To Bob and anyone who might read this: this situation has drained too much of my time already, but my sense of patriotism and humanity will not let me sit back and watch it all play out without saying anything. I've lashed out at - and now ignore completely - those whose mission is to muckrake and waste time, and here I reply to Bob's more considered arguments, but I have no intention whatsoever of being led around in circles. If there is a point to be made or clarified, I'll take the time to do that, but that's all I can do.
> >> 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. We need a plan that has a shot at working. On this, underneath all the talk about being open-minded and looking at different ideas is one fact that reveals the real plan: the existence of the Green Zone and those permanent bases. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12441799/site/newsweek/ Thus, 'stay the course' is in fact the real plan. What's going on now isn't consideration for the change in strategy that people expect, but rather how to go forward from here to victory ("victory" being the original premise: to establish authority in the area). Talk of withdrawal, whether it be fast or slow is useless lip service so long as those structures are to remain center stage. It's not possible for them to remain in place without being defended, and therein lies the rub. Current talk is of air strike capabilities being built up to support the troops from the air after a withdrawal of American troops to bases in the desert. This means that protecting the Green Zone will translate into scenarios such as "sniper shoots a few mortar rounds into the Zone from a building a few blocks away ... air strike is called in ... building is destroyed ... Iraqi's hate us even more ... Enemy adapts ... Uses tunnels, rockets, smart weapons ... bases come under siege ... War escalates again ... No. This is obviously not tenable and therefore not going to happen. But, assuming those bases aren't going anywhere, then what will really happen? I believe escalation - to bigger weapons - is the real plan. All they need is some "Gulf of Tonkin" like excuse that can be used to get the public riled, and then they'll have their license for rolling out the Big Guns, most likely against Iran, but it could be some other country in the area. They'll need more troops for the larger war, and the draft is tempting, but they know that will bring about massive protests, so what I think they'll do instead is use inflated enlistment bonuses. We know they have no problem spending our money like water when it comes to the mission, so maybe we'll see something like a $ 100,000 enlistment bonus. They could even puff it up to like a big gift to people who are so patriotic as to sign up. End result: bigger army. So what if it costs us more, we're already in the hole for upwards of a trillion dollars. What's another trillion, so long as it's pushed off into the future? > 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. Point noted. You should also note that history records the rise and fall of empires. We have already lost stature and the respect of much of the world over the ME crusade and other behavior (e.g. 2 million people in jail; Big Brother; "we can have nukes but you can't"; a system of law for the wealthy, nothing for the rest), and it all adds up to grease all over the slope. > > 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. How do you know how much contemplation went into these thoughts? <clipped> > >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 Everything in the universe flows in cycles. When things reach a point where they can't get any worse, of course they'll start to get better. If you're saying that when things finally do start to get better, which they must, then that's the time to thank the neocons for what they've done, you're just trying to be too clever by half. > (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. Why are you so interested in separating the neocons out of the discussion? To do that is to change the picture completely. It's their philosophy, their plan, their actions, and their failure that we're talking about in the first place. If they were not involved, there would not have been an invasion in the first place. An analogy would be a graphic illustration of Russian history with Stalin painted out of it. Why would anyone do that? > 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. We're dealing with deceit on a massive scale. There was a list of reasons sold to the public, which proved completely false, and there was a real list behind the scenes that remains secret to this day. The consequence of the actions taken for the false reasons was devastating to all concerned, and you want to do what? And I'm not saying we should get a rope out. I don't believe in capital punishment. I've already said how I would administer justice in this case: the perps would spend the rest of their lives delivering personal apologies to each and every family who has suffered a loss at their hand. > >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. The only thing I hear so far is you don't want any fingers pointed at the neocons. > >> 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 That is, until you take into account the influence of "K Street" special interests (the elephants in the living room). "The professors ask: Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security to advance the interests of another state? Their answer is what they call "the unmatched power of the Israel lobby." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5353855 A highly noteworthy comment that explains why nobody wants to see the elephant: "Mearsheimer and Walt said they expected criticism, but are surprised the attacks have become so personal. Both men now say they do not want to comment on the air on their research but will debate it in print." > (first of all, everybody would have to be phenominally stupid for that to be > true, and we aren't) Why don't we ask Colin Powell about that. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=1442 > 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. I never blamed Bush personally. What happened came out of "think tanks", not his mind. He was sold a bill of goods, just like many Americans were. > > > >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), The whole line of thinking is flawed because it's rooted in the notion that "might makes right", when the opposite is true. > 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, There needs to be a trial so the real reasons can be spelled out once and for all. Agreed? > 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. The real mistake is thinking (again and again!) that any Western country is going to decide Iraq's (and the ME's) future. The way to influence others is through leadership by example. Other solutions don't work. We had this force on our side for a long time, but we've lost it and now must get it back, or suffer the consequences. > 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 We can make sense of problems and come up with reasonable solutions, but all bets are off if we're going to allow ourselves to be deceived. Bill > > > >> - Bob _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com 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.
