Thought provoking....
-
"...Franklin understood the American people better than the other three. Washington and Jefferson were nobles — slaveholders and plantation owners. Alexander Hamilton married into a rich and powerful family and joined the upper classes. Benjamin Franklin was pure middle class. In fact, he may have invented it for Americans. Franklin saw danger everywhere. They all did. Not one of them liked the Constitution. James Madison, known as the father of it, was full of complaints about the power of the presidency. But they were in a hurry to get the country going. Hence the great speech, which I quote at length in the book, that Franklin, old and dying, had someone read for him. He said, I am in favor of this Constitution, as flawed as it is, because we need good government and we need it fast. And this, properly enacted, will give us, for a space of years, such government. But then, Franklin said, it will fail, as all such constitutions have in the past, because of the essential corruption of the people. He pointed his finger at all the American people. And when the people become so corrupt, he said, we will find it is not a republic that they want but rather despotism — the only form of government suitable for such a people.... So the corruption predicted by Franklin bears its terrible fruit. No one wants to do anything about it. It’s not even a campaign issue. Once you have a business community that is so corrupt in a society whose business is business, then what you have is, indeed, despotism. It is the sort of authoritarian rule that the Bush people have given us. The USA PATRIOT Act is as despotic as anything Hitler came up with — even using much of the same language. In one of my earlier books, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, I show how the language used by the Clinton people to frighten Americans into going after terrorists like Timothy McVeigh — how their rights were going to be suspended only for a brief time — was precisely the language used by Hitler after the Reichstag fire." http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/52/features-cooper.php[^] :| sorry for length, but a good read, imo Later, JoeSox One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes. --Jack Handy Deep Thoughts www.joeswammi.com ↔
-
"...Franklin understood the American people better than the other three. Washington and Jefferson were nobles — slaveholders and plantation owners. Alexander Hamilton married into a rich and powerful family and joined the upper classes. Benjamin Franklin was pure middle class. In fact, he may have invented it for Americans. Franklin saw danger everywhere. They all did. Not one of them liked the Constitution. James Madison, known as the father of it, was full of complaints about the power of the presidency. But they were in a hurry to get the country going. Hence the great speech, which I quote at length in the book, that Franklin, old and dying, had someone read for him. He said, I am in favor of this Constitution, as flawed as it is, because we need good government and we need it fast. And this, properly enacted, will give us, for a space of years, such government. But then, Franklin said, it will fail, as all such constitutions have in the past, because of the essential corruption of the people. He pointed his finger at all the American people. And when the people become so corrupt, he said, we will find it is not a republic that they want but rather despotism — the only form of government suitable for such a people.... So the corruption predicted by Franklin bears its terrible fruit. No one wants to do anything about it. It’s not even a campaign issue. Once you have a business community that is so corrupt in a society whose business is business, then what you have is, indeed, despotism. It is the sort of authoritarian rule that the Bush people have given us. The USA PATRIOT Act is as despotic as anything Hitler came up with — even using much of the same language. In one of my earlier books, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, I show how the language used by the Clinton people to frighten Americans into going after terrorists like Timothy McVeigh — how their rights were going to be suspended only for a brief time — was precisely the language used by Hitler after the Reichstag fire." http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/52/features-cooper.php[^] :| sorry for length, but a good read, imo Later, JoeSox One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes. --Jack Handy Deep Thoughts www.joeswammi.com ↔
The Greek historian Herodotus (yeah, here I go again with the Greeks...:) ) tells this great story about a period of governmental turmoil in Persia. The emperor, Cambyses, against the advice of his nobles, attacks Egypt. In the process he desecrates temples at Memphis, and for this the Gods destroy him. He loses his mind, his kingdom, and his life, in quick succession. The remaining nobles return to Persia, to find that an outside group of usurpers, the Magi, have taken control of the government. A group of 7 leading nobles decides to assasinate the Magi and seize control, but first debate the ideal form of government to erect in their place - showing a bit more forethought in such matters than some... Oligarchy is suggested but dismissed on the grounds that it will inevitably result in in-fighting between cliques. Democracy is rejected because the masses are :baaaa!: easily led astray. Absolute monarchy is decided as the best form, but only with a wise, benevolent ruler. People being people, none of the conspirators really trusts any of the others with absolute power, so they figure they'll let the Gods make the selection. They decide to ride to the edge of the city just before dawn, and the first one who's horse whinnies at first light will be the emperor. One of the 7, a gent named Darius, had the benefit of a clever groom. The groom takes Darius' stallion's favorite mare, and 'strokes the mare with his hand'. Then at the edge of the city, at the appropriate time, he whips his hands out from under his robes and sticks them below Darius' horse's nose. The horse whinnies, and the rest is history. :) I remember reading somewhere that this story was corroborated in modern times, because Darius erected pillars all over the kingdom giving credit to his horse and groom, and these pillars still existed in places.
