<clipped> > Can you at least agree that the lack of liberty and freedom > in the ME is a real and significant part of the root cause of all the hatred > and evil emanating from that region of the world? How do you propose > to solve that problem? And don't even mention the UN, a hotbed for > third-rate dictators if ever there was one.
Leadership by example is the solution you're looking for. When everything is said and done, it is as self-evident and simple as that. > We are not in a position to judge history as its happening, whether > we declare something a smashing success or a crushing failure. Only > the perspective of centuries, detached from political > attachments and passions of the day, are really competent to judge. We can only > speculate. But we do make decisions every step of the way, and what we wind up with is the cumulative result of those decisions, nothing more, nothing less. For some reason this reminds me of Oliver Twist: "whether I am to be master of my own destiny or whether that station will be held by someone else ..." <clipped> > > Why are you so interested in separating the neocons out of the > > discussion? To do that is to change the picture completely. > > Yes, I'm trying to change your picture completely. Your singling them > out as the focus of all that is wrong and evil in the universe is a > gross oversimplification of the truth that neglects a bigger picture > that, in my view, if you had it, you would have a more sober view of > a.) what's really happening (and has been happening since Eden) and > b.) what can be done about it, if anything. You want to keep shifting the frame of reference around in ways that excuse these people, and I'm just not buying it. Sure, human nature is one of opposites, and that fact alone can and has generated libraries full of discussion, but the case in point is the invasion of the ME, it's utter failure, and what to do now. We must do something. Can we agree on that? What I'm saying is that we have an opportunity right in front of us, right now. The recent elections give us a springboard - an excuse, if you will - to turn things around. Most people agree now that they don't want that war. There is more then enough evidence that is was launch based on lies and deceit. I'm saying that by holding the people who did the lying and deceiving accountable, we can show the world that we are capable of self-correction. It will be painful, but nowhere near as painful as a larger war. If we don't do this, then we have to do something else, and therein lies the conundrum that we hear about every day: nobody knows what else to do. > > It's their philosophy, their plan, their actions, and their failure that we're > > talking about in the first place. > > How simple then! > > Actually, no. What was appealing about their plans is what is > appealing of the plans of any self-professed do-gooder: it rings > "true" in our hearts (help the poor, free the oppressed, bring > justice to the wicked, bring comfort to the sick). In this great age > of humanism, where we believe it is in our power to do all these > wonderful things, we allow ourselves to be lead by our heart strings > to do a great many things our heads (if they are allowed to engage > our hearts in real debate) would counsel against. They did everything they could to wrap their mission to establish authority in the ME in an altruistic disguise. But that, and the mission, was a total failure. Why? Because all of the people can't be fooled all of the time. > If the war doesn't bankrupt us, Social Security, or entitlement to > drugs, or any number of ill-conceived, moronically administered > programs by self-proclaimed altruists that we perhaps don't even > foresee will. This is the way of all flesh. These are entirely different discussions that I look forward to AFTER we get ourselves out of that war. Hint: I'll be focused on these machines and their potential to make all the difference we need. > Like all nations that have come and gone, and like every human being > who has ever lived and died---there but by the grace of God we go. > > > If they were not involved, there would > > not have been an invasion in the first place. An analogy would be a > > graphic illustration of Russian history with Stalin painted out of it. > > Why would anyone do that? > > But to equate Stalin to the neo-cons is absurd. What's absurd is to remain ignorant of the real reasons for that invasion. > > We're dealing with deceit on a massive scale. > > By more than just the "neo-cons" if you paid any attention to the > debate over Iraq since 1991. Singling them out to me misses the point. I've identified 3 components that are all represented in the neocons: Big Oil, the MI Complex (the arms merchants), and what I'm calling "soldiers of Israel". > > And I'm not saying we should get a rope out. I don't believe in > > capital punishment. I've already said how I would administer justice > > in this case: the perps would spend the rest of their lives delivering > > personal apologies to each and every family who has suffered a