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

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think you need to re-read 1984 if you think it has no relevance to today's events, McG. And it's not about hate. It's about sorrow. Completely different.

No, it's not about sorrow. It is about fear. It is about how fear can be employed to achieve conformity in aspirations, thought and action, independent of the real consequences of that conformity. Our reality in the 21st century is that if we fail to successfully defend ourselves against those who seek to destroy us and/or our culture, those of us who conform and survive will end up in 2084 global concentration camps.

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

WAR IS PEACE (The War on Terror)

WAR ON TERROR IS A PREREQUISITE TO PEACE.
The war on terror is an attempt to win freedom from terror.

Piffka wrote:

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY (Patriot Act II)

THE PATRIOT ACT IS A PREREQUISITE TO SECURING OUR FREEDOM.
The Patriot Act seeks to provide our government ways to secure our liberty to honorably improve ourselves.

Piffka wrote:

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH (Anti-Science Rhetoric)

IGNORANCE STRENGTHENS OBEDIANCE TO THE IGNORANT.
Anti-science rhetoric stifles scientific progress.

0 Replies

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
He needs to mention OBL EVERY GODDAMN DAY!!!

Why? To accomplish what?

To keep us focused on it. To show the world where our priorities lie. To show Americans that we have not forgotten those who attacked us.

We have lost sight of the real target in order to attack the political one.

Bush mentions Saddam several times a week, despite the fact that we've already caught him. What does that tell you about where his priorities lie? His thoughts? Remember, this is the man who in many ways dictates our policies, and has a great ability to focus Capitol Hill and the media simple BY mentioning things over and over.

It tells us that his thoughts are no longer concerned with OBL. This takes him out of the discussion on the hill, out of the media. Out of people's conversations and minds who take their cues from the president and trust him to make the right decisions for America.

Quote:

Progress toward that goal cannot be meaningfully achieved until those attempting to sabotage the governments in both countries are killed or incarcerated.

I think you really need to study how humans react and behave in group situations. I also think you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that those resisting the governments in Iraq (and probably Afghanistan) are someone other than the citizens of that country.

Do you really believe you can achieve peace through killing or incarcerating everyone who disagrees with you? That no matter WHAT your policies are, they are just, as long as you can kill or incarcerate anyone who disagrees with you?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

No, it's not about sorrow. It is about fear. It is about how fear can be employed to achieve conformity in aspirations, thought and action, independent of the real consequences of that conformity. Our reality in the 21st century is that if we fail to successfully defend ourselves against those who seek to destroy us and/or our culture, those of us who conform and survive will end up in 2084 global concentration camps.

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing here. I am referring to McG's reference to 'Liberal Hate.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

I'm more than that, I know I am...at least ....I think I must be........

October 12, 2002
The Politics of Fear

by CAROL NORRIS

Quote:

The first time I heard the now-famous, over-used slogan "either you're with us or against us," I thought it was one of the most inane, xenophobic lines I'd ever heard. Frankly, as an American, I was embarrassed. I had an incredible urge to write a blanket apology to the people the world over.

...

Carol Norris is a psychotherapist and freelance writer. She can be contacted at [email protected]

This is truly an outstanding essay.

So which fears shall be controlling?

On one side, it's the fear of further enraging those who seek to kill us.

On the other side, it's the fear of being killed by those who seek to kill us.

On one side, it's the fear of the disapproval of our fellows.

On the other side, it's the fear of the approval of our fearful fellows.

On one side, we fear our President's intentions.

On the other side, we fear those who fear our President's intentions.

What shall we do?

I say let's discuss alternate ways to moderate those fears. Perhaps one way to do that is to discuss better ways to solve our real problems rather than better ways to criticize the intentions of others.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

He needs to mention OBL EVERY GODDAMN DAY!!!

Quote:
Why? To accomplish what?

To keep us focused on it. To show the world where our priorities lie. To show Americans that we have not forgotten those who attacked us.

Ok, I now agree with you on this point.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think you really need to study how humans react and behave in group situations. I also think you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that those resisting the governments in Iraq (and probably Afghanistan) are someone other than the citizens of that country.

They are both citizens and non-citizens according to the Iraqis themselves.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Do you really believe you can achieve peace through killing or incarcerating everyone who disagrees with you? That no matter WHAT your policies are, they are just, as long as you can kill or incarcerate anyone who disagrees with you?

Why the hyperbole? I don't think anything of the kind. Rather I think only those sabotaging the reconstruction of Afganistan and Iraq ought to be killed or incarcerated. The billions of others who merely disagree with me are ok by me.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing here. I am referring to McG's reference to 'Liberal Hate.'

I'm referring to your characterization of what "1984" is about.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think you need to re-read 1984 if you think it has no relevance to today's events, McG. And it's not about hate. It's about sorrow. Completely different.

ican711nm wrote:

No, it's [1984] not about sorrow. It is about fear. It is about how fear can be employed to achieve conformity in aspirations, thought and action, independent of the real consequences of that conformity. Our reality in the 21st century is that if we fail to successfully defend ourselves against those who seek to destroy us and/or our culture, those of us who conform and survive will end up in 2084 global concentration camps.

