Bush the murderer?
Night_Seer
the war against Iraq (yes I know allegations and such, but come on...)
from the beginning months and months before even 9-11, why aren't people
taking it a step further and coming to the conclusion that somehow,
someone, somewhere LET 9-11 happen. Is this just to far for someone to
go? I for one don't think it is, considering he has lied to us this
whole time.
--
Night_Seer
Donald Shepherd
Anatta_anicca_dukkha
Let? Didn't you mean 'helped'?
--
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
Daryl
wrote...
To see that and other conspiracy theories dissected,
and a well-reasoned alternative proposition about
what led to 9/11, go here:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/
And surely you're not unaware of the Project for the
New American Century, the "conservative" think tank
or lobby or whatever you want to call it, which includes
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Jeb Bush, Quayle, Wolfowitz, Perle
etc. among it's signatories? No one who had read their
website could have doubted that actions of this kind
(using American military muscle for policy objectives
not just defence) was going to be in the works, even
prior to the election.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
What has fueled a lot of the conspiracy theorist types
is the fact that this group published a paper saying
that it would take "another Pearl Harbor" to get the
American public behind its policies. That was about
a year before 9/11. Now of course the statement itself
is quite innocent and has undoubtedly been used in lots
of contexts before, but to a conspiracy theorist or the
just plain suspicious it looks like evidence of intent
to let or cause the 9/11 attacks to happen.
IMO it's more reasonable is to assume that once the
attacks actually happened they would no doubt see it as
the time to carry out their policies, and that doing so
supports the idea that the intent to carry out those
policies pre-existed the events of 9/11 and were not
created merely _as a response to_ the events of 9/11.
Anything more than that is stretching it, IMHO.
--
Daryl - still working on a new email address...
Night_Seer
Thanks, Daryl, I always like to hear yours and Sanfords comments
about the state of affairs. It just seems like many things are just too
convinient. And while I completely understand that it might have been
assumed that baby Bush would want to finish Daddy Bush's war (it didn't
really suprise me to hear it), even from the get go, before all of 9-11
happened, it has more to do with him lying to the American public than
that. The fact that there are no WMDs, no known connections to Al
Qaeda, and all these companies making billions of dollars from this war,
companies that have direct connection to the president himself, well you
know it all been said before. I just don't understand how people can
still trust him and want to support him further in the coming
elections...I think I'm more naive than I ever thought.
--
Night_Seer
Anatta_anicca_dukkha
While I like to push the "Bush actually did
9/11" button, what seems much more plausable
is that he knew it was being planned and did
nothing to stop it.
Anatta_anicca_dukkha
Why? Different people have different
reasons. The people you need to be
really worried about are the ones who's
ears perked up whan Bush dropped the
word 'Crusade'. These people actually
want a global religious war because they
believe they are bringing on the Second
Coming.
Sanford Manley
Keep in mind there are other explanations:
Regime change in Iraq was a priority before Bush
ever came to office. 9-11 underscored the need.
Saddam himself believed he had WMD and may have
been deceived himself. Further, he used that belief to
intimidate his neighbors and overawe his friends. Further
he played the game by *acting* as if he had them. Its
a plain fact that we know he had WMD...just ask the
thousands of dead Kurds and Iranians. IMHO, the
time to act was not after he had reconstituted and proved
it with another attack on us or his neighbors or Israel.
I sincerely believe the *real reason* for the attack on Iraq
has to do with Israel: something that has been continually
played down because it is unpopular on both sides of
the political spectrum. An attack on Israel, and a counter
attack might have brought a unified response from
those sympathetic to Iraq. There is plenty of precedent
for that. Given these facts and observations, it made whatever
intelligence, right or wrong regarding Iraq too compelling
to ignore. Further, the no-fly zone and embargo was
proving to be costly and ineffective in turn.
A careful study of the corporate world shows that
very few companies could take on the tasks called
for by the administration in the time frame requested.
Practically all multinational corporations have ties
to this administration in the same way that most democrats
can be shown to have ties to unions, environmentalists,
and progressive organizations.
Now I am not pleased nor do I feel the execution of the
entire affair was very good, but the conduct of this war
is no better and no worse that WWII prior to Midway,
Korea, or practically any other war.
--
Sanford M. Manley
Outlasting the trolls since 1994!
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ansaman/
Sanford Manley
Based on what evidence?
--
Sanford M. Manley
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are
someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their
passions a quotation." - Oscar Wilde
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ansaman/
Night_Seer
Does this mean that it is OK? Do you not think it is getting worse
just by the fact that we have not learned anything from our mistakes.
One thing that really bothers me, is how many people are comfortable
with the fact that its "always been this way", and it will never change.
They tried to impeach Clinton because he lied about a BJ, but they do
nothing when Bush lies about an all out war? This makes very little
sense to me. Our actions in WWII reflect that era, our actions today
should reflect what we have learned from 2 WORLD wars plus countless
others.
To stay the course is to bring about our own demise. We should be
outraged, not satisfied that this is no better or worse than WW2.
P.S. I've never really studied the corporate world much, but I'd like to
see the facts that bring about that conclusion.
--
Night_Seer
Anatta_anicca_dukkha
Bush's failure to be fully forthcoming
with the 9/11 investigation.
In law, you are innocent until proven
guilty. In politics, you are guilty
until proven innocent.
Sanford Manley
>> Now I am not pleased nor do I feel the execution of the
>> entire affair was very good, but the conduct of this war
>> is no better and no worse that WWII prior to Midway,
>> Korea, or practically any other war.
>
> Does this mean that it is OK? Do you not think it is
> getting worse just by the fact that we have not learned
> anything from our mistakes. One thing that really bothers
> me, is how many people are comfortable with the fact that
> its "always been this way", and it will never change.
Whether or not I am comfortable with it, its a fact
> They tried to impeach Clinton because he lied about a BJ,
> but they do nothing when Bush lies about an all out war?
This is the foundation for the sentiment: payback.
There is no evidence that Bush lied and copious
indications he was mislead or believed what he
wanted to believe.
> This makes very little sense to me. Our actions in WWII
> reflect that era, our actions today should reflect what
> we have learned from 2 WORLD wars plus countless
> others. To stay the course is to bring about our own
> demise. We should be outraged, not satisfied that this
> is no better or worse than WW2.
I am outraged that Bush is called a murderer, but that is
my problem. We live in world full of murderers.
We and others have not learned. There are limitations to
human nature.
> P.S. I've never really studied the corporate world much,
> but I'd like to see the facts that bring about that
> conclusion.
Size, multinational reach, experience, ability to act quickly.
--
Sanford M. Manley
I am a Marxist, a Groucho Marxist
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ansaman/
Sanford Manley
>>>> be in the works, even prior to the election.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.newamericancentury.org/
>>>>
>>>> What has fueled a lot of the conspiracy theorist types
>>>> is the fact that this group published a paper saying
>>>> that it would take "another Pearl Harbor" to get the
>>>> American public behind its policies. That was about
>>>> a year before 9/11. Now of course the statement itself
>>>> is quite innocent and has undoubtedly been used in lots
>>>> of contexts before, but to a conspiracy theorist or the
>>>> just plain suspicious it looks like evidence of intent
>>>> to let or cause the 9/11 attacks to happen.
>>>>
>>>> IMO it's more reasonable is to assume that once the
>>>> attacks actually happened they would no doubt see it as
>>>> the time to carry out their policies, and that doing so
>>>> supports the idea that the intent to carry out those
>>>> policies pre-existed the events of 9/11 and were not
>>>> created merely _as a response to_ the events of 9/11.
>>>> Anything more than that is stretching it, IMHO.
>>>
>>>
>>> While I like to push the "Bush actually did
>>> is that he knew it was being planned and did
>>> nothing to stop it.
>>
>>
>> Based on what evidence?
>>
>
> Bush's failure to be fully forthcoming
> with the 9/11 investigation.
>
> In law, you are innocent until proven
> guilty. In politics, you are guilty
> until proven innocent.
With the judgment ye judge, so shall ye
be judged.
I hope you hold President Dean/Clinton/Lieberman/
Gephardt/Sharpton/Mosely-Braun/Kucinich/Edwards/
etc to the same standard.
I predict you will be disappointed.
Anatta_anicca_dukkha
Not interested.
>
> I hope you hold President Dean/Clinton/Lieberman/
> Gephardt/Sharpton/Mosely-Braun/Kucinich/Edwards/
> etc to the same standard.
I shall.
>
> I predict you will be disappointed.
Nope. Whoever will be another power hungry
politician. I only hope we learn to make
the politicians afraid of us.
Night_Seer
> Night_Seer spake thusly:
>>> Now I am not pleased nor do I feel the execution of the
>>> entire affair was very good, but the conduct of this war
>>> is no better and no worse that WWII prior to Midway,
>>> Korea, or practically any other war.
>>
>> Does this mean that it is OK? Do you not think it is
>> getting worse just by the fact that we have not learned
>> anything from our mistakes. One thing that really bothers
>> me, is how many people are comfortable with the fact that
>> its "always been this way", and it will never change.
>
> Whether or not I am comfortable with it, its a fact
>
>
>> They tried to impeach Clinton because he lied about a BJ,
>> but they do nothing when Bush lies about an all out war?
>
> This is the foundation for the sentiment: payback.
> There is no evidence that Bush lied and copious
> indications he was mislead or believed what he
> wanted to believe.
>
You are assuming that I cared one bit for Clinton. The sentiment is
brought about by the fact that Bush himself in his 2000 campaign was
giving Clinton a hard time for having troops in other parts of the world
and stretching our military thin, while the whole time he was planning
this Iraqi action from the get go of his presidency. Is that not I
guess that's more hipocrisy than lying, but I really see no difference.
Another thing, I hear this "believe what he wanted to believe" crap
all the time and its straight up bullshit. He believed what he wanted
to believe is equivalent to lying to himself, and the American public as
a whole.
>> This makes very little sense to me. Our actions in WWII
>> reflect that era, our actions today should reflect what
>> we have learned from 2 WORLD wars plus countless
>> others. To stay the course is to bring about our own
>> demise. We should be outraged, not satisfied that this
>> is no better or worse than WW2.
>
> I am outraged that Bush is called a murderer, but that is
> my problem. We live in world full of murderers.
>
It was a question more than calling him that, but I would gladly put the
two words together again.
> We and others have not learned. There are limitations to
> human nature.
>
>
>> P.S. I've never really studied the corporate world much,
>> but I'd like to see the facts that bring about that
>> conclusion.
>
> Size, multinational reach, experience, ability to act quickly.
According to whom? Who's to say many smaller specialized companies
couldn't work faster, without the beauracracy a large corporation
brings. Companies who actually understand Iraq better than any large
corporation ever will?
--
Night_Seer
Daryl
wrote...
I can see why people think so, but truthfully I
think if he had known it was being planned he
would have done all he could to stop it, and he
would have still had an excuse to go into
Afghanistan without the handicap of suspicions
about his motives or competence. No, I think
the Fifth Estate's theory is the best one I've
seen yet. (mind you, I'm biased)
Daryl
(ecamacho4athotmaildotcom) wrote...
Heh, me too! :)
Here's another reason to be a little more forgiving
of GWB et al. It appears that Saddam's people were
all basically working on secret weapon fictions in
order to a) please him and not get shot, and b) get
on the funding gravy-train. Western intelligence
picked up the same reports that were designed to
fool Saddam himself. So it's believable that GWB
wasn't engaging in blatant deception so much as
creative salesmanship, at least on the WMD account.
Donald Shepherd
> Anatta_anicca_dukkha spake thusly:
>
>
>>9/11" button, what seems much more plausable
>>is that he knew it was being planned and did
>>nothing to stop it.
>
>
> Based on what evidence?
>
I got this e-mail petition signing request in support of the Ellen
Mariani lawsuit. I haven't read it all yet, but it does make a bunch of
claims. Here are a few:
1. NY Times: Bush Warned bin Laden Would Hijack Planes
"The White House said tonight that President Bush had been warned by
American intelligence agencies in early August that Osama bin Laden was
seeking to hijack aircraft..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/16/politics/16INQU.html
2. CNN: Bush briefed on hijacking threat before 9-11
"President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up
to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility
that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a
U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday"
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/index.html
3. UK Guardian: Bush knew terrorists would hijack planes
"George Bush received specific warnings in the weeks before 11 September
that an attack inside the United States was being planned by Osama bin
Laden's al-Qaeda network, US government sources said yesterday…. The
memo received by Bush on 6 August contained unconfirmed information
passed on by British intelligence in 1998 revealing that al-Qaeda
operatives had discussed hijacking a plane to negotiate the release of
Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the Muslim cleric imprisoned in America for
his part in a plot to blow up the World Trade Centre in 1993."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,718312,00.html
There's a bunch more.
Here's the website for the petition drive:
Don
Daryl
(no...@all.com) wrote...
I don't buy that. It's pretty close to the
worldview that GWB et al want promoted.
