Quote:dyslexia spells colored c o l o u r e d, therefore dyslexia was educated in a British school.
dyslexia was educated in a British school, therefore dyslexia spells colored c o l o u r e d.
The truth is dyslexia has been reading too much English Literature and has been tainted by it's excesses.
Joe (Keep on Lorryin') Nation
I've seen no evidence that dyslexia was educated (anywhere)
dyslexia wrote:I've seen no evidence that dyslexia was educated (anywhere)
there is no evidence dyslexia was educated, therefore dyslexia was not educated.
dyslexia was not educated, therefore there is no evidence dyslexia was educated.
dyslexia wrote the above post, therefore dyslexia is educated.
dyslexia is educated, therefore dyslexia wrote the above postpost.
ican wrote this response, therefore ican is experimenting.
ican is experimenting, therefore ican wrote this response.
socrates is rolling over in his grave
The Chance for Peace
By Dwight Eisenhower
April 16th, 1953
In this spring of 1953 the free world weighs one question above all others: the chance for a just peace for all peoples.
To weigh this chance is to summon instantly to mind another recent moment of great decision. It came with that yet more hopeful spring of 1945, bright with the promise of victory and of freedom. The hope of all just men in that moment too was a just and lasting peace.
The 8 years that have passed have seen that hope waver, grow dim, and almost die. And the shadow of fear again has darkly lengthened across the world.
Today the hope of free men remains stubborn and brave, but it is sternly disciplined by experience. It shuns not only all crude counsel of despair but also the self-deceit of easy illusion. It weighs the chance for peace with sure, clear knowledge of what happened to the vain hope of 1945.
In that spring of victory the soldiers of the Western Allies met the soldiers of Russia in the center of Europe. They were triumphant comrades in arms. Their peoples shared the joyous prospect of building, in honor of their dead, the only fitting monument-an age of just peace. All these war-weary peoples shared too this concrete, decent purpose: to guard vigilantly against the domination ever again of any part of the world by a single, unbridled aggressive power.
This common purpose lasted an instant and perished. The nations of the world divided to follow two distinct roads.
The United States and our valued friends, the other free nations, chose one road.
The leaders of the Soviet Union chose another.
The way chosen by the United States was plainly marked by a few clear precepts, which govern its conduct in world affairs.
First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.
Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations. Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.
Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible. And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations.
In the light of these principles the citizens of the United States defined the way they proposed to follow, through the aftermath of war, toward true peace.
This way was faithful to the spirit that inspired the United Nations: to prohibit strife, to relieve tensions, to banish fears. This way was to control and to reduce armaments. This way was to allow all nations to devote their energies and resources to the great and good tasks of healing the war's wounds, of clothing and feeding and housing the needy, of perfecting a just political life, of enjoying the fruits of their own free toil.
The Soviet government held a vastly different vision of the future.
In the world of its design, security was to be found, not in mutual trust and mutual aid but in force: huge armies, subversion, rule of neighbor nations. The goal was power superiority at all costs. Security was to be sought by denying it to all others.
The result has been tragic for the world and, for the Soviet Union, it has also been ironic.
The amassing of the Soviet power alerted free nations to a new danger of aggression. It compelled them in self-defense to spend unprecedented money and energy for armaments. It forced them to develop weapons of war now capable of inflicting instant and terrible punishment upon any aggressor.
It instilled in the free nations-and let none doubt this-the unshakable conviction that, as long as there persists a threat to freedom, they must, at any cost, remain armed, strong, and ready for the risk of war.
It inspired them-and let none doubt this-to attain a unity of purpose and will beyond the power of propaganda or pressure to break, now or ever.
There remained, however, one thing essentially unchanged and unaffected by Soviet conduct: the readiness of the free nations to welcome sincerely any genuine evidence of peaceful purpose enabling all peoples again to resume their common quest of just peace.
The free nations, most solemnly and repeatedly, have assured the Soviet Union that their firm association has never had any aggressive purpose whatsoever. Soviet leaders, however, have seemed to persuade themselves, or tried to persuade their people, otherwise.
And so it has come to pass that the Soviet Union itself has shared and suffered the very fears it has fostered in the rest of the world.
This has been the way of life forged by 8 years of fear and force.
What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on this dread road?
The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated.
The worst is atomic war.
The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that come with this spring of 1953.
This is one of those times in the affairs of nations when the gravest choices must be made, if there is to be a turning toward a just and lasting peace.
It is a moment that calls upon the governments of the world to speak their intentions with simplicity and with honesty.