0 Replies

Quote:

The state needs a permanent enemy, preferably in an endless war that cannot be won. It's Gaddafi. It's Ho Chi Minh. It's Noriega. It's Bin Laden. It's Afghanistan. It's al Quaida. It's North Korea. It's somewhere out there. That's where the enemy is. They're coming to get us. We must build more warplanes, tanks, bombs.

I just want you to realise that most of the rest of the world sees America as a reckless warmongering state, ill-led and out of control. Scornful of international laws and treaties, selfish, wasteful and stupid. Pursuing a current course that cannot result in the world becoming a better place.

The Soviet Union served us as a permanent enemy for quite a few years. You are correct in that we need an enemy. It only gets scarier as we become more paranoid. I know from talking to many friends and correspondents abroad that we are seen as you describe us: greedy, selfish, totally self-interested in spite of our continuing avowal that we are more purely motivated than the saviour.

In removing ourselves from the world conversation, we have lost wisdom and alliances. But the very worst thing we have done is inspire the desire, the seeming need, and the actual development of nuclear weapons by some nations whose self-interest can no longer be found in alliance with the US. These nations perhaps see themselves as if they were Iraq, stripped of weapons by inspection and thus unable to defend themselves against an agressor. If we had only let the inspection and containment game play itself out, as diplomacy has done for centuries, we could have calmed other countries who were looking fearfully at their neighbors and needed to see that time and talk would work.

0 Replies

Uh huh ....... Okedoke ...doh ...........

CENTCOM NEWS RELEASE
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND
7115 South Boundary Boulevard
MacDill AFB, Fla. 33621-5101
Phone: (813) 827-5894; FAX: (813) 827-2211; DSN 651-5894
August 20, 2004
Release Number: 04-08-69

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW IRAQI AIR FORCE TAKES FLIGHT

BASRAH, Iraq - The Iraqi air force commenced operations Aug. 18, with the flights of two SB7L-360 SEEKER Reconnaissance Aircraft in "limited operations missions" intended to protect infrastructure facilities and Iraq's borders as part of the Iraqi government's continuing mission to provide peace and security to the citizens of Iraq.

The missions, limited in scope, are intended to serve as follow-on training for the force's pilots while simultaneously supporting the ongoing security mission in the country. Multi-National Force trainers will continue to accompany Iraqi pilots in a support role.

"We are rebuilding the air force, and it is giving us a different responsibility," Iraqi air force Col. Abed (surname withheld for security reasons) said. "These flights are meant to protect the oil installations, power lines and protect our borders from our enemies.

"This is the first move of our air force that will provide security," Abed said. "And this is very essential given the nature of our problems right now inside our country. And we can use them for peaceful missions as well."

The aircraft, single-engine, two-man, high-visibility aircraft fitted with high-resolution surveillance systems, were originally purchased in June in Amman, Jordan. They are the first of an eventual force of ten light aircraft - of similar capability - that will be contracted for by Sept. 21.

The Australian aircraft are capable of providing live observation feedback to ground forces and additionally carry digital video recording hardware and other reconnaissance technology. Their employ will be coordinated with Iraqi and Multi-National Force force efforts on the ground and will eventually include operations all over the country as the government deems necessary.

"Their attitude and training is very good," Coalition Military Assistance Training Team, Chief of Aviation, Group Capt. Neil Jagger said. "And, considering many of the pilots have had limited flying in recent years, their pilot skills are coming along very well," the British Royal Air Force officer said.

The Coalition Military Assistance Training Team is a branch of the Office of Security Transition / Multi-National Security Transition Command - Iraq specifically tasked with assisting the Iraqi government train and equip its armed forces.

"But this is a new concept of flying compared to what they experienced in their old air force," Jagger said. "We're helping to develop their general awareness with everything around them."

Continued operational training will include additional emphasis on map-reading and navigation orientation in the air. The old air force had previously placed more of an emphasis on getting airborne before receiving direction from the ground on operational details and destinations. Pilots have previously undergone instruction in Jordan and began workup training for operations in Iraq Aug. 7. The aircraft are intended to represent an interim capability until future craft and forces are in place to augment the existing structure.

"I like to operate these aircraft because they are peaceful" Abed said, himself a colonel in the former regime's air force having flown MIG-23 jetfighters for 23 years before joining the new air force.

The Iraqi air force currently consists of some 162 servicemen and is slated to reach its initial goal of 502 trained personnel by December 2004.

"Before our mission was very combative to other countries and threatening to other countries," he said. "Now our mission is to serve our country.

"We want to prove that the coalition is not an invading force, but a force that gave us our independence," Abed said.

"And we want to protect that," he added. "This is a new mission for us."

-30-

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

Quote:
The state needs a permanent enemy

Maybe your state needs a permanent enemy. My state doesn't. All it needs to do is secure our liberty. When secure enough, the state can participate in the Olympics and/or other sports.