I still stand by the Dune theory. Sure, the
Fremen hated the Empire, but it took a Paul
Atreides to galvanize them and make the
Emporer himself come to Arrakis where he
would be defeated because of the home-sand
advantage.
Daryl
Manley (manl...@bellsouth.net) wrote...
>
>> In law, you are innocent until proven
>> guilty. In politics, you are guilty
>> until proven innocent.
>
>With the judgment ye judge, so shall ye
>be judged.
>
>I hope you hold President Dean/Clinton/Lieberman/
>Gephardt/Sharpton/Mosely-Braun/Kucinich/Edwards/
>etc to the same standard.
>
>I predict you will be disappointed.
Not much for going out on a limb are ya? Come
now, let the spirits speak through you as they
do with me... :)
Lazarhat
news:Ue3Nb.45137$Ru3....@nntp-post.primus.ca...
So where's our Mu'a'dib?
-l
--
to email me, remove the 'burnt_crusty_bits' from the email addy
Lazarhat
Every time he get up to the podium to give an 'important address to the
nation', my skin just crawls -- he sounds like he's just reading a book
report that he was rich (and powerful) enough to have bought from some
brainiac who DIDN'T major in Budweiser and Cocaine in college (as he did),
and it seems everything he does policy-wise is calculated exactly to make
his daddy's 'New World Order' a reality. He even has guys from Daddy's
administration running the show. Shadow President < cough, cough > Dick <
cough > Cheney
< cough >.
What is more galling lately is that he's soft on North Korea and Pakistan as
well as China, Russia, France and Germany -- all countries that continue to
support the Libya's and Iraq's of the world by supplying them with missiles,
nuclear technology and possible chemical WMDs. Hell -- the USA is just as
guilty for selling them a lot of the weapons we have (well, not the USA per
se, but American arms manufacturers). We've been getting choppers shot down
because of all the leftover stinger missiles that we practically gave to
Afghanistan when they were fighting against Russia. How's that for
comeuppance?
Bottom line -- we reap what we sow. If American (or any other) arms
manufacturers continue to sell to nations that profess the desire to
overthrow us, we deserve what we get, which is why all this shit needs to
stop! We need to nip it! Nip it in the bud! It's damn well time worldwide to
begin the process -- the world needs more plows and no more guns and ammo.
Carpet bomb the enemy in $5.00 off coupons to MickeyD's! A PS2 in every
house! More weed for all! I'll see your 75 virgins in Paradise and raise you
one skanky ho' from the east-side who knows _all_ the nasty stuff, and
(summoning up the Samuel L. Jackson voice) WHO WILL PRO-CEED to get ALL up
in yo' bidness NOW, TODAY, baybee -- not in some future life...
That's my platform. Vote for me in 2004.
-l
< mu'a'dib-ing >
Fred Kepler
"Daryl" <n...@address.yet> wrote in message
I wouldn't put anything past them,
but I admit that there's no solid evidence
to support my dimmest views of the current administration.
(Unless one were to cite their record on economic, social,
or environmental issues.)
Fred
Fred Kepler
news:r60Nb.11002$eq....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
I will agree that the world is a better place without Saddam in
power.
I guess my real qualms (even deeper than the question whether
Bush lied, or was mislead) are: who gave us the "right" to
invade a country that did us no direct harm? and was it worth
the price? How many innocent Iraqis have died thus far? How many
Americans? What's the price in human life (as well as dollars
and cents) of attempting to restore some sort of order to Iraq?
We can apply felicific calculus, and say that a few thousand
lives spent now is justified in terms of how many more Saddam
might have massacred in the future-- but that only works if
you're not one of the thousands killed in the current conflict.
Like the lengthy discussions of what to do with the kids who
shoot up their high schools, or Minkfoot's question about
ethical treatment of animals intended for slaughter: the most
extreme views seem to have the most logical flaws, while my own
waffling offers no solution at all.
Fred
Fred Kepler
>
> Here's another reason to be a little more forgiving
> of GWB et al. It appears that Saddam's people were
> all basically working on secret weapon fictions in
> order to a) please him and not get shot, and b) get
> on the funding gravy-train. Western intelligence
> picked up the same reports that were designed to
> fool Saddam himself. So it's believable that GWB
> wasn't engaging in blatant deception so much as
> creative salesmanship, at least on the WMD account.
>
>
> --
> Daryl - still working on a new email address...
This would be a great premise for a (dark) comedy.
Change a few names, have bumbling generals vying for
WMD dollars, and the ruthless dictator anxious for results.
Add a few slapsticky tours of phony weapns sites to satisfy
the big bad boss, and maybe a musical number.
Needless to say, a BUBCO production.
I'll bet Sanford and dale could have a draft script ready in a
week's time.
Fred
Night_Seer
But waffling opens more eyes than sitting around saying, "ah its always
been this way"
--
Night_Seer
buddhashortfatguy
news:r60Nb.11002$eq....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Daryl:
> >> No one who had read their
> >> website could have doubted that actions of this kind
> >> (using American military muscle for policy objectives
> >> not just defence) was going to be in the works, even
> >> prior to the election.
We were doing joint exercizes w/ the Tajiks & Uzbeks 1-2 yrs prior to 9/11.
The storm was brewing, we were girding for war, as was necessary. Al Qaeda's
HQ was in Afghanistan.
Daryl:
> >> but to a conspiracy theorist or the
> >> just plain suspicious it looks like evidence of intent
> >> to let or cause the 9/11 attacks to happen.
Everyone was speculating it might take another Pearl Harbor before the USA
really did something tangible against the terrorists. The 1st WTC bombing
warranted action, the perpetrators openly state they were hoping to kill
250,000 people, toppling both towers at midday.
NS:
> > The fact that there are no WMDs,
That's not a "fact." It may be true, but you can't tell me it's a 100%
bonifide fact.
Why hasn't Bush planted "throw-down" WMDs? Surely there are resources at his
disposal to arrange a nice tidy cache of WMDs. Would you like to suggest his
administration is too honest to attempt such a deceipt?
OTOH, what if the administration has solid evidence there are WMDs "out
there" somewhere, but are unable to recover them and are reluctant to
divulge any of their current intelligence on the matter. There's the
possibility that material witnesses fear for their lives and won't tell, but
the other possibility is that the WMDs are on the loose and the decision has
been made to say nothing about it.
NS:
> > no known connections to Al Qaeda,
There's recent evidence to the contrary... one of Saddams boys put an Iraqi
intelligence agent on an honor roll in a local rag, citing his work with
"bin Laden's people."
NS:
> > and all these companies making billions of dollars
> > from this war, companies that have direct connection to
> > the president himself,
They make contributions to Democrats too. There are more companies also
connected to Bush & Co. who are troubled by the effect of the deficit
increase. A few military suppliers can't make a war happen, not even in US
military culture.
Sandy:
> An attack on Israel, and a counter
> attack might have brought a unified response from
> those sympathetic to Iraq. There is plenty of precedent
> for that.
Indeed... all-out war in the Mid East could well turn into WW III.
> Given these facts and observations, it made whatever
> intelligence, right or wrong regarding Iraq too compelling
> to ignore. Further, the no-fly zone and embargo was
> proving to be costly and ineffective in turn.
Costly in monetary terms, not much compared to the cost of conquering Iraq.
But costly, in terms of the web of Catch-22's, absolutely.
I've had many mixed sentiments re: Iraq, but I think history will show it
had to be done for the manifold reasons cited and more.
+-------------------------
To e-mail me,
replace "REPLACETHIS" with buddhashortfatguy
dt
They're bringing back the draft????
Unfortunately, all of the actors we'd need are already dead.
Hail Freedonia!
DT
buddhashortfatguy
>
> Bush's failure to be fully forthcoming
> with the 9/11 investigation.
That's not evidence, that's inference. And you know better!
I see no firm proof of any conspiracy, so far it's just speculation. Looks
to me like you're just trying to find one more reason to hate Bush.
Clinton's FBI & the rest knew there were terrorists trying to bomb buildings
in NYC before the first WTC bombing. So should we be accusing Clinton of
some kind of conspiracy? How 'bout blaming Clinton for not going after bin
Laden & al Qaeda earlier, when he had several chances? Clinton's a
Trilaterialist Bildeberger, maybe he's the mastermind of this conspiracy?
There's a broader question that everyone seems to miss when they start
looking for a convenient scapegoat: Was there political will for a massive
mobilization of the entire government before 9/11? Nobody expected the level
of carnage of 9/11 with the airplanes - predicting airplane hijackings was a
problem to begin with - cracking down on airport security and civil
liberties with just spotty reports and anecdotes wouldn't have been possible
before 9/11. Moreover, the most consistent pattern had been car/truck
bombings. And even though the original masterminds of the WTC truck bombing
(1992?) openly stated they wanted to kill 250,000 people, nobody in gov't
seemed to know what the hell to do about it, except maybe set some plans
into place. Which is probably all that our bureaucracies were functionally
capable of doing at the time. It seems more reasonable to assert that the
result was that important intelligence got sidelined or ignored and inertia
set back in.
/lee
buddhashortfatguy
> I can see why people think so, but truthfully I
> think if he had known it was being planned he
> would have done all he could to stop it, and he
> would have still had an excuse to go into
> Afghanistan without the handicap of suspicions
> about his motives or competence. No, I think
> the Fifth Estate's theory is the best one I've
> seen yet. (mind you, I'm biased)
Yes these conspiracy theories have served as an albatross around Bush's
neck.
Hijacking planes was a long-known problem and the judgetment was probably
made, understandably so, that the odds were in favor of an ordinary
hijacking
- i.e. hostage-taking - and not a vaster scheme involving grandiose
self-immolation.
The military/security planners probably mischaracterized al Qaeda's mission
and methods, expecting an ordinary hijacking, thinking al Qaeda would be
averse to inciting the USA into all-out war.
A hijacking without a long protracted siege or quid pro quo still seems
counterintuitive: In the past terrorism had been understood as a means of
manipulating policy - with hostages, PR and some kind of attempt at
negotiation. As such, hijackers would want to avoid a massive kill as they
would be counterproductive to the stated ends of the terrorist's causes. In
essence, 9/11 was in the realm of speculation and it seemed unthinkable.
Both sides guessed wrong. bin Laden was reputed to have guessed wrong - that
we wouldn't invade Afghanistan. It's much much more plausible that both
sides misjudged each other's capacity for planning and action.
It still seems totally crazy and weird, like a bizarre dream, even when I
take the 1st WTC bombing into account. So it's perfectly reasonable to say
that a large kill seemed either unlikely or unimaginable before 9/11.
/lee
Anatta_anicca_dukkha
> "Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote
>
>>Bush's failure to be fully forthcoming
>>with the 9/11 investigation.
>
>
> That's not evidence, that's inference. And you know better!
As I said, in politics you are guilty until proven innocent.
Anatta_anicca_dukkha
I don't buy that on Osama's part. I think he guessed completely
correctly -- although I bet the response was beyond his wildest
dreams.
Osama was looking for a global religious war. I bet he thought
he'd have to pull off several 9/11s to get one started. Other
than that, I think he knew exactly what he was doing.
Osama's looking for his place in history as a great martyr to
Allah. Bush is well on his way to giving Osama what he wants.
>
> It still seems totally crazy and weird, like a bizarre dream, even when I
> take the 1st WTC bombing into account. So it's perfectly reasonable to say
> that a large kill seemed either unlikely or unimaginable before 9/11.
>
> /lee
> +-------------------------
> To e-mail me,
> replace "REPLACETHIS" with buddhashortfatguy
>
>
Daryl
(lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bitsyahoo.com) wrote...
Hate to tell you but you're the empire...you don't
get one.
Night_Seer
> "Sanford Manley" <manl...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:r60Nb.11002$eq....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> Daryl:
>>>> No one who had read their
>>>> website could have doubted that actions of this kind
>>>> (using American military muscle for policy objectives
>>>> not just defence) was going to be in the works, even
>>>> prior to the election.
>
> We were doing joint exercizes w/ the Tajiks & Uzbeks 1-2 yrs prior to
> 9/11. The storm was brewing, we were girding for war, as was
> necessary. Al Qaeda's HQ was in Afghanistan.
>
As I said, this was obvious to just about anyone...even the fact that
Bush might go into Iraq as well, might have been fairly obvious. That
wasn't my point. Its one thing and go after those who attacked us in
Afghanistan, its another to use that as an excuse to invade a sovereign
nation because your daddy got his feelings hurt.
> Daryl:
>>>> but to a conspiracy theorist or the
>>>> just plain suspicious it looks like evidence of intent
>>>> to let or cause the 9/11 attacks to happen.
>
> Everyone was speculating it might take another Pearl Harbor before
> the USA really did something tangible against the terrorists. The 1st
> WTC bombing warranted action, the perpetrators openly state they were
> hoping to kill 250,000 people, toppling both towers at midday.
>
This might have had an impact in showing terrorists around the world
that we weren't invulnerable, but I still see nothing of interest here
with regards to Iraq. If anything, it should have shown this or any
administration what was possbile, and force the CIA or whoever is
supposed to be protecting us to do some damn protecting.
