Re: George Bush is a Joke

In article <k%iQf.9843$X.6027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Joe
<joehnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mark Loy wrote:
You make an assumption that finance is the driver. Prove it.



You got me; I can't prove it.
AN intellectually honest statement finally.

So you think I've been intellectually dishonest?

I've been anything but that, sir.


But I offer the following quote from former Marine Corps General Smedley
D. Butler in 1931 from the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me" as a historical
perspective:

"I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped
make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to
collect revenue in. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international
banking house of Brown Brothers...I brought light to the Dominican
Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras
'right' for American fruit companies in 1903. Looking back on it, I might
have given Al Capone a few hints."

Who cares what Smedly said. We are dealing with today in this discussion.

No, we're not. That may be why you came into this discussion but I came
in because of this statement from Howard way, way up thread:

"It's odd that when we just kill the enemy without calling it a war,
it's deemed by many to be OK. It used to be just the opposite."

"It used to be..." which makes a quote from the past rather germane.

The United States has a history of interfering in other countries because
of the interests of American corporations in those countries. I believe
that precedant is clear. And from this, and with the oil in that region,
and how we've "skipped" around from regime to regime offering our support,
and the only thing common is oil, I think it's a good argument that the
reason is the oil.


Consider that one of the reasons given for us to go in and remove from
power that despot, Saddam Hussein, is his horrific treatment of his own
people...but in Africa there are atrocities happening to make what he did
to his people seem like childplay yet we have not sent in troops to
dethrone those even eviler despots. We interfere in the middle east
because of oil. Do you actually doubt that?

Is oil an underlying issue? Of course it is. We and the rest of the
developed nations need access to energy. But you are obfuscating the
issue in your statement above. I doubt that you have either knowledge
or understanding of the overall strategies that the US and our allies
have embraced right now. And just to be clear, I don't have that
information either.

I don't honestly believe I'm obfuscating anything. The reasons _given_ to
the American people for the war in Iraq have been proven to be
unreliable. They will not come right out and state *oil* is driving their
policy in the Middle East instead they tell us all manner of things as the
reason for attacking Iraq. But those reasons, as stated, don't hold up to
scrutiny.


Change our policies with an emphasis on helping rather than bombing.

CAn you be the least bit definitive? Which "policies" and how would you
change them. Critical thinking required here.



Okay, off the top of my head, respect the sovereignty of foreign rulers
and allow other countries the right to choose their own way of existence.

You are suggesting that we have an overall policy of not respecting the
sovereignty of foreign powers? Overall policy? Do you mean, like
France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, China?

No, sir. I'm saying that no matter what we say, no matter how much we
obey the rules of sovereignty of some foreign powers, how much we decry
countries trying to assassinate leaders of other countries, they, our
allies and enemies alike, know we've done that ourselves and that we will
break the "policy" of respecting sovereignty if it suits us. And that
must scare the *** out of them. How can any country gain the trust and
friendship of another country if they have a foreign policy that can't be
trusted? Especially if the country that is untrustworthy happens to be
the greatest superpower on the planet?

Actually we made a major mistake in capturing Hussein and it is going to
come back and haunt us.

Yes.


Try to spread the idea of capitalism to the entire world--make them more
like us and they'll be less likely to want us dead. Work to have a
McDonalds in every city and Fords in every driveway...etc.

We aren't doing this? What planet are you looking at?

Are we doing enough, is what I'm saying.


Work on the myriad of problems we have at home before attempting to solve
problems elsewhere in the world.

That is real nice. Just like 1939.

I'm not talking isolationism, just priority.


<....>

I mean another reason we
were told that Hussein must be stopped is because he was a threat to us,
here, and could deliver weapons of mass destruction to our soil in
sufficient quantities to make 9/11 pale in comparison.

But that wasn't the case.

You don't know that to be true at all. You think so. Can you predict
the future if he had been unimpeded. I suggest that you consider the
events leading up to WW2.

I can only speculate, yes. But that speculation is based upon the
evidence. And one damning argument against him having weapons of mass
destruction threatening us _now_ is that when we attacked, he didn't
retaliate here, in the US therefore the statement made that we were in
danger here, in the Continental US immediately such that a response was
imperative at that time, was incorrect.

We didn't have to go to war when we did.



