justice and the deepest belief that life is precious and that’s not just our own life, but the life of every other human being too. As Lotus points out, we cannot let any superior officer, president, etc. run amuck thru the use of fear–fear is useful in nature in a pinch to make you act in ways that keep you safe, but it makes for a really bad life counselor on an everyday basis–We shouldn’t give in to fear nor support those that hope to oppress others (when calling it “freeing” them) thru the use of fear (and what can be a greater fear inducer than fearing for your very life?)…Courage is not the lack of fear, it’s facing your fears head on and still be willing to act out of your deepest principles, having and acting out your conscience…
The various Founding Fathers of the US did not personally invade Libya, but I stand corrected if what you’re referring to is Jefferson and Madison’s actions regarding the Barbary Wars with North African State pirates, but then you ALSO know that Jefferson did not invade any country, hostilities & unacceptable demands were declared on the US and when the military confrontation ensued in 1801-5 and later in 1815, it was between military groups not involving innocent civilians from the US nor from Northwest Africa. If you now want to call pirates terrorists then I guess you can qualify them as economic terrorists and I can think of some other organizations that would fit that bill. Look at the consequences of both wars:
THE BARBARY WARS:
War was declared on us, we responded militarily, pursued to resolve the conflict thru treaties and gained international esteem because the response was considered justified (it was considered a legitimate response) and it consolidated the US’ military structure. BTW, we didn’t make it about them being Muslims, we made it about them being pirates and bullies that made demands that left no other option but to confront them.2 Ships destroyed
2 Marines killed, 3 wounded
Christian/Arab Mercenaries killed and wounded uncertainTHE IRAQUI WAR:
We declared war based on lies, invaded the country with military and mercenaries, and have lost international esteem because the international community does not perceive these actions as a legitimate response.CNN reports 4,162 soldiers dead out of which 3,859 are from the US
Most estimates from various sources feel that there have been over 80,000 civilian Iraqi deaths due to this war (others place it much higher)
The two military actions are not the same because they didn’t begin in the same fashion and they didn’t produce the same consequences. The US came out of the process with greater esteem by other (including the North African States involved) and the deaths were minimal. Unfortunately, we can’t claim that now because MOST OTHER COUNTRIES in the world and the majority of the US public does not believe this is a legitimate military response to anything. War is always a horrible and unfortunately, sometimes a necessary evil, but one thing is having war declared on a country and another thing is invading a country that is NOT declaring war on anyone, under false pretenses and proceeding to kill almost 100,000 of its citizens and counting in the process….
Maravilla, You’re too funny–I don’t watch much TV and can’t stand “reality” TV, but it would appear that at least in Dancing with the Stars they’re not killing each other over who wins which is in line with people that enjoy dancing. I say let people dance and watch other people dance instead of being brainwashed by watching SilverFx News LOL)…
Sorry about that, I was reading something on Syria and wrote that instead of Libya where Tripoli is the capital city. Tripoli has also been used to refer to Lebanon, but in any case, the Founding Fathers of the US never invaded the Middle East–not that it wasn’t done before them and certainly after them by others….
