tell me Mr G i really want to know how you would fight the war on terror, Would you back out of all the international treties you have signed? i was just wondering but wouldnt the world court be a good place to try osama?
guthrie: Apparently not. Herding instinct isn't my thing. And I'm not seeing much difference between the two prevailing 'flavors' -- your's and their's. I'm only hanging here to look for reasons to believe that one is not the same as the other. I'm not surprised to observe too obvious similarities. Undie-sided: I'm not particularly flattered by your attempt to imitate. Timimg is everything. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sorry.
Asguard; Kill all terrorists and their enablers, with maximum prejudice. Those not in our best interest? In a pico-second. If a constabulary associated with it actually caught Usama, maybe. Buy a vowel. The USofA is a sovereign entity. The USofA was attacked. The attack was an act of war. The USofA is at war. We are not engaged in a criminal prosecution. We are engaged in wholesale war. Outside opinions are irrelevent. Stop pretending you have a vote in the matter. You don't. Your help is welcome. Your difference of opinion is of insufficient consequence to us.
if its a war why isnt the USofA treating prisioners as POW's? they actually arnt treating them as criminals either. If its fair for you to ignore the rules YOU agreed to for the betterment of mankind why isnt it FAIR for them to ram your buildings with planes? whats good for the goose... if its just a war then stop trying to take the moral high ground because you dont HAVE any. Its not a half way issue, its a war when it suits us and a crime when it doesnt, all or nothing here. Rember if its a war then i shouldnt feel any more sympathy when "they" blow you up than i felt for the 3 crayfish i killed tonight because hey its just war and war means people die.
Oh B\W when little johnny is voted out because of YOUR presidents stupidity and Australia pulls out of this and stops surporting you, just rember that i voted for labor. My vote DID count
This is the kind of backwards reasoning that really makes Americans feel like they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. With friends like this, who needs enemies?
I'm not particularly flattered by your attempt to imitate. Timimg is everything. Sorry I don’t imitate I lead… you should learn sometime that Dennis Miller is not the best role model for you Mr.G. Pangloss This is the kind of backwards reasoning that really makes Americans feel like they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. With friends like this, who needs enemies? Well the question you have to ask yourself is what he is saying wrong? No of course not, the US made the laws of the international community has broken them yet expects other states to follow without question? Hypocrisy, and playing the victim come hand in hand sometimes…
I think a better question would be whether the world would still be critical of the US if we'd stayed out of Iraq, signed Kyoto, joined the war crimes tribunal, etc etc etc. There's your hypocrisy right there. Criticism is easy. Leadership is hard.
I think a better question would be whether the world would still be critical of the US if we'd stayed out of Iraq, signed Kyoto, joined the war crimes tribunal, etc etc etc. Some will always be critical of the hyperpower, but that comes with the territory. My question to you remains as valid as ever. Don’t cry and bitch, when you expect other states to follow laws you broke. There's your hypocrisy right there. Criticism is easy. Leadership is hard. Sadly the US hasn’t been doing the latter in the last four years…that’s why we call you unilateralist.
Oh well, you've come to the wrong place then. Obviously you dont think most people have a natural instinct for herding. But on the other hand, you obviously dont have much of a clue what my flavour is either.
