The Gulf War as a mental disorder (link)
punnadhammo
Powerful analysis.
jhayati
> Powerful analysis.
>
> http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln02_gulf.html
Yes, it's equally as bizarre as the German and French claims that the
USA staged the twin towers attack. This psycho-history site is a
compilation of every psycho-babble personal attack and conspiracy
theory imaginable. Psycho-history is right!
I especially found interesting how well-thought out rational motives
are dismissed and wild and psychotic emotional responses are
attributed to all foreign policy. That is, the site acts as if the
USA were controlled by Hitler or Saddam, and that there are no
strategic reasons for any actions.
Like radical war protesters (I like to join them on marches btw) the
author of this site finds a nice medium on which to project all his
own dirty laundry. Some of the claims are really revealing about
what's going on in the head of the author (and a lot of angry
pacifists I've met). Here's a typical quote from the site:
"America felt sinful after the peace and prosperity of the 1980s...
America is like a barroom drunk. One minute it brags about its money
and muscle, and then for the next hour it bleats into its beer about
failure and hopelessness... America's depression is not brought on by
plague, flood, famine or war...We are guilty, guilty, guilty...
depression, decline, depravity, dysphoria, deconstruction, desuetude,
dog days, distrust, drugs, despair... There was only one way that a
lengthy economic recession need not be necessary to cure our national
depression: an enemy abroad could be created who could be blamed for
our 'greediness' and then punished instead of punishing ourselves."
The rest of the site is full of equally psychotic free-associations,
but this
is really fascinating stuff. A sort of double-take. The author feels
guilty and projects this, thinking that others must also hate
themselves and therefore must be taking it out on others, but he wants
to one-up them by noblely taking it out on himself.
Other funny aspects are how all the democrat presidents had healthy
childhoods and all the republicans must have been beaten or abused.
That explains their political views, according to the site.
This really fits in well with the conspiracy theories about the USA
staging 9-11: you get to blame and hate ourselves (we really did the
attack) and then you get to hate yourself even more by claiming that
you are taking your hate out on others by attacking them as well for
what you did to yourself. These conspiracy stories, like the
fascinating site you point out above, really give us insights as to
how so much inner muck gets projected onto political figures and
cultures. Instead of saying "I feel sinful", the author spins
"America felt sinful".
The actual geopolitical situation and all realism gets totally ignored
and all rational thinking gets thrown out the window. But the
emotional projection and psychobabble is fascinating. Thanks for that
one.
-jay
punnadhammo
<jha...@msn.com> wrote:
Ha ha. You really can't stand anything that shows the dark side of US
imperial policy can you?
I think you let your outrage get in the way of reading carefully what
others say. Some examples;
> Yes, it's equally as bizarre as the German and French claims that the
> USA staged the twin towers attack. This psycho-history site is a
> compilation of every psycho-babble personal attack and conspiracy
> theory imaginable. Psycho-history is right!
I didn't see any conspiracy theory stuff on the page at all. You might
have a point about the psychobabble.
> Other funny aspects are how all the democrat presidents had healthy
> childhoods and all the republicans must have been beaten or abused.
> That explains their political views, according to the site.
You didn't read that very carefully did you? Eisenhower was listed as a
president with a happy childhood and Clinton with an unhappy one. The
split was not along party lines at all.
> The actual geopolitical situation and all realism gets totally ignored
> and all rational thinking gets thrown out the window. But the
> emotional projection and psychobabble is fascinating. Thanks for that
> one.
Actually I think the psychological interpretation is overdone. There is
something to it, but not everything.
Check out the book "Rites of Spring" which analyses the culture of
violence in Europe leading up to the First World War. The historical
distance might make it an easier read for you, less raising of the
patriotic blood-pressure.
punnadhammo
> http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln02_gulf.html
I've been thinking about this piece and have come to a conclusion. At
first I wasn't sure about it. I tend to believe, along with the Buddha
and Marx, that wars are fought for primarily economic reasons. The Gulf
War seems pretty transparently to have been about oil.
And yet there is something compelling about this psychological analysis
and I think I know what it is.
For some time now I have been puzzled by the very deep layers of denial
pro-war americans seem to have about the historical facts. The Gulf War
(Daddy Bush's) was clearly a very bloody one-sided massacre with one
atrocity piled on top of another (bombing of water plants and power
dams, the "hiway of death" etc. etc.)
And yet seemingly well intentioned people like our Jhayati can argue
until they are blue in the face that this is not so. The facts don't
matter - confronted with them he retreats into a haze of buzzwords
"conspiracy theory" "political correctness" "tabloid story." You could
cite dozens of reputable sources and it would not make a whit of
differnce.
And we all know he is not alone.
I had attributed this denial to ignorance, caused largely by the
extremely biased propaganda that passes for news in so-called
mainstream american media (all owned by about four corporations these
days.) But that does not seem to be a sufficient explanation.
The psychological analysis of this article would seem to point to an
answer. The masses of the people in any country at any time can be led
with soothing fairy tales and pap. If these appeal to deep-rooted
psychological archetypes all the better.
The psychological explanation doesn't tell us why the leaders of an
imperial power go to war, but it may explain how they are able to
hoodwink the people into going along.
It's time to wake up from these delusionary dreams and look at the real
world in real terms. Too much is at stake, we are playing with live
ammunition here.
jesson
"jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2e4552bb.03093...@posting.google.com...
i thought the iraqi casualty figures for GW1 were very interesting,
particularly remembering the one-sided coverage of that war.
also, the stuff about the american diplomatic nod to saddam
when he lined his troops on the kuwait border.
Bmitch
from punnadhammo <arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net> contains these words:
> > http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln02_gulf.html
> I've been thinking about this piece and have come to a conclusion. At
> first I wasn't sure about it. I tend to believe, along with the Buddha
> and Marx, that wars are fought for primarily economic reasons. The Gulf
> War seems pretty transparently to have been about oil.
> And yet there is something compelling about this psychological analysis
> and I think I know what it is.
May I say that I'm somewhat surprised that a Buddhist would have any
doubts that *all* reactivity (and violence is always reactive) comes
from the repository of conditioning, which is what the subconscious mind
is. We rarely act rationally; in general the subconscious reacts and
conscious thought provides rationalizations after the fact.
I found some of the language of the article to be emotive, which
suggests to me that the author wasn't looking at his own reactive output
as clearly as he was looking at the collective signs and signals. But I
think it wrong to dismiss any of it as "psychobabble." You could as well
accuse all Buddhists of indulging in spiritobabble. Within the terms of
its discipline it's completely coherent.
If it's not your discipline, it may sound outlandish to think in terms
of the guilty or punished child playing the same psychic roles over and
over again through differing circumstances, but there are some facts
about the subconscious mind that make that highly plausible. For
example, the subconscious mind barely acknowledges time. The experience
of 50 years ago is as current as the experience of yesterday, and the
agent of 50 years ago --the apparent entity which experiences and then
makes decisions based of that experience-- is alive and well today. This
is very simply observable in the fact that it takes no more time or
effort to remember something which happened 50 years ago than it does to
remember an event from yesterday, and the subconscious mind is
essentially subjective memory.
And, with some differences, a collective psyche functions very much as
the individual psyche does. The collective is even more conditioned,
more automatic and compulsive in its reactions, than the individual.
> For some time now I have been puzzled by the very deep layers of denial...
<snip personal stuff>
> . . . The psychological analysis of this article would seem to point to an
> answer. The masses of the people in any country at any time can be led
> with soothing fairy tales and pap. If these appeal to deep-rooted
> psychological archetypes all the better.
It does point to an answer, but I don't think you've quite seen what it
is. The masses are neither led nor misled. The leadership, such as
politicians, academia, the media, are merely the conscious
rationalizers, the blamers and justifiers, while the real force and
continuity of psychic being takes place in that arena of psychological
archetypes and stereotypes you refer to. The "leaders" are as reactively
driven as the "masses."
The deep layers of denial exist in all of us, though we may be in denial
about different things. They come from --or *are*-- our ignorance of our
own subconscious material. It's the iceberg principle; and while we
refuse to see and take responsibility for this mass below, it operates
with instinctive power and directness.
> It's time to wake up from these delusionary dreams and look at the real
> world in real terms...
Again, the "real terms" of the world, of experience, are these inner
organisational symbols which go to make up the psyche, or mind. It is
here that meaning and significance is generated. The subconscious mind
is in some ways mad, like Polyphemus with the tree in his eye, but in
another way it is far more realistic, unfooled, ruthlessly accurate in
its assessments, than our lagging consciousness.
Many thanks, btw, for providing the link.
Brian Mitchell
jesson
"punnadhammo" <arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net> wrote in message
oh patriotism is easily misunderstood.
DrWarrenKrugar
> > http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln02_gulf.html
>
> I've been thinking about this piece and have come to a conclusion. At
> first I wasn't sure about it. I tend to believe, along with the Buddha
> and Marx, that wars are fought for primarily economic reasons. The Gulf
> War seems pretty transparently to have been about oil.
It's amazing how tightly people cling to their pet delusions,
insisting that everyone else participate in them.
> And yet there is something compelling about this psychological analysis
> and I think I know what it is.
I do. It's a need to "know" - or more accurately, to justify one's
bias by seeking authority for one's views - a very authoritarian
trait.
> For some time now I have been puzzled by the very deep layers of denial
> pro-war americans seem to have about the historical facts.
Yes, nearly as hysterical as the deep layers of denial anti-war
zealots have about the historial facts.
> The Gulf War
> (Daddy Bush's) was clearly a very bloody one-sided massacre with one
> atrocity piled on top of another (bombing of water plants and power
> dams, the "hiway of death" etc. etc.)
It was hardly a bloody massacre with the majority of the Iraqi
soldiers simply surrendering. But don't let the facts influence your
opinion.
> And yet seemingly well intentioned people like our Jhayati can argue
> until they are blue in the face that this is not so. The facts don't
> matter - confronted with them he retreats into a haze of buzzwords
> "conspiracy theory" "political correctness" "tabloid story." You could
> cite dozens of reputable sources and it would not make a whit of
> differnce.
>
> And we all know he is not alone.
No, the other side matches him blow for blow with their own made-up
facts (not that he appears to be doing this - but there is no doubt
that you do).
> I had attributed this denial to ignorance, caused largely by the
> extremely biased propaganda that passes for news in so-called
> mainstream american media (all owned by about four corporations these
> days.) But that does not seem to be a sufficient explanation.
No, it's an anal retentive personality that needs to be right,
regardless of the facts. It's literal-minded ness
> The psychological analysis of this article would seem to point to an
> answer. The masses of the people in any country at any time can be led
> with soothing fairy tales and pap. If these appeal to deep-rooted
> psychological archetypes all the better.
Lol, this from someone who upholds every fairy tale that Buddhism can
come up with.
> The psychological explanation doesn't tell us why the leaders of an
> imperial power go to war, but it may explain how they are able to
> hoodwink the people into going along.
Nonsense. Nobody is hoodwinked into going along. People simply go on
with their lives as they always have while polititions do what they
do.
> It's time to wake up from these delusionary dreams and look at the real
> world in real terms. Too much is at stake, we are playing with live
> ammunition here.
Well, not in your case - you're firing blanks. Which can be much more
dangerous in a conflict.
DrWarrenKrugar
> punnadhammo <arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net> wrote in message news:<290920031834362436%arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net>...
> > Powerful analysis.
> >
> > http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln02_gulf.html
>
> Yes, it's equally as bizarre as the German and French claims that the
> USA staged the twin towers attack. This psycho-history site is a
> compilation of every psycho-babble personal attack and conspiracy
> theory imaginable. Psycho-history is right!
Purile of course. And the irony of the joke is that it is really most
laughable to those of us who are not purile enough to laugh at it.
> I especially found interesting how well-thought out rational motives
> are dismissed and wild and psychotic emotional responses are
> attributed to all foreign policy. That is, the site acts as if the
> USA were controlled by Hitler or Saddam, and that there are no
> strategic reasons for any actions.
Reality can be so distracting.
> Like radical war protesters (I like to join them on marches btw) the
> author of this site finds a nice medium on which to project all his
> own dirty laundry. Some of the claims are really revealing about
> what's going on in the head of the author (and a lot of angry
> pacifists I've met). Here's a typical quote from the site:
>
> "America felt sinful after the peace and prosperity of the 1980s...
> America is like a barroom drunk. One minute it brags about its money
> and muscle, and then for the next hour it bleats into its beer about
> failure and hopelessness... America's depression is not brought on by
> plague, flood, famine or war...We are guilty, guilty, guilty...
> depression, decline, depravity, dysphoria, deconstruction, desuetude,
> dog days, distrust, drugs, despair... There was only one way that a
> lengthy economic recession need not be necessary to cure our national
> depression: an enemy abroad could be created who could be blamed for
> our 'greediness' and then punished instead of punishing ourselves."
Lol! How convenient it is to project one's view of things onto the
real world. It is something, btw that I believed Buddhists of all
people would be more conscious of. But what I have found instead is
that many Buddhists are as blinded by their neat little ideological
delusions as the rest of us.
> The rest of the site is full of equally psychotic free-associations,
> but this
> is really fascinating stuff. A sort of double-take. The author feels
> guilty and projects this, thinking that others must also hate
> themselves and therefore must be taking it out on others, but he wants
> to one-up them by noblely taking it out on himself.
>
> Other funny aspects are how all the democrat presidents had healthy
> childhoods and all the republicans must have been beaten or abused.
> That explains their political views, according to the site.
>
> This really fits in well with the conspiracy theories about the USA
> staging 9-11: you get to blame and hate ourselves (we really did the
> attack) and then you get to hate yourself even more by claiming that
> you are taking your hate out on others by attacking them as well for
> what you did to yourself. These conspiracy stories, like the
> fascinating site you point out above, really give us insights as to
> how so much inner muck gets projected onto political figures and
> cultures. Instead of saying "I feel sinful", the author spins
> "America felt sinful".
>
> The actual geopolitical situation and all realism gets totally ignored
> and all rational thinking gets thrown out the window. But the
> emotional projection and psychobabble is fascinating. Thanks for that
> one.
>
> -jay
Never stand between a zealot and his dreams.
jhayati
> > http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln02_gulf.html
>
> I've been thinking about this piece and have come to a conclusion. At
> first I wasn't sure about it. I tend to believe, along with the Buddha
> and Marx, that wars are fought for primarily economic reasons. The Gulf
> War seems pretty transparently to have been about oil.
The Gulf War wasn't about oil at all, except for oil affecting the
global economy and allowing a dictator to gain power and attack his
enemies. No intelligent analyst, left or right, says that. It's the
most banal and uninformed claim about the war, period. The reasons
for the war are more subtle, and more interesting, but I'll return to
that at the end of the post.
> And yet there is something compelling about this psychological analysis
> and I think I know what it is.
>
> For some time now I have been puzzled by the very deep layers of denial
> pro-war americans seem to have about the historical facts.
This is puzzling to me. I presented very concrete facts, answering
your questions thoroughly aobut Afghanistan and Iraq. You ignored the
posts and didn't respond.
Yesterday, you claim ignorance about who attacked the World Trade
Center.
Finally, you post a tabloid hate site that slanders with psycho-babble
accusations just like our own beloved Tang.
And now after getting almost every fact wrong, denying even that you
know that al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center, and ignoring
serious posts and facts, you only continue with a hate site from an
tabloid source with no credentials which lays it on thick with
nonsense and claims that all Republican presidents are psychotic and
that is why they have the opinons they have. I just don't know how to
respond to such a claim by you.
> The Gulf War
> (Daddy Bush's) was clearly a very bloody one-sided massacre with one
> atrocity piled on top of another (bombing of water plants and power
> dams, the "hiway of death" etc. etc.)
Would you enjoy it if lots of Americans had been murdered as well?
And why do you cite controversial claims and call ridding an
aggressive dictator an atrocity? Why do condone and wish to continue
the brutality of Saddam? Why do you ignore countless testimonies
about what happened within the regime? Are you going to really peddle
any psycho-babble slander you find on the net and ignore all the
testimonies of Iraqis, such as:
"There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped
into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head
first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died
screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their
remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be
used as fish food ... on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam
Hussein's youngest son] personally supervise these murders."
"Women were suspended by their hair as their families watched;
men were forced to watch as their wives were raped ... women
were suspended by their legs while they were menstruating until their
periods were over, a procedure designed to cause humiliation."
I support ending this regime as quickly as possible, and I applaud the
way it was done with a minimum of deaths. We disagree about this.
There are plenty of good arguments why we should have waited and not
taken Saddam out immediately. I pointed out that besides ending the
above, this was a strategic move which helps stop the prospering of
terrorist and helps democratize the Middle East, which I will
elaborate on below. You have ignored both the strategic as well as
humanitarian motives for this campaign, and instead are repeating the
uninformed protester chant of "oil" which informed anti-war analysts
uniformally reject. Next, you devalue me personally:
> And yet seemingly well intentioned people like our Jhayati can argue
> until they are blue in the face that this is not so. The facts don't
> matter - confronted with them he retreats into a haze of buzzwords
> "conspiracy theory" "political correctness" "tabloid story."
This is out and out prevarication (that's a diplomatic way of calling
you a dirty liar). Presented with facts, I discuss them. Presented
with a slander website that claims that the president is obviously
psychotic and that all Americans are blindly acting on hate and guilt,
I pointed out that this tabloid site is grounded in no fact
whatsoever and is consisted solely of emotionalism, psychobabble, and
stereotypes. The site strangely resembles the personal attacks of our
own Tang, who would accuse me daily of yet a new mental illness when I
disagreed with him.
Fyi, I send the link to a psychiatrist I know, (a friend, an no I'm
not a patient) who is left-leaning and opposed the Iraq but not
Afghani campaigns: he told me it was a ridiculous piece of bunk but
gave him a good laugh. You send it to some psychiatrists and see if
they don't say the same thing. You may say you believe this stuff.
Fine. However, don't say it is fact, in any way shape or form. Don't
say I run away from a fact, when you present nonsense that is
ungrounded and hearsay. I never have and never will.
> You could cite dozens of reputable sources and it would not make a whit of
> differnce.
I've tried to read lots of reputable sources, and most of my posts are
paste-ins from them. However, to not reject a tabloid site simply
because it spread hate and slander against those you disagree with is
dishonest and dishonorable, Punnadhammo. I've never sank that low.
You've insulted and slandered me. Is this really called for? Does it
really help you make a case?
> And we all know he is not alone.
Oh, you mean the Dalai Lama. And Pema said today:
> > > if all we did was save those people from that horrid manifestation
> > > of power, we did the right thing. folks always bitch about how we
> > > (the US) never help people from these despots, well we did. and i'm
> > > ok with that, we have cleared out the torture chambers, a criminal
> > > police force and a government who used wmd on it's own citizens,
> > > including children.
> > > we did the right thing.
> > > Pema
If you say that the situation is difficult and that you weigh things
differentlly, then I agree. If you slander and insult me, and make
these perverse claims about me when I reject nonsensical emotionalism,
then I lose all respect for you. As a Buddhist, I like to stop and
look at my thoughts and intentions when I think things like that about
another person. I'm only quoting the best sources I've read and the
best analysis available.
> I had attributed this denial to ignorance, caused largely by the
> extremely biased propaganda that passes for news in so-called
> mainstream american media (all owned by about four corporations these
> days.) But that does not seem to be a sufficient explanation.
I don't watch mainstream american media, and probably don't read
anything owned by your four corporations. The only mainstream paper I
read is the Wall Street Journal. This is a false assumption you've
made. And I don't quote tabloid pro-war sites. Yet you quote tabloid
anti-war sites. Most of my posts are paste-ins from the publications
I read, which are Foreign Affairs, The Economist (British), Jane's
(British), The StratFor, The New Republic, and The Atlantic Monthly.
These are all reputable magazines. I don't see how you can discount
them all yet promote a psychobabble slander web site by a nobody.
Your claim here is simply ungrounded and wrong, not to mention
extremely insulting.
What purpose does it serve to insult me with "denial" and "ignorance"?
I don't watch TV, and I read a dozen pay magazines every month from
all sides. You cite a tabloid psychobabble site and insult me because
I point out that it has no credibility and is pure emotionalism.
Again, from your quoted site:
"America felt sinful after the peace and prosperity of the 1980s...
America is like a barroom drunk. One minute it brags about its money
and muscle, and then for the next hour it bleats into its beer about
failure and hopelessness... America's depression is not brought on by
plague, flood, famine or war...We are guilty, guilty, guilty...
depression, decline, depravity, dysphoria, deconstruction, desuetude,
dog days, distrust, drugs, despair... There was only one way that a
lengthy economic recession need not be necessary to cure our national
depression: an enemy abroad could be created who could be blamed for
our 'greediness' and then punished instead of punishing ourselves."
This isn't 'fact', but is free-association and spin upon spin upon
spin.
> The psychological analysis of this article would seem to point to an
> answer. The masses of the people in any country at any time can be led
> with soothing fairy tales and pap.
Could it be you who just got led by soothing fairy tales and pap here?
Of course it seems to point to an answer. That's the whole appeal of
tabloid sites. Do you understand how emotionally soothing it is to
read how the people you don't agree with are psychotic or in denial
and that their childhood abuses cause them to have different opinions
from yours? Ever consider that it's hard to accept that people as
sane as you can acutally have different views, and have good rational
reasons backed up by fact and solid reasoning for those views? There
is so much good stuff on views and attachment to them in Buddhism,
btw, more than in any other religion I've ever come across, that it is
that Buddhist scholars would resort to soothing themselves with
psycho-babble devaluing their opponents. You don't seem to be a cold
unfeeling brat like Tang, so please don't emulate his style, if you
want to have serious conversations with me.
> It's time to wake up from these delusionary dreams and look at the real
> world in real terms.
Here we agree. Start with responding to my serious posts where I've
pasted in more facts than you could handle.
Deal with your comment that:
> Actually, I don't pretend to know who was behind 9-11.
Here is something that we have gathered so much evidence of, as well
as confessions, video tapes - we've even stopped plots - and you claim
ignorance here of who was behind 9-11. You ignored my in depth
replies, which were mostly cut-and-paste jobs from reputable pay
magazine analysis. This way you can be silently complicit with the
conspiracy theorists that claim that the U.S. planned 9-11. What more
evidence could you possibly need to convince you that al-Qa'eda was
behind the attacks. Yet you don't respond to posts about this, while
going on about a laughable psychobabble conspiracy site.
So please don't accuse me of "denial" and "running from facts".
Say, "we disagree".
So let's go back to your original statement which I claim is blatantly
false and misleading, though is a common chant of angry protesters:
> The Gulf War seems pretty transparently to have been about oil.
So let us delve into this issue of what the campaign was about.
Everything I've read, from every reputable source, including all the
ones I mentioned above, contradicts your conclusion. Most of what
I've written below I've pasted in from articles, so you can't really
claim that in my deluded denial psychosis I made this up. I suspect
that you will ignore this serious analysis, and go on about some other
tabloid claim. If you do, I'll repeat this and nail you on it:
Whether it's morally justified is the interesting issue to me, but to
get where you can even discuss that, first you have to get clear that
the right-wing WMD talk is completely bogus, as is the left-wing Oil
talk. To see through those, but you have to have a fairly
comprehensive understanding of the long-term pattern of duplicity in
foreign policy. As I do when I write seriously, I'm avoiding as much
spin as possible, because the push-pull of those spinning to justify
the President and those spinning to villify the President cloud the
fascinating and historical patterns.
To help ease party-line filters, my method is to demonstrate the
pattern from both parties. For example, right-wing spinners bashed
Clinton for cutting the military, while left-wing spinners claimed he
was more anti-war than Dubya. Yet in his first year alone, Clinton
doubled the sale of guns and tanks and warplanes to other countries,
selling old tech to fund a smaller and more elite military, which
Rumsfelt took credit for when Clinton's plan was eventually effective
in Iraq. Yet neither side will mention these because the motive is to
villify or justify which ever side they cling to.
In this case, both the WMD and Oil talk are bogus and all spin. To
restate my point once more, discussion of the morality of these big
issues I find interesting, but it is pointless, whatever side you
take, unless you understand deeply the historical foreign policy games
and patterns. Let me explain a bit and give one historical example
to contrast with the current situation, drawing from several articles.
In the cold war and flare-ups like the Cuban missile crisis, if we
were attacked, we could respond by nuking Moskow; so nobody wanted
mutual destruction. In this case, Al Qa'eda could attack at will but
had no base we could counter-attack, so we were in a panic since the
mass-murder on 9-11. Taking down a nation-state like Iraq, which had
a vicious dictator anyway and which potentially could host Al Qa'eda,
would let us lock down a target we could attack, and we gained a great
deal, four for the price of one, by eliminating the worst dictator of
the pack, and taking a square where we could send a strong message to
the three other most likely funders - Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia,
who all border the center square. The move "Queen takes Saddam" was
irresistable to any chess player - it simply was the best strategic
move on the board, even if the morality was very questionable.
Duplicity in foreign policy is an essential characteristic, like it or
not. Let's take the case of the most popular Democrat of all time.
When FDR was asked why he was aiding the Soviet Union, Roosevelt had
two potential answers. One was to say that he was aiding a
bloodthirsty dictator - Joseph Stalin - because he wanted the Red Army
to bleed Nazi Germany dry, so that the United States could come in for
the kill at the lowest possible cost. He certainly could have said it,
but he took the second route.
FDR avoided public justification for ignoring the nature of the Soviet
regime, ignoring the cynical use of Soviet lives to ease the American
way into Europe, and simply emphasized the need to defeat Nazi leader
Adolph Hitler. When asked about his true thoughts about Lend-Lease to
Britain prior to the war, FDR simply tap danced around the question.
His plans were crisp in his mind - support Britain regardless of the
Neutrality Act. His actions frequently went beyond the limits of the
law. His speeches were designed to obscure reality.
When we look at the statecraft of a Roosevelt, we can see that in a
democratic society, politicians frequently lie about their true
motives. Instead, they invent acceptable fabrications, so they don't
have to state publicly what they think privately. This is not so much
to fool the public, although FDR certainly intended to do that.
Rather it is to avoid stating publicly to allies the true intention.
Had FDR publicly stated that his strategy with the Soviets was to use
them to bleed the Wehrmacht dry, it would have created an untenable
situation for Stalin. Stalin was not exactly naïve. He knew that the
United States had him by the short hairs, and that the squeeze would
be hard. He knew he had no choice. But it is one thing to understand
that you are being hammered and another thing to admit it.
Today, if Dubya and Blair admitted publicly their real motives -- that
they intended to squeeze the Saudis, Syrians and Iranians by occupying
Iraq -- they would not have created a domestic political problem.
However, without the domestic political problem, it would have been
much more difficult for the Saudis, for example, to allow themselves
to be squeezed. It is much easier to capitulate if you are permitted
to keep your dignity than if you are going to be publicly humiliated.
As it becomes increasingly clear that the United States had complex
geopolitical motives for invading Iraq and that WMD played only a
small part in it, the U.S. public is relatively comfortable. The only
ones getting excited are those who opposed the policy regardless of
justification. There is no great shift in the polls over this issue.
The American public appears to be more comfortable with both the
underlying reason and the need to fabricate public justifications
because, in the end, they simply supported the strategy.
When you uncover the real motives, you may feel that Dubya, Blair,
FDR, and countless others are cold and ruthless. However, they don't
act whimsically, but rather from calculated strategic analysis. The
Oil talk, like the WMD talk, is all spin. We might or might not find
decisions that risk or cost lives to be ethical, but you can rest
assured they are never whimsical or egoistical, or the function of
the particular leader, as people of the other party will always claim,
but are actually based on intense global strategic calculation. That
doesn't mean the calulations can't be wrong, but they are rational.
-jay
jhayati
> In article <2e4552bb.03093...@posting.google.com>, jhayati
> <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> Ha ha. You really can't stand anything that shows the dark side of US
> imperial policy can you?
Yes, in fact I enjoy it. However, tabloid sites and stereotypes bore
me. I don't care what the view is, as long as it's informed and well
written. I prefer reading about the dark side of US imperial policy
in fact, as I'm quite fascinated with Henry Kissinger, who is both
brilliant and dark and scary. Again you've misread me, or else are
baiting me again.
> Check out the book "Rites of Spring" which analyses the culture of
> violence in Europe leading up to the First World War. The historical
> distance might make it an easier read for you, less raising of the
> patriotic blood-pressure.
Well, now you're talking. You've gone from the most ridiculous
tabloid site to a wonderful classic. Ekstein's beautiful description
of various European prewar cultures is a keeper. Everyone should read
it. He gives you a feel for being in the trenches, for the spirit of
what the culture was like before the war all the way to the symbolic
effects of Lindbergh's flight after the war is over. Now that's good
stuff. If you read Ekstein, why waste your time with nonsense
pychobabble slander? The two are worlds apart.
You do have some good taste, Punnadhammo. However, the insults are a
bit much, and you would do well to develop discernment.
-jay
Ludwig
> punnadhammo <arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net> wrote in message
news:<300920031505392876%arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net>...
> > In article <2e4552bb.03093...@posting.google.com>, jhayati
> > <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ha ha. You really can't stand anything that shows the dark side of US
> > imperial policy can you?
>
> Yes, in fact I enjoy it. However, tabloid sites and stereotypes bore
> me. I don't care what the view is, as long as it's informed and well
> written. I prefer reading about the dark side of US imperial policy
> in fact, as I'm quite fascinated with Henry Kissinger, who is both
> brilliant and dark and scary.
Come on, you must be baiting me with that?
One of my favourite moments on radio was Kissinger being interviewed by
Jeremy Paxman over here a couple of years ago.
He was promoting a book or something. The first question was "You were
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973, didn't you feel like a fraud?"
There was a quite lengthy silence until Kissinger managed the words "...
didnt I feel like a WHAT?"
To which Paxman yelled back: "A FRAUD!"
I just hope he visits Paris and they arrest him as the war criminal he is.
Ludwig
punnadhammo
> May I say that I'm somewhat surprised that a Buddhist would have any
> doubts that *all* reactivity (and violence is always reactive) comes
> from the repository of conditioning, which is what the subconscious mind
> is. We rarely act rationally; in general the subconscious reacts and
> conscious thought provides rationalizations after the fact.
Yes, but I am used to thinking of the primary conditioning effecting
the decision to go to war being greed. As the Buddha says, men strap on
armour and hew limbs and stab one another just for the sake of sensual
desire. (Majj. Nikaya, paraphrase from memory)
In the case of the two Gulf Wars the economic motivation is pretty much
up front, the need for the world's most wasteful consumer nation to
dominate the dwindling energy resources of the planet.
Nevertheless, other conditioning should not be ruled out and the
article does raise very intriguing aspects of the question.
