Top-post short version: different definitions, different interpretations -> misunderstandings. OK, we're cool, even if we're not on the same page. :)
Looong version: --- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- Deborah Harrell wrote: <lots and lots of snippage!> > > > I see, you did the same thing I did, only we > > >seem to disagree to some extent....You made > >assumptions and followed implications, I did not. > > > 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....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) <LOL> Reading and posting while tired can be *sooo* instructive... "Please check your baggage at the door." > ....Please do not take my response as a > personal attack. It is not intended as that.... > > > > Don't get me wrong, he is spining, but he is not > > > saying the words you are puting in 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. Have to disagree here. As I stated before, I accept "spin" in most political situations, but in matters of national security or life-and-death the truth (or as much of it as can be safely disclosed) promotes better decision-making by all involved. > > > 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. Well, like in Afghanistan there are other countries' soldiers working as peacekeepers or whatever - those countries are paying for their involvement, so the US doesn't have to carry the entire burden. > > 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. I think that the "one vote to veto" in the UNSC has got to go; maybe require 2/3 majority to pass? > > 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. I don't think so, but I wish it were. :( > > > 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 pix of Saddam socializing with members of the > > current administration...innuendo? > > No, we supported Sadam agains Iran. What is your > point? Mmm, badly made. I've heard madly-spun rumors that certain members of this Admin set-up and planned a take-over of Iraq years and years ago; such spinners might point to those pictures as - suggestive. <wry> I should be less cryptic in the future. > > > > 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. Ah, no, not *you*: it seems to me that some of the 'movers and shakers' in government, elected and appointed, ARE treating foreign policy as a game. But the pawns are real people. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that *you* were thinking of this situation as a game. > > 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.... > 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. See my above statement re: matters of life-and-death, and spin. But as my take is that the Admin's spin/innuendo was in part: 1) war needed b/c of WMD, and 2) Iraq connected with 9-11, and I heard proof of neither, I was not part of making their spin effective. > > 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. Hey, everyone on this list *is* smart! In fact, we should be running the world! ;) (Hmm, not sure that I'm entirely joking on that last; was the short story "Think Tank" or somesuch, in which groups of regular people were drafted to come up with solutions to various problems? It'll never happen, but the idea has some merits, IMO.) > > Then the truth by itself isn't convincing enough? > > Unfortuanly for the majority it is not. I think people are more capable of clear thinking than the 'elite' believe. *Engaging* in thought requires a degree of effort that some may not chose; perhaps a modern version of the classical 'logic' coursework needs to be incorporated into our public education. (Unless one believes that our school system was subverted decades ago with the express purpose of creating dull-minded worker/consumers - was that article posted to this list last year? ;} ) > > '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. Again, I find his position insulting, manipulative, dishonest and worst of all *unnecessary.* :-/ > > 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. <sigh> It's strange how we humans really do 'show our best' under stress, and how much inertia comfort creates. <snipped rest of differing viewpoints> Debbi who will be *very* glad when the locust trees and cottonwoods are finished pollinating/fluffing! <sneeze> __________________________________ 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