-
"...Franklin understood the American people better than the other three. Washington and Jefferson were nobles — slaveholders and plantation owners. Alexander Hamilton married into a rich and powerful family and joined the upper classes. Benjamin Franklin was pure middle class. In fact, he may have invented it for Americans. Franklin saw danger everywhere. They all did. Not one of them liked the Constitution. James Madison, known as the father of it, was full of complaints about the power of the presidency. But they were in a hurry to get the country going. Hence the great speech, which I quote at length in the book, that Franklin, old and dying, had someone read for him. He said, I am in favor of this Constitution, as flawed as it is, because we need good government and we need it fast. And this, properly enacted, will give us, for a space of years, such government. But then, Franklin said, it will fail, as all such constitutions have in the past, because of the essential corruption of the people. He pointed his finger at all the American people. And when the people become so corrupt, he said, we will find it is not a republic that they want but rather despotism — the only form of government suitable for such a people.... So the corruption predicted by Franklin bears its terrible fruit. No one wants to do anything about it. It’s not even a campaign issue. Once you have a business community that is so corrupt in a society whose business is business, then what you have is, indeed, despotism. It is the sort of authoritarian rule that the Bush people have given us. The USA PATRIOT Act is as despotic as anything Hitler came up with — even using much of the same language. In one of my earlier books, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, I show how the language used by the Clinton people to frighten Americans into going after terrorists like Timothy McVeigh — how their rights were going to be suspended only for a brief time — was precisely the language used by Hitler after the Reichstag fire." http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/52/features-cooper.php[^] :| sorry for length, but a good read, imo Later, JoeSox One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes. --Jack Handy Deep Thoughts www.joeswammi.com ↔
JoeSox wrote: The USA PATRIOT Act is as despotic as anything Hitler came up with — even using much of the same language. Yup, the PATRIOT Act is every bit as terrible as that "final solution" thing. ------------------------------------------ The ousted but stubbornly non-dead leader reportedly released an audiotape this weekend, ending by calling on Iraqis to, quote, "resist the occupation in any way you can, from writing on walls, to boycotting, to demonstrating and taking up arms." adding, "you know, pretty much anything I used to kill you for." - The Daily Show
-
JoeSox wrote: The USA PATRIOT Act is as despotic as anything Hitler came up with — even using much of the same language. Yup, the PATRIOT Act is every bit as terrible as that "final solution" thing. ------------------------------------------ The ousted but stubbornly non-dead leader reportedly released an audiotape this weekend, ending by calling on Iraqis to, quote, "resist the occupation in any way you can, from writing on walls, to boycotting, to demonstrating and taking up arms." adding, "you know, pretty much anything I used to kill you for." - The Daily Show
Yes, but these things start in small measures. Then before you know it "I am in blood Stepped in so far, that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o'er". regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Brian Welsch wrote: "blah blah blah, maybe a potato?" while translating my Afrikaans. Crikey! ain't life grand?