But Americans are dying...in Iraq.
And there doesn't seem to be an end.


Gratuitous comment, right out of the Betty Sheehan playbook that
contributes nothing to the discussion.


The point that was obviously lost on you given the context above is that
americans -aren't- dying in America, but are dying in Iraq supposedly to
prevent Americans being killed in America...why not skip the middleman and
keep them home in the first place?


What "civil liberties" have you lost? Do you even really understand the
concept of civil liberties? What did Jefferson have to say about it?


I don't have Jefferson's quote but I do have this one from Benjamin
Franklin:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security,
deserve neither liberty or security"

And that's what I'm talking about--a general erosion in the concepts of
privacy and free speech even the idea that someone, like myself, who
speaks up against the war is a traitor. Congress just recently extended
the ability of law enforcement agencies to violate privacy of individuals
if it deems that appropriate for national defense. I don't like that kind
of trend.

I don't really think that you understand the issue. Please do some
research. It is not a sound byte problem.

Okay. I think the Patriot Act sucks. What's not to understand about that
issue?


Consider that in WWII we imprisoned Japanese Americans...consider
McCartheism or how we've handled race relations in the country and it
bothers me that we could be allowing the government too much power here
for the sake of security.

With respect to internment, McCarthyism and race relations, these are
all things that have been corrected to the extent that a government can.
The resolution issue of race relations is far deeper than government
policies alone. As to the second half of your statement, that is your
personal interpretation and did not provide an answer to the question asked.

But I'm specifically dealing with the lessons of history. And no matter
what advances we've made in the areas above recent events lead me to
believe that we may be heading back to a time when things like internment
don't seem so bad to people.

We, right now, are keeping a whole shitload of political prisoners in
Gitmo. We're even torturing prisoners of war. Does either of these
things sound possible just a few years ago? What does our doing them
provide to our enemies?


Try to be specific beyond the broad brush.

Didn't do it.

You keep denying the lessons of history, the reason I got into this
discussion in the first place. And then you use the lessons of history if
it suits your argument...and you called me intellectually dishonest.


You have accused some of the right of center leaning people of just
using sound bytes from FOX. Aren't you doing the same from the other
side of the spectrum? The difference tends to be that they are
specific, you and those like you, speak in nice safe generalities.


I got into this simply to state that the United States hasn't always done
the right thing or even come close.

We agree.
We perform terrorist acts--

I don't agree.

The attack on Khadafi was in the night and against unarmed civilians,
killing, iirc, some of his children in a bombing raid. I don't know what
else to call it except terrorism. If we wanted him dead for god's sake
put a bullet through his head and be done with it.

the attack
on Khadafi--

Read Clausewitz.

You're the one demanding I stay in the present. So now, can we at least
agree that history has some bearing?


and attempt to assasinate foreign leaders while decrying that
practice--

Rhetoric.

Bull***. We signed an international treaty saying we wouldn't attempt to
assassinate foreign leaders but we did, we have, we will continue to do
so--if history is any precedant.


we shoot down civilian airliners, for god's sake...

On purpose? Knowing was a civilian flight.

Does that really matter? I mean, to them...the people who lost families
when it happened? Above you were justifiably upset about people you knew
dying in a terrorist attack in America, but they lost family members
because of an act of gross negligence by the United States--further fuel
for their hatred, which was my point in bringing it up. I mean what we
did was put the lives of the men on a warship ahead of the potential lives
of people on an airliner--and yeah, they had to have known about the
various civilian flights in the region so shooting down the "bogey" was an
action they should not have taken--better to be hit by an attack than kill
innocents--at least that *should* be the policy.

that's why I
got into this.

It is good to stand up for your principles. I just want people to
understand what they are standing up for.

Agreed. I'm standing up for knowledge.

That is what bothers me about this country. And I simply escalated into a
discussion of Bush and Iraq and terrorism, oh my.

So is it your point that we didn't do these type of things, haven't done
this type of thing or are you saying that yes, we did/do but it was/is for
a good reason?

Reading comprehension issue?

No, Joe. Not especially, no.

What that reason is you seem to be advocating is that the world is a
shitty place and sometimes you have to be shitty, too. But what if, just
what if, now...what if others look at us and say, "the US has done all
these awful things so we have an honor-bound duty to stand against
them...to die if necessary, in any way we have to to try to stop their
empirical advances."