> I found some of the language of the article to be emotive, which
> suggests to me that the author wasn't looking at his own reactive output
> as clearly as he was looking at the collective signs and signals. But I
> think it wrong to dismiss any of it as "psychobabble." You could as well
> accuse all Buddhists of indulging in spiritobabble. Within the terms of
> its discipline it's completely coherent.
Yes. Within the framework of its own discipline I don't think you can
fault it.
> And, with some differences, a collective psyche functions very much as
> the individual psyche does. The collective is even more conditioned,
> more automatic and compulsive in its reactions, than the individual.
This could very well be true. One thinks immediately of the Hitler
period, and also the mass euphoria every in Europe in August of 1914.
> It does point to an answer, but I don't think you've quite seen what it
> is. The masses are neither led nor misled. The leadership, such as
> politicians, academia, the media, are merely the conscious
> rationalizers, the blamers and justifiers, while the real force and
> continuity of psychic being takes place in that arena of psychological
> archetypes and stereotypes you refer to. The "leaders" are as reactively
> driven as the "masses."
On reflection I think you have a sound point. I was making the mistake
of attributing a higher degree of rationality to the leadership. They
are just samsaric conditioned beings like the rest of us.
> Again, the "real terms" of the world, of experience, are these inner
> organisational symbols which go to make up the psyche, or mind. It is
> here that meaning and significance is generated. The subconscious mind
> is in some ways mad, like Polyphemus with the tree in his eye, but in
> another way it is far more realistic, unfooled, ruthlessly accurate in
> its assessments, than our lagging consciousness.
The Buddhist enterprise can be seen as bringing all the subconscious
content into the light of day. Then we would be free and driven by
these blind, half-mad forces.
punnadhammo
<spac...@lineone.net> wrote:
> oh patriotism is easily misunderstood.
Last refuge of the scoundrel?
punnadhammo
DrWarrenKrugar <drwarre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is no point in getting into a point by point debate with you
unless you are willing to deal with facts and not hollow rhetoric. I
will only answer one of your points, the most egregious piece of
nonsense in a generally content free post.
> > The Gulf War
> > (Daddy Bush's) was clearly a very bloody one-sided massacre with one
> > atrocity piled on top of another (bombing of water plants and power
> > dams, the "hiway of death" etc. etc.)
>
> It was hardly a bloody massacre with the majority of the Iraqi
> soldiers simply surrendering. But don't let the facts influence your
> opinion.
The list of American atrocities in that particular war is horrendous,
but let's just consider one, because it is well-documented and the
basic facts are not in dispute - the massacre on the so-called highway
of death. This wanton act of mass murder is not cancelled out by the
fact that most of the Iraqi troops surrendered en masse.
If you want to try and argue in the face of all historical fact that
the US waged a clean war, then it is no point in arguing with you. You
are just confirming my point about denial.
Ludwig
"punnadhammo" <arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net> wrote in message
>
> > http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln02_gulf.html
>
> I've been thinking about this piece and have come to a conclusion. At
> first I wasn't sure about it. I tend to believe, along with the Buddha
> and Marx, that wars are fought for primarily economic reasons. The Gulf
> War seems pretty transparently to have been about oil.
>
> And yet there is something compelling about this psychological analysis
> and I think I know what it is.
>
> For some time now I have been puzzled by the very deep layers of denial
> pro-war americans seem to have about the historical facts. The Gulf War
> (Daddy Bush's) was clearly a very bloody one-sided massacre with one
> atrocity piled on top of another (bombing of water plants and power
> dams, the "hiway of death" etc. etc.)
Bush Junior's war was also a bloody massacre of course, with many thousands
of innocents killed.
There must be some kind of denial at work - its impossible to imagine the US
calling the death of thousands of its own people 'acceptable' under any
circumstances.
One commentator was heard to describe the 9/11 events as the worst case of
destruction in history. This again indicates a certain amount of amnesia.
The worst on North American soil for a while maybe, but the US itself
has done its fair share of destruction while abroad. The bombing of Laos and
Vietnam was the most intense assault on civilian areas
in history, until this was exceeded by the US in its bombing of Cambodia.
Some - reliable - estimates have the death toll in Indochina as high as 4
million, with many millions more orphaned, maimed and rendered homeless.
Even today in Laos bomblets are claiming lives; no one is prepared to pay
for the massive clear up operation that is still needed. In feb '97 The Wall
Street Journal carried a lead story reporting that as many as half a million
children may have been born with dioxin-related deformities as a result of
the US drenching South Vietnam with millions of tons of chemicals.
There is another explanation , or at least part explanation, for the amnesia
that makes continued aggression possible, one which I have a lot of sympathy
with.
It goes along the lines that the best way for a government to maintain power
is to control debate, more specifically to control what it is that is
debated. Its not essential to silence viewpoints that differ from those of a
government, but it is important that the debate stays in certain
well-defined areas. People must be accustomed to the idea that 'these are
dangerous times,' and that some kind of action is called for. The debate
then centres around what form this action should take.
Most of all its important that people don't focus on history too much and
are kept busy squabbling about the current crisis, whatever that happens to
be.
For example the recent (continuing) action in Iraq: debate focusses on
whether this was justified or not, and it is barely mentioned that the US
has acted criminally in working outside the UN. If the UN is mentioned we
have another 'debate' to focus on, for example whether France acted
correctly or not in stating its intention not to comply with extreme
pressure from the US. Whatever one's view on this, France has certainly not
contravened international law as have the US and Britain.
These kind of facts do actually make it into the media in the US - at least
into the pages of the NY Times etc - along with the (criminal) treatment of
'detainees' at Guantanamo bay. But they are quickly forgotten and/or
obscured.
All in all it's a sad state of affairs.
Ludwig
punnadhammo
OK, you accuse me of not answering your points. I think the feeling is
pretty well mutual. When I brought forward specific and well-documented
incidents of US military atrocities in recent wars, you dismissed them
off hand as "tabloid stories."
That is a great example of the denial I am talking about. You probably
think I am being "anti-american" for pointing these things out. Not so.
Historically, every nation with the power the US has now has acted just
as badly. It's human depravity, not specifically American. It's seen as
anti-american only because you have the idealistic and unsubstantiated
view that america is somehow better than the rest of humanity.
If you want to carry on a reasonable discussion you will have to deal
with the following, all of which are undisputed historical facts;
1 - the 1st Gulf War bombing of water filtration plants
2- the massacre of the retreating Iraqi troops on the Hiway of Death
3 - the Serbian war bombing of the Yugoslav state television station.
Unless you confront plain facts like these, you and Krugar are both
wasting bandwidth.
Some other points -
THE OIL MOTIVE
You say the Gulf Wars are not about oil. I'm glad you admit they
werent' about WMD's anyway. You also admit that Bush, Blair et al are a
pack of liars but you find this ok becasue FDR did it too.
I'm a little puzzled as to what you do think the war was about. In your
long analysis, I think you are arguing that it was about stopping
terrorism. If so, I think you are very mistaken.
I suggested once that you look up the Project for the New American
Century but you called it "a conspiracy theory." I would suggest you
try again to educate yourself. This was a think-tank project by people
who are all now close to the administration, like Perle and WOlfowitz
and it details how the US needs to dominate the middle east to secure
the dwindling oil reserves.
In the case of the First Gulf War, this was pretty well admitted by the
administration when one of Bush's big shots (I forget now exactly who)
said, when asked if it was about oil, "Well if Kuwait grew carrots we
wouldn't give a damn."
In the second Gulf War (junior's) we saw massive looting of all gov't
buildings, museums and national treasures. The US military defended
only one building - what was it? The oil ministry. The rest could go to
hell.
The US is the world's biggest and most profligate consumer of oil. It
has some domestic supply but it's chief economic rivals, Europe and
Japan do not. The US position economically is slipping relative to
Europe especially. The US policy wonks want to prop up their dominance
by securing control of the strategic oil resources of the Middle East.
The Saudis are becoming dodgy and Iraq looked like a soft target.
WHO DID 9-11?
I did read over your post about that and I found no real evidence. I
didn't expect to. There is none.
The so-called proof rests on three bases, as far as I can see and as
far as I have found in your argument.
1 - the videotapes found in Afghanistan. Plain fakes. I suggest you
look at the stills of Osama Bin Ladin's face from these tapes and
compare them with authentic photos of the man. Plainly not the same
individual, the bone structure of the head is entirley different. Don't
take my word for it, look it up.
2 - confessions. Any confession tortured out of someone is worthless as
everyone knows. If even a reasonable suspicion of torture exists it
wouldn't hold up in a court of law. And more than a reasonable
suspicion should attach to the concentration camp on Guatanamo bay
where the US has explicitly rejected the Geneva Accords.
3 - The only evidence that came out before the Afghan invasion, which
was supposedly retaliation for 9-11, was completely bogus and
unbeliveable. Like Mohamed Atta's passport found in the rubble. Sheesh,
talk about tabloid stories.
You do mention that various plots have been stopped. If true, good, but
we only have the FBI's word on this and it still doesn't prove 9-11.
What really makes me doubt the official story is that no one came forth
claiming "credit" for this action. If it were really done by AL Quaeda
one would expect them to be making huge propaganda by boasting openly
about their "wonderful victory" over the "great satan."
Again, if you would make the effort to educate yourself you will find
their are numerous other discrepancies and oddities about the official
story. The piece you posted about the Germans starting to question this
provided you with some mirth, it should have made you think.
FINALLY, if you have bothered to read down this far I have to call your
attention to this
> "There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped
> into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head
> first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died
> screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their
> remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be
> used as fish food ... on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam
> Hussein's youngest son] personally supervise these murders."
>
> "Women were suspended by their hair as their families watched;
> men were forced to watch as their wives were raped ... women
> were suspended by their legs while they were menstruating until their
> periods were over, a procedure designed to cause humiliation."
You uncritically buy crap like this? And turn around and call
creditable historically documented facts "tabloid conspiracy theories?"
Did it not even occur to you that a machine designed to shred plastic
would jam on bone?
Did it not even occur to you to question the source of such an
outlandish and ridiculous piece of comic book fun? This is something
Lex Luthor would do, not something possible even physically in the real
world.
I remember this story when it first came out, and I remember the
source. Do you? Do you even care, as long as it backs up your fantastic
comic book version of reality?
FYI it was made by one of the exile Iraqis close to the Bush
administration in the period leading to the war when the propaganda was
flying fast and thick. No one else has ever seen these plastic
shredders, as far as I know.
Do you remember the incubator babies story of the First Gulf War? If
not, you should look that one up too.
jhayati
> "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:2e4552bb.0309...@posting.google.com...
> > punnadhammo <arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net> wrote in message
> news:<300920031505392876%arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net>...
> > > In article <2e4552bb.03093...@posting.google.com>, jhayati
> > > <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ha ha. You really can't stand anything that shows the dark side of US
> > > imperial policy can you?
> >
> > Yes, in fact I enjoy it. However, tabloid sites and stereotypes bore
> > me. I don't care what the view is, as long as it's informed and well
> > written. I prefer reading about the dark side of US imperial policy
> > in fact, as I'm quite fascinated with Henry Kissinger, who is both
> > brilliant and dark and scary.
>
> Come on, you must be baiting me with that?
No, I was talking to Punnadhammo. Kissinger is brilliant and dark and
scary. I have deep fascination and admiration for him.
> I just hope he visits Paris and they arrest him as the war criminal he is.
>
> Ludwig
I also don't lock myself into simple-minded views with judgments like
that. I might pretend to in posts, but I'm interested in seeing
things from as many views and as in depth as possible, and Kissinger
saw farther and deeper than most, and is controversial in so many
ways. I neither like nor dislike Kissinger. I simply study him.
I've studied Mao the same way, who killed more people than anyone in
the history of the planet, but was an amazing thinker.
In fact, the war criminal stuff about Kissinger is boring emotional
hype. As you say, it's popular in France. If you want to study how
geopolitics worked in the Cold War, you have to study Kissinger, among
others, and understand how he thought. If you simply label people
that you don't understand, you end up with simple views, chanting
simple claims that only other simple-minded people listen to.
To grok politics in the last century, Kissinger is a must read but a
hard place to start. I can however recommend a well-written article
that really gives you a feel for the depth of Kissinger's background,
thinking, and contributions, from the Atlantic Monthly.
www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jun/9906kissinger.htm
"Kissinger, Metternich, and Realism: Henry Kissinger's first book, on
the Napoleonic Wars, explains Kissinger's foreign policy better than
any of his memoirs, and is striking as an early display of brilliance
and authority"
Kissinger got fame for opposing Secretary of State John Foster
Dulles's policy of massive nuclear retaliation against a Soviet
attack, arguing instead for a flexible response of conventional forces
and smaller, tactical nuclear weapons. His rationality and realism
was disliked by the right as well as the left. Reagan wanted nothing
to do with him, instead going for a brute-force arms race to win the
cold war and bankrupt the soviets. Now Kissinger is seen by the right
as a wimp and the left as a criminal. However, his thinking and
analysis is incredible. I don't condone any of his controversial
acts, but I strongly suggest reading him if you want insight into
global geopolitical politics. So shut up with the simple-minded
judgments and indignation and read the damn article cover to cover.
-jay
jhayati
> In article <2e4552bb.03093...@posting.google.com>, jhayati
> <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> OK, you accuse me of not answering your points. I think the feeling is
> pretty well mutual. When I brought forward specific and well-documented
> incidents of US military atrocities in recent wars, you dismissed them
> off hand as "tabloid stories."
I haven't seen that any of this hype is well-documented, and I think
you buy into just about anything that slanders Americans and makes it
appear that we don't care about human life.
> That is a great example of the denial I am talking about.
It's not denial. I haven't even looked them up yet. I've never heard
of such things, and it's a matter of time. I'll get back to you on
that. However, the media are so vicious with scandals, they way they
wanted to burn the President at the stake for getting a blow job,
etc., that such stories would be shoved in our faces when there is
truth to them. But I'm certainly open. I can't take a lot of time to
do research on the spot though. My long posts are from articles I've
already recently read, not research that I do on the spot.
And given the nonsense site you posted, I'm going to assume your
claims are a crock until I read for myself and verify the sources.
That's not being in denial. It's simply wanting verification. I'll
accept anything interesting and true if it's really verified and
documented and not some spin by Berkeley anarchists or something. So
pipe down, Mr. Pundit.
> You probably think I am being "anti-american" for pointing these
No, I think you simply aren't very discerning and believe simple
claims without looking deeply. I find myself doing that all the time.
It's like first impressions of people. We go on them. They ususally
have some truth to them, but people are never exactly as we pictured
them when we get to know them. Maybe you are all too aware of this,
considering your cynical comments on love.
> Historically, every nation with the power the US has now has acted just
> as badly. It's human depravity, not specifically American.
I agree with that, but I think given that, the US has done fairly
well. We can go into specifics another time, but that's an
interesting topic.
> If you want to carry on a reasonable discussion you will have to deal
> with the following, all of which are undisputed historical facts;
>
> 1 - the 1st Gulf War bombing of water filtration plants
> 2- the massacre of the retreating Iraqi troops on the Hiway of Death
> 3 - the Serbian war bombing of the Yugoslav state television station.
Truth is I've never heard of any of these. I'll research them but it
will take time. I prefer posts with a few one-liners and my long ones
are mostly paste-ins of other articles. Doing research on specific
events takes time. I like to read about history, and I'm not into
"de-bunking" claims about specific events, as I am interested in
patterns, not particular cases except when they exemplify the pattern.
<snip> but I'll return to this when I have some time. Even better,
maybe an informed poster like Warren, who knows a lot more about this
off the top of his head, will respond well, and then I can learn what
is true and what is contrived in all this without having to invest the
time.
> FINALLY, if you have bothered to read down this far I have to call your
> attention to this
>
> > "There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped
> > into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head
> > first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died
> > screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their
> > remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be
> > used as fish food ... on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam
> > Hussein's youngest son] personally supervise these murders."
> >
> > "Women were suspended by their hair as their families watched;
> > men were forced to watch as their wives were raped ... women
> > were suspended by their legs while they were menstruating until their
> > periods were over, a procedure designed to cause humiliation."
>
> You uncritically buy crap like this? And turn around and call
> creditable historically documented facts "tabloid conspiracy theories?"
I don't buy it at all. I read it for the first time a couple of days
ago, when Googling the net to find something shocking to throw at you,
and I did.
> Did it not even occur to you that a machine designed to shred plastic
> would jam on bone?
>
> Did it not even occur to you to question the source of such an
> outlandish and ridiculous piece of comic book fun? This is something
> Lex Luthor would do, not something possible even physically in the real
> world.
In other words, were you to have different views, you'd swear by it.
> I remember this story when it first came out, and I remember the
> source. Do you? Do you even care, as long as it backs up your fantastic
> comic book version of reality?
It said it was from some woman who was in the British Government.
> FYI it was made by one of the exile Iraqis close to the Bush
> administration in the period leading to the war when the propaganda was
> flying fast and thick. No one else has ever seen these plastic
> shredders, as far as I know.
>
> Do you remember the incubator babies story of the First Gulf War? If
> not, you should look that one up too.
No, I've never heard of that either. I don't read tabloids. Anyway,
I don't believe the story, any more than I believe yours. I simply
found it on the web. However, Warren posted some interesting figures
which look very reasonable, though he doesn't give the French credit
just as you don't give the Americans credit and attributes the worst
of dispositions to them. Anyway, as I said, I found the story
searching the net for shock value to give you, since that's what you
like. I figured you like the gory stuff, with all your gross pictures
and stuff.
Anyway, I'll check out your stories. Now will you let up on the
insults? At least you're not like that one guy who kept calling me
'fragile'. "Arm-chair Patton" is at least a little bit more manly of
an insult.
-jay
jhayati
> jha...@msn.com (jhayati) wrote in message news:<2e4552bb.03093...@posting.google.com>...
> > punnadhammo <arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net> wrote in message news:<290920031834362436%arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net>...
> > > Powerful analysis.
> > >
> > > http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln02_gulf.html
> >
> >
> > "America felt sinful after the peace and prosperity of the 1980s...
> > America is like a barroom drunk. One minute it brags about its money
> > and muscle, and then for the next hour it bleats into its beer about
> > failure and hopelessness... America's depression is not brought on by
> > plague, flood, famine or war...We are guilty, guilty, guilty...
> > depression, decline, depravity, dysphoria, deconstruction, desuetude,
> > dog days, distrust, drugs, despair... There was only one way that a
> > lengthy economic recession need not be necessary to cure our national
> > depression: an enemy abroad could be created who could be blamed for
> > our 'greediness' and then punished instead of punishing ourselves."
>
> Lol! How convenient it is to project one's view of things onto the
> real world. It is something, btw that I believed Buddhists of all
> people would be more conscious of. But what I have found instead is
> that many Buddhists are as blinded by their neat little ideological
> delusions as the rest of us.
It's not fair. And I thought meditation was supposed to make you free
from views and objective and blissful and full of equinimity and
compassion. But it's not enough. Maybe a good place to start though.
-jay
jhayati
> > > http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln02_gulf.html
> >
> > I've been thinking about this piece and have come to a conclusion. At
> > first I wasn't sure about it. I tend to believe, along with the Buddha
> > and Marx, that wars are fought for primarily economic reasons. The Gulf
> > War seems pretty transparently to have been about oil.
>
> It's amazing how tightly people cling to their pet delusions,
> insisting that everyone else participate in them.
Bingo. Punnadhammo has been exposed to enough information now to at
the very least say "ok, I see that it's not about oil or greed, but
instead involves very complicated strategic reasons, but I still am
opposed to the tactics of a pre-emptive strike." That would open the
door to meaningful discussion. But he doesn't, and instead sticks to
a ridiculous delusion.
> > And yet there is something compelling about this psychological analysis
> > and I think I know what it is.
>
> I do. It's a need to "know" - or more accurately, to justify one's
> bias by seeking authority for one's views - a very authoritarian trait.
Actually, I have no problem with that. It's this kind of doing it
without discernment and accepting anything that agrees with one's
views that bothers me. And then the pretending not to know who
attacked the World Trade Center - that duplicity is rather nauseous.
> > For some time now I have been puzzled by the very deep layers of denial
> > pro-war americans seem to have about the historical facts.
>
> Yes, nearly as hysterical as the deep layers of denial anti-war
> zealots have about the historial facts.
Bingo.
> > The Gulf War
> > (Daddy Bush's) was clearly a very bloody one-sided massacre with one
> > atrocity piled on top of another (bombing of water plants and power
> > dams, the "hiway of death" etc. etc.)
>
> It was hardly a bloody massacre with the majority of the Iraqi
> soldiers simply surrendering. But don't let the facts influence your
> opinion.
Ok, I haven't researched this, but this was just part of a battle:
troops that surrendered were taken prisoners, and this refers to ones
who didn't surrender but tried to regroup with their weapons and were
attacked. The same thing happened in the recent Iraqi war: those who
put down their weapons and surrendered were taken prisoner and treated
fairly, and those who tried to run away and regroup were bombed and
killed.
> > And yet seemingly well intentioned people like our Jhayati can argue
> > until they are blue in the face that this is not so. The facts don't
> > matter - confronted with them he retreats into a haze of buzzwords
> > "conspiracy theory" "political correctness" "tabloid story." You could
> > cite dozens of reputable sources and it would not make a whit of
> > differnce.
> >
> > And we all know he is not alone.
>
> No, the other side matches him blow for blow with their own made-up
> facts (not that he appears to be doing this - but there is no doubt
> that you do).
Yes indeed he does. I did, as Mr. Pundit pointed out, throw in a gory
torture story without checking it out: funny that Punnadhammo does
this constantly, yet gets indignant when I do the same once. I don't
get the double-standard. Why am I demanded to accept tabloid stories
and emotionalism that is completely ungrounded as 'fact' yet when I
usually present very well-documented analysis, I am attacked
personally and labeled and called names?
> > I had attributed this denial to ignorance, caused largely by the
> > extremely biased propaganda that passes for news in so-called
> > mainstream american media (all owned by about four corporations these
> > days.) But that does not seem to be a sufficient explanation.
>
> No, it's an anal retentive personality that needs to be right,
> regardless of the facts. It's literal-minded ness
Yes. Especially when all mainstream media is claimed to be corrupt
and controlled by a conspiracy of corporations, yet your tabloid sites
have the unique access to the 'facts'. How much more out there could
a rationalization get?
> > The psychological analysis of this article would seem to point to an
> > answer. The masses of the people in any country at any time can be led
> > with soothing fairy tales and pap. If these appeal to deep-rooted
> > psychological archetypes all the better.
>
> Lol, this from someone who upholds every fairy tale that Buddhism can
> come up with.
I suppose that has to do with the stuff about angels.
> > The psychological explanation doesn't tell us why the leaders of an
> > imperial power go to war, but it may explain how they are able to
> > hoodwink the people into going along.
>
> Nonsense. Nobody is hoodwinked into going along. People simply go on
> with their lives as they always have while polititions do what they do.
In fact, it is unreasonable to suggest that the government inform the
masses (and thus all their enemies) of every bit of strategy and
planned move. If you look throughout history, no administration has
ever done that. Sometimes it isn't even de-classified for decades.
> > It's time to wake up from these delusionary dreams and look at the real
> > world in real terms. Too much is at stake, we are playing with live
> > ammunition here.
>
> Well, not in your case - you're firing blanks. Which can be much more
> dangerous in a conflict.
lol
-jay
Ludwig
> "Ludwig" <Lud...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<NAxeb.1366$kA.4...@wards.force9.net>...
> > "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:2e4552bb.0309...@posting.google.com...
> > > punnadhammo <arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net> wrote in message
> > news:<300920031505392876%arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net>...
> > > > In article <2e4552bb.03093...@posting.google.com>,
jhayati
> > > > <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, in fact I enjoy it. However, tabloid sites and stereotypes bore
> > > me. I don't care what the view is, as long as it's informed and well
> > > written. I prefer reading about the dark side of US imperial policy
> > > in fact, as I'm quite fascinated with Henry Kissinger, who is both
> > > brilliant and dark and scary.
> >
> > Come on, you must be baiting me with that?
>
> No, I was talking to Punnadhammo. Kissinger is brilliant and dark and
> scary. I have deep fascination and admiration for him.
>
> > I just hope he visits Paris and they arrest him as the war criminal he
is.
> >
> > Ludwig
>
> I also don't lock myself into simple-minded views with judgments like
> that.
What you mean is, you disagree.
>I might pretend to in posts, but I'm interested in seeing
> things from as many views and as in depth as possible, and Kissinger
> saw farther and deeper than most, and is controversial in so many
> ways.
Yes, 'controversial' in the same sense that Milosevic is 'controversial.'
>I neither like nor dislike Kissinger. I simply study him.
> I've studied Mao the same way, who killed more people than anyone in
> the history of the planet, but was an amazing thinker.
At least you have him in the right company then.
>
> In fact, the war criminal stuff about Kissinger is boring emotional
> hype.
Its based on an evaluation of what he did. For more details see my other
post in this thread.
Or have a look here, as a start, if you're interested in the case against
him:
http://www.harpers.org/online/kissinger_forum/kissinger_forum.php3?pg=1
His self-justifications (what you describe as his thought) are not of much
interest to me, although I'm familiar with them. The broad thrust is that
maintaining 'credibility' is more important than being just. 'Credibility'
translates as being prepared to take lives. A practice shared by mafia
bosses and dictators everywhere.
>As you say, it's popular in France. If you want to study how
> geopolitics worked in the Cold War, you have to study Kissinger, among
> others, and understand how he thought.
Indeed, he is a monstrous relic of the cold war.
Ludwig
punnadhammo
<jha...@msn.com> wrote:
> > 1 - the 1st Gulf War bombing of water filtration plants
> > 2- the massacre of the retreating Iraqi troops on the Hiway of Death
> > 3 - the Serbian war bombing of the Yugoslav state television station.
>
> Truth is I've never heard of any of these. I'll research them but it
> will take time. I prefer posts with a few one-liners and my long ones
> are mostly paste-ins of other articles. Doing research on specific
> events takes time. I like to read about history, and I'm not into
> "de-bunking" claims about specific events, as I am interested in
> patterns, not particular cases except when they exemplify the pattern.
Since you are not aware of these very well known incidents you should
refrain from making blanket claims about the rightness of US military
action and their concern for civilian life and the rules of war. By
your own admission you are making claims based on incomplete knowledge.
BTW I deliberately limited my list to incidents in which the facts are
not seriously in dispute. These are not by any stretch of the
imagination "tabloid stories."
[Re: Saddam's Cuisanart from Hell]
> I don't buy it at all. I read it for the first time a couple of days
> ago, when Googling the net to find something shocking to throw at you,
> and I did.
So you admit the facts don't concern you, just shock value?
> It said it was from some woman who was in the British Government.
The original source was one of Chalabi's cronies in the INC. The
British Government have made fools of themselves fabricating or
repeating the silliest nonsense. At one point they issued an
"intelligent dossier" with a great deal of bluster that was entirely
cribbed from a ten-year old essay on the internet. Blair's chief spin
doctor, and this should amuse you, used to work for a sleazy tabloid
paper. He's been unceremoniously dumped as the rats flee the sinking
ship.
>
> > Do you remember the incubator babies story of the First Gulf War? If
> > not, you should look that one up too.
>
> No, I've never heard of that either. I don't read tabloids. Anyway,
> I don't believe the story, any more than I believe yours.
Ha ha! I'm glad you don't believe it. You really should look it up, you
do need an education in these things before you make too much more of a
fool of yourself. When you do look it up, you'll get the joke.
punnadhammo
> Actually, I have no problem with that. It's this kind of doing it
> without discernment and accepting anything that agrees with one's
> views that bothers me. And then the pretending not to know who
> attacked the World Trade Center - that duplicity is rather nauseous.
It's not duplicitious, I am expressing genuine ignorance here. I don't
know who did it because so few hard facts have been made public and
there has been such a concerted cover-up. When the congress completed
their inquiry recently, Bush immediately ordered 28 pages classified.
It's part of a pattern, the public knows very little about this. You
need to educate yourself on that story also.
> Ok, I haven't researched this, but this was just part of a battle:
> troops that surrendered were taken prisoners, and this refers to ones
> who didn't surrender but tried to regroup with their weapons and were
> attacked. The same thing happened in the recent Iraqi war: those who
> put down their weapons and surrendered were taken prisoner and treated
> fairly, and those who tried to run away and regroup were bombed and
> killed.
No, this is not what happened. I won't try and tell the story, you'll
just accuse me of "Conspiracy mongering" or some such crap. Look it up.
Interesting though, that you admit "I haven't researched it yet" and
still come out with a explanation exonerating US actions. You accuse me
of duplicity?
> Yes indeed he does. I did, as Mr. Pundit pointed out, throw in a gory
> torture story without checking it out: funny that Punnadhammo does
> this constantly, yet gets indignant when I do the same once. I don't
> get the double-standard.
You are just plain lying here. In this discussion I have not thrown out
any wild stories that can't be substantiated.
> Yes. Especially when all mainstream media is claimed to be corrupt
> and controlled by a conspiracy of corporations, yet your tabloid sites
> have the unique access to the 'facts'. How much more out there could
> a rationalization get?
Are you denying that their is an unprecedented level of ownership
concentration in big american media?
> In fact, it is unreasonable to suggest that the government inform the
> masses (and thus all their enemies) of every bit of strategy and
> planned move. If you look throughout history, no administration has
> ever done that. Sometimes it isn't even de-classified for decades.
In a republic, the government owes the public an explanation for why
they are going to war, at the very least.
jhayati
No, I mean your need to project onto people and label them isn't of
interest to me. I'm saying that I like to study the top thinkers in
the field.
> >I might pretend to in posts, but I'm interested in seeing
> > things from as many views and as in depth as possible, and Kissinger
> > saw farther and deeper than most, and is controversial in so many
> > ways.
>
> Yes, 'controversial' in the same sense that Milosevic is 'controversial.'
Again, your spin doesn't interest me. This is like the claims that
Saddam was elected but Bush was not. Ok, you want to judge and repeat
slogans and I want to learn and study history. Our paths diverge from
here.
-jay
jhayati
> It goes along the lines that the best way for a government to maintain power
> is to control debate, more specifically to control what it is that is
> debated. Its not essential to silence viewpoints that differ
This conspiracy theory is almost as bad as the one that your pals
cooked up that 9/11 was a US government plot. Here you say "let's
look at how things were in Iraq and then claim that that's how it is
in the USA. Maybe if I lie about the country where open debate and
arguments are most encouraged, and claim the opposite, and if I lie
enough, people will believe me."
> For example the recent (continuing) action in Iraq: debate focusses on
> whether this was justified or not, and it is barely mentioned that the US
> has acted criminally in working outside the UN.
That's a good one: pretend that UN, in this case France, dictates
American policy and that the US must have France's and Germany's
approval. Let's label not submitting to the Frence will "criminal".
> If the UN is mentioned we have another 'debate' to focus on, for example
> whether France acted correctly or not in stating its intention not to
> comply with extreme pressure from the US.