-
"...Franklin understood the American people better than the other three. Washington and Jefferson were nobles — slaveholders and plantation owners. Alexander Hamilton married into a rich and powerful family and joined the upper classes. Benjamin Franklin was pure middle class. In fact, he may have invented it for Americans. Franklin saw danger everywhere. They all did. Not one of them liked the Constitution. James Madison, known as the father of it, was full of complaints about the power of the presidency. But they were in a hurry to get the country going. Hence the great speech, which I quote at length in the book, that Franklin, old and dying, had someone read for him. He said, I am in favor of this Constitution, as flawed as it is, because we need good government and we need it fast. And this, properly enacted, will give us, for a space of years, such government. But then, Franklin said, it will fail, as all such constitutions have in the past, because of the essential corruption of the people. He pointed his finger at all the American people. And when the people become so corrupt, he said, we will find it is not a republic that they want but rather despotism — the only form of government suitable for such a people.... So the corruption predicted by Franklin bears its terrible fruit. No one wants to do anything about it. It’s not even a campaign issue. Once you have a business community that is so corrupt in a society whose business is business, then what you have is, indeed, despotism. It is the sort of authoritarian rule that the Bush people have given us. The USA PATRIOT Act is as despotic as anything Hitler came up with — even using much of the same language. In one of my earlier books, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, I show how the language used by the Clinton people to frighten Americans into going after terrorists like Timothy McVeigh — how their rights were going to be suspended only for a brief time — was precisely the language used by Hitler after the Reichstag fire." http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/52/features-cooper.php[^] :| sorry for length, but a good read, imo Later, JoeSox One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes. --Jack Handy Deep Thoughts www.joeswammi.com ↔
Vidal (one of my favorite authors btw ) would have been no less offensive to the founders than Bush/Ashcroft. The notion that the sort of all powerful federal state crafted by the left since the days of FDR is the kind of government they were trying to achieve, and which Vidal fully supports, is laughable. Vidal, nor any one else on the left, has any right to claim alligence with any principle Jefferson or the other founders ever advocated - they have willfully abandoned them all.
-
Vidal (one of my favorite authors btw ) would have been no less offensive to the founders than Bush/Ashcroft. The notion that the sort of all powerful federal state crafted by the left since the days of FDR is the kind of government they were trying to achieve, and which Vidal fully supports, is laughable. Vidal, nor any one else on the left, has any right to claim alligence with any principle Jefferson or the other founders ever advocated - they have willfully abandoned them all.
Stan Shannon wrote: The notion that the sort of all powerful federal state crafted by the left since the days of FDR is the kind of government they were trying to achieve the Republicans control it all right now. but it doesn't look like they're in any hurry to change things, either. there's no evidence they have any interest in weakening the federal govt (just ask the guy in CA growing medical marijuana). maybe it's time to quit blaming the left for the problems of the right ? and.. um, just yesterday you were willing to credit the start of the strong central government to Lincoln. not today? ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The notion that the sort of all powerful federal state crafted by the left since the days of FDR is the kind of government they were trying to achieve the Republicans control it all right now. but it doesn't look like they're in any hurry to change things, either. there's no evidence they have any interest in weakening the federal govt (just ask the guy in CA growing medical marijuana). maybe it's time to quit blaming the left for the problems of the right ? and.. um, just yesterday you were willing to credit the start of the strong central government to Lincoln. not today? ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: the Republicans control it all right now. but it doesn't look like they're in any hurry to change things, either. there's no evidence they have any interest in weakening the federal govt (just ask the guy in CA growing medical marijuana). maybe it's time to quit blaming the left for the problems of the right ? I don't disagree with you at all on that. I guess my attitude can be sumed up by saying that if I have the misfortune of living to see the abandonment of the federal constitution, I would rather see it replaced by fascism than by communism - everything else being equal of course, (being a white, protestant, aryan and all.) Chris Losinger wrote: and.. um, just yesterday you were willing to credit the start of the strong central government to Lincoln. not today? Did I mention Lincoln? Lincoln certainly played a role in it, but had he lived I think things might well have been different. The real culprit is modern interpretations of the poorly written 14th amendment crafted shortly following the Civil War, which virtually every aspect of our government is based upon today (I think Lincoln would have opposed the wording of the 14th amendment). The real American revolution that created our current government was the restructuring of the constituion that followed the Civil War, just ask any ACLU lawyer, they'll set you straight.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: the Republicans control it all right now. but it doesn't look like they're in any hurry to change things, either. there's no evidence they have any interest in weakening the federal govt (just ask the guy in CA growing medical marijuana). maybe it's time to quit blaming the left for the problems of the right ? I don't disagree with you at all on that. I guess my attitude can be sumed up by saying that if I have the misfortune of living to see the abandonment of the federal constitution, I would rather see it replaced by fascism than by communism - everything else being equal of course, (being a white, protestant, aryan and all.) Chris Losinger wrote: and.. um, just yesterday you were willing to credit the start of the strong central government to Lincoln. not today? Did I mention Lincoln? Lincoln certainly played a role in it, but had he lived I think things might well have been different. The real culprit is modern interpretations of the poorly written 14th amendment crafted shortly following the Civil War, which virtually every aspect of our government is based upon today (I think Lincoln would have opposed the wording of the 14th amendment). The real American revolution that created our current government was the restructuring of the constituion that followed the Civil War, just ask any ACLU lawyer, they'll set you straight.