Kara wrote:
I just want you to realise that most of the rest of the world sees America as a reckless warmongering state, ill-led and out of control. Scornful of international laws and treaties, selfish, wasteful and stupid. Pursuing a current course that cannot result in the world becoming a better place.

This is your opinion serviced by the heasay from others whose opinions are likewise serviced. Most of the rest of the world is too busy emulating our free enterprise system to buy into that stupid polemic. We are hated only by the tyrannical leaders of oppressive states plus France and Germany. We have to excuse France because it got off to a bad start in the late 18th century when its revolution to replace a king with a democracy got short circuited by the then envidious crowd who focused on lopping of heads instead. We should also excuse Germany, because they are genuinely fearful of their rapidly growing kill-the-infidels population.

Kara wrote:
You are correct in that we need an enemy. It only gets scarier as we become more paranoid.
The we in your statement is you not the rest of the US population. It is you and your likeminded acquaintenances who are exhibiting paranoia.

Kara wrote:
If we had only let the inspection and containment game play itself out, as diplomacy has done for centuries, we could have calmed other countries who were looking fearfully at their neighbors and needed to see that time and talk would work.

Your ignorance of history is incredible. WWI, WWII, North Korea, North Vietnam, al Qaeda are not examples of diplomacy playing out the inspection and containment game.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

We are hated only by the tyrannical leaders of oppressive states plus France and Germany.

Could you please give one single example, when the German president Köhler (or before, president Rau) showed anything just similar to hate against the USA?

ican711nm wrote:

We should also excuse Germany, because they are genuinely fearful of their rapidly growing kill-the-infidels population.

You certaily have a lot of sources, proves and examples for that (re: genuinely and rapidly growing kill-the-infidels population !).
Could you please give some, because it is more than interesting for me, since a live here for some decades now without having even known of that.

Thank you.

0 Replies

We shot past each other completely on this one, Icann.

McG wrote:

Quote:

Is that why almost every country in the world has been working on elimination terrorism? You're equating today's events to fictional books in no more relevent today than when they were written except to the bitter few who need something to protest against and spew their hate towards.

Referring to those who take the lesson of 1984. I responded (tho on review a little confusingly, I guess:

Quote:

I think you need to re-read 1984 if you think it has no relevance to today's events, McG.

And it's not about hate. It's about sorrow. (referring to liberal outrage/protest) Completely different.

Muahahah.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

What amazing claptrap (referring to Ican's effort this afternoon GMT).

Hey btw some of that stupid polemic you refer to was written by me.

Ican you are priceless, a kind of national treasure I think.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
We are hated only by the tyrannical leaders of oppressive states plus France and Germany.

Could you please give one single example, when the German president Köhler (or before, president Rau) showed anything just similar to hate against the USA?

Not Kohler. Our neo-lib news media in the US has alleged that a significant portion of the German people hate us. I infer this is incorrect. I am happy to learn that this is incorrect. You are entitled to my full and unequivocal apology. I apologize for my false allegation and for my stupid reliance on the US's neo-lib news media in this instance. I am truly sorry.

ican711nm wrote:

We should also excuse Germany, because they are genuinely fearful of their rapidly growing kill-the-infidels population.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

You certainly have a lot of sources, proves and examples for that (re: genuinely and rapidly growing kill-the-infidels population !). Could you please give some, because it is more than interesting for me, since a live here for some decades now without having even known of that.

Again I apologize. I am truly sorry to have libeled the people of Germany. I am very glad to learn I was wrong. For the second time, I was stupid to rely on the US's neo-lib news media. I promise I will not make that mistake again.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

... Ican you are priceless, a kind of national treasure I think.

0 Replies

ican711nm

No need to apologize - I only asked for sources.

0 Replies

They looted national treasures in Iraq. We should be so lucky. Laughing

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

What amazing claptrap (referring to Ican's effort this afternoon GMT). Hey btw some of that stupid polemic you refer to was written by me.

Speaking of amazing claptrap ...............

1. ?We? know Bush intended from the beginning of his term to invade Iraq, because he talked about Iraq from the begiining of his term of office.

2. ?We? know that Clinton from the beginning intended not to invade Iraq, because Clinton talked about invading Iraq throughout his term of office.

3. ?We? know that Saddam was not harboring al Qaeda both before and after 9/11, because Saddam had no formal agreement with al Qaeda to do that, and Saddam and Osama were merely connected.

4. ?We? know that the whole world hates us, because we abandoned our very successful, 90 year old containment policy for an unjustifiable pre-emption policy.

5. ?We? know Iraq was better off under Saddam than it is now.

6. ?We? know the US is no damn good because it invaded Iraq without UN permission instead of invading Iran without UN permission.

7. ?We? know that Bush is no damn good because the US Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court's efforts to structure a vote recount that would give Gore the presidency.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

ican711nm No need to apologize - I only asked for sources.

Nontheless, I felt the need to apologize. I stupidly believed the New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC on this.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

They looted national treasures in Iraq. We should be so lucky.

Yeah, I'm not yet located in an underground vault like the looted Iraqi national treasures were alleged to be. Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know