Let's take France's doing everything it can to undermine it's most
loathed economic enemy (which it should, and is all part of how
politics is played) but call it 'pressure' from your enemy when
somehow your enemy doesn't bend to your will. You (France and
Germany) have the right to spin and talk about your enemy as the
Soviets did. But don't pretend you're being honest or doing anything
but spreading hatred and propaganda. This isn't much different than
the attacking of Tibetan Buddhism by people from other sects. It's
the same form, just different content.
-jay
Ludwig
> > For example the recent (continuing) action in Iraq: debate focusses on
> > whether this was justified or not, and it is barely mentioned that the
US
> > has acted criminally in working outside the UN.
>
> That's a good one: pretend that UN, in this case France, dictates
> American policy and that the US must have France's and Germany's
> approval.
Submitting to the French will might have been a good a idea.
>Let's label not submitting to the French will "criminal".
Well I chose the word criminal rather carefully. The relevant legal
framework is the UN Charter, recognised as "the supreme law of the land"
under the US constitution, which states that member states must "refrain in
their international relations from the threat or use of force."
The only exception is under Article 51 which permits the "right of
individual or collective self-defense" until such time as "the Security
council has taken the necessary measures to maintain peace and security." In
all other circumstances a UN mandate would have been required for any
military intervention.
So its not "simple minded" or a "conspiracy theory" to label the war on Iraq
criminal, its a simple statement of fact.
And I find the fact that this isn't given much better publicity alarming.
>
> > If the UN is mentioned we have another 'debate' to focus on, for example
> > whether France acted correctly or not in stating its intention not to
> > comply with extreme pressure from the US.
>
> Let's take France's doing everything it can to undermine it's most
> loathed economic enemy (which it should, and is all part of how
> politics is played) but call it 'pressure' from your enemy when
> somehow your enemy doesn't bend to your will. You (France and
> Germany) have the right to spin and talk about your enemy as the
> Soviets did.
Oh I'm British actually (thought I said that before) not German - Ludwig
isn't my real name .... are you sure that France and Germany
are your enemy though?
>But don't pretend you're being honest or doing anything
> but spreading hatred and propaganda.
Trying to stick to the facts as I see them.
> This isn't much different than
> the attacking of Tibetan Buddhism by people from other sects. It's
> the same form, just different content.
I just think that the US and British governments have made a terrible
mistake, and that they must not be allowed to carry with this pre-emptive
policy any more.
Ludwig
>
> -jay
jhayati
> In article <2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>, jhayati
> <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > 1 - the 1st Gulf War bombing of water filtration plants
> > > 2- the massacre of the retreating Iraqi troops on the Hiway of Death
> > > 3 - the Serbian war bombing of the Yugoslav state television station.
> >
> > Truth is I've never heard of any of these. I'll research them but it
> > will take time. I prefer posts with a few one-liners and my long ones
> > are mostly paste-ins of other articles. Doing research on specific
> > events takes time. I like to read about history, and I'm not into
> > "de-bunking" claims about specific events, as I am interested in
> > patterns, not particular cases except when they exemplify the pattern.
>
> Since you are not aware of these very well known incidents you should
> refrain from making blanket claims about the rightness of US military
I don't see it that way. At least one of them is nonsense and spin.
I've seen many many sites where accusations are made and all sorts of
claims spun. Add to that I have a very deep and intricate knowledge
of history and wars, and the nuances and dilemmas. To have someone
say "if you haven't heard about the scandals I search for to spin the
U.S. into war mongers that don't care about people then you shouldn't
talk". Nonsense. I don't need to disprove story afer story, scandal
after scandal. I'm painfully aware of the myriad of mistakes the U.S.
has made. Again, that is in the context of all the amazing wonderful
things that it has accomplished. You could throw another one of these
stories at me every day until eternity.
Right now I'm reading the biography of John Adams by pulitzer prize
winner David McCullough. The 18th and 19th centuries are fascinating,
and I'm amazed at what an interesting person Adams was, as I learn all
sorts of details, some of them harsh, about the brilliant men that
freed themselves from England and formed the United States. From the
beginning mistakes were made, but the ideals of freedom and justice
have been there from the start. None of your tabloid stories can
seriously stop me from feeling grateful for hundreds of years of
effort and hard work to give me the freedom and prosperity I have
today.
> BTW I deliberately limited my list to incidents in which the facts are
> not seriously in dispute. These are not by any stretch of the
> imagination "tabloid stories."
>
> [Re: Saddam's Cuisanart from Hell]
>
> > I don't buy it at all. I read it for the first time a couple of days
> > ago, when Googling the net to find something shocking to throw at you,
> > and I did.
>
> So you admit the facts don't concern you, just shock value?
No, but you pasted in shocking claims and pictures, so I was
responding to your accusations by showing you that no matter what view
you hold, you can do the same thing and find horror stories that
support your view.
What I admit is that people with views can find stories to justify
them.
Btw, thanks for giving me the lowdown. I'm sorry that you don't treat
your own stories with such scrutiny. Ideally, we should treat all
stories this way, whether they advance or contradict our views. I try
to do this by reading the most reputable publications from all sides.
Anyway, if you want to find interesting stories about the United
States that are harsh, look at the entire Vietnam war, or before that
nukes that were dropped on Japan and not, um, nearby empty islands to
prove the point, when it wasn't clear they were needed. Those are
interesting historical examples that are worth a lot of study. To say
we haven't come light years ethically and intellectually since then is
to be in deep denial. To say we are perfect and innocent now is also
to be in deep denial.
All in all, I think we're doing a great job. The real problems are
not with ridding the world of hateful dictators or terrorists, but
with the domestic front and the lack of health care, discrimination
against gays and minorities, terrible public education, and the rising
divergence between rich and poor. We aren't doing good enough on
these issues. Canada, in contrast, was economically doing terrible
compared to the United States only a decade ago. In 1995, the Wall
Street Journal, pondering Canada's economic slump, bottomless fiscal
deficit and towering public debt, judged that America's northern
neighbor had become "an honorary member of the Third World." Four
years earlier, The Economist had fretted that Canada was "on the brink
of bust-up." Today Canada has come into the 21st century and is
prospering and has turned things around, and even has health care, gay
marriage, and good ethnic diversity. The United States is now needing
reforms on domestic and economic issues. That's where my criticisms
lay. Not in the shock value of your conspiracy stories designed to
fuel anti-American and anti-democracy hatred and prejudice.
> > It said it was from some woman who was in the British Government.
>
> The original source was one of Chalabi's cronies in the INC. The
> British Government have made fools of themselves fabricating or
> repeating the silliest nonsense. At one point they issued an
> "intelligent dossier" with a great deal of bluster that was entirely
> cribbed from a ten-year old essay on the internet. Blair's chief spin
> doctor, and this should amuse you, used to work for a sleazy tabloid
> paper.
Ok, now that's funny.
> He's been unceremoniously dumped as the rats flee the sinking ship.
> >
> > > Do you remember the incubator babies story of the First Gulf War?
> > > If not, you should look that one up too.
> >
> > No, I've never heard of that either. I don't read tabloids.
> > Anyway, I don't believe the story, any more than I believe yours.
>
> Ha ha! I'm glad you don't believe it.
You see, I'm around as many flag-waving, foreigner-hating folks as I
am communist tree-hugger folks, and I don't go for hype on any side or
for any view. I could never be a Democrat or Republican. I'm an
Independent, which I consider more in the true American spirit than
any silly us-versus-them party. I read informative publications and I
ignore any silly story until it gets verified and discussed by the
intelligencia.
> You really should look it up, you do need an education in these things
> before you make too much more of a fool of yourself.
I'm afraid it's alreaty too late to avoid that.
> When you do look it up, you'll get the joke.
Your posts provide plenty of amusement already. Maybe if I get bored.
-jay
Ludwig
Re Kissinger: I don't think I'm projecting, there's a debate and I've
studied the evidence and come to the conclusion that the case that he is
guilty of war crimes is very strong. There have even been moves to try him
and I think that would be useful, though I'm doubtful it will come to
anything.
I also think its important to try and learn as much about history as
possible, and I read through the Kissinger link you posted.
Maybe I can recommend something for you to look at in return - if you
haven't read any Noam Chomsky, Rogue States is good introduction.
Ludwig
punnadhammo
> I don't see it that way. At least one of them is nonsense and spin.
> I've seen many many sites where accusations are made and all sorts of
> claims spun. Add to that I have a very deep and intricate knowledge
> of history and wars, and the nuances and dilemmas. To have someone
> say "if you haven't heard about the scandals I search for to spin the
> U.S. into war mongers that don't care about people then you shouldn't
> talk". Nonsense. I don't need to disprove story afer story, scandal
> after scandal. I'm painfully aware of the myriad of mistakes the U.S.
> has made. Again, that is in the context of all the amazing wonderful
> things that it has accomplished. You could throw another one of these
> stories at me every day until eternity.
You are in denial. The incidents I listed were all accepted historical
facts which define the nature of the recent wars, especially the FIrst
Gulf War which was a bloody massacre from beginning to end. You are the
one who tried to present a sanitized comic book version of reality by
claiming that the US forces take every precaution to save innocent
lives. I presented hard evidence that this is not the case and instead
of dealing with it you retreat into meaningless cant phrases.
> What I admit is that people with views can find stories to justify
> them.
Yes, some of us use historically verifiable facts and some of us use
comic book soap operas about giant paper shredders. Same difference I
guess.
> Btw, thanks for giving me the lowdown. I'm sorry that you don't treat
> your own stories with such scrutiny.
I challenge you to show how I have misused the evidence or failed to
use due caution with sources. Shame on you for making that unfounded
allegation.
> Ideally, we should treat all
> stories this way, whether they advance or contradict our views. I try
> to do this by reading the most reputable publications from all sides.
You are full of it. You admit to not having even heard of many of the
facts I come up with, and with no knowledge of the material cavalierly
dismiss them. Don't keep pretending you are well educated on this stuff
when you are so one-sided.
> Anyway, if you want to find interesting stories about the United
> States that are harsh, look at the entire Vietnam war, or before that
> nukes that were dropped on Japan and not, um, nearby empty islands to
> prove the point, when it wasn't clear they were needed. Those are
> interesting historical examples that are worth a lot of study. To say
> we haven't come light years ethically and intellectually since then is
> to be in deep denial. To say we are perfect and innocent now is also
> to be in deep denial.
That's better. At least you admit it is possible for the US to behave
like every other international bully on the block. I take back some of
my previous snarkiness. :)
Now you just need to educate yourself about the Gulf Wars a bit and
maybe there is still hope for you.
> All in all, I think we're doing a great job. The real problems are
> not with ridding the world of hateful dictators or terrorists, but
> with the domestic front and the lack of health care, discrimination
> against gays and minorities, terrible public education, and the rising
> divergence between rich and poor. We aren't doing good enough on
> these issues. Canada, in contrast, was economically doing terrible
> compared to the United States only a decade ago. In 1995, the Wall
> Street Journal, pondering Canada's economic slump, bottomless fiscal
> deficit and towering public debt, judged that America's northern
> neighbor had become "an honorary member of the Third World." Four
> years earlier, The Economist had fretted that Canada was "on the brink
> of bust-up." Today Canada has come into the 21st century and is
> prospering and has turned things around, and even has health care, gay
> marriage, and good ethnic diversity. The United States is now needing
> reforms on domestic and economic issues. That's where my criticisms
> lay. Not in the shock value of your conspiracy stories designed to
> fuel anti-American and anti-democracy hatred and prejudice.
You can get a decent cup of tea here too. :)
Seriously though, I wonder why you think I present conspiracy stories,
that charge doesn't make any sense to me. Also, where on earth do you
get the idea that I am anti-democratic?
jhayati
> jha...@msn.com (jhayati) wrote in message news:<2e4552bb.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > "George W. Cherry" <GWCherryHatesG...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<D9kUa.131774$sY2....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...> > > news:2e4552bb.03072...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Actually, France takes about 99% of the causal role there. To France,
> > destroying support for the U.S. was more important in their economic
> > struggle with us than whether a dictator remained in power or not.
> > To allow ourselves to be blackmailed by France would have been the
> > worst option of all, and would teach the French as well as all
> > terrorists how to exploit us.
>
> You've caused me to reexamine my thoughts on this subject, J.
Cool.
> I initially believed the U.S. should have worked with the French in
> order to garner U.N. support. Perhaps the cost was too high? I really
> have no idea, but it is an interesting thought. Do you have any more
> to add about this?
I said I'd come back to this, and while the newsgroup is
overwhelmingly anti-American, your anti-French comments along with
your thinking that France may have actually worked with us (both
misguided I think) deserve some comment.
If Gore had been president, he would have tried this and not have been
as arrogant as Dubya, but I think he would have gone it alone as well
and taken Saddam down. But that's idle speculation. What we find in
America (and you, posting from Australia, seem to be the only one here
displaying this attitude) is a very strong animosity toward France, as
relations have changed a lot since they gave us that Statue of Liberty
as a gift over a century ago. Even the strong anti-war left-wing New
York Times last week admitted:
"If you add up how France behaved in the run-up to the Iraq war
(making it impossible for the Security Council to put a real ultimatum
to Saddam Hussein that might have avoided a war), and if you look at
how France behaved during the war (when its foreign minister,
Dominique de Villepin, refused to answer the question of whether he
wanted Saddam or America to win in Iraq), and if you watch how France
is behaving today (demanding some kind of loopy symbolic transfer of
Iraqi sovereignty to some kind of hastily thrown together Iraqi
provisional government, with the rest of Iraq's transition to
democracy to be overseen more by a divided U.N. than by America), then
there is only one conclusion one can draw: France wants America to
fail in Iraq. France wants America to sink in a quagmire there in the
crazy hope that a weakened U.S. will pave the way for France to assume
its 'rightful' place as America's equal, if not superior, in shaping
world affairs."
The questions of UN interventions and approval and so forth are always
subordinate to the over-arching issue of the struggle between the
French and the Americans, and unless you understand its nuances and
historical underpinnings, talk about how to deal with Iraq and the
role of the UN are rather meaningless, for they all are a function of
the relationship between France and the United States. Of course,
you'd have to read several books from multiple sources to really
understand this relationship, but here is the best explanation I know
of that can be grokked in ten minutes. It relates here, Doctor K,
because most of the comments, especially about the UN or France,
whether from you or others, blissfully ignore the intricate
relationship between France or "Old Europe" and America. Stepping
back and looking at the bigger picture, something religiously avoided
by "armchair romantics", is necessary for any deep understanding or
meaningful interpretation of world events.
-jay
The Geopolitics of France
France is frequently a puzzle to Americans. The country's behavior
strikes Americans as unpredictable and designed to annoy, without
being effective. As with all perceptions -- the French view of
Americans as simplistic cowboys, for example -- there is an element of
truth. French behavior is not always predictable in a particular case,
but there is a geopolitical driver to French policy that allows the
nation's apparent inconsistencies to be understood, if not always
reconciled. France's history and geography have taught its people
contradictory lessons. On one hand, the French deeply fear being
controlled by greater powers; on the other, they have neither the
weight to single-handedly counterbalance a power like the United
States nor the effortless capability of the coalition building needed
to create a sustained alternative to greater powers. They therefore
operate in contradictory ways over time and at different levels. This
behavior derives from geopolitical realities and not, as many
Americans might believe, out of sheer malice.
Analysis
U.S.-French relations have sunk to their lowest level since 1942, when
the United States fought French troops in North Africa. Washington
wants to invade Iraq, arguing it is in the United States' fundamental
interest. France, formally an ally of the United States through NATO,
is -- at least for now -- utterly opposed to the invasion. In effect,
one ally is opposing an action the other ally regards as critical to
its interests. That is not a stance that an ally takes frivolously,
and France is not a frivolous country. Therefore, there is a logic to
the French position that both transcends the current situation and
that can be understood.
To understand French geopolitics, one must understand France's great
near-triumph in the 19th century and the two extraordinary
catastrophes that overwhelmed the country in the 20th century.
Napoleonic France nearly conquered all of Europe, and with it an
unprecedented global empire, but all ended in disaster. The two World
Wars of the 20th century cost France first, a generation of men, and
second, its sovereignty until liberated by the allies. French history
for the past two centuries has been the history of extremes, from
near-triumph to near-annihilation.
For France, the fundamental geopolitical problem was to the east,
across the North German Plain and into Russia. France, having achieved
a coherent national unification, confronted a Europe that presented
either strategic opportunities that diminished France's resources to
exploit or dangers that France could not deal with alone. Before
German unification, Europe became a vacuum that dragged Napoleon in
almost uncontrollably. The first steps toward securing the nation's
frontiers created an opportunity for France to be drawn ever deeper
into the east, until its resources were depleted. After German
unification, France faced a reverse crisis -- in which the resources
to the east moved west against it.
In the first case, France reached for empire and then collapsed. In
the former case, France was forced to reach for allies. The problem
and solution was Great Britain, which was interested in maintaining
the balance of power in Europe. London did not care who won, so long
as no one did. When France tried for empire, it was Great Britain --
protected by the English Channel from Napoleonic power -- that
manipulated and underwrote Napoleon's defeat. When Germany threatened
to dominate Europe in two world wars, it was the British who aligned
themselves with France to prevent that from happening.
From Paris' point of view, limits to French power have led the country
either toward direct calamity or to alliances that resulted in agony.
The French experience of history is between dominance, which it cannot
attain by itself, and alliance, which tends to work against France.
Paris understands that it cannot stand alone. It also deeply distrusts
any alliance. For the French, outsiders who take fewer risks than
Paris use France as a foil against the east.
French foreign policy, particularly since the end of World War II, has
been a search for an alliance in which France has the deciding hand.
The United States replaced Britain as the great outside power, which
both threatened French interests but also was indispensable. Paris
distrusted and depended on the United States, much as it had Britain.
This was not a French neurosis -- it was French geopolitical reality,
borne of being trapped on a continent it could neither dominate nor
trust to restrain from attempts to dominate it. France needed an ally
outside the continent, but could not really trust that ally either.
The pivotal figure of post-war French history was Charles de Gaulle,
who more than anyone represented this dilemma in French foreign
policy. He spoke for the Napoleonic claims of France, knowing
perfectly well that they were beyond his reach. It was de Gaulle who
abandoned Algeria and empire, even while speaking of French grandeur.
It was de Gaulle who simultaneously reduced French exposure while
asserting French power. As such, he was simply the expression of
French geopolitical reality: too much power not to assert influence;
too little power to stand alone.
For de Gaulle, the central premise was that France -- or any other
nation-state, for that matter -- ultimately could not relinquish its
sovereign right to national security to a multinational organization.
France was part of NATO, a transnational organization which, under its
charter and internal agreements, would treat an attack on one member
as an attack on all. Thus, if the Soviet Union invaded Germany, all
NATO members would automatically consider themselves in a state of war
with the Soviet Union.
The United States dominated NATO. The country was the major economic
power, and it had the greatest military force. Most important, it
controlled the nuclear weapons that were the final guarantor against a
Soviet invasion. The American guarantee -- never tested -- was that if
the Soviets invaded Western Europe, the United States would regard it
as an attack on American soil and retaliate with a nuclear attack,
accepting the Soviet nuclear counterattack.
This repelled de Gaulle in two ways. First, he had no objection to
alliance, but the automatic mechanisms of NATO alarmed him. The idea
that France, without a final say, could find itself at war simply
because the NATO council in Brussels passed down a judgment was
anathema to him. He withdrew France from the military committee of
NATO -- but not from NATO itself -- because he believed French
sovereignty could not be subordinated in any way to a multinational
body.
His second reservation was to the idea that the United States would be
willing to suffer a nuclear holocaust to defend Europe. The United
States, like France, had to defend its national interests first.
Therefore, while it was in Washington's interest to convince the
Soviets -- and Europe -- that it would automatically commit suicide to
defend Europe, de Gaulle did not believe that in the final moment the
United States would go through with it. At the very least, it was an
unreliable presupposition that risked France's national security.
Therefore, de Gaulle undertook to construct France's own nuclear
forces, with a purpose, in his words, to at least "tear off the arm"
of anyone who would threaten France again.
De Gaulle operated on two principles: The first was an unwillingness
to abandon French sovereignty again, regardless of the reason; the
second was to keep from basing France's sovereignty or self-interest
on any other nation -- knowing that in the end, no commitment could
cause a nation to act in any way other than in its own self-interest.
The French image of Dunkirk always has been one of abandonment by
allies. De Gaulle had no intention of making France the object of
invasion or dependent on allies with their own interests to pursue.
There was another dimension to de Gaulle's thinking. The United States
reacted to France's withdrawal from NATO's military structure with
anger. U.S. strategy was to contain the Soviets, and containment
required both an alliance system and deterrence -- convincing the
Soviets that NATO's response would be automatic. Washington regarded
Paris' behavior as undermining both strategies. De Gaulle had cracked
the alliance and undermined the critical automation of deterrence.
Washington saw France as giving the Soviets an opening to split the
alliance.
De Gaulle did not intend to split the alliance, but he did intend to
rectify what he saw as an imbalance of power between the Soviets and
the United States. From the French standpoint, the United States had
succeeded in containing the Soviets. In fact, the containment was so
effective that the United States now towered above the Soviet Union in
terms of power. From de Gaulle's standpoint, while he was certainly a
committed anti-communist and did not intend to tilt too far, he
intended to tilt France sufficiently to redress some of the imbalance.
His interests were not theoretical. The world was in disequilibria:
The United States had great power, and NATO had curtailed France's
freedom to act independently. A less powerful United States and more
powerful Soviet Union would be in French interests. The United States,
which never genuinely felt it had the upper hand during most of the
Cold War, saw France's actions as threatening Western security.
A broader application of the Gaullist balance of power theory was to
create a united Europe that could serve as the balance between the
United States and the Soviet Union. For France, this was an incredibly
complex issue. On one side, given France's relative weakness, it made
geopolitical sense. On the other side, given France's desire to never
again lose its sovereignty, it made little sense. From a purely
economic standpoint, there was little choice.
The result is the current bizarre structure of Europe. On one side,
Europe has become a real concept: Much of Europe is integrated into a
single economic entity, with a single currency and central bank. Yet
at the same time, none of the members, least of all France, has given
up sovereignty. The only unified defense force and policy is centered
on NATO, which is incongruent with the European Union. In a conceptual
sense, the idea of Europe is chaotic, with different aspects on every
subject. Yet it matches neatly France's own complexity -- its
aspiration to lead a united Europe, its fear of abandoning its
national sovereignty to others. More than anything, the conceptual
crazy-quilt of Europe resembles the French dilemma.
There is one idée fixée in the French mind that remains unchanged,
however -- the notion of geopolitical equilibrium. If in 1958, de
Gaulle was made uneasy by American power and the loss of French
sovereignty, then one can only imagine how the current French
leadership looks at the world. Where the United States once stood over
France, it now towers. And unlike 1958, where there was a Soviet Union
that could dilute U.S. power and attention, nothing like that exists
today. The United States essentially is contained only by its own
fears and appetites.
For France, the most important task is to limit unbridled American
power. Without that, its worst nightmare, loss of sovereignty, rears
its head while its deepest hope -- reaching again for European power
-- is blocked. Therefore, the only logical step for France is to try
to create a coalition to block the Americans, and try to stand fast as
U.S. power erodes that coalition. For France, the time since the end
of the Cold War has been a bad dream. The time since Sept. 11, 2001,
has been an utter nightmare.
France's behavior is inherently contradictory. On one side, it wants
to build an anti-American coalition. On the other side, coalition
building simply on the basis of national self-interest is hard when
dealing with a power the size of the United States. French recourse to
multilateralism, ironic in the light of its Gaullist past and national
imperatives, points to France's dilemma and its limits. France wants
to build a concert of nations in which its own national sovereignty is
guaranteed and its right to pursue its national interests is
recognized.
Therefore, France behaves in a completely predictable fashion. It will
resist the United States vigorously, seeking to limit its global,
hegemonic power. It will seek to build coalitions with other nations.
However, because it reserves the right to pursue its own national
self-interest, the coalitions tend to dissolve -- leaving France to
face the United States impotently or to pursue its national
self-interest and make its peace with the United States.
France wishes more than anything to be sovereign. Its sovereignty,
however, is insufficient to guarantee its national self-interest. By
itself, it cannot control its destiny; it must be part of something
greater. But in being part of something greater, the temptation to
make that large thing uniquely French strains the edifice. Without
that impulse, however, France's nightmare comes to the fore -- saving
itself by losing itself to something more important than France.
Paris' behavior is neither mysterious nor unpredictable. It is,
however, incapable of shaping history. France is caught between
decisions it cannot make.
Therefore, France's operational pattern is to resist anything that
impinges on its understanding of its national interest. The problem is
that its national interests cannot be achieved alone, and therefore it
requires accommodation. Its national interest is torn between
resistance and accommodation. This creates a pattern that is
unsettling to all concerned. The Iraqis, who thought they could rely
on France, will be surprised that France, in the end, ultimately will
prove to be an ineffective defender. The United States, which sees
France increasingly as an adversary, will be bemused as the country
realigns itself and eventually claims -- and indeed will believe --
that it has always been in the last position it occupies.
For France, Iraq represents two national interests. First, it has
direct national interests in Iraq -- oil, defense and other markets.
Second, and more important, France understands that a U.S. occupation
of Iraq would shift the global balance of power even more in the favor
of the United States. It is therefore in the French national interest
to resist. At the same time, all-out resistance is impossible. By the
nature of its foreign policy, France finds it difficult to hold
together coalitions. Standing alone, France cannot resist the United
States, nor can it resist a rupture with the United States.
France will resist the United States with all of its might -- but
recognizing the limits of its might, it ultimately will capitulate,
formally or informally. France will carry out its policies on multiple
levels -- opposing on one, cooperating on another. It will appear to
be perfidious, as the current term would have it, but it is simply
torn in multiple directions, torn by competing geography, dreams and
nightmares. France will move very quickly in many directions during
any crisis. In the end, it will wind up where it began. France appears
insufferable, but it is merely trapped by geography and history.
jhayati
> In article <2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>, jhayati
> <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I don't see it that way. At least one of them is nonsense and spin.
> > I've seen many many sites where accusations are made and all sorts of
> > claims spun. Add to that I have a very deep and intricate knowledge
> > of history and wars, and the nuances and dilemmas. To have someone
> > say "if you haven't heard about the scandals I search for to spin the
> > U.S. into war mongers that don't care about people then you shouldn't
> > talk". Nonsense. I don't need to disprove story afer story, scandal
> > after scandal. I'm painfully aware of the myriad of mistakes the U.S.
> > has made. Again, that is in the context of all the amazing wonderful
> > things that it has accomplished. You could throw another one of these
> > stories at me every day until eternity.
>
> You are in denial. The incidents I listed were all accepted historical
> Gulf War which was a bloody massacre from beginning to end.
No, that is not 'fact' but rather common extremist spin. The fact
that the U.S. was careful and bombed Saddam instead of putting troops
at risk you call 'massacre', where the 'fact' is that good strategy
and careful planning led to American troops not being injured. In
other words, 'massacre' is an emotional expression of disappointment
that thousands of Americans weren't killed by Saddam. Hardly a
'fact', only a rather distasteful display of dislike of the United
States. I hear that so often, the strange contradiction that
pacifists would prefer more death, but only if Americans died. That's
up their with claims that we 'caused' the attack on the World Trade
Center.
-jay
punnadhammo
> No, that is not 'fact' but rather common extremist spin. The fact
> that the U.S. was careful and bombed Saddam instead of putting troops
> at risk you call 'massacre',
Jay, that's just stupid, not up to your usual standard of argument.
They didn't bomb "Saddam", they bombed a wide range of targets, many of
which could not by any stretch be called legitimate military ones.
And I thought you said the US military always tries to save civilian
life, even at risk of themselves. You can't have it both ways.
> where the 'fact' is that good strategy
> and careful planning led to American troops not being injured.
But several thousand Iraqi civilians as well as a wholesale massacre of
the largely conscript troops.
> In
> other words, 'massacre' is an emotional expression of disappointment
> that thousands of Americans weren't killed by Saddam.
That's dumb and a cheap shot. I don't want anyone killed.
jhayati
> In article <2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>, jhayati
> <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > No, that is not 'fact' but rather common extremist spin. The fact
> > that the U.S. was careful and bombed Saddam instead of putting troops
> > at risk you call 'massacre',
>
> Jay, that's just stupid, not up to your usual standard of argument.
> They didn't bomb "Saddam", they bombed a wide range of targets, many of
> which could not by any stretch be called legitimate military ones.
>
> And I thought you said the US military always tries to save civilian
> life, even at risk of themselves. You can't have it both ways.
Sure I can. The intention is never to target a civilian whenever
possible, and the reality is that sometimes civilians get hurt and
missiles go off target. Remember when we blew up the Chinese Embassy?
And you can site all sorts of mistakes. Ok, we make mistakes. I
never denied that.
> > where the 'fact' is that good strategy
> > and careful planning led to American troops not being injured.
>
> But several thousand Iraqi civilians as well as a wholesale massacre of
> the largely conscript troops.
Which was the minimum possible, given that the Iraqi troops didn't
surrender. We don't kill troops who have surrendered and have put
down their weapons and abandoned their vehicles. We don't kill
civilians intentionally when there are no military targets. We
sometimes make big mistakes. That covers it.
> > In
> > other words, 'massacre' is an emotional expression of disappointment
> > that thousands of Americans weren't killed by Saddam.
>
> That's dumb and a cheap shot. I don't want anyone killed.
Then don't pick out such cases, as if there is something immoral about
our being smart enough to not lose lives when we eliminate terrorists
or enemy troops who don't surrender. "Massacre" would be if troops
abandoned weapons and vehicles and waved white flags and we shot them.
We don't do that.
-jay
punnadhammo
<jha...@msn.com> wrote:
Jhayati, you are still hopelessly naive about the reality of war. That
is your only excuse.
> Sure I can. The intention is never to target a civilian whenever
> possible, and the reality is that sometimes civilians get hurt and
> missiles go off target. Remember when we blew up the Chinese Embassy?
> And you can site all sorts of mistakes. Ok, we make mistakes. I
> never denied that.
Two things counter this. One; the mistakes are made largely because the
strategic policy of the USAF is to fly too high for reliable targeting
this is safer for the pilot and plane, but a very cowardly way to
export all the risk of war to innocent civilians.
Secondly, this doesn't at all cover the numerous cases where civilian
infrastructure is deliberately targetted under an extremely broad
interpretation of what the military calls "dual use". That is, if
anything on the ground might have even the most tenuous connection to
supporting the enemy military it is a fair target. This included water
treatment and electricty plants in the First Gulf War which resulted in
thousands of civilian deaths by cholera. In Yugoslavia it included
television stations (with technicians in them, a point I am touchy
about becuase I used to be a tech) and railroad bridges even with
trains going over them!