Stan Shannon wrote: Did I mention Lincoln? no, not explicitly, i guess. but you did mention (IIRC) things like the Civil War, states' rights, states' right to secede, etc., which all point to Lincoln. -c ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The notion that the sort of all powerful federal state crafted by the left since the days of FDR is the kind of government they were trying to achieve the Republicans control it all right now. but it doesn't look like they're in any hurry to change things, either. there's no evidence they have any interest in weakening the federal govt (just ask the guy in CA growing medical marijuana). maybe it's time to quit blaming the left for the problems of the right ? and.. um, just yesterday you were willing to credit the start of the strong central government to Lincoln. not today? ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: the Republicans control it all right now. The republicans may have the majority, but that doesn't mean they have control. Take the filibuster of judicial nominies by the dems as an example. Republicans will agree to disagree, but the dems will continue to argue that they didn't agree to anything :laugh: Chris Losinger wrote: maybe it's time to quit blaming the left for the problems of the right Its time for the citizens of the US to take the blame on themselves for a change. We as a whole put these people into office and now we have to live with it. :((
-
Vidal (one of my favorite authors btw ) would have been no less offensive to the founders than Bush/Ashcroft. The notion that the sort of all powerful federal state crafted by the left since the days of FDR is the kind of government they were trying to achieve, and which Vidal fully supports, is laughable. Vidal, nor any one else on the left, has any right to claim alligence with any principle Jefferson or the other founders ever advocated - they have willfully abandoned them all.
Stan Shannon wrote: Vidal, nor any one else on the left, has any right to claim alligence with any principle Jefferson or the other founders ever advocated - they have willfully abandoned them all. Left and Right, imo. Libertarians need the White House to return the Government into a centralist state, imo. Maybe the Green Party could acheive this too? anyway I found this... ""Specifically, I will propose that, as we continue the critical work of rooting out our terrorist enemies militarily, we launch a long-term geopolitical and ideological initiative -- akin to the great campaign that won the Cold War -- to combat the despotism, poverty and isolation that terrorists exploit," Lieberman said in a speech at Georgetown University in Washington January 14, 2002. <snip> "In other words, while we drain the swamp, we must also seed the garden," Lieberman said." http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02011407.htm[^] :wtf::~ :suss: oh boy, Rome here we come. Later, JoeSox One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes. --Jack Handy Deep Thoughts www.joeswammi.com ↔ www.humanaiproject.org
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Vidal, nor any one else on the left, has any right to claim alligence with any principle Jefferson or the other founders ever advocated - they have willfully abandoned them all. Left and Right, imo. Libertarians need the White House to return the Government into a centralist state, imo. Maybe the Green Party could acheive this too? anyway I found this... ""Specifically, I will propose that, as we continue the critical work of rooting out our terrorist enemies militarily, we launch a long-term geopolitical and ideological initiative -- akin to the great campaign that won the Cold War -- to combat the despotism, poverty and isolation that terrorists exploit," Lieberman said in a speech at Georgetown University in Washington January 14, 2002. <snip> "In other words, while we drain the swamp, we must also seed the garden," Lieberman said." http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02011407.htm[^] :wtf::~ :suss: oh boy, Rome here we come. Later, JoeSox One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes. --Jack Handy Deep Thoughts www.joeswammi.com ↔ www.humanaiproject.org
JoeSox wrote: In other words, while we drain the swamp, we must also seed the garden yup. and that's the PNAC/neo-con/reverse-domino philosophy in a nutshell. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
