4) Big Spliff, come on. When you wrote that people who disagree with you are no better than pro-Kremlin Soviets, you are yourself betraying a certain Leninism. You are essentially accusing your opponents of false consciousness. It is this logic, I might add, that led to the jailing of so many dissidents in the Soviet bloc. As best I can tell, 3rd stream, and Sabadaba are not making broad statements about your psychological motivations. So why must you offer such flimsy counterfactuals about theirs? It's no better than right wing cranks who declare all war opponents to be traitors. There are many reasoned supporters of the war who also respect not only the right of their opponents to make their case, but like myself see such dissent as vital to the health of the republic.
Nope, I tried to point out that people who act as attack dogs on the character of a mother who lost a son in an illegal war are the moral equivalent of NKVD/Stasi/VB informers, ie THOUGHT POLICE. They get a pat on the back from the system and get to feel validated, when really they are peons.
I was also trying to point out the absurdity of positioning yourself as an "independent" thinker (a la gruntgravel) while all along falling lockstep with the powers that be, and often its most authoritarian aspects. Just like Bill O'Really, you yourself have been very guilty of this, but with your new tone on here you are now falling over to distance yourself from your previous dogma which has been well and truly debunked. Now you seem to be fence sitting. I'm sure that mirrors a lot of doubts that are starting to trickle into your consciousness. Good for you, but please don't take potshots at the messengers. I am no Leninist. You sir, are a Neo-Con.
There are a lot of viewpoints that you have posted here that have turned out to be false (to put it nicely), but you are constantly revising your position, with your oh-so useful "nuance". Classic Neo-Con dissembly.
I, like many who opposed this war from the begining, have yet to be proved wrong on the points we have been making for years. Such as: No war for oil, urban and guerrila warfare is politically unwinnable, Bushco doesn't give a shit about the troops or stability in the M.E., and most importantly, this admistration is a corrupt kleptocracy that does nothing altruisticly.
Your last sentence is disingenuous. You are speaking about a tiny minority of pro-Bush people. Right now the group possibly includes you. Anyone else? Tucker Carlsson?
You will all be eventually, but facts don't seem to make you lose sleep at night.
slightly off topic, but i've been reading up on Rove's past. just for fun. of course that led me to Lee Atwater. I found this op/ed peice from 1991 shortly after Mr. Atwater passed from a brain tumor. (shig: the highlights are bolded.)
WHAT LEE ATWATER LEARNED
AND THE LESSON FOR HIS PROT??G??S
By Tom Turnipseed
The Washington Post
Tuesday, April 16, 1991; Page A19
Thanks to the late Lee Atwater, my electroshock treatments for adolescent depression 35 years ago have probably been the most publicized political incident of its kind since Sen. Thomas Eagleton of Missouri was replaced as vice presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket in 1972, because he had a "nervous breakdown" in his past.
Atwater, as you probably read in his recent obituaries, made me one of his targets on his way to establishing himself as a gunslinging political operative who exploited any perceived vulnerability in his opponent.
The incident occurred in 1980, when I was a Democratic nominee for Congress in South Carolina and Atwater was a consultant for my opponent, the Republican incumbent. Atwater's antics included phony polls by "independent pollsters" to "inform" white suburbanites that I was a member of the NAACP, because my congressman opponent was afraid to publicly say so, and last-minute letters from Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) warning voters that I would disarm America and turn it over to the liberals and Communists. I ran a respectable campaign but lost.[/b]
Since then, Atwater had cultivated his macho image with the national media by telling about how he had planted a story with reporters covering the 1980 congressional race that I had been "hooked up to jumper cables" when I was "mentally ill" as a student.[/b] I saw the story in Esquire, The New York Times, the Atlanta Constitution, on NBC-TV and PBS. Lee seemed to delight in making fun of a suicidal 16-year-old who was treated for depression with electroshock treatments.
In fact, my struggle with depression as a student was no secret. I had talked about it in a widely covered news conference as early as 1977, when I was in the South Carolina State Senate. Since then I have often shared with appropriate groups the full story of my recovery to responsible adulthood as a professional, political and civic leader, husband and father. Teenage depression and suicide are major problems in America, and I believe my life offers hope to young people who are suffering with a constant fear of the future.
In the last few months of his life, Lee Atwater apologized to me. In a letter dated June 28, 1990, Lee wrote, "It is very important to me that I let you know that out of everything that has happened in my career, one of the low points remains the so called 'jumper cable' episode."[/b]Faced with the ultimate question of life, Lee also publicly proclaimed his Christianity and sought reconciliation with his enemies.
He said in his letter to me that "my illness has taught me something about the nature of humanity, love, brotherhood and relationships that I never understood, and probably never would have. So, from that standpoint, there is some truth and good in everything."
Touched by the sincerity of his letter of apology and subsequent phone conversations, I attended Lee Atwater's funeral in Columbia, S.C. Sitting across the church from me was a young Republican political consultant whom I recognized. I had recently seen him on CNN boasting about how Republicans were going to drive up the negatives on all the Democrats who voted "against America" in opposing Bush's force resolution and beat them in 1992. How sad.[/b]
I hope those young political consultants who would emulate Atwater's tactics of driving up the negatives of their opponents with the politics of fear will realize that Lee Atwater, confronting death, became, through the grace of God, an advocate of the politics of love and reconciliation.[/b] Rather than remembering him as one who polarized politics and exploited insecurity and prejudices to win elections, it would be good if we could remember him as a positive role model. When faced with his own mortality, he saw the truth of love and reconciliation.
I hope those young political consultants who would emulate Atwater's tactics of driving up the negatives of their opponents with the politics of fear will realize that Lee Atwater, confronting death, became, through the grace of God, an advocate of the politics of love and reconciliation.[/b]
What is so attractive about Born Again Christianity, is you can lie, cheat and steal your whole life, then apoligise on your death bed and be washed clean of sin. The moral of this story is do whatever you want then ask for forgiveness before you die.