These two factors add up to a very low valuation of civlian life by the
US military, totally contrary to your claims.
> Which was the minimum possible, given that the Iraqi troops didn't
> surrender. We don't kill troops who have surrendered and have put
> down their weapons and abandoned their vehicles. We don't kill
> civilians intentionally when there are no military targets. We
> sometimes make big mistakes. That covers it.
The massacre on the highway of death was no mistake. It was policy. The
troops massacred in cold blood were not an organized formation offering
resistance, they were a disorderly mob retreating in panic. The
Americans bombed a bridge ahead of them to create a bottleneck and then
fire-bombed them from the air, killing thousands.
No opportunity to surrender was offered, although it would have been
easy to do since they had no where to go and were not in fighting
formation.
> Then don't pick out such cases, as if there is something immoral about
> our being smart enough to not lose lives when we eliminate terrorists
> or enemy troops who don't surrender. "Massacre" would be if troops
> abandoned weapons and vehicles and waved white flags and we shot them.
> We don't do that.
Sorry, Jhayati, you're wrong about that too. There have been
photographs published of US troops standing over dead Iraqis with
white flags in their hand. You do do that, at least on occassion.
The US soldiery has a bad reputation with allied forces for being
trigger-happy, or as the Brits say "Lacking fire discipline."
In truth, I have a lot of compassion for the US soldiers over there.
They are inadequately trained in the cultural background, they are hot
and thirsty and people are shooting at them. They lose it and they
shoot wild killing lots and lots of innocents. After all, most of them
are only 19 or 20, just kids. I don't think a 19 year old should be
trusted with the TV remote, let alone an automatic rifle.
But armies like to recruit them young and stupid. Older guys are too
smart to walk into a minefield when ordered.
jhayati
> In article <2e4552bb.0310...@posting.google.com>, jhayati
> <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> Jhayati, you are still hopelessly naive about the reality of war.
> That is your only excuse.
An ungrounded insult from our extremist Mr. Pundit.
> > Sure I can. The intention is never to target a civilian whenever
> > possible, and the reality is that sometimes civilians get hurt and
> > missiles go off target. Remember when we blew up the Chinese Embassy?
> > And you can site all sorts of mistakes. Ok, we make mistakes. I
> > never denied that.
>
> Two things counter this. One; the mistakes are made largely because the
> strategic policy of the USAF is to fly too high for reliable targeting
> this is safer for the pilot and plane,
You actually make somewhat of a reasonably claim there, but not with
the Iraq campaign, nor with the Afghanistan one. That happened in
Kosovo, at 15,000 feet, and I wouldn't have made that call. Stingers
could target aircraft at up to about 10,000 feet, but the planes were
told to fly at 15,000, much higher than necessarily, and that caused
many more bombs to miss their targets. We had much better tech in
Afghanistan and even better in Iraq, but this did apply to Kosovo.
> Secondly, this doesn't at all cover the numerous cases where civilian
> infrastructure is deliberately targetted under an extremely broad
> interpretation of what the military calls "dual use". That is, if
> anything on the ground might have even the most tenuous connection to
> supporting the enemy military it is a fair target.
No point of that one. So you weren't talking about civilian targets,
but miltiary ones that civilians are in, which are just about all of
them. Then add the adjectives to add dishonest emotional hype.
> The massacre on the highway of death was no mistake. It was policy. The
> troops massacred in cold blood were not an organized formation offering
No, they were not murdered in cold blood. You are talking now of
troops who did not surrender, did not abandon their vehicles, and did
not get rid of their weapons, which meant they were enemy hostile
targets in a battle. To say that there is even the slightest moral
problem with terminating them is simply to say "I don't like war" but
it is not a massacre or a war crime. That one was extremely dishonest
on your part. The biggest crime was not pursuing them to Baghdad and
taking Iraq and removing Saddam then, abandoning the Kurds and leaving
the murderous dictator in power.
> No opportunity to surrender was offered,
Yes it was, with loudspeakers and fliers, that if you abandon your
vehicles and weapons you will be treated fairly, which those who did
were. You've now crossed to an outright lie, or if that isn't your
intention, you're repeating misinformation from propaganda hate sites
which lie.
> > Then don't pick out such cases, as if there is something immoral about
> > our being smart enough to not lose lives when we eliminate terrorists
> > or enemy troops who don't surrender. "Massacre" would be if troops
> > abandoned weapons and vehicles and waved white flags and we shot them.
> > We don't do that.
>
> Sorry, Jhayati, you're wrong about that too. There have been
> photographs published of US troops standing over dead Iraqis with
> white flags in their hand.
There probably are mistakes, and a soldier doing this deliberately
would get court-martialed and thrown out of the army. Saying that
there have been mistakes is fine, but that is a rare case.
> In truth, I have a lot of compassion for the US soldiers over there.
> They are inadequately trained in the cultural background, they are hot
> and thirsty and people are shooting at them. They lose it and they
> shoot wild killing lots and lots of innocents.
Again a lie. They are well trained and do not "lose it" and "shoot
wild killing lots and lots of innocents". There are rare exceptions
when innocents get killed, which then get plastered on the front of
all the media. However, almost all of the troops are well-disciplined
and have a deep respect for the people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and do
not go "will killing lots and lots of people". That is just plain
silly.
So the 15,000 feet deal in Kosovo was problematic, of your list of
atrocities. I can understand Clinton not wanting anyone to lose their
sons and husbands needlessly, but that is a difficult choice to make,
and we didn't know until after the war the percentage that the smart
bombs would miss. Dubya chose to take a lot more risk with troops to
prevent casualties, but I emphasize that this is not because he was
necessarily more moral, but because he had better tech, and could
substantially minimize casualties without a heavy bombing campaign for
a month as in the first Gulf war. Of course, you don't look at how
risky this new strategy was, and how many tens of thousands of
civilians were spared by taking this risk and that more marines died
this way to save the most civilians; instead you'll point to pictures
of dead people and prevaricate all the more.
> But armies like to recruit them young and stupid.
Another ridiculous claim that isn't worth responding to.
Punnadhammo, you've alternated between dishonest, biased, and
laughable. Perhaps you would be better to go back to singing opera.
-jay
punnadhammo
> You actually make somewhat of a reasonably claim there, but not with
> the Iraq campaign, nor with the Afghanistan one. That happened in
> Kosovo, at 15,000 feet, and I wouldn't have made that call. Stingers
> could target aircraft at up to about 10,000 feet, but the planes were
> told to fly at 15,000, much higher than necessarily, and that caused
> many more bombs to miss their targets. We had much better tech in
> Afghanistan and even better in Iraq, but this did apply to Kosovo.
I admit to not knowing what altitude the planes flew in Afghanistan or
Iraq. I do know that when the USAF killed some Canadian troopers in
Afghanistan there was an inquiry much more thorough and public than
anything that would have happened had the victims been Afghans.
Some of the findings were shocking. The US pilots were jacked up on
speed, which it turns out is standard operating procedure. The voice of
the pilot from the cockpit recording sounds like a guy wired to the
breaking point. Ground control ordered him specifically to hold his
fire, but he saw muzzle flashes below (it was live fire exercise) and
panicked, even though he was flying way too high for small arms to
reach.
> > Secondly, this doesn't at all cover the numerous cases where civilian
> > infrastructure is deliberately targetted under an extremely broad
> > interpretation of what the military calls "dual use". That is, if
> > anything on the ground might have even the most tenuous connection to
> > supporting the enemy military it is a fair target.
>
> No point of that one. So you weren't talking about civilian targets,
> but miltiary ones that civilians are in, which are just about all of
> them. Then add the adjectives to add dishonest emotional hype.
You are just accepting blindly the military's self-serving definitions.
A "dual-use" target in military jargon is a civilian target that might
conceivably serve a secondary military purpose. This can be extended to
include anything. In one case I read of a hospital was deliberately
bombed (Yugoslav campaign) because the army had intelligence that Serb
soldiers were sheltering in the lobby.
Television stations, water plants, hydro dams, passenger trains are
civilian targets regardless of how the military chooses to spin it.
> > No opportunity to surrender was offered, [on the hiway of death]
>
> Yes it was, with loudspeakers and fliers, that if you abandon your
> vehicles and weapons you will be treated fairly, which those who did
> were. You've now crossed to an outright lie, or if that isn't your
> intention, you're repeating misinformation from propaganda hate sites
> which lie.
Do you have a citation for the claim that they were offered a chance to
surrender? I have never heard that before. The accounts I have read
said it was a rapid and ruthless strike on the retreating Iraqis. I
have also never heard that there were any survivors. This would seem to
make your claim unbelievable. Out of thousands of troops, at least some
would have abandoned their arms and their vehicles to save their lives
don't you think?
> There probably are mistakes, and a soldier doing this deliberately
> would get court-martialed and thrown out of the army. Saying that
> there have been mistakes is fine, but that is a rare case.
I don't say it was common. I don't know if it was or wasn't. Do you
know of incidents were US soldiers have been court-martialed in such
incidents? I think it is more likely to be covered up to save face.
> > > In truth, I have a lot of compassion for the US soldiers over there.
> > They are inadequately trained in the cultural background, they are hot
> > and thirsty and people are shooting at them. They lose it and they
> > shoot wild killing lots and lots of innocents.
>
> Again a lie. They are well trained and do not "lose it" and "shoot
> wild killing lots and lots of innocents". There are rare exceptions
> when innocents get killed, which then get plastered on the front of
> all the media. However, almost all of the troops are well-disciplined
> and have a deep respect for the people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and do
> not go "will killing lots and lots of people". That is just plain
> silly.
Here you demonstrate your complete naivety. You have nothing to back up
your claim except a naive illusion about how US troops would act. You
should read some of the fine journalism by reporters like Fisk, or some
of the stories on the riversbend site or countless other sources close
to the action to see that it is not what you imagine.
Again, I do not really blame the troops. They are really just a bunch
of scared miserable kids who probably signed up for the most part for a
free education.
As for the "deep respect" they have for the Iraqis, you should educate
yourself on that one too. You are so far out of touch as to be living
in a dream world. The US troops have no training in local cultural or
politics except one forty-five minute lecture. They call the Iraqis
with a derogatory nickname "Hajji" like they called the Vietnamese
"Gooks."
Read some independent journalism about what is going on and forget your
idealistic notions. The American army is just a bunch of young kids
with rifles. Like any army.
> > But armies like to recruit them young and stupid.
>
> Another ridiculous claim that isn't worth responding to.
The only time they try and recruit old coots my age is for the last
defence of the bunker. Bush isn't quite that desperate (yet)
jhayati
> In article <2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>, jhayati
> <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Actually, I have no problem with that. It's this kind of doing it
> > without discernment and accepting anything that agrees with one's
> > views that bothers me. And then the pretending not to know who
> > attacked the World Trade Center - that duplicity is rather nauseous.
>
> It's not duplicitious, I am expressing genuine ignorance here.
LOL!!! Ain't that the truth!
> Interesting though, that you admit "I haven't researched it yet" and
> still come out with a explanation exonerating US actions.
Hearing a tabloid story from an extremist doesn't lead me to believe
it unless I can disprove it. You cite something that is true
somewhere between 1% and 5% of the time, let's say, and you add hype
and spin and nonsense. I tend not to take tabloid headlines seriously
until I see something substantiated.
In one of your cases you called a "massacre" this turned out after
looking it up to be the targeting of enemy soldiers retreating in a
vehicle with their weapons. In other words, you lied, spun, and
deceived to create prejudice and hatred. I've read enough about US
actions to know how ridiculous this is. The best you can do is to
site mistakes and exceptions, and then try to claim that this is the
norm. You've been deceitful in that way in so many posts now that
it's boring.
At least you say one thing that makes sense:
> I am expressing genuine ignorance here.
Yet even that you use to spin and not to say "yes I know very well
that Osama and al Qaeda viciously were behind the murder of 3000
innocent people." You can't even say that, but instead have to at
least indirectly promote the lies and conspiracy stories about 9/11
that are so popular in France and Germany.
Perhaps you would do better just to say about all these matters that:
> I am expressing genuine ignorance here.
> > Yes indeed he does. I did, as Mr. Pundit pointed out, throw in a gory
> > torture story without checking it out: funny that Punnadhammo does
> > this constantly, yet gets indignant when I do the same once. I don't
> > get the double-standard.
>
> You are just plain lying here. In this discussion I have not thrown out
> any wild stories that can't be substantiated.
I just mentioned one above: you made a wild claim about a "massacre"
and it turns out that the troops in that case had not surrenders, but
were in their vehicles and had guns, making you a liar, and a blatant
on at that. I sited several other equally fanatical claims in another
post today aleady. And I am not "plain lying" nor have I ever lied to
you, whereas you have rarely been honest with the stories you weave
and the language you use, Punnadhammo. Have you ever considered
attending a meeting of Fanatics Anonymous?
-jay
Ch'an Fu
you're both "buddhists"?
"An untroubled mind,
No longer seeking to consider
What is right and what is wrong,
A mind beyond judgments,
Watches and understands."
-- dp 3
jhayati
> In article <2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>, jhayati
> <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > You actually make somewhat of a reasonably claim there, but not with
> > the Iraq campaign, nor with the Afghanistan one. That happened in
> > Kosovo, at 15,000 feet, and I wouldn't have made that call. Stingers
> > could target aircraft at up to about 10,000 feet, but the planes were
> > told to fly at 15,000, much higher than necessarily, and that caused
> > many more bombs to miss their targets. We had much better tech in
> > Afghanistan and even better in Iraq, but this did apply to Kosovo.
>
> I admit to not knowing what altitude the planes flew in Afghanistan or
> Iraq.
Actually, it doesn't matter now, because a tech advance changed the
the entire context. Before about 1995, every modern air force had to
choose between high-altitude, inaccurate attacks or low-altitude,
potentially risky attacks. In Kosovo, where the rock and the hard
place for NATO were the misplaced and unpopular attacks on tractor
convoys versus the Yugoslav SAM net waiting patiently for the
attackers to start flying under the 15,000 feet norm to avoid those
kinds of mistakes. Now GPS weapon means accurate airstrikes are
possible from altitudes of complete impunity.
Here's the most crucial stat. In Iraq War I, only ten percent of the
bombs used were smart bombs. In Kosovo, smart bombs with GPS
equipment were used for the first time experimentally. In
Afghanistan, 60 percent of the bombs dropped were GPS smart bombs. In
Iraq War II, over 90 percent were GPS smart bombs, and where civilians
were nearby, such as in Baghdad, 100% of the bombs dropped were smart
bombs. We spend a lot more money for these precision guided bombs to
make sure we don't kill innocent civilians. These smart bombs can be
dropped from any altitude and hit with incredible precision, so the
flying altitude no longer means much of anything anymore.
> I do know that when the USAF killed some Canadian troopers in
> Afghanistan there was an inquiry much more thorough and public than
> anything that would have happened had the victims been Afghans.
It was a ridiculous witch hunt of political correctness. How about
the 8 to 10 thousand Americans that died like that of friendly fire in
Vietnam?
> Some of the findings were shocking. The US pilots were jacked up on
> speed, which it turns out is standard operating procedure.
Not so shocking. It's the same very mild neo-amphetimine given to
tons of little kids, Ritalin, which is really just high-test caffeine
but with less side effects, and it was regulated when they went on
long runs of 12 hours and needed to focus. They weren't "jacked up"
any more than the equivalent of a couple of cups of coffee. Were they
drunk, on the other hand, that would be irresponsible.
> The voice of the pilot from the cockpit recording sounds like a guy
> wired to the breaking point.
To you maybe. Here you are taking this out of context, but I don't
think this is your usual spin: you just haven't thought it through.
They saw what they thought were enemies firing on them. Anyone would
freak out a bit if they thought unexpectedly someone was firing
rockets and trying to kill them. The pilot made a mistake and
panicked and wrongly fired when he was told to wait for confirmation.
The ritalin stuff is a cheap shot; the issue is that the pilot didn't
wait as ordered, in which he would have been told not to fire.
These incidents happen, but there is no intention to kill anyone, and
mistakes are made when you think someone is trying to kill you.
> > > Secondly, this doesn't at all cover the numerous cases where civilian
> > > infrastructure is deliberately targetted under an extremely broad
> > > interpretation of what the military calls "dual use". That is, if
> > > anything on the ground might have even the most tenuous connection to
> > > supporting the enemy military it is a fair target.
> >
> > No point of that one. So you weren't talking about civilian targets,
> > but miltiary ones that civilians are in, which are just about all of
> > them. Then add the adjectives to add dishonest emotional hype.
>
> You are just accepting blindly the military's self-serving definitions.
No, I'm saying that these targets had some military use, which makes
them questionable, and it all depends upon the particular target. And
you don't mention that unscrupulous enemies try to mask military bases
as civilian targets, making these decisions even harder. This is not
a matter of the evil administration lying and ruthlessly murdering
kiddies, as you would have it.
> > > No opportunity to surrender was offered, [on the hiway of death]
> >
> > Yes it was, with loudspeakers and fliers, that if you abandon your
> > vehicles and weapons you will be treated fairly, which those who did
> > were. You've now crossed to an outright lie, or if that isn't your
> > intention, you're repeating misinformation from propaganda hate sites
> > which lie.
>
> Do you have a citation for the claim that they were offered a chance to
> surrender? I have never heard that before.
I have. I've seen interviews about it. Tens of thousands surrendered
when given a chance to, and they were treated very well. Others who
chose to take their guns and vehicles and make a run for it, they got
killed.
The most problematic cases were the ones buried alive, and there you
have a case, as they didn't always have a chance to come out and
surrender, or their own leaders would shoot them in the back when they
tried. That was horrible. I have sympathy for them, but not ones in
the open who could get out of the truck or jeep and throw down the
gun, but chose to make a run for it instead. I don't know if we could
have avoided burying alive a lot of dug-in ones that might have not
had as much of a chance to surrender.
> The accounts I have read said it was a rapid and ruthless strike on the
> retreating Iraqis. I have also never heard that there were any survivors.
Read about the "PSYOP" campaign of hundreds of truck with loudspeakers
and hundreds of thousands of leaflets dropped, all explaining that
they would be treated fairly if they abandoned their guns and
vehicles.
You haven't heard of any survivors? There were a whopping 87,000
Iraqi soldiers who turned themselves over to coalition forces in the
first Iraq War, most of them clutching the leaflets or hiding them in
their clothing. These proved the PSYOP mission's worth and saved
countless enemy lives. These include several thousand troops that
surrendered by crossing the border before we started the ground
assault as well. In any case, there were tens of thousands that
surrendered in the desert during the swift ground attack, but you just
want to selectively focus on ones who read the leaflets, ignored them,
and then took off in vehicles with guns. How stupid can one get?
They deserve one of those "Darwin Awards" for stupidity.
Fifty-eight percent of the survivors who surrendered reported
listening to coalition broadcasts and said they trusted them as
truthful. Eighty percent of them followed the instructions encouraged
by the broadcasts. Over a seven-week period, 29 million leaflets had
been disseminated, reaching approximately 98% of the 300,000 troops.
> This would seem to make your claim unbelievable. Out of thousands of
> troops, at least some would have abandoned their arms and their
> vehicles to save their lives don't you think?
87,000 is pretty impressive to me. That's how many times the small
number of civilians that died in the recent campaign? Oh, that's
right, these numbers mean nothing to you. Maybe you have some
pictures of bleeding Iraqi babies which you can present to ignore all
of these stats.
Again, you can find countless web sites with 'massacre' stories, but
we did everything we could to help those who threw down their guns.
> > There probably are mistakes, and a soldier doing this deliberately
> > would get court-martialed and thrown out of the army. Saying that
> > there have been mistakes is fine, but that is a rare case.
>
> I don't say it was common. I don't know if it was or wasn't. Do you
> know of incidents were US soldiers have been court-martialed in such
> incidents? I think it is more likely to be covered up to save face.
I'd have to look that up. And of course you think likely any act that
would be unfair, hateful, or irresponsible, as you want to keep
promoting your war-monger stereotype. You know very well that the
word 'likely' without a percentage from a reliable source only means
you are spinning and repeating your initial stereotype.
> > > > In truth, I have a lot of compassion for the US soldiers over there.
> > > They are inadequately trained in the cultural background, they are hot
> > > and thirsty and people are shooting at them. They lose it and they
> > > shoot wild killing lots and lots of innocents.
> >
> > Again a lie. They are well trained and do not "lose it" and "shoot
> > wild killing lots and lots of innocents". There are rare exceptions
> > when innocents get killed, which then get plastered on the front of
> > all the media. However, almost all of the troops are well-disciplined
> > and have a deep respect for the people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and do
> > not go "will killing lots and lots of people". That is just plain
> > silly.
>
> Here you demonstrate your complete naivety. You have nothing to back up
> your claim except a naive illusion about how US troops would act.
You like anecdotes. Here's one from an article from the anti-war BBC:
Surrendering Iraqi troops were often surprised at the humane treatment
they received, says Chris Lincoln-Jones, a British commander at the
time. "At the moment of surrender they were often extremely scared
because they'd heard from their officers that they would be shot by
the enemy." UK troops are well-versed in the rules for handling PoWs -
everyone from an infantryman up receives an annual refresher course.
There is also a separate "ethics package" which sets out the sort of
behaviour that is expected of British troops in combat. Mostly these
are respected, says Mr Lincoln-Jones, who recalls an episode in the
last Gulf War when an opportunistic Iraqi, shielded by his
surrendering colleagues, fired a rocket-propelled grenade which killed
a British soldier. "It was a heated and tense moment and the other
Iraqis might have feared for their lives. But while the culprit was
killed, the other men were left unscathed."
There are tons of stories of similar stories of American troops. You
will likely say "I can't believe that they didn't just shoot up
everybody" or some ridiculous comment like that. War is really
horrible as it is, without you spinning it to be a hundred times
worse, you know.
> Again, I do not really blame the troops. They are really just a bunch
> of scared miserable kids
That's a horrible thing to say. They are trained men and some women
who are willing to risk their own lives to keep their homes safe and
help bring down these horrible dictators and terrorists. How dare you
insult them while you sit around safe and secure and can only say
hateful things about those who keep it that way. Boy, that sure is
demeaning.
> As for the "deep respect" they have for the Iraqis, you should educate
> yourself on that one too. You are so far out of touch as to be living
> in a dream world.
Yet another sweeping insult from Mr. Pundit. As you can probably see
from my posts, I am neither out of touch, nor living in a dream world.
That statement is ridiculous. What you mean is that I am again
questioning your propaganda.
> The US troops have no training in local cultural or
> politics except one forty-five minute lecture.
There I agree with you. I was in a Buddhist meditation and discussion
group recently, and when an idea was discussed about a plan for peace
in Sri Lanka, I suggested that we make a deal with Sri Lanka where we
would create a huge base, and after we negotiate peace with the Tamil
Tigers, tell the Sri Lankans we'll protect the country and allow them
not to need any armed forces at all, in return for sending all our
rotating troops intensive meditation and mindfulness retreats, which
our government would sponsor and pay the cost of food and housing for.
The anti-war people in the group only made sarcastic comments and
then changed the subject, but I was quite serious. I think that would
be an incredible idea.
> They call the Iraqis with a derogatory nickname "Hajji" like they called
> the Vietnamese "Gooks."
I'm sure some of that goes on. That's a more reasonable claim than
yesterday when you were saying that they randomly "shoot up" and kill
lots of innocent civilians. I'm sure some of the regular army are
crude sometimes, and much less with marines. However, to think that
most of those brave troops are hateful or prejudice is just a way for
you to fuel your own hatred. There is so much of the opposite and
kind acts of compassion by troops, and you want to ignore those.
That's the problem with your anecdote-based fundamentalism, btw, as
you can always find anecdotes to fuel your view, whereas if you look
at the bigger picture and statistics -- well, you can actually
manipulate them too -- but you can often get a more holistic grasp of
what's going on as a whole.
> Read some independent journalism about...
Oh, I've had enough of your conspiracy tabloid sites, Punnadhammo.
Any more ridiculous generalizations for me this post? Ah, one more:
> The American army is just a bunch of young kids with rifles.
No, they follow a chain of command and are court-martialed if they
don't. That is a world apart from "just a bunch of young kids with
rifles." Furthermore, the ones that have to be sent into sticky
situations are the marines, who are very highly trained and have a
very high standard of discipline and honor. You're way off base on
that one.
- jay
jhayati
> Re Kissinger: I don't think I'm projecting, there's a debate and I've
> studied the evidence and come to the conclusion that the case that he is
> guilty of war crimes is very strong.
I think it's rather silly. Just about everyone in every
administration would be guilty of war crimes if this were so.
Clinton's flying planes at 15,000 feet in Kosovo that Punnadhammo
mentioned would be an example.
> I also think its important to try and learn as much about history as
> possible, and I read through the Kissinger link you posted.
Wasn't that a really interesting article? I enjoyed it.
> Maybe I can recommend something for you to look at in return - if you
> haven't read any Noam Chomsky, Rogue States is good introduction.
I'd read an article by Chomsky, but he's a rather radical annoying
extremist and doesn't really do much for me. I saw him talk and he
seemed to occilate between extremist and unintelligible. I haven't
read any of his books. Or Kissinger's.
- j
jhayati
> "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com...
> > "Ludwig" <Lud...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<CqAeb.1462$kA.4...@wards.force9.net>...
>
Only if you mean a French whore with leather and a whip.
> >Let's label not submitting to the French will "criminal".
>
> Well I chose the word criminal rather carefully. The relevant legal
> framework is the UN Charter, recognised as "the supreme law of the land"
> under the US constitution, which states that member states must "refrain in
> their international relations from the threat or use of force."
>
> The only exception is under Article 51 which permits the "right of
> individual or collective self-defense" until such time as "the Security
> council has taken the necessary measures to maintain peace and security." In
> all other circumstances a UN mandate would have been required for any
> military intervention.
>
> So its not "simple minded" or a "conspiracy theory" to label the war
> on Iraq criminal, its a simple statement of fact.
It's not fact. It's one interpretation. I can argue for an
alternative, that technically, the war was a continuation of the last
one. That it was fully supported by umpteen U.N. resolutions,
including a 15-0 Security Council vote to force Saddam to comply.
That 9/11 made a war far more conceivable because it revealed the
U.S.'s vulnerability to fanatical terrorists who might get hold of
WMDs from Saddam. The casus belli was not proof of Saddam's existing
weapons, but proof of his refusal to cooperate fully with U.N.
inspectors or account fully for his WMD research. Nothing we have
discovered after the war has debunked or undermined any of these
reasons. And the moral reason for getting rid of an unconscionably
evil regime has actually gotten stronger now that we see the full
extent of his terror-state.
> > Let's take France's doing everything it can to undermine it's most
> > loathed economic enemy (which it should, and is all part of how
> > politics is played) but call it 'pressure' from your enemy when
> > somehow your enemy doesn't bend to your will. You (France and
> > Germany) have the right to spin and talk about your enemy as the
> > Soviets did.
>
> Oh I'm British actually (thought I said that before) not German
> - Ludwig isn't my real name .... are you sure that France and Germany
> are your enemy though?
Well, Pierre, you tell me: L'Express last week said, for example, "In
the name of their credibility, and of their diplomatic survival, the
UN and its Security Council can't afford to miss the opportunity to
bring back the all-powerful America into the fold and to retake some
semblance of initiative on the critically important Iraq dossier. But
it remains to measure their hypothetical power, once more, by the
measuring stick of concessions from Washington."
Perhaps 'economic rival' might be more accurate. As I've said many
times, I have no emotional grudge with France, as I think they are
simply making the best chess moves they can, which right now is to
oppose and thwart the USA politically and economically whenever
possible. I tend to like the op-ed pieces by Thomas Friedman, who is
a columnist for the NY Times. I go for his reasoning in an article a
couple of weeks ago (below). I've posted numerous other snips from
articles about the history of France's opposition to the U.S.,
especially since we double-crossed the French and prevented them from
enacting a regime change in Egypt in 1956. They returned the favor
this year, except that they didn't have the power to stop us as we did
they.
- j
NY Times, September 18, 2003
Our War With France
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
It's time we Americans came to terms with something: France is not
just our annoying ally. It is not just our jealous rival. France is
becoming our enemy.
If you add up how France behaved in the run-up to the Iraq war (making
it impossible for the Security Council to put a real ultimatum to
Saddam Hussein that might have avoided a war), and if you look at how
France behaved during the war (when its foreign minister, Dominique de
Villepin, refused to answer the question of whether he wanted Saddam
or America to win in Iraq), and if you watch how France is behaving
today (demanding some kind of loopy symbolic transfer of Iraqi
sovereignty to some kind of hastily thrown together Iraqi provisional
government, with the rest of Iraq's transition to democracy to be
overseen more by a divided U.N. than by America), then there is only
one conclusion one can draw: France wants America to fail in Iraq.
France wants America to sink in a quagmire there in the crazy hope
that a weakened U.S. will pave the way for France to assume its
"rightful" place as America's equal, if not superior, in shaping world
affairs.
Yes, the Bush team's arrogance has sharpened French hostility. Had
President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld not been so
full of themselves right after America's military victory in Iraq —
and instead used that moment, when the French were feeling that maybe
they should have taken part, to magnanimously reach out to Paris to
join in reconstruction — it might have softened French attitudes. But
even that I have doubts about.
What I have no doubts about, though, is that there is no coherent,
legitimate Iraqi authority able to assume power in the near term, and
trying to force one now would lead to a dangerous internal struggle
and delay the building of the democratic institutions Iraq so badly
needs. Iraqis know this. France knows this, which is why its original
proposal (which it now seems to be backtracking on a bit) could only
be malicious.
What is so amazing to me about the French campaign — "Operation
America Must Fail" — is that France seems to have given no thought as
to how this would affect France. Let me spell it out in simple
English: if America is defeated in Iraq by a coalition of Saddamists
and Islamists, radical Muslim groups — from Baghdad to the Muslim
slums of Paris — will all be energized, and the forces of modernism
and tolerance within these Muslim communities will be on the run. To
think that France, with its large Muslim minority, where radicals are
already gaining strength, would not see its own social fabric affected
by this is fanciful.
If France were serious, it would be using its influence within the
European Union to assemble an army of 25,000 Eurotroops, and a $5
billion reconstruction package, and then saying to the Bush team:
Here, we're sincere about helping to rebuild Iraq, but now we want a
real seat at the management table. Instead, the French have put out an
ill-conceived proposal, just to show that they can be different,
without any promise that even if America said yes Paris would make a
meaningful contribution.
But then France has never been interested in promoting democracy in
the modern Arab world, which is why its pose as the new protector of
Iraqi representative government — after being so content with Saddam's
one-man rule — is so patently cynical.
Clearly, not all E.U. countries are comfortable with this French
mischief, yet many are going along for the ride. It's stunning to me
that the E.U., misled by France, could let itself be written out of
the most important political development project in modern Middle East
history. The whole tone and direction of the Arab-Muslim world, which
is right on Europe's doorstep, will be affected by the outcome in
Iraq. It would be as if America said it did not care what happened in
Mexico because it was mad at Spain.
