quote:Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen: no, really, the bottom line is that jack is amazed that we cant see what he can see so easily and so clearly.
('we' being the posters here, and the billions of people on 'earth')
we're blind to the concept that he (and, of course, a few french) has, more or less, single-handedly uncovered the absolute greatest and most convoluted scheme that our planet has ever experienced.
and even tho there are, literally, millions of people out there, with MUCH more firsthand information about any of that day's events, or any of the thousands of events leading up to it... its everyone's favorite RKMB poster "Jack, the Little Death" who has outsmarted the complexities of society, the evil american government/empire, and the global problem known as warfare. (from 'the jackcave,' no doubt)
yes, there are geniuses with unequaled IQs and thought processes and massive think-tanks working 24/7 on the issue. yes, there are countless reporters who have spent lifetimes learning to gather info and sources working 24/7 on the issue. yes, there are entire government agencies and their thousands of drones from countries all over the globe working 24/7 on the issue.
but its jack, with the street fighter II 'ryu' icon, who has solved the riddle no one else seems to have been able to.
i'm honored.
You forgot that he was also a VERY,VERY tough fighter inreal life.
quote:Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts: .....time to feed the cats.....
Bsams,I just have to say that youre a very cherished friend and for pushing me to think beyond the precipises of my experiences. Now keep feeding Kassandra her bon bons in San Juan.
quote:Originally posted by kassandra: thanks for taking the piss of us.
hh!
i really dunno what that means.
but im sure its educated, so i guess i should do my best to avoid it.
regardless...
you ask, quite specifically;
quote:why must one invalidate the other?
and, to whom, dear ww-fan, are you referencing?
surely, you'll note that this is precisely the case of everyone involved in this thread, beloved san juanian, or otherwise.
but bottom line, i dont think that anyone on one side of the fence is doing any thing that the other side of the fence isnt also guilty of. jack has been just as good and/or bad, serious and/or rude as any of the rest of us. jack crossed the line and pulled my seatbelt just as many times as i poked his glasses off. there's been just as much nit-picking, bickering, and childish comebacks being flung over here as there have been sent yonder.
i noticed. im a moderator. thats my job.
so, if you please, ill ask for no 'holier than thou' meta tags.
further, i dont understand what makes someone that questions something so much better or "harvardy," if you will, than someone who "simply" accepts something.
you and jack are obviously friends -- but would your relationship be better if you pondered whether or not you actually liked one another? better still if you did so constantly?
maybe what you say to one another isnt exactly what you mean? maybe you heard 100 sources say that he was somewhere at sometime... but one source stating he was somewhere else. in fact, his icon is that of a japanese karate expert... intriguing...
so, what do you do in that scenario, trust in your friend (which, from what i gather in this thread, you and jack would label as 'blind' or 'unintelligent') or continually question them, pursuing the truth you so desire ("obviously" the smarter of the two choices... but something i'd label as 'psycho exgirlfriend').
i loves me my parents. i know they loves me. imma good boy. i dont have to wonder if they really mean that. maybe im retarded (like y'havent thought that before). maybe its childish of me to simply be "spoon-fed" that information on a daily basis.
so be it.
you n'deathy seem like nice folks, but... if the case is between: believing what just seems so damn right OR your having a "greater respect" for me because i badger for something further...
im more than happy being looked down upon. (or... taking piss... ?)
anywho...
i didnt want my previous message t'get lost. i worked on it reeeeal hard while i was at work, sposda be doing other stuff.
and, as silly and/or 'insulting' as it sounds or comes across -- there's some valid frickin points in there, that id love to hear the responses to. (... which is actually a stupid statement, cuz no one here, obviously, really gives a damn what the other person says.)
so, without further adieu:
quote:Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen: no, really, the bottom line is that jack is amazed that we cant see what he can see so easily and so clearly.
('we' being the posters here, and the billions of people on 'earth')
we're blind to the concept that he (and, of course, a few french) has, more or less, single-handedly uncovered the absolute greatest and most convoluted scheme that our planet has ever experienced.
and even tho there are, literally, millions of people out there, with MUCH more firsthand information about any of that day's events, or any of the thousands of events leading up to it... its everyone's favorite RKMB poster "Jack, the Little Death" who has outsmarted the complexities of society, the evil american government/empire, and the global problem known as warfare. (from 'the jackcave,' no doubt)
yes, there are geniuses with unequaled IQs and thought processes and massive think-tanks working 24/7 on the issue. yes, there are countless reporters who have spent lifetimes learning to gather info and sources working 24/7 on the issue. yes, there are entire government agencies and their thousands of drones from countries all over the globe working 24/7 on the issue.
but its jack, with the street fighter II 'ryu' icon, who has solved the riddle no one else seems to have been able to.
