0
   

WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Nov, 2003 11:52 pm
The lady, dys, had been long without a good tupping. And, in her youth, she'd worked part time as a Safeway cashier.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 07:09 am
blatham wrote:
I don't at all buy your contention of 'saturation' after Afghanistan. Particularly if the US hadn't almost abandoned the bloody place! What if they had taken all this activity and money spent on Iraq and put it into really building Afghanistan? Into really improving the lives of the citizens there, at the seat of al Quaeda? The whole picture would be entirely different...friends where there are now enemies, eager intelligence sources rather than reluctant belligerants who want to throw off occupation.


Yep. <nods>
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 07:35 am
nimh

Here's a nice item we talked about previously (link contains no more on the matter)
Quote:
NEW YORK -- Bill Keller says he will soon announce a policy at the New York Times that "cuts back on the reflexive use and the pointless use of anonymous sources," which has "gotten out of hand."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8842-2003Nov23.html
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 08:50 am
The argument I've made to george (which nimh notes just above) leads to a very interesting and revealing question. That is, why the hell did the US not do this?

If the US wished, as it claims, to create something like a successful model democracy in a middle east Islamic country, why not Afghanistan?

Things are not very rosy there now, with the warlords (previously suppressed by the Taliban, now supported by the US) back in power and doing the sort of things they are good at (opium production had increased from 185 tons to 3,400 tons in the first year after 'liberation'). Even the single city of Kabul is not secure. Millions of Afghans, many of them children, are living in makeshift camps and suffering starvation, disease and deprivation.

Clearly, the neocon agenda to move on Iraq, and to adopt the policies of unilateralism and pre-emptive warfare, gained ascendancy in the administration, and counter arguments from the State Department and others, both nationally and internationally, were ignored.

Also, it seems about as naive as one might get to ignore the resource difference between the two places. And to ignore the oil interests represented within the administration and its supporters. Might we assume it possible that the energy meetings held between Cheney and the oil boys (minutes of which he's fighting tooth and claw to keep hidden) might contain the word "Iraq" with some frequency?

Further, war is a very profitable enterprise. As one writer in Harpers recently put it...
Quote:
Whatever else may or may not have changed after 9-11, one thing has become clear: munitions making and war profiteering have supplanted the energy and telecommunications deals pioneered by Enron and WorldCom in the late 1990s as the most efficient means for well-connected capitalist to engorge themselves at the public trough. To call these companies "private," though, is mere ideology. Munitions making in the United States today is not really private enterprise. It is state socialism.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 09:11 am
Perc -- You wrote "The extreme alternative to this "can-doing" all over the world is complete ******* isolationism."

So why the extremes? Instead of "can-do-ing," why don't we just behavedlike decent human beings, contributing when needed, keep a careful eye out for our own more modest interests, and keep our friggin' mitts off other people's territory? Why does not being aggressive mean becoming isolationist? Neither Canada nor Spain are isolationist, neither is aggressive.

Am having trouble typing this morning due to gelid fingers. We had our first serious freeze last night. As I put my bare foot to tile floor at six a.m., the night light went out, signalling a power outage. No light. No heat. No water (electric well pump). Got in car and drove into town to the diner. Ever had German home fries? Oh my...

On the way into town, I got these two tidbits off the radio:

60% of Americans would vote for any Democratic candidate over Bush.

The money sent home by hispanic workers to their families in Mexico and elsewhere now far exceeds total US foreign aid to all countries.

Those were titillating bits of news. The German home fries were delicious (bake waxy potato not too soft, slice, grill slices basting with butter and hot sauce). And the power was back on when I got home.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 09:14 am
"Munitions making in the United States today is not really private enterprise. It is state socialism."

Damn right! Why didn't I say that! Why doesn't a Democratic candidate wave that banner?
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 09:58 am
Tartarin wrote:
So why the extremes? Instead of "can-do-ing," why don't we just behavedlike decent human beings, contributing when needed, keep a careful eye out for our own more modest interests, and keep our friggin' mitts off other people's territory? Why does not being aggressive mean becoming isolationist? Neither Canada nor Spain are isolationist, neither is aggressive.