JoeSox wrote: In other words, while we drain the swamp, we must also seed the garden yup. and that's the PNAC/neo-con/reverse-domino philosophy in a nutshell. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: yup. and that's the PNAC/neo-con/reverse-domino philosophy in a nutshell. OK you disagree with that - what is your alternative? What is your idea for preventing another 9-11? Total American withdrawal from the Middle East? Let Israel die on the vine? Will that make them stop attacking? I sincerely doubt that. If you feel that the problem starts with America - American foreign policy, American imperialism, corrupt/decadent American culture - whatever - how do you change that? If that is the problem then America has to withdraw from the world and but up some big walls. The last time the Americans did that the world was plunged into the second world war. If the answer to that lovely question of "Why do they hate us?" is because you are free, rich and powerful - how do you change that? Give up freedom, wealth and power? - Fat chance. Spread the wealth around - Egypt has had 20+ years of American welfare and is still considered part of the third world and is constantly spew anti-American bile. I constantly see the 'Bush is doing it all wrong' mantra yet I never see a concrete alternative solution proposed. Give the American people one that they can see having a serious chance of working and they will jump at it. I just haven't seen one proposed. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
-
Chris Losinger wrote: yup. and that's the PNAC/neo-con/reverse-domino philosophy in a nutshell. OK you disagree with that - what is your alternative? What is your idea for preventing another 9-11? Total American withdrawal from the Middle East? Let Israel die on the vine? Will that make them stop attacking? I sincerely doubt that. If you feel that the problem starts with America - American foreign policy, American imperialism, corrupt/decadent American culture - whatever - how do you change that? If that is the problem then America has to withdraw from the world and but up some big walls. The last time the Americans did that the world was plunged into the second world war. If the answer to that lovely question of "Why do they hate us?" is because you are free, rich and powerful - how do you change that? Give up freedom, wealth and power? - Fat chance. Spread the wealth around - Egypt has had 20+ years of American welfare and is still considered part of the third world and is constantly spew anti-American bile. I constantly see the 'Bush is doing it all wrong' mantra yet I never see a concrete alternative solution proposed. Give the American people one that they can see having a serious chance of working and they will jump at it. I just haven't seen one proposed. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
OK. So, I'm president. I go to our allies and I say, "Terrorism affects us all. Right? Let's stand together and squash this right now. Here's my plan:" First step: a heart to heart talk with the Saudis, the Pakistanis, the leaders of any country who exports terrorism, in public (maybe on the floor of the UN, so everyone in the world could watch). And by "heart to heart" I mean they stand over there and we stand over here, we're all surrounded by TV cameras - the whole world is watching, no cutting away for Laci Peterson updates, and I say something along the lines of:
"Look, you fucking cocksuckers, this is the deal: clean this shit up or get used to living as nomads again. You want a clash of civilizations? This is it. And it's the civilized world against your fucked up terrorist philosophies, and we're calling the shots. If you want to run a country on the same world as the rest of us, you're gonna motherfucking behave. Got it ? You've got two months. Any shit out of you after those two months and that's the end of your regime. If you need some help completing this task, let us know and we'll help. But you're gonna solve it. The clock starts now. [tick tick tick...]"
"With us or against us", for real. None of this vague crap Bush spouted, no pussyfooting around the real sponsors of terrorism while waxing belligerent about non-threats like NK and Iraq. Start at the root of the problem. Call out the countries who produce this shit and let there be no doubt what or who we're talking about. Let them know the entire world is expecting results, not just one guy. And let there be no doubt about the consequences : you let this stuff grow, you lose your shit. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't care what kind of government you have, boil your people, roast them alive, whatever; no, we're here today to solve one problem and one problem only : you are not going to let your country breed terrorists. YOu know your people, you know your culture. Do what you have to do to fix the problem. If you don't do it, consider yourself at war with the whole fucking world. Clear goal, clear timeline, clear consequences. Maybe Bush has said this to these countries in private, i hope so. But I want it in public, I want the rest of the world involved, and I want it crystal-fucking clear that no matter how much oil you sell, or how poor you are, we are not gonna take shit from you. No special considerations, no back room deals: everything out front and in the open.