Just last night, as I was sitting in a bar, I came to realize something funny about this theory. Well, not so much about the theory, but about the people who take it seriously and the people who don't.
See, I was thinking about what you said, Rob, when you implied that I'm the only person in the world that believes this theory. This isn't true -- there are actually (literally) millions of us, we just aren't getting much time in the media. It wasn't just obvious to me -- it was obvious to a whole bunch of people that arrived at the same conclusion independently.
You've read enough of the similar threads on the DC boards to know you needed to delete them, so you know that there are actually quite a few people over there that believe me. Just not very many in here.
And as I was sitting there drinking my rootbeer last night, talking to some friends, I realized the pattern in people that believe the theory and people that don't. Women buy it, guys don't. Generally speaking, anyway.
There's even a woman who wrote a great report on it called "The Silk Road." (I honestly don't remember exactly why it was called that -- I think she attributed the plot to a Chinese origin somehow.) I wish I could remember her name. It read like notes for a book.
When the topic was first brought up (not by me), it was shushed by all the guys at the table except me. The girls kept pressing, however, until I chimed in and took point in the conversation. Then all the girls became pretty vocal in their hatred of the Shrub and their conviction (often even greater than my own) that he was personally responsible for 911. The guys sort of crumbled after that.
So I've got some homework for you guys, 'cause I'm interested in seeing where this leads. Check with the girls around you, and see what they think. I don't have the resources to conduct a scientific poll, so we'll just use the honor system. Find out what the women think, and report back honestly.
Note that the trend continues on these boards. Kassandra has been supportive of the idea, and Lor, though having voiced no opinions on the idea itself, has been supportive of me -- and both of them are building up some crazy OSPs for it, too. :)
Almost all of the guys, however, seem to regard it as sacrilege. There have really only been a couple of us in favor of the theory.
I'll speculate on why this might be, but later. First I want to get more data and see if it holds true.
You sir, have inspired me to song writing. If you will indulge me for a moment.
Love you so much can't count all the ways I'd die for you Jack and all they can say is "He's not your kind" They never get tired of puttin' me down and I never know when I come around What I'm gonna find Don't let them make up your mind Don't you know
Jack, you'll be a woman soon Please come take my hand Jack, you'll be a woman soon Soon, you'll need a man
I've been misunderstood for all of my life But what they're sayin', Jack, just cuts like a knife "The boy's no good"
Well, I finally found what I've been lookin' for But if they get a chance they'll end it for sure Sure they would Baby I've done all I could it's up to you
Jack, you'll be a woman soon Please come take my hand Jack, you'll be a woman soon Soon, you'll need a man
I suppose I'm contributing to my own ridicule, here, but it's funny, so what the hell.
I've been declared an honorary lesbian by my lesbian buddies. Actually, it's more like I'm their mascot/roadie. They dress me up in stupid clothes (they assure that women love baggy pants but I see no dignity in holding them up while you're talking to a chick), they make me carry their stuff from place to place, and they generally don't let me actually play in their games. Dammit.
I suppose that if they make out in front of me, I also become useful as a coatrack.
quote:Originally posted by kassandra: you can dream about my pussy cat all you want, but you'll never get any closer than that. funny i never noticed how bloody transparent you really are. it's so pathetic - it isn't even funny. no wonder my jack only pities you.
(Glances around, counts all the girls coming to the dimwits' defense.)
Go ahead, Britney. Say, "I win." :lol:
I should've known better than to ask you guys to check with all the women you know ... it was presumptuous of me to assume that you actually knew any. So sorry, won't happen again.
quote:Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen: really, the bottom line is that jack is amazed that we cant see what he can see so easily, so clearly and so obviously.
