Bush biking toward nowhere?

[SMS]

[email protected] wrote:
> Mark Hickey writes:

> It's not about agreeing or disagreeing but what GWB has done to our
> nation. Lies about torture, lies about WMD, lies about terror cells
> in Saddam Hussein's government and lies about why we are destroying
> Iraq then and now. The whole sad mess is going to anarchy. Iraq has
> become the center for world terror and we are not the better for it.
> As I said, I cannot see how anyone can defend this policy. It's not
> about right or left wing talk shows. It's the government itself.

It's sad to say, but not the number of casualties is still too low for
the RWW to wake up to what is happening in Iraq (or in the U.S.). When
you start to see parents questioning the reasons that their children
were killed, rather than becoming defensive about the mission, is when
we may come to our senses.

In Vietnam, the support for the war, even among the RWWs, began to
subside when groups like Mothers For Peace emerged. Maybe this is
beginning to happen now.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Pat wrote:
>>> Tom, you've been listening to too much hate radio. Ask yourself,
>>> "Why is the right wing so desperate to smear/slam/slur this grieving
>>> mother who has every right to question the "leader of the free
>>> world" about his taking us into war?".
>>
>> Despite being a top-posting whiner re. parks, Tom's right about this
>> one.
>>
>> http://slate.msn.com/id/2124500/?nav=mpp
>>
>> Bill "hey, I'm just like Jobst when he gets a new link* -- keep
>> posting it and posting it" S.
>
> Okay, I read that article. Basically, the guy is saying "how come she
> has all this free time?" and "How dare she try to speak for her son?"

Read it again.

> Tom's not right. He can disagree with her point of view, but this
> smearing of her character that the far right wing is wrong.

/Most/ people who criticize Ms. Sheehan do it with great restraint.
Pointing out that she tells two different stories about one event AND is now
garnering support from DAVID DUKE for God's sake due to her anti-Israel
stance is hardly "smearing her character". (Wonder how DD and MM will get
along at the rallies?!? LOL)

> Yesterday, I heard Glenn Beck call her a "tragedy ****". That's
> going beyond the pale, there.

No argument from me on that. (Never heard of the guy, FWIW.)

The main point in all this is the amount of sympathetic press coverage she's
getting. No mainstream media would give time to grieving parents who
/support/ the president (unless they come off poorly, that is -- /then/ they
might get on).

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson writes:

>> Not only that, but GWB fired the man who knew and had experience in
>> such matters, Colin Powell, when he advised against attacking Iraq.

> Why do you lie like that, Jobst (Brandt @ Stanford...yeah, we know)?

> Bush did NOT fire Powell. You can make your blatantly biased points
> without resorting to distortions (OK, maybe you can't) --- but flat
> out untruths are unnecessary and discredit your warped opinions that
> much more.

I suppose you don't understand the realities of life. Gentlemen are
given the opportunity to save embarrassment by resigning when asked
to leave rather than be rudely pushed out the door,... as he was.

> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/15/powell/ (one of about a jilliion)

"We'll offer you early retirement benefits, or you can just quit at
the end of the month." Most folks retire in that situation.

Jobst Brandt

 

[John Red-Horse]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:
>
>The nation is so polarized and rude because waaaaay too many people on
>the right and on the left believe all the nonsense their respective
>talking heads feed them (that should be obvious reading these
>threads).
>

I'm becoming more convinced that those talking heads are just instruments
of a larger propaganda campaign.

Our local (Albuquerque) alternative newspaper recently published an
interview with a fairly well-known expert, Nancy Snow, an assistant
professor at California State Fullerton, on just that subject.

In a followup summary Ms Snow listed a number of things about propaganda
in our current society that really gave me room for pause. After having
read this summary, which I'm including in full below, I now get the
creeps when I watch, or read, almost any news from most US-based outlets.

We are in the process of being assimilated, and we are buying in with
both fists...

john

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From The Alibi (Albuquerque, NM), www.alibi.com,
V.14 No.26 | June 30 - July 6, 2005

10 Things Everyone Should Know About Propaganda

By Compiled by Nancy Snow

1. Truth is not the absence of propaganda; propaganda thrives in
presenting different kinds of truth, including half-truths, incomplete
truths, limited truths, out of context truths. Modern propaganda is
most effective when it presents information as accurately as possible.
The Big Lie or Tall Tale is the most ineffective propaganda.

2. Propaganda is not so much designed to change opinions so much as
reinforce existing opinions, prejudices, attitudes. The most
successful propaganda will lead people to action or inaction through
reinforcement of what people already believe to be true.

3. Education is not necessarily the best protection against
propaganda. Intellectuals and "the educated" are the most vulnerable
to propaganda campaigns because they (a) tend to absorb the most
information (including secondhand information, hearsay, rumors, and
unverifiable information); (b) are compelled to have an opinion on
matters of the day and thus expose themselves more to others' opinions
and propaganda campaigns; and (c) consider themselves above the
influence of propaganda, thereby making themselves more susceptible to
propaganda.

4. What makes the study of propaganda so problematic is that it is
generally regarded as the study of the darker side of our nature; the
study of their evil versus our good. Those whom we consider evil
thrive in propaganda, while we spread only the truth. The best way to
study propaganda is to separate one's ethical judgments from the
phenomenon itself. Propaganda thrives and exists, for ethical and
unethical purposes.

5. Propaganda seeks to modify public opinion, particularly to make
people conform to the point of view of the propagandist. In this
respect, any propaganda is a form of manipulation, to adapt an
individual to a particular activity.

6. Modern forms of communication, including mass media, are
instruments of propaganda. Without the monopoly concentration of mass
media, there can be no modern propaganda. For propaganda to thrive,
the media must remain concentrated, news agencies and services must be
limited, the press must be under central command, and radio, film, and
television monopolies must pervade.

