Subject:
|
Re: Repost, for the benefit of those on newsreaders
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 27 May 2005 22:28:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2197 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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.
|
I haven’t used the newsreader since the first years of LUGNET, and not since the
advent of FTX, so it is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma to me as
well.
| |
| |
| |
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!
|
As a feature of my fiendish plot, only those who have faith in the UN will
perish...
| |
| |
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.
|
Please. Bush was rigging elections long before 2004, thus a known entity.
| |
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.
|
Have it your way, Burger King, but I still say it is a waste of time and energy.
Dems should be focusing on the future fate of their party, because it is a mess
from my viewpoint.
| |
| |
| |
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),
|
Since I reject your justification that we are responsible for increased
terrorism around the globe, but rather a force standing up to it, I won’t
apologize to the world in general.
| |
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),
|
I won’t apologize to a farce that is the UN.
| |
to the detainees (who’ve been held without documented
justificaation and tortured),
|
I trust that any treatment given to detainees is either better than they deserve
or justly deserved, and thus won’t apologize to them.
| |
to the families of the dead Iraqi civilians
(whom Bush murdered only after invading their country illegally).
|
I would express deep regret, but I wouldn’t apologize, and I wouldn’t expect
that one would be expected from them, either.
| |
Those apologies would be good for starters.
My suggestion still stands.
|
Instead of handing out blanket apologizes, I’d first see who believes they
deserve one, and go from there.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Fair enough, but I think I have articulated on many occasions why I believe we
went to war, and though I am no spokesperson for anyone, the reasoning is there.
Whether you accept it is a different matter.
| |
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,
|
But that is the point. Unless these people are speaking on behalf of the
United States at the time, personal opinions are exactly that.
| |
since they represent
the government. Military personnel absolutely do not have free speech.
|
As spokespersons. Boykin’s quotation was his, not government policy.
| |
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.
|
Obfuscation is not my intention. Merely because Bush uses the term doesn’t make
it correct. Individuals can be friends, nations can be allies. So, we
shouldn’t “act with humility” as a nation, but act in our best interests as a
nation. As individuals, we should certainly act with humility.
| |
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.
|
Isn’t that the heart of the whole “military-industrial complex” argument? It’s
all about bad, evil, profit-grubbing captains of industry. I reject it all as
class warfare invective.
| |
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.
|
I don’t. I am, as I have stated in the past, no friend of “big business”.
| |
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?
|
I am not thinking about American corporations, but the Americans who work for
them. It is too bitter a pill to offer the American people to farm out
contracts to countries who ridicule them while they make ultimate sacrifices,
especially under the guise of “principle”. It is too much to ask.
| |
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?
|
Replace your “This requires more diplomacy than we have, I know”, with my “This
is impossible, I know”.
| |
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.
|
I don’t argue from a playbook, but my point is: Arabs terrorists are currently
engaged in shaping post-war Iraq by attempting to thwart democracy there.
| |
Since the war is still going on, it’s imprecise to apply the term “terrorist”
only to our enemy.
|
But why? Our enemy targets innocent civilians.
| |
Dubya has killed far, far more Iraqis than resistance
fighters have killed,
|
Look, I flatly reject your equivocation of innocents unintentionally killed in
war and targeted innocents by terrorists. You may find the distinction lost,
but it makes all of the difference to me.
| |
so any complaints about the numbers of dead civilians
must be weighed equally against the US.
|
Then I must insist that you include the 1,000s who would have continued to be
killed and tortured under a SH regime left intact. You lose the numbers game.
| |
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?
|
The United States of America.
It is what it is.
| |
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.
|
It is a war of values. Other nations oppose Capitalism, but mostly they
oppose our values. I object to the alarming loss of values in our country.
But I work to instill and restore good values, not incinerate those with whom I
disagree.
| |
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?
|
I was speaking more in a historical context. Many Arabs envision a theocratic
Muslim world society, and thus have no basis for agreement with us whatsoever,
and perhaps never will. Until Arab countries are run by their people for their
people, I will regard them with suspicion.
| |
Besides which, I can think of several subjects on which Arabs agree, so your
objection is poorly founded.
|
I can only think of one-- hatred of the Jews.
| |
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.
|
The point is mute-- no one would take them.
| |
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.
|
I disagree with your assertment that the situation is a “disaster”, because it
isn’t a “disaster”, and the impetus is on you to show that it is, because it is
your claim.
| |
| |
| |
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).
|
That fact is not established, or Bush would have been impeached by now. No, the
fact is that everyone believed the “facts” to be true, and therefore no one is
in the position to point a finger, lest they be guilty of hypocrisy.
| |
What kind of sane person or nation would want
to be “in” on such a deceptive war of aggression?
|
None, because it was never that. Need I remind you that even the UN believed SH
was hiding WMDs.
| |
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?
|
Which values are we talking about? Even if they choose to become a peaceful
theocracy, which is anti-thetical to our system, I’d have no problem with it.
As long as they respect other nations and oppose those who don’t, I’m fine.
| |
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 believe that the tempering of Palestinian aggression will ipso facto bring
about a decline of Israeli aggression, and peace will spiral from that.
JOHN
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