('we' being the posters here, and the billions of people on 'earth')
we're blind to the concept that he (and a few million others, especially women and the french) has, more or less, single-handedly uncovered the absolute greatest and most convoluted scheme that our planet has ever experienced.
and even tho there are, literally, millions of people out there, with MUCH more firsthand information about any of that day's events, or any of the thousands of events leading up to it... its everyone's favorite RKMB poster "Jack, the Little Death" (and a few million others, especially women and the french) who has outsmarted the complexities of society, the evil american government/empire, and the global problem known as warfare. (from a rather roomy house in the san juan's, no doubt)
yes, there are geniuses with unequaled IQs and thought processes and massive think-tanks working 24/7 on the issue. yes, there are countless reporters who have spent lifetimes learning to gather info and sources working 24/7 on the issue. yes, there are entire government agencies and their thousands of drones from countries all over the globe working 24/7 on the issue. yes there were people who were actually involved in the events and situations, there to witness everything first hand, and continue working 24/7 on the issue.
but its jack, with the street fighter II 'ryu' icon, who has solved the riddle no one else seems to have been able to.
i'm honored.
[ 07-23-2002, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Rob Kamphausen ]
quote:Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: (Glances around, counts all the girls coming to the dimwits' defense.)
Go ahead, Britney. Say, "I win." :lol:
I should've known better than to ask you guys to check with all the women you know ... it was presumptuous of me to assume that you actually knew any. So sorry, won't happen again.
as if Big Assandra can be considered a girl, by now from lack of use the hole has healed over.....its a uniq by now!
Look Britney. Quit knocking her. A woman like her would make a perfect wife. If the marriage get's stale I'd just flop over a different stomach fat roll of hers and stick little Jack in there and it would be like getting a peice of strange every night.
A word of advice to Jack and Kassandra: don't fight bsams. He and I had a bust-up which lasted a year. He's too stubborn and tenacious - he just won't give up. Its not worth it.
And as his mate Mkisofs told me in the middle of our brawl, "Fighting on the internet is just like competing in the Paralympics: even if you win, you're still a spastic."
quote: you know...
i never thought that jack could actually be right...
until yesterday.
i was watching CNN, and they kept showing george bush giving this speech at the pentagon. and, i dunno... i just saw something in him that i had never seen before.
and, honestly, it made me think that, really, he DID sacrefice the lives of thousands of innocents, on our soil and others, so that he could get gas for a $1.20 instead of $1.40.
i took a few screen captures of the interview...
maybe you could see what jack, and now i, see, too:
LMAO! Kudos to you, Kamphausen.
quote: just curious here, but what is it about jack's desire to know truth, to see the beliefs and principles laid out for us as children during our indoctrination (sorry, "schooling")adhered to that seems to bother some here? this is, of course, not inclusive of those psych cases who parade about the streets naked, for no other reason than to get our attention, mindless of the picture they paint and the stereotypes they only validate in doing so. i'll pay them a kindness they'd never consider, and not mention any names.
if some are happy to sleep their way through life, never challenging that which is spoon-fed them, then so be it. that is their coice. likewise, if others do not settle for that, they have every right to pursue the clarification they feel necessary. perhaps that is a symptom of their own love for country? perhaps they give more than lip-service to that, unlike so many in our society who only replaced their laker (insert sports team here) flags with that of the united states until the plastic banners faded and they moved on to the next thing. gods forbid that the temporary changes we experienced, the insights we gained in the days and weeks following the attacks prevail. some say it's only human nature to do so. right. what a bloody cop-out.
we must all hold to our own truths, or seek them out. why must one invalidate the other? agree to disagree and just be done with it. some take our "freedoms" for granted. i have a greater respect for those who battle in the name of truth and justice. pity such a thing is inconvenient to those who don't want to have to think further than their own insular worlds.
oh, and rob, jack doesn't spend the days and nights of his life attached to a computer in some dank cave. it's actually a rather roomy house in the san juan's. not that i'd expect you to know that. i do, because he happens to be a much cherished friend of mine, who quite often pushes me to think beyond the precipice of my experience, and i am quite grateful for that. thanks for taking the piss of us.
-kassandra
Voltaire said something like "I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
The fact that you have the capacity for this debate speaks very well for your country. Questioning your government keeps it on its toes, and accountable to its people. I live a few miles from 1.2 billion people who don't have that luxury (and the only reason I do is because of the tenacity of the British). From a non-American perspective, in rationally debating this topic, you're all being good Americans.
