> ! > ! > 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?
Because that's the post you responded to? <clipped> > And as a matter of fact, all the neo-cons you want to send to > jail and hang ARE your fellow citizens Strange, I can't recall seeing Wolfowitz (you remember him, the architect of the Iraq invasion?), Feit, Pearl, et al anywhere near the ballot. , 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 can't seem to digest a simple fact: that they took a crime committed by a gang of people from several countries, mostly Saudi Arabia, and turned it into an invasion of 2 countries as part of their larger quest to take "reform" (as in 'establish authority') an entire region of the world. They understand passion, their own, but they did not - and still don't - grasp the passion of their enemy. That lesson they ungraciously dumped on our children. > 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. I 100% believe we need to get them out of power, and also that bringing them to trial for what they've done would help to restore confidence in America within and without. From this you're reading that I hate them so much that I want to kill them. You need to get your facts straight: they are the ones doing all the killing. > The truth you don't want to face is that they were elected. See above. <clipped> > ! > ! > 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. You want to use the UN when it's convenient. You seem to forget Powell's rigged testimony before the UN - that he will forever regret. And you also neglect to mention the tiny detail that the UN didn't launch or call for that invasion. Congress? You mean the best Congress money can - and did - buy? Our voting fellow citizens? You mean the people who get their information from the TV? Here's the rub: someone, somewhere has collected that information and the analysis of it that history demands will show how public opinion was shaped. <clipped> > ! > ! 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? Excuse me, but how did you make the jump from "talking about Jews" to Israel? 2 different subjects: one is about a religion, which nobody would fairly disrespect, and the other is about the actions of a state. There are Jews in America and Israel who disagree with the behavior of that state. I firmly believe in separation of church and state, and my view is that Israel/Palestine should accept a combined democracy based on this model, or Israel should be disbanded. Why such a radical thought? Because if that situation isn't fundamentally altered, and that hatred continues to ferment, it will ignite - and then we'll all wish we would have done something to stop it. > By the way, to whom are you referring when you say "your > heckler companion"? He's quieted down - no need to stir that pot. > ! 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. It's because I say "this" and you respond to "that". You remind me of McNamara's advice: "don't answer the question you were asked, but answer the question you wanted to be asked". <clipped> > ! 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. I've distinguished between ordinary people and "soldiers for the cause". Perhaps you should contemplate this possibility. <clipped> > ! 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? You start by denying, but then you say you're not denying. Ok, I getcha. <clipped> > ! 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? See the McNamara approach here? Answer the question you wish were asked ... As for the rest of your dissertation, you're offering more words on the problem, but no hint as to how to solve it. Why don't you try that approach? I need to clip it because this is turning into a book ... <clipped> > ! 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 <clipped> You're absolutely right: the Chinese have gained power and influence. The part you aren't seeing is that our neocon gang isn't only "soliders", but other Big Money interests who became enormously wealthy in several ways, not the least of which was by hastily moving key industries off-shore without regard for the long term consequences to this nation. I totally believe there needs to be equilibrium in the world, but they rushed into it for short term profit and left this country at a strategic disadvantage, most notably with China. > ! 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. Let me be more clear, then: we separate church and state because we've concluded that commingling the two leads to problems, and it does. Obviously. In completeness, I will say that I subscribe to what I believe are "core Christian values", and these values are reflected in how I would vote on some (but not all) issues (a notable exception being a woman's right to do with her body as she, presumably in consultation with her God, decide. That is, it's not the right of the state to decide for her). I'll hold this as my personal example for why church and state need to be held separate. My opinion would also not be complete without saying that I'm really railed about the attacks on priests. That media blitz was enormously harmful to many people of goodwill. It's been shown that the percentage of pedophile priests is consistent with the population at large, and the point that they are held to a higher standard is understood, but that onslaught was uncalled for and it rocked me. > 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. You're framing this as though I said only the 'soldiers' were responsible for that invasion - when in fact I've consistently pointed to 3 elements that formed together the 'perfect storm' behind that invasion. > ! 