loss at their > > hand. > > > > The things happening in the world that don't exercise your righteous > indignation to such a fever pitch is as telling as the things that do. I have said many times that our attention *should* have been on the blights that face mankind. It's just unbelievable to me that these conditions can actually exist while our attention is being completely stolen by the ME. > > The only thing I hear so far is you don't want any fingers pointed at > > the neocons. > > > > Because you don't listen very well. I'm saying pointing the fingers > at them a.) achieves nothing, and b.) ignores the bigger truth about > human action. If you understood that truth, you would see how > strange your intemperate calls for trials (you know, just to formalize the > conviction you've already rendered based on the flimsiest of > suppositions) seems to me. I'm saying a trial would bring out the truth. > As much as I can agree in principle again that "making the > world safe for democracy" is a foolish venture, and however naked leaders in > both major political parties right now seem to me in terms of coming > up with workable solutions, I also do not see the results so far as > anywhere near as obviously bad as you do. You're stuck on a false premise: that the neocons had altruistic motives. It was nothing of the kind, although it was packaged, prettied up and sold on that basis, it was actually a grab for authority in the ME. And not only did they dupe and degrade America with their mission, they haven't been stopped yet. > I still take heart that 50 mil. people can now vote for their > leaders, and the "insurgents" (terrorists) who now murder women and > children do so, as it were, as the party out of power rather > than the party in power. The scale of the murder in the past eclipses what > they can achieve now with IEDs, or what they could do in the future > if they are allowed to take power again. You're not paying enough attention to what's actually going on over there. Turn off Big Media for a while and spend some time with alternate sources of information. Look at the video clip Helio pointed to earlier today, and then some of the other clips in that library. Read some of the stuff in The Nation, Commondreams, the Huffington Post. It's obvious that MSNBC is really trying to be more balanced, but as yet is staying away from direct confrontation with the neocons, to their great discredit. Heck, just do a search on "neocons" and you'll find tons of information on the subject. Here's just one link off the top page of hits: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html > I still believe that the conflict pales in comparison to the > magnitude of our losses in WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. The size of the war is not as important as it's significance. We have projected to the world that we believe we can solve our problems with our mighty military sword. This is completely and utterly untrue. You don't - and never will - hear the neocons crying for war with Korea. Why? because the ME, not Korea, is what matters to them. Isn't that really, really strange, considering that Korea really does represent the list of reasons that we launched a pre-emptive war to stop? > I think we lost a lot of perspective as a people since then, and our capacity > for sacrifice is nothing like what it was during the "greatest > generation". Maybe that was a myth, and we ought to rewrite the > history of FDR to paint him as no less of a murderer and deceiver > than the neo-cons who got us in this war? After all, a case can be > made he "let" Pearl Harbor happen to justify getting us involved in > that deadly, tragic war. Maybe, like the Islamic militants, the Nazi > threat and atrocities were all cleverly made-up facts designed to > allow our leaders to pursue a secret agenda to put the US in a > position to dominate the world? He certainly did a better job > of than than the neo-cons. History is a very absorbing subject, and it has great relevance to the situation today, but the fact is that FDR isn't alive today, and we're not in a position to go back and change history. We can always understand it better, but what we have here is a major situation that's going on as we speak, and while we can point to lessons of history, as everyone agrees, we have to go forward from here. > How far do you want to take the absurdity? To a court of law. > > That is, until you take into account the influence of "K Street" > > special interests (the elephants in the living room). > Oh, that's right: the JEWS. No more so then to blame all Irish for the IRA. But to deny that "soldiers of Israel" have infiltrated Washington and our information supply is to be ignorant. AIPAC doesn't exist for America's benefit, yet it's got hooks knee-deep into American politics. Did you even read the Mearsheimer/Walt report? Here's another link: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html <clipped> > > The whole line of thinking is flawed because it's rooted in the notion > > that "might makes right", when the