Bill: ! ! > It's clear the cynical campaign of fear, emnity and hate like ! > the one described by Ed's Calvin cartoon but funded by real ! > "movers and shakers" like George Soros has persuaded you ! > believe the absolute worst about your fellow citizens. ! ! ! There we go with the plays-on-words. Nobody said a single word about ! fellow citizens. That cartoon has to do with fund-raising tactics.
Why do I have to confine my points to the erroneous use of Ed's reference to a cartoon? Ed used to complain about this all the time, like I'm supposed to just stay inside his nice circular merry-go-round argument, subject to its assumptions and therefor its inexorable logic as well, or I'm not being sportsman-like. My point was: The anti-war side is guilty of PRECISELY the same character assassination and fear-mongering techniques that Ed directly attributed solely to Republicans. (The cartoon itself didn't do so in any overtly partisan way, and partisans on both sides could equally point to the other as the target of the cartoon.) (Reminds me of the fine Mencken quote, paraphrased from memory here: "Both parties are ever engaged in the noble struggle to prove the other one unfit to rule. Both commonly succeed, and are right.") And as a matter of fact, all the neo-cons you want to send to jail and hang ARE your fellow citizens, and the point I was trying to make by highlighting that fact to YOU is that you're acting they they are worse than masked al Qaeda thugs who really are seeking to murder on a grand scale. You aren't even giving them the respect due any other citizen with a set of political views, and the energy to engage the political process to advance a platform of ideas. Agree with them or disagree, but your rants border on pathological, partly because YOU are so self-righteously convicted of YOUR truth-of-the-matter that I doubt even you would shy from the death penalty for neo-cons. You would probably even volunteer to flip the switch. The truth you don't want to face is that they were elected. You get around this by amorphously claiming the electoral process has been hijacked by Big Money, which of course makes any pointing to the electorate's or even Congress's actual decision impossible to do with you. Working from those "first principles" you are incapable of considering more rational or even merely opposing viewpoints. ! ! > I do not consider myself a neo-con, mainly because of my ! > contrary views on trade and global economics, but those views ! > put me at odds with the neo-liberals too, so I look at the ! > neo-cons mostly sans the "neo" because there is no other ! > palatable way for me to view them. Even then there is much to ! > wince at (so much for fiscal conservatism...). ! ! ! You sound like you're lost for a label to put on your shirt. Forget ! about it, the other plays-with-words folks have long since trashed all ! words that once meant something. Give me a break. I'm specifically taking a label you want to put on me and others off my shirt. ! ! > At worst our neo-cons are guilty of being ! > deluded and misguided about their ability to pollinate ! > democracy across the globe, but their underlying motives are ! > not "contrary to American values". ! ! ! They are precisely contrary to American values. They took the ! power onto ! themselves to do as they did. Yeah never mind 12 years of UN resolutions, the several arguably redundant Congressional debates (including one that authorized the President to do what he did), and full participation of everyone else, our voting fellow citizens included. !That action usurped our ! founding notion of ! gov't of/by/for the people. Man was that Calvin cartoon on-the-money, just not in the narrow sense Ed intended it to be. ! The evidence is clear enough today, as ! people recover from the fog of the propaganda onslaught that ! surrounded ! the launching of that invasion and now say "it was a ! mistake". It wasn't ! a mistake, they were duped. By an idiot who can't even pronounce the word "nuclear" correctly, no less. For shame! ! ! And nobody - but yourself and your heckler companion - is ! talking about ! Jews, one way or the other. Uh, then why do the anti-war propagandists so consistently blame Israel for all the problems in the ME, and portray the Palestinians as hapless victims, as if they take no ownership for any of the conflict? And why do the mullahs issuing their platitudes and state run Iranian newspapers never to fail to mention "the Zionist entity" at least once in every paragraph in their fatwahs and other harangues? By the way, to whom are you referring when you say "your heckler companion"? ! My and this country's problem with the ME ! has to do with Big Oil influence, the military's insatiable appetite, ! and "soldiers of Israel" who have abused this country to further their ! ambitions. I distinguish between ordinary people of any religion and ! those on a mission that hurts my country. You are obviously trying to ! play-with-words on this distinction by continuously ! insinuating that I'm ! a dreaded anti-semite. I'm getting sick of your "play with words" accusation. Everyone, yourself included, attempts to frame issues in a way that elucidates their thinking in some colorful way---and how they view the thinking of others. Correct me with regard to my perception of your thinking any time when I'm wrong about that, but don't deny me the right to discuss issues on my terms using whatever literary techniques I've picked up in my 34 years of practice at articulating my ideas---a right you excercise for yourself liberally all the time. ! ! Easy card to play though, and arguably an effective one, but I'm tired ! of hearing it. The message you're pushing is that, having ! discovered the ! neocon ranks are heavily Jewish, anyone who speaks against them is ! therefore an anti-semite. Not at all what I'm saying. The only people who mention the Jewish background of major neo-cons