Re: Open letter to Trudogg.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 02:27:35 GMT, Ernie B.
<ebaresch_REMOVE_@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:24:40 GMT Dave K wrote:

So, is your building's janitor going to run in 2008? He probably has more
principles than most politicians.

Nah, he won't run. He has the principles, but no money. Odd how
that works...<g>

Sorry that he doesn't want the job, I suspect that he could raise money if he
wants to.

If you knew my janitor, you'd not have said that. <g>

<snip>

Now, the Chinese, years later are reaping the reward of our own
greed.<g> That's patience. 12 years is nothing. It's all about
perspective.

There's a difference between the spider sitting in his web waiting for dinner
to come by and trying to keep the cork in a bottle of pestilence.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. I'll
agree with the idea that the two things are different. How that
applies to anything just plumb evades me.

Let's assume it is one position. Why is it that most of the rest of
the world, with a very few exceptions, disagreed?

Exceptions like England, Poland, Australia, Italy and Spain until they lost
their nerve? The powers-that-be in France were making too much money from
cheating on "oil for food" to upset their honey pot. I have an opinion on
Russia and Germany but it's just opinion.

Really, all of that paragraph is opinion. That is the ideology
drawing conclusions from suspicions.

Another might believe that they didn't lose their nerve as much as
realized the mistake and pulled back from it.

I suppose history will have something to say abut down the road.

We saw the same thing when we invaded under George Bush Senior, and
when we invaded Grenada. There is no question in my mind we have one
of the most powerful military machines on the face of the earth, if
not 'the' most powerful. How does that help if it is used
incompetently?

It doesn't, obviously. I blame Rumsfeld for that.

You will notice I did not point the finger at any one individual.
However, I do believe the idea behind,"the buck stops here." Bush did
pick 'em, and he damn sure was in no hurry to lose 'em. Loyalty is a
virtue, but one cannot have personal sentiments overruling the best
interests of 300 million people and their nation.


That is what I have always held to be true, that we have a short
attention span. Given that concept, why is anyone surprised about
anti-war sentiment in this nation. Oh yeah, we can raise up the
Ooo'rah's in the beginning, but the long tem we just don't cut it;
Jimmy Buffet once said, "...it was so simple like the jitterbug it
plumb evaded me." For me, that applies to imperialistic things like
invading Iraq; we just don't look at things in the long term.

Our system sort of defeats us in a way. We think in terms of 2, 4
or 6 year efforts, since that is the duration of our office holders
(not considering re-election.). We don't thing 10, 20, 30 years out.
We look to what have you done for me today, and not at what you have
done is good, and we should work in that direction.

I agree about the attention span, that's the reason I believe it will take
another 9/11 type event to convince most people. I've been convinced since
the Achille Lauro boarding, especially since the Islamic fundies have made
their intentions perfectly clear. It's the same sort of thing as when no one
believed Hitler was serious in "Mein Kampf" but he outlined his entire plan
there.

The question might be posed as in how do you pick 'em; the ones that
are a real threat.

Let us reflect on the WWII event. Regardless of after the fact
recriminations about we should gone in there sooner, it worked out
quite virtuously for the US, don't you think?

We watched, and did nothing. Then we got attacked and we did
something. We attacked the attackers, and then their allies. In
retrospect, I have often wondered how much of that situation might
have been actually engineered (there were people interested in getting
involved just as there were people not wanting to). Some accounts
consider it a planned conspiracy thing to get the USA involved despite
the feelings at the time. I wonder if we'll ever know for certain. At
this point, I have to take it as face value.

Anyway, preemptive actions always have a prejudice on them. There
seems to be a code that we don't act, but react. When we act, it goes
badly. Probably has something to do with never really trusting the
government to do the right thing.


Is that like "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? I don't
believe that at all. I can respect someone who fights to protect his home and
country but I have problems with people who bomb pizza shops and markets.

No, that is not it, though I can see some truth in that concept as
well. Imagine what history would have been like if the Axis had won
WWII. That is the sort of scenario I am considering. If you want to
see it firsthand, take a look at the post Vietnam era "reeducation
camps." This is not an overly complicated concept.

Propaganda rules then? A modern example is what I hear of North Korea.

You don't believe propaganda is a powerful tool? You don't think it
is used today? What do you thing election campaigns are? What do you
think the Swiftboat people were about? What do you think the current
press articles about impeachment of George bush, or Cheney are? Why
would anyone complain about the media if it were not propaganda?

"Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation aimed at
serving an agenda. At its root, the denotation of propaganda is 'to
propagate (actively spread) a philosophy or point of view'. The most
common use of the term (historically) is in political contexts; in
particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments or
political groups. "
A wikipedia cite, but there are a bunch of definitions that are very
similar.

I'd offer that election campaigns are propaganda.


If Bush, or anyone else, can provide a relatively peaceful setting I'm all for
him. Then maybe the opposing sides can settle their differences without all-
out civil war.

I've already offered one. It is simple. Make the people
prosperous.

Now, please explain how you would provide the safe environment to accomplish
this.

Do what the George Bush administration did not. Put the troops on
the ground to enforce the peace. People have been complaining about
not having enough troops, supplies, and other things since day one. We
are long on Halliburton profit, and short on making a difference where
our military is concerned.