I hope those young political consultants who would emulate Atwater's tactics of driving up the negatives of their opponents with the politics of fear will realize that Lee Atwater, confronting death, became, through the grace of God, an advocate of the politics of love and reconciliation.[/b]
What is so attractive about Born Again Christianity, is you can lie, cheat and steal your whole life, then apoligise on your death bed and be washed clean of sin. The moral of this story is do whatever you want then ask for forgiveness before you die.
4) Big Spliff, come on. When you wrote that people who disagree with you are no better than pro-Kremlin Soviets, you are yourself betraying a certain Leninism. You are essentially accusing your opponents of false consciousness. It is this logic, I might add, that led to the jailing of so many dissidents in the Soviet bloc. As best I can tell, 3rd stream, and Sabadaba are not making broad statements about your psychological motivations. So why must you offer such flimsy counterfactuals about theirs? It's no better than right wing cranks who declare all war opponents to be traitors. There are many reasoned supporters of the war who also respect not only the right of their opponents to make their case, but like myself see such dissent as vital to the health of the republic.
Nope, I tried to point out that people who act as attack dogs on the character of a mother who lost a son in an illegal war are the moral equivalent of NKVD/Stasi/VB informers, ie THOUGHT POLICE. They get a pat on the back from the system and get to feel validated, when really they are peons.
I was also trying to point out the absurdity of positioning yourself as an "independent" thinker (a la gruntgravel) while all along falling lockstep with the powers that be, and often its most authoritarian aspects. Just like Bill O'Really, you yourself have been very guilty of this, but with your new tone on here you are now falling over to distance yourself from your previous dogma which has been well and truly debunked. Now you seem to be fence sitting. I'm sure that mirrors a lot of doubts that are starting to trickle into your consciousness. Good for you, but please don't take potshots at the messengers. I am no Leninist. You sir, are a Neo-Con.
There are a lot of viewpoints that you have posted here that have turned out to be false (to put it nicely), but you are constantly revising your position, with your oh-so useful "nuance". Classic Neo-Con dissembly.
I, like many who opposed this war from the begining, have yet to be proved wrong on the points we have been making for years. Such as: No war for oil, urban and guerrila warfare is politically unwinnable, Bushco doesn't give a shit about the troops or stability in the M.E., and most importantly, this admistration is a corrupt kleptocracy that does nothing altruisticly.
Your last sentence is disingenuous. You are speaking about a tiny minority of pro-Bush people. Right now the group possibly includes you. Anyone else? Tucker Carlsson?
You will all be eventually, but facts don't seem to make you lose sleep at night.
Perhaps you would like your words back. When you said, "If you are still for this war, you either have psychological deficinecies or you need to get to your local recruitment office and sign up FAST! They need you! I know there is a large silent majority out there, especially on the Strut, but what is up with some of the future leaders of the free world? You support the opposite of what your country was founded on. If you lived in Soviet Russia you'd all have red stars and weekend dachas given to you by a grateful politburo. Bushco won't even be so generous... tools you are, critical thinkers not," what else is a fair reader to make of this? You are saying that people who arrive at a pro-war position are actually motivated by a deep seated need to be validated by those in power. It is the equivalent of saying your anti-war position is motivated by an adolescent desire to anger your parents.
The point is that I cannot possibly know your state of mind and don't pretend to. Unlike you, I try to argue the case on the merits and facts as I see them. Acknowledging the painful fact that we are losing the war is not the same as saying we should stop fighting, nor is it to agree with nonsense that the war was waged on fraudulent terms, nor is it even to say that the war is unwinnable.
Now when you say my "viewpoints" have been "false," you are borrowing (perhaps unknowingly) from the Stalinists and Fannonists who justified all manner of brutality against those with "false consciousness." What else could a false viewpoint mean? You dismiss nuance as "neocon dissembly," as if there was a particular style of dis-assembly you wish to criticize. I judge from your prior fulminations, that being a neocon is indictment enough; but it is a pseudosophisticated evasion if you never bother to say which part of the neocon arguments you find objectionable.
In part your post is a defense of the assertion that conservatives are unique in that they attack the character of their opponents. Are you not familiar with the knife work of Sidney Blumenthal? When he spread rumors that Monica Lewinsky was empotionally unstable, or says that Paul Wolfowitz is a spy for Israel today, what is that if not character assasination? On a much smaller level, I am all too familiar with the ad hominum tendencies of the left, having to contend with all sorts of feckless attacks on my character when I wade into these debates over the war and such.
Finally you point with pride that your "arguments" about the war have yet to be proved wrong. You list them as "No war for oil, urban and guerrila warfare is politically unwinnable, Bushco doesn't give a shit about the troops or stability in the M.E., and most importantly, this admistration is a corrupt kleptocracy that does nothing altruisticly." But these are bumper sticker slogans. Take for example your assertion "no war for oil." If it was a war for oil, then why does the elected government of Iraq control the oil revenues? If you argue that it was in fact a war for oil service contracts because some of the firms modernizing Iraqi oil fields are American firms, then you have to explain how many of these firms enjoyed UN contracts to do exactly as they are doing now when Saddam was in power. Finally, you might say that this was about oil exports from Iraq, but after 1996 Iraqi oil was exported by mainly American and British companies to the same markets it is going to now.
When you say urban warfare is unwinnable, this is a case of counting chickens before hatching. It is true that our troops have not been able to hold some cities, but in some cases they have, and it does not mean that under the right political conditions the terrorist insurgency cannot be defeated. Insurgencies have been won and lost since the Macabees, who by the way ultimately lost. And again, saying that Bushco doesn't care about stability or our troops and are corrupt thieves is slogan talk and not exactly an argument. I would argue that the toppling of Saddam was a necessary precondition for stability, unless you think the survival of a dictator that regularly threatened to send his army into Kurdistan was just fine. And you would have to be a mind reader if you contend the president "does nothing altruistically." So in short I don't think any of your slogans have been proven and in some cases are the kind of fuzzy talk that cannot be proven.
I have no idea how you arrived at these opinions and for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant. If you think you know how I arrived at mine, it says more about the weakness of your case than it does about my reasoning.
