An Image Problem

[patriot]

Survey - America's Image Further Erodes:

In most countries friendly to the United States, only modest percentages have confidence that President Bush will do the right thing in international affairs. People in most countries rate British Prime Minister Tony Blair, French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) more highly than Bush.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=175

[Liokault]

And you are suprised because?

[Liokault]

Also its not an image problem.

Its that Bush is a dumb ass and your all dumb for trusting him.

[Black Jack]

Go find a political forum for this crap.

btw- who gives a **** what other countries think? The polls show he is supported here.

Chirac is a POS and I hope he gets cancer of the balls.

[ewallace]

Its a that Bush is a dumb ass are your all dumb for trusting him.
Now there's a statement that reeks of supreme intelligence. :rolleyes:

[Liokault]

Now there's a statement that reeks of supreme intelligence.

Ah I take it your trying to say that you dont trust him?

[Liokault]

Chirac is a POS and I hope he gets cancer of the balls.

You are wishing cancer on someone who would not attack a country that offered no threat to him? Why does this not suprise me.

[ewallace]

I don't trust any politicians. I was saying that it is funny that you were calling Bush dumb with a sentence that would put a third-grader in special-needs classes.

[jun_erh]

Bush has the force. I'm behind him.

[Liokault]

Hmmm that sentence could have made more sence.....i better go edit it and pretend i was thinking about what i was doing as i wrote it.....DAMB you already quoted it grrrrr.

[ewallace]

No worries mate :)

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Black Jack
btw- who gives a **** what other countries think? The polls show he is supported here.

Same can be said for ANY other country.
Israeli support Sharon.
Palestinians support Arafat.
French support Chirac.

And in EVERY country there are people opposed to their leaders.

So if we shouldn't give a **** what happens in the US, how about the US not giving a **** what happens in other places.

Peace and bliss everywhere.

[Black Jack]

Chirac is a little hatefull queen and France is no friend to the U.S. and if you believe what you are saying about Iraq.....pass the bong.

Chirac is a piece of poo and no matter how hard you polish a piece of poo it will not start to look like a diamond. All that will happen is that you will get crap all over your hands from the polishing.

[Black Jack]

Maybe when certain countries stop f@ckin up, take responsibility and pick up their own litter, then the U.S. could stop being a global mr. fixit.

Everybody hates the top dog.

[Laughing Cow]

BJ.

First of all WHO (not that WHO) appointed the USA Mr Fixit??

Last I checked it is a task you took upon yourself and now complain that you don't like the job and that there is too much work and too little help for your crusade.
;)

Peace and prosperity to all.

[PHILBERT]

Originally posted by Liokault
Also its not an image problem.

Its that Bush is a dumb ass and your all dumb for trusting him.

It's that Bush is a ******* and you're all dumb for trusting him.

That reads better :p.

[Liokault]

Chirac is a little hatefull queen and France is no friend to the U.S. and if you believe what you are saying about Iraq.....pass the bong.


You expect France to do somthing because it wants to be a "friend" to the U.S? How about just doing (or not doing) somthing because its right (or wrong).

For example:

Not invading a country, killing inocents of this country then making this country pay YOU millions to rebuild when this (um....lets just say iraq) counrty on false pretences.

[Christopher M]

If you care about image, maybe you want Britney in office.

If you care about actions, don't worry about image.

[norther practitioner]

2 words....
bigger picture....

[Kristoffer]

It doesn't matter in a hundred years coz we will all die

[Liokault]

In 100 years your sister will be dead. So its ok if I rape her now? No thought not.

[Black Jack]

LC- Why can it not be that WHO. WHO rocks.

I always wanted to be that deaf, dumb, and blind kid who played a mean pinball.

[Becca]

I don't usually join in these political debates, but I had to point out a few ironies here.

Only a truelly nuetral contry would have a nuetral point of veiw. Not even Switzerland is that nuetral, so please stop acting like you are the only one with a good grip on the truth. (I meen everyone.:mad: )

To here someone from a country who still holds colonies by force saying that someone else should keep to themselves is ludicrist. (I meen Liokault.)

Why is it the only common sense, pragmatic responces are comming from Australians?!?!? They're never this coherent about anything but beer.:confused:




:D :D :D Just joking about the Australian comment. The rest, I ment.

[straight blast]

btw- who gives a **** what other countries think?

God bless America eh?

After watching Independance Day, Armageddon and other movies of that ilk I figured out that it's time to stop resisting America. The world would have been destroyed many times without them to save our asses. Just look at WW2!

Seriously much as I am proud of being an Aussie I think I'm going to have to give in the fight to keep some kind of national identity, even if it is a beer drinking thong (footwear) wearing crocodile hunting yobbo. It's just too hard. Just last night on the news I heard an Aussie reporter use the word "faucet" and refer to Autumn as "the fall".

I can assure you that neither of these terms are indigenous to Australia.

So when Aust. becomes the next subject state of America (hopefully in a less violent method than Iraq :D ) I welcome all the American supermen. I personally cannot wait to get my Amerilian passport.

Nah, America is actually quite cool. But you still cannot brew a good beer! ;)

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by straight blast
Nah, America is actually quite cool. But you still cannot brew a good beer! ;)

True words, true words.
:D :D

[Becca]

You have obviously never had Miller Genuin Draft in a bottle.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Becca
You have obviously never had Miller Genuin Draft in a bottle.

And you obviously never had a Budvar Budweiser from the casket.

Actually I had the Miller, pretty commonly sold over here same as "US Budweiser".

For hot summer days I still prefer a good Cider (Hunters Gold miss it) or Two Dogs from down under.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Becca
You have obviously never had Miller Genuin Draft in a bottle.

Miller isn't bad, but come on down here and I could show you a room full of beers that sh!t on Miller.

Now Belgian beers - mmmmmmm. :D

[David Jamieson]

guys, how about we dummy the political threads droning on and on with all the same players, all the same perspectives over and over again.

it's like fillibuster/counter-fillibuster with all this stuff.

we could probably all list who is right of center, center and left of center here by now, and for the most part are well aware of each others political leanings.

It seems that we endlessly go on about this stuff. I have no problem with statements of positions on issues that are important to all of us in a global sense, but, there are many here who haven't ever heard of many of the local politicians that seem to be making it into the fray as late.

Also, these threads usually tend to get nasty. No one here is accountable for what they say due to anonimity ergo, persuasion isn't really a goal or an option.

