Bush on iraq...(here we go again.)
- Thread starter Esquire M Busterbury
- Start date
Perhaps I'm out of line here, I don't think so, but if I am, please slap me in the forehead.
This was a rare thing, a civil and intelligent discussion about a subject around which opinions have solidified to granitic levels. I have no personal animus towards George W. Bush. I think he's utterly and completely incompetent to hold the Office of President, but I don't hate the man. I understand the sentiment behind the anti-Bush rhetoric, but the problem in the country I served and love goes far beyond Bush. The two-word bumper sticker mindset is part of the problem. Both parties have certainly benefitted from it. The Republicans might have developed it, but the Dems are figuring it out. The only loser is our Republic.
The kind of discussion we had going was what it's going to take to make a positive change in the nation. Not one, of course, but millions of them. There are situations where talking won't matter. When goals and needs are so different as to be mutually exclusive, talking about them can't get you anywhere. We're not there yet. Us willing, we won't go there again. Yes, that's "us" willing, not "God." He/She/It/They/Null isn't going to help. We've got to do it.
Stepping down from the soapbox, covered in foam...
--Shannon
This was a rare thing, a civil and intelligent discussion about a subject around which opinions have solidified to granitic levels. I have no personal animus towards George W. Bush. I think he's utterly and completely incompetent to hold the Office of President, but I don't hate the man. I understand the sentiment behind the anti-Bush rhetoric, but the problem in the country I served and love goes far beyond Bush. The two-word bumper sticker mindset is part of the problem. Both parties have certainly benefitted from it. The Republicans might have developed it, but the Dems are figuring it out. The only loser is our Republic.
The kind of discussion we had going was what it's going to take to make a positive change in the nation. Not one, of course, but millions of them. There are situations where talking won't matter. When goals and needs are so different as to be mutually exclusive, talking about them can't get you anywhere. We're not there yet. Us willing, we won't go there again. Yes, that's "us" willing, not "God." He/She/It/They/Null isn't going to help. We've got to do it.
Stepping down from the soapbox, covered in foam...
--Shannon
" Both parties have certainly benefitted from it. The Republicans might have developed it, but the Dems are figuring it out. The only loser is our Republic."
The phrase "both parties" is the problem. There is no difference between the Dems and Reps. It's a false paradigm to keep the masses watching one hand while the "magic trick" is performed with the other hand. I agree our Republic, and us, is the loser. Disliking Bush is not a Dem v. Rep thing, it's more like awake v. asleep.
badbob
The phrase "both parties" is the problem. There is no difference between the Dems and Reps. It's a false paradigm to keep the masses watching one hand while the "magic trick" is performed with the other hand. I agree our Republic, and us, is the loser. Disliking Bush is not a Dem v. Rep thing, it's more like awake v. asleep.
badbob
Esquire M Busterbury
Moderator
Hey gary, why delete the phrase? Does it not apply today, moreso than ever? Ever watch that movie, "Why we fight"? Has a lot of his exit speech and the sincere look of worry on his face, presumably over things to come, is almost chilling.
And polymer, both of them being bonesmen and being the only two people who could have been possibly elected was just a coincidence, Kerry himself said so...But on an unrelated note, how does one arrange to have the Dem AND Rep party nods given to their selected people? Can someone with more knowledge in this area break it down for me?
And polymer, both of them being bonesmen and being the only two people who could have been possibly elected was just a coincidence, Kerry himself said so...But on an unrelated note, how does one arrange to have the Dem AND Rep party nods given to their selected people? Can someone with more knowledge in this area break it down for me?
I'm guessing that a lot of (younger) members probably wouldn't recognize/understand it. And I'm not sure it applies to the military at least like it did in the 60's/70's. I would label it more of a "politico-petro" complex. And no, I didn't see the movie, but I'll check it out.
Esquire M Busterbury
Moderator
What about today, when compared to the 60's & 70's, hasn't only grown larger and more direct?
And althought not referring to the 'complex', I thought this quote was interesting...
"We're not a democracy. It?s a terrible misunderstanding and a slander to the idea of democracy to call us that. In reality, we're a
plutocracy: a government by the wealthy."
-Ramsey Clark
Former U.S. Attorney General
And althought not referring to the 'complex', I thought this quote was interesting...
"We're not a democracy. It?s a terrible misunderstanding and a slander to the idea of democracy to call us that. In reality, we're a
plutocracy: a government by the wealthy."