7. One must become aware of propaganda, its limitations, its
strengths, its influence, and its persuasive qualities, if one is to
master it. To say that one is free of the influence of propaganda is a
sure sign of its pervasive existence in society.

8. Modern propaganda began in the United States in the early 20^th
Century. During World War I, the mass media were integrated with
public relations and advertising methods to advocate and maintain
support for war. The Creel Committee established the first American
publicity campaign to spread and disseminate the gospel of the
American way to all corners of the globe.

9. In the United States, private commercial propaganda is as important
to notions of democracy as governmental propaganda. Commercial appeals
to the people through advertising, which plays on irrational fantasies
and impulses, are some of the most pervasive forms of propaganda in
existence today.

10. Propaganda in a democracy establishes truth in the sense that it
creates "true believers" who are as ideologically committed to the
democratic progress as others are ideologically committed to its
control. The perpetuation of democratic ideals and beliefs in the face
of concentrated power in propaganda institutions (media, political
institutions) is a triumph of propaganda in modern American society.
_________________________________________________________________

Source: Propaganda by Jacques Ellul (Vintage, paper, $12)

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Hickey writes:

>>> Those who only listen to one talking head (be that Limbaugh or
>>> Franken) don't have a clue what's really going on. The sad thing
>>> is that most of 'em don't WANT to have a clue if it disagrees with
>>> their position.

>> It's not about agreeing or disagreeing but what GWB has done to our
>> nation. Lies about torture,

> Any citation, Jobst - are are you just parroting your favorite talking
> head?

Either GWB is more incompetent than he is made out to be or he should
be impeached for dereliction of duty. It is under his control and in
his defense minister's domain that these things occurred. GWB and
Rumsfeld claim to know nothing about it except that in speeches
beforehand they stated that we were going to be hard on these
terrorists wherever we track them down and punish them.

The ploy of court-martialling soldiers for the torture abuses is
ludicrous. Soldiers do not set policy and decide how prisoners are
handled, it is prison management all the way up the line. Can you
explain how this could occur out of knowledge of all levels of
management, to be discovered by the press? As I said, when the
battleship goes aground the Commander is sacked, not the helmsman.

>> lies about WMD, lies about terror cells in Saddam Hussein's
>> government

> Are you capable of discerning a difference between receiving less than
> accurate intelligence and lying? It doesn't seem so. Again, the
> bipartisan commissions have picked over the runup to the war with a
> fine tooth comb and have universally concluded that you are wrong.

"Hey, I heard some good scuttlebutt about some criminals down the
road..." Here again, its the minions, not management that get the
blame. How can you excuse such ineptness, or believe that the
president and his cabinet are not responsible for their government's
actions? The way you tell it there was a conspiracy in the FBI, CIA,
and NSA to mislead and we're still trying to pin that on someone other
than those responsible.

>> and lies about why we are destroying Iraq then and now. The whole
>> sad mess is going to anarchy.

> We did far less damage to Iraq than Saddam had done (excluding his
> palaces of course), and far less than any war of that scale had ever
> done to the civilian sector. Blaming the current destruction on the
> US is a bit like blaming the cops for a riot.

Oh! SO because Saddam Hussein was a dictator, we are entitled to
inflict as many deaths on the Iraqis as he did and to destroy the
nation. I think we must live up to a better measure than that. As
for placing blame for the destruction on the US forces, that is
correct. The US went into Iraq with insufficient troops to secure the
nation against anarchy and Rumsfeld rubbed his hands as he watched
Iraq fall into anarchy, destroying themselves for weeks before there
was any substantial US police action. Besides that, the US dismantled
the Iraqi military as if they were the enemy. That was a huge wasted
resource.

>> Iraq has become the center for world terror and we are not the
>> better for it. As I said, I cannot see how anyone can defend this
>> policy. It's not about right or left wing talk shows. It's the
>> government itself.

> Have you ever taken the time to ponder exactly WHY the terrorists are
> so intensely involved in disrupting the democratization of Iraq?
> They're not targeting the coalition forces much any more, but are
> desperately trying to prevent democracy from working? Because they
> (unlike you, apparently) realize that if Afghanistan and Iraq become
> successful democracies their time is over, finished, kaput.

That's where the USA is most exposed and has the most to lose. When
you go hunting, you go where the target is. I see you differentiate
between the ID cards carried by the victims. They are all part of the
Iraq morass and every death hurts the US and the Iraqis... and of
course the stability and safety of the world.

Ride bike!

Jobst Brandt

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Hickey writes:

>> Like Iraq...

>> If you want to see what our efforts in Afghanistan achieved, read
>> the best seller: "Kite Runner" by Khaled Hosseini. It's a sad
>> story of remembrance of what Kabul was when he left as a youth and
>> what has been made of it. When asked by Terri Gross whether there
>> is a possibility of a democratic government, after some thought, he
>> answered "No". We don't have that answer in Baghdad yet but it's
>> close.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/102-8122705-9490559

http://www.afghan-web.com/index.html

> The link didn't work.

It ought to work now.

> Does his book take into account the ravages of occupation Russia's
> (historians might want to compare that one with ours), and the rule
> of the Taliban? I'm assuming Mr. Hosseini is more than 20 years
> old, and didn't leave just before the US took out the Taliban.

Yes it does account for the Russian damage but, once more, that
doesn't excuse the damage inflicted by the US.

> Or perhaps he longs for the good ol' days when girls were kept out
> of schools, women dressed in potato bags, and religious
> nonconformists were strung up in the local soccer field?

He speaks of days before that, which came after the Russians, but then
that gets into the societal norms of that nation over which we have
little to say.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Stephen Harding]

[email protected] wrote:

> Something like that. Or maybe a compromise position: At least let the
> public see the caskets coming home. At least let them see the faces of
> those who have really sacrificed for this astounding mistake.

