Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on August 05, 2007, 04:58:18 PM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on August 05, 2007, 05:02:40 PM
I couldn't possibly agree more.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on August 05, 2007, 05:04:45 PM
Post by: Marnoot on August 05, 2007, 05:58:37 PM
Apologies dasmi, I just liked the ambiguity of the subject-line too much not to. I didn't actually listen to/watch this one.
Post by: K Frame on August 05, 2007, 06:48:47 PM
Please don't start multiple threads for what are essentially the same overriding topic -- a candidate's political persona.
Thanks.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 05, 2007, 07:01:16 PM
Post by: RocketMan on August 05, 2007, 09:07:28 PM
Post by: roo_ster on August 06, 2007, 05:03:42 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 06, 2007, 05:27:16 AM
I like Ron Paul's demeanor and most of his views. His supporters, however, are kindling desires in me to boot him like a toy poodle.
That I would pay to see.
Post by: Euclidean on August 06, 2007, 08:59:32 AM
I'm not saying he's perfect.
I'm not saying he'd live up to his campaign promises.
But his policies overlap mine where it counts the most.
And I'm not saying he's electable or not electable. I don't care. It's about time for a dark horse candidate.
I am sick and tired of "liberals" who are anything but liberal. James Madison was a liberal. The people they call liberals now are socialists and statists. None of the Demonrat candidates are acceptable to me.
I am sick and tired of "conservatives" who aren't conservative. While Bush was the lesser of two evils (Kerry would have done just as much to damage our country if not more) he's not been a very good president at all. All of the Repugnican candidates are "neocon" (for whatever that means) clones except for Ron Paul.
I'm voting my conscience. I support Dr. Paul and encourage everyone else to as well.
Post by: roo_ster on August 06, 2007, 03:35:44 PM
I like Ron Paul's demeanor and most of his views. His supporters, however, are kindling desires in me to boot him like a toy poodle.
That I would pay to see.
Post by: Paddy on August 07, 2007, 09:46:20 AM
Quote
If only we could have Ron Paul's domestic views, without his head-in-the-sand view of Iraq.
Seems to me (and the majority of Americans) that 'head-in-the-sand view of Iraq' better describes Bush and his supporters. There were no WMD's, Iraq was not involved in 9/11, there (was) no Al-queda in Iraq nor was Iraq any security threat to the U.S. In spite of all these facts with which the administration agrees, we continue to squander our resources, our young men and women and our money, in that rathole. Is there some reason? (other than the fact that Iraq contains the world's second largest oil reserves)?
Post by: ArfinGreebly on August 07, 2007, 02:03:17 PM
Like "the government has no business in education" or that sort of thing?
I'd be interested.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 07, 2007, 03:34:04 PM
Quote
Seems to me (and the majority of Americans) that 'head-in-the-sand view of Iraq' better describes Bush and his supporters.
Why do you think I said it? To tweak your small-minded little view of things. Thanks for obliging me.
Quote
There were no WMD's,
When did the administration say that there were no WMDs? I recall Bush stating that none had been found. When did he say there had never been any?Quote
Iraq was not involved in 9/11,
Using this remark to argue against the Iraq War is the surest sign of a refusal to think about it. And when did the administration say they were involved? Quote
there (was) no Al-queda in Iraq
Who said this, and when? Quote
nor was Iraq any security threat to the U.S.
The administration agreed they were not a threat? Don't kid yourself. That one I really would like to see.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on August 07, 2007, 04:01:55 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/07/25/2007-07-25_w_still_ties_iraq_911-2.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/bush.intl/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070724-3.html
http://www.bushoniraq.com/bush1.html
Post by: MechAg94 on August 07, 2007, 04:09:16 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 07, 2007, 07:12:02 PM
Quote
There were no WMD's, Iraq was not involved in 9/11, there (was) no Al-queda in Iraq nor was Iraq any security threat to the U.S. In spite of all these facts with which the administration agrees, we continue to squander our resources, our young men and women and our money, in that rathole.