4) Big Spliff, come on. When you wrote that people who disagree with you are no better than pro-Kremlin Soviets, you are yourself betraying a certain Leninism. You are essentially accusing your opponents of false consciousness. It is this logic, I might add, that led to the jailing of so many dissidents in the Soviet bloc. As best I can tell, 3rd stream, and Sabadaba are not making broad statements about your psychological motivations. So why must you offer such flimsy counterfactuals about theirs? It's no better than right wing cranks who declare all war opponents to be traitors. There are many reasoned supporters of the war who also respect not only the right of their opponents to make their case, but like myself see such dissent as vital to the health of the republic.
Nope, I tried to point out that people who act as attack dogs on the character of a mother who lost a son in an illegal war are the moral equivalent of NKVD/Stasi/VB informers, ie THOUGHT POLICE. They get a pat on the back from the system and get to feel validated, when really they are peons.
I was also trying to point out the absurdity of positioning yourself as an "independent" thinker (a la gruntgravel) while all along falling lockstep with the powers that be, and often its most authoritarian aspects. Just like Bill O'Really, you yourself have been very guilty of this, but with your new tone on here you are now falling over to distance yourself from your previous dogma which has been well and truly debunked. Now you seem to be fence sitting. I'm sure that mirrors a lot of doubts that are starting to trickle into your consciousness. Good for you, but please don't take potshots at the messengers. I am no Leninist. You sir, are a Neo-Con.
There are a lot of viewpoints that you have posted here that have turned out to be false (to put it nicely), but you are constantly revising your position, with your oh-so useful "nuance". Classic Neo-Con dissembly.
I, like many who opposed this war from the begining, have yet to be proved wrong on the points we have been making for years. Such as: No war for oil, urban and guerrila warfare is politically unwinnable, Bushco doesn't give a shit about the troops or stability in the M.E., and most importantly, this admistration is a corrupt kleptocracy that does nothing altruisticly.
Your last sentence is disingenuous. You are speaking about a tiny minority of pro-Bush people. Right now the group possibly includes you. Anyone else? Tucker Carlsson?
You will all be eventually, but facts don't seem to make you lose sleep at night.
Perhaps you would like your words back. When you said, "If you are still for this war, you either have psychological deficinecies or you need to get to your local recruitment office and sign up FAST! They need you! I know there is a large silent majority out there, especially on the Strut, but what is up with some of the future leaders of the free world? You support the opposite of what your country was founded on. If you lived in Soviet Russia you'd all have red stars and weekend dachas given to you by a grateful politburo. Bushco won't even be so generous... tools you are, critical thinkers not," what else is a fair reader to make of this? You are saying that people who arrive at a pro-war position are actually motivated by a deep seated need to be validated by those in power. It is the equivalent of saying your anti-war position is motivated by an adolescent desire to anger your parents.
The point is that I cannot possibly know your state of mind and don't pretend to. Unlike you, I try to argue the case on the merits and facts as I see them. Acknowledging the painful fact that we are losing the war is not the same as saying we should stop fighting, nor is it to agree with nonsense that the war was waged on fraudulent terms, nor is it even to say that the war is unwinnable.
Now when you say my "viewpoints" have been "false," you are borrowing (perhaps unknowingly) from the Stalinists and Fannonists who justified all manner of brutality against those with "false consciousness." What else could a false viewpoint mean? You dismiss nuance as "neocon dissembly," as if there was a particular style of dis-assembly you wish to criticize. I judge from your prior fulminations, that being a neocon is indictment enough; but it is a pseudosophisticated evasion if you never bother to say which part of the neocon arguments you find objectionable.
In part your post is a defense of the assertion that conservatives are unique in that they attack the character of their opponents. Are you not familiar with the knife work of Sidney Blumenthal? When he spread rumors that Monica Lewinsky was empotionally unstable, or says that Paul Wolfowitz is a spy for Israel today, what is that if not character assasination? On a much smaller level, I am all too familiar with the ad hominum tendencies of the left, having to contend with all sorts of feckless attacks on my character when I wade into these debates over the war and such.
Finally you point with pride that your "arguments" about the war have yet to be proved wrong. You list them as "No war for oil, urban and guerrila warfare is politically unwinnable, Bushco doesn't give a shit about the troops or stability in the M.E., and most importantly, this admistration is a corrupt kleptocracy that does nothing altruisticly." But these are bumper sticker slogans. Take for example your assertion "no war for oil." If it was a war for oil, then why does the elected government of Iraq control the oil revenues? If you argue that it was in fact a war for oil service contracts because some of the firms modernizing Iraqi oil fields are American firms, then you have to explain how many of these firms enjoyed UN contracts to do exactly as they are doing now when Saddam was in power. Finally, you might say that this was about oil exports from Iraq, but after 1996 Iraqi oil was exported by mainly American and British companies to the same markets it is going to now.
When you say urban warfare is unwinnable, this is a case of counting chickens before hatching. It is true that our troops have not been able to hold some cities, but in some cases they have, and it does not mean that under the right political conditions the terrorist insurgency cannot be defeated. Insurgencies have been won and lost since the Macabees, who by the way ultimately lost. And again, saying that Bushco doesn't care about stability or our troops and are corrupt thieves is slogan talk and not exactly an argument. I would argue that the toppling of Saddam was a necessary precondition for stability, unless you think the survival of a dictator that regularly threatened to send his army into Kurdistan was just fine. And you would have to be a mind reader if you contend the president "does nothing altruistically." So in short I don't think any of your slogans have been proven and in some cases are the kind of fuzzy talk that cannot be proven.
I have no idea how you arrived at these opinions and for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant. If you think you know how I arrived at mine, it says more about the weakness of your case than it does about my reasoning.
Now when you say my "viewpoints" have been "false," you are borrowing (perhaps unknowingly) from the Stalinists and Fannonists who justified all manner of brutality against those with "false consciousness." What else could a false viewpoint mean? You dismiss nuance as "neocon dissembly," as if there was a particular style of dis-assembly you wish to criticize. I judge from your prior fulminations, that being a neocon is indictment enough; but it is a pseudosophisticated evasion if you never bother to say which part of the neocon arguments you find objectionable.