> NS:
>>> The fact that there are no WMDs,
>
> That's not a "fact." It may be true, but you can't tell me it's a 100%
> bonifide fact.
>
Correct, there is no facts shown from either side so far...
> Why hasn't Bush planted "throw-down" WMDs? Surely there are resources
> at his disposal to arrange a nice tidy cache of WMDs. Would you like
> to suggest his administration is too honest to attempt such a deceipt?
>
> OTOH, what if the administration has solid evidence there are WMDs
> "out there" somewhere, but are unable to recover them and are
> reluctant to divulge any of their current intelligence on the matter.
> There's the possibility that material witnesses fear for their lives
> and won't tell, but the other possibility is that the WMDs are on the
> loose and the decision has been made to say nothing about it.
>
What if monkeys came flying out of my ass...would you send in a
premptive strike of monkey butler training crews?
> NS:
>>> no known connections to Al Qaeda,
>
> There's recent evidence to the contrary... one of Saddams boys put an
> Iraqi intelligence agent on an honor roll in a local rag, citing his
> work with "bin Laden's people."
>
there's evidence both ways...when will we see the truth...probably
never.
> NS:
>>> and all these companies making billions of dollars
>>> from this war, companies that have direct connection to
>>> the president himself,
>
> They make contributions to Democrats too. There are more companies
> also connected to Bush & Co. who are troubled by the effect of the
> deficit increase. A few military suppliers can't make a war happen,
> not even in US military culture.
>
How many of these other companies are multi-nationals, and can pour
rediculous sums of money into the Presidents lap. How many of these
companies was the president or other members of the white house actually
a part of?
> Sandy:
>
>> An attack on Israel, and a counter
>> attack might have brought a unified response from
>> those sympathetic to Iraq. There is plenty of precedent
>> for that.
>
> Indeed... all-out war in the Mid East could well turn into WW III.
>
What about Korea, China, several places in South America...have you ever
seen a list of the things the CIA has done "in our name"? The slaughter
of thousands of people in Panama, the sticking our noses in countries
like Bolivia, Gutemala, etc, etc. And don't ever forget Saddam was one
of our lackeys until he got out of our control. I think we'd do well
enough starting WW3 on our own without anyones help.
>> Given these facts and observations, it made whatever
>> intelligence, right or wrong regarding Iraq too compelling
>> to ignore. Further, the no-fly zone and embargo was
>> proving to be costly and ineffective in turn.
>
So basically evidence...circumsantial or not, true or not, MADE UP or
not, as long as it says what you want it to say...is evidence enough to
go in and kill thousands of Iraqi's, and still hundreds of our own
troops, who are dying still today.
> Costly in monetary terms, not much compared to the cost of conquering
> Iraq. But costly, in terms of the web of Catch-22's, absolutely.
>
> I've had many mixed sentiments re: Iraq, but I think history will
> show it had to be done for the manifold reasons cited and more.
>
> +-------------------------
> To e-mail me,
> replace "REPLACETHIS" with buddhashortfatguy
There's very little talk of cost in lives...not only those directly
affected, but those indirectly affected...
--
Night_Seer
Daryl
(fke...@att.net) wrote...
>
>I wouldn't put anything past them,
I would. There are limits to their depravity I am
sure. For instance, they wouldn't stoop so low as
to do anything to interrupt the vital trickle-down
flow.
>but I admit that there's no solid evidence
>to support my dimmest views of the current administration.
>(Unless one were to cite their record on economic, social,
>or environmental issues.)
That so many could believe it of them says
something about the state of affairs.
Daryl
(lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bitsyahoo.com) wrote...
Somebody had to build those missiles and somebody had
to build the replacement choppers. It sounds like a
win-win situation, doesn't it?
>Bottom line -- we reap what we sow. If American (or any other) arms
>manufacturers continue to sell to nations that profess the desire to
>overthrow us, we deserve what we get, which is why all this shit needs to
>stop! We need to nip it! Nip it in the bud! It's damn well time worldwide to
>begin the process -- the world needs more plows and no more guns and ammo.
How much would it have hurt, really, to not sell any
more landmines?
>Carpet bomb the enemy in $5.00 off coupons to MickeyD's! A PS2 in every
>house! More weed for all! I'll see your 75 virgins in Paradise and raise you
>one skanky ho' from the east-side who knows _all_ the nasty stuff, and
>(summoning up the Samuel L. Jackson voice) WHO WILL PRO-CEED to get ALL up
>in yo' bidness NOW, TODAY, baybee -- not in some future life...
>
>That's my platform. Vote for me in 2004.
Well shee-it pardner, ya done got mah vote! (except
for, you know, the not bein' Merkin thing)
buddhashortfatguy
news:vsSdnQvmNqR...@speakeasy.net...
> Its one thing and go after those who attacked us in
> Afghanistan, its another to use that as an excuse to invade a sovereign
> nation because your daddy got his feelings hurt.
Do you really believe that was the reason? Or that oil & control were the
real reasons?
Please tell me ... that you don't think there were othe manifold rationale
to go jam our arm into the teaming ant mound that is the Mid East?
> > OTOH, what if the administration has solid evidence there are WMDs
> > "out there" somewhere, but are unable to recover them and are
> > reluctant to divulge any of their current intelligence on the matter.
> > There's the possibility that material witnesses fear for their lives
> > and won't tell, but the other possibility is that the WMDs are on the
> > loose and the decision has been made to say nothing about it.
>
> What if monkeys came flying out of my ass...would you send in a
> premptive strike of monkey butler training crews?
If monkeys came flying out of your ass, my strikeforce wouldn't be
preemptive, now would it?
> How many of these other companies are multi-nationals, and can pour
> rediculous sums of money into the Presidents lap. How many of these
> companies was the president or other members of the white house actually
> a part of?
What are you looking for - small town democracy?
> What about Korea, China, several places in South America...have you ever
> seen a list of the things the CIA has done "in our name"?
I'm an old Iran-Contra activist. Different topic. And no, I don't look
forward to the "School of the Americas" starting a new campus called "School
of the Mid East."
> I think we'd do well
> enough starting WW3 on our own without anyones help.
And let's not forget the USA'd go apeshit after a mass kill from a terrorist
WMD. That'd be WWIII too.
> So basically evidence...circumsantial or not, true or not, MADE UP or
> not, as long as it says what you want it to say...
You are thinking in legalistic terms, right vs. wrong.
> is evidence enough to
> go in and kill thousands of Iraqi's, and still hundreds of our own
> troops, who are dying still today.
Evidence, schmevidence. Iraq was a dirty deed that had to be done.
> There's very little talk of cost in lives...not only those directly
> affected, but those indirectly affected...
Baloney... There's plenty of talk about lives... the lives of the Kurds and
swamp arabs, the lives of Iraqis who would've continued to die, in extra
numbers, under the callous and murderous regime of Saddam & his sons.
And yes, we're putting our kids into harm's way taking the initiative in
Iraq, pushing the front of the terror war right into the heart of the Middle
East. It's a tremendous sacrifice some have paid and will pay, and we will
very likely out of it with a very bitter taste.
/lee
buddhashortfatguy
news:gIhNb.66271$8H.106612@attbi_s03...
> buddhashortfatguy wrote:
> > "Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote
> >
> >>Bush's failure to be fully forthcoming
> >>with the 9/11 investigation.
> >
> > That's not evidence, that's inference. And you know better!
>
> As I said, in politics you are guilty until proven innocent.
So you're saying your politics are such that accusation and innuendo rule?
Might as well say you hate Bush.
/lee
buddhashortfatguy
lee wrote:
> > Both sides guessed wrong. bin Laden was reputed to have guessed wrong -
that
> > we wouldn't invade Afghanistan. It's much much more plausible that both
> > sides misjudged each other's capacity for planning and action.
>
> I don't buy that on Osama's part. I think he guessed completely
> correctly -- although I bet the response was beyond his wildest
> dreams.
>
> Osama was looking for a global religious war. I bet he thought
> he'd have to pull off several 9/11s to get one started. Other
> than that, I think he knew exactly what he was doing.
Yes I've made the same observation... that Osama seeks to galvanize muslims
and create a dialectic where the west is chased out of Araby, etc.
> Osama's looking for his place in history as a great martyr to
> Allah. Bush is well on his way to giving Osama what he wants.
Nope, that's been accounted for and is being dealt with separately.....
you'll see.
Lazarhat
'You're'? Dude, I'm (geographically and perhaps ideologically) practically a
Canadian! I'm just waiting for you canukistanis to issue me the utilikilt...
Daryl
wrote...
Did you read the Fifth Estate thing?
I'm still convinced that the USA has been baited into
a war over there (the Dune theory). I don't believe
for a second that bin Laden thought that the USA
wouldn't invade Afghanistan, and bring all its pals.
It's not believable. He knew what the neocons wanted
to do. He had to know. He's no idiot, despite the
Hollywood stereotypes of wild-eyed Islamic fanatics.
Daryl
(lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bitsyahoo.com) wrote...
>
>> >
>> >So where's our Mu'a'dib?
>>
>> Hate to tell you but you're the empire...you don't
>> get one.
>>
>Canadian! I'm just waiting for you canukistanis to issue me the utilikilt...
Utilikilts are made in Seattle. Well, that's practically
Canuck too, so hell, yer in boy!
Lazarhat
LOL!
Wooohooo, eh?
Night_Seer
> "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
> news:vsSdnQvmNqR...@speakeasy.net...
>
>> Its one thing and go after those who attacked us in
>> Afghanistan, its another to use that as an excuse to invade a
>> sovereign nation because your daddy got his feelings hurt.
>
> Do you really believe that was the reason? Or that oil & control were
> the real reasons?
>
> Please tell me ... that you don't think there were othe manifold
> rationale to go jam our arm into the teaming ant mound that is the
> Mid East?
>
Of course not, but they haven't bothered to tell me yet either...or
anyone in America for that matter...why don't they just set the record
straight, rather than give "conspiracy theorists" like myself so much
fodder.
>
>>> OTOH, what if the administration has solid evidence there are WMDs
>>> "out there" somewhere, but are unable to recover them and are
>>> reluctant to divulge any of their current intelligence on the
>>> matter. There's the possibility that material witnesses fear for
>>> their lives and won't tell, but the other possibility is that the
>>> WMDs are on the loose and the decision has been made to say nothing
>>> about it.
>>
>> What if monkeys came flying out of my ass...would you send in a
>> premptive strike of monkey butler training crews?
>
> If monkeys came flying out of your ass, my strikeforce wouldn't be
> preemptive, now would it?
>
Well yeah I guess your right...I should have said evidence of AEMs (ass
ejected monkeys)
>> How many of these other companies are multi-nationals, and can pour
>> rediculous sums of money into the Presidents lap. How many of these
>> companies was the president or other members of the white house
>> actually a part of?
>
> What are you looking for - small town democracy?
>
Sure why not...this oligopoly has gone on disguised as a democracy for
too long.
>
>> What about Korea, China, several places in South America...have you
>> ever seen a list of the things the CIA has done "in our name"?
>
> I'm an old Iran-Contra activist. Different topic. And no, I don't look
> forward to the "School of the Americas" starting a new campus called
> "School of the Mid East."
>
Different topic, but in the whole scheme of things, does it all not give
groups a reason to hate us...why is that topic not covered..why do these
people hate us so much?
>> I think we'd do well
>> enough starting WW3 on our own without anyones help.
>
> And let's not forget the USA'd go apeshit after a mass kill from a
> terrorist WMD. That'd be WWIII too.
>
and AEMs as well.
>> So basically evidence...circumsantial or not, true or not, MADE UP or
>> not, as long as it says what you want it to say...
>
> You are thinking in legalistic terms, right vs. wrong.
>
Very well how do you want me to think?
>> is evidence enough to
>> go in and kill thousands of Iraqi's, and still hundreds of our own
>> troops, who are dying still today.
>
> Evidence, schmevidence. Iraq was a dirty deed that had to be done.
>
Uggg, how can I argue with that...
>> There's very little talk of cost in lives...not only those directly
>> affected, but those indirectly affected...
>
> Baloney... There's plenty of talk about lives... the lives of the
> Kurds and swamp arabs, the lives of Iraqis who would've continued to
> die, in extra numbers, under the callous and murderous regime of
> Saddam & his sons.
>
Whom we put into power...
> And yes, we're putting our kids into harm's way taking the initiative
> in Iraq, pushing the front of the terror war right into the heart of
> the Middle East. It's a tremendous sacrifice some have paid and will
> pay, and we will very likely out of it with a very bitter taste.
>
> /lee
I can agree with some of that, but this front of terror now resides
worldwide, in our own backyard. You can say all of the blame must be
put on the terrorists, but then again, my definition of terrorist
organization includes the CIA. Be thankful you are not Middle Eastern
or look middle eastern the next time you take a flight...cause you might
never come back, and be lost in some island in some no mans land of
Earth, where laws don't mean shite.