It calls upon them to answer the questions that stirs the hearts of all sane men: is there no other way the world may live?
The world knows that an era ended with the death of Joseph Stalin. The extraordinary 30-year span of his rule saw the Soviet Empire expand to reach from the Baltic Sea to the Sea of Japan, finally to dominate 800 million souls.
The Soviet system shaped by Stalin and his predecessors was born of one World War. It survived the stubborn and often amazing courage of second World War. It has lived to threaten a third.
Now, a new leadership has assumed power in the Soviet Union. It links to the past, however strong, cannot bind it completely. Its future is, in great part, its own to make.
This new leadership confronts a free world aroused, as rarely in its history, by the will to stay free.
This free world knows, out of bitter wisdom of experience, that vigilance and sacrifice are the price of liberty.
It knows that the defense of Western Europe imperatively demands the unity of purpose and action made possible by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, embracing a European Defense Community.
It knows that Western Germany deserves to be a free and equal partner in this community and that this, for Germany, is the only safe way to full, final unity.
It knows that aggression in Korea and in southeast Asia are threats to the whole free community to be met by united action.
This is the kind of free world which the new Soviet leadership confront. It is a world that demands and expects the fullest respect of its rights and interests. It is a world that will always accord the same respect to all others.
So the new Soviet leadership now has a precious opportunity to awaken, with the rest of the world, to the point of peril reached and to help turn the tide of history.
Will it do this?
We do not yet know. Recent statements and gestures of Soviet leaders give some evidence that they may recognize this critical moment.
We welcome every honest act of peace.
We care nothing for mere rhetoric.
We are only for sincerity of peaceful purpose attested by deeds. The opportunities for such deeds are many. The performance of a great number of them waits upon no complex protocol but upon the simple will to do them. Even a few such clear and specific acts, such as the Soviet Union's signature upon the Austrian treaty or its release of thousands of prisoners still held from World War II, would be impressive signs of sincere intent. They would carry a power of persuasion not to be matched by any amount of oratory.
This we do know: a world that begins to witness the rebirth of trust among nations can find its way to a peace that is neither partial nor punitive.
With all who will work in good faith toward such a peace, we are ready, with renewed resolve, to strive to redeem the near-lost hopes of our day.
The first great step along this way must be the conclusion of an honorable armistice in Korea.
This means the immediate cessation of hostilities and the prompt initiation of political discussions leading to the holding of free elections in a united Korea.
It should mean, no less importantly, an end to the direct and indirect attacks upon the security of Indochina and Malaya. For any armistice in Korea that merely released aggressive armies to attack elsewhere would be fraud.
We seek, throughout Asia as throughout the world, a peace that is true and total.
Out of this can grow a still wider task-the achieving of just political settlements for the other serious and specific issues between the free world and the Soviet Union.
None of these issues, great or small, is insoluble-given only the will to respect the rights of all nations.
Again we say: the United States is ready to assume its just part.
We have already done all within our power to speed conclusion of the treaty with Austria, which will free that country from economic exploitation and from occupation by foreign troops.
We are ready not only to press forward with the present plans for closer unity of the nations of Western Europe by also, upon that foundation, to strive to foster a broader European community, conducive to the free movement of persons, of trade, and of ideas.
This community would include a free and united Germany, with a government based upon free and secret elections.
This free community and the full independence of the East European nations could mean the end of present unnatural division of Europe.
As progress in all these areas strengthens world trust, we could proceed concurrently with the next great work-the reduction of the burden of armaments now weighing upon the world. To this end we would welcome and enter into the most solemn agreements. These could properly include:
1. The limitation, by absolute numbers or by an agreed international ratio, of the sizes of the military and security forces of all nations.
2. A commitment by all nations to set an agreed limit upon that proportion of total production of certain strategic materials to be devoted to military purposes.
3. International control of atomic energy to promote its use for peaceful purposes only and to insure the prohibition of atomic weapons.
4. A limitation or prohibition of other categories of weapons of great destructiveness.
5. The enforcement of all these agreed limitations and prohibitions by adequate safeguards,including a practical system of inspection under the United Nations.
The details of such disarmament programs are manifestly critical and complex. Neither theUnited States nor any other nation can properly claim to possess a perfect, immutable formula. But the formula matters less than the faith-the good faith without which no formula can work justly and effectively.
The fruit of success in all these tasks would present the world with the greatest task, and the greatest opportunity, of all. It is this: the dedication of the energies, the resources, and the imaginations of all peaceful nations to a new kind of war. This would be a declared total war, not upon any human enemy but upon the brute forces of poverty and need.