It's just argument for the sake of argument in many cases.

anyway, i've said my joint. whadda ya think? a little kungfu chit chat instead of wassup with the hills lies?

cheers

[old jong]

Originally posted by Black Jack
.

btw- who gives a **** what other countries think?

That... is the reason why!...

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
guys, how about we dummy the political threads droning on and on with all the same players, all the same perspectives over and over again... we could probably all list who is right of center, center and left of center here by now, and for the most part are well aware of each others political leanings.

I didn't see any politics at all in this thread. Just a bunch of empty slander.

While I realize this slander is meant to represent the "left-of-center" you refer to, I'm saddened for the left that their views might be so readily confused for this.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by norther practitioner
2 words....
bigger picture....

Question:

Whose bigger picture??
I think each country, political & racial group got their own and I don't think that they show the same image.

[ewallace]

Actually, we do brew some pretty good beers, but most are not marketed like a miller or budweiser. Shiner Bock is pretty tasty, and is brewed in a small town not far from here. Most american beer that is mass marketed has little more potency and flavor than water.

BTW, I saw Miss Australia on the Miss Universe pageant tonight. Now there's something to be proud of.

[joedoe]

:D

Miss Australia bringing you a beer before she gave you a BJ - now that would be heaven :D

[Becca]

Rock Bottom Brewery here in Denver makes the best stout I've ever had. But you got to go to the brewery to get it.:)

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Becca
Rock Bottom Brewery here in Denver makes the best stout I've ever had. But you got to go to the brewery to get it.:)

Get yourself to Dublin and visit the Guiness factory. It is well worth the trip.

[Becca]

Irland is #2 on my "places to visit once the kids are out of the house" list. #1 is Japan.

P.S. I don't like the Guiness here. It'd better be better than the cr@p they serve here to be woth it.

[patriot]

For Those of You Professing to be real France haters, let's not forget:

- France was the first country to recognize US as an independent nation
- the final decisive Battle of Yorkown that led to American independence was won mainly with the help of the French. Without the French, Tony Blair and George Dubya would be running America.
- the red, white and blue was modeled after the French tricolor
- the Statue of Liberty was French

Note also France was betrayed by the US soon afterwards:
- French-American treaty of alliance stated that the two countries would not negotiate for peace separately. But the Americans found that they would get a much better deal if they negotiated separately from France.
- the United States abandoned the terms of their treaty with France only 15 years later when France and Britain went to war and Washington issued his Proclamation of Neutrality, in which he stated his impartiality to the war.

And you blame France for not supporting the Iraq War?

[Becca]

Very good points.:) Personally, I liked the idiots who wanted to boycot all things made by French companies. It never crossed their minds that while Michalin is a French held company, the tires were made in the good ol' US, so they would have hurt blue collor Amaricans MUCH worse than the Mulitimillion dollar corporation that owned it.:rolleyes:

I'm not saying I'm against the war, just against irrational idiots who think everyone should think like them.

[Souljah]

Why are people against Chirac and France for having thier own view, Just because Bush and Blair say the war is Jusified?


To be honest - The "Mr. Fixit" US as you call them havnt really fixed anything - Now Saddam is on the move with alot of Money and Potentially some very dangerous weapons.....He is more dangerous now than he ever was before.

In my view its wrong for anyone to attempt to justify a war from the comfort of their armchair without seeing the full potential of the suffering and pain they could cause.
People may say "But we're ruducing more suffering than we are causing" (in a negative-utilitarian kina way) but is this really so?

When Saddam was in at least SOME THINGS WORKED. I dont in anyway support Saddam but you look at what has happened....
Sanitation is Aweful, Health services are terrible, The country has been pretty much robbed of its historical items and the Culture will soon suffer the same fate.
(Not much different from the conquests of the last millenium really).....

[David Jamieson]

I didn't see any politics at all in this thread. Just a bunch of empty slander.

Ok, first Chris, are you reading these posts? and secondly, I reiterate a witicism I have picked up along the way:

It's only slander if you -say- it in public, if it's in -print-, it's libel. :D

anyway, the bush is great/bush is an idiot debate has raged long enough methinks.

cheers

[@PLUGO]

"Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil,"
--US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz


The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported on Wednesday by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt. (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1369424,00.html)

nuyk nuyk:p

Transcript here. (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030531-depsecdef0246.html)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Souljah
In my view its wrong for anyone to attempt to justify a war from the comfort of their armchair without seeing the full potential of the suffering and pain they could cause...When Saddam was in at least SOME THINGS WORKED.

You seem pretty confident attempting to justify things from the comfort of your armchair, without seeing the full potential of the suffering and pain they cause.

Genuine hypocrisy, or simple failure to think something through properly before forming an opinion?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Ok, first Chris, are you reading these posts?

Yes.


anyway, the bush is great/bush is an idiot debate has raged long enough methinks.

Debating whether or not someone is [empty slander of choice] isn't a debate to begin with, which was my original point. If it goes on at all, it's gone on too long.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Design Sifu
nuyk nuyk

I don't even like Wolfowitz; in fact, it would be safe to say I dislike him quite strongly. But I've seen enough people misquote that passage over the last couple days to need to respond.

Please, people, read the sources you're given, don't just parrot them dumbly. Wolfowitz is commenting on "The concern about implosion... potential collapse and anarchy" between Iraq and North Korea, about which he comments, and this is the complete quote: "Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage..."

What he is saying here, exactly, is that he doesn't believe you can "leverage" Iraq economically (eg. the sanctions) because they have alot of wealth to play with, they "float on a sea of oil"; whereas North Korea is "teetering on the edge of economic collapse", and thus is likely to be responsive to economic leverage (as opposed to military action).

This is not at all what people are suggesting he's saying - that the military action in Iraq was so America could steal their oil.

Moreover, it's exactly what people (on this forum and elsewhere) have been pointing out for almost a year now, regarding some of the differences between Iraq and the countries critics of US policy compare it to.

(Just like the last quote which has "shocked" all the critics and inspired them into misapplied "told-you-so-ism", where it was said that the emphasis on WMD was "beaurocratic", and did not represent the main reason in terms of foreign policy. Again, both things that people have been trying to explain for almost a year now.)

A corrolary here, and this is equally important and one of the things implied by Wolfowitz's statement, is that Iraq's oil represents a potential wealth through which the country can rebuild itself into "stability." Alot of places offered up for comparison simply don't have any analogous element, meaning any short-term intervention would have no cause of making anything better (and would definitely make things worse), since there's nothing for the country to fall back upon to rebuild itself.

