! > Let me summarize Bill's response to Stephen's call for a
! refutation.
! >
! > "I can't refute the facts on the ground in Iraq now, since
! > they don't point to the immanent doom and gloom and massive
! > arab uprising prediction that I'm peddling. So, instead, I'll
! > pretend we're not a Republic and assert that our elected
! > officials are actually supposed to throw aside the platforms
! > and positions they got (solidly) elected on
!
!
! Right. Except the non-choice was between "war straight up"
or "war ! sideways", so war was solidly elected. My, what an
incredible
! surprise!
!
! What that election really proved is that the process is corrupt. !
"My opinion was in the uber-minority; therefore, the process
was corrupt."
The biggest issue of that election was Iraq. If the only difference
between candidates was how to pursue that war, then we never had the
choice we needed and deserved.
! > with every up or
! > down pulse in the media-conducted opinion poll _de jour_. On
! > that basis (the fallacy that we are a direct tele-democracy,
! > supported by the fact that many politicians in fact do
govern that ! > way) I'll argue instead that our leaders are
beholden to
! > special interests by not supporting the position of the
! > people at the moment according to Wolfe Blitzer and Bill
! > Schneider, and pump the doom-and-gloom prediction from that
! > angle.
!
!
! If a man is walking into a fire, and you tell him he's
going to get ! burned, is that gloom and doom?
!
Except if he is a fireman and there are women and children in
the building he'd be negligent to take your advice.
Maybe, but that's hardly the case now.
! > Also, I am totally closed to any notion that what
! > we're doing is good, so I'll impune the motives of everyone
! > else who supports the policy, as obviously they are either
! > bad people in bed with evil neo-con cabalists and Big Oil
! > mercenaries, or totally delusional morons."
!
!
! I don't give a hoot for their motives, I just want them out
of power.
For someone who's supposedly indifferent to motives you sure
use a lot of pejorative language to describe the motives of
people who don't agree with your position. (Not that I don't;
I just don't pretend to be indifferent to motives.)
Because arguing intent and motive leads to endless arguments while the
force placed in motion stays in motion. Since this 'force in motion' is
the problem, getting bogged down isn't going to help.
We're dealing with a defined entity, the neocon gang, the folks who
signed the PNAC Statement Principles and then got into positions of
power and acted on it. Only one of them, Cheney, was elected, and that
was on the coat-tails of Bush, who himself got into office as the lesser
of the evils choice. Did you vote for Rumsfeld, Libby, Wolfowitz or the
rest of them? Did anyone? Just how did they get so powerful, then?
This problem is deeper than the PNAC principles, it's attitude. In it's
essence their attitude is that we have the biggest military power in
history, therefore a mandate to use it. This is diametrically opposed to
the peaceful, helpful, builder status that would have this country in
good standing with the world around us. Instead, thanks to their
belligerence, we're facing a world that's hostile in too many ways and
places.
That 'axis of evil' talk may have sounded cute to the warmongers, but
what it really accomplished was to put countries like China, Korea,
Iran, Venezuela, ? on notice.
Here, in today's news: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13361343/ "Report:
North Korea preparing for missile test. Long-range weapon has potential
to strike mainland America, official says"
Just last night, the History Channel devoted an hour to the Big Iran
Threat. It ended with a shot of a nuclear explosion and words to the
effect that "this is what we're dealing with, therefore we must do
something".
Korea and Iran were put on notice, and they reacted. People see that,
right? Iran is arguably the lesser threat between these two, but since
Iran is in the ME, it's being puffed as the baddest thing on Earth -
while Kim Jong not only already has these weapons, but is testing
ICBM's.
We need to stop this madness. The best way I can think to do that is
with a national attitude adjustment; and the way to do that, I believe,
is to get the neocons out of power. While we may not be able to prove
nefarious or illegal intent, we do need an attitude change.
You could argue "they aren't belligerent, they are defensive", but I'll
say that since we can completely destroy any country that attacks us,
therefore no country out there is going to attack us; therefore
countries-as-threats is an illusion in the first place. Sure, we can
keep invading countries until the cows come home, but the real enemy,
the terrorist, has no borders.
How do you really defeat terrorism? It's been said: hearts and minds. It
really is that simple. People who like and trust you will help you,
while people who hate you will be or help your enemy. Culture, religion
and attitudes are barriers, but belligerence just makes things worse.
You've accused me of being a dupe and a propagandist despite
my openness about what I believe and pains to describe where
I am at odds with the folks who are currently in power
(particularly on the subjects of immigration and trade), even
to the point of exposing arguable contradictions in my own
worldview. You really are unidimensionally negative about
what we're doing and yet you believe in windmills like
"fixing" the UN and ruling the world through its charter.
Stop trying to put words in my mouth! I never said a word about the UN
ruling anything. I said that agency needs to exist because there are a
specific set of duties that require it to exist.
You recall Desert Storm? THAT was what a proper "United Nations"
response to a crisis looks like.
(Which, philosophically speaking, is totally at odds with our
national charter, though you claim to support that too.)
You want certain people out of power so badly that you are
incapable of seeing good in anything, and are always so grumpy.
The grumpy meter is a function of the propaganda blitz.
I almost want them out of power too, just so you'll cheer up
for a change.
Good! Keep going :)
But alas I fear that unless you are ruling the
world as benevolent Secretary General and Dictator for Life
of the New and Improved United Nations, you'll be grumpy and
negative no matter what.
There you go again with the plays-with-words. I never said - nor will I
ever say - that anyone should rule the world. We don't need no stinkin'
rulers, but we do need institutions that perform certain services on our
behalf. If they don't work right, you don't throw them out, you fix
them.
Bill
;-)
- Bob