are the anti-semites who use their ethnic background as it is an automatic disqualifier----i.e., the substance of their arguments can be safely disregarding because they are obviously unduly under the influence of Israel, being Jewish and all. A circular reasoning supposedly "proves" the influence itself is real. It's like the Communists who disgregarded anything an economist said because of their "class bias". Look where that got them. (The Communists in China are apparently smarter; they really are taking economists' ideas seriously, and using them in a form of cultural Pa Kua against us. But that's a subject of a different discussion.) ! Same reasoning applies to AIPAC as well, I'm ! sure. Maybe that's how these "soldiers" became so influential? Again, you are uncritically positing this alleged influence and puffing it up as if it is omnipotent and omnipresent---no way you can even be persuaded to consider that it is imagined, not real, that you have been duped by bigots to believe things that are not true. But boy you sure like to accuse other people of that. I'm not denying Israel has, via agents in both parties, undue influence on our policies. I am simply pointing out that they join a long distinguished line of foreign powers who play our political game to fight their proxy wars. SO what is new about that? ! Why don't you take a good look at how the Palestinians are ! faring under ! Israeli authority? Is that a gov't you want influencing your gov't? A ! model of what? And, if we followed that model, wouldn't we be a ! Christian state? Who is supposed to be leading who? ! ! I know you wouldn't answer these questions, you never do. I always do answer them, just not on your terms, because I look at things rationally. ;0) Let's try: ! Why don't you take a good look at how the Palestinians are ! faring under ! Israeli authority? Actually let me turn that on you: why don't you look at how the Palestinians have always fared under Palestinian leadership? That is where I believe their real problem lies, not with the Israelis. Note even the Israelis have more internal political diversity than the Palestinians. Arafat was a fraud and a phoney who ciphoned millions from his people and set him and his concubines up pretty well till he died, and he stoked the flames of hatred every day to keep his grip on the Palestinians, pretty much in the tradition of every Arab leader since the dawn of time. Abu Abbas or whatver his name is was pretty reasonable guy, but the Palestinians themselves (having been brain washed from birth to believe all Jews are devils and that Allah wants them exterminated violently) elected the Syria-influenced Hamas terrorist organization instead, when they had a chance to choose leaders. They had other choices. The Palestinians have been their own worst enemies, duped by Arab leaders with their iron-fist control of the arab masses at stake into taking up suicide causes and creating the very problems they were supposedly objecting to. Israel would make peace with them in a heartbeat if they didn't act like a bunch of crazed animals, bent on killing every last Jew. I humbly submit Israel would not be the militaristic society they have become if they didn't constantly have to defend themselves and their lives just because they're Jews and the Arabs want to kill them for living nearby. (My theological conflict is this: I think this fits with Scripture's prediction of what would happen to Israel if they failed to accept Christ to a tee, and in this regard definitely don't agree with evangelicals who define the "religious right" about the significance of modern day Israel to, well, anything metaphysically anymore, except Yet Another Proof that all that Christ promised from a prophetic viewpoint is already fulfulled---there is no "end times" coming as they have interpreted it. "It" (properly considered) has already happened. Like the Christ himself (a carpenter not a warrior), on God's terms, not man's.) Returning from that theological sidebar: Just like the Europeans, you condemn every move Israel makes but every pathetic act of violence and insanity perpetrated by the palestinians gets filed conveniently under "Gee, what do expect poor oppressed people to do?" and is never condemned. For the record I think the Israelis are behaving rather stupidly right now, for instance, and do not make apologies for their current actions. However frustrated they might be, they really should have used the kidnapping of the soldier to prove Hamas is unfit to rule. I can understand their frustration and rage with the selective outrage of the so-called international community, especially Europe (which has its own anti-semitic past to reckon with), but still... These on-again, off-again forays into Gaza accomplish nothing diplomatically or militarily. Either use the kidnapping as a PR weapon, or wipe Hamas out once and for all and be done with it. Personally I'd prefer the latter, but not until at least trying the former first--after all, they were elected. As a counterpoint, it's not like Europe cares that Hamas is behaving this way. For some reason (hinted at above), it only bugs them when Israel does something stupid or uncivil. Israel seems in a mood to flip everyone, including us, the bird. ! Is that a gov't you want influencing your gov't? A ! model of what? I don't accept that they influence our government any more or less than, for instance, the Communist Chinese (who apparently have both parties in their pocket, and are doing far more real damage to our economy long-term than any tax cut or toppling of terrorist regimes), or any number of other nations that have proponents in our government for their pet causes. You act like Israel is the only one, that's what amazes me about how blind you've become to anything that doesn't fit your Unified Theory of Everything (i.e., everything is the Israeli-controlled neo-con's fault, and they must all be hung.) ! And, if