[Ben Gash]

The sad thing about this whole international dispute is that Chirac is being held up as some kind of saint. The man is a total crook who HAD to win the last election because he'd have gone to jail if he didn't.
As for Chirac's motivation on the Iraq issue? I think the oil deals worth tens of billions of dollars that France had with Iraq were something of a factor. For France it really was all about oil.
However, France has never been averse to manipulating the news or history. Did you know that the free French under De Gaulle liberated France? The British, American, Canadian, Indian, Nepalese and Polish dead at Omaha, Sword and Juno were obviously just tourists (and then they have the nerve to desecrate our war graves- that lost them a lot of friends here).
Did you know that the French resistance liberated Paris? The fact that the Wermacht were in full retreat was entirely incidental.
Let's not forget that the only reason France needed liberating was because when the Germans attacked the French fled back to Paris and surrendered, leaving our asses stranded in Belgium, and the French free to set up a collaborative puppet government.
The Americans are acting like terrorists? Yeah, cause you see the Americans blowing up a civilian ship in a foreign port ALL the time.
Anyway, two years ago the self righteous UN was being portrayed as the bad guy in Iraq.
I had a point when I started :rolleyes:

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Ben Gash
Anyway, two years ago the self righteous UN was being portrayed as the bad guy in Iraq.

The UN criticism was warranted, IMHO, as the UN sanctions were a) making things worse, and b) not making things better. A bad combination!

However, it was mainly the US proper, and not the UN generally being criticized in this matter. A sad bit of irony is that much of this criticism originated from France, yet recently they were the major power overtly preventing the lifting of the sanctions, even though the mandate they'd been implemented under had become inarguably invalid.

There's alot of wildly-misplaced animosity towards France being peddled these days. The above, however, is IMHO a very good reason to feel they have erred in a most grievous manner.

[Stranger]

- the red, white and blue was modeled after the French tricolor

wrong, try cracking a history book before assuming such nonsense. The stars and stripes predates the French tricolor. The colors of th French flag were chosen by Lafeyette. He simply took the red and blue striped flag of the city of Paris and divided it with a white stripe to signify the French monarchy.


As for the "betrayal of France by the US":
Sorry, it was a marriage of convenience for both the French an the USA. It soured when France wanted us to be their underling. Besides attacking US merchant ships is not the act of a friendly nation. Also let's not forget that once Louis XVI was dethroned the deal was dead as the treaty was with his government.

PS I'm not a France-hater. However I hate it when people make up sh1t to win an argument.

[Becca]

Those last three posts were the best agument against France I've heard. :)

My problem isn't with France, per say, it's with idiots who discide they "have to do something" and end up comming up with all kinds of wild a$$ scheems that are A) impractical, B)harmful to those they claim they are trying to support, and C) based on lies or misconceptions. If you want to talk sh!t, fine, but at least take the time to do some research on the facts your are basing it on.:rolleyes:

[patriot]

I've done my research now. It is definitely not about oil. http://www.democracymeansyou.com/satire/explainified.htm

[Souljah]

Christopher -
You seem pretty confident attempting to justify things from the comfort of your armchair, without seeing the full potential of the suffering and pain they cause.

Genuine hypocrisy, or simple failure to think something through properly before forming an opinion?


Well am I wrong? Services DID work under Saddam didnt they?
Now everythings been blown to bits.....and would I be so wrong to say that the ones to make sure everything is run THEIR way would be the US and UK?
Can you really justify the war to me based on the point of liberation?

Also, I guess thats the difference between me and you....
I HAVE seen what war causes first hand - and I would not wish that upon anyone.....I may be in my armchair now but I have witnessed it and you cannot really tell me that you know better before you have too.


-greg

[@PLUGO]

Hey I just heard on the Radio that the US is allowing only 7 UN weapon inspectors to examine how much uranium was looted from Iraqi nuclear sites & those 7 are to be "accompanied" by US military personal at all times?

Would anyone care to explain why I shouldn't take this as an indication that the US is "hiding" something WRT the whole WMD in Iraq debate?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Souljah
Well am I wrong?

Whether or not you're wrong is entirely unrelated to the observation that you directly and overtly did exactly what you criticized everyone else for doing.

As an aside, you're also wrong.


Can you really justify the war to me based on the point of liberation?

I can justify it. Whether or not it's justified to you is entirely out of my hands.


Also, I guess thats the difference between me and you.... I HAVE seen what war causes first hand

I wasn't aware that you knew anything about my life experience.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Design Sifu
Would anyone care to explain why I shouldn't take this as an indication that the US is "hiding" something WRT the whole WMD in Iraq debate?

The presence of WMD in Iraq was never under question.

[@PLUGO]

Whaaaaaaa???

I'm not sure if I understood that ...:confused:

to date I have yet to see ANY credible "proof" of WMD's in Iraq that hasn't been later "disproved" upon independant verification.

You seem to make that statement as if you know something everyone else doesn't...

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Design Sifu
to date I have yet to see ANY credible "proof" of WMD's in Iraq

But then again, are you really that interested in informing yourself? Your latest treatment of Wolfowitz would suggest to me you're not. Not that there's anything wrong with that; only that one shouldn't firmly close their eyes, then complain about not seeing anything.

The entire UN, of course... and I say "of course" here because this has been covered so many times it's almost absurd that it has to be repeated... signed off on the unanimous agreement of the presence of WMD in Iraq. Many members of the UN were the very people from whom Iraq aquired the WMD. The weapons inspectors were not sent to look for WMD, they were sent to verify and supervise incidences of WMD disarmament at the hands of the Iraqis. None of this is a secret. If I speak with some kind of special authority on it, it's because I've chosen to look these things up for myself, rather than trust the media, government, or corporations to dictate my opinions to me. Even if none of this were the case, there is ample, direct, overt, well-known, obvious evidence of Iraqi possession and use of WMD; a prominent example of which would be the Halabja incident. And, of course, it's now been widely and specifically discussed as to how the emphasis on WMD came about in the first place, notably as a matter of, to quote directly, "beaurocracy."

With all of this foundation in place, I have no idea how your point of view is sensical. What do you suppose occurred to these WMD, such that a conspiracy would have to be erected to hide their absence? Did they evaporate? Or perhaps you suppose there was a 30-year old conspiracy involving almost every country in the world to invent the presence of the WMD in the first place? Given that the full nature of the "beaurocratic" reasons for emphasizing WMD are now in full public knowledge, what purpose would even such a conspiracy serve? Who benefits from it? The only people saying that there was an imperative to find WMD to prove the overt purposes of the Bush administration were it's critics, who chose to ignore the above foundation; however that foundation is now right out in the open, so even they can no longer make this claim with any modicum of sense. So what purpose does this alleged conspiracy even serve any more?