Edited on Nov 12, 2007 14:06
Tripoli (Libya) has been invaded by many armies throughout the ages, but the United States Founding Fathers most certainly did NOT invade it, but this administration just might before this whole disgraceful period is over. I happen to think very highly of much of what the Founding Fathers did and thought.You might be interested to know that under the definition of terrorist, England might have thought just that of our Founding Fathers (Make no mistake, ours was a REVOLUTION in every sense of the word not just in name and we did not have the military capacity of the British at the time so we had to make due in many ways)–good thing for us we weren’t so caught up in semantics at the time and well, we had home advantage! And it wasn’t that the word terrorism wasn’t part of the vernacular used during those times since it was employed during the French Revolution often (which was in many ways an inspiration to our very own….)– it was that we didn’t engrave that name on anyone that was different from us. One of the criteria for nominating something part of terrorism or not has been whether that use of force was LEGITIMATE (a point I have been trying to make all along); however, we also must remember that history is first written by the victors and then if we’re lucky, more disclosure may be achieved by those that dare to question it. Whether State sponsored or group sponsored, killing civilians to make others submit to your will and ideology is incredibly wrong–heck, don’t we call that nonchalantly “casualties of war”? That’s why it’s so important to try EVERY other recourse before taking up arms and risking one single life…
Wikipedia is certainly not the most in depth source on the subject, but it should do just in case you want to read the official definition of terrorism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Official_definitions
Edited on Nov 12, 2007 13:53
Edited on Nov 12, 2007 14:07
I will not speak for Maravilla, she’s certainly very capable of speaking for herself, but that’s not what I came away with from her posting and it wasn’t what I was proposing either. I don’t recall the US ever invading South Africa to stop Apartheid and yet the goal was accomplished because the nations of this world spoke out and put their money where there mouths were. Nations and people around the globe stopped investing in and stopped consuming from companies that did business with the South African government which upheld the Apartheid philosophy and seemed to think that there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. After the monetary loss not only to So. Africa, but to transnational corps doing business there, change followed. We can’t sit here and expect to stop the genocide in Darfur while still investing in Sudan or any company that does business with Sudan–no matter how many military interventions the US or the UN make…When governments and big business care only about money (and it isn’t always this way nor does it have to be to be for a company to be profitable), then that’s the variable you need to manipulate in order for them to listen and change their actions–It’s worked before and it’s not based on the loss of life–I would think that this option needs to be fully exhausted before ever considering any other …
Of course it is Maravilla…unfortunately, real people are stuck in the struggle and their pain is just as real whether the underlying cause is oil or not. Just like going into Afghanistan had nothing to do with helping those tortured women or how now relieving the Iranian people and the rest of the world of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would not be the real reason to attack Iran…
Edited on Nov 12, 2007 09:08
Did you know that private contributions from US citizens are so large that they’re actually considered by many along with formal government aid given to other countries? The American public has shown to be genuinely generous to others in times of need over and over again, BUT the gov’t (with our tax dollars) and corporations (with our consumer support) are another issue altogether—with them, there will NEVER be a “free lunch” and just as it didn’t matter when women were being hung and tortured on the soccer fields of Afghanistan by the Taliban BUT suddenly became a newsworthy item to add to the legitimacy of the US intervention-(and I’m not even discussing the legitimacy factor of that war or whether we should intervene anywhere for that matter) just about having the strength of character to denounce something when that’s what’s called for before having the gall to begin a “holy war” from a secular state by declaring others as evil. Now we see the official rhetoric on Darfur and I actually hope something is done to stop this genecide(which many private citizens around the world have been trying to stop for a long time). I’m sure the US will now figure some “worthy cause” in Iran where we will be “freeing them” from something or other–most probably freeing those “poor Iranian people” from their current sociopathic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad–because I guess Ayatollah Khamenei in the 80s was not enough of a lunatic!!! I agree with Maravilla (read other thread “First Time Out”). What needs to be addressed is the illegitimacy of only standing up and saying that torture, rapes, killings and mutilations based on someone’s gender, color, religious beliefs, sexual orientation or ethnicity is abhorrent ONLY –when and if– companies in the US have an economic gain to be had and not before then when these actions are being committed for all to see. This is not only self serving—it’s unethical and collusional behavior because of the obvious political, economic and military power the US yields–at least for now….
Edited on Nov 12, 2007 08:37
There are different types of residencies granted in CR and you must become a legal resident that allows you to work there (it actually said that on my cedula) in order to actually be remunerated for work there. That’s how it was form me not too long ago. It might have been easier for me to obtain full rights of residency since my sister is married to a Tico and a nationalized Tica herself, but it is also granted to others. However, I had friends that had residency status that allowed them to legally live in CR, but they could not legally work there. You can always call the Costa Rican Consulate in your area (if you’re outside of CR) or a lawyer that specializes in immigration if you’re in CR for the legal details.
Do you really believe that choosing to live in harmony within Costa Rica somehow requires that you first disconnect all of your neural synapses and turn into a babbling idiot? Or is that the pre-requisite you’re assuming for those that live in the lap of luxury? Which can describe many people I know in CR, in the US and for all I know, it may describe some in this Forum, but certainly does not assure a high level of intelligence by any measure I’ve read about. In either case, the economic status or location of an individual has nothing to do with the level of intelligence anyone can possess or express…People just aren’t that simple Edlreed….I have certainly had the honor of reading incredibly intelligent and insightful thoughts on this site–even among other thoughts that differ from mine, but differing opinions need to be read with an open mind. By the way, what is a well documented sign of intelligence is an open mind…