Says John Chipman, director of the London-based International
Institute for Strategic Studies: "What the Europeans are saying about
Iraq is that this is our backyard, we're not going to let you meddle
in it, but we're not going to tend it ourselves."
But what's most sad is that France is right — America will not be as
effective or legitimate in its efforts to rebuild Iraq without French
help. Having France working with us in Iraq, rather than against us in
the world, would be so beneficial for both nations and for the Arabs'
future. Too bad this French government has other priorities.
MasterChef
Ch'an Fu wrote in message <>
>you're both "buddhists"?
theyr both monks
heheh
DrWarrenKrugar
It does the heart good (yes, I do have a heart) to see impeccable
reasoning allow the facts to bring themselves to bear. People tend to
develop, cling to and defend an opinion because it is in keeping with
their fundamental orientations. Buddhists (here) have proven
themselves no different, seizing upon the spin that best suits their
biases and accepting that as "the facts".
What is interesting is to watch the spectacle of them berating others
as brainwashed and ignorant (apparently the philosophical equivalent
of the hillbilly "barefoot and pregnant") simply because they have not
bought the preferred spin.
Like hillbillies, the kneejerk pacifists find themselves in the dark
and conspire to keep others in the dark just to maintain the status
quo of dissent. Dissent is of course so much easier and cheaper than
genuine honesty. Any jerk can be a whining dissenter intent on tearing
down the efforts of others. It takes real intellectual and emotional
backbone to undertake an ambitious project to construct something
worthwhile.
Jay's response to "That Guy" is a classic case of dismantling of
"manufactured consent". If you do not recognize that phrase, it is a
Chomsky concept from his book Manufacturing Consent, which Jay was
right to represent as flat-footed extremism with all the charm of cod
liver oil and the intelectual balance of a radical pacifist, which are
both cute oxymorons.
It has become fashionable to attack daddy USA, which is something
Freud might explain in terms of an Oedipal complex. It would be
interesting to see a psychological analysis of the anti-hero (US)
mindset and I believe it would have sufficient meat to distinguish it
from the brain-numbing psychobabble that Punnadhammo posted and
pretended was cogent analysis.
If I didn't know better, I might have concluded long ago that Buddhism
turns the mind to mush. Between the intellectual cosmic debris of
Lhamo who never saw a Buddhist teaching he didn't misunderstand
(orally fixated), the hubristic dogmatic stubbornnes of Punnadhammo
(anal retentive), the whacky mentation theories of Tang (borderline),
and the flock of crows who attach themselves to any thread consisting
entirely of one-liners (processed iconcoclast authoritarians), the
only honest figure appeared to be cupcake.
But then along came Jay. So now I understand that not all Buddhists
are cawing, cloying, annoying knee jerking, goose stepping
self-caracatures who wrap themselves in the mantle of heteroclite
authority like the Zentists Thervists, Mahamatitians and Vajragicians
that haunt this hollow log. That's all for now...
-warren
jhayati
Punnadhammo was painfully honest when he said he follows scriptural
authority and his intuitions (which are polarized to reinforce that
same authority) and comes right out and says that he doesn't base his
vies on rational thought and arguments. Combine that with focusing on
personal experience while ignoring the big picture and you have the
paradigm case of fundamentalism.
While it's easy to target him, actually most of us are like this to
varying extent. Even those of us who embrace rationality (rightly, I
think) really don't as much as we think we do, and we tend to
rationalize instead of being rational. That's why I like that story
that Punnadhammo led me to, "The Cold Equations" because it reminds us
that our traditions and intuitions are always fundamentally flawed and
have limits, even if they are good safetynet guides, as are following
the five precepts or ten commandments, but we have to question our
interpretations of them sometimes to break free of these cycles that
lock us into a view, which you describe here while breathing fire,
Warren.
> Like hillbillies, the kneejerk pacifists find themselves in the dark
> and conspire to keep others in the dark just to maintain the status
> quo of dissent. Dissent is of course so much easier and cheaper than
> genuine honesty.
Then again, dissent is the cornerstone of American and democratic
values. When Punnadhammo grew up, the old farts were hardened
conservatives. I've grown up where the old farts are hardened
pacifisic liberals that bash the Anglo-sphere, globalization,
democracy, progress, and anything else they can bash. We all are
doing dissent. My liberal friends rail against Dubya and the
repressive mainstream conservative culture. My conservative friends
rail against the liberal immoral mainstream culture. Everybody thinks
that they are dissenter, and they each rail against an abstract "they"
which they call the "mainstream". The symmetry is worth studying.
This is done on all sides, Warren, and not just by pacifists, but by
flag-wavers equally, who claim we've forgotten what the constitution
was all about and so on.
> Any jerk can be a whining dissenter intent on tearing down the efforts
> of others. It takes real intellectual and emotional backbone to
> undertake an ambitious project to construct something worthwhile.
>
> Jay's response to "That Guy" is a classic case of dismantling of
> "manufactured consent".
Is it? I wrote that reply in two minutes while half asleep with the
same kind of obsessiveness that Punnadhammo has when he takes whacks
at Lee.
> If you do not recognize that phrase,
No, I haven't heard it before.
> it is a Chomsky concept from his book Manufacturing Consent, which Jay
> was right to represent as flat-footed extremism with all the charm of
> cod liver oil and the intelectual balance of a radical pacifist, which
> are both cute oxymorons.
I haven't read any of Chomsky's books, but he is cited as a wingnut,
as annoying as his spinster counterpart Rush Limbaugh on the other
wing, and I'd rather read a really articulate account by someone
brilliant but more moderate and holistic. One book that's on my list,
recommended as arguably the best fair and insightful liberal account
of American geopolitics, is Carroll Quigley's, "Tragedy and Hope: A
History of the World in Our Time". It's been praised by the
intelligensia on both the right and left, and I've been told by
different sources that this the most important book on American
geopolitics that one can read, whether you agree or disagree.
Clinton mentioned in his inauguration speech that "as a teenager I
heard John Kennedy's summons to citizenship. And then, as a student at
Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll
Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest country in the
history of the world because our people have always believed in two
things: that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of
us has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so." A review
says, "Quigley's amazing 1966 book was intended to persuade trade
union leaders,editors, politicians at every level, business people,
and other inluential individuals throughout society, that the coming
New World Order would ultimately be an accomplished fact - that
nationalism was a 'tragedy' and that 'internationalism' was the
world's only hope of peace and prosperity." That one's on my reading
list, before I would try to read any Chomsky or Kissinger. Usually I
prefer reading about Buddhism or science.
> It has become fashionable to attack daddy USA, which is something
> Freud might explain in terms of an Oedipal complex.
"Daddy" is the key here, as liberalism has often been associated with
"mommy" and conservativism with "daddy". You may be on to something
here, Doctor K. There was an interesting article the other day in the
Wall Street Journal on that, called "Real Men Vote Republican", which
somehow makes me think about Gov'ner Ah-nold, though Arnold, while a
he-man, is actually the kind of moderate we need to avoid all the
extremism. Get a similar Democrat, hopefully one who doesn't pinch as
many butts, and you have your next President. If I still have it I'll
paste it in below for you.
> It would be interesting to see a psychological analysis of the
> anti-hero (US) mindset and I believe it would have sufficient meat
> to distinguish it from the brain-numbing psychobabble that Punnadhammo
> posted and pretended was cogent analysis.
What sets Punnadhammo off, I notice, is when I mimic the USAs worst
trait, which is arrogance and do-no-wrong righteousness, which I play
up a little to bait Mr. Pundit. Dubya overdoes the "America is the
moral savior of the world" crap, and this triggers the Punnadhammos.
As I pointed out in various posts, we should accept both that we're
basically a 19th century European imperalist power, yet that we're a
lot more moral and do well in comparison. And as you point out,
Warren, if everyone acts in their self-interest and is honest about
that, we'll work to better the world, because it ends up helping each
of us. But a reasonable middle-ground holistic picture takes the
sails out of the wingnuts on both sides, and doesn't get much
attention, just as both the left and the right viciously attacked the
moderate Ah-nold last week, with the left bashing him with every
ass-pinching scandal from his pumping iron days to the labeling of him
as in league with satan and an evil closet liberal by the religious
right.
> If I didn't know better, I might have concluded long ago that Buddhism
> turns the mind to mush.
It can, if you use it that way. If you think that a particular set of
scriptures have the absolute truth, whether you are Buddhist or any
other 'ist', you can pretty much guarantee your mind will turn to
mush!
> Between the intellectual cosmic debris of
> Lhamo who never saw a Buddhist teaching he didn't misunderstand
> (orally fixated), the hubristic dogmatic stubbornnes of Punnadhammo
> (anal retentive), the whacky mentation theories of Tang (borderline),
> and the flock of crows who attach themselves to any thread consisting
> entirely of one-liners (processed iconcoclast authoritarians), the
> only honest figure appeared to be cupcake.
How depressing. Then again, anybody with a life wouldn't waste much
time posting. Had I a wonderful girlfriend or art project, and didn't
have things to do which I like to put off and procrastinate, I'd be
doing something else. I'll probably only post on weekends or every
other month as soon as we get to a lull in the enthusiasm with these
issues.
> But then along came Jay. So now I understand that not all Buddhists
> are cawing, cloying, annoying knee jerking, goose stepping
> self-caracatures who wrap themselves in the mantle of heteroclite
> authority like the Zentists Thervists, Mahamatitians and Vajragicians
> that haunt this hollow log. That's all for now...
Nah, I just remind you of yourself, and you're the list narcissist,
Warren. LoL!
The following article should have been held back until today when
Gov'ner Ahh-nold was elected. The best part in this is the
description of Rumsfeld which is right on target and an insightful
observation. Unfortunately, the piece is mostly standard National
Review spin about how daddy is better than mommy (which is as silly as
the pacifists' reverse claim) instead of focusing more on the
interesting way we psychologically have a touch of gender bias at the
underpinnings of our political correctness.
- j
Political Virility
Real men vote Republican.
BY JAY NORDLINGER, managing editor at National Review.
This article appears in the September issue of The American
Enterprise.
WSJ, Wednesday, September 17, 2003 12:01 a.m.
Many years ago Chris Matthews--now famous on TV--hit on an interesting
formulation: He said the Democrats were the "mommy party" and the
Republicans the "daddy party." That is, the Democrats were
"nurturers," concerned with health policy and day care. The
Republicans were "protectors," taking care of national security and
other manly matters. This notion is obviously galling to some. But Mr.
Matthews was on to something, and we now find ourselves in a "daddy
party" time.
Republicans have seldom shied from an embrace of manliness. The New
York Times recently ran a report on the new Bush re-election
headquarters. It explained that the offices display two large photos:
one of President Bush "sweating and looking rugged in a T-shirt and
cowboy hat"; another of Ronald Reagan "also looking rugged in a cowboy
hat." And all this was before Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to run for
governor of California. Yup, that's the Republican Party.
Of course, George W. Bush is famous for his "compassionate
conservatism." He is capable of great tenderness of expression, much
of it related, no doubt, to his triumph over alcohol and his religious
awakening. But Bush as hombre has been the dominant theme of his
post-September 11 presidency.
Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, likes to tell a story about Mr.
Bush out in Iowa, early in the 2000 presidential campaign. A group of
Hell's Angels rode into town, and Gov. Bush simply waded into them,
hugging them, bonding with them, relishing them. Not every American
politician could manage this, without affectation. Mr. Bush was also,
in that campaign, known to have a much better time with the rough 'n'
ready cameramen in the back of the plane than with the (much more
effete) reporters who also accompanied him.
His ranch in Crawford says a lot, too. President Clinton enjoyed
swilling with the swells on Martha's Vineyard (except for 1996, when a
poll instructed him to go camping out West). President Bush, much to
the dismay of the White House press corps, would rather spend August
in boiling central Texas, wielding a chainsaw.
Mr. Bush's personality grates on some. On many. He is accused of
machismo, belligerence, cowboyism. For Europeans, in particular--and
for European-like Americans--he is the very model of the swaggering,
heedless, vulgar right-winger. He said he wanted bin Laden "dead or
alive." About Saddam holdouts in Iraq, he declared, "Bring 'em
on"--meaning, our boys are ready to confront them. This prompted a hue
and cry among Mr. Bush's critics. As the Washington Post's Dana
Milbank commented, "It's the sort of thing that sounds pretty
shocking," although "often this sort of Old West rhetoric appeals to
the American people."
In a June 2002 speech, Mr. Bush gave his description of the country he
leads: "I like to use the word 'tough,' because we are." "Tough but
compassionate," he has said on other occasions, a phrase that may
apply as much to himself as to the country. In his State of the Union
address of 2002, he said something remarkably blunt, even astounding:
"For too long, our culture has said, 'If it feels good, do it.' Now
America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: 'Let's roll.' " (Of
course, this is an evocation of the famous words spoken aboard Flight
93 on September 11.)
The last couple of years have been replete with Bush toughness--tough
talk, tough action, toughness in a tough job. "They've got a problem
on their hands," he said of the terrorists. "We're gonna find 'em. And
if they're hidin', we're gonna smoke 'em out. And we'll bring 'em to
justice." He is quite taken with this "smoking out" business. Standing
in the White House with the governor of Louisiana, he said, "I know
the governor likes to hunt rabbits down in Louisiana. Sometimes those
rabbits think they can hide from the governor. But, eventually, he
smokes 'em out and gets 'em. And that's exactly what's happening to
Mr. bin Laden and all the murderers that he's trying to hide in
Afghanistan."
He can be cocky, certainly--sort of defiant-cocky, righteous-cocky. In
March 2002, he told an audience, "Obviously, as you well know, we
found some of them [the terrorists] bunched up in the Shahikote
Mountains [of Afghanistan]. And we sent our military in. And they're
not bunched up anymore." Badda-bing.
So, that's our president. What of our vice president? Is he, too, a
"daddy politician"? You bet, as Donald Rumsfeld would say. Dick Cheney
is a laconic Westerner, exuding an aura of competence, strength and
dependability. You get the feeling that things are going to be all
right if Mr. Cheney is on the case. Like his boss, he talks straight,
in matter-of-fact tones. His detractors enjoy reminding us that he
received a deferment in the Vietnam War--he is on the liberals' list
of "chicken hawks." But few serious people consider him anything other
than a prime example of the tough-minded conservative.
Then there is the secretary of defense himself. Donald Rumsfeld is
almost a riot of manliness, and his moment indeed arrived on September
11. He was in his office--briefing congressmen on, among other things,
the threat of terrorism--when Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon's
walls. Against the advice of some, he rushed to help the wounded. Not
long after 9/11, I talked to some friends of his, in preparation for a
piece. One of them said, "Look, we're not playing pitty-patty anymore.
We have a foe that's proven deadly. People look for a different kind
of person to run Washington--as far away from the Clinton type as you
can get."
Mr. Rumsfeld, it is true, is the anti-Clinton. We see this in his
authenticity, his trustworthiness and his frankness. He is so direct,
he practically assaults the modern, spin-accustomed ear. Mr. Rumsfeld
freely uses what my colleague Kate O'Beirne has dubbed the
"K-word"--kill. When a reporter asked him why U.S. forces were using
such heavy bombs in Afghanistan, the secretary replied: "They are
being used on frontline al Qaeda and Taliban troops to try to kill
them." Oh.
Rather unexpectedly, Mr. Rumsfeld became a kind of sex symbol as the
weeks and months after 9/11 unfolded. Women of all sorts were open
about their attraction to him. On CNN, Larry King was moved to ask him
about his new status as a heartthrob. "Oh, come on," said Mr.
Rumsfeld. "For the AARP, perhaps. I'm pushing 70 years old." But that
was beside the point--or maybe it was the point itself. Mr. Rumsfeld
is, in fact, a throwback: to a time of crewcuts, stiff upper lips and
moral clarity. He seems a character out of a World War II flick. Bill
Clinton, by contrast, was more a Richard Gere kind of leader. Where
Mr. Clinton feels pain, Mr. Rumsfeld is more likely to inflict it--on
the country's enemies.
Sometimes viewed as insouciant, the defense secretary is resolutely
clear-eyed about war. Over and over, he describes it as a "dirty job,"
a "tough, long, grinding, dirty business." Columnist Maureen Dowd
twits him as "Rip Van Rummy"--a guy who went to sleep sometime in the
'70s and woke up to find himself in government again. The old values,
however, are in. Of necessity.
Rudolph Giuliani is another man whose stock has risen. After September
11, he loomed as a hero to the entire country, and his legendary
toughness seemed exactly right. This was a man who took charge of hell
on earth and bucked a shaken city up. He had never been a cuddly
mayor--but the people of New York hadn't wanted a cuddly mayor. They
wanted crime defeated and their city livable once more. To be sure,
Mr. Giuliani has had some less-than-heroic moments. He held a press
conference to announce that he was separating from his wife; he told
both the world and her at the same time. On a lighter note, I might
mention that Mr. Giuliani, as mayor, enjoyed dressing in drag. He did
this on several festive, campy occasions. It takes an exceptionally
manly man to appear in makeup, wig, frock, and pumps and still keep
his reputation.
Since September 11, many Americans have rediscovered the virtues of
manliness in office. The Democrats have a job to do if they're to
challenge the "daddy party" in this respect.
They've been making an effort. Dick Gephardt, the former House
minority leader and current presidential candidate, has been acting
macho--or at least blustery--on the stump. He has been pounding
lecterns, shouting, making his veins bulge. Mr. Gephardt seems to have
lifted a page from Al Gore, whereby if you rant and rave, you're a
man--indeed, an "alpha male." In his third debate versus Gov. Bush,
Vice President Gore strode across the stage and got right in the face
of his opponent.
Barbara Bush, mother of the Republican nominee, later commented, "I
thought he was going to hit George." It was a bad move on Mr. Gore's
part: He simply looked like a bully--and a pretender, at that--rather
than a tough guy. Mr. Bush's parry of him--an incredulous nod--was
masterly.
Again, the Democrats will have to acquire a bit more testosterone if
they're to compete with the GOP. This is, indeed, no time for
"pitty-patty." As for the Republicans, if they had any more
testosterone, they'd be The Incredible Hulk. House Speaker Denny
Hastert was a wrestling coach, for crying out loud. That's almost
overkill!
punnadhammo
> In one of your cases you called a "massacre" this turned out after
> looking it up to be the targeting of enemy soldiers retreating in a
> vehicle with their weapons. In other words, you lied, spun, and
> deceived to create prejudice and hatred. I've read enough about US
> actions to know how ridiculous this is. The best you can do is to
> site mistakes and exceptions, and then try to claim that this is the
> norm. You've been deceitful in that way in so many posts now that
> it's boring.
Where did I lie? I SAID they were retreating with their weapons. It was
still a massacre.
> Yet even that you use to spin and not to say "yes I know very well
> that Osama and al Qaeda viciously were behind the murder of 3000
> innocent people." You can't even say that, but instead have to at
> least indirectly promote the lies and conspiracy stories about 9/11
> that are so popular in France and Germany.
BECAUSE there is NO PROOF. Why is that hard to understand? (Bush saying
so is not proof)
> I just mentioned one above: you made a wild claim about a "massacre"
> and it turns out that the troops in that case had not surrenders, but
> were in their vehicles and had guns, making you a liar, and a blatant
> on at that. I sited several other equally fanatical claims in another
> post today aleady. And I am not "plain lying" nor have I ever lied to
> you, whereas you have rarely been honest with the stories you weave
> and the language you use, Punnadhammo. Have you ever considered
> attending a meeting of Fanatics Anonymous?
You are hopeless.
How is fire-bombing a disorderly mob of retreating soldiers not a
massacre I would like to know?
You are the liar, as far as I can see, because you claim, without
reference that they were given an opportunity to surrender with
loudspeakers. If you have a source for this, cough it up, or else admit
you made it up.
punnadhammo
> It was a ridiculous witch hunt of political correctness. How about
> the 8 to 10 thousand Americans that died like that of friendly fire in
> Vietnam?
Like I said, lack of fire discipline.
> Not so shocking. It's the same very mild neo-amphetimine given to
> tons of little kids, Ritalin, which is really just high-test caffeine
> but with less side effects, and it was regulated when they went on
> long runs of 12 hours and needed to focus. They weren't "jacked up"
> any more than the equivalent of a couple of cups of coffee. Were they
> drunk, on the other hand, that would be irresponsible.
They were on amphetimines. They shouldn't have been operating heavy
equipment, let alone bomber planes.
And don't get me started on doping helpless kids with Ritalin.
> To you maybe. Here you are taking this out of context, but I don't
> think this is your usual spin: you just haven't thought it through.
> They saw what they thought were enemies firing on them.
They were too high for small arms to reach and just seconds before
ground control had told them to hold fire.
> Anyone would
> freak out a bit if they thought unexpectedly someone was firing
> rockets and trying to kill them. The pilot made a mistake and
> panicked and wrongly fired when he was told to wait for confirmation.
> The ritalin stuff is a cheap shot; the issue is that the pilot didn't
> wait as ordered, in which he would have been told not to fire.
Like I said, no fire discipline.
> No, I'm saying that these targets had some military use, which makes
> them questionable, and it all depends upon the particular target. And
> you don't mention that unscrupulous enemies try to mask military bases
> as civilian targets, making these decisions even harder. This is not
> a matter of the evil administration lying and ruthlessly murdering
> kiddies, as you would have it.
It's a matter of the military (all militaries including but not only
the USA) not giving a damn about human life. War is organized, state
sponsored mass murder.
> I have. I've seen interviews about it. Tens of thousands surrendered
> when given a chance to, and they were treated very well. Others who
> chose to take their guns and vehicles and make a run for it, they got
> killed.
Citation please. This does not agree with the accounts I have seen.
> You haven't heard of any survivors? There were a whopping 87,000
> Iraqi soldiers who turned themselves over to coalition forces in the
> first Iraq War, most of them clutching the leaflets or hiding them in
> their clothing.
We are not talking about the general situation, but the particular
incident on the highway out of Kuwait. I know that elsewhere many
surrendered. Were there any survivors from the Hiway of Death massacre?
> 87,000 is pretty impressive to me. That's how many times the small
> number of civilians that died in the recent campaign? Oh, that's
> right, these numbers mean nothing to you. Maybe you have some
> pictures of bleeding Iraqi babies which you can present to ignore all
> of these stats.
One Iraqi baby would be enough to invalidate Bush's colonial oil war.
> Surrendering Iraqi troops were often surprised at the humane treatment
> they received, says Chris Lincoln-Jones, a British commander at the
> time. "At the moment of surrender they were often extremely scared
> because they'd heard from their officers that they would be shot by
> the enemy." UK troops are well-versed in the rules for handling PoWs -
> everyone from an infantryman up receives an annual refresher course.
> There is also a separate "ethics package" which sets out the sort of
> behaviour that is expected of British troops in combat. Mostly these
> are respected, says Mr Lincoln-Jones, who recalls an episode in the
> last Gulf War when an opportunistic Iraqi, shielded by his
> surrendering colleagues, fired a rocket-propelled grenade which killed
> a British soldier. "It was a heated and tense moment and the other
> Iraqis might have feared for their lives. But while the culprit was
> killed, the other men were left unscathed."
Ha Ha! The only story you find is about UK troops? It's off topic
anyway. I was talking about all the stories of panicky US troops
shooting civilians during raids or at checkpoints and you give me a
story about how the UK treats POWs.
> That's a horrible thing to say. They are trained men and some women
> who are willing to risk their own lives to keep their homes safe and
> help bring down these horrible dictators and terrorists. How dare you
> insult them while you sit around safe and secure and can only say
> hateful things about those who keep it that way. Boy, that sure is
> demeaning.
Get off your high horse. Most of them signed up for the college
education. The gov't is treating them like dirt. Quit romanticizing
war.
> There I agree with you. I was in a Buddhist meditation and discussion
> group recently, and when an idea was discussed about a plan for peace
> in Sri Lanka, I suggested that we make a deal with Sri Lanka where we
> would create a huge base, and after we negotiate peace with the Tamil
> Tigers, tell the Sri Lankans we'll protect the country and allow them
> not to need any armed forces at all, in return for sending all our
> rotating troops intensive meditation and mindfulness retreats, which
> our government would sponsor and pay the cost of food and housing for.
> The anti-war people in the group only made sarcastic comments and
> then changed the subject, but I was quite serious. I think that would
> be an incredible idea.
The army would never agree to letting the troopers learn meditation.
They couldn't turn them into killing machines if they developed
mindfulness and compassion. Your idea would never work.
> Oh, I've had enough of your conspiracy tabloid sites, Punnadhammo.
> Any more ridiculous generalizations for me this post? Ah, one more:
I suggested you read the Independent of UK and particularly Robert
Fisk, and the Riverbend site out of Bagdhad. These are hardly
conspiracy or tabloid. You are just showing your incredible
narrow-mindedness here.
Ludwig
news:<DLdfb.2554$kA.7...@wards.force9.net>...
>
> > Re Kissinger: I don't think I'm projecting, there's a debate and I've
> > studied the evidence and come to the conclusion that the case that he is
> > guilty of war crimes is very strong.
>
> I think it's rather silly. Just about everyone in every
> administration would be guilty of war crimes if this were so.
> Clinton's flying planes at 15,000 feet in Kosovo that Punnadhammo
> mentioned would be an example.
Leaving aside Kosovo for a moment, Kissinger is a special case. It's the
accumulation of bloodshed around his tenure that arouses such suspicion and
indignation. De-classified documents that are coming into the public arena
paint an increasingly incriminating picture.
>
> > I also think its important to try and learn as much about history as
> > possible, and I read through the Kissinger link you posted.
>
> Wasn't that a really interesting article? I enjoyed it.
>
> > Maybe I can recommend something for you to look at in return - if you
> > haven't read any Noam Chomsky, Rogue States is good introduction.
>
> I'd read an article by Chomsky, but he's a rather radical annoying
> extremist and doesn't really do much for me. I saw him talk and he
> seemed to occilate between extremist and unintelligible. I haven't
> read any of his books.
As I said, I'd recommend Rogue States to anyone interested in world events
and recent history. It gives a good sense of Chomsky's method. He can sound
extreme if the facts he is presenting are unfamiliar, but he is really just
meticulously filling in the blanks - the blanks being all of the unpleasant
data that are either brushed over quickly, or left out of many mainstream
media reports.
Ludwig
jhayati
No, Punnadhammo is an ordained monk, probably of the Theravada school.
I do Buddhist practice.
Whether you call me a 'Buddhist' is your problem.
> > "An untroubled mind,
> > No longer seeking to consider
> > What is right and what is wrong,
> > A mind beyond judgments,
> > Watches and understands."
> > -- dp 3
That, interpreted out of context, is Punnadhammo's worst nightmare,
moral relativism, and a claim that being 'beyond judgements' means
that everything is justified and ok and all discernment goes out the
window. Which is utter nonsense. It's the opposite of Punnadhammo's
fundamentalism, which relies on supposedly infallible scriptural
authority. Real moral problems are in the middle: there is no clear
right and wrong you can discover from a formula in a book; yet some
choices are more ethical than others, and an mind untroubled by views
is needed to rationally attend to them and make skillful choices.
- j
DrWarrenKrugar
I would be so incautious as to submit that this criticism applies to
all of us
who hold opinions. Hence the interest in Buddhism that drew me here -
I suspected that the objective tenedencies in Buddhism would steer
people away from, or at least render them more aware of their own
projections. I was apparently wrong.
> Even those of us who embrace rationality (rightly, I
> think) really don't as much as we think we do, and we tend to
> rationalize instead of being rational. That's why I like that story
> that Punnadhammo led me to, "The Cold Equations" because it reminds us
> that our traditions and intuitions are always fundamentally flawed and
> have limits, even if they are good safetynet guides, as are following
> the five precepts or ten commandments, but we have to question our
> interpretations of them sometimes to break free of these cycles that
> lock us into a view, which you describe here while breathing fire,
> Warren.
Much as I dislike extremes, I would go so far as to jettison the five
precepts altogether. There's something condescending and self-serving
about a set of commandments regarding how one should comport oneself.
While such rules are required by social compacts, they may be argued
to have no place in a system whose focus is introspection and
self-discovery. It is a well-noted phenomenon, of course, to mistake
the map for the road. Maps are imperfect aproximations of reality and,
while useful, have serious limitations. Mistaking the edicts of the
Buddha for Buddhism is quite queer.
> > Like hillbillies, the kneejerk pacifists find themselves in the dark
> > and conspire to keep others in the dark just to maintain the status
> > quo of dissent. Dissent is of course so much easier and cheaper than
> > genuine honesty.
>
> Then again, dissent is the cornerstone of American and democratic
> values. When Punnadhammo grew up, the old farts were hardened
> conservatives. I've grown up where the old farts are hardened
> pacifisic liberals that bash the Anglo-sphere, globalization,
> democracy, progress, and anything else they can bash. We all are
> doing dissent. My liberal friends rail against Dubya and the
> repressive mainstream conservative culture. My conservative friends
> rail against the liberal immoral mainstream culture. Everybody thinks
> that they are dissenter, and they each rail against an abstract "they"
> which they call the "mainstream". The symmetry is worth studying.
> This is done on all sides, Warren, and not just by pacifists, but by
> flag-wavers equally, who claim we've forgotten what the constitution
> was all about and so on.
Excellent point. Coopted dissent in a prosperous society. If I were
conspiratorial, I would be inclined to say that this is probably the
reason that nuts like Chomsky gets published - as a safe outlet for
extremists to vent their anger at an amorphous system instead of
facing the real problems of government head-on. Chomsky himself (whom
I have widely read) refers to this as the Joe Sixpack strategy,
blaming sports and entertainment for getting the average Joe off the
back of the politicians. I find that so-called "dissent" achieves the
same purpose as sports for an audience that is generally dissatisfied
and whiney. It feeds them the most ridiculous laughable extremist
theories, thus placating while simultaneously discrediting them,
thereby rendering them virtually ineffective in the political process.
They are allowed to have their "grass-roots" organizations that, with
a few exceptions (such as the religious right), bear no fruit in terms
of elected representation or an effective lobby.
If they ever wake up to reality, as soon as they stop slapping
themselves they will come to realize that you have to be in the game
to win. They have to be willing to join society and help guide policy
toward the kind of results that will help answer their concerns. But
this is difficult. It is much simpler to be angry and irrational,
like Punnadhammo, to allow the process to fail your concerns and then
become even more angry, irrational and ineffective - a vicious cycle
of self-failure.
> > Any jerk can be a whining dissenter intent on tearing down the efforts
> > of others. It takes real intellectual and emotional backbone to
> > undertake an ambitious project to construct something worthwhile.
> >
> > Jay's response to "That Guy" is a classic case of dismantling of
> > "manufactured consent".