Other than providing something to ***** about to people who adamantly refuse to inform themselves, even when the information in question is now widely discussed in the public domain...

[Souljah]

"Whether or not you're wrong is entirely unrelated to the observation that you directly and overtly did exactly what you criticized everyone else for doing.

As an aside, you're also wrong."


I did not - I merely pointed out the fact that in Iraq now there are barely any working systems - it is in chaos. Which has been stated as a fact, most of the systems that WERE operational when Saddam was in power are NOT now.
Whether you choose to believe it or not is your problem.

"I can justify it. Whether or not it's justified to you is entirely out of my hands."

Can you actually present me with credible evidence then, that the people of Iraq are now 'liberated' andf that the people will get what THEY generally want?
Whether I choose to believe it is no doubt out of your hands but you can still present some information can't you?

Many people think that the general feeling in Iraq is that of happiness now that Saddam is gone - In truth it's more like fear over what happens next - People cheering American troops - you have to remember that theyre not likely to be swearing and cussing at the people that have a gun pointed at them and have a motto that goes -
"If your not part of the solution your part of the problem"


"I wasn't aware that you knew anything about my life experience."

Well tell me then?

[@PLUGO]

I don't doubt your being an intelligent person Chris, yet mixed with your expression there of, is also what seems to be a similar kind of closed-earedness you seem to decry.

You started off with a presentation of how you where going to answer my question only to a series of unspecified assumptions based both on what you've determined as fact as well as suposition on what you're assuming to be my position. At the same time you included a bit of self agrandizing while again attempting to "put down" the person you claim to be educating with your answer... me:rolleyes: .

With that "foundation" you've then launched into a "explaination" based on assumptions you've made. In essance replacing my original question with one of your own and answering that.

So getting back to my question, rephrased:

After a War "sold" on the "beaurocratic" premis that Iraq's cache of WMDs pose an eminent threat to both the world at large & the US, why would the US place such obvious restrictions on the same weapons inspectors that where originally tasked with verifying their destruction?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Design Sifu
a series of unspecified assumptions based both on what you've determined as fact

So call me on one of those points and I'll give you ample resources on it. Simply mentioning the possibility that something I've said isn't established doesn't make it so.


as well as suposition on what you're assuming to be my position

So explain how I am wrong and how it changes my argument. Simply mentioning the possibility that I have made an incorrect assumption which invalidates my argument doesn't make it so.


At the same time you included a bit of self agrandizing while again attempting to "put down"

I'm at this present moment sincerely disappointed and frustrated with people's inability to see beyond partisan lines and take the necessary steps to inform themselves before holding strong opinions. As you stumbled here recently in your mistreatment of the Wolfowitz quote, you're feeling the brunt of my disappointment. Is this fair? Is this gentlemanly? Assurely not. For which you have my apology, but not my retraction. I'll admit my expression of this emotion is unfortunate, particularly as you don't represent any specific cause of it, but I won't hide my dissapointment.


premis that Iraq's cache of WMDs pose an eminent threat to both the world at large & the US

I don't accept this as a premise to begin with. Neither the beurocratic nor moral implications of the WMD require that they "pose an eminent threat to both the world at large & the US." In other words, you're making the argument you disagree with more stringent than it has to be in order to artifically bolster your disagreement of it.


why would the US place such obvious restrictions on the same weapons inspectors that where originally tasked with verifying their destruction?

This is a good question, and one that IMHO goes more towards revealing what's going on in the world right now. To answer concisely, the Bush administration has a sincere distrust of the utility and intentions of the UN, and as such is motivated to limit it's activity.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Souljah
I did not - I merely pointed out the fact

Your criticism was that people seemed willing to justify something without being exposed to it's downsides. From which you continued by justifying something without yourself being exposed to it's downsides (I'm assuming here you're not an ex-pat Iraqi, please correct me if I'm wrong). The hypocrisy here isn't veiled.


that in Iraq now there are barely any working systems - it is in chaos. Which has been stated as a fact, most of the systems that WERE operational when Saddam was in power are NOT now.

There were some great systems operational, like the "civil engineering plan" of bulldozing entire cities of Shiites following the 1992 uprising, leaving hundreds of thousands of refugees over night and contributing significantly to a starvation death count in the millions. This would be a pretty good example of something you're willing to justify without having been exposed to the downsides, I think.


Can you actually present me with credible evidence then, that the people of Iraq are now 'liberated' andf that the people will get what THEY generally want?

The people of Iraq are "liberated" from the Saddam/Baathist regime. I'm not sure how/if you disagree with that, so I won't elaborate. I'm not sure what other definition of liberated you're working under, so I can't elaborate on that.

[WinterPalm]