Did the administration claim, suggest, or imply that Iraq was involved in 9/11? Your links don't support the idea that they made such a claim, suggestion, or implication.
Does the administration still agree that Iraq was not involved in 9/11? Apparently so. So far as I know, they always have. Riley is half-right there, but he doesn't understand what this means. Are we only allowed to make war on nations that have already harmed us? This would reduce our foreign policy to some playground code of honor. Billy punches Timmy. Timmy punches back. In the real world, pre-emptive warfare is reasonable self-defense. By the same principle, CCW holders are not required to be physically hurt before firing.
Your first two links claim that Bush said a great many things, but don't supply the relevant quotations, so they are irrelevant.
The third is a speech given by the President, last month. Here is how he describes the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Note that he does not ascribe any role to Iraq in the attacks of Sept. 11, or claim that they had any prior knowledge of them.
Quote
They complain when I say that the al Qaeda terrorists we face in Iraq are part of the same enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001.
Quote
Al Qaeda in Iraq was founded by a Jordanian terrorist, not an Iraqi. His name was Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Before 9/11, he ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. He was not yet a member of al Qaida, but our intelligence community reports that he had longstanding relations with senior al Qaida leaders, that he had met with Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Zawahiri.
In 2001, coalition forces destroyed Zarqawi's Afghan training camp, and he fled the country and he went to Iraq, where he set up operations with terrorist associates long before the arrival of coalition forces. In the violence and instability following Saddam's fall, Zarqawi was able to expand dramatically the size, scope, and lethality of his operation. In 2004, Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined al Qaida, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and he promised to "follow his orders in jihad."
In 2001, coalition forces destroyed Zarqawi's Afghan training camp, and he fled the country and he went to Iraq, where he set up operations with terrorist associates long before the arrival of coalition forces. In the violence and instability following Saddam's fall, Zarqawi was able to expand dramatically the size, scope, and lethality of his operation. In 2004, Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined al Qaida, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and he promised to "follow his orders in jihad."
The fourth link is an anti-war website that apparently distills the wisdom of a Congressional report into small paragraphs. These paragraphs are then used to rebut quotations from various administration officials. While it gives interesting opinions, and links to the report, it doesn't prove much by itself. I didn't have time to scan the quotations from every cabinet member, I did read all of the Bush quotations. In none of them did Bush portray Iraq as a major player in the 9/11 attacks, though they seem to think he tried. Eg:
Quote
"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed."
Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).
Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).
Their response:
Quote
This statement was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
This is an oft-heard complaint that has never held water. The President is not allowed to juxtapose the Iraq war with the 11 Sept. attacks, because you Americans are so stupid, you will think that Saddam was flying the planes. It is in fact the above quotation that is misleading, because its logic, well, isn't. And as icing on the cake, we have Bush clearly stating that he doesn't believe Saddam was involved with 9-11. And finally, here is something from Bush's speech that supports one of Riley's points. Note that I did not disagree with this point. I merely asked for some confirmation.
Quote
Some note that al Qaida in Iraq did not exist until the U.S. invasion -- and argue that it is a problem of our own making. The argument follows the flawed logic that terrorism is caused by American actions.
Post by: Matt King on August 08, 2007, 05:56:50 AM
Post by: Len Budney on August 08, 2007, 06:00:11 AM
I agree with Dr, Paul on almost everything except Iraq. I wish he would support some kind of partition. Kurds in the north, Shiites in the south, and the Sunnis in the center.
How did it get to be our job to run the lives of the Iraqis? Would we like it if the Arab world (which outnumbers us about 3 to 1) united against us, invaded, and partitioned us--red-staters on the coastlines, and blue-staters in the middle?--Len.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on August 08, 2007, 06:02:26 AM
Post by: Len Budney on August 08, 2007, 06:06:06 AM
Actually, if all the red staters moved here to California, it'd be a great place and I wouldn't want to leave so bad
Whoops, I got it backwards. 
I'm biased in favor of conservatives and against liberals, because of my conservative background. But since I've decided that we shouldn't be robbing our neighbors at home or slaughtering strangers far away, I'm a lot less welcome in the red or the blue states.