Who are these others that look at us like that?

Now you're being obtuse.

Looking at our long past, looking at our recent past, are they not at
least a little justified in that belief?

In our judicial system we have a principle that requires the plaintiff
to have clean hands.



Start wearing the white hats again.

Are there any "white hats" in the world today, in your estimation?


Not any of the so-called superpowers, no.

Anybody?

I'll give you Monaco, Vanuatu, etc. How about second tier nations?


Yeah and Switzerland and the International Red Cross...


Personally, I think this country does wear the White Hat and generally
we take the high road. Of course, the world is a dirty place and
sometimes you just have to get in a street fight. The founders
understood that the first role of government was to protect and defend
the nation and its people. IF we have time and treasure enough after
that, we can worry about the other folks. How that all gets done is not
necessarily clean, and pretty.



But the founding fathers understood more than anything that the people
must be the check and balance on the government.

I agree. Jefferson advocated a generational revolution too. But you
changed the topic. Stay on the argument.

Do you even know what the argument is?


And I don't really believe in the concept of "white hat" anymore. I use
it to mean get back to taking the high road, don't become that which we
abhor.



Maybe a better question to put to you would be, Do you understand the
leadership role, and have you ever successfully lead a group of people
to accomplish a difficult objective?

By your silence I will assume that you have never done this so you are
dealing from a theoretical perspective.


Sorry, with all the nested quoting I lost this question in the "fog"...let
me answer it here...Yeah, I've been a leader, not a government leader but
a leader. I was in the Military for seven years, I've played sports, I've
managed/coached athletic teams, I've worked in my community during a
crisis/tornado situation, I've chaired groups, I've even helped organize a
whole shitload of activities including vacations, parties etc.

That's about it. What does that say about me or is your point that if I
haven't ever been in charge of a nation I can't know what responsibilities
he has?

"I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom."--A Few Good Men

That what you're talking about?


By the way, in your opinion, how did Lincoln do?

In August 22, 1862 in a letter to Horace Greeley Lincoln expressed
perfectly his position on slavery and his dedication to the preservation
of the Union.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and
if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I
could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do
that. What I do about slavery and the colored race I do because I believe
it helps to save this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do
not believe it would help to save the Union....I have here stated my
purpose according to my view of my official duty, and I intend no
modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere be
free."

Nice quote.

To answer your question, he did a great job in a time of dire peril for
this country.

And was one of the most reviled men of his time.


Again you decry me for using history but you go to it with Lincoln. And
please, I hope you're not trying to intimate that George W. Bush _is_ in
any way Lincoln-like or that the present situation for the United States
is in any way similar to that which faced Mr. Lincoln.



Part of the problem that you are having is that, whether we like it or
not, we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the Nation State.
This medium that we are using right now is part of that. The fact that
Al Queada can exist as such an effective organization, untied to a
nation is the first consequential example of what is happening.

The political divide in this country is another example of the course
that will be played out over the next 100 years as part of the demise of
the nation state. Whole new social, economic, legal and political
frameworks will have to be evolved to handle the changes that are
coming. That process is going to organic and organic things aren't
always neat and tidy.

Well said, Joe.

I would add that the world of nations at war is pretty much over.
Terrorism is going to be the method of choice because it allows small
factions the ability to cause disproportionate harm. And that is
seductive to them. Maybe we simply need to accept that we live in a
dangerous world and just place the dangers in their proper perspective and
continue with our lives as best we can.

You seem like a pretty bright and well read person but dig a little
deeper and think about what is really happening as if you were watching
from the moon. Maybe, just maybe, your simplistic views will begin go away.

I simply don't want to keep repeating history, is all. Learn from it and
adapt it to the world we live in now.

You've gotten a little "shitty" with me in this post and maybe I deserve
it. I'm sorry if I've gotten that way with you. You don't think much of
me and my opinion, that's evident, but you seem to also be dismissing it,
and me, pretty easily from real consideration. Okay. I agree that some
of what I write is simplistic. But I got into this--here he goes
again!--to try to impress upon people that all is not what we think it is
and we need to know, to learn, to ask questions, to put our leaders on the
spot and make them accountable.





Sincerely,
Mark A. Loy
.