"What else could a false viewpoint mean?" is a rhetorical question that smacks of "pseudosophisticated evasion". I don't really see how BigSpliff is trying to justify any manner of brutality so your arguement really doesn't hold weight or have any relevance. If you find fit to judge that being a neocon is indictment, you can proably also judge for yourself the elements likely to be found objectionable in this context. Forcing an itemized list is just "pseudosophisticated evasion" aimed at turning the discussion.
In part your post is a defense of the assertion that conservatives are unique in that they attack the character of their opponents. Are you not familiar with the knife work of Sidney Blumenthal? When he spread rumors that Monica Lewinsky was empotionally unstable, or says that Paul Wolfowitz is a spy for Israel today, what is that if not character assasination? On a much smaller level, I am all too familiar with the ad hominum tendencies of the left, having to contend with all sorts of feckless attacks on my character when I wade into these debates over the war and such.
i dont think attacks on character are unique to either party, however, the right has been steadily assassinating character of political opponents so well as of late surely even you can concede that they are at the least more studied, diligent, and simply better at the practice.
Finally you point with pride that your "arguments" about the war have yet to be proved wrong. You list them as "No war for oil, urban and guerrila warfare is politically unwinnable, Bushco doesn't give a shit about the troops or stability in the M.E., and most importantly, this admistration is a corrupt kleptocracy that does nothing altruisticly." But these are bumper sticker slogans. Take for example your assertion "no war for oil." If it was a war for oil, then why does the elected government of Iraq control the oil revenues? If you argue that it was in fact a war for oil service contracts because some of the firms modernizing Iraqi oil fields are American firms, then you have to explain how many of these firms enjoyed UN contracts to do exactly as they are doing now when Saddam was in power. Finally, you might say that this was about oil exports from Iraq, but after 1996 Iraqi oil was exported by mainly American and British companies to the same markets it is going to now.
who is in charge of the oil ministry? oh yeah.
how much has haliburton made in contracts since the invasion of iraq verses under the un oil for food program? oh yeah.
so the war is about freedom right? if you want to delve into how this war is really about oil lets talk about the net effect on the american economy if saddam had realized his plan of making the euro the acceptable legal tender for settling international oil contracts.
When you say urban warfare is unwinnable, this is a case of counting chickens before hatching. It is true that our troops have not been able to hold some cities, but in some cases they have, and it does not mean that under the right political conditions the terrorist insurgency cannot be defeated. Insurgencies have been won and lost since the Macabees, who by the way ultimately lost. And again, saying that Bushco doesn't care about stability or our troops and are corrupt thieves is slogan talk and not exactly an argument. I would argue that the toppling of Saddam was a necessary precondition for stability, unless you think the survival of a dictator that regularly threatened to send his army into Kurdistan was just fine. And you would have to be a mind reader if you contend the president "does nothing altruistically." So in short I don't think any of your slogans have been proven and in some cases are the kind of fuzzy talk that cannot be proven.
i think bigspliff is probably refering to the neocon dogma that asymetrical warfare is unwinnable. ask crazy uncle rumsfeld and the rest of the neo cons. they'll tell you the same thing. its an important underpinning to their view of managing global conflict and american hedgemony, which is all fuzzy talk.
Now when you say my "viewpoints" have been "false," you are borrowing (perhaps unknowingly) from the Stalinists and Fannonists who justified all manner of brutality against those with "false consciousness." What else could a false viewpoint mean? You dismiss nuance as "neocon dissembly," as if there was a particular style of dis-assembly you wish to criticize. I judge from your prior fulminations, that being a neocon is indictment enough; but it is a pseudosophisticated evasion if you never bother to say which part of the neocon arguments you find objectionable.
"What else could a false viewpoint mean?" is a rhetorical question that smacks of "pseudosophisticated evasion". I don't really see how BigSpliff is trying to justify any manner of brutality so your arguement really doesn't hold weight or have any relevance. If you find fit to judge that being a neocon is indictment, you can proably also judge for yourself the elements likely to be found objectionable in this context. Forcing an itemized list is just "pseudosophisticated evasion" aimed at turning the discussion.
In part your post is a defense of the assertion that conservatives are unique in that they attack the character of their opponents. Are you not familiar with the knife work of Sidney Blumenthal? When he spread rumors that Monica Lewinsky was empotionally unstable, or says that Paul Wolfowitz is a spy for Israel today, what is that if not character assasination? On a much smaller level, I am all too familiar with the ad hominum tendencies of the left, having to contend with all sorts of feckless attacks on my character when I wade into these debates over the war and such.
i dont think attacks on character are unique to either party, however, the right has been steadily assassinating character of political opponents so well as of late surely even you can concede that they are at the least more studied, diligent, and simply better at the practice.
Finally you point with pride that your "arguments" about the war have yet to be proved wrong. You list them as "No war for oil, urban and guerrila warfare is politically unwinnable, Bushco doesn't give a shit about the troops or stability in the M.E., and most importantly, this admistration is a corrupt kleptocracy that does nothing altruisticly." But these are bumper sticker slogans. Take for example your assertion "no war for oil." If it was a war for oil, then why does the elected government of Iraq control the oil revenues? If you argue that it was in fact a war for oil service contracts because some of the firms modernizing Iraqi oil fields are American firms, then you have to explain how many of these firms enjoyed UN contracts to do exactly as they are doing now when Saddam was in power. Finally, you might say that this was about oil exports from Iraq, but after 1996 Iraqi oil was exported by mainly American and British companies to the same markets it is going to now.
who is in charge of the oil ministry? oh yeah.
how much has haliburton made in contracts since the invasion of iraq verses under the un oil for food program? oh yeah.
so the war is about freedom right? if you want to delve into how this war is really about oil lets talk about the net effect on the american economy if saddam had realized his plan of making the euro the acceptable legal tender for settling international oil contracts.