The peace we seek, founded upon decent trust and cooperative effort among nations, can be fortified, not by weapons of war but by wheat and by cotton, by milk and by wool, by meat and by timber and by rice. These are words that translate into every language on earth. These are needs that challenge this world in arms.
This idea of a just and peaceful world is not new or strange to us. It inspired the people of theUnited States to initiate the European Recovery Program in 1947. That program was prepared to treat, with like and equal concern, the needs of Eastern and Western Europe.
We are prepared to reaffirm, with the most concrete evidence, our readiness to help build a world in which all peoples can be productive and prosperous.
This Government is ready to ask its people to join with all nations in devoting a substantial percentage of the savings achieved by disarmament to a fund for world aid and reconstruction. The purposes of this great work would be to help other peoples to develop the under developed areas of the world, to stimulate profitability and fair world trade, to assist all peoples to know the blessings of productive freedom.
The monuments to this new kind of war would be these: roads and schools, hospitals and homes, food and health.
We are ready, in short, to dedicate our strength to serving the needs, rather than the fears, of the world.
We are ready, by these and all such actions, to make of the United Nations an institution that can effectively guard the peace and security of all peoples.
I know of nothing I can add to make plainer the sincere purpose of the United States.
I know of no course, other than that marked by these and similar actions, that can be called the highway of peace.
I know of only one question upon which progress waits. It is this:
What is the Soviet Union ready to do?
Whatever the answer be, let it be plainly spoken.
Again we say: the hunger for peace is too great, the hour in history too late, for any government to mock men's hopes with mere words and promises and gestures.
The test of truth is simple. There can be no persuasion but by deeds.
Is the new leadership of Soviet Union prepared to use its decisive influence in the Communist world, including control of the flow of arms, to bring not merely an expedient truce in Korea but genuine peace in Asia?
Is it prepared to allow other nations, including those of Eastern Europe, the free choice of their own forms of government?
Is it prepared to act in concert with others upon serious disarmament proposals to be made firmly effective by stringent U.N. control and inspection?
If not, where then is the concrete evidence of the Soviet Union's concern for peace?
The test is clear.
There is, before all peoples, a precious chance to turn the black tide of events. If we failed to strive to seize this chance, the judgment of future ages would be harsh and just.
If we strive but fail and the world remains armed against itself, it at least need be divided no longer in its clear knowledge of who has condemned humankind to this fate.
The purpose of the United States, in stating these proposals, is simple and clear.
These proposals spring, without ulterior purpose or political passion, from our calm conviction that the hunger for peace is in the hearts of all peoples--those of Russia and of China no less than of our own country.
They conform to our firm faith that God created men to enjoy, not destroy, the fruits of the earth and of their own toil.
They aspire to this: the lifting, from the backs and from the hearts of men, of their burden of arms and of fears, so that they may find before them a golden age of freedom and of peace.
I wonder what the "third" was in C.I.'s post?
Ican's experiments reminds me of philosophy and logic class many long years ago:
"The eyeglasses are on the table."
"The eyeglasses are on Foxfyre."
"Therefore, Foxfyre is a table."
Foxfyre wrote:Ican's experiments reminds me of philosophy and logic class many long years ago:
"The eyeglasses are on the table."
"The eyeglasses are on Foxfyre."
"Therefore, Foxfyre is a table."
My God, that's it. Precisely.
I will now go back and read each of ican's posts with an anticipation that I will receive their deeper meaning in my newly-enlightened mind.
<sarcasm off>
No I won't.
Actually I think Ican's theory that started this phase of 'um' theorizing, is fascinating and I'm still thinking about how it might be answered:
Ican wrote:
Quote:I'd like to test a theory, but don't know how.
My theory is:
A majority, perhaps all, of those who are members of red-state majorities or members of blue-state minorities (call them rednecks) reason from assumptions to conclusions, while a majority, perhaps all, of those who are members of blue-state majorities or members of red-state minorities (call them bluenecks) reason from conclusions to assumptions.
In other words, I'm theorizing that rednecks try to induce conclusions from evidence, while bluenecks try to deduce evidence from conclusions.
Simple examples:
John slandered his colleagues, therefore John is a slanderer.
George is a liar, therefore George lied.
How can a redneck test that theory?
How can a blueneck refute that theory?
ican,
in everything that I quoted from you
here, all you've provided are your speculations about Ansar al Islam, al Qaeda, and Saddam which are themselves based on questionable evidence, Powell's UN speech and the 9/11 commission report.