-
OK. So, I'm president. I go to our allies and I say, "Terrorism affects us all. Right? Let's stand together and squash this right now. Here's my plan:" First step: a heart to heart talk with the Saudis, the Pakistanis, the leaders of any country who exports terrorism, in public (maybe on the floor of the UN, so everyone in the world could watch). And by "heart to heart" I mean they stand over there and we stand over here, we're all surrounded by TV cameras - the whole world is watching, no cutting away for Laci Peterson updates, and I say something along the lines of:
"Look, you fucking cocksuckers, this is the deal: clean this shit up or get used to living as nomads again. You want a clash of civilizations? This is it. And it's the civilized world against your fucked up terrorist philosophies, and we're calling the shots. If you want to run a country on the same world as the rest of us, you're gonna motherfucking behave. Got it ? You've got two months. Any shit out of you after those two months and that's the end of your regime. If you need some help completing this task, let us know and we'll help. But you're gonna solve it. The clock starts now. [tick tick tick...]"
"With us or against us", for real. None of this vague crap Bush spouted, no pussyfooting around the real sponsors of terrorism while waxing belligerent about non-threats like NK and Iraq. Start at the root of the problem. Call out the countries who produce this shit and let there be no doubt what or who we're talking about. Let them know the entire world is expecting results, not just one guy. And let there be no doubt about the consequences : you let this stuff grow, you lose your shit. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't care what kind of government you have, boil your people, roast them alive, whatever; no, we're here today to solve one problem and one problem only : you are not going to let your country breed terrorists. YOu know your people, you know your culture. Do what you have to do to fix the problem. If you don't do it, consider yourself at war with the whole fucking world. Clear goal, clear timeline, clear consequences. Maybe Bush has said this to these countries in private, i hope so. But I want it in public, I want the rest of the world involved, and I want it crystal-fucking clear that no matter how much oil you sell, or how poor you are, we are not gonna take shit from you. No special considerations, no back room deals: everything out front and in the open.
So a heart to heart talk with the threat of consequences - just like the heart to heart with Saddam for a decade that left him just thumbing his nose at the world - with the complicity of a great chunk of the world because he was willing to talk great oil deals if they would just look the other way. And then the consequences would be what - invasion and regime change? What a horrible thought? Explain how the result of what you have described would be any differnt than it is now. Except that instead of having to invade Iraq with the rest of the region sitting pretty much on the sidelines we would have telegraphed the punch to all of the others despots and they would have decided to hang together instead of gradually coming to the realization that they have been sucker punched. The US now has a chance to try to build a functioning democracy into action in Iraq - I don't like their chances because they insist on not being as ruthless as they need to be to make Iraq an inhospitible place for terrorists (flatten Tikrit and then say - if you hide terrorists in your village the same happens to you - then see if there aren't a few more people willing to report on terrorist activites). You say your solution may be totally unrealistic - I will agree with you there. So I will ask again - give me a realistic solution. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
-
So a heart to heart talk with the threat of consequences - just like the heart to heart with Saddam for a decade that left him just thumbing his nose at the world - with the complicity of a great chunk of the world because he was willing to talk great oil deals if they would just look the other way. And then the consequences would be what - invasion and regime change? What a horrible thought? Explain how the result of what you have described would be any differnt than it is now. Except that instead of having to invade Iraq with the rest of the region sitting pretty much on the sidelines we would have telegraphed the punch to all of the others despots and they would have decided to hang together instead of gradually coming to the realization that they have been sucker punched. The US now has a chance to try to build a functioning democracy into action in Iraq - I don't like their chances because they insist on not being as ruthless as they need to be to make Iraq an inhospitible place for terrorists (flatten Tikrit and then say - if you hide terrorists in your village the same happens to you - then see if there aren't a few more people willing to report on terrorist activites). You say your solution may be totally unrealistic - I will agree with you there. So I will ask again - give me a realistic solution. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
Dave Huff wrote: just like the heart to heart with Saddam for a decade that left him just thumbing his nose at the world no. get this through your head:
fuck saddam