When you say urban warfare is unwinnable, this is a case of counting chickens before hatching. It is true that our troops have not been able to hold some cities, but in some cases they have, and it does not mean that under the right political conditions the terrorist insurgency cannot be defeated. Insurgencies have been won and lost since the Macabees, who by the way ultimately lost. And again, saying that Bushco doesn't care about stability or our troops and are corrupt thieves is slogan talk and not exactly an argument. I would argue that the toppling of Saddam was a necessary precondition for stability, unless you think the survival of a dictator that regularly threatened to send his army into Kurdistan was just fine. And you would have to be a mind reader if you contend the president "does nothing altruistically." So in short I don't think any of your slogans have been proven and in some cases are the kind of fuzzy talk that cannot be proven.
i think bigspliff is probably refering to the neocon dogma that asymetrical warfare is unwinnable. ask crazy uncle rumsfeld and the rest of the neo cons. they'll tell you the same thing. its an important underpinning to their view of managing global conflict and american hedgemony, which is all fuzzy talk.
Before the war, when I was doing what I could to prevent it, I hated this slogan. I felt the issues were far more complex. Also because of V, I gave the NeoCons a shadow of doubt.
I do think that in the halls of the White House and the Defense Department, there is a belife that the US is the pinnacle of civilization and freedom. The proof is that we are the worlds only superpower. They also believe that it is our duty to force the rest of the world to be like us. This attitude has a lot to do with why we are in Iraq. Getting US forces out of Saudia Arabia is another. Saddam really was a bad guy, and had been a threat to his neighbors, and domestic opposition.
All those reasons and more play into why we went to war. The last of the reasons maybe the most important. After the gulf war, and Bush the 41st's selling out of the Kurds, no fly zones, weapons inspections and sanctions were forced on Iraq.
These measures effectively ended Saddam's ability to attack his neighbors, and made for realitevly autonomous Northern and Southern Iraqi territories. They also meant no oil money for US companies. Who controls the oil is inmaterial. Who profits from the oil is the question.
One reason the post-fall-of-Bagdad-war is going so badly is that the US told France, Germany and Russia to get lost. France, Germany and Russia lost oil contracts in the war. They offered to help with peace keeping and post war rebuilding, but the US told them to get lost. Why? Haliburton and Texaco wanted those old contracts. There is no other explanation for why the US didn't want those countrys helping with peace keeping and reconstruction.
France, Germany and Russia lost oil contracts in the war. They offered to help with peace keeping and post war rebuilding, but the US told them to get lost.
when was this offer? i must have been sick that day.
France, Germany and Russia lost oil contracts in the war. They offered to help with peace keeping and post war rebuilding, but the US told them to get lost.
when was this offer? i must have been sick that day.
When we invaded. They did not agree with the war but said they would help with peace keeping, obviously for a piece of the oil reserves. Bush wasn't having it and said if you are not part of the war from the start you gets none.
France, Germany and Russia lost oil contracts in the war. They offered to help with peace keeping and post war rebuilding, but the US told them to get lost.
when was this offer? i must have been sick that day.
After the fall of Bagdad. The US pointedly said; to the winner go the spoils, you guys just want your oil contracts back.
If you think back, when the statue of Saddam fell the Defense Department was saying the war was over, the oil would start flowing, and the oil would pay for the reconstruction. We sure don't hear that any more.
Perhaps you remember that John Kerry harped on this endlessly during the presidential debates. He kept saying Bush should not have turned downed help from France and Germany. I think at the time your response may have been France hates freedom.
riddle me this - if this is a red-herring, who's behind it?
This has already been discussed at length in this thread. Take your right hand off the keyboard, your left hand out of your pants, grab a heavy object and bang on head until unconscious.
If it was a war for oil, then why does the elected government of Iraq control the oil revenues?
Don't be silly VE. Certainly, it's dumb for anyone to assert that the war was for oil. It's even dumber for you to suggest that the "elected government of Iraq" actually represents the will of majority Iraqi citizens who--this is just so nice of them, thank you--happen to keep American's economic intersts a priority as they develop oil export policies.
This war is about politics. As is every single thing these people do. The consolidation of power for the GOP! (This is part of a long term strategy that is in its early throes.) Fortunately, this is contradictory to the core principles of our Constitutional Republic, with with its established checks and balances, to prevent the consolidation of power by a single group. That means, however unlikely, that Americans need to pay attention to what is really happening in Washington DC these days.
France, Germany and Russia lost oil contracts in the war. They offered to help with peace keeping and post war rebuilding, but the US told them to get lost.
when was this offer? i must have been sick that day.
After the fall of Bagdad. The US pointedly said; to the winner go the spoils, you guys just want your oil contracts back.
If you think back, when the statue of Saddam fell the Defense Department was saying the war was over, the oil would start flowing, and the oil would pay for the reconstruction. We sure don't hear that any more.
Perhaps you remember that John Kerry harped on this endlessly during the presidential debates. He kept saying Bush should not have turned downed help from France and Germany.
i remeber them offering to do some reconstuction, and the only one i remember offering for peace keeping was germany
I think at the time your response may have been France hates freedom.
no, but i had the t-shirt, which i wore while driving my pick up truck
France, Germany and Russia lost oil contracts in the war. They offered to help with peace keeping and post war rebuilding, but the US told them to get lost.
when was this offer? i must have been sick that day.
After the fall of Bagdad. The US pointedly said; to the winner go the spoils, you guys just want your oil contracts back.
If you think back, when the statue of Saddam fell the Defense Department was saying the war was over, the oil would start flowing, and the oil would pay for the reconstruction. We sure don't hear that any more.
Perhaps you remember that John Kerry harped on this endlessly during the presidential debates. He kept saying Bush should not have turned downed help from France and Germany.
i remeber them offering to do some reconstuction, and the only one i remember offering for peace keeping was germany
Don't worry, I'm sure no one is surprised that you are poorly informed.
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
Honestly: I've always appreciated the ability of V to give an intelligent, studied angle to politics. Even if he's dead wrong. Heh.
Seriously, though: the ad-hominems on this thread from both wings are just, like, tedious. Step your game up, peoples.