opposite is true. > > No, that's not the root of my thinking on any level. If that was > true, why, we'd have no problem with Saddam staying in power. After > all he had the might to keep the peace, basically by > murdering anyone who disagreed with him or threatened his power. I think the opposite > of what you say was true: our policy previously was based on might > makes right, which is why we were able to shall we say look beyond > our democratic principles and make all kinds of compromises for the > sake of political expediency, just to keep the oil a-flowin'. > > The "blood for oil" policy was our previous policy; not the one > introduced by Bush. Big Oil money/power is just one of the bedfellows; likely the smallest. The bigger players are the MI Complex (arms merchants) and the Soldiers of Israel. <clipped> > > There needs to be a trial so the real reasons can be spelled out once > > and for all. Agreed? > > Not yet. At worst I see bad policy implemented in a short-sited way. > At best, I see a noble attempt to get at the root cause of the > problem in the ME (tyranny and oppression of the Arab world by its > Arab leaders) that has been tainted by ugly domestic politics. But they weren't messing with us, we were messing with them. You want the root of the problem, there it is. > I need a lot more evidence before I'm willing to agree. Check out alternative sources of information. There is plenty of evidence already. > I think it would be counterproductive to embark on a political witch hunt until > we have come together as a nation and crafted a policy that is based > on reality and takes a long view of the problem rather than > seeking a quick band aid, as usual. But if we knew how to do that, we wouldn't > seek a feel-good political witch hunt instead. That's the same as saying "no, don't operate, keep throwing band aids on it" > History will judge whether what we did was wise. Right now we need to > focus on the real enemy. That's right, but the enemy within. Iraq didn't launch a war on us, we launched a war on them, and those who pulled it off committed an unbelievably large crime. That it was such a large crime is why many people have such trouble getting their minds around it. > > The real mistake is thinking (again and again!) that any Western > > country is going to decide Iraq's (and the ME's) future. > > I agree. Prior to 9-11 I would have agreed; after 9-11 I doubted the > soundness of not intervening. Now I agree again. At least we agree now. > Incidentally, I voted for the neo-cons and supported the policy. I am > still not sure it was wrong, but I am quite sure it was naive. > > What, should I hang too? Try "embarrassed" on for size, that you could have been so duped. Especially you, with such a big education and all :) > > The way to influence others is through leadership by example. Other > > solutions don't work. We had this force on our side for a long > > time, but we've lost it and now must get it back, or suffer the consequences. > > > > We need to be truer to our republican principles and less > like social engineers who think the world can be fixed by all-powerful > government fiat. > Only then can we get that back. I view a political show-trial as at > best orthogonal to that cause, and at worst counter-productive. Yes. > > We can make sense of problems and come up with reasonable > > solutions, but all bets are off if we're going to allow ourselves to be deceived. > > And I humbly contend the neo-cons and the Iraq war are but > the tip of a huge iceberg, on that score, if not a Pandora's box. > > I'd like to put the people who instituted the welfare state on trial > for keeping poor people dependent on government rather than freeing > them for real from poverty. I'd like to put the people who > instituted the biggest financial boondoggles in American history---fractional > reserve banking, social security, and now prescription drugs---on > trial for bankrupting future generations with unimaginable debt. I'd > like to put free trade economists on trial for deliberately > convoluting the difference between "trade" and "division of labor" > --- how much wealth, present and future, have we lost because > of that idiotic obfuscation! We are still in the birth stages of a whole new age. We can use the tools at our disposal today to solve these problems, but we need the leadership and direction to do so. > But then my rationale side kicks in and says: What's the > point? These people are merely doing the bidding of the folly that's in all our > hearts where human politics is concerned. I'd rather focus on > getting THAT impulse under control. The rest is merely chasing after > band-aids. > > Everything is vanity and vexation of spirit, said the > Philosopher. It is truth. We are victims of the opposites, no doubt about that. Our mission, if we decide to accept it <s>, is to see that goodwill trumps evil. I'll believe we've accepted this mission when we start to talk more about the problems in Africa then the ME. Bill > - Bob _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