-Ramsey Clark
Former U.S. Attorney General
Esquire. Say you and someone else is running for public office and you're at each others throats. Suppose I financed both sides of the campaign (secretly of course). One of you has to win and the winner will be beholden to me. In my pocket, so to speak. I win either way. That's assuming a fair election. This link shows a different scenario. http://politics.netscape.com/viewst...://alternet.org/blogs/video/40755/&frame=true
badbob
badbob
Esq.
From my perspective/in my opinion there are two differences. I don't see the complicity of the Military. I also don't see the involvement or at least as much involvement by the Defense Industry. I think the complicity is between the petroleum industry and the politicians. My main argument? Look at the number of former petro-zecutives that are in power: Bush, Cheny, Rice, and the guy who heads up the environmental "section" at the White House, are the ones that I know of.
As much as I do not care for Michael Moore's films, Fahrenheit 911 did tie together a number of interesting points concerning this Administration and the oil industry, that has to make you wonder.
In 1999 Cheny gave this speech at the London Institute of Petroleum.
http://www.energybulletin.net/559.html
A particularly telling statement from the speech is this one:
Although not directly on topic I also liked this statement:
In regards to being a plutocracy I guess by definition Clark's right. From what I understand most of the members of the House and Senate are millionaires.
badbob
That's an interesting video, and a good one to watch. But I'm not shocked or surprised. there's going to be voter fraud as long as there are votes. Paper is no guarantee. The 1960 presidential election (which was closer than the 2000 election by the way; by some reports Nixon had actually won) was a prime example. People voting more than once, dead people voting, etc. And why would you have to finance both campaigns secretly? Special interest groups contribute to both sides of campaigns openly all the time.
What I thought was interesting was the other clip on that page.
http://alternet.org/blogs/video/41048/
If Field Marshall Rumsfeld wants to see one of the reasons people are turning against the war, he should look in the mirror.
From my perspective/in my opinion there are two differences. I don't see the complicity of the Military. I also don't see the involvement or at least as much involvement by the Defense Industry. I think the complicity is between the petroleum industry and the politicians. My main argument? Look at the number of former petro-zecutives that are in power: Bush, Cheny, Rice, and the guy who heads up the environmental "section" at the White House, are the ones that I know of.
As much as I do not care for Michael Moore's films, Fahrenheit 911 did tie together a number of interesting points concerning this Administration and the oil industry, that has to make you wonder.
In 1999 Cheny gave this speech at the London Institute of Petroleum.
http://www.energybulletin.net/559.html
A particularly telling statement from the speech is this one:
Bear in mind this was in '99 before he became VP.
Although not directly on topic I also liked this statement:
He ain't changed much.
In regards to being a plutocracy I guess by definition Clark's right. From what I understand most of the members of the House and Senate are millionaires.
badbob
That's an interesting video, and a good one to watch. But I'm not shocked or surprised. there's going to be voter fraud as long as there are votes. Paper is no guarantee. The 1960 presidential election (which was closer than the 2000 election by the way; by some reports Nixon had actually won) was a prime example. People voting more than once, dead people voting, etc. And why would you have to finance both campaigns secretly? Special interest groups contribute to both sides of campaigns openly all the time.
What I thought was interesting was the other clip on that page.
http://alternet.org/blogs/video/41048/
If Field Marshall Rumsfeld wants to see one of the reasons people are turning against the war, he should look in the mirror.
Last edited:
Maybe you didn't recognize it because you don't understand basic logic. I most assuredly did bust that "rationale" upstream. However, I will do so again and spell it out so you can play along.
"We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here"
Translation:
"We fight them there therefore we don't have to fight them here"
Or an even simpler postulate: If they are fought there, then they do not have to be fought elsewhere".
Taken in conjunction with the statement that they are "being fought there" means that the statement "they do not have to be fought elsewhere" must be true.
When we throw in the inconvenient facts that we do indeed fight them elsewhere (including here), we run head-on into a false-choice paradox.
Boolean algebra 101: A statement is either true or false. Here you're trying to say that "we don't have to fight them here" (referred to as statement "A") while simultaneously saying "we do have to fight them here"(referred to as statement A').
Read algebraically, A*A' (statement A and it's opposite).
Boolean analysis yields the answer to this: 0. False statement. Or, as I like to say, thoroughly busted.
I'm sure you'll find this post equally silly and insulting. The problem's on your end. Don't post irrational arguments and I won't destroy them.
Esquire M Busterbury
Moderator
Burn.