So you don't think the public is aware that soldiers, contractors
miscellaneous others, get killed in Iraq?

Perhaps we should have a photo and brief biography for every person
killed in an automobile accident. Perhaps seeing the persons
extracted in all their gore from a smashed up automobile would
make people realize "cars kill". We'd be a safer society when we
operate our automobiles.

> As it is, this is a nice, sanitary war for oil. It's our patriotic
> duty to keep shopping. My God, don't consider conserving oil! Why,
> anything smaller than a Ford F-100 would be unpatriotic, because it
> couldn't carry enough magnetic ribbons!

Cynicism seems to become you. And BTW, you won't find too many
Ford F-100's on the road these days. More likely F-150s.

> Oh, and don't mind those oil company profit sheets. Don't mind that we
> never _declared_ war. Don't pay attention to those grieving mothers.
> Let's all just take a month off - maybe invite our Saudi friends to an
> oil-fueled barbecue.

Thank God there weren't many with this sort of thinking during
WWII, the Civil War, the Revolution.

We'd have lost!

> Mark, that's pitiful. The claim was that there were WMDs ready to go
> in 45 minutes. The claim was that we had to invade ASAP to prevent
> Saddam using them on other countries.
>
> You will apparently be the last man alive to admit that was totally
> false.

It was also predicted the first Gulf War would have something on the
order of 10,000 killed. That the Iraq War would have 100's of thousands
killed with towns being fought over as per Stalingrad; that refugee
camps would be overflowing with disease ridden persons starving to
death.

The Ardennes was a "quiet sector" of the WWII European front. The Nazis
were finished. Possibly "home by Christmas"...until the Battle of
the Bulge.

And on and on it goes. But given our current political climate where
the Lefties try to make political hay from any mis-step or error, an
intelligence failure becomes a plot by evil types to spread death and
destruction (and of course increase profits). All coming from persons
one would think would have the smarts to be able to be a bit less
dogmatic in their thinking. But alas, such are not the times in which
we live.

> I already have. Morality is out the window when there's money to be
> made.

Nothing new in this great observation.

> Nope. Although this is beyond you, I don't believe in taking over
> entire countries based on foggy intelligence. Preemptive attacks don't
> meet the centuries-old definition of a "just war."

I doubt there is any such thing in the minds of the political Left
pacifist.

> Yet somehow, almost the entire UN - hell, the entire world -
> decided against us. We managed to get a few hundred personnel out of
> the countries that we could hit up the hardest. It doesn't take a
> rocket scientist to know why.

I rue the day US policies depend on the UN, or "a majority" of
nations in the world, at least half of which are totalitarian in
one form or another.

> Whoa! Did they crack down on those guys that attacked London? Are
> there no more of them waiting around in Saudi Arabia? Are their
> aggressive fundamantalist training camps now out of commission?
>
> And say - what exactly HAVE we said to the Saudis about the fact that
> they seem to be sending out more civilian killers than anybody?
> (Excepting us, of course...)
>
> Seems to me the only thing we've told them is "We'll take another few
> million barrels of your oil, please. Price is no object."

Get off the oil stuff will ya? Geez. Talk about one track minds!

The US gets about 1/4 of its oil from all Middle East sources combined.
Saudi Arabia is a large provider, but so is Canada, Mexico, Venezuela
and Nigeria.

I haven't heard plans to invade those countries to control their oil,
but perhaps that's because they're already US lackies?


SMH

 

[Stephen Harding]

[email protected] wrote:

> Either GWB is more incompetent than he is made out to be or he should
> be impeached for dereliction of duty. It is under his control and in

Another President to be impeached???

Let's see, I make that every President since Nixon should have been
impeached if some group could have its way. Mostly liberal left
types advocate it since most Presidents since Nixon have been
Republicans.

Of course the conservatives got some revenge with Clinton.

Only likable, very moral, and very ineffective President Carter
seems to have escaped the drive for impeachment during his
administration.

Guess it's a standard part of being President from now on. Someone
is going to have an "Impeach _____" on their car bumper after about
a year of any administration, but I'd venture to say Republican in
particular.


SMH

 

[[email protected]]

Stephen Harding writes:

>> Either GWB is more incompetent than he is made out to be or he should
>> be impeached for dereliction of duty. It is under his control and in

> Another President to be impeached???

> Let's see, I make that every President since Nixon should have been
> impeached if some group could have its way. Mostly liberal left
> types advocate it since most Presidents since Nixon have been
> Republicans.

> Of course the conservatives got some revenge with Clinton.

Oh! So this is a *** for tat revenge government we have. It's sad
that this is where we have progressed with democracy. It's not so
much whether you go through the legal motions but whether there is an
impeachable offense, like those we are experiencing currently. We
have seen that there are all sorts of dodges and weaves that can
deflect such procedures.

> Only likable, very moral, and very ineffective President Carter
> seems to have escaped the drive for impeachment during his
> administration.

> Guess it's a standard part of being President from now on. Someone
> is going to have an "Impeach _____" on their car bumper after about
> a year of any administration, but I'd venture to say Republican in
> particular.

I doubt it. Maybe you should read about your namesake Warren G
Harding, one of the most inept presidents of all time. Fortunately he
didn't do much damage while at the helm but he was an absolute klutz
and therefore seems to have dodged impeachment. He also ducked out of
the job with a fatal heart attack.

Jobst Brandt

 

[[email protected]]

Stephen Harding writes:

>> Something like that. Or maybe a compromise position: At least let
>> the public see the caskets coming home. At least let them see the
>> faces of those who have really sacrificed for this astounding
>> mistake.

> So you don't think the public is aware that soldiers, contractors
> miscellaneous others, get killed in Iraq?

