--- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I snipped massively, particularly where we said
> basically the same thing.
>
> --- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Here is the radio address text...
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021005.html
>
> > I see, you did the same thing I did, only we seem to
> > disagree to some extent.
> > You "read in" a lot to what he was saying, I did
> > not. You made assumptions
> > and followed implications, I did not. Of course I
> > was not listening to the
> > "talking head review" that came after the address. I
> > am of the opinion that
> > you got your "take" from some such "review".
>
> Incorrect. I did not hear this address, I only read
> the text. I have read no commentary on this text
> (other than the article I posted, which as you noted
> commented only on a few isolated sentences). Please
> do not do me the disservice of saying that I cannot
> read a text and come to my own conclusions.
I was only offering you a possible explination for why our take on the
address is so differnt. Inadvertently I may have allso ininsuated that you
are an idiot. (later in the message) I did neither mean not believe this, and
I still do not. Please do not take my response as a personal attack. It is
not intended as that, even though I may inadvertently be clasifying you with
a larger group that I have refered to in a negative light.
> > Don't get me wrong, he is spining, but he is not
> > saying the words you are
> > puting in his mouth. He just isn't, you or someoen
> > you listend to is.
>
> I put nothing into his mouth. Implications are part
> of the design and aim of a good speechwriter.
> Innuendo is not truth or reason; it contributes
> nothing to rational choice.
All true, but in todays atmosphere and polotics you can not blame someone for
allowing you to read such implications as fact or statement. Innuendo is
definaly not truth or reason, but unfortunatly with the way things are it is
your job to filter that out, not thiers. Specificaly beouse EVERYONE on all
sides of the issue are doing this. They way in which they did it was far less
gerevous, and much easier to filter than their oponents specificly becouse
they were very carful not to exagerate anything, or twist the words of others
(counter spin) in the course of their addresses.
> > > > We resumed, and ended the war, not becouse we
> > knew they had WMDs, but becouse
> > > > they had broken the agreements they made to
> > > >ensure a sesation of hostilities.
> > >
> > >Yet UN inspectors, back for the first time in
> years,
> > > were 'making progress' (albeit only under the
> > >threat of the military might poised around Iraq)
> >
> > Yes but the final chance they were recieving for the
> > inspections to work was
> > squandered by them cheeting and liying the same as
> > they had done previously.
> >
> > What about the inpracticality of...Sitting on
> >Sadam's doorstep in a "seig" for another 12 years...
>
> UNSC involvement would have spread the costs,
Why? It never has beofore.
> and
> probably shortened 'time to invasion' significantly.
You yourslef admited that France was going to play "anti-us" no matter the
cost. They signed the resolution stating that the slightest violation meant
serious consequences. Even in french that doesn't mean, wast US tax dollers
and US citizen soldure time (away from their jobs) to sit and babysit Sadam.
But that does appear to be exactly what they wanted.
>
> > > "We cannot leave the future of peace and the
> > >security of America in the hands of this cruel and
> > dangerous man."
> >
> > Remember the security of america also depends on our
> > ability to respond
> > elsewhere in the world (like our own shores?) we can
> > no-longer aford
> > (echonomicaly or security) to expect to keep our
> > troops fully engagen in a
> > seig or a no-fly protection for others.
>
> All the soldiers in the world cannot protect an open
> society from determined and trained men willing to
> kill themselves.
But they can keep them from getting the money to buy the material to make the
bombs they kill mass amounts of people with.
> All the information-gathering done
> by massive computers cannot make a supervisor listen
> to a field agent's alarming report.
agreed
> Do you advise that we pull our current troops from
> South Korea, Japan and Germany among many others?
Something MUST be done about Korea. We can not have that stand off last for
ever. Germany and Japan are strategic bases we would like to keep.
> IIRC, several folk posted that they think other
> countries should start pulling more of their own
> weight in the self-defense realm; this might be a good
> long-term policy, but I think it would be
> de-stabilizing if done abruptly.