Laughing Do you have any idea how naive and idealistic those words sound?

It is obvious that the entire world wants the US to be the Leader of the world but for different reasons. The 3rd world wants to hold their hand out for the rich uncle to fill and then to bite us in the ass when they judge that we have not been generous enough. Europe and the other developed nations want to amble along in our shadow knowing that the leader takes the first bullet or steps on the mine. They will then shout from safety that we should have gone the other way.

We have rightly adoped the policy that knowingly confirms the realization that: "you can please some the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time" Therefore you're either with us or against us----those who are with us will be rewarded and those who are against us can expect no quarter and no favor. Yes it is either/or, black or white---good or evil and may the devil take the hindmost.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 10:02 am
Yikes, Perc. Talk about naive!! I think you need to get out and about a bit -- beyond the borders...

Quite apart from whether you know much about the world or not, why does the US have the right to stand here belligerently and proclaim, "You're either with us or against us"? If that doesn't describe a bully, what does?!!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 10:05 am
Some people simply cannot deal with ambiguity in their lives, and so force their offbeat, uncomfortable, aberrant experiences into neat pigeonholes to explain them away (denial) as a coping mechanism,
while others (more tolerant of ambiguity) are able to suspend judgment, remain open-minded, and wait for further evidence before making up their minds.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 10:06 am
Blatham,

Perhaps we are closing in on the definition of issues between us.

I don't make any claims of higher moral standards for the United States. I do note that we have not yet been as bad as our European predecessors in our leadership, but the game is hardly over and it is never too late to fail. What I find so remarkable is the easy willingness, of you and other vociferous critics of the United States, to assume we can and should exercise levels of restraint and farsighted wisdom orders of magnitude greater than what history shows did France, Germany, and Great Britain did in analogous circumstances. Either there is a tacit acknowledgement of our superiority, or a high degree of hypocrisy behind it. I suspect the latter.

You assume we have made a mess of Afghanistan, and that progress there is limited chiefly by the amount of money we are spending to restore infrastructure in the country. Both assumptions are subject to question. There was already a civil war underway between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban when we intervened. Opium production and distribution was already being managed by the Taliban to optimize their income from it. I believe the best we can do is to create the conditions under which the people of Afghanistan can build the infrastructure they want and need to function better in this world. While I have not made a study of the situation, I am persuaded that conditions there are currently a good deal better than when the Taliban was in power and are continuing to improve daily. I don't believe Afghanistan is capable of producing a "model democracy" of any kind in the next 50 or so year, no matter what we do. The potential in Iraq is much greater. They have a real economic base, a commercial and civil infrastructure, and a history in this area that Afghanistan doesn't enjoy.

Leaders always have critics and they are often judged in part on the nature and motivation of the critics that assail them. Overall I believe we have the right critics.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 10:11 am
George, the Taliban had cracked down hard on opium production. It was only after we went in and broke things that opium production built back up.
The mantra "I am persuaded that conditions there are currently a good deal better than when the Taliban was in power and are continuing to improve daily," is a bit like someone who hides indoors all day claiming to understand rain, no? Many of us seek out data instead of relying on "belief."
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 10:22 am
Mike Ruppert (whom I met once when I went to one of his lectures on behalf of interested parties in Abuzz and took three hours worth of copious notes), put forth a great many "conspiracy theories" about the Bush administration. Well, maybe. Well, we'll see.

One of things he talked about was the relationship of Bush to (US and multinational) banks and corporations involved in the drug trade (Mexico, Colombia, beyond). He predicted (in November 2001) that the 2003 harvest in Afghanistan, rather than decimated or at least greatly diminished -- as promised -- because of our invasion, would indeed be one of biggest harvests ever. I don't know about the rest of his wild theories, but this one certainly proved correct.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 10:27 am
Tartarin wrote:
quoting an excerpt from Blatham's article "Munitions making in the United States today is not really private enterprise. It is state socialism."


