THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

Quote:

Regime Strategic Intent
Key Findings
Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

Nope, nazis correctly define themselves as right wing. The "nazis are lefties" spin is coming from the neocon right.

I neither forgot my university classes and exams in Political Sciences nor in History :wink:

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

Nope, nazis correctly define themselves as right wing. The "nazis are lefties" spin is coming from the neocon right.

RECTIFICATION OF NAMES

My neo-definitions:

The neo-left: generally wants everyone to have less (except of course, the elite that controls what everyone else has).

The neo-right: generally wants everyone to have more.

The evolution of the neo-left: socialists > communists > shintoists > fascists > national socialists (i.e., nazis) > internationalists > neo-leftists.

The evolution of the neo-right: declarationists > federalists > democratic republicans > libertarians > neo-rightists.

0 Replies

According to your definitions Ican, the neo-left does not exist.

0 Replies

Sometimes, really only sometimes, I wish, some here would have some basic knowledge about what they respond.

And sometimes, like now, I wish, they lived as a left under the Nazis.

0 Replies

Quote:

The neo-left: generally wants everyone to have less (except of course, the elite that controls what everyone else has).

The neo-right: generally wants everyone to have more.

The evolution of the neo-left: socialists > communists > shintoists > fascists > national socialists (i.e., nazis) > internationalists > neo-leftists.

The evolution of the neo-right: declarationists > federalists > democratic republicans > libertarians > neo-rightists.

Um, you have that completely backwards!

The leftists want almost everyone to have more; namely, everyone except the rich (and especially the very rich), who will have much less.

But f*ck 'em. They've had it too good for too long.

The neoconservative wants there to be a ruling class and an underclass based on wealth, in perpetuity. Simple as that.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

There is no such thing as a right or wrong definition. I do however think ican's definitions to be contrary to popular understanding of the words he is atempting to define.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

According to your definitions Ican, the neo-left does not exist.

Yes it does!

The neo-left: generally wants everyone to have less (except of course, the elite that controls what everyone else has).

In the case of the nazis, they wanted those they conquered to have less, while they wanted only themselves to have more.

In the case of the internationalists, they want free enterprisers like Americans, to have less power, while they want themselves to have more power.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

In the case of the nazis, they wanted those they conquered to have less, while they wanted only themselves to have more.

Althought this might be discussable, it's a kind of blaspemy to reduce the actions of the Nazis only to "conquer" and to ignore everything else.

And, of course, this would be nonsense regarding today's Nazis.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
According to your definitions Ican, the neo-left does not exist.

Yes it does!

The neo-left: generally wants everyone to have less (except of course, the elite that controls what everyone else has).

In the case of the nazis, they wanted those they conquered to have less, while they wanted only themselves to have more.

In the case of the internationalists, they want free enterprisers like Americans, to have less power, while they want themselves to have more power.

So the regular left is the only group that will not fit in your neo-left category, because they wish to improve conditions for a majority of the populace, and you define them as neo-right. Got it, but I doubt I'll be using your definitions as they are contrary to popular use of the defined words.

0 Replies

Hey!

Don't ask Icann to use your definitions! That would be accurate and convienent for the purposes of our debate, but think of the damage it would do to his weak arguments!!!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Hey!

Don't ask Icann to use your definitions! That would be accurate and convienent for the purposes of our debate, but think of the damage it would do to his weak arguments!!!

Cycloptichorn

Sorry, I'm not used to debate with a handicap.

0 Replies

Many soldiers can't stomach what they are asked to do, that's a fact. Some become withdrawn, and cannot fit into society when they return home. Many suffer a personality change. Some commit suicide. Possibly Foxy's batallions don't suffer from any of that.
We all want to think the best of our troops- but I think it true that the US troops in general were completely unprepared for the operation they have been asked to perform in a muslim country. Well, it's difficult to see any PR comeback possible after publication of the Abu Graib pictures.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

There is no such thing as a right or wrong definition. I do however think ican's definitions to be contrary to popular understanding of the words he is atempting to define.

Exactly! There is no such thing as a "right or wrong definition."

Right again! My definitions are contrary to popular understanding of the words I am defining.

However, I think my definitions are more realistic definitions. They are practical substitutes for cutting away the misleading, confusing, and often propagandizing euphemistic definitions in current vogue. I claim the real battle is between those who want everyone to have more--neo-rightists--and those who want everyone to have less (that is, everyone except those seeking to enforce everyone having less)--neo-leftists.

0 Replies

Dr Suess was a neo leftist with far more interesting definitions. I like Dr Suess. I don't like neo rightists.

0 Replies

I think the whole argument of 'neo left' is screwed up from the get go anyway.

I am not even sure where the stupid term 'left' came from originally much less "neo left".

But to say that liberals want people to have less except for the elitist who control the money is just typical of the backward redefining that this administration and all its flunky's has got down to an art form.

Liberal democrats favor a government that is helpful to the common workers and people that work in factories and shift like jobs. Conservative republicans favor a government that is more company management friendly.

Liberal democrats favor programs to help those that need it and Conservatives republicans favor a government that don't help those need it but depends on the iffy generosity of others to help those that need it.

It is not as if the tax money that goes into government goes into "elitist" pockets. Tax money goes into the government that in turn is used in programs and other institutions such as the police and the military for the wars that conservative republican favor so much but don't want to pay for.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
In the case of the nazis, they wanted those they conquered to have less, while they wanted only themselves to have more.

Althought this might be discussable, it's a kind of blaspemy to reduce the actions of the Nazis only to "conquer" and to ignore everything else.

And, of course, this would be nonsense regarding today's Nazis.

Nazis made many have less by killing them. Today's Nazis seek to employ the same tactic as soon as they can. Nazis and al Qaeda have a lot in common.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

I think the whole argument of 'neo left' is screwed up from the get go anyway. ...

I'll be back later to discuss this entire post in detail. Thanks for posting it.

0 Replies

We were speaking of Left and Right. This is pretty far Right:

William Rivers Pitt reports this:
A window into one possible future was opened by Republican spokesman and unofficial Bush campaign advisor, Rush Limbaugh. On October 28th, Limbaugh discussed the future of the Iraq occupation on his widely-broadcast radio show with a caller. In that conversation, Limbaugh made the following observation about the continued violence in that country:
"At some point, dealing with these people is going to require taking steps that the American people are going to have to be prepared for, and they're not going to be easy steps. They're going to be brutal. I'm talking about we are going to have to exercise some very, very brutal, take some very, very brutal military steps. We're going to have to maybe use more than just conventional weapons on these people. You know, it's like trying to wipe out cockroaches with Raid. That's not strong enough. You know, you're not going to call the pest control guy and get rid of them...That's kind of like who these terrorists are. They're all over the place, and it's going to take massive, massive use of force at some point to deal with this, wherever these people are, and I think a second term for George W. Bush where there is no concern for being reelected and so forth might offer a little bit more flexibility and freedom in dealing with this as it happens."
Two roads diverge in this wood. One involves bringing in a massive coalition of international forces to stabilize the chaos in Iraq. The other involves more of the same kind of deadly mistakes we have seen to date, and if Limbaugh can be accounted as a reflection of the Bush administration mindset, involves the use of unconventional weapons against the civilian populace as a means to bury those mistakes.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110104A.shtml

<end quote>

McT

0 Replies

We should just go ahead and nuke the middle east to make them all free. Yes, that's it, the more we kill, the more freedom will be had by all. Free at last, free at last, the whole world could be free at last and dead as well. Gonna take a shotgun and freedomize my head I'm a comin' jesus I'm a comin'.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know