> Perhaps we should have a photo and brief biography for every person
> killed in an automobile accident. Perhaps seeing the persons
> extracted in all their gore from a smashed up automobile would make
> people realize "cars kill". We'd be a safer society when we operate
> our automobiles.

That's a good parallel. Until you see physical evidence, they are
only vague numbers. If you don't believe that you should consider why
the administration chose to suppress such pictures. Mr.Spin Doctor
Paul Wolfowitz knows full well what the ramifications are.

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/wolfowitz.html

>> As it is, this is a nice, sanitary war for oil. It's our patriotic
>> duty to keep shopping. My God, don't consider conserving oil!
>> Why, anything smaller than a Ford F-100 would be unpatriotic,
>> because it couldn't carry enough magnetic ribbons!

> Cynicism seems to become you. And BTW, you won't find too many
> Ford F-100's on the road these days. More likely F-150s.

I see you are well versed in gas-guzzlers. How's your Expedition
coming along?

>> Oh, and don't mind those oil company profit sheets. Don't mind
>> that we never _declared_ war. Don't pay attention to those
>> grieving mothers. Let's all just take a month off - maybe invite
>> our Saudi friends to an oil-fueled barbecue.

> Thank God there weren't many with this sort of thinking during
> WWII, the Civil War, the Revolution.

> We'd have lost!

We're losing now, no matter what you call it. By the way, the war is
over, I heard our president say so a while ago.

>> Mark, that's pitiful. The claim was that there were WMDs ready to
>> go in 45 minutes. The claim was that we had to invade ASAP to
>> prevent Saddam using them on other countries.

>> You will apparently be the last man alive to admit that was totally
>> false.

> It was also predicted the first Gulf War would have something on the
> order of 10,000 killed. That the Iraq War would have 100's of thousands
> killed with towns being fought over as per Stalingrad; that refugee
> camps would be overflowing with disease ridden persons starving to
> death.

Huh? What has this got to do with reality? Are you saying, we should
be joyous about the thousands killed in this war because there could
have been even more? This argument seems to resurface, that
everything is OK because other wars were worse or that Idi Amin was a
bigger crook, pick your dictator.

> The Ardennes was a "quiet sector" of the WWII European front. The Nazis
> were finished. Possibly "home by Christmas"...until the Battle of
> the Bulge.

Don't you feel silly even mentioning that?

> And on and on it goes. But given our current political climate
> where the Lefties try to make political hay from any mis-step or
> error, an intelligence failure becomes a plot by evil types to
> spread death and destruction (and of course increase profits). All
> coming from persons one would think would have the smarts to be able
> to be a bit less dogmatic in their thinking. But alas, such are not
> the times in which we live.

I think you have the dogmatism backward. Just the term "liberal" is
in stark contrast to that, and it is liberal thinking against which
you rile. I think you need to review what the term means. A liberal
thinker can see more than one side of an issue. That seems to be out
of the question with religious beliefs and that is the kind of
government the US is opposed to in Iraq while furthering the same in
the USA. My god is more valid than yours.

>> I already have. Morality is out the window when there's money to
>> be made.

> Nothing new in this great observation.

>> Nope. Although this is beyond you, I don't believe in taking over
>> entire countries based on foggy intelligence. Preemptive attacks
>> don't meet the centuries-old definition of a "just war."

> I doubt there is any such thing in the minds of the political Left
> pacifist.

Think of some other loaded epithets. How about traitors and
unpatriotic.

>> Yet somehow, almost the entire UN - hell, the entire world -
>> decided against us. We managed to get a few hundred personnel out
>> of the countries that we could hit up the hardest. It doesn't take
>> a rocket scientist to know why.

> I rue the day US policies depend on the UN, or "a majority" of
> nations in the world, at least half of which are totalitarian in one
> form or another.

If the US were to participate in the UN and pay dues, the UN could be
a far more stable and valuable organization. Instead we hack at it,
invoke it in the worst moments and chastise it for not performing
magic.

>> Whoa! Did they crack down on those guys that attacked London? Are
>> there no more of them waiting around in Saudi Arabia? Are their
>> aggressive fundamantalist training camps now out of commission?

>> And say - what exactly HAVE we said to the Saudis about the fact
>> that they seem to be sending out more civilian killers than
>> anybody? (Excepting us, of course...) Seems to me the only thing
>> we've told them is "We'll take another few million barrels of your
>> oil, please. Price is no object."

> Get off the oil stuff will ya? Geez. Talk about one track minds!

Oil is where it's at and as the end of oil approaches, the world gets
less friendly. We aren't helping.

> The US gets about 1/4 of its oil from all Middle East sources
> combined. Saudi Arabia is a large provider, but so is Canada,
> Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria.

> I haven't heard plans to invade those countries to control their oil,
> but perhaps that's because they're already US lackies?

As long as we are in control of their shipments, it's smooth sailing.

Jobst Brandt

 

[[email protected]]

Stephen Harding wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Something like that. Or maybe a compromise position: At least let the
> > public see the caskets coming home. At least let them see the faces of
> > those who have really sacrificed for this astounding mistake.
>
> So you don't think the public is aware that soldiers, contractors
> miscellaneous others, get killed in Iraq?

Oh, I'm sorry. You seem to be unaware that our leaders refused to let
the press photograph the coffins being returned - unlike other wars.
You know, it would interfere with the "It's all going splendidly"
message.

>
> Perhaps we should have a photo and brief biography for every person
> killed in an automobile accident.

You work on that. I just want this administration to take full
responsibility for the mess they've started.


>
> > As it is, this is a nice, sanitary war for oil. It's our patriotic
> > duty to keep shopping. My God, don't consider conserving oil! Why,
> > anything smaller than a Ford F-100 would be unpatriotic, because it
> > couldn't carry enough magnetic ribbons!
>
> Cynicism seems to become you. And BTW, you won't find too many
> Ford F-100's on the road these days. More likely F-150s.