>
> Is it? I wrote that reply in two minutes while half asleep with the
> same kind of obsessiveness that Punnadhammo has when he takes whacks
> at Lee.
You are too modest. Coleridge claims to have transcribed Kubla Khan
from an opium dream.
In Canada did Punnadham
A shiny dome of denial strain:
Where Theta, the sacred river, ran
Through mindlessness measureless to man
Down to a sunless trb...
> > If you do not recognize that phrase,
>
> No, I haven't heard it before.
>
> > it is a Chomsky concept from his book Manufacturing Consent, which Jay
> > was right to represent as flat-footed extremism with all the charm of
> > cod liver oil and the intelectual balance of a radical pacifist, which
> > are both cute oxymorons.
>
> I haven't read any of Chomsky's books, but he is cited as a wingnut,
> as annoying as his spinster counterpart Rush Limbaugh on the other
> wing, and I'd rather read a really articulate account by someone
> brilliant but more moderate and holistic. One book that's on my list,
> recommended as arguably the best fair and insightful liberal account
> of American geopolitics, is Carroll Quigley's, "Tragedy and Hope: A
> History of the World in Our Time". It's been praised by the
> intelligensia on both the right and left, and I've been told by
> different sources that this the most important book on American
> geopolitics that one can read, whether you agree or disagree.
I've browsed it, as I've browsed much of Chomsky. He is indeed a most
authoritative wingnut, the best that ignorance can muster. Despite
his arid, humorless, obsessive nature, or perhaps because of it, I
can't help but like him. It is his role to be the person even a Jewish
mother could reject but whom you like despite himself. His analyses of
the media are often quite on-the-spot and he has a lot to offer but
also manages to cover it over with layer upon layer upon layer of
trite, whining, distasteful intellectual mush.
> Clinton mentioned in his inauguration speech that "as a teenager I
> heard John Kennedy's summons to citizenship. And then, as a student at
> Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll
> Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest country in the
> history of the world because our people have always believed in two
> things: that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of
> us has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so." A review
> says, "Quigley's amazing 1966 book was intended to persuade trade
> union leaders,editors, politicians at every level, business people,
> and other inluential individuals throughout society, that the coming
> New World Order would ultimately be an accomplished fact - that
> nationalism was a 'tragedy' and that 'internationalism' was the
> world's only hope of peace and prosperity." That one's on my reading
> list, before I would try to read any Chomsky or Kissinger. Usually I
> prefer reading about Buddhism or science.
I personally prefer superhero comics. I am working on an unlikely
league of Buddhist superheros featuring the likes of Punnadhammo and
cupcake (the ambiguously Buddhist duo?) - and yourself of course as
the archvillian.
> > It has become fashionable to attack daddy USA, which is something
> > Freud might explain in terms of an Oedipal complex.
>
> "Daddy" is the key here, as liberalism has often been associated with
> "mommy" and conservativism with "daddy". You may be on to something
> here, Doctor K.
Purely unintended serendipity. I am a humble servent whose aims do
not include anything so lofty as the origination of groundbreaking new
theorums - I merely strive to offend. I hereby renew my efforts.
> There was an interesting article the other day in the
> Wall Street Journal on that, called "Real Men Vote Republican", which
> somehow makes me think about Gov'ner Ah-nold, though Arnold, while a
> he-man, is actually the kind of moderate we need to avoid all the
> extremism. Get a similar Democrat, hopefully one who doesn't pinch as
> many butts, and you have your next President. If I still have it I'll
> paste it in below for you.
Here is where we disagree. Not on any of the political stuff - on the
butt pinching. Don't you think that was a factor in his election? I
personally have no problem with people viewing one another as sexual
objects...so long as they are not so indecorous as to sniff each
other's butts in public. Are you listening, cupcake?
> > It would be interesting to see a psychological analysis of the
> > anti-hero (US) mindset and I believe it would have sufficient meat
> > to distinguish it from the brain-numbing psychobabble that Punnadhammo
> > posted and pretended was cogent analysis.
>
> What sets Punnadhammo off, I notice, is when I mimic the USAs worst
> trait, which is arrogance and do-no-wrong righteousness, which I play
> up a little to bait Mr. Pundit. Dubya overdoes the "America is the
> moral savior of the world" crap, and this triggers the Punnadhammos.
Please don't plauralize him. Bad enough we have this mouse in our
pocket.
> As I pointed out in various posts, we should accept both that we're
> basically a 19th century European imperalist power, yet that we're a
> lot more moral and do well in comparison. And as you point out,
> Warren, if everyone acts in their self-interest and is honest about
> that, we'll work to better the world, because it ends up helping each
> of us. But a reasonable middle-ground holistic picture takes the
> sails out of the wingnuts on both sides, and doesn't get much
> attention, just as both the left and the right viciously attacked the
> moderate Ah-nold last week, with the left bashing him with every
> ass-pinching scandal from his pumping iron days to the labeling of him
> as in league with satan and an evil closet liberal by the religious
> right.
I have found that nothing takes the sails out of the nuts on both
sides better than a good oral servicing. I try to have the pipes
cleaned, and I am truley sorry that your people hung Clinton out to
dry on that one. I would have demonstrated my solidarity by having a
contingent of hookers lobby for greater public acceptance of oral
favors. It may sound like an unlikely cause but I assure you, we would
have been the most welcome lobby in Washington. Especially in today's
more testosterone-tolerant environment.
> > If I didn't know better, I might have concluded long ago that Buddhism
> > turns the mind to mush.
>
> It can, if you use it that way. If you think that a particular set of
> scriptures have the absolute truth, whether you are Buddhist or any
> other 'ist', you can pretty much guarantee your mind will turn to
> mush!
In that case, it should be combined with a most rigorous program of
oral sex. From what I've read about your American blondes, this
technique has worked for you Yankees. Unlike them, the Aussie women
never needed dumbing down as your American women apparently did
(feminism apparently proved just the thing).
By the way, I do hope this offends somebody - have we become so jaded
that this sort of anti-anti talk can go uncountered? Where are all the
anti-anti-antis? OK, I joke but it is appropriate considering how
remarkable it is that Conan the Barbarian could be elected governor in
a state so dominated by feminists. It must have been those awesome
muscles - quite the object of envy among the butches...
> > Between the intellectual cosmic debris of
> > Lhamo who never saw a Buddhist teaching he didn't misunderstand
> > (orally fixated), the hubristic dogmatic stubbornnes of Punnadhammo
> > (anal retentive), the whacky mentation theories of Tang (borderline),
> > and the flock of crows who attach themselves to any thread consisting
> > entirely of one-liners (processed iconcoclast authoritarians), the
> > only honest figure appeared to be cupcake.
>
> How depressing. Then again, anybody with a life wouldn't waste much
> time posting. Had I a wonderful girlfriend or art project, and didn't
> have things to do which I like to put off and procrastinate, I'd be
> doing something else. I'll probably only post on weekends or every
> other month as soon as we get to a lull in the enthusiasm with these
> issues.
Possibly not, Jay. I have a girlfriend, and, being a plastic surgeon,
she is also my art project...
Yet here I am when instead I should be working on a more ambitious
project to create the most squeezable butt. Here I am right now when I
should be lobbying the new governor for funding.
> > But then along came Jay. So now I understand that not all Buddhists
> > are cawing, cloying, annoying knee jerking, goose stepping
> > self-caracatures who wrap themselves in the mantle of heteroclite
> > authority like the Zentists Thervists, Mahamatitians and Vajragicians
> > that haunt this hollow log. That's all for now...
>
> Nah, I just remind you of yourself, and you're the list narcissist,
> Warren. LoL!
Thank you. It's nice to hear a deserving compliment from someone other
than myself for a change.
> The following article should have been held back until today when
> Gov'ner Ahh-nold was elected. The best part in this is the
> description of Rumsfeld which is right on target and an insightful
> observation. Unfortunately, the piece is mostly standard National
> Review spin about how daddy is better than mommy (which is as silly as
> the pacifists' reverse claim) instead of focusing more on the
> interesting way we psychologically have a touch of gender bias at the
> underpinnings of our political correctness.
>
> - j
Yes, on a serious note, let's eliminate gender bias once and for all
and free women to be women again. I have seen women in positions of
power and, let's face it, they are really quite poor substitutes for
men. Why can't women who wield power still be women? Why can't men
still be men? Why can't the English learn to speak?
> Political Virility
> Real men vote Republican.
>
> BY JAY NORDLINGER, managing editor at National Review.
> This article appears in the September issue of The American
> Enterprise.
> WSJ, Wednesday, September 17, 2003 12:01 a.m.
>
> Many years ago Chris Matthews--now famous on TV--hit on an interesting
> formulation: He said the Democrats were the "mommy party" and the
> Republicans the "daddy party." That is, the Democrats were
> "nurturers," concerned with health policy and day care. The
> Republicans were "protectors," taking care of national security and
> other manly matters. This notion is obviously galling to some. But Mr.
> Matthews was on to something, and we now find ourselves in a "daddy
> party" time.
Ah, Chris Matthews - I can only aspire to such unselfconscious mastery
of the idiom of unselfconscious mastery. Unlike Punadhammo who has
somehow managed to achieve to the unselfconscious mockery of
unselfconscious mockery.
> Republicans have seldom shied from an embrace of manliness. The New
> York Times recently ran a report on the new Bush re-election
> headquarters. It explained that the offices display two large photos:
> one of President Bush "sweating and looking rugged in a T-shirt and
> cowboy hat"; another of Ronald Reagan "also looking rugged in a cowboy
> hat." And all this was before Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to run for
> governor of California. Yup, that's the Republican Party.
>
> Of course, George W. Bush is famous for his "compassionate
> conservatism." He is capable of great tenderness of expression, much
> of it related, no doubt, to his triumph over alcohol and his religious
> awakening. But Bush as hombre has been the dominant theme of his
> post-September 11 presidency.
<snip>
> His ranch in Crawford says a lot, too. President Clinton enjoyed
> swilling with the swells on Martha's Vineyard (except for 1996, when a
> poll instructed him to go camping out West). President Bush, much to
> the dismay of the White House press corps, would rather spend August
> in boiling central Texas, wielding a chainsaw.
Chainsaw? Let's not open the door to more free association
psychobabble...
> Mr. Bush's personality grates on some. On many. He is accused of
> machismo, belligerence, cowboyism.
Just let me know when we get around to his bad traits. He's certainly
more convincing in the role than his father. It is interesting that
George Sr. was dispised for his whimpiness while his son is derided
for his macho.
> For Europeans, in particular--and
> for European-like Americans--he is the very model of the swaggering,
> heedless, vulgar right-winger.
Yes, how indelicate of the leader of the free world to get up off his
ass and do what the frenchies will not - namely clean up their mess in
the Middle East.
> He said he wanted bin Laden "dead or
> alive." About Saddam holdouts in Iraq, he declared, "Bring 'em
> on"--meaning, our boys are ready to confront them. This prompted a hue
> and cry among Mr. Bush's critics. As the Washington Post's Dana
> Milbank commented, "It's the sort of thing that sounds pretty
> shocking," although "often this sort of Old West rhetoric appeals to
> the American people."
And a hell of a lot of Aussies, mate.
<snip>
> Rudolph Giuliani is another man whose stock has risen. After September
> 11, he loomed as a hero to the entire country, and his legendary
> toughness seemed exactly right. This was a man who took charge of hell
> on earth and bucked a shaken city up. He had never been a cuddly
> mayor--but the people of New York hadn't wanted a cuddly mayor. They
> wanted crime defeated and their city livable once more. To be sure,
> Mr. Giuliani has had some less-than-heroic moments. He held a press
> conference to announce that he was separating from his wife; he told
> both the world and her at the same time. On a lighter note, I might
> mention that Mr. Giuliani, as mayor, enjoyed dressing in drag. He did
> this on several festive, campy occasions. It takes an exceptionally
> manly man to appear in makeup, wig, frock, and pumps and still keep
> his reputation.
He was perhaps the most popular mayor NY has ever had, even before
September 11. He was married to the city and the love affair was
mutual.
> Since September 11, many Americans have rediscovered the virtues of
> manliness in office. The Democrats have a job to do if they're to
> challenge the "daddy party" in this respect.
It's about time the pendulum swung in the other direction.
> Again, the Democrats will have to acquire a bit more testosterone if
> they're to compete with the GOP. This is, indeed, no time for
> "pitty-patty." As for the Republicans, if they had any more
> testosterone, they'd be The Incredible Hulk. House Speaker Denny
> Hastert was a wrestling coach, for crying out loud. That's almost
> overkill!
Yes, I am also hoping for a Democrat. Let's hope they get some balls.
Right now, the most balsy is Ms. Clinton.
I never quite understood the visceral reaction against Ms. Clinton in
America, especially among women. The health care thing didn't go well.
Putting her in charge of the task force didn't sit well at all with
the public ("Who elected her?").
Here's my take on it: The media turned the public against her. The
media is of course controlled by interests that are necessarily at
odds with universal health care. While these interests support
Democratic politicians, they are properly Republican. What they seek
to do is to install a puppet Republican and corrupt a Democrat.
Barring that, they will hogtie a Democratic president (as they did
with Clinton). In either case, the result is the same - zero progress
on economic and social issues and solid support for military and
corporate welfare spending.
There is something to be said for the view that these interests were
influential in getting you Yanks into Iraq. Although I defend America
against the baseless slander of Punnadhammo, I would not have had
sufficient incentive to intervene in Iraq. Not that I'm a girlie-man,
mind you - like Schwarzenegger, I could also pay off some women to
convince you that I'd squeezed their asses...
- Warren
Ch'an Fu
something about golf
Ch'an Fu
> "MasterChef" <Maste...@Cooking.Com> wrote in message news:<3f837760$1...@news.iglou.com>...
> > Ch'an Fu wrote in message <>
> >
> > >you're both "buddhists"?
> >
> > theyr both monks
> > heheh
>
> No, Punnadhammo is an ordained monk, probably of the Theravada school.
>
> I do Buddhist practice.
no you don't.
> Whether you call me a 'Buddhist' is your problem.
what you call yourself is more important.
> > > "An untroubled mind,
> > > No longer seeking to consider
> > > What is right and what is wrong,
> > > A mind beyond judgments,
> > > Watches and understands."
> > > -- dp 3
>
> That, interpreted out of context, is Punnadhammo's worst nightmare,
> moral relativism, and a claim that being 'beyond judgements' means
> that everything is justified and ok and all discernment goes out the
> window. Which is utter nonsense. It's the opposite of Punnadhammo's
> fundamentalism, which relies on supposedly infallible scriptural
> authority. Real moral problems are in the middle: there is no clear
> right and wrong you can discover from a formula in a book; yet some
> choices are more ethical than others, and an mind untroubled by views
> is needed to rationally attend to them and make skillful choices.
no "context" involved in that.
"real moral problems", eh?
"'long but to thee and to thine acts,
nor those thy see of others, nor the
fruits thereof, and that they be of profit
or of loss, it matters not."
-- mideval somebody
there's always the Queen Evelyn prize
for hypocrisy - go for it.
Evelyn Ruut
"Ch'an Fu" <cha...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk> wrote in message
news:3F84C133...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk...
Oh no, foofie... it is YOURS in perpetuity.....
--
Evelyn
"Since everything is but an apparition, perfect in being what it is, having
nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one may well burst
into laughter." -Longchenpa
(To reply to me personally, remove sox)
jhayati
> In article <2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>, jhayati
> <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> They were on amphetimines. They shouldn't have been operating heavy
> equipment, let alone bomber planes.
>
> And don't get me started on doping helpless kids with Ritalin.
I've seen kids failing and distracted who've become honor students
with straight 'A's with ritalin, and it isn't alcohol: it helps you
focus and concentrate. And it's not an amphetimine, but a milder
neoamphetime, more like caffeine. I don't want to get you started
because I won't even discuss that with you, if you take a Christian
Science view against medicine as well.
> It's a matter of the military (all militaries including but not only
> the USA) not giving a damn about human life.
No, I've given many examples of how we go out of our way to save lives
and that the USA military has the highest respect for life and spends
the most money and makes the most effort to spare civilians and enemy
soldiers than any military on the planet. Instead of citing one
mistake where 4 troops died because of a mistake, contrast that with
the 10,000 American troops that died this way from friendly fire in
Vietnam. But then, numbers mean nothing to you.
> One Iraqi baby would be enough to invalidate Bush's colonial oil war.
More nonsense. This was not about oil at all, and your not seeing the
sparing of hundreds of thousands of lives having value if one person
is accidently killed betrays your own not giving a damn about human
life, not the USA's.
> > I have. I've seen interviews about it. Tens of thousands surrendered
> > when given a chance to, and they were treated very well. Others who
> > chose to take their guns and vehicles and make a run for it, they got
> > killed.
>
> Citation please. This does not agree with the accounts I have seen.
All mainstream media, except for your tabloid sites. I gave you the
stats:
> > You haven't heard of any survivors? There were a whopping 87,000
> > Iraqi soldiers who turned themselves over to coalition forces
>
> We are not talking about the general situation, but the particular
> incident on the highway out of Kuwait. I know that elsewhere many
> surrendered. Were there any survivors from the Hiway of Death massacre?
There was no massacre. Are you asking me a trick question? Because
the tens of thousands that surrendered followed instructions and left
their vehicles and guns and got off the hiways. So are you asking "of
the ones that didn't surrender, how many surrendered?" You're pulling
my leg here. I'm talking about the tens of thousands who surrendered,
which means they left their vehicles and guns and got away from them.
They weren't shot. If you really want to claim that we went around
shooting thousands of wandering deserters who had no guns, you're
simply being silly.
> Ha Ha! The only story you find is about UK troops? It's off topic
> anyway. I was talking about all the stories of panicky US troops
Again, this is your anecdote game. With 150,000 troops deployed, you
can always find stories of mistakes, as well as of acts of compassion.
Your trying to find extreme cases, like the accidental killing of the
four Canadians, and then trying to generalize to a norm is simply a
dishonest, invalid inference.
> The army would never agree to letting the troopers learn meditation.
Actually, concentration (samadhi) meditation would help them focus, so
they wouldn't need the ritilin or coffee as much or at all on long
missions.
> They couldn't turn them into killing machines if they developed
> mindfulness and compassion. Your idea would never work.
Try meeting marines, or better yet, the most highly trained killers:
the rangers and seals. I've met one of each who was over there, and
they are both black belts and have grad degrees and are really kind
and calm people, who are also trained like James Bond to be killing
machines. Not only would mindfulness meditation be helpful, but it
would really help in healing and training for such stressful
situations where violence can become necessary. How a monk can be so
black and white in stereotypes and take such a holier-than-thou
attitude even about sharing the dharma is outrageous. Meet a ranger
or a seal and see for yourself what kind of people they are.
> > Oh, I've had enough of your conspiracy tabloid sites, Punnadhammo.
> > Any more ridiculous generalizations for me this post? Ah, one more:
>
> I suggested you read the Independent of UK and particularly Robert Fisk
LOL! Now you've outdone yourself. For those of you not familiar with
Fisk, Punnadhammo is baiting me here and trying to get my goat, as
Robert Fisk is the number one well-known laughing-stock anti-American
tabloid journalist in Britain. He got started by writing a story
where he claims to have been beaten up by anti-American Afghanis, and
then he claims they were morally justified beating him up and he
deserved it. Fik's masochism gained him popularity among the
extremist anti-war anti-American crowd.
Fisk is notorious for his slander and vicious attacks of Jews and
Americans, which has led him to be discredited by mainstream media and
reduced to a clown and sensationalist rather than a journalist. I'll
post a synopsis of his view below that I kept from last year, where he
even makes a pitch below for "The Nation" which is the most extremist
and laughable popular political tabloid in America, as Fisk claims
that the Jews control the rest of American media except for the
extremist tabloids. How convenient a way to ignore every credible
source: take notes, Punnadhammo, as that's even worse than your
cynicism about the media, or did you also mean to say like Fisk that
the Jews own them all, but you didn't want to admit it? I mean,
that's what Hitler was saying in 1932.
Ok, that was funny. Only America's version of Fisk, Michael Moore,
can top Fisk when it comes to slander. Except Moore is dull, fat, and
stupid. Fisk is more like you, Punnadhammo: "Fisk is arrogant,
dishonest, and a gasbag, but he is not dull.... I was disgusted, but
never bored. If you are rich and want to pay for an entertaining
clown, Fisk is your man." So what's next, the guy on cable TV who
talks to dead people?
You're a hoot, Punnadhammo.
-j
http://atlanticblog.blogspot.com/2002_10_27_atlanticblog_archive.html
A Robert Fisk speech
Robert Fisk showed up for a speech at my university, and it was a
fascinating experience. The university is not posting Fisk's speech
(unlike the other speeches in the series), so here all I want to do is
give an idea of what three hours of Robert Fisk is like.
First, a comment on why the speech isn't posted. Fisk would not give
the university a copy of the speech, although he read it. The
university's audio-visual department did not record it either, which
is an interesting tale. The head of AV was set to record it, when a
member of the university's public relations office came down to the
theatre and told the head of AV that Fisk would not permit taping.
Afterwards, PR said there was a misunderstanding: Fisk would not allow
the question and answer period to be taped. Even with a fawning
audience, he wouldn't tolerate a record of any sort of embarrassment.
After an embarrassing introduction by the university president (he is
an engineer, so maybe he has no clue who Fisk is) in which he
described Fisk as "one of the most uncompromising journalists of his
generation", Fisk bounded up to the stage, in a short-sleeve shirt (no
jacket or tie). Fisk is arrogant, dishonest, and a gasbag, but he is
not dull. For three hours I listened to his speech, and his answers to
questions. I was disgusted, but never bored. If you are rich and want
to pay for an entertaining clown, Fisk is your man.
But to the speech itself. He told us that September 11 did in fact not
change the world; the assertion was simply a lie that Bush was using
for "cynical manipulation of grief and fear". (It was, by the way, a
regular feature of Fisk's speech: people who disagreed with him were
lying or weaseling. Not mistaken; lying. It must be tough to be Robert
Fisk, waking up each morning knowing that he bears the burden of being
the one true upholder of truth, and yet still, he is forced to put his
pants on one leg at a time). He attacked CNN for calling the war a
"war on terror". He was also unhappy about the war in Afghanistan. He
told us, by my count at least four times, that thousands of civilians
had been killed by US bombs in the Middle East. Moreover, there are
mass graves in northern Afghanistan with over 1000 murdered Taliban,
and they will never be investigated because that would require an
admission that America's allies are war criminals.
Then he moved on to Iraq. He assured the audience that the invasion of
Iraq was simply a favor the US government was doing for Israel,
because the Bush administration is heavily staffed by Israeli
lobbyists, citing The Nation as his source. He also assured the
audience that The Nation was the only way to get news in America
unvarnished by the Israeli lobby. Did you notice, he asked, that Iraq
wasn't mentioned on September 11, or in the days following? This is
his overwhelming proof that Iraq is unconnected to Al Qaeda (and he
claims Bush is stupid).
He then moved on to the proposed post-war occupation of Iraq. He
dismissed the Japan comparison as inappropriate. First he asserted
that MacArthur was paranoid (which somehow made the Japanese case more
workable, and he claims Bush is stupid). Second, he asserted that Iraq
has no equivalent of the Emperor Hirohito. Still, he complained that
Hirohito was left of the hook for his role in Japan's atrocities
during the war. So, although apparently it was a good idea to use
Hirohito, it was grossly and unacceptably immoral, or something like
that. (Wouldn't it be grand to be Robert Fisk, and be able to be pure
of heart, unsullied by having to make real decisions?) All this is by
way of proof that an attack on Iraq is really all about oil; recall
that Bush, Cheney, and Rice are all tools of the oil industry.
Fisk is a sensitive man; he does not have a thick skin for criticism.
He talked briefly about his famous attack, and his equally famous
apology to his attackers. He quoted Mark Steyn as saying "you would
have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter" and boy, was
he angry. He still isn't over the humiliation of being caught out
being rude to Judea Pearl, apparently not grasping that he was
insulting Daniel Pearl's father. He dealt with it by telling us all
that Daniel Pearl would never have been as rude to him as Judea Pearl
was.
Then he was back again to his gripe that no one wanted to ask the
motives behind the 9/11 killings. If the police show up, he tells us,
the first thing they do is look for a motive, but not on 9/11.
Then he is back to talking about Afghanistan. It was an easy victory,
because the CIA built bin Laden's camps, although later he says they
were built by the bin Laden construction company.
And then back to his favorite topic: the western press as tool of the
Israelis. Their use of the word "terrorist" is proof that the press is
racist, because, he insisted, the massacre in Sabra and Shatilla that
killed 1700 people (his count) was never called terrorist. [This falls
into the "Instapundit gets results" category. At his George Mason
University speech, he said that the press didn't use the work
"massacre". This got picked up at Instapundit, where the error of his
ways was shown up.] He insisted that Phalange militia were always
called soldiers. He tells us "Journalists have gone out of their way
to decontextualize the Middle East." After a brief digression to tell
us that the suicide bombers attacking the settlements were altogether
"reasonable", he is back to assuring us that he is not merely a tool
of the Arabs. He praised the coverage of the Middle East by Ha'aretz,
and makes reference to the "arid wastes of Arab journalism" and tells
us that he has been vehemently attacked by the Arab press.
He then switches to the Armenian Holocaust. The American press, he
tells us, consistently tries to discredit the story by calling it a
massacre rather than a holocaust, even though the only academics
disputing any part of the story are in chairs funded by Turkey (no
names given). The Turks get off easy because Turkey is an ally of both
the US and Israel, and Turkey has a big lobby in the US.
And finally, before closing, he griped about the treatment of
prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Then to the questions and answers,
chaired by Fisk.
The first questioner was sent by central casting: she was French and
did not have a question so much as praise for the French press,
especially Le Monde, for being sympathetic to the Palestinians and
hostile to the Israelis.
At this point, it was around 10:30, past my bedtime, and Fisk had been
talking for over two hours, so my notes lose track of the questioners,
and merely record Fisk's sundry comments. He told us that the US
military was opposed to war with Iraq, and the American people were
largely opposed as well. He knew the latter fact because of the
receptions he was getting on US college campuses, most recently a
standing ovation at George Mason University because he was telling
them the truth. Nonetheless, there is a vast difference between the
views of Americans and the American government, because the US has
become a "hoax democracy" run by the Israeli, smoking, and gun lobbies
(but apparently not the Turkish lobby).
Asked who could replace Arafat, Fisk said Arafat won't go while the US
and Sharon want him out. Describing Arafat as a "corrupt little
despot," he remarked that while Sharon had Arafat locked up, there
were articulate Palestinians defending their cause, who were shut down
when Arafat came back out because Arafat only uses his useless
relatives, not trusting anyone else.
Curiously, he didn't join the usual the-Iraqis-will-fight-to-the-death
crowd. He suggested that if the US invades, it will probably win, and
win quickly. The only cause for doubt is whether Saddam has chemical
and biological weapons, which Fisk says Saddam will use if he has
them. Absent that, he predicted not only a quick victory for the US,
but crowds of Iraqis welcoming their liberators from Saddam, whom he
described as a monster. Then he went back to his gripes about the
possibility of occupying Iraq.
He claimed that children in Basra were dying of cancer because of the
depleted uranium shells used during the Gulf War, and that medicines
for them could not get through the sanctions.
As we neared closing, a questioner accused the Irish Times, Ireland's
dull, respectable, and liberal broadsheet, of being part of the
Zionist conspiracy because one of their stringers in the Middle East
is David Horovitz, the editor of the Jerusalem Report. This bit of
lunacy actually embarrassed Fisk. Fisk remarked that Horovitz was a
friend, who Fisk respected, even though they disagreed. If true,
Horovitz needs to get a better class of friends.
As the audience broke into a standing ovation, I went home. I had my
whiff of a Nuremberg rally.
jhayati
>
> > "MasterChef" <Maste...@Cooking.Com> wrote in message news:<3f837760$1...@news.iglou.com>...
> > > Ch'an Fu wrote in message <>
> > >
> > > >you're both "buddhists"?
> > >
> > > theyr both monks
> > > heheh
> >
> > No, Punnadhammo is an ordained monk, probably of the Theravada school.
> >
> > I do Buddhist practice.
>
> no you don't.
Actually I do, and have intensely for a long time.
As for non-Buddhists like you, Chan-Fu, you're spreading hatred and
attacking Buddhists who share their practice and make fun of Buddhism
reveals who and what you are, no matter how many fluffy zenny quips
you paste in.
> > Whether you call me a 'Buddhist' is your problem.
>
> what you call yourself is more important.
I call myself Jhayati, and that isn't important at all.
I call you 'loser'.
As one of the most vicious anti-Buddhists here, you aren't in a
position to tell anyone about Buddhism or whether they are Buddhist.
You can return to spreading more hatred about Buddhism and insulting
Buddhists who share their practice now.
Plonk!
- j
heh
>
he didn't lose anything
he checked....
car keys
watch
jhayati dart board
yep it's all there
maybe YOU lost something.....?
heh
Evelyn Ruut
"heh" <hehh...@whassup.com> wrote in message
news:bm305c$hbckt$1...@ID-163374.news.uni-berlin.de...
He is right on the money in his assessment of Ch'an Fu.
punnadhammo
DrWarrenKrugar <drwarre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Much as I dislike extremes, I would go so far as to jettison the five
> precepts altogether. There's something condescending and self-serving
> about a set of commandments regarding how one should comport oneself.
> While such rules are required by social compacts, they may be argued
> to have no place in a system whose focus is introspection and
> self-discovery. It is a well-noted phenomenon, of course, to mistake
> the map for the road. Maps are imperfect aproximations of reality and,
> while useful, have serious limitations. Mistaking the edicts of the
> Buddha for Buddhism is quite queer.
We're not interested in the excuses you make for your amorality.
punnadhammo
I'm about at the point of giving up on Jhayati and his narrow minded
pro-war nonsense, but I can't let him get away with a gross slander of
one of the most honest, courageous and hard-working people in
journalism.
I would suggest people look up Fisk's excellent writing for the
Independent and judge for themselves.
Jhayati's standard is clear. Anyone who questions the rightness of the
US invasion is indulging in "Tabloid" journalism. Anyone who would call
the Independent a Tabloid is just making a fool of themselves.
> LOL! Now you've outdone yourself. For those of you not familiar with
> Fisk, Punnadhammo is baiting me here and trying to get my goat, as
> Robert Fisk is the number one well-known laughing-stock anti-American
> tabloid journalist in Britain. He got started by writing a story
> where he claims to have been beaten up by anti-American Afghanis, and
> then he claims they were morally justified beating him up and he
> deserved it. Fik's masochism gained him popularity among the
> extremist anti-war anti-American crowd.
I have never heard him called a "laughingstock" before. The piece
Jhayati is referring to is an example of Fisk's fair-mindedness. He was
able to see beyond his own personal position and look at the big
picture and honestly ask "why do these people hate foreigners coming
into their country?"