I agree with whoever said that Chirac was not a saint. He sure isn't and neither are the pigs that run the US, a former coke head, Russia, leader of the KGB for over fifteen years, Britain and China. All countries that systematically set up themselves to gain the most from the second world war. They are the winners that agreed to be the rulers and keepers of peace. Peace of course implies something more to the nature of violence done in a gentlemanly way; such as invading a country by overflowing it with goods immunizied by international organizations such as the NAFTA, WTO and countless others. This is what has happened to countless south american countries and most violently, as a product of Shell to the Ogoni people of Nigeria who live under constant threat of military oppression. This is due to their land and the military as well as dictator is run by the corporations that are based out of the rich nations. So, when somebody like Saddam directly and without any class invades a country, or when Bush does something similar, there are bound to be consequences. Logically, invading Iraq, as far as the crimes of all the security council members go, it was a sound investment that should not have brought up such emotional reaction as it did. However, in this day and age, the majority of the peoples of the world live clean, safe lives free from the tyranny of war and destruction. These people do not want death at the hands of Saddam but they wish less than to deal with him by the means of killing the people in order to save them. (As a side note I certainly think that the UN will make deplected uranium weapons, the ones the US used in both sojouns to Iraq, illegal as WMD which, by the evidence in southern Iraq in skyrocketing leukemia and cancer rates, can attest to.)
THe problem here is that the crimes of most countries are easily swept under the rug and kept hidden save to select individuals that decide to look into them or are directly affected. SO when Bush decides to invade Iraq, with a pretty shoty pretence, the world reacts the way it would if it were IRan, France or Canada invading any other country. In order to stop these crimes, such as racism and abuse of power, we must feel indignant towards those commiting them regardless of whether we are directly affected by them. THis is a famous idea that surely and quite clearly lives on by todays standards. Nobody would want their country invaded and surely nobody wants to think about a brother or sister living where invasion may happen. The US has a human rights record that looks shady just like Iraq, Canada, France and really any other country. In the US they kill you if you commit a specific crime. In Iraq, they kill you if you say a certain thing or whatever the matter may be. I believe someone may think I am trivalizing or comparing the US to Iraq and that is exactly what I am doing. These matters must be dealt with by intelligent means and taking the burden of anothers troubles upon yourself, a very self-righteous deed by my opinion, without first curing your own is irresponsible and idiotic. We must strive to better ourselves, such is the practice of kung fu, in order so that we may make our decisions with intelligence and for the best and not an oil contract, re-election, to impress minorities and other obvious inpetus' in the political world.
Back on topic, Chirac looks like a saint just like anyone trying to stop an invasion from happening. The US had not given enough time to an incredible man, Hans Blix, to continue carrying out his work but instead waged a war that has left a country shattered and quite possibly less undemocratic than before. THe plan was not thought out but none the less, Saddam, a horrible man is gone and dead and the world has one less ******* to worry about.
Chirace is a saint like BUsh is, they are political men appeasing their investors and are in the long line of men that have supported the Hitler Regime, Saddam, The Shah of Iran, Pinochet and countless others, murderous belligerants that point the finger at each other for doing exactly the same things they are doing but with less class or in the wrong manner. They support these individuals in order to get what they can without any consideration for human cost. This is how politicians get elected, to support their investors and insure positions and grats, subsidies and other kickbacks. Dictators are propped up in order to ensure gun trading, diamond mining, child smuggling or drug rigns are given sure rein in the country of choice. Sweat shops and environmentally unsafe oil rigs are all a part of this.
It is greed as far as I see it, and that is something that people here should be fighting against.

We should not accept what we are told in blind faith. THis is ignorance and sheep mentality. If we blindly follow what somebody says is the official line, "Bomb Iraq." or "BOycott America" than we are idiots. THere are people who disagree with the war and people that thought it was a great thing but either way, as long as we discuss these matters in a civilized manner without resorting to name calling and try to stay objective, as I have tried to with little success, deep down I felt the war was wrong and I hope that this has shed some light or maybe you can quote me and tear apart what I've said. I'll hope for the former but I'll expect the latter.
:cool:

[Becca]

Winterpalm, very well put. I gree with the way you made your point on how someone could veiw the US in the same light as Sadam's regeim.:) To someone who is totally against death sentencing, the Policies of some US states could easily be seen as similar to the midle Eastern sterio type "Agree or Die".

Not to disagree:
Some of these misconceptions are likely based on a misunderstanding that the US is one functional unit the way most countries are. We are not. Look at the full name of our country. United States of America. There are, infact 50 idependant bodies. They aren't even all "States". Each body has it's own defences, treasury, and governing body.

The entity which the world calls The US is actually just a way for the 50 bodies to operate as a union in an eficient manor.


I agree with whoever said that Chirac was not a saint. He sure isn't and neither are the pigs that run the US, a former coke head, Russia, leader of the KGB for over fifteen years, Britain and China.

You do realize that Dubwy is a reflection of our "country", as a whole, right? I relize that there is alot of screeming going on right now about how he's doing a "bad job." But it is a proven fact that the more temperate Americans don't stand on a soap box and screem their anoyance at to the worl.

Mr. Bill got caught with an intern, and people seriously started talking empeachment. Have you seen any evidence of the majority of the US public asking for this with Dubya? NO, in fact his popularity is up.


Peace of course implies something more to the nature of violence done in a gentlemanly way; such as invading a country by overflowing it with goods immunizied by international organizations such as the NAFTA, WTO and countless others. This is what has happened to countless south american countries and most violently, as a product of Shell to the Ogoni people of Nigeria who live under constant threat of military oppression. This is due to their land and the military as well as dictator is run by the corporations that are based out of the rich nations.

In what way does exporting goods to a third world country equal invasion? And how is it Shell's fault the Ogoni people live under a dictator?

Soaljai-

I merely pointed out the fact that in Iraq now there are barely any working systems - it is in chaos. Which has been stated as a fact, most of the systems that WERE operational when Saddam was in power are NOT now.

Nobody said that the utilities didn't go down. The point is, utilities can be restored. And while non combatants did die, that in itself does not invalidate the goals of this war.

You do realize the only reason Saddam wasn't a Nuclear power back in the late 70s was a group of ballsy Israeli pilots and an incopitant idiot who shut off Iraq's radar while he ate his dinner, don't you? That reactor was just weeks away from going hot. That plant was set up to make plutonium.

And only a few years later, Husain murdered thousands of men, women, and children with chemical weapons because a few people of their ethnic backround disagreed with him!

Do we need to connect the last dot for you to understand why we are jumpy about Husain having something stronger??? Call us what you want, but the fact is, if we did nothing, and Husain did have, and use, WMD we as a whole would never forgive ourselves. I f that isn't the basis of Kung Fu traing, to be true to your self, then what is?

P.S. I don't care if you call my president a pig. Nothing personal, mind you. I just don't see any point in arguing with some one who resorts to childish name calling when things heat up.

[StickyHands]

Some things never change, I see the same type of topics still persist. This kind of ranting seems like goes on everywhere, here and even in e-budo. lol. Except that in e-budo, things happen faster, so these discussions are wayyyyy long over. I think positing in these types of threads is a good way to make statewide or international enemies, by just simply expressing an opinion. Ehhh... LOL. Grow up people, lets not be harsh, we are all mature adults here, (some of us anyway, hehe). Funny how we can be MA buddies, but WAR enemies... hmmm I see a correlation here. :D

[Souljah]

Your criticism was that people seemed willing to justify something without being exposed to it's downsides. From which you continued by justifying something without yourself being exposed to it's downsides (I'm assuming here you're not an ex-pat Iraqi, please correct me if I'm wrong). The hypocrisy here isn't veiled.