--Len.
Post by: Matt King on August 08, 2007, 06:06:14 AM
Quote
How did it get to be our job to run the lives of the Iraqis? Would we like it if the Arab world (which outnumbers us about 3 to 1) united against us, invaded, and partitioned us--red-staters on the coastlines, and blue-staters in the middle?
--Len.
--Len.
Hey Len, nice to see you here.
We got that job when we invaded their country. The problem with you second argument is; red stater's and blue stater's aren't fighting a civil war. What solution do you have to stabilize Iraq? Partition seems the best idea to me.
Post by: Paddy on August 08, 2007, 06:20:58 AM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on August 08, 2007, 06:47:02 AM
Actually, if all the red staters moved here to California, it'd be a great place and I wouldn't want to leave so bad
Whoops, I got it backwards. I'm biased in favor of conservatives and against liberals, because of my conservative background. But since I've decided that we shouldn't be robbing our neighbors at home or slaughtering strangers far away, I'm a lot less welcome in the red or the blue states.
--Len.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on August 08, 2007, 06:49:01 AM
Quote
How did it get to be our job to run the lives of the Iraqis? Would we like it if the Arab world (which outnumbers us about 3 to 1) united against us, invaded, and partitioned us--red-staters on the coastlines, and blue-staters in the middle?
--Len.
--Len.
Hey Len, nice to see you here.
We got that job when we invaded their country. The problem with you second argument is; red stater's and blue stater's aren't fighting a civil war. What solution do you have to stabilize Iraq? Partition seems the best idea to me.
Post by: Len Budney on August 08, 2007, 06:53:31 AM
Hey Len, nice to see you here.
Likewise!
Quote
We got that job when we invaded their country. The problem with you second argument is; red stater's and blue stater's aren't fighting a civil war. What solution do you have to stabilize Iraq? Partition seems the best idea to me.
Who says we can put Humpty Dumpty together again? I think it's become clear by now that it's impossible to turn Iraq into a stable, pro-western democracy--and we probably agree that this was foreseeable from the beginning, which is a damning indictment of the "cakewalk" administration. We've made Iraqis' lives worse rather than better; we've increased rather than decreasing support for terrorism; and so on.
But your question is what to do now, after we've knocked Humpty Dumpty off the wall. Your suggestion is much better than the one the allies scratched on a napkin after WWI; at least you are taking sectarian and ethnic lines into account. Until perhaps two years ago, I agreed with your suggestion and the sentiment that we need to "fix the mess we made." The problem is that any "solution" imposed by us is simply going to set the stage for further blowback and another generation of this vicious cycle.
For example, creating a separate Kurdish entity in the north will greatly antagonize Turkey, which is fairly brutal in repressing their own Kurdish minority in their southeast. A Kurdish state right along that border will motivate Turkish Kurds to renew their own insurgency, with a view to carving a greater Kurdistan out of portions of Iraq and Turkey. The Kurdish republic in northern Iraq will undoubtedly assist their brothers across the border, which will combine all the fun of insurgency within Turkey and war with her Kurdish neighbors. Turkey will blame us for this, and US-Turkish relations will become strained. The Kurds will also tend to blame us, both for setting the stage for the war, and for failing to support the Kurds in the ensuing conflict with Turkey.
On the other hand, the US government is aware of these issues on some level, and will never show the spine to create a Kurdish republic. But their refusal to do so will incite anger and blowback from the Kurds, and whatever they opt to do instead will involve the Kurds in continued conflict that will also fuel blowback.
Similarly, creating a *expletive deleted*it authority in the south will lead to a strong movement toward unification with Iran. If that succeeds, Iran is enlarged, and tensions with Iran are increased. If the US intervenes to prevent that, then we come into direct conflict with both Iran and *expletive deleted*it Iraq. Because the administration is dead against an enlarged *expletive deleted*it region, they will tend to resist partitioning Iraq, or will partition it so that the Sunni region is sandwiched between Iran and *expletive deleted*it Iraq, or perhaps will either garrison *expletive deleted*it Iraq or invade Iran. All of those options involve repercussions that will reverberate for another generation and set the stage for the next major war in the area.
