On Wednesday, November 22, 2006, at 05:24AM, "Bill Arnold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> 3.) To your credit I believe you are 100% earnest and open about who >> you are and what you believe. I just regret your constant harping >> about certain things and wish I had more patience for your perpetual >> "emergency" mindset. > > >Of course - my reaction to the problem IS the problem. Now why didn't I >think of that?
Because it's true. It doesn't mean everything you're espousing is false (they rise or fall by different criteria), but it does mean that part of the problem is that you're stuck on one way of looking at it. You are confusing my observations about your reasoning style with the concrete arguments you are trying to make. >Or is this the "What's the big deal?" pitch? Not at all. Everything about what is happening today is a big deal. On this we agree, except when I slip into historian mode and note in passing that every generation thinks its conflicts are precursors to Armageddon. Eventually it will be true, but it's a point to keep in mind. > The one that says we >should all just calm down and trust our Great Neocon Rulers to use their >Incredibly Large Wisdom to lead us out of the trap they duped us into? I wish sincerely you had a mindset fit for contemplation. > >So what if it took giant lies and deceit to get the ball rolling? It >don't mean nothing - it all pales in the bright light and warmth of >their towering goodness and righteous place at the helm. How could we >peon-people even begin to understand such great power and ambition? Don't ever complain about people putting incendiary nonsense in your mouth again. > >Of course you're right to minimalize. All the death, destruction and >debt expended to date really is No Big Deal - at least when compared to >how much it will cost to stop the ball they set in motion from rolling >the rest of the way. I wish I could reason with you because there is a sensible perspective that agrees that the Iraq war was on some serious levels a mistake, and yet, as it were, strategically or geopolitically in the big scheme of things a well-intentioned calculated risk that may in the long-term prove itself out (forget the near term though). It requires a little charity and a lot of clear-headed thinking about the nature of the current conflict above and beyond abstract platitudes about neo-con ideology, which is why this perspective probably won't catch on among those who have invested their credibility in the proposition that it's all the neo-cons' fault. I think our problem is bigger than the neo-cons, per se, and any such argument is a self-delusion. I have personally come to a view of things now that is very different from what I believed during and after the Iraq invasion. It's also very different from yours, and those of the extremists in the new party-in-power in Congress. But can you hear it? I doubt it. You're already in "let's get some rope!" mode and looking for a posse---hardly a mood befitting contemplation. And it think it's misguided, very misguided, and counter-productive. > >I understand what you're saying: that an occasional mild protest is >fine, but "let's not get carried away" because we can't stop that ball >they set in motion from rolling anyway, so why bother caring about >something we can't change? Just tell anyone who cares that they are the >problem. That should work, right? You don't understand a thing I'm saying, apparently. > >> We would probably get along great over a few beers, once we both >mellowed out a bit. > >Sure, but for now can we agree on what needs to be done? I believe we >need to put the Neocon leaders on trial for what they've done. I don't >see any other way to successfully close that sinkhole. They did what they did with the assent of the governed, which included the opposition party and non-neo-cons in their own party by an overwhelming vote. Your argument that they "duped" everybody is just complete non-sense (first of all, everybody would have to be phenominally stupid for that to be true, and we aren't), and an illegimate escape from the bigger problem, which is that we as a people in general (yourself included frankly, just not on this issue; and including me) tend to act on less-than-perfect information---in fact, we are not given to introspection or genuine examining of our epistemological methods. It's easy to make Bush the poster-boy for this, but it's an act of scape-goating, not justice-seeking. > >What would you do? Stay the course? > I believe at a motivation level we did what in our heart we know is right -- overturning dictators, bringing democracy and freedom to oppressed people (you really do ignore the positive aspects of the conflict in deference to a view that is uniformly (and thus unnaturally) black), and planting the roots of peaceful coexistence among nations--and it's not oil bribes, which was our previous approach. Unfortunately the human condition is such that such an endeavor cannot be taken lightly and I think our leaders at the time sold the solution on the wrong basis. WMD possession was considered a safe bet, and nobody (repeat: NOBODY) seriously contemplated "what if we're wrong?" and so over-hyping of that aspect of the argument overshadowed others that were as it were "more valid". In otherwords they sold the sizzle without selling the steak. I don't think their motives were all the ridiculous things you insist, and I think if you could learn a little charity, you'd find my current view, which is really my previous view (prior to 9-11), is a lot like yours on the question of exporting democracy. Prior to 911 I would have said it was folly--indeed, I hold leaders like Wilson in low esteem because of it (and by the way much of what Wilson did in the ME, carving it up based on political expediency and bureaucratic concensus rather than letting the people of the Arab world make their own boundaries) is part of the root cause of the problem today). Bush is sooner Wilson than Churchill, after all. Biden's scheme of carving Iraq up into three parts is no different than the same mistakes made before, either. To quote Burke: A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood. Unfortunately, our enemies are less conscientious and appear to love blood at a level that frightens our modern sensibilities in profound ways. And while you can rail against the neo-cons all you want, let's not forget the evil forces out there that make our neo cons look more like clowns than boogey-men. I mean, obviously, the islamo nazis, but not-so-obviously, I also mean the ChiComs and even our "buddy" Putin, who has developed a habit lately of murdering political opponents that really ought to concern us more than > >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.
