Subject:
|
Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 27 May 2005 19:56:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2015 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Someone expressed frank misgivings about the formatting of this post:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=26936
|
That fills me with skepticism
|
Are you on a newsreader? I’ve only ever accessed LUGNET via browser, so the
whole thing’s a mystery to me.
| |
| |
What can I say? The FTX shows up just fine on my browser. But because I am
a kind and generous soul, I am reposting in plain text
|
(reverting to FTX:-)
|
You fool! You’ll kill us all!
One editorial note: When I use Bush’s name in a general sense as in “Bush
invaded Iraq,” of course I don’t mean that Bush himself did it but rather that
he, he and his minions, or his minions did it. This is probably clear in
context, but I wanted to state it outright.
| |
| |
-----repost begins here-----
Here are a few thoughts--not sure how feasible they are, and some will
require greater diplomacy than is currently available to the administration.
1. Get rid of Bush.
His handling of this entire debacle has been nightmarishly inept and
short-sighted. His removal would go a long way toward demonstrating that we
have recognized his many errors and are willing to pursue a course different
from the madness he initiated.
|
He was a known entity when re-elected. You had your chance and muffed it.
Wait until ‘08.
|
He was not a known entity--Bush deliberately withheld information that would
likely have affected voter opinion, he pushed irrelevant ballot measures to pump
up his base, and it is looking increasingly likely that some kind of massive
fraud took place thanks to Diebold et al, specifically in Ohio.
Apologists for Bush tell us to “get over it,” and then they crow that we had our
chance and missed it. Sorry, but that kind of reasoning is self-contradictory.
The only reason we should “get over it” is if it were clearly demonstrated that
no fraud took place, and this hasn’t been done. Therefore the claim that we
missed our chance is premature.
Unfortunately, obedient Republicans have worked very hard to ensure that
independent verification of vote-counts is impossible, so it’s impossible to
“get over it.”
My suggestion still stands.
| |
| |
2. Apologize for our mistakes to date.
Should be self-evident, but it hasn’t happened so far.
|
Specify, and include to whom we should apologize.
|
To the world in general (for undertaking actions that have increased terrorism
around the globe), to the UN (for lying to it and for ridiculing it, all the
while demanding that someone uphold its principles as if we were qualified to do
so), to the detainees (who’ve been held without documented justificaation and
tortured), to the families of the dead Iraqi civilians (whom Bush murdered only
after invading their country illegally).
Those apologies would be good for starters.
My suggestion still stands.
| |
| |
3. State our mission goals clearly.
Why did we start this war? All of the reasons given to date have been shown
to be false, so it looks more and more like our intent is just to kill as
many Muslims as we can. If we have another objective in mind, we should
declare it concretely, and we should articulate a means by which we may
objectively assess our success or failure. An exit strategy would also be
helpful, as would a rough timeframe so that it does not appear to be a
deliberately eternal war.
|
If you really conclude that Bush just wanted “to kill as many Muslims as we
can” then I think you are not using rational and unbiased reasoning.
|
Please reread my paragraph. I don’t claim that Bush wanted to kill Muslims, but
I do suggest that his actions during this war (which was, again, illegal and
poorly organized) become increasingly indistinguishable from a campaign to kill
Muslims.
My suggestion still stands.
| |
| |
4. Eliminate all “crusade” overtones.
That means Boykin and his ilk must be formally censured. That means that
everyone who refers to “our God” or “their God” in the context of this
stupid war must be formally censured. It means that any serviceman or woman
who desecrates a Quran must be formally censured. It means that every public
official involved in the conflict must act and speak with courtesy and
consideration of the differences at play here. Our blindness makes our
national egocentrism indistinguishable from deliberate hostility toward
other cultures.
|
Thank God for the First Amendment. Personal beliefs are different from
government policy. Lay off the thought control, Big Brother.
|
You’re missing the point. Public officials acting as agents of the government
do not have free speech in that capacity, since they represent the government.
Military personnel absolutely do not have free speech.
My suggestion still stands.
| |
| |
5. Act with humility.
It’s bad enough that we lied to get into this war. Dubya’s subsequent
arrogance (and that of his subordinates) has made it impossible to hold the
so-called “Coalition” together, and it certainly hasn’t made us any new
friends in the aftermath of the invasion.
|
Let’s get rid of the “friends” talk. Nations act in their own best
interests, period. It’s just that many nations are finding that they can
have their cake and eat it, too, by letting the US do all of the dirty work,
act indignant about the process, and benefit from the results. A good gig.
|
You’re attempting an obfuscation without addressing my argument. Additionally,
Dubya uses the term “friends” all the time, and I’ve never read a post by you
objecting to his use of it.