--
Night_Seer
Night_Seer
> "Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote in message
> news:gIhNb.66271$8H.106612@attbi_s03...
>> buddhashortfatguy wrote:
>>> "Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Bush's failure to be fully forthcoming
>>>> with the 9/11 investigation.
>>>
>>> That's not evidence, that's inference. And you know better!
>>
>> As I said, in politics you are guilty until proven innocent.
>
> So you're saying your politics are such that accusation and innuendo
> rule?
>
> Might as well say you hate Bush.
>
> /lee
Or love him...works either way.
--
Night_Seer
Night_Seer
What you got the scoop on where they are really keeping Osama...and when
the Bushites think will be the optimum time to stuff him down some hole
and then "capture" him, so that the election will be a landslide? Do
tell. :-P
--
Night_Seer
Night_Seer
> In article
> <2_eNb.35903$6y6.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Fred
> Kepler (fke...@att.net) wrote...
>>
>> I wouldn't put anything past them,
>
> I would. There are limits to their depravity I am
> sure. For instance, they wouldn't stoop so low as
> to do anything to interrupt the vital trickle-down
> flow.
>
Keeping it going is not out of league with their derpavity...in fact I
would venture to say it is part of it.
>
>> but I admit that there's no solid evidence
>> to support my dimmest views of the current administration.
>> (Unless one were to cite their record on economic, social,
>> or environmental issues.)
>
> That so many could believe it of them says
> something about the state of affairs.
--
Night_Seer
Daryl
buddhashortfatguy (REPLA...@yahoo.com) wrote...
>
>Evidence, schmevidence. Iraq was a dirty deed that had to be done.
Lots of people agree on that but disagree on
*how* it had to be done. How makes all the
difference when it comes to bloodshed on that
scale.
Daryl
wrote...
>
>Daryl wrote:
>> In article
>> <2_eNb.35903$6y6.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Fred
>> Kepler (fke...@att.net) wrote...
>>>
>>> I wouldn't put anything past them,
>>
>> I would. There are limits to their depravity I am
>> sure. For instance, they wouldn't stoop so low as
>> to do anything to interrupt the vital trickle-down
>> flow.
>>
>
>Keeping it going is not out of league with their derpavity...in fact I
>would venture to say it is part of it.
Hey, didn't I just say that? :)
Daryl
(lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bitsyahoo.com) wrote...
>
>"Daryl" <n...@address.yet> wrote in message
>news:ljkNb.450$Ll2...@nntp-post.primus.ca...
>> In article <100bjap...@corp.supernews.com> Lazarhat
>> (lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bitsyahoo.com) wrote...
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >So where's our Mu'a'dib?
>> >>
>> >> Hate to tell you but you're the empire...you don't
>> >> get one.
>> >>
>> >'You're'? Dude, I'm (geographically and perhaps ideologically)
>practically a
>> >Canadian! I'm just waiting for you canukistanis to issue me the
>utilikilt...
>>
>> Utilikilts are made in Seattle. Well, that's practically
>> Canuck too, so hell, yer in boy!
>>
>
>
>Wooohooo, eh?
hee hee, perfect, you're already losing that Merkian
accent. I mean, "yeehaw, eh?" just doesn't work...
Messer Xin
(in message <3ZoNb.943$Yx4...@nntp-post.primus.ca>):
Ayup . . . eh?
---Messer Xin
--
"Cretans always lie." Epimenides the Cretan
Wilson
"Daryl" <n...@address.yet> wrote ...
It says quite a bit about the depth of desperation on the part of the
political Left.
buddhashortfatguy
True. Either is a mistake. I am not fond of Bush, his gaffes remind me too
much of Dan Quayle, but I neither love nor hate him. I *DO* however agree
with *some* (not all) of his policies. He's a little too cosey with big
business for my tastes, but that's 80% of Republicans & 40% of Democrats.
If Dean wouldn't pander to the 'Hate Bush' crowd so much and would tone down
the rhetoric about Iraq, I'd have fewer reservations about the guy.
This is what I find unappealing in Dean as the leading Dem candidate - I
find his position on Iraq to be dishonest. It could've been Gore that took
us into Iraq three years from now, because eventually the problem would have
to be dealt with, Saudi Arabia, the NFZs, the Kurds, the UN Sanctions, the
simmering relationship with terrorists. If Saddam didn't mind harboring Abu
Nidal and a purported terrorist training camp, indemnifying Palestinian
suicide bombers then what would be his qualms about collaborating with Al
Qaeda? With the functional seige of the UN Sanctions and the ineffectual and
functionally non-existent armistice (as evidenced by the continued
enforcement of the NFZs) would have all snowballed eventually into armed
conflict. It was a "pay me now, pay me later" proposition and Bush bet on
sooner than later.
This namby-pamby nonsense about not invading a country that isn't an
imminent threat... what kind of imminent threat did the social justice crowd
want to wait for? We never had a proper peace treaty with Iraq, it was an
armistice and Saddam broke the top three major provisions of that armistice
at the end of the Gulf War in Kuwait. The UN was willing to let the USA
suffer the consequences of serving as the UN's menial proxy. What kind of
deal was that? The situation was very predictably going to go from bad to
worse, just like North Korea (North Korea may seem even more of an imminent
threat, but we don't have South Koreans ready to kill us b/c our troops are
on their holy land).
As for the wasted lives, the casualties from the conquest of Iraq and
continued occupation: What kind of casualty rate did the anti-Bush crowd
think the Kurds and Swamp Arabs would've seen had we negotiated a final
peace with Saddam and left Saddam to do as he pleased with the Kurds & Swamp
Arabs? Hello?
To be a conscientious pacifist is one thing, but the loudest of the
Peace&Justice crowd are not actually pacifists, they insist there *were*
criteria that justified invading Iraq, it's just that Bush met none of those
criteria. But the criteria were set based on the WMD premise only (Bush's
"legal" premise), which was clearly only one of manifold rationale
(Christopher Hitchens nailed this one particularly well). This means the
"Peace&Justice" crowd was willing to say "Fuck the Kurds and Swamp Arabs"
for the sake of indulging in ostensible pacifism and exacting political
vengence upon Bush for taking the 2000 Election. That stinks and it really
means they are instead a bunch of hypocrites, willing to leave innocents to
fend for themselves against the Baathist wolves in Tikrit & Bagdhad.
It's not only wishful thinking, it's self-serving and irresponsible to look
at the two evils and refuse to choose one. It's taken me a long time to make
up my mind, not being a hawkish type and having been an Iran-Contra era
activist. I believe Bush ultimately took the only rational choice, war,
death, destruction, enmity, risks and all. Regime change had been the
objective all along and Bush decided we had to finally take responsbility
for what Clinton had defaulted upon and the rest of the world was unwilling
to confront honestly.
And just how long were the Dems going to wait for the entire scene to turn
to shit? Libya was ready to start building nukes for X's sake, with Musarref
giving them the plans! Who was going to be next? Iraq? Sudan? As far as I
can tell conquering Iraq and the war against terror are not incompatible,
they are part of a larger plan that has yet to be fully played out.
In the interim, we have a war to fight - a war in Iraq and a broader war
against terrror. Dean seeks to divide our willingness and ability to defend
ourselves only for his politcal gain. This is turning off lots of people,
party loyal Democrats and swing-voters alike, many see this as being
deliberately misleading and dishonest on Dean's part.
My prediction? The Democrats will lose the election if they nominate Dean to
run against Bush. It's too bad, because I'd like to see some of the
Democrats domestic policies enacted. It'd be a good lesson for the left wing
to watch their guy in the White House have to confront the global problems
of terror and proliferation and end up with the same Catch-22's that Bush
encountered (I see no functional difference between the Dem's & Repub's WRT
Israel).
/lee
Sanford Manley
> "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in
> message news:R6udndJOf6S...@speakeasy.net...
>> buddhashortfatguy wrote:
>>> "Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gIhNb.66271$8H.106612@attbi_s03...
>>>> buddhashortfatguy wrote:
>>>>> "Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bush's failure to be fully forthcoming
>>>>>> with the 9/11 investigation.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not evidence, that's inference. And you know
>>>>> better!
>>>>
>>>> As I said, in politics you are guilty until proven
>>>> innocent.
>>>
>>> So you're saying your politics are such that accusation
>>> and innuendo rule?
>>>
>>> Might as well say you hate Bush.
>>
>> Or love him...works either way.
>
> True. Either is a mistake. I am not fond of Bush, his
> gaffes remind me too much of Dan Quayle, but I neither
> love nor hate him. I *DO* however agree with *some* (not
> party loyal Democrats and swing-voters alike, many see
> this as being deliberately misleading and dishonest on
> Dean's part.
>
> My prediction? The Democrats will lose the election if
> they nominate Dean to run against Bush. It's too bad,
> because I'd like to see some of the Democrats domestic
> policies enacted. It'd be a good lesson for the left wing
> to watch their guy in the White House have to confront
> the global problems of terror and proliferation and end
> up with the same Catch-22's that Bush encountered (I see
> no functional difference between the Dem's & Repub's WRT
> Israel).
>
> /lee
Thank-you. Some times I feel like the Lone Ranger.
--
Sanford M. Manley
"I can tell you all I know, the where to go, the what to do.
You can try to run, but you can't run from what's inside
of you." - Steely Dan
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ansaman/
Daryl
Messer Xin (x...@woc.com.org) wrote...
Ah, a truly international "citizen of the world"
expression, particularly common in places with
gene birdbaths.
Anatta_anicca_dukkha
> "Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote in message
> news:gIhNb.66271$8H.106612@attbi_s03...
>
>>buddhashortfatguy wrote:
>>
>>>"Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bush's failure to be fully forthcoming
>>>>with the 9/11 investigation.
>>>
>>>That's not evidence, that's inference. And you know better!
>>
>>As I said, in politics you are guilty until proven innocent.
>
>
> So you're saying your politics are such that accusation and innuendo rule?
>
> Might as well say you hate Bush.
Sorry if I left that out.
>
> /lee
Daryl
(puddinhe...@att.not) wrote...
Hmm, why desperation not suspicion?
Lazarhat
G.W. Bush as President is like having Dan Quayle as President only without
the personality.
Wilson
"Lazarhat" <lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bitsyahoo.com> wrote ...
>
> G.W. Bush as President is like having Dan Quayle as President only without
> the personality.
I know this was a joke (and a pretty good one too), but this kind of
personal animosity which is running rampant right now serves no
purpose and actually works to undermines any valid point you might
have about what's going on.
The "I hate Bush" stance really is weak. It has no moral or intellectual
underpinning that will support a workable alternative. If you want
change, you will have to define and explain the world you want to see,
in order for it to have any hope of manifesting. Simply being against
the current order isn't enough.
Wilson
"Daryl" <n...@address.yet> wrote ...
>
> >> >but I admit that there's no solid evidence
> >> >to support my dimmest views of the current administration.
> >> >(Unless one were to cite their record on economic, social,
> >> >or environmental issues.)
> >>
> >> That so many could believe it of them says
> >> something about the state of affairs.
> >
> >
> >It says quite a bit about the depth of desperation on the
> >part of the political Left.
>
> Hmm, why desperation not suspicion?
Because the Left feels like is loosing ground in the world since the
fall of the USSR and the near capitulation of China to the so called
'evils of capitalism'. It really IS desperation on the part of many. Of
course they are and have always been suspicious too. They deeply
believe that the ideals of conservatism, the reliance on personal
initiative and smaller government, is a flawed approach and they are
upset that things have gone the way that they have gone.
It's might be useful to remind them that these things work in a
continuum and that the pendulum has to swing in order for the clock
to turn. So to all you Left wing radicals out there, don't give up hope.
Your day may be coming sooner than you realize ;-)
When that day comes, I'll probably console myself by reminding
myself that it's all illusion anyway. Especially the parts involving
politics.
Pete Watters
Tell that to Gerald Ford.
Pete
--
Usenet is best when it is not taken seriously. -- Jaffo
Daryl
(puddinhe...@att.not) wrote...
>
>
>"Daryl" <n...@address.yet> wrote ...
>>
>> >> >but I admit that there's no solid evidence
>> >> >to support my dimmest views of the current administration.
>> >> >(Unless one were to cite their record on economic, social,
>> >> >or environmental issues.)
>> >>
>> >> That so many could believe it of them says
>> >> something about the state of affairs.
>> >
>> >
>> >It says quite a bit about the depth of desperation on the
>> >part of the political Left.
>>
>> Hmm, why desperation not suspicion?
>
>
>Because the Left feels like is loosing ground in the world since the
>fall of the USSR and the near capitulation of China to the so called
>'evils of capitalism'.
Hmm, I guess that would make sense to someone on the
Right who thought that the Left actually considered
the USSR and China to be models. That's about as
valid as someone on the Left thinking that the Right
sees Nazi Germany as a model.
Oh, nevermind...
> It really IS desperation on the part of many. Of
>course they are and have always been suspicious too. They deeply
>believe that the ideals of conservatism, the reliance on personal
>initiative and smaller government, is a flawed approach and they are
>upset that things have gone the way that they have gone.