the problem is anti-western terrorism, not regional bad-guys, not oil deals, not any of that other shit. fix the real problem, quit fucking around with extraneous crap. Dave Huff wrote: then the consequences would be what - invasion and regime change? What a horrible thought? yes, that's exactly what the consequence of allowing terrorism to breed would be. Saddam wasn't doing that. Saddam was a different problem. Dave Huff wrote: The US now has a chance to try to build a functioning democracy into action in Iraq who cares. fuck Iraq. fuck democracy. fuck Saddam. none of those are in any way related to 9/11 or al-Queda. democracy? there are plenty of dictatorships in the world that don't sponsor terrorism. if you want to fix the problem of anti-western terrorism, then fix that problem. Saddam? regional bad guys are totally fucking irrelevant. sure, we have to put Iraq back together now, but that is a different problem. terrorism is the problem. Dave Huff wrote: You say your solution may be totally unrealistic - I will agree with you there. So I will ask again - give me a realistic solution. i gave you mine. it's your turn. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Dave Huff wrote: just like the heart to heart with Saddam for a decade that left him just thumbing his nose at the world no. get this through your head:
fuck saddam
the problem is anti-western terrorism, not regional bad-guys, not oil deals, not any of that other shit. fix the real problem, quit fucking around with extraneous crap. Dave Huff wrote: then the consequences would be what - invasion and regime change? What a horrible thought? yes, that's exactly what the consequence of allowing terrorism to breed would be. Saddam wasn't doing that. Saddam was a different problem. Dave Huff wrote: The US now has a chance to try to build a functioning democracy into action in Iraq who cares. fuck Iraq. fuck democracy. fuck Saddam. none of those are in any way related to 9/11 or al-Queda. democracy? there are plenty of dictatorships in the world that don't sponsor terrorism. if you want to fix the problem of anti-western terrorism, then fix that problem. Saddam? regional bad guys are totally fucking irrelevant. sure, we have to put Iraq back together now, but that is a different problem. terrorism is the problem. Dave Huff wrote: You say your solution may be totally unrealistic - I will agree with you there. So I will ask again - give me a realistic solution. i gave you mine. it's your turn. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: the problem is anti-western terrorism, You are right - now the question is - How do you fix it? Wiping out Saddam isn't an end in itself - it is a stepping stone in trying to get the entire f'ing region out of the middle ages. The are two ways to do that - provide the people of the middle east with a concrete example of an alternative to the f_cked-up death cult that they have managed to develop. You have to make it one they can't ignore or blame on outside interests ("Israel is successful because the JOOOOOOS control Amerikkka"). You need a functioning - successful - free example of the benefits to the ordinary guy of living without deathly fear of your leaders. The other alternative is to wipe them off the earth - lets not go there. So if you want to change you have to start somewhere. Pick a spot - your choice but it has to be major - Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Iran. Which one is the easiest? Again - give me an alternative. Chris Losinger wrote: the problem is anti-western terrorism, Chris Losinger wrote: none of those are in any way related to 9/11 or al-Queda. Saddams support of terrorism not al-Queda is well documented including payments to people who think sending their children out to blow themselves up in school buses is a good idea. He is also known to have allowed one the the men indicted in the original WTC bombing in ?1993? to live in Iraq. So the argument that Saddam has nothing to do with terrorism is pure BS. That he had nothing to do with Sept 11 - I totally agree. But this long ago went beyond the perpetrators of 9/11. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
-
Chris Losinger wrote: the problem is anti-western terrorism, You are right - now the question is - How do you fix it? Wiping out Saddam isn't an end in itself - it is a stepping stone in trying to get the entire f'ing region out of the middle ages. The are two ways to do that - provide the people of the middle east with a concrete example of an alternative to the f_cked-up death cult that they have managed to develop. You have to make it one they can't ignore or blame on outside interests ("Israel is successful because the JOOOOOOS control Amerikkka"). You need a functioning - successful - free example of the benefits to the ordinary guy of living without deathly fear of your leaders. The other alternative is to wipe them off the earth - lets not go there. So if you want to change you have to start somewhere. Pick a spot - your choice but it has to be major - Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Iran. Which one is the easiest? Again - give me an alternative. Chris Losinger wrote: the problem is anti-western terrorism, Chris Losinger wrote: none of those are in any way related to 9/11 or al-Queda. Saddams support of terrorism not al-Queda is well documented including payments to people who think sending their children out to blow themselves up in school buses is a good idea. He is also known to have allowed one the the men indicted in the original WTC bombing in ?1993? to live in Iraq. So the argument that Saddam has nothing to do with terrorism is pure BS. That he had nothing to do with Sept 11 - I totally agree. But this long ago went beyond the perpetrators of 9/11. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