The Sunnis will likewise gravitate toward Saudi Arabia. Since we're such good "friends" with Saudi, the US will probably oppose that less than the other two regions, but I'm sure there's another hornets' nest of future problems associated with that.
So I'm of the opinion that pulling out slowly versus quickly will not greatly affect the total carnage; the carnage was predetermined when we toppled their unpleasant-but-stable government. The death toll will be comparable whether it's a short, bloody civil war or a long, protected insurgency. The difference is that we can minimize our own entanglement in another generation of blowback and conflict by refraining from dictating "solutions." Let them work out their own "solutions," for good or ill. Meanwhile, defend our own borders. I'm not in the slightest afraid of an Iraqi invasion of the mainland United States.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 08, 2007, 12:54:58 PM
If you thought my recent posts were an explanation or justification of the Iraq war, then you are confused. I made specific comments about specific things. If you'd like to respond to what I actually said, please do. And let me make very clear that I do not parrot Sean Hannity. I consider him to be a severe idiot. I do like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on August 08, 2007, 12:59:36 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 08, 2007, 01:10:57 PM
Post by: Paddy on August 08, 2007, 01:39:05 PM
You know full well the Iraq war is the substance of the argument and you also know you're on the wrong side of it. Of course you can't explain or justify it; neither can anyone else. So, instead, you'd like to argue about who said what and when. I can produce links supporting my assertions, and you will attempt to discredit the source or claim it doesn't say what it says. Who knows what Bush said, or admitted, or did not admit? Even he doesn't know. You can parse words until the proverbial cows come home and you still won't be any closer to the truth.
In the meanwhile, I'll just 'stay the course'.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 08, 2007, 01:53:32 PM
Here's where I have a real problem. You said I was following circular logic, that goes like this:
Quote
since we're there, we must have a good reason because we're the good guys and they're the evildoers. We must 'stay the course'
But where did my posts say any of that? I only asked you to defend your post, and then responded to Dasmi's links. But you don't want to answer my questions. Yes, sometimes it feels like I'm on the wrong side of the Iraq debate. But that's just because it would be easier to go along with the crowd and expect a microwave solution. Examining facts usually dispels that feeling.
Post by: Paddy on August 09, 2007, 01:30:46 PM
Quote
Yes, sometimes it feels like I'm on the wrong side of the Iraq debate. But that's just because it would be easier to go along with the crowd and expect a microwave solution. Examining facts usually dispels that feeling.
Exactly. And the facts are that Iraq is not now and has never been a threat to the security of the U.S. Everybody thought so before the invasion because everybody believed the same faulty intelligence. In hindsight, the invasion turned out to be a mistake. The Congress, as well as the President, are responsible for that mistake. It is not all George Bush's 'fault'. What is GWB's fault is continuing this conflict, year after year, with everchanging 'goals'. It's dishonest. It's disingenuous, and the American people aren't buying it. To request either a resolution or a reason for continuing after 5 years and hundreds of billions $$ is not 'expecting a microwave solution'. GWB has completely and utterly failed to articulate any substantial reason for continuing our military involvement in Iraq. All he says is 'stay the course' or 'the evildoers yakety yak'. He goes from WMD's to 'regime change' to 'democratization'. Democratization won't work in a tribal society. Hell, it hasn't even worked yet in the former USSR after 20 years.
GWB will be out of office Jan 20, 2009, having accomplished nothing. He leaves a big mess for the next President, and a huge debt for the rest of us. He will go down as the worst President in U.S. history.
Having said that, I'm done with Republicans after voting for them since 1968. And damn sure not gonna vote for any Dems. I'm re registering Independent for whatever it's worth.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 09, 2007, 01:48:29 PM
Post by: Paddy on August 09, 2007, 01:57:38 PM
[/rant off]
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 09, 2007, 02:57:36 PM
Quote
Because the American people are by and large stooges who allow MSM to dictate the minutia of their lives their views on the Iraq war.