>
>It's might be useful to remind them that these things work in a
>continuum and that the pendulum has to swing in order for the clock
>to turn. So to all you Left wing radicals out there, don't give up hope.
>Your day may be coming sooner than you realize ;-)
gulp... :)
>When that day comes, I'll probably console myself by reminding
>myself that it's all illusion anyway. Especially the parts involving
>politics.
And even more especially, the parts having to do
with Left-Right politics...
Daryl
(REPLA...@yahoo.com) wrote...
>
[...]
>This is what I find unappealing in Dean as the leading Dem candidate - I
>find his position on Iraq to be dishonest. It could've been Gore that took
>us into Iraq three years from now, because eventually the problem would have
>to be dealt with, Saudi Arabia, the NFZs, the Kurds, the UN Sanctions, the
>simmering relationship with terrorists. If Saddam didn't mind harboring Abu
>Nidal and a purported terrorist training camp, indemnifying Palestinian
>suicide bombers then what would be his qualms about collaborating with Al
>Qaeda? With the functional seige of the UN Sanctions and the ineffectual and
>functionally non-existent armistice (as evidenced by the continued
>enforcement of the NFZs) would have all snowballed eventually into armed
>conflict. It was a "pay me now, pay me later" proposition and Bush bet on
>sooner than later.
>
>This namby-pamby nonsense about not invading a country that isn't an
>imminent threat... what kind of imminent threat did the social justice crowd
>want to wait for?
Here is what the "social justice" crowd was up to.
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise/menu-en.asp
Could such a thing have been employed somehow,
in addition to the rather weaker "imminent threat"
arguments? I dunno, but I would have liked to
have seen it tried or at least mentioned.
A good rationale for an action doesn't necessarily
mean that the good rationale was the motivation
for the action. Given what could have been done
but wasn't I am forced to conclude that the good
rationale wasn't the motivation, and that
unilateral action was the plan all along.
dt
As a matter of fact, there used to be bumper stickers--"George W.
Bush-the President Quayle We Never Had". Somehow they mostly
disappeared after 9-11. Along with the "Bush is a Punk-Ass Chump" stickers.
DT
dt
Used to work with a guy from NY state. He never could figure out
whether to say "Youse all" or "Y'all guys".
DT
dt
Are you saying that a simple gainsaying of everything someone says isn't
an argument?
Yes, it is!
DT
Night_Seer
> "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
> news:R6udndJOf6S...@speakeasy.net...
>> buddhashortfatguy wrote:
>>> "Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gIhNb.66271$8H.106612@attbi_s03...
>>>> buddhashortfatguy wrote:
>>>>> "Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bush's failure to be fully forthcoming
>>>>>> with the 9/11 investigation.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not evidence, that's inference. And you know better!
>>>>
>>>> As I said, in politics you are guilty until proven innocent.
>>>
>>> So you're saying your politics are such that accusation and innuendo
>>> rule?
>>>
>>> Might as well say you hate Bush.
>>
>> Or love him...works either way.
>
> True. Either is a mistake. I am not fond of Bush, his gaffes remind
> me too much of Dan Quayle, but I neither love nor hate him. I *DO*
> however agree with *some* (not all) of his policies. He's a little
> too cosey with big business for my tastes, but that's 80% of
> Republicans & 40% of Democrats.
>
> If Dean wouldn't pander to the 'Hate Bush' crowd so much and would
> tone down the rhetoric about Iraq, I'd have fewer reservations about
> the guy.
>
> This is what I find unappealing in Dean as the leading Dem candidate
> - I find his position on Iraq to be dishonest. It could've been Gore
> that took us into Iraq three years from now, because eventually the
> problem would have to be dealt with, Saudi Arabia, the NFZs, the
> Kurds, the UN Sanctions, the simmering relationship with terrorists.
> If Saddam didn't mind harboring Abu Nidal and a purported terrorist
> training camp, indemnifying Palestinian suicide bombers then what
> would be his qualms about collaborating with Al Qaeda? With the
> functional seige of the UN Sanctions and the ineffectual and
> functionally non-existent armistice (as evidenced by the continued
> enforcement of the NFZs) would have all snowballed eventually into
> armed conflict. It was a "pay me now, pay me later" proposition and
> Bush bet on sooner than later.
>
I would expect Gore to bet on pay me later, with a caveat that others
would be behind us, we wouldn't be paying for it all ourselves (and
running up a huge defecit, and giving most of that money to his skull
and bones cronnies), and we wouldn't have nearly as much opposition and
activism around the world, but its just speculation on my part. Which
truly the better situation, or is there any difference?
> This namby-pamby nonsense about not invading a country that isn't an
> imminent threat... what kind of imminent threat did the social
> justice crowd want to wait for? We never had a proper peace treaty
> with Iraq, it was an armistice and Saddam broke the top three major
> provisions of that armistice at the end of the Gulf War in Kuwait.
> The UN was willing to let the USA suffer the consequences of serving
> as the UN's menial proxy. What kind of deal was that? The situation
> was very predictably going to go from bad to worse, just like North
> Korea (North Korea may seem even more of an imminent threat, but we
> don't have South Koreans ready to kill us b/c our troops are on their
> holy land).
>
I saw the nonsense more as not invading a country that wasn't an
imminent threat with out the say so of the international community, and
without further evidence.
> As for the wasted lives, the casualties from the conquest of Iraq and
> continued occupation: What kind of casualty rate did the anti-Bush
> crowd think the Kurds and Swamp Arabs would've seen had we negotiated
> a final peace with Saddam and left Saddam to do as he pleased with
> the Kurds & Swamp Arabs? Hello?
>
Again he would have been gone eventually, but we might have come out of
it with a bit more money in our coffers, and a bit more hurrah from the
international community.
> To be a conscientious pacifist is one thing, but the loudest of the
> Peace&Justice crowd are not actually pacifists, they insist there
> *were* criteria that justified invading Iraq, it's just that Bush met
> none of those criteria. But the criteria were set based on the WMD
> premise only (Bush's "legal" premise), which was clearly only one of
> manifold rationale (Christopher Hitchens nailed this one particularly
> well). This means the "Peace&Justice" crowd was willing to say "Fuck
> the Kurds and Swamp Arabs" for the sake of indulging in ostensible
> pacifism and exacting political vengence upon Bush for taking the
> 2000 Election. That stinks and it really means they are instead a
> bunch of hypocrites, willing to leave innocents to fend for
> themselves against the Baathist wolves in Tikrit & Bagdhad.
>
I don't like repeating myself...
> It's not only wishful thinking, it's self-serving and irresponsible
> to look at the two evils and refuse to choose one. It's taken me a
> long time to make up my mind, not being a hawkish type and having
> been an Iran-Contra era activist. I believe Bush ultimately took the
> only rational choice, war, death, destruction, enmity, risks and all.
> Regime change had been the objective all along and Bush decided we
> had to finally take responsbility for what Clinton had defaulted upon
> and the rest of the world was unwilling to confront honestly.
>
Did you really mean Clinton, or was that supposed to say Daddy Bush?
Anyways, by choosing the lesser of two evils, do you mean for me to
choose between the Dems or Repubs, or truly make my own decision and
choose for Ralph Nader to become our next president? There is always
more than just two evils, just most people don't look hard enough,
especially when they have multi-national corporation buddies breathing
down their necks that they need higher profit margins.
> And just how long were the Dems going to wait for the entire scene to
> turn to shit? Libya was ready to start building nukes for X's sake,
> with Musarref giving them the plans! Who was going to be next? Iraq?
> Sudan? As far as I can tell conquering Iraq and the war against
> terror are not incompatible, they are part of a larger plan that has
> yet to be fully played out.
>
Do you really believe we can wipe out terror? Do you feel much safer
now that Saddam is gone (but Osama is still out there, unless you know
otherwise). Do you really think they will stop warmongering at some
point because they'll finally say, "Ok I think we got just about all of
them, we can't seem to find one more terrorist." Do you really think
that we'll ever be rid of that black hole we call Guantanamo Bay, or
will it just "seem" to dissapear? How bout our colorful alert system?
Does it make you safer, feel safer, has it amounted to anything? What
about our rights...do you like the fact that you will practically have
to hand over your biography to be able to board a plane? Is this the
correct course of action? Do you like the fact that ANYONE in the US
can be taken hostage by our own government, and be sent away as an enemy
combatant? Shall I keep going?
> In the interim, we have a war to fight - a war in Iraq and a broader
> war against terrror. Dean seeks to divide our willingness and ability
> to defend ourselves only for his politcal gain. This is turning off
> lots of people, party loyal Democrats and swing-voters alike, many
> see this as being deliberately misleading and dishonest on Dean's
> part.
>
If what you say is true, I agree. Really where were all the democrats
when they were supposed to stand up for what was right? Most of them
were lining up right behind Bush.
> My prediction? The Democrats will lose the election if they nominate
> Dean to run against Bush. It's too bad, because I'd like to see some
> of the Democrats domestic policies enacted. It'd be a good lesson for
> the left wing to watch their guy in the White House have to confront
> the global problems of terror and proliferation and end up with the
> same Catch-22's that Bush encountered (I see no functional difference
> between the Dem's & Repub's WRT Israel).
>
> /lee
--
Night_Seer
Night_Seer
Yes, yes , yes...that's what all these "Bush hater" haters don't
understand. They act like we would have just left Saddam to rule and
kill people as Tyrants, when the whole time we were complaining about
where is the UN, what about the International community, how will we pay
for all this ourselves...etc etc etc. There were other courses of
action, but the White house didn't want you to see that, for some reason
unknown to me or to many, and I think Daryl has hit the nail on the head
with that.
--
Night_Seer
Night_Seer
> In article
> <VDHNb.44857$6y6.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Wilson
> (puddinhe...@att.not) wrote...
>>
>>
>> "Daryl" <n...@address.yet> wrote ...
>>>
>>>>>> but I admit that there's no solid evidence
>>>>>> to support my dimmest views of the current administration.
>>>>>> (Unless one were to cite their record on economic, social,
>>>>>> or environmental issues.)
>>>>>
>>>>> That so many could believe it of them says
>>>>> something about the state of affairs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It says quite a bit about the depth of desperation on the
>>>> part of the political Left.
>>>
>>> Hmm, why desperation not suspicion?
>>
>>
>> Because the Left feels like is loosing ground in the world since the
>> fall of the USSR and the near capitulation of China to the so called
>> 'evils of capitalism'.
>
> Hmm, I guess that would make sense to someone on the
> Right who thought that the Left actually considered
> the USSR and China to be models. That's about as
> valid as someone on the Left thinking that the Right
> sees Nazi Germany as a model.
>
> Oh, nevermind...
>
>
LOL...you brought up Nazi's again, watch out!
>> It really IS desperation on the part of many. Of
>> course they are and have always been suspicious too. They deeply
>> believe that the ideals of conservatism, the reliance on personal
>> initiative and smaller government, is a flawed approach and they are
>> upset that things have gone the way that they have gone.
>>
>> It's might be useful to remind them that these things work in a
>> continuum and that the pendulum has to swing in order for the clock
>> to turn. So to all you Left wing radicals out there, don't give up
>> hope. Your day may be coming sooner than you realize ;-)
>
> gulp... :)
>
>
>> When that day comes, I'll probably console myself by reminding
>> myself that it's all illusion anyway. Especially the parts involving
>> politics.
>
> And even more especially, the parts having to do
> with Left-Right politics...
I'm sorry Wilson, but China, and others haven never really come to mind,
when considering whther there is bad things going on at the top. I see
that same sort of desperation you propose in your own comments.
--
Night_Seer
Lazarhat
news:QDHNb.44856$6y6.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Then go back and read the original message, Puddin'haid... this last part
was just a joke to cap off the legitimate naysaying against Bush that I had
posted earlier in a thread... oh that and a somewhat feeble attempt to
become a bonfils sig line.
Wilson
Wilson
dt
I'm sorry; I can't argue unless you've paid.
DT
Wilson
"Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote ...
Oh, well then in that case I was talking about other leftists, not you.
(Generalizations are fun, eh? :-)
Wilson
"Lazarhat" <lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bitsyahoo.com> wrote ...
>
> > "Lazarhat" <lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bitsyahoo.com> wrote ...
> > >
> > > G.W. Bush as President is like having Dan Quayle as President only
> without
> > > the personality.
> >
> > I know this was a joke (and a pretty good one too), but this kind of
> > personal animosity which is running rampant right now serves no
> > purpose and actually works to undermines any valid point you might
> > have about what's going on.
> >
> > The "I hate Bush" stance really is weak. It has no moral or intellectual
> > underpinning that will support a workable alternative. If you want
> > change, you will have to define and explain the world you want to see,
> > in order for it to have any hope of manifesting. Simply being against
> > the current order isn't enough.
> >
>
> Then go back and read the original message, Puddin'haid... this last part
> was just a joke to cap off the legitimate naysaying against Bush that I had
> posted earlier in a thread... oh that and a somewhat feeble attempt to
> become a bonfils sig line.