Is it really that simple a comparison? As a general issue I've wondered about, how is it that there are only two alternative: the Bush way or nothing at all? What that is meant to imply is that people look at the WoT itself, the presidential candidates arguing over the effort, the UN, &c., ad nauseam, whence comes that simple dualism that if you don't like the way one goes about a specific job, one must not want the job done at all? A lot of pacifists remember what went on twenty years ago. It was a disheartening time, I'm sure, for those with dignified expectations not yet fully trounced by Vietnam politics and energy crises and American hostages in Iran. They looked to the Reagan administration with some sense of hope for change. What they got was a polarization of the economy, a massive arms race, and the chance to support the very criminals we now seek to destroy. American policy raised the prominence of fundamentalist Islamic extremism and sponsored the foundation of hundreds of madrassas in Paksitan. Over in Iran, the reaction to the Shah as embodied by the raising of Ayatollah Khomeni blew people's minds, and the United States propped up an insane madman, but this time (e.g. the second time in a chain of historically-relevant events) in Iraq. Human rights and atrocities, chemical weapons, dangerous and unneighborly bluster--there is nothing about the Iraq deposed by the second Bush administration that wasn't approved of by Reagan and, initially, the first Bush administration. Very simply--war was not acceptable as a means to assist those or any other people around the world. So to many, it looks simply like a case where a number of classic players (e.g. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush Jr. as a Bush, &c) have come together to finish some unfinished business. What was not acceptable twenty years ago is now the official "reason" we went in the first place, although it is approximately the third-tier excuse. Or think of Afghanistan: there were people here at Sciforums, myself among them, who would have written any administration a blank check to do something about the Taleban. And when it came right down to being time to do something, our government chose to render the real evils of the Taleban as secondary to a contrived slap in the face. All of those human rights Bush touted about Afghanistan, all of that benefit that we allegedly brought, and still hope to legitimately bring to Afghanistan--none of it was good enough for the Afghani people until the Taleban asked for evidence to back up an extradition request they were most likely incapable of pulling off in the first place. There were terrible abuses of the people by the Taleban in Afghanistan, and we continued to give them money and recognition because the "Drug War" was that important. There were terrible abuses of the people by the Taleban in Afghanistan, and the leaders were foolish enough to attempt a form of due process in asking for evidence to back an extradition request. So what happened in Afghanistan is telling: The suffering of the people was unimportant at best to American politicians and most of the people until the Afghani government asked for proof. Quite simply, the fact of atrocious conduct by the Taleban was not enough. Strangely, the fact of the unreasonable Taleban making a perfectly-reasonable request is enough. The wellbeing of the Afghani people is of nothing more than propaganda value to the war dogs leading this adventure. And the same goes for Iraq. So if we look at the idea of "staying out of Iraq," hey ... Kerry, for instance, is welcome to say he would have gone anyway. And had he played his hand as badly as Bush I would be screaming for his replacement, as well. But it's not a dualism. It's not "the Bush way or no way at all". And recognition of that condition is what's lacking from the general debate about American war policies. The world would probably be much less agitated by American actions in Iraq had we gone in with some measure of dignity and decency. Instead, we told the world they didn't matter except to hold in contempt as cowards, and foisted what turned out to be conveniently false information onto the U.N. The Bush administration has seemed at times hysterical with fear (aluminum tubes?) and has shown itself willing to act on those fears regardless of their lack of merit. Bill O'Reilly, for instance, is driving home the point that Egypt, Jordan, Russia, Britain, &c. all thought the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction; CIA director Tenet, as well, for he apparently told Bush WMD was "a slam dunk". The question is then phrased, "What would you have done with that information before you?" And nobody takes the simple response, which is somewhat disappointing. Not Michael Moore, not Paul Krugman. The simple response is, "Well, we know the weapons are there, so we know where they are?" Were I president, that's one of the first things I would need to know. "Do we know what we're shooting at and where it is?" The first thing I would have done is ask all of these knowing folks saying Iraq had WMD's where the things are. Dealing with Iraq left two primary choices: a war in the long run, or a sudden gift of complicity from the Iraqis. That latter wasn't coming, and the object is to avoid the former. The Bush administration seized on the idea of a war and ran headlong into it. Just as they botched their entry to Afghanistan by being unreasonably hurried, so they did in Iraq--the administration treated the idea of the necessity of a war in Iraq at some point in the future much the way a psychopathic killer might tell his victim, "You've gotta die someday, after all." It's true, but it doesn't mean any one person gets to decide that today is the day. So the Iraq portion of the question might be more roundly considered in terms of whether the world would still be critical if the United States had gone about its war effort in Iraq differently. Beyond that, I would only note that it's not a matter of signing Kyoto or joining the war crimes tribunal. The United States already signed Kyoto and ICC. The question is more roundly considered in terms of whether the world would be less critical of the United States had we not withdrawn from Kyoto and ICC. And in that case, the answer is, "Yes, of course the world would be less critical if we were at least trying to work and play well with others, instead of trying to lead a clubhouse gang." The world needs something better than a War on Terror run by President Archie. As Christine Todd Whitman explained to reporters in March, 2001, when announcing the US withdrawal from Kyoto, the US has no interest in taking part in the world community's effort to preserve the suitability of our planetary environment for human life. As Iraq demonstrates, the United States has a compelling interest in protecting its war criminals from the