(Calling someone a "brown shirt" is attacking the man, Jack, not the argument, which I called you out on before. It is not rational debate. Dave the Wonder Boy is a decent and good man, for all that we have opposite opinions on most things, and doesn't deserve the slur.)
But beyond the issue of the spirit of debate and the fact that it is a credit to your institutions, Kassandra is right. Its a good thing to be open to counter-intuitive ways of looking at the truth. "Insularity" or blind acceptance does not test the truth. The truth can handle challenge, and should welcome it.
I don't know why I continue. Britney and the Natur boys always win. I guess it's my fascination with the "Boys" part of their name. You know I went to jail for exposing myself to an 8 year old.
as far as my taking up for jack, i know him to be man (unlike so many others here) of sterling character, and i'll always be loyal to him. it's to do with friendship and honor, something else to go soaring above the heads of a certain bunch of gutter snipes.
Thank you my dear, my loyalty to you knows no bounds, someday your cats, Doritos and Gallons of Picante will be together.
To try and cause some legitimate controversy, and get this thread on track, I'm going to argue the Moby angle: the FBI and the CIA are a bunch of useless turds, and with all the money at their disposal should have been able to pre-empt and stop the attacks.
Well, the CIA and FBI are actually pretty capable turds, who had a considerable amount of information that should have allowed them to stop the 9/11 event in advance, if they'd just worked together and shared information, instead of bureaucratically sitting on their hands, and the way FBI management complacently downplayed the significance of the information their own agents were warning them about, and did nothing about it, until one of their own blew the whistle in a lengthy letter to the FBI director, well after September 11th.
I've said it before, that I don't suspect Bush or his administration of any complicity in anything illicit. But if I were President, then I'd definitely want every last detail explored, to fix any procedural gaps and allow a rapid response in the event of a repeat situation.
The fact that Bush and his administration resist all attempts at a common-sense investigation CREATES suspicion that would otherwise not exist. I don't like any administration that thinks it should be above investigation. I objected to Clinton's lack of cooperation with investigators, and I object just as strongly to Bush's lack of cooperation. At this point I don't think Bush is guilty of anything, but I still think Bush's resistance to full investigation is arrogant, counterproductive, and is largely responsible for the suspicion raised against him.
[ 07-22-2002, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: Dave the Wonder Boy ]
Given GWB could blame the failure on the previous administration, its a bit unhappy that he won't co-operate, but I think he's trying to break the cycle of political destruction caused by such investigations referred to in Woodward's book, Shadow. That's not to excuse it, though.
It wasn't just a lack of co-ordination between the CIA and the FBI - it was an over-reliance on technology (the Rumsfield factor, since a good parallel is Rummy's hope that a missile defence system would protect the US from attack, when he should be putting those billions of dollars in the Coast Guard to stop the bomb in the drinks machine seen in The Sum of All Fears). The satellites are useful, but at the end of the day intelligence on the ground is far more useful in pre-empting terrorism.
The benefit of hindsight, perhaps, but still, it seems like a no-brainer to me.
Yeah, I haven't really helped the tone of this thread.
I apologize to Dave, 'cause he didn't really deserve the bitching that he got from me a few pages or so ago. Sorry, Dave. I seem to be losing my perspective on this issue.
I still think the Shrub is a dick, and I still think he (and/or his donut) were in on 911 ... but my method of expressing that theory really hasn't helped my cause any.
Britney, however, remains a wuss.
Anyway, allow me to address one of Dave's points. You said that the fact that this debate was taking place speaks well of America, and I agree. However, this debate is taking place solely in homes and in bars and whenever anybody's dumb enough to pick me up hitchhiking, as near as I can tell. This debate is not taking place in the mainstream media, and it really should be.
The media does report that the FBI and CIA knew about 911 beforehand (I'm glad somebody other than me finally said this -- now that Dave's said it, do you guys believe it?). The issue at hand now is -- why. The spin is incompetence, but I find it difficult to believe that the same people that managed to keep a single explosion from happening on New Year's Eve 1999 -- the same people that knew just which people to grab as they crossed the border from Canada -- were drunk or something on Semptember 10th.