Ah well, you know us right wing libertarian extremists. One never
knows what will set us off into some meaningless foam-at-the-mouth
rant. Unstable as nitroglycerine and about as lovable as a box of
bricks dropped on a toe.
It's a challenge going through life like this, let me tell you. Maybe
when she gets elected President, Hillary will set up a government
program to help people like me who are disadvantaged by such
unfortunate tendencies. I can only hope ...
buddhashortfatguy
> I saw the nonsense more as not invading a country that wasn't an
> imminent threat with out the say so of the international community, and
> without further evidence.
The "evidence" was the legal premise of WMD violations.. the other reasons
were far more compelling.
> > As for the wasted lives, the casualties from the conquest of Iraq and
> > continued occupation: What kind of casualty rate did the anti-Bush
> > crowd think the Kurds and Swamp Arabs would've seen had we negotiated
> > a final peace with Saddam and left Saddam to do as he pleased with
> > the Kurds & Swamp Arabs? Hello?
>
> Again he would have been gone eventually,
Wishful thinking I'm afraid... He or his sons would've stayed on. Some
negotiated "exit" for the Hussein dynasty was a pipe dream, it would've been
impossible to secure a lasting peace. It may still be impossible (one of my
qualms about conquering Iraq), but the alternative of trying to blow Hussein
& Sons spelled certain disaster down the road.
> Do you really believe we can wipe out terror?
What level of terror?
Minor-league kooks with small bombs and a plane-load of hostages? No.
Well-organized kooks who seek bio or chemical WMD? Good question. What
choice have we other than to try?
Did you see the news about the KKK WMD stockpile in East Texas?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1229/p02s01-usju.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5350.htm
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7660315.htm
http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/14411.php
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=fp-pull-web-t&p=east+texas+sodium+cyanide
http://www.inboxrobot.com/newsletter.php3?brief_id=7168
The redneck militia have been suspected of colluding with radical muslims
since Okla. City. And then there was the ricin outrage in London, a gram can
kill millions and it's refined from castor beans of all things! Good God!
What the hell are we to do?
We have to try to stop these fools, there's no other option.
> Does it make you safer, feel safer, has it amounted to anything? What
> about our rights...do you like the fact that you will practically have
> to hand over your biography to be able to board a plane? Is this the
> correct course of action? Do you like the fact that ANYONE in the US
> can be taken hostage by our own government, and be sent away as an enemy
> combatant? Shall I keep going?
You forgot the asinine "CAPS Program" that can functionally be hacked by
terrorists. And US Citizens being held in the Navy brig? It's nothing short
of outrageous, and there are plenty of conservatives who have found this
kind of abuse of the constitution to be troubling.
Asscroft & Ridge are also fools, dangerous ones. They aren't making us
safer, they want to abuse police power. No shock really, I almost expected
martial law after 9-11. I happen to be in agreement with Gore & Kerrey on
this... War on terror? Yes. War on the Constitution? No.
The damage done to due process and civil liberties *CAN* be repaired, but a
quarter-million dead (the hoped-for casualty figure of the original 1993 WTC
bombers) from a terrorist WMD can never be undone.
These assholes want to kill *US*, and in large numbers. 3,000+ dead on 9/11
was a disappointing ROI for the terrorists. So in fact we have not responded
in kind, but we have responded.
/lee
Wilson
> >
> >>Are you saying that a simple gainsaying of everything someone says isn't
> >>an argument?
> >>
> >>Yes, it is!
> >
> > Is Not!
>
> I'm sorry; I can't argue unless you've paid.
Dang!
buddhashortfatguy
> buddhashortfatguy wrote:
> > "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
> >
> >> Its one thing and go after those who attacked us in
> >> Afghanistan, its another to use that as an excuse to invade a
> >> sovereign nation because your daddy got his feelings hurt.
> >
> > Do you really believe that was the reason? Or that oil & control were
> > the real reasons?
> >
> > Please tell me ... that you don't think there were othe manifold
> > rationale to go jam our arm into the teaming ant mound that is the
> > Mid East?
> >
> Of course not, but they haven't bothered to tell me yet either...or
> anyone in America for that matter...why don't they just set the record
> straight, rather than give "conspiracy theorists" like myself so much
> fodder.
Are you serious? There were many discussions about this, and you wouldn't
have missed them if you could've been bothered to read up on the issues
preceding the invasion of Iraq.
Here again, as many commentators, columnists and independent thinkers (such
as myself) have covered, is the enumerated (but not exhaustive) list of why
the Bush admin. found it necessary to conquer Iraq (in no particular order).
1. Existing WMD: Either one of the strongest or weakest arguments, but it
became the "legal" justification the Bush administration chose. Even in
light of the recent disclosures, Iraq's nuclear program remains a troubling
quandry: Although it was discovered and dismantled by the UN teams, this was
evidence of an ongoing willingness on the part of the Iraqis to continue
with WMD programs in violation of the armistice. As to whether any chemical
WMD will ever be found or existed in any tangible volume remains to be seen,
but
the prospects are worrisome - that Bush was a fool for believing the
intelligence showing nonexistant WMD stockpiles (which undermines the Bush
admin's credibility and authority in rebuilding Iraq's political system) OR
there remain WMD that are in fact on the loose and the Bush admin is keeping
mum about the situation. I wish I could say I don't know which possibility
scares me more, but no, I DO know which scares me more: The latter scenario!
2. Qusay and Uday were the heir apparents to Saddam Hussein's Baathist
regime: There would never be any improvement in the nature of the Iraqi
regime, ever, so long as Hussein's regime remained in place. Nobody was
going to make that family leave Iraq, not even the prospect of Bagdhad being
bombed to smithereens.
3. The Kurds and Swamp Arabs. They remained imperiled populations so long as
Saddam's Baathist regime remained in power. The minute the USA stopped
enforcing the NFZ in the north, the Kurds - in their independent enclave -
would be vulnerable to more slaughter at the hands of the ethnic Sunni in
Tikrit.
4. Saddam's *KNOWN* collusion with terrorists: Abu Nidal, the oft-forgotten
terrorist training camp in the desert, the recent uncovering of Saddam's
collusion with "bin Laden's" people in a local Bagdhad rag, his
indemnification of Palestinian suicide bombers. Saddam had no scruples in
this regard.
5. Saudi Arabia: Stationing our troops there as a defensive bastion against
Iraqi aggression was becoming a geopolitical liability. We needed to leave
SA but were constrained from withdrawing our troops so long as the Hussein
Baathist regime remained in place. And restationing the troops in Kuwait or
Oman was no option either, Saudi had to be defended on the ground.
6. Armistice: Technically and legally speaking, there was never a peace
treaty, only an armistice, and Saddam violated the major points of the
armistice. In other words the 1991 Gulf War never really ended and the
conflict was ongoing.
7. UN Sanctions - kick-backs to the regime, UN turning a blind eye: The UN
Sanctions didn't hinder Saddam's power. Saddam was took easily a $1billion
in secret kickbacks via the UN-authorized transactions while he sold
UN-authorized foodstuffs on the black market. The UN knew of this and
refused to investigate the matter (were we supposed to trust the UN to carry
through properly on other matters of import).
8. Increased death rate due to sanctions (including the "Smart Sanctions"):
People in Iraq were dying due to malnutrition and inadequate infrastructure.
This was Saddam's doing (not Madelline Albrights or Clinton's), partially
his way of turning the screws on the Shi'ites.
9. UN Menial Proxy: The US was stuck enforcing the NFZs and defending the
swamp arabs and Kurds at the behest of the UN, but the UN was refusing to
get off its ass. What did the USA have to look forward to, sitting in the
Saudi Arabian holy land earning the enmity of Islamic fundies and
extremists. What kind of happy option did this leave the USA, the Kurds, the
swamp arabs and just about everyone else in the region?
10. Finally, the ultimate $64K question, the future. If Libya or Iran can
start nuclear WMD programs, then Iraq would have ultimately done the same...
that's a no-brainer! This would have lead to a number of situations in the
Mid East: An arms race between Iran & Iraq and the ultimate bombing of the
breeder reactors or centrifuge sites by Israel. With Hezbollah's 10,000
Katushya rockets aimed at Israel, what do you suppose would happen?
Hezbollah couldn't resist the chance on blowing their wad, leaving a
forwarding address in Syria and Iran (the suppliers of those missiles to
Hezbollah). Widespread war in the region would break out with Israel loading
her nukes on the tarmac, possibly leading to WW III.
That's a short run of the rationale for conquering Iraq. There are other
points I could cover, but these stand out most conspicuously. You would know
them all had you done your homework.
I'd also like to point out the matter of Kosovo: Kosovo would've been - as
Chris Hitchens describes - a "howling wilderness" had we acted in accordance
with the UN charter (or tried to negotiate a peace treaty w/ Milosevic).
NATO did the right thing with the USA taking the lead. But the Peace&Justice
crowd vehemently denounced Clinton for doing it, to them it was just another
example of US hegemony, etc. Hell, why let facts get in the way of
ideological vanity?
> > What are you looking for - small town democracy?
>
> Sure why not...this oligopoly has gone on disguised as a democracy for
> too long.
Well here's the conflict between reality and expectations... never mind the
old rhetoric that the USA is a republic, not a democracy. IF the left wing
really wanted to do *SOMETHING* tangible for the future, instead of just
hating Bush, how 'bout fixing the broken voting system that led to Gore
losing even though he had the popular vote?
Everyone wants to blame dubya, Jed & the Supreme Court, but the simple fact
of the matter is that the Florida race was too close to call but Florida had
*NO PROVISIONS* for a run-off election. The result was that the election
outcome had to be resolved *POLITICALLY* and what we got was a political
solution (tough shit, kids). As the system is structured, either Bush or
Gore could've won, recounts or no recounts, and the other side would've
cried "foul." The way to fix this is to fix the state-level election
statutes including provisions for run-offs and appointing the electors to
the Electoral College proportionally like Nebraska and Maine (so to mitigate
the "Wasted Vote" problem in presidential race that generally constrains US
politics in both federal and state congressional districts).
Why hasn't the left wing - the ostensible vanguard of progressive politics -
made this their mission? My guess is it's because they are heavily tied the
Democratic side of the duopoly such that there's a tacit understanding that
*REAL CHANGE* would be a threat to the 2-party system. Ideological wings are
*NOT* to challenge the system in any functional or tangible way.
> Different topic, but in the whole scheme of things, does it all not give
> groups a reason to hate us...why is that topic not covered..why do these
> people hate us so much?
Excellent point, the people who have the greatest right to claim to hate the
USA most haven't bombed the USA. And guess what? The muslim world actually
has fewer reasons to hate the USA. The US's & Israel's body count in the
Middle East is *NOTHING* compared to what the Soviets, muslims and Arabs
have done to themselves and others:
1. The 20,000 orthodox muslims slaughtered in Syria
2. The 10,000 - 20,000 PALISTINIANS slaughtered in *JORDAN*
3. The untold 100,000's dead in the Ayatollah's reign of terror in Iran
4. The *MILLIONS* of pagan & Xian dead in the Jihadist civil war
in Sudan.
5. The beheading of female sun bathers in Algeria.
6. or even.. the millions dead in Afghanistan and Chechnya (Russians)
They have more reason to hate themselves and their bloodthirsty culture than
they do the USA. No, the main root of their enmity hinges on our
relationship with Israel (with a broader future/culture shock gestalt
simmering in the background). We have become convenient scapegoats in an
ethnic and religious squabble. We are experiencing friction with a culture
that is still extolls violence and is positively medievel in comparison.
Fuck cultural relativism, beheading adulterers and female sun bathers,
mutilating little girl's genitals and declaring holy wars is frighteningly
atavistic and there's no place for this kind of obscene purism in an
increasingly interconnected world. What we're really dealing with is a
tribal chauvanist mindset suffering from future shock.
But in typical left-wing fashion you have taken up the argument that
terrorism is the last resort of the downtrodden underdog. Neither the
Zapatistas, the Sandinistas, nor the Viet Cong ever came to lash back at the
USA with terrorism, have they? But your question, "Why do they hate us so
much?" is used as the thought-terminating question with the implicit
statement that "we had it coming." This is utter and complete bullshit,
never mind that it exemplifies self-loathing and opens the left to
accusations of sympathizing with the enemy.
> > You are thinking in legalistic terms, right vs. wrong.
>
> Very well how do you want me to think?
Logic would be a good place to start. A deeper knowledge of the facts would
help.
> > Baloney... There's plenty of talk about lives... the lives of the
> > Kurds and swamp arabs, the lives of Iraqis who would've continued to
> > die, in extra numbers, under the callous and murderous regime of
> > Saddam & his sons.
>
> Whom we put into power...
Ugh.
This is historically inaccurate. We did not put Saddam - or the socialist
Baathist regime - into power. Perhaps you were thinking of the Shah of Iran?
> I can agree with some of that, but this front of terror now resides
> worldwide, in our own backyard. You can say all of the blame must be
> put on the terrorists, but then again, my definition of terrorist
> organization includes the CIA.