Cindy Sheehan's arguments, while I think are genuine, are not constructive. The most pressing question for any American now is how to win this war which we are now losing. She is not only demanding that we abandon Iraq's first elected government as they are writing a constitution, but that the president apologize for the sacrifice that her son made. She reasons the war was fought for reasons hidden from the public eye. But what of the other families that believe, as I do, that Saddam really was a threat to us and our allies, that Iraqi democracy is worth fighting for. If he appeases Cindy Sheehan he will no doubt sell out so many of the soldiers who still believe in the mission. He would also be sending a message to the Islamo-nihilists that America thinks it an error to defend their targets who are largely Iraqi civilians.
I agree with you re: the actual efficacy of Ms. Sheehan's arguments to induce/affect change in Iraq. But the most interesting thing about Ms. Sheehan and her presence upon the American political landscape is not her "goal" inasmuch as it is her mere symbolic existence as the Last, Pluckiest Knight on the Chessboard (i.e. that damn L-form stance that you just can't seem to nail down on a NHB match). Not only is it impossible to look smooth and non-elitist (see: Hitchens and a big ceeegar) whilst disagreeing with her stance, but it's impossible to disagree with her historically necessary presence as the designated (if you'll allow me to mix iconographical metaphors) Migrant Mother of the war (word to Dorothea Lange). "It's important, nay, necessary to reflect," says Mr Santayana, as paraphrased by me.
Applicable Berraisam (A.B.): Ms. Sheehan exists primarily in the Morrissettian "I'm here to remind you / of the mess you left when you went away" sense. George Bush is in a real Joseph Heller here, and the American people, weary from the increasing fuel costs, war budget, and mosquito bites, love a Bilbo Baggins. On stilts.
But really:
The "pull out" method? It's like that 5th grade joke revolving around the punchline "you can't unscrew a lightbulb."
Cindy Sheehan's crowd, Medea Benjamin, Michael Moore etc.
Guilt by ambulance-chasers. But at least they're all going to a hospital, even if it's a la It's A Mad, Mad Mad, Mad World or one of those motley Italian road races in a Herbie Film (no Lohan).
There are many reasoned supporters of the war who also respect not only the right of their opponents to make their case, but like myself see such dissent as vital to the health of the republic.
I hope that there are soon more rowing in your canoe. If you catch my meaning.
Early, imagined Dennis Leary moment (for humor, not ill-will):
"Right now, you're wearing a t-shirt that says: "The end MUST justify the means." And you're looking in the mirror. And the mirror looks back at you. And you don't like what you're seening, fellah. Because the pigeons are coming home to roost. And they're going to fucking roost right on your goddamn head.
Comments
Nope, I tried to point out that people who act as attack dogs on the character of a mother who lost a son in an illegal war are the moral equivalent of NKVD/Stasi/VB informers, ie THOUGHT POLICE. They get a pat on the back from the system and get to feel validated, when really they are peons.
I was also trying to point out the absurdity of positioning yourself as an "independent" thinker (a la gruntgravel) while all along falling lockstep with the powers that be, and often its most authoritarian aspects. Just like Bill O'Really, you yourself have been very guilty of this, but with your new tone on here you are now falling over to distance yourself from your previous dogma which has been well and truly debunked. Now you seem to be fence sitting. I'm sure that mirrors a lot of doubts that are starting to trickle into your consciousness. Good for you, but please don't take potshots at the messengers. I am no Leninist. You sir, are a Neo-Con.
There are a lot of viewpoints that you have posted here that have turned out to be false (to put it nicely), but you are constantly revising your position, with your oh-so useful "nuance". Classic Neo-Con dissembly.
I, like many who opposed this war from the begining, have yet to be proved wrong on the points we have been making for years. Such as: No war for oil, urban and guerrila warfare is politically unwinnable, Bushco doesn't give a shit about the troops or stability in the M.E., and most importantly, this admistration is a corrupt kleptocracy that does nothing altruisticly.
Your last sentence is disingenuous. You are speaking about a tiny minority of pro-Bush people. Right now the group possibly includes you. Anyone else? Tucker Carlsson?
You will all be
eventually, but facts don't seem to make you lose sleep at night.
yep. and they are the first to get thrown to the curb when the flimsy little empire starts to crumble.
WHAT LEE ATWATER LEARNED
AND THE LESSON FOR HIS PROT??G??S
By Tom Turnipseed
The Washington Post
Tuesday, April 16, 1991; Page A19
Thanks to the late Lee Atwater, my electroshock treatments for adolescent depression 35 years ago have probably been the most publicized political incident of its kind since Sen. Thomas Eagleton of Missouri was replaced as vice presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket in 1972, because he had a "nervous breakdown" in his past.
Atwater, as you probably read in his recent obituaries, made me one of his targets on his way to establishing himself as a gunslinging political operative who exploited any perceived vulnerability in his opponent.
The incident occurred in 1980, when I was a Democratic nominee for Congress in South Carolina and Atwater was a consultant for my opponent, the Republican incumbent. Atwater's antics included phony polls by "independent pollsters" to "inform" white suburbanites that I was a member of the NAACP, because my congressman opponent was afraid to publicly say so, and last-minute letters from Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) warning voters that I would disarm America and turn it over to the liberals and Communists. I ran a respectable campaign but lost.[/b]
Since then, Atwater had cultivated his macho image with the national media by telling about how he had planted a story with reporters covering the 1980 congressional race that I had been "hooked up to jumper cables" when I was "mentally ill" as a student.[/b] I saw the story in Esquire, The New York Times, the Atlanta Constitution, on NBC-TV and PBS. Lee seemed to delight in making fun of a suicidal 16-year-old who was treated for depression with electroshock treatments.
In fact, my struggle with depression as a student was no secret. I had talked about it in a widely covered news conference as early as 1977, when I was in the South Carolina State Senate. Since then I have often shared with appropriate groups the full story of my recovery to responsible adulthood as a professional, political and civic leader, husband and father. Teenage depression and suicide are major problems in America, and I believe my life offers hope to young people who are suffering with a constant fear of the future.