You make a logical leap when you say "Saddam tolerated AaI al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq and thereby harbored them there." All the "evidence" available refers to "indications of tolerance," which is itself an interpretation of questionable evidence perused by the 9/11 commission. They also use the phrase "may even have helped." You base your statement that "Saddam tolerated AaI al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq and thereby harbored them there" therefrom. That is a leap of logic.
Also, you make a logical leap when you say "Saddam tolerated AaI al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq and thereby harbored them there, because he did not request the US, who Saddam knew didn't want them there, to remove AaI al Qaeda"
You make yet another logical leap when you say "Saddam tolerated AaI al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq and thereby harbored them there, because he did not request the Kurds, who Saddam knew didn't want them there, to remove AaI al Qaeda"
Ditto when you say "Saddam tolerated AaI al Qaeda encamped in northern Iraq and thereby harbored them there, because he did not pass-the-buck to the US to remove them."
Where's your evidence that Saddam had an ability to remove Ansar al Islam from northern Iraq?
Just the facts mam ......
The cost of war
revel wrote:Ican, the purpose of the no fly zones was to protect the Kurds. If Saddam could not fly there to attack, why would he be able walk there to attack? He would have to argue the case about the "critters" to show cause for going into the protected area or else we would have seen it as a hostile action. That only makes common sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds
Quote: Kurdish regions during the 1990s had de-facto independence, with fully functioning civil administrations, and were protected by the US-enforced Iraqi no-fly zone which stopped Iraqi air attacks.
It seems to me since the area was under our protection we were responsible for the critters.
nice work, briar ! and a happy new year ta y'all down home !
break out the cracklins !
back at ya, dtom.
hey, go over to "i want america to lose" and see if you see any slurs about KY. probably my imagination.
try not to pay attention to anything else.
:wink:
dyslexia wrote:socrates is rolling over in his grave
I checked with him this morning. He's not in his grave and he's not rolling over. He is laughing.
Oh no, I think I have wandered into the allegory of the political theater, the curtain is up and the screen has, wait it's shadow puppets, and they are showing slides and 8x10 glossies of WoMD (circles and arrows on the back) exact locations as well as intentions. By, Oh no again, my head is held in place by the liberal media so I can't see the big light in the eastern sky is really the light of swamp gas rising over the Potomic.
cicerone imposter wrote:The Chance for Peace
By Dwight Eisenhower
April 16th, 1953
In this spring of 1953 the free world weighs one question above all others: the chance for a just peace for all peoples.
To weigh this chance is to summon instantly to mind another recent moment of great decision. It came with that yet more hopeful spring of 1945, bright with the promise of victory and of freedom. The hope of all just men in that moment too was a just and lasting peace. ...
Do you understand how this speech applies to current conditions in the world? Hint: Begin your understanding by substituting these words shown here in darkred
al Qaeda and those that willingly harbor them for these words shown here in boldblack
Soviet Union. Then try to understand particularly this part of Eisenower's speech amended as I have recommended.
Quote:The free nations, most solemnly and repeatedly, have assured the al Qaeda and those that willingly harbor them that their firm association has never had any aggressive purpose whatsoever. al Qaeda and those that willingly harbor them leaders, however, have seemed to persuade themselves, or tried to persuade their people, otherwise.
And so it has come to pass that the al Qaeda and those that willingly harbor them itself has shared and suffered the very fears it has fostered in the rest of the world.
This has been the way of life forged by 8 years of fear and force [1996-2004].
What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on this dread road?
The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated.
The worst is atomic war.
The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the al Qaeda and those that willingly harbor them or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.
dyslexia wrote:Oh no, I think I have wandered into the allegory of the political theater, the curtain is up and the screen has, wait it's shadow puppets... I can't see the big light in the eastern sky is really the light of swamp gas rising over the Potomic.
You did that wandering when you claimed: "socrates is rolling over in his grave." I bet we differ over who or what is the true source of that "swamp gas."
Iraqi officials and members Iraq's Independent Electoral Commission appear to be in growing disagreement over the advisability of holding elections in the country as scheduled on January 30. On Monday, Iraqi Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan suggested in Cairo that a postponement might allow Sunni parties who have withdrawn to participate in the process in a better security environment. Other officials later echoed his views, also emphasizing the importance of better security for Sunni voters. Members of the country's electoral commission, however, say they reamin committed to the January 30 date despite growing violence, and senior American officials Tuesday supported that commitment even as the district governor of Baghdad was assassinated in a automobile ambush.