My suggestion still stands.
| |
| |
6. Remove corporate profit as an incentive in the theater.
In a true Free market this wouldn’t be a problem, but we’re nowhere near
that market, and government-santioned corporate corruption, waste, and theft
are rampant. Since this was an unprovoked (and, some argue, an illegal war),
the subsequent profiteering only makes the war seem more obviously in the
service of corporate greed. Corporate involvement, if any, should be 100%
transparent and 100% accountable. A for-profit war is nothing but
corporate-run mass murder.
|
This is, of course, impossible. Profit motivation is a non-sequitur, except
to conspiracy theorists, and the whole idea is, in my mind, partisan
vilification and demogoguery.
|
Ad hominem. Even if you reject everything else in suggestion #6, why do you
oppose transparency and accountability? To do so is to give corporations carte
blanche to do anything that they want to do, all while funded by taxpayer money.
My suggestion still stands.
| |
| |
7. Allow broader access to reconstruction contracts.
Though France and Germany opposed our initiation of the war, they shouldn’t
be excluded from the bidding process if they have something to offer.
Narrowing the field to only those who were cajoled into joining our war
makes it seem that the war was intended for (generally American) corporate
profit.
|
I see your point, but it is, in the end, too offensive to consider.
|
Clarification, please?
Until then, my suggestion still stands.
| |
| |
8. Secure the assistance of Arab nations.
This requires more diplomacy than we have, I know.
|
No, you should have said, “this is impossible, I know”, because it is.
|
Clarification, please?
Until then, my suggestion still stands.
| |
| |
Arab nations have been
largely excluded from the shaping and rebuilding of post-war Iraq,
|
Really? What about the ones who are currently aiding and abetting the
terrorists who are trying to reshape and destroy Iraq?
|
You’re engaging in a common Conservative tactic; you ask a question, hoping that
I answer in such a way as to spare you the work of articulating your argument.
Sorry, but you have to generate your own points.
Since the war is still going on, it’s imprecise to apply the term “terrorist”
only to our enemy. Dubya has killed far, far more Iraqis than resistance
fighters have killed, so any complaints about the numbers of dead civilians must
be weighed equally against the US. The fact that you tell yourself that “we’re
doing it to give them freedom” or whatever is irrelevant.
My suggestion still stands.
| |
| |
and our
continued failure to appreciate the extant cultural differences makes their
exclusion all the more costly and apparent.
|
We have welcomed all to our country and are the most tolerant country in the
world. It is they who are intolerant of our culture!
|
Who is we? And what is our culture? You yourself have declared that a culture
war is going on in our fine nation, so clearly we have no one culture that
other nations can be said to oppose.
Until you can articulate your objection with greater specificity, my suggestion
still stands.
| |
| |
Additionally, the inclusion of Arab
nations would further demonstrate that this is not a war to put the middle
east under US rule.
|
Arabs cannot even agree with each other, much less us.
|
That’s kind of a racist statement, as written. Care to reformulate it? Besides
which, I can think of several subjects on which Arabs agree, so your objection
is poorly founded.
Thus my suggestion still stands.
| |
Crikey! To whom? (Puhleese don’t say the UN!)
|
As I wrote (and as you snipped), we should hand the reins over to some other
esteemed member of our broad coalition.
Until you can provide a better refutation, my suggestion still stands.
| |
| |
Despite providing the overwhelming majority of military forces, we are
clearly unable to manage the disaster we have wrought.
|
I disagree with your assessment.
|
I accept that you disagree with it, but that’s meaningless beyond the fact of
your disagreement. If you wish to refute my suggestion, you may do so, but
until you do, my suggestion still stands.
| |
| |
If we truly are part of a
Coalition rather than an Empire (with a few lackey nations), we should be
willing to submit to the authority of another power. No other nation would
command US forces, but the US would not be in charge of the whole quagmire.
|
We tried that, and no one wanted “in”.
|
No one wanted “in” on our illegal war (which was, I remind you, based entirely
on deliberate lies). What kind of sane person or nation would want to be “in”
on such a deceptive war of aggression?
My suggestion still stands.
| |
| |
10. Let them choose the government that they want.
|
They are, under our tutelage.
|
And if they choose a government entirely opposed to our values, will we support
it? Until we have verification that we will support such a result, my
suggestion still stands.
| |
| |
11. Do something about Israel.
No, Israel’s not 100% wrong in all things, and yes, Palestinians are not
without blood on their hands, either. But if we had to pick one thing (other
than cultural imperialism (as opposed to militaristic imperialism)) that
enflames Arab rage against the US, it’s our unwavering support of Israel no
matter how many children they murder or Palestinian families they evict or
walls they build. If we’d only step up and say that Israel has sometimes
acted inappropriately and without matched provocation, we’d increase our
credibility markedly. And we should require them to return our nukes, too.
|
How about pledging 50 mil to the PA? We are on the right track WRT the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
|
Now that you mention it, I have to admit that this pledge utterly stunned me.
It is a good step on the right track, but we have a long way to go. In my view,
we still need to take a harder-line approach to addressing Israel’s violent
actions--at least to a degree proportional to the condemnation we pronounce when
Palestinians resort to violence.
***
I hope that our little exchange has brightened Larry’s Friday afternoon!
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
16 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