In the last few months of his life, Lee Atwater apologized to me. In a letter dated June 28, 1990, Lee wrote, "It is very important to me that I let you know that out of everything that has happened in my career, one of the low points remains the so called 'jumper cable' episode."[/b]Faced with the ultimate question of life, Lee also publicly proclaimed his Christianity and sought reconciliation with his enemies.
He said in his letter to me that "my illness has taught me something about the nature of humanity, love, brotherhood and relationships that I never understood, and probably never would have. So, from that standpoint, there is some truth and good in everything."
Touched by the sincerity of his letter of apology and subsequent phone conversations, I attended Lee Atwater's funeral in Columbia, S.C. Sitting across the church from me was a young Republican political consultant whom I recognized. I had recently seen him on CNN boasting about how Republicans were going to drive up the negatives on all the Democrats who voted "against America" in opposing Bush's force resolution and beat them in 1992. How sad.[/b]
I hope those young political consultants who would emulate Atwater's tactics of driving up the negatives of their opponents with the politics of fear will realize that Lee Atwater, confronting death, became, through the grace of God, an advocate of the politics of love and reconciliation.[/b] Rather than remembering him as one who polarized politics and exploited insecurity and prejudices to win elections, it would be good if we could remember him as a positive role model. When faced with his own mortality, he saw the truth of love and reconciliation.
What is so attractive about Born Again Christianity, is you can lie, cheat and steal your whole life, then apoligise on your death bed and be washed clean of sin. The moral of this story is do whatever you want then ask for forgiveness before you die.
Dan
Word???? I'm sorry, what does him being "signed up" have to do with anything?
Because he was "signed up" his death does not matter?
Because he was "signed up" you don't care about him?
Because he was "signed up" that makes the war legal and moral?
Because he was "signed up" his mother has no right to oppose the war?
Of course he was "signed up". That does not obolve Bush of sin, or mean that his mother has no rights.
Dan
see "the good son" by nick cave...
great song...
Perhaps you would like your words back. When you said, "If you are still for this war, you either have psychological deficinecies or you need to get to your local recruitment office and sign up FAST! They need you! I know there is a large silent majority out there, especially on the Strut, but what is up with some of the future leaders of the free world? You support the opposite of what your country was founded on. If you lived in Soviet Russia you'd all have red stars and weekend dachas given to you by a grateful politburo. Bushco won't even be so generous... tools you are, critical thinkers not," what else is a fair reader to make of this? You are saying that people who arrive at a pro-war position are actually motivated by a deep seated need to be validated by those in power. It is the equivalent of saying your anti-war position is motivated by an adolescent desire to anger your parents.
The point is that I cannot possibly know your state of mind and don't pretend to. Unlike you, I try to argue the case on the merits and facts as I see them. Acknowledging the painful fact that we are losing the war is not the same as saying we should stop fighting, nor is it to agree with nonsense that the war was waged on fraudulent terms, nor is it even to say that the war is unwinnable.
Now when you say my "viewpoints" have been "false," you are borrowing (perhaps unknowingly) from the Stalinists and Fannonists who justified all manner of brutality against those with "false consciousness." What else could a false viewpoint mean? You dismiss nuance as "neocon dissembly," as if there was a particular style of dis-assembly you wish to criticize. I judge from your prior fulminations, that being a neocon is indictment enough; but it is a pseudosophisticated evasion if you never bother to say which part of the neocon arguments you find objectionable.
In part your post is a defense of the assertion that conservatives are unique in that they attack the character of their opponents. Are you not familiar with the knife work of Sidney Blumenthal? When he spread rumors that Monica Lewinsky was empotionally unstable, or says that Paul Wolfowitz is a spy for Israel today, what is that if not character assasination? On a much smaller level, I am all too familiar with the ad hominum tendencies of the left, having to contend with all sorts of feckless attacks on my character when I wade into these debates over the war and such.
Finally you point with pride that your "arguments" about the war have yet to be proved wrong. You list them as "No war for oil, urban and guerrila warfare is politically unwinnable, Bushco doesn't give a shit about the troops or stability in the M.E., and most importantly, this admistration is a corrupt kleptocracy that does nothing altruisticly." But these are bumper sticker slogans. Take for example your assertion "no war for oil." If it was a war for oil, then why does the elected government of Iraq control the oil revenues? If you argue that it was in fact a war for oil service contracts because some of the firms modernizing Iraqi oil fields are American firms, then you have to explain how many of these firms enjoyed UN contracts to do exactly as they are doing now when Saddam was in power. Finally, you might say that this was about oil exports from Iraq, but after 1996 Iraqi oil was exported by mainly American and British companies to the same markets it is going to now.
When you say urban warfare is unwinnable, this is a case of counting chickens before hatching. It is true that our troops have not been able to hold some cities, but in some cases they have, and it does not mean that under the right political conditions the terrorist insurgency cannot be defeated. Insurgencies have been won and lost since the Macabees, who by the way ultimately lost. And again, saying that Bushco doesn't care about stability or our troops and are corrupt thieves is slogan talk and not exactly an argument. I would argue that the toppling of Saddam was a necessary precondition for stability, unless you think the survival of a dictator that regularly threatened to send his army into Kurdistan was just fine. And you would have to be a mind reader if you contend the president "does nothing altruistically." So in short I don't think any of your slogans have been proven and in some cases are the kind of fuzzy talk that cannot be proven.
I have no idea how you arrived at these opinions and for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant. If you think you know how I arrived at mine, it says more about the weakness of your case than it does about my reasoning.
ZING!