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. Read the PNAC Statement of Principles again: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm And tell me that you don't see a call for using our military power to change the world. Therein is the root of the error. It fails to take into account the size, strength, resiliency, passion and determination of the 'changee', but instead solely focuses on the arguments of the 'changer', who out of ignorance truly believed military power could be turned on and off at will. > Consider in your straw man argument your terminology, i.e., gratuitous > play-with-words: "gang" ... "unleash"... "war machine" ... > "upon them"... > > And you accuse me? I chose 'gang' instead of 'conspiracy' because the imagery of 'gang' is clear - and called for - but that of 'conspiracy' is impenetrably foggy. I refer you to the signatories of the PNAC document for the core members of this gang. The other words? I think correctly chosen. > ! 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. Here you are, presented with the very essence of the proposition, and that's all you have to say? > ! 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. Then what's all this argument really about? Do you wish for me to be conflicted too? Am I to apologize for not being torn? > 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. No. Long term equilibrium must be the goal. It's not that it's done, but how it's done that matters. We are a tiny speck in space, but we're also a seed. I'll let you take it from there. > 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. No! Here is where you are victim to the neocon philosophy that might makes right. The opposite is true: right makes might, or, as King Arthur put it "right FOR might". Reach into your own spirit and ask yourself which must be true. You can't have it both ways. > 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. What a load! Half the globe isn't participating in that boondoogle. The so-called "coalition of the willing" is almost totally American. That alone should be a hint that something isn't right. But the real point, the essence of the proposition, is that the "soldier" neocons launched that war. Are you going to try and convince me that they are a bunch of Chinese, or the IRA, or Africans? You seem incapable of understanding why the soldiers would have done what they did. Here's two reasons: (1) they hated Saddam because he gave money to the Palestinians, and (2) after 50 years of non-stop hated and violence, they decided that something had to be done, and that something was to quell the disturbance with military force. There are many ways to color (2), but at it's core is the fallacy of might-makes-right. <clipped> > 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. Excuse me, but what am I, an ant to be crushed for not bowing to the Big Foot? I have been making a suggestion all along, and the only contrarian thing I've heard so far is "but then we wouldn't have a Jewish state". That's right. But we don't have a Christian state either, and we're the better for it. > ! 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'll spell it out more clearly: the Republicans and the Democrats have BOTH been bought out by those 3 interests. Not lock, stock and barrel, but for the most part. Once again, look at the last election - and at the one forming now. The Democratic leadership is at odds with it's own constituency. How is that possible? Can you say words like Big Money or Big Influence? > 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. Hey, agreement! > 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 thought I was pretty clear about this: the election process itself is corrupted. Getting the neocons out of power cannot be done quickly enough, but for the longer term we must root out big money influence from the process. Yes, that means we need better educated people, and that gets to the heart of our information system. Both considerations are huge, but it is far better to know what to do then what not to do. <clipped> > 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 never said it was Bush. I said it was the neocon "machine". > 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 actually held back in the beginning, so as not to appear hysterical. Now I wonder if I shouldn't have behaved differently then. I'm not afraid of jail - or worse - to defend THIS country. > 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. In the very same paragraph that you blast my "plays-with-words" accusation, you do go again! I never said that we need to surrender anything to the UN. I said there are extremely important reasons why we need that institution, first and foremost is nuclear disarmament. There are other reasons too, but that's the Big One that we can't move fast enough on. > ! > ! > 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. Maybe we have different concepts of war? Maybe you see it as the neocons do - over there, with other people's children doing the dirty work, and I see it as a no-holds barred slug-fest. Maybe you think we can get in and out, while I see it as quicksand. > ! 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. Not at all. I'm saying we must put an end to the notion of war as an extension of politics. > 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, It's not over, Bob. > 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. It's not over, Bob. > 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. It's not over, Bob. > 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. You're suggesting that I was - and remain - a peon, incapable of understanding the 'true nature' of war. Of course, you're not alone. The neocons saw to it that military commanders who disagreed with them got out of their way, so that only those who "understood" war would lead the charge. As for lumping what I'm saying in the same domain with the "molested-one", insult acknowledged. > ! 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. So, in the end, you have no point and no recommendations, but you'll bury us with words anyway. Bill > Just like the Calvin cartoon. > > - Bob _______________________________________________ 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.