world community--the intent to commit, sanction, or allow war crimes. And of that last--nobody but some Americans are really surprised at that idea. I mean, hell, the U.S. has helped fund a lot of crappy treatment of human beings around the world. Everybody knows shit happens during wartime, but only Americans seem to think they can exploit that point for license to be atrocious and expect the world to applaud. Wait, it's not just Americans, but that's actually a separate debate. Bottom line, Pangloss: If --- • the United States had conducted itself better about this Iraqi affair • had remained a party to the International Criminal Court and • shown some willingness to consider worldwide resource and environmental management issues --the world community would definitely be less critical of the United States at present. A general human trait especially pronounced in American politics is the one-way street of generalization. It is enough to say that Americans are "generous", and European protestations based on per capita numbers notwithstanding, it is fair enough if we accept and apply that degree of generalization to the other side of the street. But Americans like to pretend the sun shines whatever side of the street they're on, and so when the harmful effects of American policies are discussed, there is frequently a retreat to divorce individual Americans from the side effects and sometimes direct results of the expressed political priorities. A particular slap in the face was delivered, at this general level, when George W. Bush announced that what happened in New York on That Day In September was not just an American problem, but a world problem. Commentary and analysis at home played to Bush's strengths: he was inviting the world to join us in our effort against terrorism. But to me it seemed almost pompous: the US is going to tell Britain, Germany, Israel, Russia, and our sympathetic neighbors in the Arab world that terrorism is now their problem, too? Hey, we are the latecomers. And such a small slap of the tongue might seem insignificant, but it fits perfectly with a pattern of general disrespect the United States has long shown its neighbors. And whether it's the market-appeal façade of the idea of a "Pax Americana", the superficial assertions intending to resolve our public discourse, or our habit of playing Pilate in a manner often imitated but never exceeded, Americans at such a general level can be reduced to the parody of a Texas bourbon cowboy wearing his flashiest duds and telling loud stories about how amazing he is at a black-tie affair of subdued European haute-couture. Imagine a vociferous New Jersey parody of a real estate developer leading prospective buyers through an orphans' hospital while pitching a corporate retreat center. Our collective character as Americans is such a caricature of itself that I don't blame our neighbors--despite their own personal difficulties--for being annoyed. It was, I believe, either Dennis Miller in his pre-wuss days, or else A. Whitney Brown in The Big Picture, who made the joke about Reagan being the perfect puppet president since he thought it was all a movie, anyway. The justice or injustice of such a barb notwithstanding, Americans seem to be behaving as a collective force as if they're on television all the time. The public manifestations of our American virtues seem straight off a network hack's desk. The United States has already resorted to the explanation that "God told (President Bush) to invade Iraq." At some point, it's not a question of, "To f@ck, or not to f@ck," but rather a debate of method and style and degree and touch. War is a last resort. So is concern for "people". And so, as the saying goes, is democracy. The one should remain so, but the latter two should be brought to the fore, as they have much to offer the human endeavor if given a leading role. However, democracy is a tricky question and perhaps a theoretical pipe-dream. Genuine compassion is a tough burden to carry happily. And when you've got the biggest and most advanced arsenal on the planet, it's easy enough to say you're at your wit's end and have no choice left but warfare. So if one considers the idea that Americans are too quick to warfare, superficial in their focus on self-interest, and all too ready to promise what cannot be given, it could be said that in this respect "America" is truly human. However, we Americans claim that "America" leads, and does not follow. And here we must consider the road less trodden. We claim that road as our path, yet find ourselves mired in the traffic on the interstate. Americans as a generalism would like to be measured by what we claim. We do not like being measured by what we actually do.
That's a nice post. Problem is, I don't believe it. (I quoted below from the beginning of it, but I just wanted to mention that I did read the whole thing.) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! See that's a very revealing question right there -- Bush may very well be doing that, but so are you! That question includes the statement that you believe that Bush has *zero* chance for meeting you on common ground. That's an ultimatum. Whatever it says about Bush, it means you have no place to compromise. No room to maneuver. No common ground. Zip, zilcho, none. Empty set. Zero. Where I come from, Tiassa, two wrongs don't make a right. Admit it, you had him written off before he entered office. You're not really interested in fixing problems. What you want is to kick Bush out of office. World peace is just a tool, a talking point, an easy way to carry the masses. That's what ideology and partisanship are all about. To hell with common ground, it's just "my way or the highway". Has Bush done that as well? Certainly, and I'm pissed off about it. How many times do I have to say it? The moderate middle has been betrayed by George W. Bush. But you're not offering me anything better, Tiassa. You're just pushing the pendulum to the other extreme. The proof is right there in the pudding, year after year. We swing one way, and the extremists on one side get all upset. We swing the other way, and another group of extremists gets all upset. Weee! Round and round and round we go. Where it stops nobody knows. So what's going to happen if Kerry wins? Well you're happy, for an instant or two, because your man won. Yay. Now comes the fun part: Bcak to partisanship. Business as usual. But that's an easy one for you to deal with: You simply start fighting the defensive war that Republicans are fighting now. Lookin' up those statistics, writing those nice, long, well-written posts of yours, only now in defense of the sitting president. Weee. Meanwhile the rest of us, those who are *actually* interested in world peace, *ahead* of political concerns, are stymied by politics as usual. Round and round and round we go. Where it stops, nobody knows.