That's better. In twenty years, Iraq will be what it would have been anyway. Another small war, another little dictator toppled. Unless you win, Riley, and we leave, in which case it will be Blackhawk Down to the hundredth power, Vietnam Redux. The moment when the Islamic world learned that America has no guts.
Anyway, why don't you lecture me on Russian grammar? You are probably better-informed on that subject.
Post by: Len Budney on August 09, 2007, 03:30:39 PM
That's better. In twenty years, Iraq will be what it would have been anyway. Another small war, another little dictator toppled.
Another couple trillion plunked in the jukebox. Yup.Quote
Unless you win, Riley, and we leave, in which case it will be Blackhawk Down to the hundredth power, Vietnam Redux.
That's true, but not in the way you think. When the US fails to set up a stable, secular, pro-western democracy--which is the only intelligent definition of "victory," and is unattainable--they will forever attribute it to the "knife in the back theory." We were winning right up until them dang liberals/libertarians/Ron Paul/whoever snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, yadda yadda.If Bush wins, and protracts the war for the next several decades, we'll still lose, and folks will still claim that we were winning until the "panty-waist liberals" castrated the "manly man" neocons and stole their cakewalk. It's a no-brainer for the Bushistas: no matter what happens, they can shift the blame, using almost the identical argument. Just replace "made us pull out" with "didn't fund the war enough" or "didn't root loudly enough for the home team" or "by disagreeing with the Decidinator, gave the enemy the steely resolve they needed to win" or "didn't pray enough" or "called down God's wrath with their decadent lifestyles"... except for that little bit, the excuse is the same regardless.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 09, 2007, 03:34:49 PM
That's better. In twenty years, Iraq will be what it would have been anyway. Another small war, another little dictator toppled.
Another couple trillion plunked in the jukebox. Yup.Quote
Quote
Unless you win, Riley, and we leave, in which case it will be Blackhawk Down to the hundredth power, Vietnam Redux.
That's true, but not in the way you think. When the US fails to set up a stable, secular, pro-western democracy--which is the only intelligent definition of "victory," and is unattainable--they will forever attribute it to the "knife in the back theory." We were winning right up until them dang liberals/libertarians/Ron Paul/whoever snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, yadda yadda.If Bush wins, and protracts the war for the next several decades, we'll still lose, and folks will still claim that we were winning until the "panty-waist liberals" castrated the "manly man" neocons and stole their cakewalk. It's a no-brainer for the Bushistas: no matter what happens, they can shift the blame, using almost the identical argument. Just replace "made us pull out" with "didn't fund the war enough" or "didn't root loudly enough for the home team" or "by disagreeing with the Decidinator, gave the enemy the steely resolve they needed to win" or "didn't pray enough" or "called down God's wrath with their decadent lifestyles"... except for that little bit, the excuse is the same regardless.
--Len.
Pretty much. That's why they're the bad guys and we're the good guys. Deal.
Post by: Len Budney on August 09, 2007, 03:42:57 PM
Pretty much. That's why they're the bad guys and we're the good guys. Deal.
Liberals are the bad guys--but conservatives aren't the good guys. The former oppress citizens, and the latter oppress non-citizens. Moderates, of course, are so called because they're willing to compromise and oppress both citizens and non-citizens.The ones who want to oppress nobody are variously named "nut-ball whackos," or "crazed extremists," etc.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 09, 2007, 03:44:18 PM
Post by: Balog on August 09, 2007, 03:45:00 PM
But America at this stage in it's existence would never go for that, so that giant flushing sound you hear is money and lives going away for no purpose.
Post by: Len Budney on August 09, 2007, 03:49:32 PM
We could win in Iraq, if we were willing to look at history...
I think you can boil it down pretty neatly: we can win in Iraq, and easily, if we kill every last freakin' one of 'em. If we do anything less, the ones left alive will be thoroughly ticked off and will make revenge on the US his religion. Some of them, or their children, will eventually lay their hands on a nuke, or a pulse cannon, or get behind the wheel of a battlestar some GI double-parked, and it's payback time.Quote
But America at this stage in it's existence would never go for that, so that giant flushing sound you hear is money and lives going away for no purpose.