Sorry. That was a typo. I meant Hummer.


>
> > Oh, and don't mind those oil company profit sheets. Don't mind that we
> > never _declared_ war. Don't pay attention to those grieving mothers.
> > Let's all just take a month off - maybe invite our Saudi friends to an
> > oil-fueled barbecue.
>
> Thank God there weren't many with this sort of thinking during
> WWII, the Civil War, the Revolution.

Oh, cut the mindless, flag-wrapped nonsense! This wasn't a
counterattack on a nation that destroyed our Pacific fleet. This
wasn't a counterattack on states that were trying to secede from the
country. This wasn't a fight against dominance by an oppressive king.
This was an unjustified, unprovoked invasion of a country that had NOT
attacked us, sold to the American public by deception.




> > Mark, that's pitiful. The claim was that there were WMDs ready to go
> > in 45 minutes. The claim was that we had to invade ASAP to prevent
> > Saddam using them on other countries.
> >
> > You will apparently be the last man alive to admit that was totally
> > false.
>
> It was also predicted the first Gulf War would have something on the
> order of 10,000 killed.

Nice sidetrack, but not pertinent. The invasion was sold based on
WMDs. Many people, myself included, said there were no WMDs. And now
we see there were, indeed, no WMDs. You can't pretend that this
invasion and conquest was not based on deception.

> And on and on it goes. But given our current political climate where
> the Lefties try to make political hay from any mis-step or error, an
> intelligence failure becomes a plot by evil types to spread death and
> destruction (and of course increase profits).

Of course, you're steadfastly refusing to note that many of those
opposed to the invasion said from the outset the "intelligence" was
wrong - and we're talking not just about me, but about UN reps from
dozens of countries that looked at all that Colin Powell had to offer
them!

And of course, you're ignoring the internal memo from British agencies
stating plainly that the Bush administration was distorting information
to justify a pre-ordained invasion.

At this point, the only people who believe in the reasons for the war
are a few mindless followers of the neo-cons.


> > Nope. Although this is beyond you, I don't believe in taking over
> > entire countries based on foggy intelligence. Preemptive attacks don't
> > meet the centuries-old definition of a "just war."
>
> I doubt there is any such thing in the minds of the political Left
> pacifist.

Absolutely false - and you're showing your own ignorance and prejudice.


The concept of a Just War was worked out long, long ago by philosophers
and religious men, grappling with the question of dealing with
aggression. Unlike the rough-n-ready justifications given by the
neo-cons, the Just War principles were debated and settled over a
period of decades, if not centuries. They are intended to give moral
compass unaffected by the political harangues of the minute.

Of course, to the typical neo-con non-thinker, the idea of a moral
person trying to codify moral rules is pretty incomprehensible.

But it's been done. And this invasion fails by those moral rules.
Look it up.


> > Seems to me the only thing we've told them is "We'll take another few
> > million barrels of your oil, please. Price is no object."
>
> Get off the oil stuff will ya? Geez. Talk about one track minds!

Oh, sure - let's all pretend we invaded to get their sand!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Stephen Harding]

[email protected] wrote:

> Stephen Harding writes:
>
>>>Either GWB is more incompetent than he is made out to be or he should
>>>be impeached for dereliction of duty. It is under his control and in
>
>>Another President to be impeached???
>
>>Let's see, I make that every President since Nixon should have been
>>impeached if some group could have its way. Mostly liberal left
>>types advocate it since most Presidents since Nixon have been
>>Republicans.
>
>>Of course the conservatives got some revenge with Clinton.
>
> Oh! So this is a *** for tat revenge government we have. It's sad
> that this is where we have progressed with democracy. It's not so
> much whether you go through the legal motions but whether there is an
> impeachable offense, like those we are experiencing currently. We
> have seen that there are all sorts of dodges and weaves that can
> deflect such procedures.

I'm sorry to say that I think it has become "*** for tat"
governance.

You ran Speaker Wright out of office, we'll run Speaker Gingrich
out of office. You tie our effective (and partisan) leaders
up in legal knots to gain political points, next opportunity,
we'll do the same to you.

So far, it seems Democrats are the ones doing character assassination
of Supreme Court nominees, but I presume Republicans would now do
the same if the opportunity presented itself.

>>Only likable, very moral, and very ineffective President Carter
>>seems to have escaped the drive for impeachment during his
>>administration.
>
>>Guess it's a standard part of being President from now on. Someone
>>is going to have an "Impeach _____" on their car bumper after about
>>a year of any administration, but I'd venture to say Republican in
>>particular.
>
> I doubt it. Maybe you should read about your namesake Warren G
> Harding, one of the most inept presidents of all time. Fortunately he
> didn't do much damage while at the helm but he was an absolute klutz
> and therefore seems to have dodged impeachment. He also ducked out of
> the job with a fatal heart attack.

Namesake yes, but no relation. I'm from the "Virginia Hardings" while
he was an Ohio branch. Probably some connection back in England at
some point.

Good ol' affable, too trusting of his friends, Warren G., was a
Republican. I think he'd be very soundly trashed if he were in office
today. And all that his corrupt buddies were doing would be attributed
as design by political opponents instead of just poor management.

As far as I knew, being too trusting of your friends while they carried
off government assets isn't actually an impeachable offense.

But I have little doubt there would be an impeachment attempt if he
were Prez today.


SMH

 

[SMS]

Stephen Harding wrote:

> Thank God there weren't many with this sort of thinking during
> WWII, the Civil War, the Revolution.
>
> We'd have lost!

One thing about RWWs is that they never learned to debate coherently.

 

[Zoot Katz]

Thu, 18 Aug 2005 06:56:07 -0700,
<[email protected]>, Mark Hickey
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Actually, there WERE WMDs - no one (who's ever read anything on the
>subject) would disagree with that. We just don't know what happened
>to them.