Well, I am aware of the downsides - but theyre so obvious that they don't need pointing out - since everyone focuses on the negative when they look at things that dont please them I'm not surprised you dont have anything good to say about it.
(AnD probably have nothing BAD to say about your own government)


The people of Iraq are "liberated" from the Saddam/Baathist regime. I'm not sure how/if you disagree with that, so I won't elaborate. I'm not sure what other definition of liberated you're working under, so I can't elaborate on that.
Only now to be put under US/UK/French/Russian led development teams?
Everyones moving in now to get their peice of the Cake. Is that really freedom? Can you not see another Hanoi (dirt cheap labour) developing in Baghdad?
Is that freedom?
Yes they are free of Saddam and his brutal regime, but what now follows? You may say that its not for either of us to say but we can always speculate cant we, and history would show us that this HAS happened before.

You really want to believe that this WHOLE war was about 'freeing' the people then you go ahead - I won't bother to argue as there really is no point.



Becca -


Nobody said that the utilities didn't go down. The point is, utilities can be restored. And while non combatants did die, that in itself does not invalidate the goals of this war.

You do realize the only reason Saddam wasn't a Nuclear power back in the late 70s was a group of ballsy Israeli pilots and an incopitant idiot who shut off Iraq's radar while he ate his dinner, don't you? That reactor was just weeks away from going hot. That plant was set up to make plutonium.

And only a few years later, Husain murdered thousands of men, women, and children with chemical weapons because a few people of their ethnic backround disagreed with him!

Do we need to connect the last dot for you to understand why we are jumpy about Husain having something stronger??? Call us what you want, but the fact is, if we did nothing, and Husain did have, and use, WMD we as a whole would never forgive ourselves. I f that isn't the basis of Kung Fu traing, to be true to your self, then what is?

P.S. I don't care if you call my president a pig. Nothing personal, mind you. I just don't see any point in arguing with some one who resorts to childish name calling when things heat up.

First off, I dont recall calling him a pig. I can think of alot more adult words to call him, but then again, what IS the point?

YES YES, Saddam was an evil *******, I dont dispute that.
But then to think that the USA and UK are there merely to save the day with no personal gain is just plain ignorant.
Things may be rebuilt - but when? Nobody can be sure as there are so many more obstacles in the way.

And the whole point that Saddam is such an evil man.....The US/UK supported him when it suited them (When he was taking out the Iranis/Ayatolas) He did evil things then and it was "OK" because he was on "OUR" side.....c'mon you can't tell me you dnot think this whole thing is a hypocricy.....
The same thing happened with Pinochet, Musharaf, Pol Pot.....
They were used until they were noticed and became a liability.

You want to talk about fair play - how about the thousands of Iraqi troops who were killed in the night WHILE RETREATING from Kuwait after the gulf war.....This time Dubya was furious with Putin for supplying the Iraqis with Hi-tek gear - ie Night Vision goggles being one of them.....
But there was NO coverage on this was there.....? (I wonder why)

The mass graves - Shiites killed by Saddam after their uprisal after the Gulf war - Which was encouraged by the Americans who then failed to turn up and support.

OK, you can claim these few areas to be false if you want but -

Do you not also think that Saddam is more dangerous NOW than he ever was when in power - If that was the reason to take him out - Because of the potential threat - then isn't he much more of a threat now that nobody knows WHERE he is.

He's on the run with - alot of money, perhaps these weapons that he was supposed to have, a potential army of 50,000 or so (those unaccounted for after the war) and an extreme hatred toward the western world.
Now I dont need to remind anyone what happened last time.


I'm probably not going to reply to this thread again since it's like me arguing against a whole forum of pro-americans. :(


-greg

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Souljah
Well, I am aware of the downsides - but theyre so obvious that they don't need pointing out

Couldn't one of these people you criticise for "justifying" the war just as rightfully make the same claim? In other words, as I've illustrated, aren't you acting exactly like them still?


I'm not surprised you dont have anything good to say about it.

Nothing good to say about what, Saddam's regime? No, I don't. I have a serious problem with proponents of genocide. It's a personality flaw, perhaps.


Only now to be put under US/UK/French/Russian led development teams?

Possibly. They were liberated from Saddam/Baathism; that's what liberated means in this context. That someone is going to fill this power void, and someone else is going to disagree with them is really one of those things that "is so obvious it doesn't need pointing out." Specific to the point here, it doesn't change the fact that, nor the original position that they should have been, liberated from Saddam/Baathism.

[WinterPalm]

The regime that kills the ogoni people is run and fueled by western military trade companies and the military is directly funded by Shell. This is ample reason to at least lay some responsibility at their feet. Sure, they say that the Nigerian officials can enjoy this huge military but just don't tell us what you are doing and, oh yeah, we need that oil at this time at this price, no questions asked. You can't blame shell for a ***** coming into power in Nigeria, they would be better off ignoring the people than abusing the current situtation. OF course doing something about it would be equal to invasion to rid the people of a dictator and the world would protest it.

Overflowing a country with products from abroad can be considered invasion if the country is forced to buy these products and all the products undercut the native products by selling way cheaper. THis puts countries like Bolivia into huge poverty by not allowing home grown coffee to be sold and bought in the country at a price consistant with the need to support families and such. This is why many countries in the southern hemisphere resort to cocaine growing because it makes a lot of money and nobody can undercut them.

Fact: South America makes some mightly fine Cocaine that the US can't compete with. I think that was the reason for invading Iraq.:D

[Souljah]

Couldn't one of these people you criticise for "justifying" the war just as rightfully make the same claim? In other words, as I've illustrated, aren't you acting exactly like them still?

No, not really because I dont support either side - I'm not fighting for Saddam, and equally do not wish to have any affiliation with the 'pro-western influence' movement.

I merely stated facts - things DID work under Saddam, Now they don't. Simple as that, And I'm not going to repeat what I said in my previous post, you'll just have to read back if you want the points I could have made in this one.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Souljah
I merely stated facts - things DID work under Saddam

Some things did. Some things didn't.

Now other things work. And other things don't.


No, not really because I dont support either side

You're "supporting" one side by choosing to ignore the downsides of it to focus on the upsides, the very thing you're criticising others for doing, as explained above and as per my original remark.

[Becca]

WhinterPalm- Thanx for clarifying. :)

SoalJah- Never said the you caled George Dubya a pig. I was objecting to WinterPalm calling him a pig. Twas the only thing he said several replies ago that I objected to, so I said something. M'Kay? :)

Also, Christopher M has a point. You are inadvertantly picking a side, although you may not realize it. Perhaps it would help if you came out and stated what side you are rooting for? No one is truely unbiased. We are just trying to understand where you are comming from.

[Souljah]

Now other things work. And other things don't.

Really?



You're "supporting" one side by choosing to ignore the downsides of it to focus on the upsides, the very thing you're criticising others for doing, as explained above and as per my original remark.