Right. We're not actually ready to support full-on genocide. The president can get away with genocide only if he can fool the American people into thinking it's not happening, or that it's something other than genocide. Since that isn't bloody likely, they're going to fart around for a year, or ten, or a hundred, and finally give up. Meanwhile, of course, the surviving Iraqis are thoroughly ticked off and making revenge on the US into their religion...--Len.
Post by: Balog on August 09, 2007, 03:52:28 PM
Post by: Len Budney on August 09, 2007, 03:58:58 PM
I'm unaware of the Brits ever genociding anyone. Even in the Sepoy Mutiny in the mid 1850's, altho lots of innocent Indian blood was indeed shed. Maybe I'm missing it; care to post an example? Or are you saying the British Empire was unsuccessful?
How are things in the British colony of India these days? Their brutality contributed directly to their expulsion from India. When you take blowback into account, "victory" takes more than a triumphant photo-op on an aircraft carrier.9/11 was blowback, primarily from the US operation of bases in Saudi Arabia, yet it occurred ten years after the first gulf war was "won." But it'll be a long time before historians correctly include 9/11 in their accounts of Gulf War I; since history is, for now, more or less dictated by the American government, 9/11 will instead be treated as an unprovoked attack from a crazy camel-jockey whose only motivation was that he heard voices in his head.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 09, 2007, 04:45:06 PM
Quote
history is, for now, more or less dictated by the American government
All other issues, aside, are you saying what I think you're saying? You think the U.S. govt. is dictating history to the populace?
Balog,
On the internets, genocide means "killing a bunch of people in a really mean way." Please do not expect words to have their actual meanings.
Post by: Len Budney on August 09, 2007, 04:51:43 PM
All other issues, aside, are you saying what I think you're saying? You think the U.S. govt. is dictating history to the populace?
Not directly, no. Writers of recent history are informed primarily by the press, which are sometimes witting and sometimes unwitting organs of government propaganda. The writers themselves, being way too close to the events they document, are usually motivated by the agenda of either the left or the right, and write accordingly. The vast majority of all works on recent history are, as a result, little more than the distilled propaganda of the ruling parties.
There will of course be two main versions of GWII, just as there are two main versions of Vietnam--but neither version will do much justice to the truth.
Quote
On the internets, genocide means "killing a bunch of people in a really mean way." Please do not expect words to have their actual meanings.
I explained pretty clearly why leaving survivors is always a mistake. The Brits are out of India. The US experienced 9/11. If you record the full effects of a policy, and not only a cherry-picked subset, the picture changes considerably. We have already created future terrorist attacks which most Americans will regard as completely unprovoked, since their knowledge of history starts last Tuesday and their knowledge of the world stops just past the nearest mall. And politicians will exploit the resulting paranoia to advance their statist agenda, as usual.
I'm personally hoping that lots of Iraqi refugees move to Canada. It'll be a hoot to see politicians spinning our "dangerous neighbor to the north" and launching invasions of Ontario. Instead of "Johnny Jihad" it'll be "Nuke Nanook!"
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on August 09, 2007, 04:56:36 PM
The British invented the concept of the concentration camp, in South Africa, against the Boers.
And many of the horrors that go along with those camps.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 09, 2007, 07:25:20 PM
Let's see what we have here, Len.
Anything I say is just propaganda from the right. Anything you say is clear wisdom unsullied by partisan straitjacket. Riiight.
Quote
The writers themselves, being way too close to the events they document, are usually motivated by the agenda of either the left or the right, and write accordingly. The vast majority of all works on recent history are, as a result, little more than the distilled propaganda of the ruling parties.
Ah, yes. Everyone else is blinded. You are above the fray. Just like everybody else claims to be. Yawn. In reality, the historians of 2157 will appraise events differently, with the advantage of being far removed from the events themselves. And they will appraise events differently, with the disadvantage of being far removed from the events themselves. It works both ways.