> Fisk is notorious for his slander and vicious attacks of Jews and
> Americans, which has led him to be discredited by mainstream media and
> reduced to a clown and sensationalist rather than a journalist.
The mainstream US media is the joke, as anyone who is exposed to
international journalism knows very well.
> I'll
> post a synopsis of his view below that I kept from last year, where he
> even makes a pitch below for "The Nation" which is the most extremist
> and laughable popular political tabloid in America,
Again, look at the "Nation" for yourself. It is a moderately leftist
political paper more noted for it's thoughtful analysis than for
strident rhetoric. Only in the skewed political climate of current
America could it be called "extremist." Europeans would call it mildly
left-of-centre.
> Ok, that was funny. Only America's version of Fisk, Michael Moore,
> can top Fisk when it comes to slander. Except Moore is dull, fat, and
> stupid. Fisk is more like you, Punnadhammo: "Fisk is arrogant,
> dishonest, and a gasbag, but he is not dull.... I was disgusted, but
> never bored. If you are rich and want to pay for an entertaining
> clown, Fisk is your man." So what's next, the guy on cable TV who
> talks to dead people?
Who are you quoting here. Rush Limbaugh?
The lengthy piece you quote is a big disappointment, not an honest
appraisal of the man and his views but a nasty tirade from someone who
obviously went in to the lecture and biased and went out the same way.
Instead of reading this crap maybe you should read Fisk for yourself
and make a genuine appraisal. But that's too scary, you might actually
learn something that shakes your cozy complacency.
heh
"Evelyn Ruut" <mama-l...@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:V6chb.25959$pv6....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "heh" <hehh...@whassup.com> wrote in message
> news:bm305c$hbckt$1...@ID-163374.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message >
> > > I call you 'loser'.
> > >
> >
> > he didn't lose anything
> > he checked....
> > car keys
> > watch
> > jhayati dart board
> > yep it's all there
> > maybe YOU lost something.....?
> >
> > heh
>
>
> He is right on the money in his assessment of Ch'an Fu.
jhayati couldn't
assess his way
out of a paper bag
heh
heh
"punnadhammo" <arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net> wrote in message
> I'm about at the point of giving up on Jhayati and his narrow minded
> pro-war nonsense,
give him another chance
as dubious as it may seem
he can continue to make himself
look stupider
and stupider
apparently to infinity
heh
jhayati
> In article <2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>, jhayati
> <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> I'm about at the point of giving up on Jhayati and his narrow minded
LOL!
> but I can't let him get away with a gross slander of one of the most
> honest, courageous and hard-working people in journalism.
LOL! The most discredited sensationalist that's laughed at by both
left and right, except for the most extreme anti-Israel anti-American
crowd, who sees Zionist conspiracies under his own bed?
Please stop embarrassing yourself this way. You even deprive me of
the pleasure of making a fool out of you by doing it yourself first.
That's cheating!
> Jhayati's standard is clear. Anyone who questions the rightness of the
> US invasion is indulging in "Tabloid" journalism.
No, there are many wonderful and well written anti-war views. I even
posted a very reputable anti-war view and you insulted me for it.
However, your citing the most extreme and discredited fanatic, who's
masochism and cries that he deserved to get beat up by anti-American
goons (even though he's a Brit), and then generalizing that we
deserved to be attacked, is laughable, and on par with that
psycho-history site of yours with all the "we feel guilty" nonsense
that you posted to start this thread.
You've got the mental physics wrong, Punnadhammo: pushing yourself
farther and farther back on the see-saw doesn't really give you more
leverage after all. What you don't get is that rational anti-war
writers that are credible would make a strong case for you. Whereas
sensationalists who feed on emotionalism and who misinterpret and
distort everything to be a Jewish conspiracy, as well as espousing the
ignorant "it's about oil" chant that no intellectual informed anti-war
analyst believes, only serve to embarrass and discredit your view.
> > Fisk is notorious for his slander and vicious attacks of Jews and
> > Americans, which has led him to be discredited by mainstream media and
> > reduced to a clown and sensationalist rather than a journalist.
>
> The mainstream US media is the joke, as anyone who is exposed to
> international journalism knows very well.
The reputable international journalism isn't sensationalist either.
You can't hide with that one. And every single major USA paper and
network is more credible than Fisk's laughable masochism.
> Again, look at the "Nation" for yourself. It is a moderately leftist
No, it's a sensational and extreme leftist tabloid in America, and is
the tabloid of choice for the angry anti-American dissenter crowd.
The better left-leaning American journal is The New Republic (from
which I quote a lot) but it has as at least as many pro-war as
anti-war articles even though it is very strongly anti-Dubya, so you
still wouldn't like it. Whereas The Nation's best and most pretigious
writer quit last year (a far left Trotskyist himself), explaining that
The Nation had become so dishonest that he couldn't in good conscious
write for it anymore. When your best journalist of 20 years quits
because the paper has gone so downhill, that says a lot. So of course
Fisk now calls it the only news source in America that isn't
controlled by the Jews. That's hilarious!
> > Ok, that was funny. Only America's version of Fisk, Michael Moore,
> > can top Fisk when it comes to slander. Except Moore is dull, fat, and
> > stupid. Fisk is more like you, Punnadhammo: "Fisk is arrogant,
> > dishonest, and a gasbag, but he is not dull.... I was disgusted, but
> > never bored. If you are rich and want to pay for an entertaining
> > clown, Fisk is your man." So what's next, the guy on cable TV who
> > talks to dead people?
> The lengthy piece you quote is a big disappointment, not an honest
> appraisal of the man and his views but a nasty tirade
Actually it was somewhat charitable, and Fisk was the one who had
given the nasty tirade, not the student who was bothered by it.
Anyway, you've hung yourself if you take Fisk seriously, as anti-war
friends of mine that are intelligent tell me that they are very angry
at Robert Fisk and Michael Moore, the two most dishonest and
embarrassing anti-war goons, who don't represent the serious
alternatives to attacking Iraq. And I agree with them. In a sense,
your posts only serve to help strenthen the cupcakes and their silly
pro-war nonsense, as you make all pacifism and alternatives to
imperialism look laughable and a product of extremist hatred and
masochism. Btw, I dare you to praise Michael Moore, now hugely
popular in the French and German translations of his book. Go ahead
and praise him, you know you're itching to.
> Who are you quoting here. Rush Limbaugh?
Lol! No, you know I would be the first to discredit any
sensationlists like Rush if they agreed with me, and that I have so
many intelligent moderate critical thinking analysis at my disposal
that I don't have to resort to the opposite nonsense to counter a
sensationalist clown, just as I don't have to resort to moral
relativism to dismiss blind faith in scriptures. Similarly, I
wouldn't need to use Chomsky to counter Rush, just good moderate
reasoning.
I purposely looked for a moderate evaluation that stressed both Fisk's
good and bad points, while revealing his general feel but I chose this
piece specifically because because it described you to a tee, as like
Fisk, Warren pointed out what an entertaining clown you are: "Fisk is
arrogant, dishonest, and a gasbag, but he is not dull.... I was
disgusted, but never bored. If you are rich and want to pay for an
entertaining clown, Fisk is your man."
That's you, Punnadhammo. Lol. I couldn't resist, reading that.
I could have posted other critiques that are much more brutal and
really end up fisking Fisk badly, you'd reject them all and make up
some excuse, so I picked the one that revealed how similar Fisk is to
you, in being an arrogant, dishonest gasbag, but an entertaining
clown. And you perform for free.
> > LOL! Now you've outdone yourself. For those of you not familiar
> > with Fisk, Punnadhammo is baiting me here and trying to get my goat,
> > as Robert Fisk is the number one well-known laughing-stock
> > anti-American tabloid journalist in Britain. He got started by
> > writing a story where he claims to have been beaten up by
> > anti-American Afghanis, and then he claims they were morally
> > justified beating him up and he deserved it. Fisk's masochism has
> > gained him popularity among theextremist anti-war anti-American crowd.
> Instead of reading this crap maybe you should read Fisk for yourself
I don't read Fisk or Limbaugh, nor do I watch Sunday morning preachers
on televison. I have come across dozens of quotes from Fisk, as every
time he comes up with a new shocker he is laughed at and everyone
comments how he is at it again, just as I read that about Rush this
week, who's latest stunt was to make a racist remark on ESPN that a
black quarterback only got good reviews because of his skin color.
Rush was immediately forced to quit his ESPN gig, as he couldn't even
talk football without throwing in extremist political digs. Both Fisk
and Rush compulsively spin and try to create hatred and
misunderstanding against those who disagree. You're guilty of this
too, Mr. Pundit but you are a fun guy, and you're being a clueless
monk makes you laughable instead of coming across as harsh, hardened,
or psychotic.
So I challenge you instead to come up to my level and read intelligent
sources, including serious anti-war perspectives, instead of trying to
bring me down to your tabloid level. You can duke it out with cupcake
if you want to keep fisking instead of thinking critically and
rationally.
- j
jhayati
> jha...@msn.com (jhayati) wrote in message news:<2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > drwarre...@yahoo.com (DrWarrenKrugar) wrote in message news:<3461dafe.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > > jha...@msn.com (jhayati) wrote in message news:<2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > punnadhammo <arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net> wrote in message news:<021020030912277547%arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net>...
> > > > > In article <2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>, jhayati
> > > > > <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
Warren, I found another article from the magazine where the gender one
I pasted in before was published which had a desturbing claim, just
like Punnadhammo's, yet the exact opposite. It's a strange
association and praise of masulinity with ignorance, from the right,
which fits with Punnadhammo's equally crazy notions that navy seals
couldn't do meditation. Both these extremists would equally disagree
with me, which makes it interesting.
For example, from the American Enterprise magazine (macho-right-wing)
that had the real men vote republican article reprinted in the WSJ,
here's another article that applauds and teaches that boys should be
unfeeling destructive jerks, and it laughs at the liberals who try to
teach them otherwise, in a piece with the blatantly false title "Men
-- it's in their nature":
"This past spring, my son spent a month in Israel with his senior
class.... The students were told to walk out into the desert until
they were completely alone. The counselors (mostly American-born)
supplied them with a pencil, paper, matches, and a candle and
instructed them to absorb the quiet calm of the desert, to record
their feelings, and to 'find themselves'. The girls happily complied.
Most of the boys did not. They scattered into the desert, quickly
became bored, and sought out each other's company. Then they threw the
pencils and paper into a pile, and used the candles and matches to
start a little bonfire. The boys loved it; the sensitivity trainers
were horrified. They viewed the boys' behavior as an expression of
primitive violence -- a lethal masculinity straight from The Lord of
the Flies. Later in the evening, the students sat in a circle while
the girls read their impassioned reactions to the 'haunting
loneliness' of the desert; the boys could barely suppress laughter --
confirming once again the worst fears of the sensitivity trainers.
Gender equity experts in America's schools, universities, government
agencies, and major women's groups would share the distress of the
kibbutz counselors, having spent more than a decade trying to
resocialize boys away from 'toxic masculinity.' In a great number of
American schools, gender reformers have succeeded in expunging many
activities that young boys enjoy: dodge ball, cops and robbers,
reading or listening to stories about battles and war heroes.... The
gender activists who fill our schools and government agencies will
continue with their efforts to make boys more docile and emotional.
But fewer and fewer Americans will support them. Maleness is back in
fashion. And one reason is that Americans are increasingly aware that
traditional male traits such as aggression, competitiveness,
risk-taking and stoicism -- constrained by virtues of valor, honor and
self-sacrifice -- are essential to the well-being and safety of our
society."
The above is a good example of the kind of right-wing crap I hate the
most, which Punnadhammo would be glorifying were he a wingnut on the
cupcake side. While healthy risk-taking and stoicism are fine,
awareness of the haunting loneliness (emptiness and no-self in
Buddhism) go hand in hand with these, as cooperation and competition
go together but too much of either is problematic. This pushes the
aggressive macho rhetoric as Punnadhammo pushes the pacifistic and
masochistic guilt-society rhetoric, and both polarizations are
horribly mistaken. A well rounded ideal navy seal would have all of
these qualities, with the compassion of a Buddha and the killing
abilities of James Bond. Yet the well-rounded or androgynous person
is what wingnuts on both sides deny. Why is that?
While the almost Hitler-youth approach of that article offends me, I
equally don't like the male-bashing and masochism guilt culture of the
left, but to me this claim that boys should be insensitive jerks (like
our own Tang-Fu-cupcake axis-of-insult) who aren't introspective,
don't have feelings, and should be trained to be soldiers and
protectors and will be good at this because of their ignorance and
ability to "laugh their teeth out" as one insensitive sociopath puts
it -- well that is pure nonsense. Yet note how this fits in perfectly
with Punnadhammo's extremist claims, when he claims that navy seals
could never benefit from meditation or mindfulness!
The two extremes work together here with the same stereotypes. As an
(not 'the') informed and rational voice of moderation and ecclecticism
here, I assert that you can be masculine and willing and able to kill
to save lives and protect your freedom, as well as practicing
mindfulness and being filled with compassion and deeply feeling the
emptiness within, avoiding violence whenever possible. Yet
Punnadhammo and his flag-waving mirror images seem to join forces in
dening this. Isn't that fascinating? What's you're take on this,
Doctor K?
That's what I was saying.
> Hence the interest in Buddhism that drew me here -
> I suspected that the objective tenedencies in Buddhism would steer
> people away from, or at least render them more aware of their own
> projections. I was apparently wrong.
Quite wrong. That can make it even harder to admit you have such
bias, as you get to feel even more complacent and assured your views
are certainties when your religion superficially claims that
attachment to views is a problem, but you don't apply this to your
attachment to the religion itself.
A famous Buddhist, Nagarjuna said something like this, when talking
about attachment to views, that the attachment to emptiness was the
worse kind from which there is almost no escape.
> > Even those of us who embrace rationality (rightly, I
> > think) really don't as much as we think we do, and we tend to
> > rationalize instead of being rational. That's why I like that story
> > that Punnadhammo led me to, "The Cold Equations" because it reminds us
> > that our traditions and intuitions are always fundamentally flawed and
> > have limits, even if they are good safetynet guides, as are following
> > the five precepts or ten commandments, but we have to question our
> > interpretations of them sometimes to break free of these cycles that
> > lock us into a view, which you describe here while breathing fire,
> > Warren.
>
> Much as I dislike extremes, I would go so far as to jettison the five
> precepts altogether. There's something condescending and self-serving
> about a set of commandments regarding how one should comport oneself.
I disagree. They are good training wheels or basic guidelines for
rather nasty people. For example, look at all the hatred and insults
here. Were Punnadhammo and Lee to follow the precepts, they wouldn't
resort to patting each other on the back with personal insults about
me, instead of discussing the issues. And those are the nice guys.
The hatred in Chan-Fu or Sean BWZ or Tang here is so vicious when they
attack Buddhism on the Tibetan newsgroup, that I think if they
followed precepts it would curb so much hateful behavior. Btw, as an
American, I can't fathom choosing between Tibetan or Theravada or
Mahayana. Were I to grow up in one of those cultures, I'd surely feel
convinced that my branch was the authentic one. But for a Westerner
to claim that one of these is fraudulent or one of them is the true
Buddhism doesn't make sense to me at all. I suppose it's just the
Monkey Mind in action.
> While such rules are required by social compacts, they may be argued
> to have no place in a system whose focus is introspection and
> self-discovery.
Sure they do. They keep you grounded and allow you to not hurt others
as much when you get lost in an emotional frenzy. If you don't use
vulgar words and don't say things which are not true and helpful, you
will do less harm. I advocate precepts as a guideline, btw, not as
commandments. Maybe Thich Nhat Hanh's calling them "five mindfulness
trainings" instead of precepts is is a better interpretation.
> It is a well-noted phenomenon, of course, to mistake the map for the road.
> Maps are imperfect aproximations of reality and, while useful, have
> serious limitations. Mistaking the edicts of the Buddha for Buddhism
> is quite queer.
Maybe you could say more about this.
> > > Like hillbillies, the kneejerk pacifists find themselves in the dark
> > > and conspire to keep others in the dark just to maintain the status
> > > quo of dissent. Dissent is of course so much easier and cheaper than
> > > genuine honesty.
> >
> > Then again, dissent is the cornerstone of American and democratic
> > values. When Punnadhammo grew up, the old farts were hardened
> > conservatives. I've grown up where the old farts are hardened
> > pacifisic liberals that bash the Anglo-sphere, globalization,
> > democracy, progress, and anything else they can bash. We all are
> > doing dissent. My liberal friends rail against Dubya and the
> > repressive mainstream conservative culture. My conservative friends
> > rail against the liberal immoral mainstream culture. Everybody thinks
> > that they are dissenter, and they each rail against an abstract "they"
> > which they call the "mainstream". The symmetry is worth studying.
> > This is done on all sides, Warren, and not just by pacifists, but by
> > flag-wavers equally, who claim we've forgotten what the constitution
> > was all about and so on.
>
> Excellent point. Coopted dissent in a prosperous society. If I were
> conspiratorial, I would be inclined to say that this is probably the
> reason that nuts like Chomsky gets published - as a safe outlet for
> extremists to vent their anger at an amorphous system instead of
> facing the real problems of government head-on.
Yet he's too tame for Punnadhammo, who goes for the rants of Fisk!
Note that Buddhism in Asia (you'd know more of this than I) is more
like mainstream Christianity here, with all the bowing and chanting
and believing and going to church weekly. Here, the dissenters who
are angry with their own religions and traditions tend to be the ones
that go for Buddhism, usually their dissenting in their own religion
goes with a rebeliousness in culture.
Here in America, Zen folks are collections of misfits, some creative,
but most of them -- and this is especially the case in the old ones in
their 40s and 50s or even 60s -- that have a bitter attitude to their
own religions and also their cultures and their extended families.
One (local and rather uninformed) Buddhist teacher recently said that
Buddhism was "all about going against society and challenging the
norm." Were she to leave America and check out all the Buddhist
countries in Asia, she'd be shocked to find that the Buddhists were
the normal folks and the Christian converts the rebelious dissenters.
Punnadhammo is caught in the same trap. Ironic that they are not
displaying Buddhism as much as American values, as it's the American
way to dissent and rebel against oppression, as that's what the
country was founded on, and you can see it from the founding fathers
to our favorite TV legends, such as Hawkeye Pierce.
> Chomsky himself (whom I have widely read) refers to this as the
> Joe Sixpack strategy, blaming sports and entertainment for getting
> the average Joe off the back of the politicians. I find that
> so-called "dissent" achieves the same purpose as sports for an
> audience that is generally dissatisfied and whiney. It feeds them
> the most ridiculous laughable extremist theories, thus placating
> while simultaneously discrediting them, thereby rendering them
> virtually ineffective in the political process.
Very interesting idea!
> They are allowed to have their "grass-roots" organizations that,
> with a few exceptions (such as the religious right), bear no fruit
> in terms of elected representation or an effective lobby.
>
> If they ever wake up to reality, as soon as they stop slapping
> themselves they will come to realize that you have to be in the game
> to win. They have to be willing to join society and help guide policy
> toward the kind of results that will help answer their concerns. But
> this is difficult. It is much simpler to be angry and irrational,
> like Punnadhammo, to allow the process to fail your concerns and then
> become even more angry, irrational and ineffective - a vicious cycle
> of self-failure.
Yes. Though I think Punnadhammo is baiting me with the Fisk stuff, as
I don't think that even he would be sucked in by the biggest
sensationalist who promotes masochism and rants against the Jews.
> > > Any jerk can be a whining dissenter intent on tearing down the efforts
> > > of others. It takes real intellectual and emotional backbone to
> > > undertake an ambitious project to construct something worthwhile.
> > >
> > > Jay's response to "That Guy" is a classic case of dismantling of
> > > "manufactured consent".
> >
> > Is it? I wrote that reply in two minutes while half asleep with the
> > same kind of obsessiveness that Punnadhammo has when he takes whacks
> > at Lee.
>
> You are too modest. Coleridge claims to have transcribed Kubla Khan
> from an opium dream.
Nothing fancy like that with me. Just plain home-grown marijuana.
> In Canada did Punnadham
> A shiny dome of denial strain:
> Where Theta, the sacred river, ran
> Through mindlessness measureless to man
> Down to a sunless trb...
Lol!
> > > If you do not recognize that phrase,
> >
> > No, I haven't heard it before.
> >
> > > it is a Chomsky concept from his book Manufacturing Consent, which Jay
> > > was right to represent as flat-footed extremism with all the charm of
> > > cod liver oil and the intelectual balance of a radical pacifist, which
> > > are both cute oxymorons.
> >
> > I haven't read any of Chomsky's books, but he is cited as a wingnut,
> > as annoying as his spinster counterpart Rush Limbaugh on the other
> > wing, and I'd rather read a really articulate account by someone
> > brilliant but more moderate and holistic. One book that's on my list,
> > recommended as arguably the best fair and insightful liberal account
> > of American geopolitics, is Carroll Quigley's, "Tragedy and Hope: A
> > History of the World in Our Time". It's been praised by the
> > intelligensia on both the right and left, and I've been told by
> > different sources that this the most important book on American
> > geopolitics that one can read, whether you agree or disagree.
>
> I've browsed it, as I've browsed much of Chomsky. He is indeed a most
> authoritative wingnut, the best that ignorance can muster. Despite
> his arid, humorless, obsessive nature, or perhaps because of it, I
> can't help but like him.
Cool.
> It is his role to be the person even a Jewish
> mother could reject but whom you like despite himself. His analyses of
> the media are often quite on-the-spot and he has a lot to offer but
> also manages to cover it over with layer upon layer upon layer of
> trite, whining, distasteful intellectual mush.
Which annoys us but which mesmerizes the Punnadhammos. In the same
way, the Punnadhammos get mesmerized by talk of angels or metaphysical
and magic claims which bore us, but they have a fit when you get down
to the real world and practical ethics of saving the most lives and
making the world the most secure and safe for everyone to prosper in.
> > Clinton mentioned in his inauguration speech that "as a teenager I
> > heard John Kennedy's summons to citizenship. And then, as a student at
> > Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll
> > Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest country in the
> > history of the world because our people have always believed in two
> > things: that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of
> > us has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so." A review
> > says, "Quigley's amazing 1966 book was intended to persuade trade
> > union leaders,editors, politicians at every level, business people,
> > and other inluential individuals throughout society, that the coming
> > New World Order would ultimately be an accomplished fact - that
> > nationalism was a 'tragedy' and that 'internationalism' was the
> > world's only hope of peace and prosperity." That one's on my reading
> > list, before I would try to read any Chomsky or Kissinger. Usually I
> > prefer reading about Buddhism or science.
>
> I personally prefer superhero comics. I am working on an unlikely
> league of Buddhist superheros featuring the likes of Punnadhammo and
> cupcake (the ambiguously Buddhist duo?) - and yourself of course as
> the archvillian.
LOL!!!
> > > It has become fashionable to attack daddy USA, which is something
> > > Freud might explain in terms of an Oedipal complex.
> >
> > "Daddy" is the key here, as liberalism has often been associated with
> > "mommy" and conservativism with "daddy". You may be on to something
> > here, Doctor K.
>
> Purely unintended serendipity. I am a humble servent whose aims do
> not include anything so lofty as the origination of groundbreaking new
> theorums - I merely strive to offend. I hereby renew my efforts.
If only I could be as offensive as you.
> > There was an interesting article the other day in the
> > Wall Street Journal on that, called "Real Men Vote Republican", which
> > somehow makes me think about Gov'ner Ah-nold, though Arnold, while a
> > he-man, is actually the kind of moderate we need to avoid all the
> > extremism. Get a similar Democrat, hopefully one who doesn't pinch as
> > many butts, and you have your next President. If I still have it I'll
> > paste it in below for you.
>
> Here is where we disagree. Not on any of the political stuff - on the
> butt pinching. Don't you think that was a factor in his election?
No, and I think the slander was so nonsensical that it backfired.
> I personally have no problem with people viewing one another as sexual
> objects...so long as they are not so indecorous as to sniff each
> other's butts in public. Are you listening, cupcake?
I have no problem if Arnold, as he did, was honest and said he was
playful and crude in his youth and apologizes if he offended anyone.
It's when you lie about it that I have a problem.
> > > It would be interesting to see a psychological analysis of the
> > > anti-hero (US) mindset and I believe it would have sufficient meat
> > > to distinguish it from the brain-numbing psychobabble that Punnadhammo
> > > posted and pretended was cogent analysis.
> >
> > What sets Punnadhammo off, I notice, is when I mimic the USAs worst
> > trait, which is arrogance and do-no-wrong righteousness, which I play
> > up a little to bait Mr. Pundit. Dubya overdoes the "America is the
> > moral savior of the world" crap, and this triggers the Punnadhammos.
>
> Please don't plauralize him. Bad enough we have this mouse in our
> pocket.
Well, I use the plural because Punnadhammo is more of a stereotype
than a person. I mean the extremist posting personality, not the
actual flesh'n'blood monk.
The utter irony is that I happen to have access to a broader and more
diverse set of sources of information, on all sides, and I screen out
sensationalists on all sides, so when Punnadhammo actually claims I
don't have the facts and then sites a discredited extremist and a
tabloid, I simply don't believe him, and think this is all a gag where
he's trying to get me to take myself too seriously and is laughing at
me. I wouldn't be surprized if he turns out not to even be a monk at
all, but a conservative banker who is doing a parody of a left-wing
radical wingnut.
> > As I pointed out in various posts, we should accept both that we're
> > basically a 19th century European imperalist power, yet that we're a
> > lot more moral and do well in comparison. And as you point out,
> > Warren, if everyone acts in their self-interest and is honest about
> > that, we'll work to better the world, because it ends up helping each
> > of us. But a reasonable middle-ground holistic picture takes the
> > sails out of the wingnuts on both sides, and doesn't get much
> > attention, just as both the left and the right viciously attacked the
> > moderate Ah-nold last week, with the left bashing him with every
> > ass-pinching scandal from his pumping iron days to the labeling of him
> > as in league with satan and an evil closet liberal by the religious
> > right.
>
> I have found that nothing takes the sails out of the nuts on both
> sides better than a good oral servicing. I try to have the pipes
> cleaned, and I am truley sorry that your people hung Clinton out to
> dry on that one. I would have demonstrated my solidarity by having a
> contingent of hookers lobby for greater public acceptance of oral
> favors. It may sound like an unlikely cause but I assure you, we would
> have been the most welcome lobby in Washington. Especially in today's
> more testosterone-tolerant environment.
Well, along those lines, Ludwig said that we should surrender to to
the will and whims of the French, and I replied that it was a good
idea only if he meant a French whore in leather with whips and
handcuffs. Might do him some good, if he combines it with your idea.
> > > If I didn't know better, I might have concluded long ago that Buddhism
> > > turns the mind to mush.
> >
> > It can, if you use it that way. If you think that a particular set of
> > scriptures have the absolute truth, whether you are Buddhist or any
> > other 'ist', you can pretty much guarantee your mind will turn to
> > mush!
>
> In that case, it should be combined with a most rigorous program of
> oral sex. From what I've read about your American blondes, this
> technique has worked for you Yankees. Unlike them, the Aussie women
> never needed dumbing down as your American women apparently did
> (feminism apparently proved just the thing).
Lol!
> By the way, I do hope this offends somebody - have we become so jaded
> that this sort of anti-anti talk can go uncountered?
Probably cupcake will counter that anal stimulation is preferable.
> Where are all the anti-anti-antis? OK, I joke but it is appropriate
> considering how remarkable it is that Conan the Barbarian could be
> elected governor in a state so dominated by feminists.
Who secretly crave for more than the wimpy limp pacifists they have
whipped into shape and taught to speak French.
> It must have been those awesome muscles -
> quite the object of envy among the butches...
And I thought it was the accent.
> > > Between the intellectual cosmic debris of
> > > Lhamo who never saw a Buddhist teaching he didn't misunderstand
> > > (orally fixated), the hubristic dogmatic stubbornnes of Punnadhammo
> > > (anal retentive), the whacky mentation theories of Tang (borderline),
> > > and the flock of crows who attach themselves to any thread consisting
> > > entirely of one-liners (processed iconcoclast authoritarians), the
> > > only honest figure appeared to be cupcake.
> >
> > How depressing. Then again, anybody with a life wouldn't waste much
> > time posting. Had I a wonderful girlfriend or art project, and didn't
> > have things to do which I like to put off and procrastinate, I'd be
> > doing something else. I'll probably only post on weekends or every
> > other month as soon as we get to a lull in the enthusiasm with these
> > issues.
>
> Possibly not, Jay. I have a girlfriend, and, being a plastic surgeon,
> she is also my art project...
Lee already took the bait on that one and insulted me.
> Yet here I am when instead I should be working on a more ambitious
> project to create the most squeezable butt. Here I am right now when I
> should be lobbying the new governor for funding.
Kahleeforneeyah is a long way from Austrayleeyah.
> > > But then along came Jay. So now I understand that not all Buddhists
> > > are cawing, cloying, annoying knee jerking, goose stepping
> > > self-caracatures who wrap themselves in the mantle of heteroclite
> > > authority like the Zentists Thervists, Mahamatitians and Vajragicians
> > > that haunt this hollow log. That's all for now...
> >
> > Nah, I just remind you of yourself, and you're the list narcissist,
> > Warren. LoL!
>
> Thank you. It's nice to hear a deserving compliment from someone other
> than myself for a change.
Your posts were the only reason I started posting again. I'm told I
have to go to a private moderate list if I want to have conversations
with people of your caliber.
I was all for her health care, but I don't like her at all because
she's too much of an extremist and partisan, when we need a democratic
Arnold that is moderate. Dubya claimed this but then turned
conservative with the likes of Ashcroft. The last moderate Republican
was Nixon but he got the bad rep for being part of the Watergate
wiretapping tricks.
> Here's my take on it: The media turned the public against her. The
> media is of course controlled by interests that are necessarily at
> odds with universal health care. While these interests support
> Democratic politicians, they are properly Republican. What they seek
> to do is to install a puppet Republican and corrupt a Democrat.
I don't see any evidence for that. Sounds like a Punnadhammo plot.
> Barring that, they will hogtie a Democratic president (as they did
> with Clinton). In either case, the result is the same - zero progress
> on economic and social issues and solid support for military and
> corporate welfare spending.
Clinton did quite well, actually and was as moderate as it gets.
> There is something to be said for the view that these interests were
> influential in getting you Yanks into Iraq. Although I defend America
> against the baseless slander of Punnadhammo, I would not have had
> sufficient incentive to intervene in Iraq. Not that I'm a girlie-man,
> mind you - like Schwarzenegger, I could also pay off some women to
> convince you that I'd squeezed their asses...