we followed that model, wouldn't we be a ! Christian state? Who is supposed to be leading who? I don't follow your rambling here. All I will say is this: the entangled alliances we suffer from today are the result of decades of effort by both political parties, and can hardly be blamed on any one foreign influence or the comings and goings of any one partisan clique. ! ! So the gang decided that the only solution was to unleash our ! mighty war ! machine upon them, and that's exactly what they did. It's a little bit more complex than that Bill, and you're smart enough to know that. You paint it as a "let's subjugate the middle east because, well, we can!" and that is not the argument on any level at all, but your very weak caricature of a straw-man argument. Consider in your straw man argument your terminology, i.e., gratuitous play-with-words: "gang" ... "unleash"... "war machine" ... "upon them"... And you accuse me? ! Did they discover that the occupier is always removed? Did ! they discover ! that ME countries will decide their own fate? Do you wonder if anyone ! knew these things before the invasion was launched? I think in your obsession over "the gang" and their motivations you have becomed quite unhinged. ! ! Do you think we're stronger and better off today by following ! the neocon ! plan? Do you think we should follow it to the bitter end? You ! allude to ! having deserted them, but you'll defend them anyway. ! Conflicted, or just ! more plays-with-words? I confess to a conflict. I know that the BOTH the neo-cons and the neo-libs are motived uber alles by a vision of global hegemony, and that their visions differ only by degree, not kind. I am opposed to both the neo-cons and the neo-libs (free traders and fair traders alike) fundamentally, and do believe the "global economy" will be the undoing of our nation in the long term. Yet I support toppling dictators and mullahs, mainly because I don't think the current conflict between the 17th and 21st centuries should be won by the proponents of 17th century autocracy. Even if this temporarily advances the one-worlders' agenda of making the world safe for cheap Chinese labor. I don't buy that malarky about how the neo-cons brainwashed half the globe into unwittingly doing what was in Israel's interest, as I can't see on any level how Israel has uniquely benefitted from what's going on, and I think it was in the interest of others (like those who actually participated in it) before it was ever in Israel's interest to "stir the hornet's nest" so to speak. After all, they live in it. The people who were really against it, in particular the French, had it turns out their own ulterior motives for supporting the Hussein regime, and blew a gasket when they realized we weren't just issuing idle threats and empty platitudes about freedom and democracy as usual, but actually putting our money where our mouth was "for real" this time. I see the Israelis and arab masses as both oppressed by terror that originates from the tyrannical and fanatical disposition of the Arab leaders, and the cult of radical Islam (which the former use in very machiavellian ways to subjugate their own people). But for that, both the Israelis and the Palestinians might have found real peace long ago, not this constant state of war that the media mislables "the ME peace process". We can't fix Israel's problems, and I don't recommend we try to (I think their big problm is which God, but that's a completely different topic), but insofar as the mullahs and tyrants are catalysts for forces that threaten us, yes, I support toppling them, even before they become an immanent threat, and even if its risky and may lead to reprisals. Yea, even if it means temporarily supporting a group that I disagree with on economics, which is actually easy when you consider the so-called alternative, which essentially wants the same thing, but has an approach to the immediate conflict that makes zero sense and in fact contradicts their previous position completely. If there really was an alternative someone would have articulated it by now. All I hear is griping, second-guessing, accusations, platitudes and speeches. Not one new, viable, tangible idea that has even a prayer of success in reality. ! ! I suffer no such conflict/neurosis. I'm saying they have caused us ! tremendous harm with their quest and that justice will not be served ! until they are held accountable for what they've done. That's what I ! believe is needed to restore America's image in the world - and a ! cornerstone for rebuilding the UN that we seriously need for ! disarmament ! (that is, *before* a nuke goes off somewhere). ! ! ! > They are a bunch of policy wonks who, having been ! > given a blank check to do what they think is right, are ! > finding the cause-effect graph they assumed was inexorable ! > has a bit more ply in it than they imagined previously. Such ! > is getting what you wish for. The ostensible "other side" may ! > soon get their opportunity, and I look forward to their hopes ! > being shattered too. ! ! ! That's just babble. There are no sides, what you see is just an ! illusion. And yes, it's the wrong picture. But that doesn't ! mean there ! isn't a right picture to be had - we just have to clear the way. ! Wow, talk about plays-with-words. Here you are acting all the while like there are "sides" -- it's "us" (the normal Americans) vs. "them" the dual-loyalty-conflicted Jews who are puppets of the Israeli regime and Big Oil and Big Money etc. Then you say there are no sides. I even put the term in quotes and you misinterpreted it. I actually am the one saying that when it comes to the really big issues there is little distinction between the parties and I'm amazed how many people (not you) are "duped" into thinking the Dems had no part of our Iraq policy and the arguments Bush made in 2002-2003 weren't ever made before. It's like when they claim he made Iraq