Post by: Len Budney on August 09, 2007, 09:10:53 PM
Anything I say is just propaganda from the right. Anything you say is clear wisdom unsullied by partisan straitjacket. Riiight.
Straw man. I never said any such thing.I did indicate that the "knife in the back theory" is a standard excuse for government failure. Conservatives in the sorta-free world use it to explain failed wars; leftists use it to explain the failure of their social programs. The USSR always used it to explain all their failures, and whenever a shortage or a surplus was created in their command economy, someone was sure to "confess" to deviating from the plan, and be duly executed for his "sabotage." This observation is light-years away from suggesting that you are wrong on every issue, or that everything you say is propaganda.
Indeed, I said the opposite: I said that "liberals" are actually right when they decide that slaughtering a bunch of turbaned folks who never belonged to a terrorist organization in the first place is immoral. They're right when they say it's immoral to suspend habeas corpus and the protections ofr the fourth and fifth amendments in the name of "security." And on the other hand, conservatives are right when they say it's immoral to steal, even if you're "stealing from the rich to give to the poor." It's immoral to intrude into and seize control of people's lives in the name of "helping" them. And so on.
It would be much more accurate to say that I've called both sides "half right." The left is usually wrong on welfare, and the right is usually wrong on warfare.
Quote
Quote
The writers themselves, being way too close to the events they document, are usually motivated by the agenda of either the left or the right, and write accordingly. The vast majority of all works on recent history are, as a result, little more than the distilled propaganda of the ruling parties.
Ah, yes. Everyone else is blinded. You are above the fray.
Everyone is selling something. Call it advertising, propaganda, or whatever you will, but a balanced report of the objective facts is a rare animal. You know it too, though you probably call it things like "liberal media bias." The media IS biased leftward--but the administration, which knows that, does a good job of controlling what they find out about things like wars. Advertisers and other special interests are also in the fray, just to keep the fog nice and thick.
The facts are out there, and plenty of people--but far too few--are able to consider them slightly objectively.
A good example is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most Americans, including myself until recently, swallow without question the comforting myth that nuking Japan was an act of God-like mercy by Truman: those stupid yellow devils were going to resist until the last man fell with his sword in his hand; and then the women and children would keep resisting. We "saved a million lives" by nuking them so they'd get it through their primitive minds that their cause was completely hopeless. Yay us!
Some believe that they were nuked because racist Americans didn't value the lives of little yellow devils--and that's why we nuked Japan and didn't nuke Germany. Germans were white like us. Considering the flap at the Smithsonian Institution over the Enola Gay exhibit, I'd speculate that this is the largest minority viewpoint in the US. It's even more stupid than the generally-accepted truth above.
Plenty of people are aware of the real facts: Japan was desperate to surrender, and had made overtures to the US. Their only concern was that they didn't want Hirohito deposed or harmed, since they revered him as a deity. Truman's policy of "unconditional surrender" made them hesitate, even though in the end Hirohito wasn't deposed. When the enemy is begging for a chance to surrender, with such minimal terms, it's clearly nonsense that they're planning to resist until the last toddler is slaughtered. Truman's generals were more or less unanimous that it was wrong and immoral to nuke Japan, and the "saved a million lives" rationale didn't come on the scene until later. Most people speculate, and it's probably the correct explanation, that the bombings were intended to be a warning to Stalin that the US was not to be trifled with. Other factors, such as the desire to try out his new toy, or to play God, may or may not have been present--it's tough to psychoanalyze a man after he's dead.
So I make no special claim of enlightenment, and certainly no blanket claim. I merely point out that "history is written by the winners," that governments are heavily into the propaganda business, and that other powerful interests with agendas are involved as well. The facts are usually there under all the muck, somewhere, and plenty of folks eventually become aware of them, but it takes a while. Popular myths can overwhelm the truth for years or even centuries.
You are correct that once history becomes remote enough, it too becomes mythologized. King Arthur was probably a historical figure, as was probably Robin Hood, but the true facts concerning either are buried under a mountain of legend. Ancient history is an extremely dicey business, and a fair bit of what we "know" about it is probably wrong. Huge swaths of history fall into doubt if Herodotus happened to be an embellisher, for example.