Quote:Calls to Postpone Iraqi Elections Grow
RAWYA RAGEH
Associated Press
BAGHDAD, Iraq - More Iraqi interim government officials are calling for the postponement of Jan. 30 elections to ensure a higher Sunni voter turnout, a sign that a campaign of violence might be taking its toll on Iraqi resolve. The country's electoral commission, however, insists that voting take place as scheduled.
Sunni Arab clerics have called for a boycott and Iraq's largest Sunni political party announced it was pulling out of the race because of poor security that has seen insurgents kill scores of Iraqi security forces, as well as several election officials, in recent weeks.
On Tuesday, gunmen killed the governor of the Baghdad province, Ali al-Haidari, and six of his bodyguards in an ambush of his convoy in the Iraqi capital, officials said. Al-Haidari was the highest-ranking official killed since the former president of the now defunct Governing Council, Abdel-Zahraa Othman, was assassinated in May.
The White House condemned the assassination Tuesday, acknowledging security "challenges" but sticking firm to Iraq's timetable for elections.
"For much of the country, the situation is secure enough to move forward on holding elections," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "There are a few areas that we're continuing to work to improve the security situation, so those areas will be able to have as full a participation as possible in elections."
The spokesman confirmed that Bush spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi on Monday, but said the two leaders did not discuss postponing the vote.
They focused on "some of the ongoing challenges as Iraq moves forward toward a free, democratic and peaceful future," McClellan said.
Several proposals have been floated lately to counter the threat of a low Sunni turnout that would undermine the legitimacy of the vote - the country's first free elections since monarchy in 1958. Iraqis are to choose a legislative assembly to draft a constitution.
Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan told reporters in Cairo Monday that he has asked Egypt to try to persuade the Sunnis to participate in the elections.
"And if they agreed, then we could postpone the date to let all Iraqis go to the polls in one day," he said.
It is not clear, however, who the Egyptians would negotiate with - or if they would in fact take up the offer - in the absence of a definitive Sunni leadership in Iraq that parallels the hierarchal Shiite religious authority. The Egyptian government, known for its crackdown on its own Muslim Brotherhood movement, is also likely to refuse to hold talks with a party like the Iraqi Islamic Party that withdrew from the race to convince it to reverse its decision.
Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations suggested the election could be delayed by two or three weeks. In an opinion piece in The Washington Post last week, Samir al-Sumaidaie proposed that idea and a host of others, including reserving some seats for groups who do poorly if their supporters don't vote - a clear reference to the Sunnis.
Al-Sumaidaie suggested a number of seats could be left vacant for the Sunni provinces, where elections could be held after Jan. 30.
"Such a solution would have the merit of satisfying all those who want elections as soon as possible, thus denying terrorists a victory while producing a legitimate elected government that could focus on stabilizing the country," he wrote.
But Fareed Ayar, a spokesman for the Independent Electoral Commission, seemed adamant there would be no delay.
"The commission is still working on holding the elections on its scheduled time and according to the timetable we have," Ayar said Monday.
Commenting on the floating proposals to postpone the elections, including the defense minister's, Ayar said the commission has not been officially notified of any such ideas.
"We read and hear about those statements in the newspapers and the media like others, but we have not formally received anything," Ayar said.
The Shiite leaders, who are backed by Iraq's most influential cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, reiterated the Shiite's staunch stance on going ahead with the elections as scheduled, saying postponing the vote would only create more chaos.
Shiite leaders of the Unified Iraqi Alliance, a mainstream Shiite coalition running in the election and one that is expected to do very well, reached out to Sunni Arabs on Sunday. The group called for talks to avert sectarianism and civil war.
Cairo-based political analyst Wahid Abdel Meguid downplayed calls for postponing the elections to reach out to Sunnis, saying such attempts "do not matter much in the Iraqi political arena, where the powerful players, namely the Shiite leadership is insistent on holding the elections on time."
"It is a last try, and it could be sincere," Abdel Meguid said. "But it pales amid the majority's stance."
A U.S. embassy spokesman said there has been no talk between the Americans and Iraqi officials on delaying the vote.
"Everything we do in this embassy is to support the Iraqis to have free, fair and inclusive elections on Jan. 30 of this year," Bob Callahan said. "We expect that there will be elections on Jan. 30 and only on Jan. 30 and that the result of those elections would be recognized and honored. That's what the law calls for ... and that's precisely what we're working toward."
Iraqi fundamentalists have taken up al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden's claim, made a week ago, that elections are un-Islamic because democracy means the people, not God, are in charge.
Source
