That, if true (which I don't know) would be a PERFECT example.
Interesting, now I have a question.
Why is experience on that scale needed?
Max, apparently, there are at least 2 experts that don't agree with your assessment of the situation:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2588520
And here's an article that describes the extent of the damage:
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=449742003
As for helping win the peace, I do my part every day, and it doesn't include making excuses for the mistakes of the Bush administration.
Good question, Craven.
I would like to read an analysis of what exactly Halliburton will be doing, and why it's the only company in the world (with the exception of the French company) that can do it.
Timber, is it possible to combine reasoned, informed principle and impassioned, ideologically defined agenda?
BTW, what's wrong with having an ideologically defined agenda? It seems to me all politics start out this way.
I imagine this article must affect Conservatives similar to the effect that Ann Coulter has on Liberals.
Violet Lake wrote:The "winners" in this war don't need to be vilified for one to recognize them as villains. Their actions speak for themselves.
Sorry, Violet Lake, but I do not believe that the facts that are being publicized in the article, are true. I have some experience with the Soviet media (I was a Soviet citizen in 1963-90), and majority of the Soviet period journalists continued their careers in the post-Communist editions; their mentality did not change. In 1917-91 they wrote what the party leaders wanted from them, now they serve requirements of their direct employers (majority of the latter being in the past mid-level Communist officials).
And I am srtrongly surprised with your calling your own compatriots "villains" with such an easiness. BTW, I do not call the servile journalists that are my former compatriots, villains: they act in accordance with their idea of loyalty.
NH, the "primer" article quoted by Violet Lake, is taken from the Moscow Times online edition.
I dunno about "The Coulter Effect", Violet ... Anne doesn't throw Mrs Timber into giggle fits. As to imapassioned ideologic agenda, well, I'm afraid I see it as pretty much exclusive of logic or reason, whether it be from The Left or The Right. I perceive you have two aims here ... one, to make a political statement yourself, which you have done. Two, to stir up a controversy. In that the respondants to this thread so far appear not particularly receptive to the proposition you offer, it appears on that count you've met with rather less than success. As the membership of this board has a distinct leftward lean, that may be telling.
As to impropriety in the selection of Bechtel for reconstruction work, apart from the firm's global lead in experience and capability in the field, there is the consideration that Bechtel originally built much of the petro-infrastructure of Iraq, and thus is uniquely suited to repair it. There also is the fact Bechtel already has considerable presence in the area, with ongoing projects in several neighboring states ... something which gives them pre-existing liason to the related firms and subcontractors of the region. Finally, from the last two lines of the Reuters article you cited, perhaps the most damning indictment of your assertion:
"Thompson believes the U.S. government procurement system is already one of the least corrupt and most heavily regulated in the world.
"The assertion that Bechtel won because of its connection obviously raises the question of why other companies with connections didn't win," he said."
Craven--
Since you referred to my succinct response to the article ( BS), I felt you were addressing me with that post.
I have seen others respond with very short, to-the-point words or phrases, and not be pushed to explain further.
I would like to be treated like they are treated, and allowed to post my opinion, whether it be a long, thoughtful treatment of the subject, or a simplified one word response.
________________________
This caught my eye:
BTW, what's wrong with having an ideologically defined agenda? It seems to me all politics start out this way.
________________________
To me, this is what is wrong with American politics- This is the Birth Mother of Spin, lies and division. Look at the issue with fairness and make sense of it, instead of scrambling through the DNC or RNC talking points to discover what you are SUPPOSED to think. Ideologically defined sounds like sending an issue through the filter of a certain brand name of political party.
It's like this Halliburton discussion. The Dems know they should accuse and oppose over this-- but they don't know the facts. Many times, it seems they don't want to know the facts, if it interferes with their ability to accuse the Republican party of something.
Please trade out ideologically defined, with defined by what's right or best or most sensible.
Sofia, you don't think the current administration has an ideologically defined agenda?
