Re: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3 Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700 On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:07 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that context, since it was about an issue that called for serious consideration. I don't know wny you can't seem to see that. Well, religion-addled brains are good for one thing, anyway. This is more hilarious than the 3 Stooges! Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? Don't let 'em get to ya Warren. You're as cool as an ice cube. And some people are about as fun -cool fun go hand in hand - as a kick in the balls (receiving end). -Travis IMO Edmunds _ Designer Mail isn't just fun to send, it's fun to receive. Use special stationery, fonts and colors. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Warren Ockrassa Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 5:32 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3 Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? Because they are (figuratively speaking) in bed with this list's powers-that-be? Try this: ask people like Nick, Erik and JDG some questions that would force them to seriously rethink their attitudes and opinions; hold them accountable for what they say and do on this list. Then see how many (or rather: how few) of those questions will actually get answered. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
Dave Land wrote: On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:07 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that context, since it was about an issue that called for serious consideration. I don't know wny you can't seem to see that. Well, religion-addled brains are good for one thing, anyway. This is more hilarious than the 3 Stooges! Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? Speaking for myself, I simply don't care what Erik or WTG have to say on that subject, so I ignore it. It's probably the most codependent aspect of this list that we overlook the severely antisocial behaviors of certain listmembers. We've got a disease and the only prescription is more cowbell!!! xponent More Cowbell Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
On 4/29/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 09:11 AM 4/29/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:51:38 -0400, JDG wrote On the other hand, seriously considering the opinion of another is typically an adult-to-adult relationship. It would be rather nonsensical to use a child/permission slip metaphor to argue against an adult-to- adult dynamic of seriously considering the opinions of others. and JDG also wrote: No, Nick, the metaphor is not nonsensical in relationship to the US and the UN - and I never said that it was. I see absolute contradiction here. Seriously considering the opinion of other nations is not like asking for a permission slip. Nick, You only see absolute contradiction here because you keep deleting the parts where I point out that the UN Security Council is not just a debating society for the serious consideration of other nations' opinions, but also passes resolutions, which some say should be required to authorize US military actions. Saying that the US should only act if it has explicit UN Security Council approval is like asking for a permission slip. That is what Bush was arguing against. Bush was *not* arguing against seriously considering the opinions of other nations. Indeed, using a child/permission slip as a metaphor for seriously considering the opinions of other nations just wouldn't make any sense. A much more logical explanation is that the child/permission slip is a metaphor for insisting upon UN Security Council approval of US actions. JDG I have been staying away from these arguments but since it is now veered to a debate about framing language... On reasons for the war Kevin Drum speaks true: George Bush didn't mention democracy promotion as a rationale for the war until his AIE speech of February 26, a mere three weeks before the bombing started. The fact that he went months with barely a mention of freedom and democracy in the Middle East, and then made such a lame speech when he did finally mention it, was one of the main reasons that I turned against the war. I originally supported the war as a way to promote the values of tolerance, human rights, and democratic self-government in the Middle East, but then switched sides when I finally concluded that my reasons for supporting the war were not George Bush's (It's simply become wishful thinking to believe that Bush is really committed to any kind of serious effort to promote democracy in Iraq). In other words, I have a pretty good memory about this stuff since it had a considerable effect on my own thinking. Still not convinced? Here is Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, delivered seven weeks before the war started. Read through it. There are 1,200 words about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the danger they pose. There are exactly zero words about bringing democracy to Iraq and the greater Middle East. In fact, aside from a passing reference to Palestine, the word democracy is used only once in the entire speech: in reference to Iran, in a passage that specifically states that different threats require different strategies. The United States supports Iranian aspirations, Bush said, but that's all. It's not a reason to go to war. I can't look into George Bush's heart, but I can listen to his words and watch his deeds. And based on that, democracy promotion was not on his agenda before the war, during the war, or after the war until the Ayatollah Sistani forced his hand. Let's not demean history by pretending otherwise. On the CIA report, it stretches to say that under some circumstances under some definitions of the word threat Iraq could someday in the future might possibly be considered a threat to U.S. interests. I could say the same about the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. The chief conclusion of the report - Saddam wanted weapons to counter Iran. From the conclusion: Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq's principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary. Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam's belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam's view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi'a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fi re. The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from
Re: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
At 09:11 AM 4/29/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:51:38 -0400, JDG wrote On the other hand, seriously considering the opinion of another is typically an adult-to-adult relationship.It would be rather nonsensical to use a child/permission slip metaphor to argue against an adult-to- adult dynamic of seriously considering the opinions of others. and JDG also wrote: No, Nick, the metaphor is not nonsensical in relationship to the US and the UN - and I never said that it was. I see absolute contradiction here. Seriously considering the opinion of other nations is not like asking for a permission slip. Nick, You only see absolute contradiction here because you keep deleting the parts where I point out that the UN Security Council is not just a debating society for the serious consideration of other nations' opinions, but also passes resolutions, which some say should be required to authorize US military actions. Saying that the US should only act if it has explicit UN Security Council approval is like asking for a permission slip. That is what Bush was arguing against. Bush was *not* arguing against seriously considering the opinions of other nations. Indeed, using a child/permission slip as a metaphor for seriously considering the opinions of other nations just wouldn't make any sense. A much more logical explanation is that the child/permission slip is a metaphor for insisting upon UN Security Council approval of US actions. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
At 07:33 PM 4/28/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:51:38 -0400, JDG wrote On the other hand, it would be nonsensical to use that metaphor for seriously considering the opinion of other nations. True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that context, since it was about an issue that called for serious consideration. I don't know wny you can't seem to see that. I can only conclude that you are now being deliberately dishonest. I explained what he used the metaphor for. You choose to keep pulling a bait and switch. The Bush Administration has never had a problem with seriously considering the opinions of other nations before acting. As such, the Bush Administration has never used a metaphor to make seriously considering the opinions of other nations appear repulsive, as Dave Land suggested. The Bush Administration does have a problem, however, with the widespread idea that the US should only engage in certain actions with the approval of the United Nations. In particularly, the Bush Administration has strongly disagreed with those people who suggested that a specific reauthorization from the United Nations should have been a necessary prerequisite for the US to have attacked Iraq in Gulf War II. The Bush Administration used the child/permission slip analogy to make this *latter* viewpoint, that the US must gain the *permission* of the UN Security Council before activing, appear repulsive and appear to be reducing our great nation to childishness. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
On Apr 28, 2005, at 7:43 PM, JDG wrote: The Bush Administration used the child/permission slip analogy to make this *latter* viewpoint, that the US must gain the *permission* of the UN Security Council before activing, appear repulsive and appear to be reducing our great nation to childishness. Dunno about our great nation, but obviously our citizenry has sunk to that level. Would you [plural] mind finding a different horse to flog? This one's dead. And while you're [singular] at it consider dropping the pompous tone as well. It's obnoxious. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