You all want to ignore me when I talk of "parity of weapons" and the millions it has killed in the past several thousand years so I'm compelled to explain it at length.

Parity of weapons is illustrated by the stupid battles of the US civil war when opposing forces lined up a hundred ft apart and proceded to annihilate each other with the same muzzle loading rifles-----the only difference during WWI was that they lined up in trenches that were filled with rainwater where they either died of mortar fire or disease. WWII was different but similar. Millions of soldiers died from tank battles where the tanks were similar, air battles where the aircraft on both sides were similar, or in massive battle where the soldiers on each side had similar rifles-----there was a new dimension though----millions of civilians were killed from collateral damage.

Now which is the most evil---the philosophy that says: We know that war is inevitable (History says so) but we will stick our heads in the sand , not prepare for it and just hope for the best----OR---the philosophy that we now have and must continue, that says: we know war is inevitable(history tells us so) so we must use every ounce of our technological knowhow to achieve vast superiority of weaspons and develop the highest standard of training to insure the lowest possible number of casualties on our forces but to inflict the greatest number of military casualties on the other side all the while attempting to minimize civilian casualties from collateral damage.

I ask again which philosophy is the most evil and which is the most humane?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 10:30 am
Nuclear weapons take all the fun out of war.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 11:17 am
dyslexia wrote:
Nuclear weapons take all the fun out of war.


Laughing We don't need nukes any more ------ we only have them because Eisenhower was scared shitless of the Russians and then other countries developed them so we must maintain them as a counterbalance "last resort"
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 12:06 pm
perception wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Nuclear weapons take all the fun out of war.


Laughing We don't need nukes any more ------ we only have them because Eisenhower was scared shitless of the Russians and then other countries developed them so we must maintain them as a counterbalance "last resort"

So why is the current administration pushing so hard for smaller "tactical" nuclear weapons, and working on integrating their use into evolving doctrine?
AF War College Paper
British American Security Information Council
Nuclear Policy Review
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 01:01 pm
Dys,

That was very funny. It's so true..........

perc and george,

Yes, we need to have superior weapons, but do we have to be in such a big hurry to use them? We've rushed into this war with Iraq......and for what reason? It's not because of terrorists or WMD.....so why? In order to control the oil supply so we can maintain our advantage over third world countries? I think this isn't the only reason, but it's a good one to look at.

Perhaps we should be rightly concerned about a shift in the balance of power in the world due to oil resources. But what should be done about it? I think we should be aggressive about defending ourselves. We should be looking down the road, maintaining our strength so we can defend ourselves if necessary, absolutely. But have we been wise in our choice of action? I think we have not.

We (that is GW, et al) have largely abused our powerful position to coerce other nations and it doesn't sit well with them. As well it should not. I don't like it when people with more money or power try to coerce me in a destructive way. I fight back when this happens. (And sometimes, especially lately, I win. It's an example of what miracles underdogs can work when fighting for their own survival.)

If I (and I suspect the people of many other nations) felt we had been wise in our choices, I'd be behind the war. But I think we rushed into a briar patch, half cocked, and our britches aren't even zipped. (excuse the metaphor, but I thought it descriptive) Now we're thrashing about, trying to look like we know what we're doing. We're wrecking havoc with the briar patch, killing innocents as well as our own sons and daughters......and the entire world is in the mess with us. It's a disgusting display of incompetence.

You are, perc, inclined to judge situations and people as black or white. You say so yourself. But I don't agree with you that this is an accurate picture of reality. It's a distortion of reality. In relationships with people, nothing is that simple or clear cut. We all have multiple motivations, and often our motivations conflict. So it takes some mature judgement about what is going on and what to do about it.

Bush has led us into a horrid situation..........and I just hope it will back fire on him. The ratings of approval of his handling of the war are down and continuing to go down. And his popularity is suffering as well, regardless of the poison laced medicare cookies he's trying to throw the elderly and the fiddling around he's doing with the economic numbers in an attempt to bolster his popularity . I'm personally more hopeful that many others that he'll bite the dust big time. I just don't know how he's going to manage to make people happy about this unnecessary war. Especially since it's our children dying.