>
> - Warren
I was against the war until it was over, not because I thought it was
wrong, but because I thought it would be another Vietnam. I expected
Saddam to break all the dams, and that Baghdad and Basra would be held
seige and a hundred thousand of people would starve. Then Saddam
would use chemical weapons and we would respond with tactical nukes,
and then another hundred thousand civilians would die from Saddam's
chemicals and our radiation, and that we'd lose several thousand of
our own marines. But none of that happened, and when it was over so
quickly and cleanly, with a tiny fraction of the casualties I'd
feared, I became the monday-morning quaterback and praised it as
brilliant, rendering me a monster and 'arm-chair Patton' in
Punnadhammo's eyes, of course.
- j
MasterChef
jhayati wrote in message
<2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>...
>"MasterChef" <Maste...@Cooking.Com> wrote in message
news:<3f837760$1...@news.iglou.com>...
>> Ch'an Fu wrote in message <>
>>
>> >you're both "buddhists"?
>>
>> theyr both monks
>> heheh
>
>No, Punnadhammo is an ordained monk, probably of the Theravada
school.
>
>I do Buddhist practice.
>Whether you call me a 'Buddhist' is your problem.
no buddha no problem
i'll just call you jackass
MasterChef
Evelyn Ruut wrote in message ...
you earned it now take it bwitch
MasterChef
jhayati wrote in message
<2e4552bb.0310...@posting.google.com>...
wow
not only a jackass but a talkin jackass
call ripley's
>
>Plonk!
>
>- j
MasterChef
Evelyn Ruut wrote in message ...
>
>news:bm305c$hbckt$1...@ID-163374.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> "jhayati" <jha...@msn.com> wrote in message >
>> > I call you 'loser'.
>> >
>>
>> he didn't lose anything
>> he checked....
>> car keys
>> watch
>> jhayati dart board
>> yep it's all there
>> maybe YOU lost something.....?
>>
>> heh
>
>
>He is right on the money in his assessment of Ch'an Fu.
yeah he's on the three dollar bill
cupcake
> Re: The Gulf War as a mental disorder (link)
>
> From: "MasterChef" <Maste...@Cooking.Com>
> Reply to: [1]"MasterChef"
> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 19:56:40 -0400
> Newsgroups:
> [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [3]alt.zen,
> [4]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
> Followup to: [5]newsgroups
> References:
> [6]<290920031834362436%arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net>
> [7]<2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>
> [8]<031020031830430069%arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net>
> [9]<2e4552bb.0310...@posting.google.com>
> [10]<061020030959075398%arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net>
> [11]<2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>
> [12]<3F834E2F...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk>
> [13]<3f837760$1...@news.iglou.com>
> [14]<2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>
> [15]<3F84C133...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk>
> [16]<2e4552bb.0310082234.f4316cd@posting.g
>
>jhayati wrote in message
><2e4552bb.0310...@posting.google.com>...
>>Ch'an Fu <cha...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk> wrote in message
>>> jhayati wrote:
>>>
>>> > "MasterChef" <Maste...@Cooking.Com> wrote in message
yeh, -- he's not a big enough asshole to be either
Richard Hayes or DharmaTroll -- he's juzt a little
asshole
>>
>>Plonk!
>>
>>- j
DrWarrenKrugar
> > In article <2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>, jhayati
> > <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm about at the point of giving up on Jhayati and his narrow minded
>
> LOL!
Reason is a beastly bitch... a contemptuously contumacious cur...a
disdainful dominatrix dealing a dreadful drubbing to desultory
delusions...an embarrassmet to ego, extirpating its erroneous
elucidations...a vitiator of vainglorious vagary.
punnadhammo
Jhayati,
Have you read Fisk for yourself or is your opinion of him as completely
gratuitous and unfounded as the rest of your screeds?
jhayati
> In article <2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>, jhayati
> <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> > In one of your cases you called a "massacre" this turned out after
> > looking it up to be the targeting of enemy soldiers retreating in a
> > vehicle with their weapons. In other words, you lied, spun, and
> > deceived to create prejudice and hatred. I've read enough about US
> > actions to know how ridiculous this is. The best you can do is to
> > site mistakes and exceptions, and then try to claim that this is the
> > norm. You've been deceitful in that way in so many posts now that
> > it's boring.
>
> Where did I lie? I SAID they were retreating with their weapons.
No, I said that, as a massacre would be killing unarmed troops.
> It was still a massacre.
So you say "they retreated with weapons but they were killed unarmed"?
No, that's a contradiction. I asked you twice if you meant that it
was one-sided and and that we weren't stupid enough to lose any
troops. In a football game, you can use this version of the word to
talk about a one-sided game, but here you said that wasn't it. So
that means that by massacre you meant unarmed. Therefore you were a
dirty rotten liar if you meant that those who chose not to surrender
and leave their weapons were killed and you call that a massacre. So
now that I present facts which every major news network reported, you
want to change "massacre" to mean that if you have guns and you are
told to put them down and refuse and get blown to smitherines, that's
a massacre? Hardly. Fot then every time a policeman shoots an armed
criminal who refuses to surrender his weapon, this would be a
massacre, when it is not.
Why not say, "J you are right, and my version was wrong, and only ones
who chose to keep their weapons and not surrender got hurt, but they
all would have survived and been treated well had they thrown down
those guns." Just admit that you were wrong, and you presented a
tabloid false story, when tens of thousands surrendered, which you
denied, and that every one of them would be spared if they left their
vehicles and threw down their guns, which you denied. This game, of
making me do research, then saying "but a battle is a massacre if the
USA doesn't lose troops" is not only dishonest, but a preach of the
4th Buddhist precept.
> You are hopeless.
No, I'm well informed and I think clearly and present the facts.
Deal with it.
> You are the liar, as far as I can see, because you claim, without
> reference that they were given an opportunity to surrender
> with loudspeakers. If you have a source for this, cough it up,
OK, I have a dozen: BBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, New York Times,
London Times, Washington Post, USNews, Newsweek, Economist. All of
them have these facts. Look them up. They aren't all lying. Rather,
your tabloids are.
They all confirm that 87,000 Iraqi soldiers (some have slightly more
or less) who turned themselves over to coalition forces in the first
Iraq War, most of them clutching the leaflets or hiding them in their
clothing. Fifty-eight percent of the survivors who surrendered
reported listening to coalition broadcasts and said they trusted them
as truthful. Eighty percent of them followed the instructions
encouraged by the broadcasts. They all report that over a seven-week
period, 29 million leaflets were disseminated, reaching approximately
98% of the 300,000 troops.
You do the research and see that every single one of these sources
documents thousands of Iraqis retreating from Kuwait who left their
vehicles and surrendered their weapons were not harmed and were
treated well, and that they testify that almost all the troops heard
the loudspeakers or read the fliers distributed over seven weeks. You
can't find a site other than Fisk or tabloids that contradicts this.
What's next Punnadhammo, are you going to tell me that the
concentration camps didn't exist in Germany and demand I prove it or
else I'm a liar? We aren't playing those games.
You've broke the 4th precept, if you are really a monk. Now check it
out and then say "I lied, and there was no massacre, and anyone who
wanted to surrender could and the ones that chose to take weapons and
flee chose their own fate, and I wrongly tried to make the USA look
uncaring or cruel when they went out of their way to help and not hurt
anyone surrendering their weapons."
I even pointed out that you have a case if you look at those buried
alive, but you don't want to make a good case, only cling to the lie
and defend those who actively chose to stay in the conflict when given
a chance to surrender.
Arnold was honest about his ass-pinching and apologized. Can you be
as much of a man, or at least act in accord with the precepts of a
monk, and simply apologize for lying and trying to spread false claims
and slander? If you are a monk, you're going to be reborn as a hungry
ghost or worse if you don't come clean and be honest here, or do you
think that is nonsense and it's ok for a Buddhist monk to lie and
spread what he knows to be untrue and slanderous? I'm almost serious
about this!
- j
MasterChef
cupcake wrote in message ...
then you 2 should be the perfect match
heh
"MasterChef" <Maste...@Cooking.Com> wrote in message
that's just not fair
to
jackasses
heh
jhayati
Lol!!! Given that my 'screeds' are not even partially gratuitious and
unfounded, and that I'm probably the most well-informed person you've
discussed these matters with today, I see you are wearing your clown
nose today, and are ready for a fisking, Punnadhammo.
And yes: I enjoyed, for example, Fisk's interview of Osama from 1993.
He's a good enough writer, but in content he is rather shallow, such
as how he so often spins to blame everything on the Jews, as Israel is
his pet scape-goat. His writing can be serious, and not insulting and
ridiculous like yours, but it's not of interest to me any more than is
Rush Limbaugh, who is also smart and I'm sure makes good points and is
entertaining sometimes. There is so much better and more serious and
informed stuff to read, that I don't need to waste my time with clowns
like Fisk, unless I'm referred to a specific article of interest.
I'm not saying that Fisk is evil or that he's trying to lie or
deceive, just that most of his stuff is "over the top" and he goes for
wild claims and allegations. I understand you need to feed your
extremism and sensationalism, but I don't have that need, so I can
read the more boring but realistic serious analyses. Somehow you like
to bend everything to fit a warped view about how Bush or marines or
whoever doesn't really care about human lives or only cares about oil,
or whatever your nonsense of the day is. Things aren't that simple,
and a lot of people are a lot more complex that you give them credit
for. I'm one of those people, btw.
I'll give you another example, your outrageous "massacre" claims.
This hype came from another wild spinning journalist, Seymour Hersh,
who made the war crimes accusations against General Barry McCaffrey.
I'm not going to play games with your constantly coming up with
another tabloid story yelling "disprove this or else every UFO
sighting is true". You can find the New Yorker article that accuses
McCaffrey, and the rebuttals, and the hearings where McCaffrey was
aquitted of any crimes and why. I find such matters hopelessly
boring.
If you get rid of the hype and look at what eyewitnesses said, you can
actually dispell most of the spin. I'd put my money on people like
this marine who describes the event first hand:
"I was on Highway 8 (the infamous Highway of Death), when the FS (Fire
Support) radio crackled with one of our forward Cav Scouts saying that
a convoy was coming out of Kuwait toward our positions. When they
noticed us, the frantic call came back from the scout. 'They're firing
RPGs, what do we do?' The response was to take out the lead vehicle in
an attempt to get them to surrender. When they plowed through the
blown lead vehicle, we were instructed again to take out the next
vehicle in line. This happened at least two or three more times in an
attempt to get them to stop. When this failed, a firefight ensued, and
we destroyed an elite division of the Republican Guard using
suppressive artillery fire, Apache gunships, and M1 tanks. When it was
said and done, we destroyed an entire division of Elite Republican
Guard without taking one casualty. We were protecting our own lives,
not killing just to kill. Maybe before people start shooting off at
the mouth about warcrimes, they should talk to people that were
actually there, rather than quote 'unnamed sources.' Barry Mcaffrey
was a good leader and a great combat general...he got everyone in my
unit home alive, and to that I owe him. To sum it up, paraphrasing
Gen. George S. Patton: 'The object of war is not to die for your
country, but to let the other poor dumb bastard die for his'."
"The initial attack on the column destroyed vehicles at the front and
back of the column, a clear signal that a wholesale destruction of
equipment was about to commence. Anyone foolish enough to stay in
their vehicles and fight deserved what they got."
There is also a book about these events: "Former National Security
Adviser Brent Scowcroft co-authored a book with George Bush Senior:
'We had all become increasingly concerned over impressions being
created in the press about the 'highway of death' from Kuwait City to
Basra.' Colin Powell urged Dubya's dad to cease Operation Desert Storm
in 1991 after photos of the 'Highway of Death' sparked Arab outrage.
Yet it should have been called the 'Highway of People Running to
Surrender', because most of the casualties on that road were made of
metal -- thousands of Iraqi troops fled at the beginning of the
assault and were captured later. Yet the public and political outcries
of 'massacre' and 'atrocity' drowned out the facts. As a result, the
president's closest advisers all agreed to end combat operations
without disagreement, according to Scowcroft."
So much for your massacre! Lol! You will probably respond with a
gratuitious and unfounded rant that these pilots and marines are
stooges and that Snowcroft and Bush Senior are lying and covering up
horrible hideous war crimes and atrocities, as nothing will ever
likely wrench you of your tabloid superstitions here, will it, you
fanatic friar!
Yet ignoring intelligent analysis and preferring spin and emotionalism
that you get from Fisk or extremist publications like "The Nation"
leads you to believe conspiracy theories and hook into them. When you
take events like this and then spin and distort them (or tap in to the
Fisks and other sensationalists who do this for you) and then add more
and more anecdotes like this, you can wrongly claim: "with so many of
these stories, they have to be right". That is the very same
reasoning that people make about UFOs and alien abductions and
sightings.
Punnadhammo, perhaps you should attend a UFO convention. I'm serious.
I don't mean that you would ever believe in alien visitors. In fact,
if you do believe in them, it would defeat the purpose. The purpose
would be to see the very same pattern of spin and distortion in each
story, and then the massing of various stories together, and
concluding that jointly they can't be ignored and must be real -- to
see this same pattern in a context in which you are not so staked and
attached. Yet at these UFO conventions even collectively they have no
more than you do here. Instead, what they end up with is like cotton
candy: a little sugar spun and spun and spun, yet the whole mass is
almost entirely composed of hot air.
- j
punnadhammo
You're still being either deliberately dishonest or just plain thick.
I was talking only about the troops massacred on the hiway of death.
You keep referring to other troops that surrendered.
If you can't deal with this one incident based on the historical
record, there is no point pursuing it any further.
punnadhammo
Well, Jhayati finally did a Google search for the "Highway of Death"
and kept looking until he came up with the correct "spin."
I think he had never heard of it before I challenged him with it. His
previous posts on the subject sounded like he hadn't.
I don't have any hope left that he will actually make a disinterested
and honest attempt to arrive at the historical facts. But some other
readers might be interested in the following resource;
The former US attorney-general Ramsay Clark headed an independent
commission of inquiry into the US conduct of the Gulf War and presented
a report to the United Nations, here is the link to explain this
commission and its work
http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-preface.htm
Their conclusion of the facts regarding the highway of death incident
can be found here
http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm
You will see that the sanitized version presented by Jhayati is nothing
more than White House spin to cover a war crime.
heh
I'm probably the most well-informed person
does pompous
fuckface asshole
ring a bell?
heh
heh
"punnadhammo" <arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net> wrote in message
> In article <2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>, jhayati
> <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> You're still being either deliberately dishonest or just plain thick.
>
not either.
both.
and so much more.
heh
MasterChef
that's not fair to assholes
>
> heh
>
>
>
>
heh
"MasterChef" <Maste...@cooking.com> wrote in message
news:W9Ahb.16498$mQ2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
oops
my bad
heh
jhayati
> In article <2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>, jhayati
> <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> You're still being either deliberately dishonest or just plain thick.
>
> I was talking only about the troops massacred on the hiway of death.
> You keep referring to other troops that surrendered.
>
> If you can't deal with this one incident based on the historical
I already did, as your hype and sensationalism were false. We
targeted a convoy of 2000 vehicles in a battle in which we hit the
front and rear so that non of the vehicles could be removed to be used
again by Saddam. Except for the troops in the lead and last vehicles,
the Iraqis were able to abandon the vehicles and fled, and most were
captured later. The carnage is mostly of the abandoned 2000 vehicles
which were all eventually destroyed. Your spin of "massacre" which is
killing of people, not vehicles, and unarmed people at that, was
disingenuous sensationalist hype. I'll repeat an eye-witness account
again if you insist.
> there is no point pursuing it any further.
Precicely. Your sensationalism and spin has been exposed. Game over.
MasterChef
heh wrote in message ...
mine forgives you
>heh
>
>
punnadhammo
<jha...@msn.com> wrote:
> There is also a book about these events: "Former National Security
> Adviser Brent Scowcroft co-authored a book with George Bush Senior:
This is an unbiased source?
MasterChef
to infinitismalism and beyond
>
> heh
>
>
jhayati
> In article <2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>, jhayati
> <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> Well, Jhayati finally did a Google search for the "Highway of Death"
> and kept looking until he came up with the correct "spin."
LOL! This is how you dismiss eyewitness testimony, while you still
cling to tabloid sensationalism? I admit the tabloids get it right
sometimes, like trashing Rush Limbaugh and exposing his drug addiction
and buying illegal drugs, which has the gasbag off the air for a
month, but this highway of death nonsense is silly, especially when it
was simply a battle we won, and that the Iraqis had a chance to
surrender and chose to fight a hopless battle instea and try to leave
Kuwait with the booty they had pillaged.
No, I correctly pointed out that your conspiricy was false. First,
there was no massacre, as no unarmed troops were shot in cold blood.
Second, Iraqis had opportunity to leave their vehicles, even though
being in them in the first place was stupid on their part. Most
importantly, we won the battle and there weren't casualties on our
side, which Punnadhammo labels "war crime" and massacre".
Do you understand how meaningless it is to call "winning a battle" a
"war crime" or "massacre"? It's simply deceptive. Again, if the
Iraqis had killed many of our troops in the battle, and then it
wouldn't be a war crime or massacre, that only means that you are
dissapointed that the U.S. won and won easily. Personally, I'm glad
we were able to destroy the convoy of vehicles, tanks, and weapons
without having our troops lose their lives and without letting those
weapons return to Iraq where Saddam could use them again to rape and
pillage someone else. We disagree on who we preferred to win the
battle perhaps, but calling winning a battle, when the enemy troops
were given a chance to surrender, is simply spin.
Every major news service reported the pictures, and an investigation
was held, and there was no foul play or war crimes.
> You will see that the sanitized version presented by Jhayati is nothing
> more than White House spin to cover a war crime.
But you say this about all news from the American media except for
extremist tabloids. Is everyone lying? A set of collected articles
from various media can be found at
http://leb.net/~erik/news/mccaffrey1.html
Punndhammo, you can come up with another claim like this and just as
much hype every single day. There is no end to this nonsense. We won
a battle. You don't like that we won the battle, and you lable it a
war crime and massacre. You can say that about every battle where we
haven't taken casualties. Really, you are saying that all war is a
war crime, which isn't very interesting, and which is the point we
were disputing in the first place, so this has become a futile
exercising of question-begging for you.
> You're still being either deliberately dishonest or just plain thick.
Neither. I simply don't go for spin, and while all battles are
disgusting and bloody, I have no problem when we win them with minimal
casualties on our side. What you call "war crime" and "massacre"
makes sense if you are anti-American and the Americans win. I call it
good strategy. We simply disagree, as we were rooting for different
sides to win. Had the American infantry been decimated and the Iraqis
smart enough not to lose any casualties doing so, perhaps I'd be the
one whining "massacre", though I like to give myself a little more
credit than to stoop to your level of emotional sensationalism.
If you want to say, "I want to claim that their is a big conspiracy
and all the government and media are covering it up and eyewitnesses
are lying", you are welcome to believe that. And of course you can
always find an unending supply of people to agree with you and add to
the hype. As I said, that's the norm if you attend a UFO convention.
- j
Ch'an Fu
i tried to pronounce that and my
tongue went into convulsions
jhayati
It describes you to a tee. And you left out the punch line:
> > I'm probably the most well-informed person you've talked to today
At least get the joke right.
Oh, one more thing,
Plonk!
- j
Ch'an Fu
oops, "fashion". you're both narrow minded
little frogs in a rather big pond, nyet? but
you're real, live, Buddhists with a capital B.
so can you *both* admit that you're only
puking up what your preferred media feeds
you and that *that* is probably as far from
*truth* as any comic book? that you have
absolutely *no* experience in the situation
whatsoever and are simply blowing different
colored smoke out of your respective asses?
can you get that far, O Buddhist Practitioners?
Ch'an Fu
> Oh, one more thing,
>
> Plonk!
aha! the Tibetan mystery word which
induces that "kick in the gut" feeling
in those excluded from the herd!
my word!
jhayati
> In article <2e4552bb.03100...@posting.google.com>, jhayati
> <jha...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> Well, Jhayati finally did a Google search for the "Highway of Death"
> and kept looking until he came up with the correct "spin."
> I think he had never heard of it before I challenged him with it.
No, I don't follow conspiracy theories, especially when five minutes
of research show that it was a battle, not a massacre, and that Iraqis
had been given a chance to surrender and most of them did, and that
all charges or war crimes were dismissed and found to be unfounded.
> I don't have any hope left that he will actually make a disinterested
> and honest attempt to arrive at the historical facts. But some other
> readers might be interested in the following resource;
> The former US attorney-general Ramsay Clark headed an independent
> commission of inquiry into the US conduct of the Gulf War
And again, all charges were dropped, and it turned out we won a
battle.
> You will see that the sanitized version presented by Jhayati is nothing
> more than White House spin to cover a war crime.
Here's an article written for you, Punnadhammo, as it point to exactly
what you are doing, spinning, smearing, and sensationalizing, to
spread hatred and prejudice. This is simply wrong for anyone to do,
especially a monk. Why don't you write this fellow and say these
nasty things to him.
- j
Sgt. N.J. Todd
Protests from those who don't know ring hollow
SPECIAL TO THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Thursday, October 9, 2003
I do not object to all those who oppose the war. I do object those who
accuse the United States of war crimes and genocide in order to lend
weight to their pacifism.
I have heard and seen those in Austin who call for the United States
to leave Iraq, accusing the Bush administration of an unjust invasion,
illegal occupation and genocide. Such people don't know what
"genocide" means.
I cannot count the number of places I have stood where massacres were
committed. In Bosnia, I was among the fortunate few whose duty it was
to be aware of what had happened and to help create a plan to salvage
the situation. Before and after my deployment, I was involved in
analyses of similar situations in Rwanda and Kosovo. In Afghanistan, I
got a chance to participate in recovery and reconstruction efforts on
the ground, to speak to those who had been survivors of such
slaughters, as well as those who probably had been involved in
committing them.
I had to become familiar with the massacres and attempted genocides
that have shaped modern Iraq, the repression of the Kurds and Iraqi
Shiites, the mass graves, gassings, the razing of villages and the
attempted destruction of entire cultures and peoples.
There are places on Earth where "police" can arbitrarily arrest and
torture whom they like, and ask for bribes not to do so. And some
people in the United States, sheltered from such things, will tell you
that American soldiers are no different from such fighters.
It is their right to think so. But the children know. The children of
those tortured lands laugh and play with American soldiers, wave to
them, speak a few American phrases, ask for candy and treats or simply
give a shy smile. They crowd around us when we walk the streets,
cluster around our bases and safe houses, run out into the streets to
wave to passing convoys. They thank us.
They do not do the same for the other soldiers. They vanish when they
see them about their business, hide when they sense the trouble
coming, run before they can get chased away. They understand the
difference, even if our pacifists do not.
I have spoken to children with scars from bullets on the backs of
their heads, put there when they were toddlers. I have seen the graves
of those who died and commiserated with those who somehow survived.
Such things occur too frequently to stop them all. Yet in some
situations, we can intervene. Such moments occur too infrequently to
allow them to pass unseized, such opportunities are too rare to pass
up. Now we have intervened in Iraq and have the historic opportunity
to rehabilitate a land that has for too long suffered the law of the
gun.
Doing so won't erase the suffering of those who died, nor will it
contribute to aiding the people of the Congo, Liberia, Kashmir of
Algeria. Yet it will do something, and create a chance for the
children of Iraq to grow up without their fathers disappearing, their
mothers being raped and killed before their eyes, the sisters taken
for the casual use and disposal of by bored soldiers.
Yet there are those who would have us abandon those we liberated to
fall back into the old ways until another strongman with better guns
or more soldiers than his rivals rises to power. Given the chance to
create in Iraq democratic rule by law and a military devoted to
defending the populace, they would have us walk away.
After I returned from Bosnia, I visited the "museum" at Dachau. I saw
the rebuilt barracks and new barbed wire, the meticulously restored
crematoria and killing grounds. I knelt there in a field that had been
used to dump the ashes of the victims of the Holocaust, and lit a
candle for the souls who suffered there. I cried and prayed there,
remembering what had been done, and thought upon the words "never
again." Somehow the thought of it made me cry more, because I couldn't
stop thinking about how long it took us to decide to stop the madness
in Bosnia. How no one even tried to stop the killings in Cambodia,
Kurdish Iraq and the Sudan. How we walked away from Somalia after the
tragic sacrifice of American soldiers fighting to build a better
world. It occurred to me how much we have forgotten and how empty
those brave words had become.
We cannot save the world by ourselves. We cannot stop all the
genocides and massacres. We cannot make sure that "never again"
becomes a fulfilled promise rather than a hope. But we can return a
little meaning to those words, stop some killings and end some
suffering. I hope we do, and I would be proud to serve again in Iraq
to do so.
But I won't expect those who call for "peace" to help me.
Todd, who is in the U.S. Army Reserve, lives in Bastrop.
Ch'an Fu
it, and what we think it, it is otherwise.
Tang Huyen
> "heh"
> > "punnadhammo"
> > > I'm about at the point of giving up on Jhayati
> > > and his narrow minded pro-war nonsense,
> > give him another chance
> > as dubious as it may seem
> > he can continue to make himself
> > look stupider
> > and stupider
> > apparently to infinity
> to infinitismalism and beyond
It's his only means of transcendance, idiot.
Tang Huyen
MasterChef
Ch'an Fu wrote in message
sorry i sneezed while tryin to type 'infinty'
>
jhayati
It's a very good one, co-written by the National Security Advisor and
the President himself. Now you have to claim that the military and
the eye-witnesses, and the mainstream media, and the President himself
was part of your conpiracy to hide atrocities and war crimes. Are you
really going that far? Again, while I admit that anything's possible,
this sounds like Roswell UFO cover-up claims.
Again, I see no wrongdoing and I'm interested that you don't mention
the atrocities of the invasion force in Kuwait that committed so many
atrocities, rapes, and plundering in Kuwait, and then that lit
hundreds of oil wells on fire that took months or a year or more to
put out and put out unimaginable amounts of pollution into the
atmosphere, yet when these very same scoundrels were attacked as they
tried to flee with their weapons and loot, after refusing their chance
to surrender, you cry foul when we wipe out the convoy, and even then
giving most of them time to get out and run instead of fight once we'd
bottled the beginning and end of the convoy and then moved in and
decimated all 2000 vehicles. That you call a battle between willing
compatants an atrocity, yet ignore that your 'victims' not only had
chosen to not surrender, but had looted and raped and murderded and
pillaged civilians, and then committed a horrible act of eco-terror --
that you ignore this and then call a one-sided battle with them a war
crime -- just makes no sense to me. It really doesn't.
There is a principle that when a simpler explanation explains
everything just as well, such as "it was a one-sided battle and even
many Iraqis who had chosen not to surrender when given the chance fled
the vehicles before we destroyed them", is more likely to be the
correct one than the more complicated conspiracy theory that involves
so many people. Parsimony it is called.
If you like this Highway of Death story, here is a list of articles on
it with links from various news media:
http://leb.net/~erik/news/mccaffrey1.html
And here is the article that had the most sensationalism, and which
you will of course rejoice in the most, and it is cited and attacked
the most. It reminds me of what your anti-American The Independent
and Fisk like to write, except it got published a very reputable
unbiased source magazine, The New Yorker:
http://cryptome.org/mccaffrey-sh.htm
-j
heh
women just love
that
sort of thing
heh
heh
yes plonk me
so you will remain in
your own dead end
opinions and never
consider other's points of view
heh
heh
your word?
so it's you who
invented words
bastard!
heh
>
punnadhammo
> It's a very good one, co-written by the National Security Advisor and
> the President himself. Now you have to claim that the military and
> the eye-witnesses, and the mainstream media, and the President himself
> was part of your conpiracy to hide atrocities and war crimes. Are you
> really going that far? Again, while I admit that anything's possible,
> this sounds like Roswell UFO cover-up claims.
Ha Ha! Man, you are a gullible little chap, aren't you?
Let's see, the President and the National Security adviser - not
imaginable that *they* would lie to cover up an atrocity. Oh no. They'd
just come clean and 'fess up. Isn't that what always happens?
An eye-witness is a little more believable, but he just saw one corner
of a large theatre. And the Ramsay Clark report says there were a few
hundred survivors in one sector of the hiway (something I hadn't know
before.) Limited scope, limited value.
The mainstream media? Excuse me while I recover from a debilitating
lauging jag. Oh yes, they are *so* dependable, especially when it comes
to war coverage.
You know what you remind me of? An earnest, semi-bright Komsomol
member, pre-Gorbachev. Had your karma landed you there instead of here,
you'd be piously defending the fraternal socialist liberation of the
oppressed Czechoslaks in 1968. Admit it, you would.
> Again, I see no wrongdoing and I'm interested that you don't mention
> the atrocities of the invasion force in Kuwait that committed so many
> atrocities, rapes, and plundering in Kuwait, and then that lit
> hundreds of oil wells on fire that took months or a year or more to
> put out and put out unimaginable amounts of pollution into the
> atmosphere, yet when these very same scoundrels were attacked as they
> tried to flee with their weapons and loot, after refusing their chance
> to surrender, you cry foul when we wipe out the convoy, and even then
> giving most of them time to get out and run instead of fight once we'd
> bottled the beginning and end of the convoy and then moved in and
> decimated all 2000 vehicles. That you call a battle between willing
> compatants an atrocity, yet ignore that your 'victims' not only had
> chosen to not surrender, but had looted and raped and murderded and
> pillaged civilians, and then committed a horrible act of eco-terror --
> that you ignore this and then call a one-sided battle with them a war
> crime -- just makes no sense to me. It really doesn't.
You haven't read the Ramsay Clark report that I posted the link to have
you? If you had you wouldn't repeat so much blatantly false garbage in
one paragraph.
> There is a principle that when a simpler explanation explains
> everything just as well, such as "it was a one-sided battle and even
> many Iraqis who had chosen not to surrender when given the chance fled
> the vehicles before we destroyed them", is more likely to be the
> correct one than the more complicated conspiracy theory that involves
> so many people. Parsimony it is called.
You are a bit bonkers about this conspiracy theory business, you know.
Everything you don't want to look at you dismiss that way. It's kind of
silly.
>If you like this Highway of Death story, here is a list of articles on
> it with links from various news media:
> http://leb.net/~erik/news/mccaffrey1.html
>
> And here is the article that had the most sensationalism, and which
> you will of course rejoice in the most, and it is cited and attacked
> the most. It reminds me of what your anti-American The Independent
> and Fisk like to write, except it got published a very reputable
> unbiased source magazine, The New Yorker:
> http://cryptome.org/mccaffrey-sh.htm
I'll check them out, now you go like a good little Komsomol and check
out the Ramsay Clark report.
punnadhammo
> Every major news service reported the pictures, and an investigation
> was held, and there was no foul play or war crimes.
There was a pile of feathers beside the bird-feeder this morning. I
appointed the cat to conduct an inquiry. No wrong-doing was found, case
closed.
punnadhammo
<cha...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk> wrote:
Fair cop, neither of us was there.
All we can do is look at the sources. J. likes to ask the cat what
happened at the bird-feeder. I look around a bit more. I'm
instinctively distrustful of cats.