--Len.
Post by: Balog on August 09, 2007, 09:32:09 PM
"I'm unaware of the Brits ever genociding anyone."
The British invented the concept of the concentration camp, in South Africa, against the Boers.
And many of the horrors that go along with those camps.
The British invented the concept of the concentration camp, in South Africa, against the Boers.
And many of the horrors that go along with those camps.
You know, it's odd but that was actually what I was thinking of when I wrote my post. Even there, tho, it wasn't properly genocide. It was more of a "we'll kill your families until you surrender" tactic than a "we'll kill all of you" tactic. I'd say the American treatment of certain Indian tribes was closer to true genocide than anything the Brits ever did.
Len: Many of the most free and successful countries that aren't America or European started off as Brit colonies. The goal isn't to be there forever; just until you've bred the stupid out of 'em.
Post by: Len Budney on August 09, 2007, 09:33:29 PM
Len: Many of the most free and successful countries that aren't America or European started off as Brit colonies. The goal isn't to be there forever; just until you've bred the stupid out of 'em.
Where's the giant bug-eyed emoticon when you need it? I thought the "white man's burden" was so last century.
--Len.
Post by: Finch on August 10, 2007, 12:42:27 AM
When I opened the thread, I was greeted with a pleasant trio of videos to show me that Ron Paul is possibly the most gun friendly presidential candidate this country has seen in a long long time. "Wow" I thought "This is great, there must be more. After all, there are two pages"
So I scrolled through, expecting to find more about the glorious 2nd Amendment and it's potential savior. But soon reality set it.....
The only thing I found was disappointment.....
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 10, 2007, 01:58:17 AM
Quote
So I scrolled through, expecting to find more about the glorious 2nd Amendment and it's potential savior. But soon reality set it.....
The only thing I found was disappointment.....
The only thing I found was disappointment.....
That's Ron Paul for you. It all sounds so great. Until you get to the Iraq part of the platform - then he just wants to give up and run.
Post by: RocketMan on August 10, 2007, 05:01:14 AM
Post by: Euclidean on August 10, 2007, 12:06:54 PM
Quote
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.
Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.
We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.
Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now were paying the price.
At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.
We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.
Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now were paying the price.
At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
I'm sorry I must be absolutely insane, because this sounds reasonable to me.
Post by: K Frame on August 10, 2007, 12:26:57 PM
Ah. Of course.
Read up on some of the things that the BRITISH to native tribes in North America.
Post by: Len Budney on August 10, 2007, 02:26:04 PM
Read up on some of the things that the BRITISH to native tribes in North America.
True. I used to live near Amherst, MA. There's a movement there to rename either the town or the university--I forget which, and probably both. But Lord Jeffrey Amherst was technically a Brit, not an American.
Still, the Indian wars after the War for Southern Independence were definitely a classic example of genocide. Anyone who gets smug on the subject is going to find that whatever nation he hails from was also a party to comparable atrocities.
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on August 11, 2007, 09:32:55 AM
Actually, no, the Indian wars were NOT a classic example of genocide.
The avowed purpose of governmental action in the west of the Civil War was to move the plains Indians off their traditional lands, onto defined reservations, and open former Indian lands to white settlement.
Had it been an exercise in genocide, the Bureau of Indian Affairs would never have been established, reservations would never have been established, the whole Indian Schools System would never have been established.
Had it been an exercise in genocide, the Indians would have been slaughtered where they were with no emphasis given to moving them to reservations, or they would have been slaughtered at the reservations.
Post by: Len Budney on August 11, 2007, 10:19:50 AM
The avowed purpose of governmental action in the west of the Civil War was to move the plains Indians off their traditional lands, onto defined reservations, and open former Indian lands to white settlement.
... but that didn't quite work out according to plan, so the majority were simply slaughtered. If it HAD gone according to plan, we could say that it wasn't "genocide," but it was still a crime of biblical proportions.--Len.
Post by: Balog on August 11, 2007, 11:15:32 AM