It seems to me all politics START out this way. That is, before negotiating, compromising, etc...
Everyone comes to the table with an agenda. The person might think it's right, best or most sensible, but to the other side it might seem like an ideologically defined agenda. Look at the folks on both side of the abortion issue as an example.
Timber, if you like I can dig up some Ann Coulter that will surely entertain your wife
About my "aims". I only have 1 - to have a challenging discussion. Sometimes it's worth putting yourself at a disadvatage in order to make it fun. I think it's been pretty challenging so far.
About Bechtel... I think the company mentioned was Halliburton, not Bechtel.
"Thompson believes the U.S. government procurement system is already one of the least corrupt and most heavily regulated in the world."
One of? So there are others.
No. I think the ideas and policies come first--and then those items define the party, which embraces them.
Like abortion. Most Republicans find abortion to be reprehensible and murder. However, a growing number of Republicans realize overturning R v W would be a sociological mistake. So, the growing number of Republicans, who aren't motivated to change R v W prove that people don't blindly glom onto positions, just because they are their parties' position. Actually, I think the GOP may have dropped that 'plank' due to the changing personal attitudes of the individuals in the party.
Ideology should not drive a party. Sensible policy should. There is enough disagreement with what is most sensible...
When people support ideology for ideologies' sake--some people don't even really believe or understand what they are arguing for-- All reason is cast out. People become like brick walls, refusing to think for themselves. Partisanship at it's worst. Think and vote accordingly. Screw ideology.
IMV, ideology should be defined AFTER honest, thoughtful views are stated. Ideology is a resulting aggregate of beliefs---not a template to smash beliefs into. One is true--one is false.
From the American Century Dictionary:
Ideology - Ideas at the basis of an economic, political, or social theory.
First of all, I don't see anything inherently negative about the word. Second, it seems to me that one arrives at an ideology AFTER investigating the issue(s). Then one takes these "ideas" to the table to negotiate with neighbors that have different "ideas", in order to arrive at a compromise that both sides can live with.
Ideology for ideologies' sake? I don't know what that means, but I imagine that such a characterization can be used to marginalize the opposition's "ideas" & call their intellectual honesty into question.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with arriving at an ideology after investigating the issues. I perceive, however, that not much "Issue" is "Investigated" by the champions of either extreme. I don't see that much is right about endorsing an ideology which simply "Feels Good" in conjunction with one's own personal prejudices and preconvictions. That doesn't equal "Intellectual Honesty" in my book.
Ideology is a good word.
IMV, ideologically driven or defined agenda, reveals close-minded fakery.
But, I can see where others may not come to the conclusion I have.
Ideology for ideology's sake, IMV, means forcing or forwarding your party's views or platforms, while closing your eyes to the possibility that there may be a better way--because you disagree with the ideology of those who may have come upon the better way. In other words--mindless partisanship.
I perceive, however, that not much "Issue" is "Investigated" by the champions of either extreme.
________________________
I agree.
"Mindless partisanship" is an opinion, as well as a judgement of another person's motives. Perhaps it's "mindlessly partisan" to use terms like "mindlessly partisan"... just perhaps
Back to the definitions, this time from Dictionary.com:
Quote:a·gen·da
n.
1. A list or program of things to be done or considered: "They share with them an agenda beyond the immediate goal of democratization of the electoral process" (Daniel Sneider).
2. A plural of agendum.
Again, I don't see the word as inherently negative, not even in conjunction with the words "Ideologically" and "driven". I am aware though that the phrase "ideologically driven agenda" is usually used to marginalize the opposition's "ideas" & call their intellectual honesty into question. It's a facile & meaningless judgement unless you consider the real meanings of the words.
Timber wrote:I don't see that much is right about endorsing an ideology which simply "Feels Good" in conjunction with one's own personal prejudices and preconvictions. That doesn't equal "Intellectual Honesty" in my book.
I agree, and I imagine there aren't many people that would disagree with that.