Santa Claus smuggled them back to the North Pole.
--
zk

 

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:08:37 -0600, <[email protected]>,
Rich <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> Many years of appeasement, Bill Clinton is as much to blame as Bush
>
>For Iraq? Surely you jest.

No, she believes it.
--
zk

 

[Robert Uhl]

[email protected] writes:
>
> The ploy of court-martialling soldiers for the torture abuses is
> ludicrous. Soldiers do not set policy and decide how prisoners are
> handled, it is prison management all the way up the line. Can you
> explain how this could occur out of knowledge of all levels of
> management, to be discovered by the press?

ISTR that it _was_ discovered by the military and that what the press
discovered was the military investigation.

As for holding the CinC responsible for the behaviour of the least of
his soldiers, do you feel that Clinton should have resigned or been
impeached for the mistaken firing of a cruise missile into the Chinese
Embassy in Belgrade? As far as I can tell the military is taking its
obligations very seriously and the bad apples _are_ being weeded out.

--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
`We _must_ implement multi-processor object-oriented Java-based
client-server technologies immediately!'
`You know, FORTRAN and slide rules put men on the moon and got them
back safely multiple times.' --Matt Roberds

 

[Robert Uhl]

Peter Cole <[email protected]> writes:
>
> It's not about democracy, it's not about oil -- it's a crusade
> vs. jihad thing.

You're right, but we didn't start it. The Islamists started this war;
we don't have any choice about that. But we're going to finish it.

--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Virtues foster one another; so too, vices. Bad English kills trees,
consumes energy, and befouls the Earth. Good English renews it.
--The Underground Grammarian

 

[Pat]

:
: > Tom's not right. He can disagree with her point of view, but this
: > smearing of her character that the far right wing is wrong.
:
: /Most/ people who criticize Ms. Sheehan do it with great restraint.
: Pointing out that she tells two different stories about one event AND is
now
: garnering support from DAVID DUKE for God's sake due to her anti-Israel
: stance is hardly "smearing her character". (Wonder how DD and MM will get
: along at the rallies?!? LOL)

I don't agree with what you said about "great restraint". I am not hearing
that in the Dallas market. And, so what if she is getting support from David
Duke? It's not like she asked him to support her! That IS smearing someone.
If David Duke said, "Hey, I agree with Bill Sorenson". could we then say
that you are "garnering support" and are "in bed" with David Duke, etc.
when you had no part in his opinion in the first place? Let's be fair--not
like Bill O'Reilly who just likes to claim he is fair right before he does a
hatchet job on somebody.



:
: > Yesterday, I heard Glenn Beck call her a "tragedy ****". That's
: > going beyond the pale, there.
:
: No argument from me on that. (Never heard of the guy, FWIW.)

He's one of the big ones on right wing hate radio along with Mark Davis,
Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, and our smaller
hate radio wannabee, Daryl Ankarlo. All heard in the Dallas market.


:
: The main point in all this is the amount of sympathetic press coverage
she's
: getting. No mainstream media would give time to grieving parents who
: /support/ the president (unless they come off poorly, that is -- /then/
they
: might get on).
:
She is getting coverage because she's controversial. What's so controversial
about grieving parents who support the president? If the mainstream media
made a big to-do about them, then you'd be here saying the mainstream media
is trying to push the president's agenda down our throats. It's all about
making money, you should know that---and right now, the controversial is
getting attention because it draws viewers to the radio and to the
television news shows and boosts their ratings.

Pat in TX
:

 

[Stephen Harding]

[email protected] wrote:

> Stephen Harding writes:

> That's a good parallel. Until you see physical evidence, they are
> only vague numbers. If you don't believe that you should consider why
> the administration chose to suppress such pictures. Mr.Spin Doctor
> Paul Wolfowitz knows full well what the ramifications are.

Were they "spinning" the news during WWII? The public generally
only saw dead enemies.

Was it a bad thing that the media was more "government friendly"
than it is today?

Would the public have been better served if there was a media
body count operation that "celebrated" each thousand deaths
during the war?

Would the Press have been more "responsible" showing the only
commander-in-chief many Americans could remember, being lifted from
his wheelchair to a podium to talk, or being carried to his car?

Would the war effort have been any worse off showing Japanese or
German soldiers as "just ordinary guys"? Not really fiends or
animals after all?

>>Cynicism seems to become you. And BTW, you won't find too many
>>Ford F-100's on the road these days. More likely F-150s.
>
> I see you are well versed in gas-guzzlers. How's your Expedition
> coming along?

Dodge Ram 1500 (half ton) with 4WD, 318 (5.2L) V-8, thank you very
much. It does have a manual transmission for that extra mpg though.

>>It was also predicted the first Gulf War would have something on the
>>order of 10,000 killed. That the Iraq War would have 100's of thousands
>>killed with towns being fought over as per Stalingrad; that refugee
>>camps would be overflowing with disease ridden persons starving to
>>death.
>
> Huh? What has this got to do with reality? Are you saying, we should
> be joyous about the thousands killed in this war because there could
> have been even more? This argument seems to resurface, that
> everything is OK because other wars were worse or that Idi Amin was a
> bigger crook, pick your dictator.

Reality is that foreign (or domestic) information isn't always correct.
Not a purposeful thing. Just screw ups. It happens and there's
nothing necessarily Machievelian about it.

Everything isn't OK in this war. I'm at a loss to explain how a
war was so well [brilliantly really] planned, only to forget about the
peace side of things. Even *I* knew the peace side of the challenge
was going to be the more difficult. Why there wasn't a Marshall Plan
all fired up and ready to go at the end of the "war" phase I don't
know.

A royal foul up that has made the entire endeavor far more difficult
than it needed to be.

