On Nov 23, 2006, at 7:13 AM, Bill Arnold wrote: > > 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.
No one, least of all me, is asking you to say nothing. I don't encourage anyone to shut up, nor do I especially feel inclined ever to regulate how people express themselves on a mail list. Every time we expose our opinions it is an opportunity to grow, if we have "ears to hear". If not, it's an opportunity for other people to learn from our mistakes. It's a win either way, and maybe even a win both ways on occasion. > 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. I have no desire to lead you to anything but an appreciation perhaps for my point of view, and a decent respect for the limitations of your own approach to the issues. If this frustrates you, well, you have apparently been counseled about how other people avoid discussion on this list, and are free to do the same. > 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. >>> >>> >>> 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, (I point out here parenthetically that the only people intent to bring back the draft is Charles Rangel, who disingenuously accused the administration of wanting to do so in 2004, in a canard designed to scare african americans into turning out to vote Democrat. He even introduced legislation to that effect so he could say there were nefarious plans in Congress to reinstate the draft, but the Republicans called his bluff and he had to vote against his own legislation. Now that he's back in power, he's not even hiding his intent, but the party elders are apparently slapping him down on that point. They apparently had enough embarrassments for their first couple weeks in transition.) > 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? This response illustrates my point. It's always "them vs. us"; "their" nefarious, omnipotent plans. You only see one possible explanation for the present, and only one possible future (if your program of political expiation is not adopted). > > >> 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. > We've been skating down a lot of slippery slopes in this country in the last several decades and many of them have nothing whatever to do with this war or the neo-cons. Some of them---like the unconscionable bloat of the federal entitlement budget---are just plain stupid pork- barrel politics, void of principle beyond treating government like a giant Pez dispenser. You have simply been fixated about one group on one issue; but being of a conspiratorial mind, you see now how all the historical mistakes since Caligula are connected to the Master Plans of a few now somewhat discredited neo-con pin heads. I humbly submit that there have been far worse actual atrocities committed by far more radical ideologies. The Bolsheviks, the Nazis and the Fascists all come to mind; and I dare say the radical Islamic plot to enslave the world in one big happy caliphate poses a far more real threat to life and liberty than anything Bill Crystol or Bob Bennet or Richard Perle dreamed up when they naively thought merely toppling a dictator and giving people a couple free election cycles who had never known such liberty would instantly turn the Arab world into a place safe for democracy. You're convinced they just wanted to take the oil, and "dominate" in the abstract, but I can't make it past your apoplectic rants to that effect to see any evidence to that effect, either in the way they did it, or in any of the results after the fact. I think if they had been that practical we might have had some kind of chance for progress. In fact, I see the neo-cons now disowning Bush for not "competently" carrying out their fine plan to liberate the middle east. What this tells me is what I already knew: A neo-conservative by definition is an ex-liberal, and nearly all of the leaders of that movement are ex- socialists. They talk a good game about free markets, but know little more than Karl Marx about how to create them. If they trusted our Founders' formula they would have promoted a different model of government in Iraq, one that actually had a chance of working, and they wouldn't be pushing big government entitlement spending and police power here at home. You single out the neo-cons as some kind of exception to the kind of leadership we've been enduring the last several decades. I seem them all as cut from the same cloth. Until we as a nation genuinely disavow the idea that big government can solve our problems, whether we be ostensible Republicans or ostensible Democrats, or ostensible Independents, we are all going to go broke, and foreign conflicts are just one of many huge drains on the labor of future generations. > >>> 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. No, what I am saying is that even seemingly obvious mistakes sometimes work out for the best; very often, better than we imagined possible. Let's even assume the Neo-cons are all the evil things you accuse them of being, with all the dark motives you attribute to them. I still believe that at the end of the day they may be frustrated in their efforts, and yet a good thing may come of it. Perhaps even the very thing they (according to you) paid lip service to (freedom, democracy in the ME), assuming that their hearts (according to your inscrutable analysis) wanted something else (power, glory, whatever). God works in mysterious ways, often using the folly of man to at once frustrate him and yet do good. That's really all I'm saying. Can you at least agree that the lack of liberty and freedom in the ME is a real and significant part of the root cause of all the hatred and evil emanating from that region of the world? How do you propose to solve that problem? And don't even mention the UN, a hotbed for third-rate dictators if ever there was one. We are not in a position to judge history as its happening, whether we declare something a smashing success or a crushing failure. Only the perspective of centuries, detached from political attachments and passions of the day, are really competent to judge. We can only speculate. > > >> (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. Yes, I'm trying to change your picture completely. Your singling them out as the focus of all that is wrong and evil in the universe is a gross oversimplification of the truth that neglects a bigger picture that, in my view, if you had it, you would have a more sober view of a.) what's really happening (and has been happening since Eden) and b.) what can be done about it, if anything. > It's their > philosophy, their plan, their actions, and their failure that we're > talking about in the first place. How simple then! Actually, no. What was appealing about their plans is what is appealing of the plans of any self-professed do-gooder: it rings "true" in our hearts (help the poor, free the oppressed, bring justice to the wicked, bring comfort to the sick). In this great age of humanism, where we believe it is in our power to do all these wonderful things, we allow ourselves to be lead by our heart strings to do a great many things our heads (if they are allowed to engage our hearts in real debate) would counsel against. If the war doesn't bankrupt us, Social Security, or entitlement to drugs, or any number of ill-conceived, moronically administered programs by self-proclaimed altruists that we perhaps don't even foresee will. This is the way of all flesh. Like all nations that have come and gone, and like every human being who has ever lived and died---there but by the grace of God we go. > 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? But to equate Stalin to the neo-cons is absurd. > > > >> 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. By more than just the "neo-cons" if you paid any attention to the debate over Iraq since 1991. Singling them out to me misses the point. > 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. > The things happening in the world that don't exercise your righteous indignation to such a fever pitch is as telling as the things that do. > > >>> 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. > Because you don't listen very well. I'm saying pointing the fingers at them a.) achieves nothing, and b.) ignores the bigger truth about human action. If you understood that truth, you would see how strange your intemperate calls for trials (you know, just to formalize the conviction you've already rendered based on the flimsiest of suppositions) seems to me. As much as I can agree in principle again that "making the world safe for democracy" is a foolish venture, and however naked leaders in both major political parties right now seem to me in terms of coming up with workable solutions, I also do not see the results so far as anywhere near as obviously bad as you do. I still take heart that 50 mil. people can now vote for their leaders, and the "insurgents" (terrorists) who now murder women and children do so, as it were, as the party out of power rather than the party in power. The scale of the murder in the past eclipses what they can achieve now with IEDs, or what they could do in the future if they are allowed to take power again. I still believe that the conflict pales in comparison to the magnitude of our losses in WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. I think we lost a lot of perspective as a people since then, and our capacity for sacrifice is nothing like what it was during the "greatest generation". Maybe that was a myth, and we ought to rewrite the history of FDR to paint him as no less of a murderer and deceiver than the neo-cons who got us in this war? After all, a case can be made he "let" Pearl Harbor happen to justify getting us involved in that deadly, tragic war. Maybe, like the Islamic militants, the Nazi threat and atrocities were all cleverly made-up facts designed to allow our leaders to pursue a secret agenda to put the US in a position to dominate the world? He certainly did a better job of than than the neo-cons. How far do you want to take the absurdity? > >>>> 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). Oh, that's right: the JEWS. > > "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. No, that's not the root of my thinking on any level. If that was true, why, we'd have no problem with Saddam staying in power. After all he had the might to keep the peace, basically by murdering anyone who disagreed with him or threatened his power. I think the opposite of what you say was true: our policy previously was based on might makes right, which is why we were able to shall we say look beyond our democratic principles and make all kinds of compromises for the sake of political expediency, just to keep the oil a-flowin'. The "blood for oil" policy was our previous policy; not the one introduced by Bush. > > >> 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? Not yet. At worst I see bad policy implemented in a short-sited way. At best, I see a noble attempt to get at the root cause of the problem in the ME (tyranny and oppression of the Arab world by its Arab leaders) that has been tainted by ugly domestic politics. I need a lot more evidence before I'm willing to agree. I think it would be counterproductive to embark on a political witch hunt until we have come together as a nation and crafted a policy that is based on reality and takes a long view of the problem rather than seeking a quick band aid, as usual. But if we knew how to do that, we wouldn't seek a feel-good political witch hunt instead. History will judge whether what we did was wise. Right now we need to focus on the real enemy. > > >> 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. I agree. Prior to 9-11 I would have agreed; after 9-11 I doubted the soundness of not intervening. Now I agree again. Incidentally, I voted for the neo-cons and supported the policy. I am still not sure it was wrong, but I am quite sure it was naive. What, should I hang too? > > 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. > We need to be truer to our republican principles and less like social engineers who think the world can be fixed by all-powerful government fiat. Only then can we get that back. I view a political show-trial as at best orthogonal to that cause, and at worst counter-productive. > > >> 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. And I humbly contend the neo-cons and the Iraq war are but the tip of a huge iceberg, on that score, if not a Pandora's box. I'd like to put the people who instituted the welfare state on trial for keeping poor people dependent on government rather than freeing them for real from poverty. I'd like to put the people who instituted the biggest financial boondoggles in American history---fractional reserve banking, social security, and now prescription drugs---on trial for bankrupting future generations with unimaginable debt. I'd like to put free trade economists on trial for deliberately convoluting the difference between "trade" and "division of labor" --- how much wealth, present and future, have we lost because of that idiotic obfuscation! But then my rationale side kicks in and says: What's the point? These people are merely doing the bidding of the folly that's in all our hearts where human politics is concerned. I'd rather focus on getting THAT impulse under control. The rest is merely chasing after band-aids. Everything is vanity and vexation of spirit, said the Philosopher. It is truth. - Bob > > > Bill > > >>> >>>> - Bob > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ 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.