Also, Christopher M has a point. You are inadvertantly picking a side, although you may not realize it. Perhaps it would help if you came out and stated what side you are rooting for? No one is truely unbiased. We are just trying to understand where you are comming from.

OK If you really want me to - Im definately NOT for any type of western takeover - just due to what has happened in the past - our society lives of the suffering of others - stealing from them to make our people rich.
For this, and for the point that I just don't trust them I cannot supprt them, There have been so many similar instances in the past and I'm afraid it will be the same.
- But then I do not support Saddam's regime and his terror campaign.
IT IS possible to take a 3rd stance you know, everything doesnt have to be so black and white.

And the point you want to make about me focusing on the upsides and ignoring the downsides - no, not at all, I'm only trying to even the scale out and point out a few of the minor upsides - I didnt point out the downsides because they have been posted for the past 4 pages. Does this mean I ignore them?

NO, and the point that I don't weigh out the situation is quite hypocritical don't you think as you didnt do so yourself.
I guess you think there was nothing about iraq before that was better than iraq today.
You want to think your country is a saint and has only attempted to bring justice and order to the world then you go ahead - like I aid before, there would be no point in me arguing If this is your viewpoint - and in the last few posts you have made it seem as if you do think this way.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Souljah
IT IS possible to take a 3rd stance you know, everything doesnt have to be so black and white... You want to think your country is a saint and has only attempted to bring justice and order to the world then you go ahead

See, here you go again. This is exactly what I complained about in the first place.

You make a criticism of someone, then you turn around and do the exact same thing yourself.

Here you don't want things to be black and white; yet as far as you're concerned, if someone disagrees with your position, they "only think America is a saint." Isn't that exactly making things black and white? Isn't is possible to hold a "third position"? Didn't you, again, do they very thing you're complaining about?

And moreover, how was I not holding a "third position" to begin with? :confused: All I said was that your treatment was hypocritical; I never once offered support for the contrary position. Isn't this the very definition of holding a third position?

By the way, I'm not American.


Im definately NOT for any type of western takeover

You're attacking a position which no one but a voice in your head holds in the first place. I don't think anyone on this board, no matter how much they support Bush or the war, is in support for "any type of western takeover." Bush himself is avidly against any long-term power base there at all, let alone one that could be construed as a takeover. This is neither a pro- nor an anti-Bush statement, but simply an observation of reality. Frankly, his disinterest in long-term control there has an awful lot of downsides. A wise man once said that things aren't black-and-white...


Does this mean I ignore them [the downsides]?

No, and I didn't criticise you for "ignoring the downsides." I criticized you for chewing everyone out for biasing their account of events, then doing the exact same thing yourself. That you feel you're justified in doing this under the reason of "only trying to even the scale out" doesn't make it any better. In fact, that's the very thing you complained about originally: justifying the bias.

[@PLUGO]

Well, While I'm uncertain weither BUSH believes in U.S. as HYPERPOWER. there are those in significant positions who seem To believe in exactly such a thing: (http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html)


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

As for who I was rooting for:
RED CROSS: who might releave suffering.
Independant Journists: Who might offer nonembeded information as to what's going on THERE.
Civilians: Particularly those with the sence and ability to help keep each other out of harms way.

that's enough for now...

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Design Sifu
While I'm uncertain weither BUSH believes in U.S. as HYPERPOWER. there are those in significant positions who seem To believe in exactly such a thing: (http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html)

Yeah, the neoconservatives. You've linked up the fundamental contemporary body for their thought there. Neoconservatism is an evolution of Trotskyist thought which shares with it the concept of supernationalism (political ideology which does not recognize national boundaries). On the PNAC site there, they're pretty explicit as to their imperialistic goals. Liberals/democrats share this ideology as well though! Where the Trotskyites, neocons, and liberals differ is in what form supernationalism should take.

Here (http://heartsandminds.da.ru/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=42&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0) is discussing this very point. Here's (http://heartsandminds.da.ru/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=34&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0) a highly related article providing some historical definitions of neoconservatism. And here (http://heartsandminds.da.ru/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=32&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0) is the article on PNAC I linked up in the other thread; although it's mostly an analysis of Democrat and Republican policy, the references section contains definitive links regarding PNAC. Got to know the enemy! :eek:

[@PLUGO]

Yeah... I remember you're posting on the Trotskyites/Neocons parallel in terms of supernationalism. Liked it.

I guess there currently isn't a substantial Trotskesque (?) movement to worry about... or is there?

The overarching problem seems to be supernationalism but what could there be to balance out such a drive?

public opinion?

Something else that's been sort of bounching 'round in my head in terms of Bush as well as clinton.

IMO ((only)) it seems like the majority of anti-bush sentiment is currently hinged on criticizing the making War durring a failing economy tact he's taken.
conversely much of the anti-Clinton sentiment I recall hinged on the making War durring a sex scandel tact.

certainly one isn't better than the other. however it make for an interesting reflection of our cultural values... or the image there of.

[Becca]

MY biggest problem with Clinton was his pen-fu(king the books to make himself look better. Who can blame Enron when our own government was doing it too?

[patriot]

Guantanamo officials are working on plans to provide a courtroom, a prison and an execution chamber. Some 680 detainees from 42 countries are in Guantanamo, categorized as unlawful combatants by the U.S. government. It has refused demands from human rights organizations to recognize them as prisoners of war. They have no constitutional rights as non-U.S. citizens being held outside U.S. territory, and none have been formally charged or allowed access to attorneys.

How can a superpower acting like a 3rd rate banana republic?

[@PLUGO]

Guantanamo is a sad situation 4 sure...

did they ever get around to releasing the 12-16 year old boys they had detained there?
I remember amnesty Intl' was demanding they do so but the topic sort of fell off the radar before before i could find out if thouse kids where actually released.

[patriot]

AP Tallies 3,240 Civilian Deaths in Iraq during a month of war. The count is still fragmentary, and the complete toll — if it is ever tallied — is sure to be significantly higher. So is US better than Saddam?

In the mean time, the Americans are cajoling other nations for immunity from the International Crimial Court.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by patriot
AP Tallies 3,240 Civilian Deaths in Iraq during a month of war. The count is still fragmentary, and the complete toll — if it is ever tallied — is sure to be significantly higher. So is US better than Saddam?

Depends what your standards are. If your standards are "less death", then quite clearly and dramatically: yes. Surely you know that. You must simply have different standards for what "better" is. What are these standards?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Design Sifu
The overarching problem seems to be supernationalism but what could there be to balance out such a drive?

Supernationalism's only opponent in conservatism. It's allready a fundamental principle of liberal policy.

The rampant supernationalists now don't worry about addressing liberals, since they're allready on task. The path to unhindered success for them is to sway conservatives. And that's exactly what the neocons are doing: point their efforts at conservatives to win them over, claim to be rightists to inherit the next generation automatically, and engender leftist critique of rightism to undermine the previous rightist powerbase so that it can be replaced.


public opinion?

The problem with public opinion is that it's manufactured.

You can't control beliefs by eliminating free speech, because this creates a "lack" and mankind doesn't tolerate "lacks"; "lacks" induce a desire to be filled - that is proactive, the very opposite of control. Proactive-ism is stopped, seemingly paradoxically, by providing a situation that allready seems to have an implication of action: by providing "fullness" rather than "lack".

And this is what is done to control: you simply provide a "fullness" which lacks meaning (has no relation to reality). People are happy spending all their time and energy around this "fullness", as it appeals to their desire not to have a "lack."

As a concrete example, Wolfowitz is happy to give people the "meaningless fullness" of his comment "Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." Everyone's energy gets wrapped up in that, they feel active and full; thus there is no desire, as desire is allready satiated. The desire is directed at "Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil" as a construct which has no meaning whatsoever. Does he mind that it's negative press? No... "there's no such thing as negative advertising" is true well beyond it's explicit scope.

The only solution to this is to induce a public opinion which is not constructed in this fashion. However, it's not ever likely to happen because such a stance is one of "lack", in other words, it is anxiety-producing (by generating an unsatiated desire). It's a "lack" because it requires giving up the "fullness" which the construction gives you; of giving up desire which immediately has it's satisfaction, and thus produces reward rather than anxiety to the personality.

This is how manipulation works. Everyone agrees there is manipulation, but they seem to think it's very simple and straightforward. 'Wolfowitz lies and is evil; that is the essence of the manipulation.' What kind of manipulation would that be? A successful manipulation does not exist in the space of the manipulators actions; this is the difference between manipulation and coercion. A successfull manipulation exists entirely within the space of the manipulatee. That is the very definition of manipulation: not that someone else is lacking, but that your actions are chosen for you (in other words, your desire and it's satisfaction, "fullness" is given to you). The conclusion from this is that it's entirely within our own power to stop being manipulated.

Returning to the above, I am not interested in having everyone recognize that supernationalism should be opposed (while that is my personal belief); rather, I'm interested in people recognizing what supernationalism is; so as to allow for a true discussion of it (discussion here not just in the overt sense; but in the more broad sense of cultural evolution).

So long as, just as a single example chosen as it relates to supernationalism, anti-globalists honestly believe they're anti-globalist (and people observing them believe likewise), there is no possibility of discussion (again, ****ingly, in the broad sense). There is alot of energy spend in pseudo-discussion, but it's all just meaningless noise, as it's energy directed at things which have no meaningfull existance (ie. the same thing described above wrt "fullness").

Bringing it back to popular topics here, it's the same issue with Bush. If I say something like "Bush is a traditional conservative and thus is opposed to establishing long-term power in Iraq", instead of exciting the "thought-objects" relating to different approaches to supernationalism and such, it excites the "empty" "thought-objects" which the above-mentioned cultural construction has supplied for us in order to subvert our discussion (again in the broad sense). As an example, if I reply with that phrase to a post criticising Bush, I am likely to be taken as "pro-Bush"... even though I could just as easily follow that phrase with "... which is why he's providing criminally little support to reconstruction, and should be brought to war crime tribunal for his negligence." That phrase itself is neither pro- not anti-, but meant simply as an observation of reality: as a basis by which we can agree and discuss the resulting pros and cons, as well as what interventions we could make to change the situation, and so on. Notably, that Bush is a traditional conservative (as an example, whether or not you agree that he is) has, necessarily both good and bad points.

This, in itself, is another strong motivator that keeps people firmly attached to the empty cultural constructrs. It is "lack"-inducing to recognize that the same object can be both bad and good. It induces a lack insofar as you identify with that object if it is good (introjection) but abhor it if it is bad (projection). But an object that is both bad and good is either introjected and hated (which is an attack against the ego itself) or projected and desired (which induces anxiety from un-satiated desire). More importantly, it is constantly hovering between those extremes: the very source of existential angst.

But, insofar as all discussion is "argument from foundation", until we can agree upon a description of reality as both good and bad, we can have no discussion (again in the broad sense). This means we cannot assess what interventions we can make, and we are effectively subverted as acting beings in a society. We are manipulated.

Whew.


conversely much of the anti-Clinton sentiment I recall hinged on the making War durring a sex scandel tact.

Really? The criticism of Clinton I'm familiar with concerns his raising of taxes, his raising of military funding, his increasing of troop movements, his reversal of his campaign promises, and his unilateral, preemptive supernationalism, to name a few things...

BTW, the "sex scandal" is a fairly obvious, but still reasonable, example of exactly culture manufacturing "meaningless fullness."


certainly one isn't better than the other. however it make for an interesting reflection of our cultural values... or the image there of

As a return of this sentiment: what interests me as a reflection of political and cultural values is that people, for whatever reason, do not recognize these criticisms of Clinton.

Perhaps that fairly obvious "meaningless fullness" worked quite well here.

[@PLUGO]

Just a little evangelism there chris? ;)

Seriously, very thought proviking post

As for that "sex Scandel tact" bit, well you pretty much cracked open what I was loosely pondering wrt "Manufactored Public Opinion"

of all the things Clinton did or didn't do... the majority of remarks ment to dis' him seem to hinge on his sex scandel.

Speaking broadstroked off-the-cuff vernacular here...

[WinterPalm]

Guantanamo bay is owned by the americans. I would think that makes it a part of america and therefore american soil. Doesn't that mean the soldier should be protected by the consitution?
Clearly Cuba would not let americans in if it actually belonged to Cuba, right? Or am I being stupid in arriving at these facts?
However, I think that holding children prison is still a horrible thing as is torture, holding people against their will without access to an atorney or whatever and not telling people why they are being held, those are simple human rights violations that Saddam and Ladin and the other boogeymen have commited and had their countries sterilized for. The US should maybe live up to its own standards.

[Laughing Cow]

One question:
Clinton dipped his wick into office ink so to speak.

How about JFK??

From what I hear and read in the news it appears that he also partook of the same activity, as I am pretty sure did a few other presidents.

Cheers.