"What else could a false viewpoint mean?" is a rhetorical question that smacks of "pseudosophisticated evasion". I don't really see how BigSpliff is trying to justify any manner of brutality so your arguement really doesn't hold weight or have any relevance. If you find fit to judge that being a neocon is indictment, you can proably also judge for yourself the elements likely to be found objectionable in this context. Forcing an itemized list is just "pseudosophisticated evasion" aimed at turning the discussion.
i dont think attacks on character are unique to either party, however, the right has been steadily assassinating character of political opponents so well as of late surely even you can concede that they are at the least more studied, diligent, and simply better at the practice.
who is in charge of the oil ministry? oh yeah.
how much has haliburton made in contracts since the invasion of iraq verses under the un oil for food program? oh yeah.
so the war is about freedom right? if you want to delve into how this war is really about oil lets talk about the net effect on the american economy if saddam had realized his plan of making the euro the acceptable legal tender for settling international oil contracts.
i think bigspliff is probably refering to the neocon dogma that asymetrical warfare is unwinnable. ask crazy uncle rumsfeld and the rest of the neo cons. they'll tell you the same thing. its an important underpinning to their view of managing global conflict and american hedgemony, which is all fuzzy talk.
well put...
and umm.. ZING
War For Oil?
Before the war, when I was doing what I could to prevent it, I hated this slogan. I felt the issues were far more complex. Also because of V, I gave the NeoCons a shadow of doubt.
I do think that in the halls of the White House and the Defense Department, there is a belife that the US is the pinnacle of civilization and freedom. The proof is that we are the worlds only superpower. They also believe that it is our duty to force the rest of the world to be like us. This attitude has a lot to do with why we are in Iraq. Getting US forces out of Saudia Arabia is another. Saddam really was a bad guy, and had been a threat to his neighbors, and domestic opposition.
All those reasons and more play into why we went to war. The last of the reasons maybe the most important. After the gulf war, and Bush the 41st's selling out of the Kurds, no fly zones, weapons inspections and sanctions were forced on Iraq.
These measures effectively ended Saddam's ability to attack his neighbors, and made for realitevly autonomous Northern and Southern Iraqi territories. They also meant no oil money for US companies. Who controls the oil is inmaterial. Who profits from the oil is the question.
One reason the post-fall-of-Bagdad-war is going so badly is that the US told France, Germany and Russia to get lost. France, Germany and Russia lost oil contracts in the war. They offered to help with peace keeping and post war rebuilding, but the US told them to get lost. Why? Haliburton and Texaco wanted those old contracts. There is no other explanation for why the US didn't want those countrys helping with peace keeping and reconstruction.
War for oil? You bet it is.
Dan
when was this offer? i must have been sick that day.
When we invaded. They did not agree with the war but said they would help with peace keeping, obviously for a piece of the oil reserves. Bush wasn't having it and said if you are not part of the war from the start you gets none.
After the fall of Bagdad. The US pointedly said; to the winner go the spoils, you guys just want your oil contracts back.
If you think back, when the statue of Saddam fell the Defense Department was saying the war was over, the oil would start flowing, and the oil would pay for the reconstruction. We sure don't hear that any more.
Perhaps you remember that John Kerry harped on this endlessly during the presidential debates. He kept saying Bush should not have turned downed help from France and Germany. I think at the time your response may have been France hates freedom.
Dan
damn that was funny.
Don't be silly VE. Certainly, it's dumb for anyone to assert that the war was for oil. It's even dumber for you to suggest that the "elected government of Iraq" actually represents the will of majority Iraqi citizens who--this is just so nice of them, thank you--happen to keep American's economic intersts a priority as they develop oil export policies.
This war is about politics. As is every single thing these people do. The consolidation of power for the GOP! (This is part of a long term strategy that is in its early throes.) Fortunately, this is contradictory to the core principles of our Constitutional Republic, with with its established checks and balances, to prevent the consolidation of power by a single group. That means, however unlikely, that Americans need to pay attention to what is really happening in Washington DC these days.
3rdstream's riding your dick. How cute.
i would ride yours but hmmmm not big enough, so sad
i remeber them offering to do some reconstuction, and the only one i remember offering for peace keeping was germany
no, but i had the t-shirt, which i wore while driving my pick up truck
weak
Don't worry, I'm sure no one is surprised that you are poorly informed.
I kid.
Honestly: I've always appreciated the ability of V to give an intelligent, studied angle to politics. Even if he's dead wrong. Heh.
Seriously, though: the ad-hominems on this thread from both wings are just, like, tedious. Step your game up, peoples.
I agree with you re: the actual efficacy of Ms. Sheehan's arguments to induce/affect change in Iraq. But the most interesting thing about Ms. Sheehan and her presence upon the American political landscape is not her "goal" inasmuch as it is her mere symbolic existence as the Last, Pluckiest Knight on the Chessboard (i.e. that damn L-form stance that you just can't seem to nail down on a NHB match). Not only is it impossible to look smooth and non-elitist (see: Hitchens and a big ceeegar) whilst disagreeing with her stance, but it's impossible to disagree with her historically necessary presence as the designated (if you'll allow me to mix iconographical metaphors) Migrant Mother of the war (word to Dorothea Lange). "It's important, nay, necessary to reflect," says Mr Santayana, as paraphrased by me.
Applicable Berraisam (A.B.): Ms. Sheehan exists primarily in the Morrissettian "I'm here to remind you / of the mess you left when you went away" sense. George Bush is in a real Joseph Heller here, and the American people, weary from the increasing fuel costs, war budget, and mosquito bites, love a Bilbo Baggins. On stilts.
But really:
The "pull out" method? It's like that 5th grade joke revolving around the punchline "you can't unscrew a lightbulb."
Guilt by ambulance-chasers. But at least they're all going to a hospital, even if it's a la It's A Mad, Mad Mad, Mad World or one of those motley Italian road races in a Herbie Film (no Lohan).
I hope that there are soon more rowing in your canoe. If you catch my meaning.
Early, imagined Dennis Leary moment (for humor, not ill-will):
"Right now, you're wearing a t-shirt that says: "The end MUST justify the means." And you're looking in the mirror. And the mirror looks back at you. And you don't like what you're seening, fellah. Because the pigeons are coming home to roost. And they're going to fucking roost right on your goddamn head.
FLAP.
FLAP.
FLAP."
The fact that the right wing monsters can only spin out shit like ???Hey, that boy ???signed on?????? is REALLY SAD.
Can you imagine telling someone something like that?
Mrs. Gonzales, You still sobbing? It???s been 6 months. Have you forgotten, your son ???signed up????
Thank You! Big Cosign!
Dan