I thank heaven that there were those UNLIKE you who didn't see all
was lost during the Revolution, Civil War or even WWII. We'd all be
doing the morning "Heil ******" and goose stepping to work in the
morning.

>>The Ardennes was a "quiet sector" of the WWII European front. The Nazis
>>were finished. Possibly "home by Christmas"...until the Battle of
>>the Bulge.
>
> Don't you feel silly even mentioning that?

What's the matter? Reality intruding on you again?

Not possible for intelligence foul ups to occur without malicious
intent?

Ahh right! We all know that Ike *wanted* the war to go on so he could
maintain his Commander ETO position, so he deliberately mis-read or
ignored those small numbers of intelligence reports that said all was
*not* quiet on the front.

>>And on and on it goes. But given our current political climate
>>where the Lefties try to make political hay from any mis-step or
>>error, an intelligence failure becomes a plot by evil types to
>>spread death and destruction (and of course increase profits). All
>>coming from persons one would think would have the smarts to be able
>>to be a bit less dogmatic in their thinking. But alas, such are not
>>the times in which we live.
>
> I think you have the dogmatism backward. Just the term "liberal" is
> in stark contrast to that, and it is liberal thinking against which
> you rile. I think you need to review what the term means. A liberal
> thinker can see more than one side of an issue. That seems to be out
> of the question with religious beliefs and that is the kind of
> government the US is opposed to in Iraq while furthering the same in
> the USA. My god is more valid than yours.

You're confusing *political* "liberal" with *intellectual* liberal.
Political liberals, such as yourself IMHO, can be just as dogmatic in
their thinking as any Klu Klux Klanner out of backwoods Alabama (using
a very negative stereotype here, but it's illustration only).

An intellectual liberal is what we *all* *should* be, whether Democrat
or Republican. But it's hard to make decisions based solely on best
evidence. It's even more difficult to occasionally challenge one's
beliefs; test them to see if they still are valid, or need update.

That's what a "liberal" ought to be doing, but instead, we have dogma
masquerading as liberal thinking.

>>I doubt there is any such thing in the minds of the political Left
>>pacifist.
>
> Think of some other loaded epithets. How about traitors and
> unpatriotic.

Your words not mine. I do believe there are some "fifth columnist"
types in this country, largely on the Left, that would happily place
flowers in the gun barrels of Nazis marching in victory down Park
Avenue if it would score them political points against Bush [Clinton].

The Left are the ones that largely make up these assertions, that
one is a traitor if disagreeing with Bush. Just like stolen elections
or AWOL military service have been made up.

The Right will do it too. It's just that the Left has been largely
out of governing the country for a while, so the targets tend to be
Republican, while they wonder why the country becomes more and more
conservative.

>>I rue the day US policies depend on the UN, or "a majority" of
>>nations in the world, at least half of which are totalitarian in one
>>form or another.
>
> If the US were to participate in the UN and pay dues, the UN could be
> a far more stable and valuable organization. Instead we hack at it,
> invoke it in the worst moments and chastise it for not performing
> magic.

I think US dues have been paid up. We pay 1/4 (I think) of UN costs.
The fact of the matter is, the UN is NOT a democratic organization.
Never has been and given its form, never will be.

It's also terribly corrupt (as recent oil for food program deficiencies
had made clear) and largely unwilling to change without some sort of
economic threat.

No country is going to give up its sovereignty to allow the UN to
decide it's policies. Not the US, not France, not Fiji Islands! Nor
should it.

>>Get off the oil stuff will ya? Geez. Talk about one track minds!
>
> Oil is where it's at and as the end of oil approaches, the world gets
> less friendly. We aren't helping.

Oil is important. Run away from anyone who says it isn't. They'd be
dangerous to the health of the nation.

But it isn't the only consideration in national foreign policy. You
liberals seem to think it is the sole deciding factor in why the US
acts at any level. Nonsense!

>>The US gets about 1/4 of its oil from all Middle East sources
>>combined. Saudi Arabia is a large provider, but so is Canada,
>>Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria.
>
>>I haven't heard plans to invade those countries to control their oil,
>>but perhaps that's because they're already US lackies?
>
> As long as we are in control of their shipments, it's smooth sailing.

How do we "control their shipments"?

You know there is a single oil market in the world. Not just a market
for the US and another one for the rest of the world.

I doubt anyone in Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria would be too
happy to know the US "controls" their oil shipments.

Would that mean China can't purchase oil from those countries? I
suspect they do.


SMH

 

[Stephen Harding]

[email protected] wrote:

> Stephen Harding wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>Something like that. Or maybe a compromise position: At least let the
>>>public see the caskets coming home. At least let them see the faces of
>>>those who have really sacrificed for this astounding mistake.
>>
>>So you don't think the public is aware that soldiers, contractors
>>miscellaneous others, get killed in Iraq?
>
> Oh, I'm sorry. You seem to be unaware that our leaders refused to let
> the press photograph the coffins being returned - unlike other wars.
> You know, it would interfere with the "It's all going splendidly"
> message.

Says you!

I've seen pictures of the flag drapped coffins coming in to Dover.
Did you miss it? I would think you'd have it limegreen highlighted
in your TV guide...

Or are you simply out to use the misfortune of others to *your*
political ends?

Seems to me, the families of those involved have a right to privacy
in this case.

>>Perhaps we should have a photo and brief biography for every person
>>killed in an automobile accident.
>
> You work on that. I just want this administration to take full
> responsibility for the mess they've started.

Not interested? Their lives don't offer you any political advantage,
so to hell with them?