Even conservative religion won't take a person that far.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 04:12 pm
Wow---" half-cocked" in the briar patch with "britches unzipped" oouuuuccccchhh-------Lola----I'll volunteer for your couch (in your office with a proper chaperone of course) but promise me we won't talk politics because the tune you and Blatham use has the same music but a new arrangement every day and it's driving me Crrraaazzzzeeee.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 04:24 pm
The fundies spout off again.My god can beat up your god!
Quote:
Bush's Remark About God Assailed

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 22, 2003; Page A06

Evangelical Christian leaders expressed dismay yesterday over President Bush's statement that Christians and Muslims worship the same god, saying it had caused discomfort within his conservative religious base. But most predicted that the political impact would be short-lived.


At a news conference with Prime Minister Tony Blair in England on Thursday, a reporter noted that Bush has often said that freedom is a gift from "the Almighty" but questioned whether Bush believes that "Muslims worship the same Almighty" that he does.

"I do say that freedom is the Almighty's gift to every person," the president replied. "I also condition it by saying freedom is not America's gift to the world. It's much greater than that, of course. And I believe we worship the same god."

Bush's remarks sent immediate shock waves through Christian Web sites and radio broadcasts. A Baptist Press report quoted Richard D. Land, president of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination, as saying that Bush "is simply mistaken."

"We should always remember that he is commander in chief, not theologian in chief," Land said in a telephone interview yesterday. "The Bible is clear on this: The one and true god is Jehovah, and his only begotten son is Jesus Christ."

The Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, also issued a statement contradicting Bush.

"The Christian God encourages freedom, love, forgiveness, prosperity and health. The Muslim god appears to value the opposite. The personalities of each god are evident in the cultures, civilizations and dispositions of the peoples that serve them. Muhammad's central message was submission; Jesus' central message was love. They seem to be very different personalities," Haggard said.

But both Land and Haggard, who are frequent visitors to the White House, doubted that the remark would cost Bush votes in 2004.

"This president has earned a lot of wiggle room among evangelicals," Land said. "If he had said that Islam is on a par with Christianity, it would be a more serious case of heartburn. This is just indigestion."

Gary Bauer, president of American Values, a conservative public policy group, said it is unclear what the ultimate fallout will be. "But the one thing that's for certain is, it's not helpful to the president. Since everybody agrees he's not a theologian, he would be much better advised to punt when he gets that kind of question," Bauer said.

The Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson, executive director of the Clergy Leadership Network, a new organization of left-leaning clergy that seeks to counter the Christian right, declined to say whether she believes Christians and Muslims worship the same god.

"I would rather you not quote my theology," she said. "But I have to say that I'm very pleased that President Bush wants to be so inclusive, and I think his inclusiveness in this particular comment speaks well for who we have been as a nation theologically. Not all of his policies and his actions have been as inclusive."

Sayyid M. Syeed, secretary general of the Islamic Society of North America, responded to Bush's statement with a single word: Alhamdullah, Thanks be to God.

"We read again and again in the Koran that our god is the god of Abraham, the god of Noah, the god of Jesus," he said. "It would not come to the mind of a Muslim that there is a different god that Abraham or Jesus or Moses was praying to."

Land's comment is particularly amusing, since the pronunciation "Jehovah" is a post Nicean mis-pronunciation of the tetragrammaton, "Y-H-W-H," which would be rendered phonetically in Hebrew as "Yaweh," if indeed it were ever pronounced. Ignoring the lapse in intelligence demonstrated (yet again) by the fundamentalists, one cannot help but be impressed by their true Christian spirit of love and compassion for their fellow man, eh? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 04:28 pm
Quote:
The Christian God encourages freedom, love, forgiveness, prosperity and health.

From the same article. Prosperity? Since when? Fredom, yes, love, of course, forgiveness, check, health, yes. But prosperity? Shocked I guess all that stuff about the meek and the poor inheriting the kingdom was a typo. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 03/16/2025 at 01:50:12