If the Shrub Administration hadn't stood so much to gain, I still might've been willing to write it off to coincidence, but the fact is that it did. I think we've established that fairly well. You can hand out economic theory all you want, and I concede that you clearly know more about economics than I do, but you must admit the possibility that you know more about economics than they do, too. And you can't erase the fact that they clearly did stand to gain a great deal, because they have gained a great deal.
For me, that's still what it comes down to. A crime happens. The entity that stands the most to gain has the power to bring about this crime. That entity also has the power to control the discussion afterwards. How can a person not be suspicious? This is the same culture that puts a husband at the top of the list of suspects whenever a wife is killed. This is the same culture that thinks O. J. Simpson got away with murder. I haven't seen the Shrub try on any leather gloves yet.
Just tell me this much, Dave. Who actually stood to benefit from 911, and who had the power to accomplish it? You turned a critical eye toward the Unocal statement to congress ... let's see you turn a critical eye toward the Shrub Administration spin to America.
[ 07-23-2002, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: Jack, the Little Death ]
I actually thought I'd said the FBI and the CIA should have known: but anyway, even if they did know (the intercepted phone calls suggest they did know something big was going to happen), that doesn't implicate the head of the administration.
To answer your questions:
1. who has the most to benefit from the attacks? Certainly at the time al Qaeda thought they did, in an assessment that this would force the US to bow to pressure and remove US bases from Saudi soil. I think this was misguided: even if planes kept falling into buildings, I think that the administration would not have bowed to terrorism, or been perceived as doing so. In an interview with GQ magazine, of all things, when he was in Sudan, bin Laden demonstrated that he was very out of touch with political reality in the US - he thought he might be able to rely upon the former Confederate states to rise up against their Yankee oppressors. To be fair, I doubt the average US citizen knows whether Yeman or Morocco is in the Maghreb, but still, the US has made it clear for a long time that it doesn't do public deals with terrorists.
Oil companies did not overall benefit from the attacks. I would like to see a comparison of their shares overall, before and after the attacks. I'd think they have taken a fall like the rest of the global market. One oil company now can build a pipeline through Afghanistan. That is the sole benefit I can see.
2. Demonstrably, zealots with cardboard cutters, basic flight skills, and mobile phones. What else do you need?
I kind of think you're missing the big picture. Oil is important. Lots of people makes lots of money out of it. But its not as important to oil men as Mecca and Medina are to fundamentalist suicidal Muslims.
We are in Dar al Harb, the area of the infidels. Mecca and Medina are the centre of Dar al Islam, the lands of the faithful. And within those lands are Christian soldiers, in large numbers, from the United States. Allah help us, some of them are even women, in uniforms, and worse, Jews.
In Saudi Arabia, its not as if you can hold a street rally to protest the presence of US troops (and I firmly believe that if you could, this would not have happened, because people could express their opposition and release their anger in non-violent ways).
So how do you show your strong condemnation of crusader occupation of the heart of the Dar al Islam? You blow up embassies, the USS Cole, the WTC.
To me, this makes a lot more sense than oilmen risking their lives and comfortable lifestyles if they were caught, and willing to end the lives of up to 20,000 people, for a pipeline.
And I appreciate your apology as well, Jack. I understand your passion on the subject.
I also have problems with G.W. Bush. But as I said, pending further evidence, I don't think he's guilty of an oil-based war conspiracy. Although anything's possible. I haven't really been enthusiastic about any President since Reagan, and even Reagan was woven into some criminally devious corruption and power-brokering (the "October Surprise" deal with Iran, to delay release of the embassy hostages until after Reagan was elected; Iran Contra ; and Oliver North taking the fall for charges that I think most of us believe went much higher.) I really think the only boy-scout President we've had since Eisenhower was Jimmy Carter. And Carter wan't a very effective leader.
One thing that really bothers me though, is why liberals (and I mean that in general, not specifically you, Jack, or anyone else here) seem to overlook these things when they're done by a Democrat in the White House, or candidate, and so eager to crucify a Republican as Satan in the flesh for very similar charges?
I mean, Bush Sr. was demonized by Democrats in 1992, and Clinton had a lengthy list of criminally and ethically suspect red flags on his resume, both prior to and during his term as President, and yet the Democrats, and the Democrat-biased press constantly downplayed Clinton's record. Among my conservative friends, we said for 8 years that on so many of the under-reported transgressions of Clinton, that if it were Bush Sr., the media would have gone for blood and aggressively tipped the balance of public opinion to have him removed. Whereas with Clinton, the media stayed its hand and let Clinton squeak by unscathed.