>>>As it is, this is a nice, sanitary war for oil. It's our patriotic
>>>duty to keep shopping. My God, don't consider conserving oil! Why,
>>>anything smaller than a Ford F-100 would be unpatriotic, because it
>>>couldn't carry enough magnetic ribbons!
>>
>>Cynicism seems to become you. And BTW, you won't find too many
>>Ford F-100's on the road these days. More likely F-150s.
>
> Sorry. That was a typo. I meant Hummer.

Don't think you'll really find too many of them either.

>>>Oh, and don't mind those oil company profit sheets. Don't mind that we
>>>never _declared_ war. Don't pay attention to those grieving mothers.
>>>Let's all just take a month off - maybe invite our Saudi friends to an
>>>oil-fueled barbecue.
>>
>>Thank God there weren't many with this sort of thinking during
>>WWII, the Civil War, the Revolution.
>
> Oh, cut the mindless, flag-wrapped nonsense! This wasn't a
> counterattack on a nation that destroyed our Pacific fleet. This

Things seem easier for you to see when you have at least 60 years
of hindsight.

Put into today's rhetoric, US foreign policy "forced" Japan to attack
the US. Now let's impeach Roosevelt!

> wasn't a counterattack on states that were trying to secede from the
> country. This wasn't a fight against dominance by an oppressive king.

This was supposed to be a democracy. A clear majority in *all* of the
Southern states wished to secede. Didn't even have to do with slavery
(directly).

Lincoln should be impeached for killing so many people. Let's put
little crosses in every town, preferably with photos on them, of those
lost so we can ensure the people of the North realize "people are dying"
in this war!

> This was an unjustified, unprovoked invasion of a country that had NOT
> attacked us, sold to the American public by deception.

And yet, according to Ben Franklin, only about 1/3 of Americans were in
favor of independence. The remainder were roughly equally divided between
those against it, or those who just preferred to get on with life no matter
who was in charge.

>>>Mark, that's pitiful. The claim was that there were WMDs ready to go
>>>in 45 minutes. The claim was that we had to invade ASAP to prevent
>>>Saddam using them on other countries.
>>>
>>>You will apparently be the last man alive to admit that was totally
>>>false.
>>
>>It was also predicted the first Gulf War would have something on the
>>order of 10,000 killed.
>
> Nice sidetrack, but not pertinent. The invasion was sold based on
> WMDs. Many people, myself included, said there were no WMDs. And now
> we see there were, indeed, no WMDs. You can't pretend that this
> invasion and conquest was not based on deception.

WMDs which he was known to possess. No one (except political Lefties)
doubts he had them. The question is, what happened to them?

Interestingly, it is solely because of the invasion that you can
definitively say Saddam Hussein had no WMDs.

>>And on and on it goes. But given our current political climate where
>>the Lefties try to make political hay from any mis-step or error, an
>>intelligence failure becomes a plot by evil types to spread death and
>>destruction (and of course increase profits).
>
> Of course, you're steadfastly refusing to note that many of those
> opposed to the invasion said from the outset the "intelligence" was
> wrong - and we're talking not just about me, but about UN reps from
> dozens of countries that looked at all that Colin Powell had to offer
> them!

No. You're selecting the ones that were right and labelling the entire
intelligence community, including the foreign ones, as being unanimous
in their assessments.

It's like everyone knows what these Arab guys learning to fly at flight
schools in the US were up to...after the towers came down.

> And of course, you're ignoring the internal memo from British agencies
> stating plainly that the Bush administration was distorting information
> to justify a pre-ordained invasion.

That was an assessment some in British intelligence arrived at. Some
in US agencies arrived at the same conclusion. Many did not. You're
conveniently labeling the ones that were right as representative of
the entire intelligence community.

That simply isn't the case. It's a large community with a large range
of opinions.

> At this point, the only people who believe in the reasons for the war
> are a few mindless followers of the neo-cons.

By definition I suppose "Neo-cons" are mindless individuals, set upon
destroying all in their path to world domination. (Would this be an
example of "liberal thinking"?)

You sound just like conservatives during the "Red Scare" where there
was an Commie involved in every negative event of the world.

>>>Nope. Although this is beyond you, I don't believe in taking over
>>>entire countries based on foggy intelligence. Preemptive attacks don't
>>>meet the centuries-old definition of a "just war."
>>
>>I doubt there is any such thing in the minds of the political Left
>>pacifist.
>
> Absolutely false - and you're showing your own ignorance and prejudice.

I don't think liberals have largely been in favor of any war post
Korea have they? The entire Cold War was something the US started as
far as a lot of them are concerned.

The more radical Left has attempted to undermine every war effort since
the good old days of Vietnam. Only problem is, until recently, those
wars have been too short to get properly organized.

Iraq must really get you guys excited! With a little luck, there will
be rioting in the streets and hundreds of thousands choking the DC mall.
The 60's return!!! You must be thrilled with the possibilities!

> The concept of a Just War was worked out long, long ago by philosophers
> and religious men, grappling with the question of dealing with
> aggression. Unlike the rough-n-ready justifications given by the
> neo-cons, the Just War principles were debated and settled over a
> period of decades, if not centuries. They are intended to give moral
> compass unaffected by the political harangues of the minute.
>
> Of course, to the typical neo-con non-thinker, the idea of a moral
> person trying to codify moral rules is pretty incomprehensible.
>
> But it's been done. And this invasion fails by those moral rules.
> Look it up.

"Moral rules"? There's something we don't hear so much from liberals
these days. Of course I suppose if we can just take religion out of
the concept of "moral", it might be OK. Perhaps the "socially acceptable
war" might be a better term?

>>>Seems to me the only thing we've told them is "We'll take another few
>>>million barrels of your oil, please. Price is no object."
>>
>>Get off the oil stuff will ya? Geez. Talk about one track minds!
>
> Oh, sure - let's all pretend we invaded to get their sand!

And the invasion of Canada and Mexico and ... is already drawn up
no doubt. (*Oil* don't ya know!)


SMH