Pangloss I have a real hard time understanding you, it seems the only thing that would pacify you would be if we were all mute automatons, because you should know that opinion is innately partisan. Just because you perceive Tiassa or even me for that matter as liberal European appeasement sympathizers (which are worse generals then I have ever seen us call conservatives). We have exposed your conservative bias, and rightfully mocked the notion that you are completely moderate and centrist yet already having made up your mind about who you are going to vote for before watching both conventions, and the debates. You are the disingenuous one here Pangloss, Tiassa in the past has readily acknowledge he’s far left. This is why you and your position cannot make sense: You proclaim yourself to be a synthesis, the moderate, the temperate, whatever you want to call yourself. Yet in Hegelian dialectics it is impossible to have a moderate position, or synthesis without a thesis and an anti-thesis. You might not like to admit it but you need the partisans to justify your existence. Do you think that democracy can only have a moderate middle? Folly, and you are just as partisan as Tiassa. Where I come from, Tiassa, two wrongs don't make a right. Where I come from two x’s make a y, not the other way around Pangloss.
Yeah that's the problem with being in the middle. Both sides get to hate me. On the other hand, I get to argue with... you guessed it... both sides! (chuckle) Anyway, you believe as you like, of course, and I respect that. That, I'm afraid, is the difference between myself, and you & Tiassa. I respect your opinion. You begruge mine. I assume it's because it's so threatening to you. I am, after all, your worst nightmare: An intelligent moderate. When it comes right down to it, that's what I object to most about ideologues (on BOTH sides). For all their fire and fury about freedoms and rights, they're really not happy unless they can take yours away by stereotyping you and telling you what you believe and what you need to be doing. Ah well, way it goes.
Yeah that's the problem with being in the middle. Both sides get to hate me. I don’t hate you; I just think you’re being disingenuous, presumptuous, and relatively pompous. You aren’t a “middle” a “middle” doesn’t know before the debates or both conventions and already know who they are going to vote for. The only way someone does that is if they are bias, and you are bias to the right, you might not label yourself a conservative but that doesn’t mean you aren’t. I assume it's because it's so threatening to you. I am, after all, your worst nightmare: An intelligent moderate. You give yourself too much credit Pangloss…WAYYYY too much credit. I am not scared of you, I would wager neither is Tiassa. I just think that you are not only lying to us, but to yourself to justify your imaginary position of moderation. You don’t seem to understand that your position is impossible without people like Tiassa and GWB. Logic dictates as such, unless of course you are ideologically moderate and cannot take logics for what it is. When it comes right down to it, that's what I object to most about ideologues (on BOTH sides). Moderates can be ideologues unto themselves, so don’t flatter yourself. For all their fire and fury about freedoms and rights, they're really not happy unless they can take yours away by stereotyping you and telling you what you believe and what you need to be doing. Moderates do the same thing, difference is that they don’t call themselves “left-right”, moderates impose, moderates have opinions and because they have the latter they aren’t moderates.
Sure, I understand that. And no offense taken or intended, we're just talkin here. You're right, of course, that the middle can be a partisan position. I don't think that's the case with me personally, if anything I'm too malleable. I get drawn in one direction or the other, only to get stabbed in the back down the road. Bush is hardly the first time that's happened! But I understand what you're facing there.
I consider myself a moderate because I believe in a very arbitrary formula: Three things have to be considered: i) Your position on the economy ii) Your position on social causes/welfare iii) Your position on international affairs. The economic one represents half of the value because it affects everything else; the other two are considered 25% of the total. I am liberal socially, and internationally, and conservative fiscally and economically thus I consider myself a moderate. No one in those categories can say that they are moderate, that’s either due to ignorance of being part of the ideological wing of the moderate camp.