Definitions like that can get in the way of gaining new perspectives.
The CIA in its covert kind of warfare has committed some foul deeds, but
show me a fighting army that hasn't caused death and destruction. The CIA,
by definition, must engage in warfare by other means - more nefarious
means - that functionally blur the distinction between war and peace. Now,
if the CIA's always busy, we're always at war. This is a serious problem,
one that shouldn't be shied away from.
But even if we were to *FIX* the CIA - no more guns-for-drugs scams, no more
death squad training camps - it won't make the lurid spectre of terror go
away, we'll still need the CIA to fight the kind of terrorists that seek to
kill 250,000+ innocent people on a whim.
/lee
buddhashortfatguy
news:9%ENb.1127$%86....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> Thank-you. Some times I feel like the Lone Ranger.
You're welcome. I've gotten a cold reception here and there on this one as
well.
OTOH, feeling like the Lone Ranger sounds kinda fun though - in a delusional
sort of way. Hi ho, Silver! Away! <William Tell Overture starts up....>
+-------------------------
To e-mail me,
replace "REPLACETHIS" with buddhashortfatguy
Daryl
(puddinhe...@att.not) wrote...
>
>"Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote ...
>>
>>
>> when considering whther there is bad things going on at the top. I see
>> that same sort of desperation you propose in your own comments.
>
>
>Oh, well then in that case I was talking about other leftists, not you.
Heh heh heh
>(Generalizations are fun, eh? :-)
Yes, those and majorettes.
buddhashortfatguy
> Here is what the "social justice" crowd was up to.
>
> http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise/menu-en.asp
>
> Could such a thing have been employed somehow,
> in addition to the rather weaker "imminent threat"
> arguments? I dunno, but I would have liked to
> have seen it tried or at least mentioned.
Fair enuf.
> A good rationale for an action doesn't necessarily
> mean that the good rationale was the motivation
> for the action.
There were manifold rationale, they were cited in various media. The
oft-accused ulterior motive of control over oil stuck the hardest, even
though it doesn't hold water.
> Given what could have been done
What? Negotiations? Inspections?
Seriously.
> but wasn't I am forced to conclude that the good
> rationale wasn't the motivation, and that
> unilateral action was the plan all along.
If unilateral action was the preferred plan all along, then why the big show
trying to convince the UN, even setting back the deadline while the weather
turned sour?
The necesity for unilaterial action had to be planned for, regardless of
whether there was a broader coalition or not.
/lee
buddhashortfatguy
news:bu9003$pv2$3...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> As a matter of fact, there used to be bumper stickers--"George W.
> Bush-the President Quayle We Never Had". Somehow they mostly
> disappeared after 9-11. Along with the "Bush is a Punk-Ass Chump"
stickers.
"Lick Bush"
/lee
buddhashortfatguy
> It's a challenge going through life like this, let me tell you. Maybe
> when she gets elected President, Hillary will set up a government
> program to help people like me who are disadvantaged by such
> unfortunate tendencies. I can only hope ...
Bwaaahaahaaahaahhhh!
/lee
Daryl
(d.ti...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote...
>
>Daryl wrote:
>
>> In article
<0001HW.BC2C14D6...@news.east.earthlink.net>
>> Messer Xin (x...@woc.com.org) wrote...
>
>>
>> Ah, a truly international "citizen of the world"
>> expression, particularly common in places with
>> gene birdbaths.
>
>Used to work with a guy from NY state. He never could figure out
>whether to say "Youse all" or "Y'all guys".
Heh, well at least he was trying to fit in.
Donald Shepherd
> Ah well, you know us right wing libertarian extremists. One never
> knows what will set us off into some meaningless foam-at-the-mouth
> rant. Unstable as nitroglycerine and about as lovable as a box of
> bricks dropped on a toe.
>
> It's a challenge going through life like this, let me tell you. Maybe
> when she gets elected President, Hillary will set up a government
> program to help people like me who are disadvantaged by such
> unfortunate tendencies. I can only hope ...
>
It is good to see a Right Wing Libertarian Extremist that recognizes his
shortcomings. That is the first step to correcting them.
When you begin work on correcting them, I would appreciate it very, very
much if you would start by working on your collective tendency for
boring, predictable sarcasm. Is it something they teach at your Right
Wing Libertarian Extremist meetings? Perhaps you could also encourage
some of your Right Wing Libertarian Extremist friends to join you in
renouncing the stale posturing of righteous outrage that you folks have
become so famous for. I know that both you and I will be grateful when
this task is done.
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but there can be no programs for you
Right Wing Libertarian Extremists until as a group you are able to
establish control of your mouth foam. It gets on the government checks
and makes it hard to count all the zeros.
Don
Daryl
(REPLA...@yahoo.com) wrote...
>
>"Daryl" <n...@address.yet> wrote in message
>news:T8LNb.3649$zw5....@nntp-post.primus.ca...
>
>> Here is what the "social justice" crowd was up to.
>>
>> http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise/menu-en.asp
>>
>> Could such a thing have been employed somehow,
>> in addition to the rather weaker "imminent threat"
>> arguments? I dunno, but I would have liked to
>> have seen it tried or at least mentioned.
>
>Fair enuf.
>
>> A good rationale for an action doesn't necessarily
>> mean that the good rationale was the motivation
>> for the action.
>
>There were manifold rationale, they were cited in various media.
Oh that's just obfuscation. The humanitarian
grounds were only used to support the imminent
threat argument, by using them to support the
idea that Saddam was evil and therefore evil
enough to use WMD.
> The
>oft-accused ulterior motive of control over oil stuck the hardest, even
>though it doesn't hold water.
It holds water because it's more credible than
any of the other rationale. Oil specifically
may not hold water, although it's hard to
imagine the middle east being if any importance
to the USA without it, but in the minds of
ordinary folks who aren't armchair strategic
analysts or possessed of reasons to just trust
the pack in Washington, all the signals of
duplicity are fairly clear. Those signals
lead to the suspicion that some kind of
ulterior motive is afoot. It doesn't matter
if oil isn't the right one. It's symbolic
because it's the most obvious candidate, so
people identify it. That may make them
mistaken but it doesn't make them wrong.
Ulterior motives are by definition hidden.
You can't blame people for not being able to
guess them with accuracy. The ordinary tests
of trustworthiness are what the administration
failed to pass. It's encumbent upon the
antagonist to justify itself, not upon its
opponents to prove it wrong. This is the
same reasoning Powell et al used on Iraq BTW.
"It's up to them to prove they don't have
WMD...to account for them all." If that's
fair then so is "your reasons for the war
don't hold water on their own so give us
your real reasons."
>> Given what could have been done
>
>What? Negotiations? Inspections?
>
>Seriously.
Replay the sequence of events. There was no
imminent threat. The US administration pursued
the issue -- made the issue -- at the time and
in the manner of its choosing. The USA is
influential. It could have steered the debate
any way it wanted. What it did was set a clock
ticking "you have this long to agree to what we
want."
Let's not forget that Saddam relented and allowed
invasive WMD inspections. He was bottled up
tight. The imminent threat argument was lost
there. Pursuing the war even after that,
without even an attempt to shift the primary
rationale *strongly* towards "just war", even
if such a shift wasn't likely to result in UN
assent, is even more cause for suspicion. This
is so because once a war has been justified on
altruistic grounds it is inconsistent to
maintain unilateralism in areas that don't
require it, like the formation of the new Iraqi
government, or the conduct of any war-crimes
prosecutions. Conduct after the fact, in this
case, is consistent with conduct before the
fact. In not strongly pursuing humanitarian
grounds the USA is not encumbered by a need to
behave in a manner that is consistent with
them.
>> but wasn't I am forced to conclude that the good
>> rationale wasn't the motivation, and that
>> unilateral action was the plan all along.
>
>If unilateral action was the preferred plan all along, then why the big show
>trying to convince the UN, even setting back the deadline while the weather
>turned sour?
You said it: "big show". It wouldn't have been
wise to let Saddam know for certain the date of
the invasion now would it? It's not like you
can sneak up with 150,000 troops.
If the UN had really been important then the
deadline could have been set back far enough
for the weather to turn good again. I know
that costs a lot. Given the bloodshed I think
truly exhausting all possibilities is worth it.
With Saddam bottled up with invasive
inspections and American aircraft carriers off
his coast, a year has to contain a lot of
possibilities. And such a large gesture of
good-faith might even have helped get the US
taxpayer off the hook to some degree, as in
the first gulf war.
>The necesity for unilaterial action had to be planned for, regardless of
>whether there was a broader coalition or not.
Even if this is true the issue is whether the
planning actually included the possibility of
*anything else*.
Daryl
(REPLA...@yahoo.com) wrote...
>
>But in typical left-wing fashion you have taken up the argument that
>terrorism is the last resort of the downtrodden underdog. Neither the
>Zapatistas, the Sandinistas, nor the Viet Cong ever came to lash back at the
>USA with terrorism, have they? But your question, "Why do they hate us so
>much?" is used as the thought-terminating question with the implicit
>statement that "we had it coming." This is utter and complete bullshit,
>never mind that it exemplifies self-loathing and opens the left to
>accusations of sympathizing with the enemy.
The Viet Cong or the Sandinistas are no counter
examples at all. Of course they wouldn't lash back
with terrorism. They won control of their own soil.
The irritant in the middle east, for those there
who blame America, is the perception that America
unduly influences or manipulates the region, and
not just in the past. That's an awfully easy idea
to sell given the US dependency on oil and the US
history of manipulation in the region.
buddhashortfatguy
> buddhashortfatguy wrote:
> >There were manifold rationale, they were cited in various media.
>
> Oh that's just obfuscation.
> The humanitarian
> grounds were only used to support the imminent
> threat argument, by using them to support the
> idea that Saddam was evil and therefore evil
> enough to use WMD.
There were more rationale than the humanitarian grounds. Yes one rationale
supports the other and vice versa.
In brief, the humanitarian rationale was only part of the matrix of
problems: WMD, Saudi Arabia (holy land), regional arms race (Israel <--->
Iraq/Iran <---> Saudi), broken armistice, NFZs (back to the Kurds & swamp
arabs) and the counterproductive sanctions.
It all added up to "Pull out of Saudi Arabia." But how? And how long before
doing so?
> > The
> >oft-accused ulterior motive of control over oil stuck the hardest, even
> >though it doesn't hold water.
>
> It holds water because it's more credible than
> any of the other rationale. Oil specifically
> may not hold water,
_RIGHT_. Alone, Oil-as-rationale doesn't hold water. As an ulterior motive,
there's some motivation, INCLUDING a Hussein dynasty being able to fully
enjoy OIL REVENUE again.
> but in the minds of
> ordinary folks who aren't armchair strategic
> analysts
*COUGH*
> all the signals of duplicity are fairly clear.
Oh, the signals of duplicity were clear when the Niger Uranium letters were
shown to be forged. I'm not concerned with the Bush admin's duplicity in
this, the question is whether it had to be done, and done then, not later.
> It doesn't matter
> if oil isn't the right one. It's symbolic
> because it's the most obvious candidate, so
> people identify it. That may make them
> mistaken but it doesn't make them wrong.
It's no better than a thought-terminating cliche' then. Instead of thinking
things through, people just knee-jerk. That's a pretty sad assessment.
> Ulterior motives are by definition hidden.
> You can't blame people for not being able to
> guess them with accuracy.
I do blame people - esp. the intellectual left - for not even making the
attempt to work it through...
> The ordinary tests
> of trustworthiness are what the administration
> failed to pass.
Yes, they ram-rodded Iraq down our throats, it was the imperial presidency
at its most flagrant. But in of itself that doesn't mean Iraq was a wrong
action, and legally Congress approved it.
> It's encumbent upon the antagonist to justify itself, not upon its
> opponents to prove it wrong. This is the same reasoning Powell et al used
on Iraq BTW.
> "It's up to them to prove they don't have WMD...to account for them all."
If that's
> fair then so is "your reasons for the war don't hold water on their own so
give us
> your real reasons."
As I said elsewhere, that was their legal premise. Again, you are straying
away from the overwhelming matrix of rationale and pressures that drove the
Bush admin. to go conquer Iraq.
> >> Given what could have been done
> >
> >What? Negotiations? Inspections?
> >
> >Seriously.
>
> Replay the sequence of events. There was no
> imminent threat. The US administration pursued
> the issue -- made the issue -- at the time and
> in the manner of its choosing. The USA is
> influential. It could have steered the debate
> any way it wanted. What it did was set a clock
> ticking "you have this long to agree to what we
> want."
Yes. There had to be a deadline.
> Let's not forget that Saddam relented and allowed
> invasive WMD inspections. He was bottled up
> tight. The imminent threat argument was lost
> there.
I never bought it either. But again, it was a *LEGAL* argument so they could
at least attempt a semblance of legality, along with the WMD argument.