out to be an immanent threat, when he did no such thing. He went out of his way to articulate a policy of pre-emption that allowed for military action before a threat becomes immanent, then said clearly that Iraq wasn't an immanent threat but a gathering one, based on all the intel we had (naturally there is always conflicting intel, but the notion that it was "invented" by the administration is an assertion that has no merit as far as I can tell, no matter how effective a propaganda weapon it has proven to be). The bigger point is that I would find your argument more persuasive if I lived in a vacuum and didn't remember everything that came before the neo-cons got in office and could be blamed for everything. Why you think they uniquely are the problem and merely removing them would fix it somehow when EVERYONE in DC, Dem and Republican alike, all elected by our people, affirmed the policy not once, but in several election cycles. ! ! > I also think you should be a little humbler about statements ! > such as "They are the worst thing that could possibly have ! > happened to this country." ! ! ! That statement takes into account what they've already done + the fact ! that we're now stuck holding the bag and will be forced to ! pay whatever ! price remains - which will be substantial in it's own right. Taken ! together, it's far and away the biggest debacle this nation has ever ! suffered. ! Which sounds just like the Calvin cartoon. ! ! ! > I'm frankly a little surprised ! > that your imagination has been so severely blunted by the ! > propaganda you've internalized. ! ! ! You're projecting, Bob - if you understand the term. Said the pot to the kettle. !You project that ! people are not capable of reflective thought, that we talk merely to ! echo the thoughts of others. ! No, actually, you're the one projecting that on me, by essentially accusing me of being a dupe for the neo-con cabalists and an apologist to boot. You are the one projecting that everyone was duped by an imbecile because they were non-reflective to the point of completely failing seeing the supposedly now Obvious Truth you keep trying to propound. I in no way assume anybody is unreflective, except at this point I'm starting to worry about you. You show absolutely no capacity for self-criticism or doubt. You just get more emphatic in your hysteria with each new post. I on the other hand wear even my internal conflicts on my sleeve openly and point out carefully where I disagree with the neo-cons you keep trying to lump me in with, and share many of my very-non-mainstream views on theological and philosophical matters as well by the bye. All I hear out of you are accusations of playing with words, especially when I make an effective counter point, and the same nonesense about how only surrendering to the UN, giving up our weapons, retreating from Iraq, and hanging the elected officials who did what we elected them to do, will restore faith and peace and prosperity in America. ! ! > I can think of many things far worse. ! ! ! So can I, but that means absolutely nothing. Actually it means you are disingenuous then when you say they are absolutely the worst thing that could have happened to this country. If you could imagine something worse, then you weren't being totally honest. ! We are today engaged in a ! very serious military action that we don't know how to get ! out of. You act like military conflicts in the past were somehow cleaner, more sensibly executed, and relatively flawless. I can't even imagine the level of the hysteria today if a Normandy-like invasion were ever attempted. The number who died in WWII to fight Germany's Hitler after the Japanese bombed us is astronomical compared to this conflict, and the number of innocent civilians who died in blitzkriegs and atom bombs during that conflict eclipses even the entire population of Iraq, if not a few surrounding countries as well. Our surgical airstrikes in this conflict by comparison are like pin pricks compared to the assembly line of Texas chainsaws of past conflicts. I am stunned when you and others equally enamored of the superlative degree when describing how badly this war is supposedly going jabber on about it. It shows a complete and utter lack of perspective. And your pointing out how you experienced the hell of war first hand is about as persuasive as Pete talking about when he was molested. It's sad and its tragic and its deeply personal, but it proves nothing other than perhaps your vision is clouded by emotion. I don't mean this to belittle either your or Pete's experience or to dismiss their relevance to your points of view. But it's like the pro abortion crowd saying you can't have a viewpoint that is opposed to abortion on demand because you aren't a woman and can't get pregnant, therefore, you can't possibly understand the issue. It's an attempt to short circuit debate by stealing someone's right to a reasoned opinion because the reasoned opinion isn't informed by some emotional experience that the person cannot have. It's like hitting the groin during sparring. ! Sure, ! things can always get worse, but if it weren't happening and you asked ! what would be the worst that could happen, the first response would be ! "we could be at war". Well, we are at war. Do you really ! think this war ! is going to be played out with other people's kids doing the ! dirty work? ! Can't you see that formula has collapsed, and don't you have ! any idea of ! what that means? If you want to see how things can get worse, then ! continue to support the neocon plan. I'm not even sure the neo-cons have a plan right now, having been neutered in the polls, that's what's sad. But I know for certain at the moment no one else does. All anyone else has is criticism, hyper-negativity, and platitudes galore. Just like the Calvin cartoon. - Bob ! ! ! Bill ! ! ! ! ! > - Bob ! > ! ! ! [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