So am I? How so? The question examines a posture held by the Bush administration: "You're either with us or against us." Why is it significant, for instance, that Kerry would have gone into Iraq, anyway? Are we to pretend that John Kerry would have conducted himself exactly as George W. Bush did? You may have read the rest of the post, but did you pay attention to it? Where I come from, Pangloss, it is very rude to carry on without some foundation other than how you choose to posture a discussion in order to maximize your reasons for argument. Try paying attention to what's written, Pangloss. Not entirely. He had plenty of chance to surprise me. The only times he did was by lowering the bar further than I had expected. Compared to what reality has dealt, my view of Bush, in hindsight, was optimistic. These are the sorts of declarations you make that are so rude and ill-considered, Pangloss. For instance: Because doing so is the first step to fixing a number of problems. Eden is merely a myth. Just because it addresses what is observably human does not mean the myth is correct. Your cynicism about the crowd seeking to unseat the the president seems quite firmly rooted in your expectation of the worst in people. The cynicism of the crowd seeking to unseat the president is reinforced by history. In short: Pangloss: Afraid of what the future may hold. Anti-Bush: Unwilling to repeat history. If the anti-Bush movement is merely people who aren't interested in fixing problems and merely want Bush out of office, then you have nothing to fear, and your president will be properly elected this time out. Problem is, that expectation of the anti-Bush movement would be false. So believing in common ground is an abdication of common ground? That sounds about as rational as the racist, "If I can't be superior to black people, then I'm being discriminated against," or the religious, "If I can't be superior to the infidels, then my rights are being infringed." Your mind is not a virginal keyhole, and thus ought to be more open than that. You can say the moderate middle has been betrayed by George W. Bush all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you, as a Bush supporter, are advocating the continuance of that betrayal. And besides, there never really was any betrayal. The moderate middle cast its lot with the GOP for all the wrong reasons, and what they get from that partnership is their own fault and everybody else's problem. If they cast their lot with Kerry for the wrong reasons, they'll only be heartbroken all the same. Then again, you work with such a broad definition of special interests that there's no point in trying to do anything about it. Remember, once the "moderate middle" gets pissed off at a betrayal, it's no longer the moderate middle. As you have erroneously asserted, to hold a candidate to the spirit of his campaign--not even the literal promises--is to assert an inappropriate special interest. But if we apply that condition, Pangloss, as you have it, what is to be done about that betrayal? What George W. Bush has betrayed is the ideological foundation of the United States of America. Theological instructions to war; the Bush doctrine; a full-blown assault against the U.S. Constitution--the President of the United States should be a voice of reason amid confusing times, a voice of strength among the fearful. George W. Bush has pushed superstition and fear as hard as he could in order to foster an agenda that is far from the moderate middle. And in order to blunt the perception of his betrayal of the American tradition, he picks out gay marriage--an inevitability of an allegedly free society with due process and equal protection--and makes a stand for traditional American values. It stops when the moderate middle decides to lead and not follow. Of course, inasmuch as nobody can say when that day will come, I must agree that nobody knows. Which part of business as usual? The negotiating for the delayed release of hostages for political gain? How about the illegal arms and drug sales one one side of a proxy war? Or perhaps the strengthening of a dictator with a penchant for chemical weapons on the other side of that proxy war? What about the flogging beyond all previously-known measure of special-prosecutor laws to no avail? Or the veil of secrecy between bankrupted criminal energy concerns and the executive branch? Perhaps the scathing attacks on patriotism? Oh, how about the advocacy of revoking equal protection in the Constitution? Is that your tarot cards, your crystal ball, or your attitude problem that enlightens you so? So you sit back and complain and look for someone genuine to follow? I tell you, it will be a hard search as long as you hold the availability of medical care for Americans alongside Halliburton's profits in moral comparison of special interests. I mean, how can you claim to be interested in world peace when you're unwilling to take part in the process? Such cynicism seems rather a stumbling block for your bloc. So hop off the carousel and eat something more substantial than cotton candy before wandering off along the midway. Lastly, Pangloss, a note on something Undecided mentioned: Much of your attitude problem, Pangloss, seems to reflect the presumption that "liberal" according to the American political system, is desirable. My endorsement of John Kerry is, in fact, a concession to the moderate middle: they're not ideologically capable of the leaps required to achieve their desires. I mean, really--look at how the middle of the American bell curve manifests itself: politically confused, fans of Britney Spears and Andrew Lloyd Weber, in love with SUV's. I have great faith in the people of the United States of America. One day they will shake themselves awake and do great things again. In the meantime, greatness as an accident of circumstance is enough to satisfy them. Well, at least, as long as the economy does well. Did you not hear about the great muddling, middling compromise of the Democratic Party platform this year? We can't blame special interests entirely.