> Pursuing the war even after that, without even an attempt to shift the
primary
> rationale *strongly* towards "just war", even if such a shift wasn't
likely to result in UN
> assent, is even more cause for suspicion. This is so because once a war
has been justified on
> altruistic grounds it is inconsistent to maintain unilateralism in areas
that don't
> require it, like the formation of the new Iraqi government, or the conduct
of any war-crimes
> prosecutions. Conduct after the fact, in this case, is consistent with
conduct before the
> fact. In not strongly pursuing humanitarian grounds the USA is not
encumbered by a need to
> behave in a manner that is consistent with them.
Considering the conflict is on-going and the UN pulled out, I don't think
this argument is well-founded. A reasonable suspicion, sure. A final
judgement, no.
> If the UN had really been important then the deadline could have been set
back far enough
> for the weather to turn good again. I know that costs a lot. Given the
bloodshed I think
> truly exhausting all possibilities is worth it. With Saddam bottled up
with invasive
> inspections and American aircraft carriers off his coast, a year has to
contain a lot of
> possibilities.
I've thought about this, why not wait some more? It'd be cheaper, cost no
lives, etc.
There's a few problems with this.
Bush wasn't going to entertain the prospect of waiting a year, and then 2
years, and then 3 years for inspections "to work." This would lead to more
deceptions, more instances of Hans Blix et al never finding the best-hidden
secret weapons programs, even if they were only so-called phoney ones that
Saddam's scientists presumably used to either please Saddam or porkbarrel -
Saddam believed they were real and he was hiding them! We know that the UN
inspectors never found those in the mid-90's, they didn't find them last
year, and even with guns barrels bearing down Saddam's neck, Saddam wasn't
going to reveal programs he believed to be real. In other words, the Iraqis
learned to hide their programs better (and for all we know, there may still
be well-hidden WMD programs that were deformed twins of legitimate programs
tucked away in the desert). Saddam started a nuke program in the mid-90's
that the inspectors found only by stumbling into it by chance, and who
wanted to take the chance that the Iraqis might (or might not) be doing more
of the same, when the intelligence showed they were.
Also don't forget that in 2002 the UN inspectors went in, then left in
disgust. Then the Iraqis promised to play nice again and the inspectors were
ready to go back in. By this point Bush had lost patience - continuing to
blow Saddam was bullshit.
Eleven years was enough, and the deadline had to be set. I think the
assessment was made that the USA had to make a serious show of what the
rules were and Saddam was seen as presenting the same challenges as Kim Jung
Il - if we continued to dawdle and wile away opportunities with these
characters, they are going to do as they please.
Remember too that Saddam broke the major agreements of the armistice and
there was continued conflict in the NFZs (so the Gulf War never really
ended), he violated the UN Sanctions, he started a nuke program in the
mid-90's and he had ongoing weapons programs (even if they were porkbarrel
or Potemkin).
So he continued to flagrantly violate the agreements, and had we waited, he
would have predictably done so after the UN inspectors declared Iraq to be
WMD-free.
Of course there's the metaphorical "gun in the 1st act:" Once Bush committed
to regime change - backed by force - he essentially had to back up his words
with deeds (metaphorically, a gun in the 1st act ends up being used in the
3rd act). We already had Saddam "bottled up" and had functionally achieved
nothing. Back to the long list of rationale - and the use of strategic
threat - once the threat is made, it has to be shown to be real.
If Saddam wasn't going to cooperate with a gun pointed in his face, why the
hell would he cooperate while we politely waited and UN Inspectors dawdled
about? Sorry, but it's naive to believe that Saddam would cooperate.
> >The necesity for unilaterial action had to be planned for, regardless of
> >whether there was a broader coalition or not.
>
> Even if this is true the issue is whether the
> planning actually included the possibility of
> *anything else*.
OK. Other side of the same coin, right?
/lee
buddhashortfatguy
> In article <hiZNb.35449$RV5....@fe2.texas.rr.com> buddhashortfatguy
> (REPLA...@yahoo.com) wrote...
> >
> The Viet Cong or the Sandinistas are no counter
> examples at all. Of course they wouldn't lash back
> with terrorism. They won control of their own soil.
Well, they had a helluvalot more reason to than bin Laden did!
> The irritant in the middle east, for those there
> who blame America, is the perception that America
> unduly influences or manipulates the region, and
> not just in the past. That's an awfully easy idea
> to sell given the US dependency on oil and the US
> history of manipulation in the region.
No, it's an easy SCAPEGOAT to sell. It's nowhere nearly so true as it was
for Vietnam or Nicaragua. Considering what these tribes-with-flags have done
to themselves, what the USA has been involved in looks almost pristine. The
USA installed the Shah and has been a bit too easy with Israel, and those
infractions are worth citing. But the USA was only one of many countries
selling arms to Iraq and Iran, and other than that - I'm not sure what's
worth citing!
Blaming the USA is an easy idea to sell to a male chauvanist culture that
extolls violence and is hooked on denial. It's easy to sell to a culture
that is afraid of change. It's easy to sell b/c Israel leaves a forwarding
address in Wash. DC. It's easy to sell to people who are looking for reasons
to hate someone.
But it's also bullshit. The Israeli-caused casualty figures are *NOTHING*
compared to what the muslims and Arabs have done to themselves. Neither
Israel nor the US killed 20,000 fundie muslims in Hama, Syria. We didn't
slaughter 10,000-20,000 Palestinians in Jordan. We didn't kill untold tens
or hundreds of thousands in the Ayatollahs' reign of terror that made the
Shah's torture chambers look mild by comparison. We didn't waste millions of
boys' lives in Iraq and Iran. We didn't gas the Kurds. We didn't kill
millions in Sudan. We didn't kill millions in Afghanistan or Chechnya.
As long as leftists can't apply their relativist notions in all directions,
it looks like the game is to blame the USA only, which is unbalanced at best
and belies animosity otherwise.
History, warts and all, needs to be seen without *ANY* prejudice in order to
learn why we are here.
/lee
Wilson
"Daryl" <n...@address.yet> wrote ...
The Viet Cong won control of their country, but the Sandinistas lost. Of
course, the Sandinistas lost in an open election too. But the US has
been interfering in Central America longer than we've been involved in
the Middle East, so your example doesn't work there.
We can probably agree that the big difference between the Americas
and the Middle East is, in the latter we're dealing with religious
extremists who have no problem killing innocent people. Just like the
cult who attacked the subway in Japan, there is only one real answer in
dealing with people like that. You have to take them out of action
completely and totally.
Lee's statement that it's the medieval attitudes at work (and expanding)
in that part of the world is exactly right.
Islam has gone from being the most open and enquiring culture in the
world to a certain segment of it being the most closed and destructive.
Islamic and Sufi scholars gave us the basis for the modern scientific
method. If we passively sit by and allow it, this new fundamentalism
may set the groundwork for the next thousand years as well.
Wilson
"Donald Shepherd" <don...@nauticom.net> wrote ...
>
> Wilson wrote:
>
> > Ah well, you know us right wing libertarian extremists. One never
> > knows what will set us off into some meaningless foam-at-the-mouth
> > rant. Unstable as nitroglycerine and about as lovable as a box of
> > bricks dropped on a toe.
> >
> > It's a challenge going through life like this, let me tell you. Maybe
> > when she gets elected President, Hillary will set up a government
> > program to help people like me who are disadvantaged by such
> > unfortunate tendencies. I can only hope ...
> >
>
> It is good to see a Right Wing Libertarian Extremist that recognizes his
> shortcomings. That is the first step to correcting them.
>
> When you begin work on correcting them, I would appreciate it very, very
> much if you would start by working on your collective tendency for
> boring, predictable sarcasm.
Boring? BORING?!
(Mad-dog foaming and ranting deleted ...)
> Is it something they teach at your Right
> Wing Libertarian Extremist meetings?
We don' need no stinkin' meetings!
> Perhaps you could also encourage
> some of your Right Wing Libertarian Extremist friends to join you in
> renouncing the stale posturing of righteous outrage that you folks have
> become so famous for. I know that both you and I will be grateful when
> this task is done.
The righteous outrage is part and parcel of dealing with the set-in-stone
attitudes found in certain liberal-left approaches to the problems in the
world. It's a package dude :-)
>
> I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but there can be no programs for you
> Right Wing Libertarian Extremists until as a group you are able to
> establish control of your mouth foam. It gets on the government checks
> and makes it hard to count all the zeros.
Well, maybe I can work on the foaming part ...
buddhashortfatguy
> The Viet Cong won control of their country, but the Sandinistas lost. Of
> course, the Sandinistas lost in an open election too. But the US has
> been interfering in Central America longer than we've been involved in
> the Middle East, so your example doesn't work there.
Thanks for that one, Wilson!
> Lee's statement that it's the medieval attitudes at work (and expanding)
> in that part of the world is exactly right.
>
> Islam has gone from being the most open and enquiring culture in the
> world to a certain segment of it being the most closed and destructive.
> Islamic and Sufi scholars gave us the basis for the modern scientific
> method. If we passively sit by and allow it, this new fundamentalism
> may set the groundwork for the next thousand years as well.
Yup. You've said volumes!
A new "Reformation" needs to propagate in Islam.
/lee
Donald Shepherd
>
> The righteous outrage is part and parcel of dealing with the set-in-stone
> attitudes found in certain liberal-left approaches to the problems in the
> world. It's a package dude :-)
>
Using righteous outrage to deal with set-in-stone attitudes is like
cleaning up spilled epoxy resin by applying epoxy hardener.
Don
Wilson
"buddhashortfatguy" <REPLA...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
Thanks Lee. Regarding the need for a reformation in Islam . . . I've
heard that before and something about it bothered me but I couldn't
put my finger on it till just now.
The thing with reformations is, that they can't be imposed from the
outside. By definition, they have to be organic and internal and to be
honest, I just don't see it as likely. Most of the Islamic world seems to
be cowed by the zealots. I can't really say that I blame them, as the
choice of being silent or speaking up and maybe being the recipient
of a bullet or a car bomb is pretty clear-cut. It'd take a real strong
character to be able to stand up to them . . . maybe someone on the
level of a Ghandi or a Martin Luther. As I said, I don't see it as likely
right now. No one is taking that kind of stance as far as I know.
Wilson
Sanford Manley
Al-Hallaj knew submission was not submission at all.
--
Sanford M. Manley
Those who ask, don't get,
those that don't ask, don't want.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ansaman/
Wilson
"Sanford Manley" <manl...@bellsouth.net> wrote ...
It was never supposed to be a submission to man.
"I do not cease swimming in the seas of love, rising with the wave,
then descending; now the wave sustains me, and then I sink beneath
it; love bears me away where there is no longer any shore."
- al-Hallaj
buddhashortfatguy
> By definition, they have to be organic and internal
Yes. To the extent that it is a meme that spreads throughout the
population... it might have some external source, but it has to be adopted
by a polity ripe for change.
> and to be honest, I just don't see it as likely.
And just to be contrary and optimistic, I do see it as ... well ....
_possible_ w/ better-than-even odds.
> Most of the Islamic world seems to be cowed by the zealots.
Except in Iran, which is seeing major changes. Uncorking the passions in
Iraq is predictably going to take time.
> I can't really say that I blame them, as the
> choice of being silent or speaking up and maybe being the recipient
> of a bullet or a car bomb is pretty clear-cut.
> It'd take a real strong character to be able to stand up to them . . .
> maybe someone on the
> level of a Ghandi or a Martin Luther.
Did you see the PBS Front Line "Secret Iran?" Brave, impetuous believers in
freedom, separation of church and state, the whole libertine nine yards, and
clearly the philosophical progeny of Ghandi and MLK.
> As I said, I don't see it as likely
> right now. No one is taking that kind of stance as far as I know.
Look to Iran and cross yer fingers. If it can happen, it'll still take more
time to work its way out. The mullahs can't torture and execute 80% of the
populace, the kids know their numbers are on their side.
It's interesting. Seems that post-war baby booms have an unintended side
effect on politics. So will cell phones, al Jazeera and urbanization.
/lee
Beth
> "Lazarhat" <lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bitsyahoo.com> wrote ...
>
>>G.W. Bush as President is like having Dan Quayle as President only without
>>the personality.
>
>
>
> I know this was a joke (and a pretty good one too), but this kind of
> personal animosity which is running rampant right now serves no
> purpose and actually works to undermines any valid point you might
> have about what's going on.
>
> The "I hate Bush" stance really is weak. It has no moral or intellectual
> underpinning that will support a workable alternative. If you want
> change, you will have to define and explain the world you want to see,
> in order for it to have any hope of manifesting. Simply being against
> the current order isn't enough.
>
My opinon of Bush was formed prior to 2000, after
reading Fortune 500, comparing where he and Gore
came by their wealth. After citing the 3
businesses Bush started, with backing from his
father and associates, and that all three went
bankrupt, I didn't know whether to say he's a dupe
for daddy and company (their puppet, if you will),
or incompetent.
Either way, he was/is not someone I want running
this country (or any country, for that matter).
--
Beth
(remove the, uh, "knot" to send me e-mail !-)
bb
You go girl!
bb