IMO, in order to come up with any workable "plan", we need access to information, which none of us have. Till then it's nothing more than fantasizing. Maybe what Bush is doing is the best thing to do under the circumstances. We just don't know. It's too early to say anything, IMO. Give him some time. He's just started. Arm wresting with an entire region is not a joke. We don't want people to say 50 years down the line, "Look they f'ed it up, and that's why all this is happening," and someone else to respond, "Yeah, hindsight is 20/20". I mean, come on. This has to be played carefully. Like a game of chess. Not baseball. Maybe cutting off their source of funding will help? And arms and ammunitions? They'll be paralyzed without money and guns/bombs, won't they? This is how they operate, right? "Hey Ahmed, go blow yourself up, and I'll give your family a thousand dinars and a bucket full of water". But I'm sure people are already working on this. Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
-
Chris Losinger wrote: the problem is anti-western terrorism, You are right - now the question is - How do you fix it? Wiping out Saddam isn't an end in itself - it is a stepping stone in trying to get the entire f'ing region out of the middle ages. The are two ways to do that - provide the people of the middle east with a concrete example of an alternative to the f_cked-up death cult that they have managed to develop. You have to make it one they can't ignore or blame on outside interests ("Israel is successful because the JOOOOOOS control Amerikkka"). You need a functioning - successful - free example of the benefits to the ordinary guy of living without deathly fear of your leaders. The other alternative is to wipe them off the earth - lets not go there. So if you want to change you have to start somewhere. Pick a spot - your choice but it has to be major - Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Iran. Which one is the easiest? Again - give me an alternative. Chris Losinger wrote: the problem is anti-western terrorism, Chris Losinger wrote: none of those are in any way related to 9/11 or al-Queda. Saddams support of terrorism not al-Queda is well documented including payments to people who think sending their children out to blow themselves up in school buses is a good idea. He is also known to have allowed one the the men indicted in the original WTC bombing in ?1993? to live in Iraq. So the argument that Saddam has nothing to do with terrorism is pure BS. That he had nothing to do with Sept 11 - I totally agree. But this long ago went beyond the perpetrators of 9/11. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
Dave Huff wrote: How do you fix it? put the countries that allow it to breed in their borders on notice: specific, public notice. make every single country responsible for what it lets out into the world and back it up with the force of all the rest of the world. yes, you're right. Saddam supported anti-Israeli terrorism, as do half the other countries in the region. are we doing anything to them? of course not. Bush has failed to carry through on his "With us or against us" rhetoric. Saddam provided money and maybe explosives - but the mindset that created the demand for those things comes from other places. Bush went after Saddam because Saddam was weak and unpopular, but he's handling the real producers of terrorism like delicate little flowers. he's trying to do it backwards of how I think it should be done. Saddam's money is gone, but the places where a terrorist learns to hate the west are still out there. would taking out the leaders of countries cause massive unrest and economic troubles? yeah, probably. hopefully it would only take one or two before the message sank in. if poor or weak countries can't handle it, well, we could certainly give them some help. anyway... too worked up. need :beer: cheers. -c ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
IMO, in order to come up with any workable "plan", we need access to information, which none of us have. Till then it's nothing more than fantasizing. Maybe what Bush is doing is the best thing to do under the circumstances. We just don't know. It's too early to say anything, IMO. Give him some time. He's just started. Arm wresting with an entire region is not a joke. We don't want people to say 50 years down the line, "Look they f'ed it up, and that's why all this is happening," and someone else to respond, "Yeah, hindsight is 20/20". I mean, come on. This has to be played carefully. Like a game of chess. Not baseball. Maybe cutting off their source of funding will help? And arms and ammunitions? They'll be paralyzed without money and guns/bombs, won't they? This is how they operate, right? "Hey Ahmed, go blow yourself up, and I'll give your family a thousand dinars and a bucket full of water". But I'm sure people are already working on this. Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
Rohit Sinha wrote: They'll be paralyzed without money and guns/bombs, won't they? 9/11 clearly demonstrated they only need a good plan. the tools they used are practially irrelevant. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: They'll be paralyzed without money and guns/bombs, won't they? 9/11 clearly demonstrated they only need a good plan. the tools they used are practially irrelevant. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Yes. :sigh: Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa