> 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.
Are you still running around with the 'Mission Accomplished' banner? Aren't you aware that there is a civil war going on right now in Iraq - and that, not the occupier - will decide the fate of the Iraqi gov't? Here's the thing: nobody, not I or anyone else, is saying that Saddam was good guy and that having him in power was a good thing. The issue, the problem, was over how change was to be brought about. My POV is that we would have gotten the desired result by fashioning our own society into an irresistible model, i.e. leadership by example. With communications making the world smaller and smaller, the things we do (or don't do) become more and more observable. In the USSR, the photocopier machine had as much to do with the collapse of that regime as any other factor. The truth, the facts, will eventually reach the people, and if the picture it paints is appealing enough, people will move towards it all on their own. > 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. See above. > 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. So - much ado about nothing - because we're saying the same thing. <clipped> > > 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. Then I can't imagine how much worse it has to get before you do 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? What does that mean - that every trial is a sham? Do you have any confidence at all in our justice system? > > 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. I see. Let's characterize a movement to correct a wrong as self-punishment. > > 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. In the age of compact wmd's, then being more naïve, if thats how you wish to characterize it, is what we need to be. > 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. That's right. I did say exactly that before all this started: that a Stalin-like approach is what it would have taken to win, but that we wouldn't do that, and because we wouldn't do that, the military approach would fail. And fail it did. > 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 A little prodding? Is that what you call killing hundreds of thousands of people, destroying a whole country, and driving us into super-major long term debt? > (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. Of course there are always going to be some people behind any point of view anyone can imagine. That's not the point here. What happened here is that America was sold a bill of goods and duped by "powerful forces" into a conspiracy to grab authority in the ME. Sure, you and a lot of people can say it was all "righteous", but when the facts - all sides of the argument - are on the table, as is happening now, the majority of people are rejecting it. Had all sides of the issues involved been fairly presented to the people before that invasion, it would not have taken place. Instead what actually did happen was the mainstream media psyched people to get behind it. I carefully observed this at the time of the build (psyche) up and have no doubt whatsoever that a study of the archives will show this was exactly the case. > > 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. The "lies and deceit" case can be proved beyond a doubt. > > 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, I think it matters a whole lot. > 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. "Burn the witch"? There is no comparison whatsoever between bringing people to justice for what they've actually done and hysterical witch hunts based on no evidence whatsoever. Wow, are you throwing smoke all over the place, or what? > > 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. We don't have the luxury of doing nothing anymore. We had that option, but now it's gone. > > 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. That's pure BS. Not only was that military invasion a total failure, but the seeds of hatred have been spread all over the area for a long, long time to come. You utterly fail to appreciate the fact that the people we killed and maimed have friends and relatives; that we have projected arrogance to an entire population who will long remember the way they were looked at and treated. > >> 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? The way Washington works, powerful interest groups would eat me for breakfast. I'm an idealist, not a politician (or "compromiser", as the case need be). > >> 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. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - then it is a duck! > > 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. Agreement! > > 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. There you go again with the "OJ example". That was an extreme aberration. In fact, yes, I would trust a trial and it's conclusions. > >> 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). There you go again, waving the "mission accomplished" flag - despite the fact that the mission failed. > > 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? Washington and Tel Aviv. > > 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"? I assure you that I will not miss them one bit. > > 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 ... So it seems. > > 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 don't blame a whole religion for anything. To do so would be ignorant, and to cast aspersions that one is doing so is an attempt to confuse the facts. > >> 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. The "cries" to bomb N. Korea - if indeed there were any - were just smoke to make it appear they are even-handed. They would never, ever bomb N. Korea, but they did actually invade the ME - and they are working very hard to actually bomb Iran next. Here's Hersh's latest New Yorker article: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1120-20.htm > > 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... That, and this, are very complex situations that I don't have a mountain of time to sit writing about. My overriding concern is what's happening right now and what to do about it. > > 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? World Court. War crimes. > > 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. I guess you didn't read it. > > 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? What is this, an attempt to send me back to square one so I can start all over again? If you don't understand the meddling we've done in the ME, then YOU need to go back to square one. > >> 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'm not hysterical at all. > 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. So you're saying that because I haven't changed my mind, I can't have grown. Good one for the gobblygook bucket! > 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, I see. Killing hundreds of thousands of people is no problem, just so long as we don't use gas. > 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, Nope. A real trial, with real evidence would suit me fine. > 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. Nowadays, one person with a giant computer is equal to a bureaucracy of ten thousand people in times past, so it's not "size" per se that matters. You want to know what's really wrong with Washington today? The word that comes first to mind is "attitude". Washington, to me, is like a foreign country. I don't relate to it anymore, and certainly not to the people running it. Something really bad happened there, mostly, I think, due to the Big Money controlled funnel that decides who gets through the gates and who doesn't. <clipped> >>> 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? I've said it already: if we believe our system is so great, then all we have to do is show it to the rest of the world and they will agree. You know, we keep talking about democracy ... But every now and then someone points out that we don't actually have a democracy in the 1st place, but instead a representative Republic. I say the point is this: that gov't works for us and not the other way around. When we get to the point where it's totally obvious that our gov't is in fact working for us - a point we're not at - then people around the world will take notice. Right now, what we actually have is a sham where Big Money interests get what they want and we-the-people be damned. The power and control freaks - the lunatics - are running the show. > >> 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. That's the "we broke it, so now we own it" rap. You want an answer? "We" didn't break anything, a gang of thugs got into positions of power and they did the breaking. That leaves us with 2, not 1, obligations. First to bring justice to the thugs, and then, because we are humanitians, to help the victims heal the wounds inflicted by the thugs. Get it? > > 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". Foremost, an "information supply" that fundamentally changes how we learn about the world around us. Since the invention of the printing press it's been true that "the power of the press belongs to those who own the presses", and now, in full view of how seriously and dramatically that power can be abused (e.g. drummed-up support for that invasion), it's overdue for replacement. > > 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'm quite sure that many people supported it because they believed the con job. Repeat after me: "the ME is not anywhere near as important as we've been programmed into believing it is". > > 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. Right! Bill > > ;-) > > - 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.
