Bill: On Nov 25, 2006, at 12:58 PM, Bill Arnold wrote: > > > Leadership by example is the solution you're looking for. When > everything is said and done, it is as self-evident and simple as that. >
Truisms are always 'as simple as that'. > > > But we do make decisions every step of the way, and what we wind up > with > is the cumulative result of those decisions, nothing more, nothing > less. > > For some reason this reminds me of Oliver Twist: "whether I am to be > master of my own destiny or whether that station will be held by > someone > else ..." Therein was, and is, the appeal of what we've done: To give others that right. Certainly, average Iraqis and Afghanis had no such power before either invasion; now, despite the upheaval, they do. You seem all-too-comfortable with the idea that tyranny is OK as long as it's somewhere else, and we just mind our own business. Don't get me wrong: I strongly share that sentiment on a certain level. Frankly, it's up to people to liberate themselves from whatever shackles they endure, whether they be imposed from without (tyranny) or from within (guilt over sin, self-loathing). The struggle for freedom on every level is more "real" and the results more appreciated when you do it yourself than when a Knight In Shining Armor does all the grunt work for you. > > You want to keep shifting the frame of reference around in ways that > excuse these people, and I'm just not buying it. Herein I think lies our temperamental difference on this point: I am merely more of a Porfiry Petrovich at the moment, in contradistinction to your Javert. > Sure, human nature is > one of opposites, and that fact alone can and has generated libraries > full of discussion, but the case in point is the invasion of the ME, > it's utter failure, and what to do now. It's not an utter failure: that is one point on which I do NOT agree. > > We must do something. Can we agree on that? What I'm saying is that we > have an opportunity right in front of us, right now. And you want to waste it on another OJ trial? > The recent > elections give us a springboard - an excuse, if you will - to turn > things around. No I think in a way there were a form of self-punishment. Time will bear this out. > > Most people agree now that they don't want that war. Nobody "wants" war; they want peace, but some of us aren't so naive to think peace can only be gotten peacefully. However, when you are operating in ignorance, as we were on many levels (wall of separation between agencies, crippled field intelligence capacity, unclear picture of what to do after "victory"), the violent option usually doesn't pan out as hoped. (Even when you do, it may not. Sometimes what is necessary is by definition fraught with risk and uncertainty; this doesn't make it less necessary though.) Another point I'll make now is that democracies don't have the stomach for the kind of brutality that is required to win wars against cold-blooded murderers like these. The opposition party feels obligated, well, to oppose, in order to make the case for becoming the majority party--and they'd sooner vilify their own leaders in power than admit they are doing the job the people asked them, through the elections, to do. This dynamic alone divides the would be conquerer from within---now add to that the fleeting nature of our long-term memory in the modern age and you see the wisdom of Al Qaeda's long-term strategy. You should be afraid for the future not merely because the "neo-cons" promoted an ill-considered (if arguably righteous) move. Sometimes democracies need a little prodding from the outside (the barbarians in the case of Rome; these monsters, in our case, perhaps), but they always implode from within, often morphing into dictatorships. This would happen no matter what party is in power at the time, once the mores of the people have declined to a point that they lose their own principles. In other words, if not the neo-cons, someone else would have espoused these views, and done this thing (or something like it), all your pointing to their manifesto notwithstanding. Our current liberals in power now are no less prone to radical trust in human rationalism and the righteousness of their own position. You ain't seen nothing yet, and merely hanging the neo-cons won't prevent the folly of the next generation of leaders. > There is more then > enough evidence that is was launch based on lies and deceit. This is an arguable point, even though you don't see it that way. > I'm saying > that by holding the people who did the lying and deceiving > accountable, > we can show the world that we are capable of self-correction. It > will be > painful, but nowhere near as painful as a larger war. I am saying it doesn't matter what we tell the world, or how kumbaya they feel about us. Moreover, I think the pain to come will make the current pain seem almost analgesic, especially if we react the way you suggest. Burn-the-witch mode is a lot of fun, and gives a great sense of release, because it gives us the false sense that the witch was the problem, not the evil that lurks in our own hearts, and turns us into what we hate. > > If we don't do this, then we have to do something else, and therein > lies > the conundrum that we hear about every day: nobody knows what else to > do. > In such times it really is best to do nothing (else). But this answer goes against our ingrained sense of human can-do-ability. I guess I finally have lost that sense. Well, good riddance to it. > > > They did everything they could to wrap their mission to establish > authority in the ME in an altruistic disguise. But that, and the > mission, was a total failure. Why? Because all of the people can't be > fooled all of the time. It was not a total failure; but it was not a total success either. It's more a feeling that it failed because it wasn't a smashing, slam- dunk success on every level. I submit that the conclusion it is a failure is a short-term, short-sited perception, not a fact. This drama will be unfolding for decades, and alternate histories will be written about the decision---nor will all, if any of them, posit a better future had it not happened. > > >> 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. > > > These are entirely different discussions that I look forward to > AFTER we > get ourselves out of that war. Hint: I'll be focused on these machines > and their potential to make all the difference we need. I'll know you achieved your dream when Bill Arnold is voted the unanimous victor of a presidential election by electronic "write in" even though he never campaigned and wasn't on the electronic ballot. ;-) Should I start calling you El Presidente now? Or would you prefer Commandante? >> >> But to equate Stalin to the neo-cons is absurd. > > > What's absurd is to remain ignorant of the real reasons for that > invasion. I think on some levels you are ignorant of the "real" reason. You have a strong set of opinions about what it was, but you no more know what was in their heart than you do what is in mine. There is a fundamental epistemological problem we all have when it comes to understanding the motives of others. > > I've identified 3 components that are all represented in the neocons: > Big Oil, the MI Complex (the arms merchants), and what I'm calling > "soldiers of Israel". I think the problem is bigger than the Israelis, who only get singled out because it's easy and hip to blame Jews. There are the Chinese, the Russians, and many other representatives of foreign interests who are always tugging at the strings of power here in ways injurious to our national good. You think there's something special about the Jewish lobby; I think the other lobbies are no less influential---and dangerous. Basically I don't trust any of them. > > > I have said many times that our attention *should* have been on the > blights that face mankind. It's just unbelievable to me that these > conditions can actually exist while our attention is being completely > stolen by the ME. Our attention should be on our families and our communities. "The world is too much with us..." > > > I'm saying a trial would bring out the truth. > Blech. The reality Bill is that there is only one truth you want to hear, and if the trial didn't bring that out, you'd just discount it as a sham. This is the problem trying to reason with you. > >> 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. > > > You're stuck on a false premise: that the neocons had altruistic > motives. No, I'm stuck on a true premise: that neither of us know their hearts' motives (I bet for instance that many of them were at cross purposes), there is propaganda for and against all over the Internet, and none of us have genuinely true altruistic motives. And at the end of the day their motives are irrelevant. I'm stuck on another true premise: That two dictatorial regimes are no more, and 50 million people got to vote for the first time in their lives for a government they are now pretty much responsible for moving forward. The notion this would be easy always was nonsense, but it's better on many levels than dictators whose motives we know to be in direct contradiction to our national good (albeit the devil you know is always more comforting than the one you don't). > It was nothing of the kind, although it was packaged, prettied > up and sold on that basis, it was actually a grab for authority in the > ME. Where is that authority, Bill? > And not only did they dupe and degrade America with their mission, > they haven't been stopped yet. > It's sad that you think this way; you're setting yourself up for huge disappointment when they're gone. Or will you explain those days away on the basis that "they aren't REALLY gone"? > > > You're not paying enough attention to what's actually going on over > there. Turn off Big Media for a while and spend some time with > alternate > sources of information. I know how to research; I know what's out there. Thanks for the concern. > Look at the video clip Helio pointed to earlier > today, and then some of the other clips in that library. YouTube is clearly the source of all objective truth. > Read some of > the stuff in The Nation, Read Christopher Hitchens while you're at it. > Commondreams, the Huffington Post. That's basically a blog site for Soros shills. > It's obvious > that MSNBC is really trying to be more balanced, Boy are our perspectives different ... > but as yet is staying > away from direct confrontation with the neocons, to their great > discredit. Heck, just do a search on "neocons" and you'll find tons of > information on the subject. Here's just one link off the top page of > hits: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html Bill, you're reading list is about as lopsided as it could be in the left-wing kook direction. I do for your information read all of those, and may others. I read the American Conservative as well, which is Buchanan's magazine that argues a sort of "paleo" conservative platform; they have been totally against the war since before it was popular to be so even among the Deaniacs, and they have been going on and on about the Jewish lobby and the "neo-cons" too. Some of their historical arguments are reasonable from time to time, and I've always liked Buchanan. But I can't quite get on the "blame the neo-con Jews" bandwagon or see the war in such uniformly negative terms. > > >> I still believe that the conflict pales in comparison to the >> magnitude of our losses in WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. > > > The size of the war is not as important as it's significance. We have > projected to the world that we believe we can solve our problems with > our mighty military sword. This is completely and utterly untrue. You > don't - and never will - hear the neocons crying for war with Korea. > Why? because the ME, not Korea, is what matters to them. Isn't that > really, really strange, considering that Korea really does > represent the > list of reasons that we launched a pre-emptive war to stop? > Your analysis on this point is quite incorrect. The Neo-Cons have been calling for the bombing of N. Korea and Iran for some time, but the administration was sold on a different course by diplomats anathema to the neo-cons. You seem to forget that the president has other advisors who aren't neo-con die-hards. > > > History is a very absorbing subject, and it has great relevance to the > situation today, but the fact is that FDR isn't alive today, and we're > not in a position to go back and change history. That's nice coy move to avoid my question. Do you think basically he did the same thing the neo-cons did, according to your theory? That is, he exaggerated a threat, allowed a tragedy to happen in order to get the public behind a much bigger war than they thought they were getting into (after all, Hitler didn't attack us)---all with the motive of becoming a world-dominating military empire? You'll have more credibility with me if you say "Yes". And paradoxically less credibility at the same time... > We can always > understand it better, but what we have here is a major situation > that's > going on as we speak, and while we can point to lessons of history, as > everyone agrees, we have to go forward from here. > Insofar as we cannot turn back the clock, that too is a truism. > >> How far do you want to take the absurdity? > > To a court of law. Which court? Which law? > > No more so then to blame all Irish for the IRA. But to deny that > "soldiers of Israel" have infiltrated Washington and our information > supply is to be ignorant. DC is swarming with the agents of foreign powers. Your singular focus on one group is what is ignorant. > AIPAC doesn't exist for America's benefit, yet > it's got hooks knee-deep into American politics. Did you even read the > Mearsheimer/Walt report? Here's another link: > http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html > I also know that throughout history ideologues have singled out Jewish influence on local politics as a way to acquire a populist grasp on power, which they always manage to turn into monstrous acts of violence. > > > Big Oil money/power is just one of the bedfellows; likely the > smallest. > The bigger players are the MI Complex (arms merchants) and the > Soldiers > of Israel. > > <clipped> > >>> 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. > > > But they weren't messing with us, we were messing with them. You want > the root of the problem, there it is. What are you referring to? > > > >> I need a lot more evidence before I'm willing to agree. > > > Check out alternative sources of information. There is plenty of > evidence already. All we have is circumstantial evidence, at best, or the pre-crunched numbers of people whose job it is to justify a party position, at worst, for every public position we hold, insofar as it relies on "facts". I get back to the problem of knowing what's true, and having a healthier doubt about one's own sources and suppositions. In case you haven't noticed, my position has been changing. As best I can tell you are as hysterical about this now as you were the first day I joined OT. I haven't witnessed yet any temperance or growth in your view, but I do enjoy probing the limits of my own views with you in the course of coming to terms with what's happening in the world today. I always find it helpful to debate people who have either a.) a solid, principled frame of reference, or b.) lunatic views that have a fascinating internal consistency, however badly they comport with observable reality. The types are nearly indistinguishable, and