That has *got* to be the silliest couplet you've written during this
discussion. Refutation follows: I wanted to retire at age 25 but I couldn't
afford to so I was patient and worked my *** off for another 40 years,
telling myself "Be patient, you'll get there". I suspect that most people who
haven't retired yet are are in the same situation.

I disagree with you here again. Sorry, Retirement is a whole other
subject that I really do not care to debate in this context.
Retirement is an entirely different concept that involves promises,
and implied commitments. Your approach to it is facetious at best.

Okay, add to/substitute children, a happy family, anything you like.
Retirement is just one example of a goal, common to most people. Achieving
the goal(s) requires patience, work and good fortune.

...And some level of intelligence higher than what we have in the
white house these days.

What I am talking about is a sitting president who wished that
winning in Iraq, and establishing a democracy there was a thing he
could accomplish. How stupid was that. Consider it either at the
time, or in retrospect. Any intelligent person can see you cannot
force a nation to accept what you give them unless you are willing to
enforce it. They had to want it. The entire premise was bogus.

Okay. Supposing that you are correct, not that I think you are, where do we
go from here?

We put up, or shut up. We either do what George Bush should have
done from the beginning, or we get the heck out, and lick our wounds.
I would still like to remind you that I felt we should not have gone
there to start with.

We've made it possible for the Iraqis to hold elections twice -
with an 80-odd percent turn out in spite of threats from the terrorists. Does
that tell you about their desire for democracy?

The question of Iraqi desire for is not at issue here. That is a
distraction. I know full well that some part of them wanted Hussein
out.

The real issue is that we took away all order in their country, and
as abhorrent as it might have been it was order. Then we instituted
chaos. Roads are not safe. Power is out. Oil does not flow.
Businesspeople are abducted and executed by insurgents. Insurgent
leaders are allowed to go free while people are killed by them, and
there are no rules anyone can decipher.

It appears that Iraqi citizens threw rocks at Iraqi police because
they felt they were not getting the level of protection they should be
getting from them. Good for them. It is a demonstration of
earnestness. I'd not like to let those people down like the Bush
administration has to date.

Back to the put up or shut up thing. We broke it. Put the
resources in to fix it. Don't hand it off so some religious nut, or
opportunist. If we are not willing to do that, then let's get the
heck out, and write it off as a bad adventure. If Fallujah is a
problem, level it. If the insurgent leader is hiding in a mosque,
cauterize it. Take the insurgent leaders out. They will not long
survive if that is what the Iraqi people want. Bush wanted war. He
should fight that war.

It appears to me that at some level, there is a profit motive thing
going on, and *** Cheney and Halliburton are in the middle of it all.
That sucks.

Just an aside about the Iraqi people. I wish them well. I hope
that they do not allow their country to be plunged into some sort of
religious state of being, unless that is what they really want.. I am
sorry we have not yet lived up to our promises of liberation from
tyranny.

If we cannot live up to our own promise then at least have the honor
to say we made a mistake, and get the heck out. There is no value in
limping along at it.

<snip>

OK, no I'm confused. Let's allow this is getting really long, and
hard to follow.

Okay. Do you want to start over? ;-)

Nope.

...By either conservatives or liberals, I might add.

That's obvious.

To some, not to all.

Cindy Sheehan made her point a couple of years ago, now she's like a gnat that
keeps trying to fly up your nose. I don't watch Fox news at all so I have
nothing to say about them.

I think any thinking person will consider that Cindy Sheehan has
valid points. So do her detractors. Is there anyone that wants to
consider the overall picture, and analyze the points objectively? I
think not. Everything is propagandized to the point that is it very
difficult for a person trying to make a living to make good decisions.
After all, we vote GWB into office twice.<g>

Ms. Sheehan made her point two years ago. What is the reason for beating it
to death, harassment for harassment's sake? I think that she's a sick woman
who deserves sympathy and hand-holding but she isn't going to get it the way
she's going.

Probably for the same reason George Bush keeps saying stay the
course, when the course is messed up. We all have our agenda.

Not at all. Dealing with someone to accomplish a goal doesn't mean that you
adopt their ethics.

Perhaps, but I have found that is what it often comes down to.

Well, I can only speak for myself and what I've experienced.

What about Noriega? Whose level did we go down to? Just one
example...
<snip>


And if I need oil I have to deal with the sheiks and mullahs unless I want to
lead a rebellion and "throw the rascals out". Do you have a point here?

You pointed it out above. You said, "They can always develop a
little backbone and refuse to play that game." I'm not very
optimistic about the backbone thing.

Okay, that would work if you can get energy from somewhere else. I'm in favor
of building more nuclear power plants, if we can get the nimby's permission.

I have no real problem with nuclear power except a few little
things, like who is going to control it? Where is the waste going? If
they build a nuclear plant in my neighborhood, will I be compensated
for a resultant loss in property value? Things like that...

We weren't. There were other reasons for invading Iraq, which I've already
discussed. [3]

OK, and from my point of view, the are not valid. End point here.

Agree to disagree?

OK.

We still devoted considerable effort in Germany and Japan. We are
slacking in Afghanistan and Iraq.

True, unfortunately. It will come back to bite us.

Yes, for the issues I pointed out above. We committed, and failed
to follow through. We will be viewed as a country that starts stuff,
and fails to follow through. We will not be trusted. Wait... We are
already those things...
--

Cheers! :)
.

Loading