Absolutly especialy in the case of Korea.
> I seem to recall a
> post that suggested that the EU would be able to
> handle most of its own defenses by ~ 2015? Can
> anybody clarify?
>
> > Their were pictures found in seveal places in Iraq
> > depicting an "Iraqi Air"
> > plane flying into WTC. But he never said AQ he said
> > "terrorists".
>
> Again, implication and innuendo. And Rumsfeld did
> more re: Iraq ?->? 9-11. <dry> I think there are old
> pictures of Saddam socializing with members of the
> current administration...innuendo?
No, we supported Sadam agains Iran. What is your point? 1) He didn't start
out -as- bad a guy as he turned out to be. 2) Play one against the other.
Workable tacktic...which failed miserably
> > > by saying "weapons of mass death" instead
> > > of "weapons of mass destruction" -- Very carefully
> > >and cleverly crafted wording.
> >
> > Absolutly! Skillfuly done... Just becouse you do
> >what has to be done and play the
> > spin better than your apponents doesn't make what
> > you did wrong, and it
> > doesn't make your spin wrong either.
>
> So it's just a *game?*
I am NO WORD SMITH so don't read some sillyness into my statments please. You
DO know what I mean. I am NOT spinning at all, so please don't let's start.
>A giant 'Reality TV Special?'
> It makes truth a casualty. That is not reasonable.
> That does not make my decisions informed.
No, but that is the way things are. It is your duty to get yourself informed
and to usnertand all the implications etc. Your job to sift through the spin.
Why? becouse there are so many americans who listen to nothing but who has
the best spin, so you can't get peeved when one side of the other starts
spinning. Truly misrepresinting or BS, yea, but the kind of spin some seem to
be angry about now, no. Inuendo is never ment as fact. Inuendo takes 2 to
create, the listener (reader) has to do some creative listining to get it.
Statment of fact just requirs comprehension. If you don't want inuendo from
your leaders, then don't do your part to make the inuendo effective.
> > > > Was thier a "spin" to sell the war? Of course
> > > >their was...Who's fault is that, Bush? Wolfowitz?
> > > >Powel? They are at fault for the
> > > > American mode of consensus? You want to blame
> > them for the manner that ideas are expressed in the
> > US?
> > >
> > > In matters of state, by Administration members
> > > themselves, ABSOLUTELY!...They were addressing the
> > > American people about armed conflict.
> >
> > And their opponents were not using spin and
> > marketing techniques? Come on!
> > You fight the fight your given.
>
> > >Everyone slants things
> > > in their favor. It doesn't make the practice
> > >honest, correct or admirable.
> >
> > No but it *is* the -reality- of what is required. As
> > soon as one group is
> > willing to play to the masses with "spin" everyone
> > has to get on the spin
> > Maru becouse the best ship is the one that carries
> > the goods. What really
> > makes me proud is the way they did it without
> > fibbing.
>
> That remains to be seen.
>
> >Instead of spoon
> > feeding the spin, they let the idiots fill in the
> > spin, by making buzwords like WBD, evil doors, etc..
>
> >Especialy for someone who has shown that he has
> >difficulty with words.
>
> His speechwriters are good, I acknowledge.
> Incidentally, are all who disagree with Bush/Admin
> views "idiots?"
No I just meant the people who allways follow whoever has the best spin. And
once again, I am not lumping you into this class, although it does seem that
you are upset about the spin, and how others took it, and that you believe
Bush et.al. to have ment them to take it this way, I do not believe that you
are incapable of seperating spin from actual statments.
Your an intelegent person, lets have an intelegent conversation and not get
triped up on the mess of wordplay ok?
> I disagree with most of the current admin's take on
> the world, but I happen to know some very smart and
> thoughtful Bush supporters on this list.