it takes some time to sort through all the issues before its clear which is which. I'm not sure which you are; there is always the outside possibility that enough of what you believe is true to justify some of your loonier notions. But I don't think I'm the activist type of mentality like you when it comes to "doing something" for demonstration or any other purpose. Hence, even if everything you say is true, I cannot imagine some trial. Show me some kind of evidence that Bush, like Hussein, ordered the gassing of thousands of innocent people, or, like Putin, arguably ordered the assassination of a political rivals and journalists, and I think I'd agree. But your "case" is hardly the stuff of real evidence so far. Hell even Hussein got more of a trail than you imagine for the neo-cons, and I presume Russian mafia sooner than Putin did it, probably to get at Putin. The point is, nothing is what it seems, and your certitude is premature. Seriously, YouTube? The Huffington Post? > > >> 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. > > > That's the same as saying "no, don't operate, keep throwing band > aids on > it" > No, to the contrary: it's saying, rather than throw bandaids on it (a show trial), let's really operate (i.e., change how we all view government, and focus on reigning in the massive reach of the federal government, which I'd be the first to admit grew grotesquely under all-Republican rule; but it sure as hell isn't going to get any smaller now, either). A smaller government would mean all the big boogeymen you enumerate would have less to work with. > > >> History will judge whether what we did was wise. Right now we need to > >> focus on the real enemy. > > > That's right, but the enemy within. Iraq didn't launch a war on us, we > launched a war on them, and those who pulled it off committed an > unbelievably large crime. That it was such a large crime is why many > people have such trouble getting their minds around it. We do have enemies within. I agree all foreign lobbyists are among them. Millions of illegal (stress on the word: illegal) aliens are among them. Anybody, not just Jews, who holds allegiance to something other than our Constitution, is among them. This was for me the telling moment: when we gave them a fractious parliament, not a republican form of government. > > >>> 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. > > > At least we agree now. Don't get too excited. ;) We partially agree now, so far as I can tell only on the principle of exporting democracy being, as it were, folly. I think we believe its folly for different reasons. What are yours? > > > >> 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? > > > Try "embarrassed" on for size, that you could have been so duped. > Especially you, with such a big education and all :) I wasn't duped. I made a conscious decision to support a policy I ordinarily wouldn't support for hopeful reasons (had nothing to do with actual possession of WMDs in stockpiles, and more to do with transforming the ME into a more forward looking land) and have merely come to realize that while the intent was good, human nature being what it is, and democracies being what they are, the odds of the positive thing you want to happen actually happening is a much longer- term proposition than elections cycles permit. The opportunities for failure and frustrations are much greater. And my education, such as it is, always incomplete, tells me that the ceterum censeo which which you speak about the "neo-cons" and what to do next is terribly naive as well. My answer for the short term is "do right by the Iraqis"; leaving them to these dogs alone is the wrong thing to do. Whenever you do something that radically interferes with another person's life, you are obligated to "do the right thing" and help them on their feet. I.e., if you're going to save a battered wife from her husband, you better not just leave her at the mercy of her husband or any of his vengeance-seeking friends. > > > We are still in the birth stages of a whole new age. We can use the > tools at our disposal today to solve these problems, but we need the > leadership and direction to do so. I'm not sure what you're point is, beyond waxing eloquent about "the future with technology". > > > We are victims of the opposites, no doubt about that. Our mission, > if we > decide to accept it <s>, is to see that goodwill trumps evil. Believe it or not I really believe that's the spirit in which most people supported the war, and despite some of the scales coming off our eyes about the realities of the commitment, I'm hopeful we'll find a way to help democratic movements in those hell-holes survive the Islamonazi purges that would immediately follow a precipitous US withdraw. But we have an even worse track record where that is concerned. > I'll > believe we've accepted this mission when we start to talk more > about the > problems in Africa then the ME. Well, my personal benchmark is a bit more modest: that I may finally get to enjoy a Thanksgiving weekend some year without exchanging 7,000 word epistles with you about the blasted neo-cons. ;-) - 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.