I personaly try to never support people, I support actions or ideas. But I
hope, even though we disagree on some very important ideas that I can one day
be included in the superset those that in your opinion are very smart and
thoughtful people on this list.
> >Did they know what
> > they were doing? Yes. Was it the right thing to do?
> > Yes.
>
> Then we have completely opposing views of
> statesmanship.
I do not believe our views on statesmanship to be completely in opposition.
> In matters of literally deadly
> seriousness, I expect to be informed of facts and best
> estimates, not manipulated, tweaked, and disrespected.
> I do not admire those who use such tactics to "win"
> their point, be they left, right or off-the-charts.
Likewise, but I do realize that this is just not possible. The oppostion (to
whatever "side" you are on) is allways going to use spin in most situations
beoucse it is effective. I do not expect to be manipulated becouse I have to
allow that for it to happen. I do not expect to be tweaked becouse I know
that I am sharp enough to tell the differnce, and I do not feel disrespected,
becouse I know the spin is not directed at me.
> > > I expect "spin" on most...political matters,
> > > but in matters of armed conflict, in which men,
> > women
> > > and children will die, we (the people) require and
> > > deserve to make our decisions based upon as much
> > >of the 'truth' as it is possible to know
> >
> > How is that supposed to work? Were the peacniks
> > going to just stop spinning?
> > The Far left? The middle left? Was anyone else going
> > to just not spin? Come on.
>
> Then the truth by itself isn't convincing enough?
Unfortuanly for the majority it is not.
> The
> 'evidence' for WMD had to be spun to be believed?
No, the rightness of the act of war in this case required an amount of spin
to balance any spin by the oposition. The most effective medium was the WMD
possibility. But they even told you that this was the case, and after it was
said and done, they even admited that some people might have got over caried
away by the wmd thing. Wolfowits was very clear when he said that that was
the buz decided on becouse it would be most effective for the marketing
needs. He openly admits this.
> Do you truly want to advocate a worldview in which the
> loudest, showiest or longest-talking speaker "wins?"
Absolutly not, I hate HATE that it is that way. But it ~is~ that way to a
large extent.
> Where is reason, rationality or respect in such a
> view?
I do not know but the fact that spin works means that some people either are
incapable or to lazy to do the reasoning, rationality and self respect for
themselves.
> > You still don't see how Sadam was a serious threat
> > to our security even if we
> > had known ofr certain that he did not have WMDs? You
> > anted our military to be
> > spread as thin as possible, in another 1/2 century
> > seig stance like Korea?
> > Where were all those soldires going to come from?
>
> <blunt> Saddam is/was a brutal dictator who the world
> will be better off without. Once a convenient "ally,"
> he was also a convenient scapegoat for American fears
> after 9-11, when bin Laden couldn't be run to ground.
> Do I personally feel safer now compared to 6 months
> ago? No.
So you don't think that we are safer becouse all those troops can now defend
our borders, or be sent elsewhere (like Korea) if the need arises? Do you
realiz how thin our forces where spread before the war? Do you know how
vaulnerable we were then? I had a BIG sigh of releaf when the thing was over.
We are still spread way to thin for the size of our forces.
> Extremist Saudis and al-Qaida members pose
> a far greater threat to America and American interests
> than SH was -
Disagree. Not to mention (or rather to) that now we are pulling out of SA
wich is one of AQ and others biggest gripes. That makes me feel a little
safer knwoing that one of the main reasons they were targeting us is no
longer valid. Makes their cause in recruitment a bit less worthy.
> they reached out from half a world away,
> and killed thousands of civilians without any "weapons
> of mass destruction" at all. And comparing Iraq to
> the Cold War Korean situation is apples and
> orangutans.
No it isn't Not at all. It is very very simmilar. Large force dedicated to a
partiular posible conflict. It's like chess when you can't use move your
rooks becouse they are guarding other key peices.
(Not to trivialize war or the posiblity of it to a chess game)
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