There was a lot of speculation that all the sabre-rattling over Kosovo and Iraq, for instance, (which was a perfect case of life imitating art, in the simultaneously released movie Wag the Dog) where there was considerable speculation that Clinton would start a war just to take public opinion away from Monica Lewinsky, and make his popularity rise as a war-time President.
And there's so many other issues under Clinton: Travelgate, Whitewater, and the larger connection to huge losses in the savings and loan scandal, Filegate, Vince Foster's death, allowing China to steal nuclear missile technology secrets despite repeated warnings by military advisors to improve security, etc.
I wonder how you feel about Clinton, as opposed to Bush.
Like I said, even though I'm a Republican, I haven't voted for a Republican President since 1988, because I'm all too aware that the two major parties are bought and paid for with corporate campaign contributions, and that those interests far outweigh those of the people.
In 1992, I voted Perot, the only candidate to address the real issues. In 1996, I wanted Phil Gramm, we were given Bob Dole, I again voted Perot(less enthusiastically). In 2000, I wanted John McCain, we were given G.W.Bush, I voted Ralph Nader (again, the only candidate to address the real issues).
I really don't think Gore would be any better. His candidacy was bought and paid for only a few million less than Bush's.
quote:Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen: really, the bottom line is that jack is amazed that we cant see what he can see so easily, so clearly and so obviously.
('we' being the posters here, and the billions of people on 'earth')
we're blind to the concept that he (and a few million others, especially women and the french) has, more or less, single-handedly uncovered the absolute greatest and most convoluted scheme that our planet has ever experienced.
and even tho there are, literally, millions of people out there, with MUCH more firsthand information about any of that day's events, or any of the thousands of events leading up to it... its everyone's favorite RKMB poster "Jack, the Little Death" (and a few million others, especially women and the french) who has outsmarted the complexities of society, the evil american government/empire, and the global problem known as warfare. (from a rather roomy house in the san juan's, no doubt)
yes, there are geniuses with unequaled IQs and thought processes and massive think-tanks working 24/7 on the issue. yes, there are countless reporters who have spent lifetimes learning to gather info and sources working 24/7 on the issue. yes, there are entire government agencies and their thousands of drones from countries all over the globe working 24/7 on the issue. yes there were people who were actually involved in the events and situations, there to witness everything first hand, and continue working 24/7 on the issue.
but its jack, with the street fighter II 'ryu' icon, who has solved the riddle no one else seems to have been able to.
quote:Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy: Thanks for the kind words in my defense, T-Dave.
And I appreciate your apology as well, Jack. I understand your passion on the subject.
I also have problems with G.W. Bush. But as I said, pending further evidence, I don't think he's guilty of an oil-based war conspiracy. Although anything's possible. I haven't really been enthusiastic about any President since Reagan, and even Reagan was woven into some criminally devious corruption and power-brokering (the "October Surprise" deal with Iran, to delay release of the embassy hostages until after Reagan was elected; Iran Contra ; and Oliver North taking the fall for charges that I think most of us believe went much higher.) I really think the only boy-scout President we've had since Eisenhower was Jimmy Carter. And Carter wan't a very effective leader.
One thing that really bothers me though, is why liberals (and I mean that in general, not specifically you, Jack, or anyone else here) seem to overlook these things when they're done by a Democrat in the White House, or candidate, and so eager to crucify a Republican as Satan in the flesh for very similar charges?
I mean, Bush Sr. was demonized by Democrats in 1992, and Clinton had a lengthy list of criminally and ethically suspect red flags on his resume, both prior to and during his term as President, and yet the Democrats, and the Democrat-biased press constantly downplayed Clinton's record. Among my conservative friends, we said for 8 years that on so many of the under-reported transgressions of Clinton, that if it were Bush Sr., the media would have gone for blood and aggressively tipped the balance of public opinion to have him removed. Whereas with Clinton, the media stayed its hand and let Clinton squeak by unscathed.
There was a lot of speculation that all the sabre-rattling over Kosovo and Iraq, for instance, (which was a perfect case of life imitating art, in the simultaneously released movie Wag the Dog) where there was considerable speculation that Clinton would start a war just to take public opinion away from Monica Lewinsky, and make his popularity rise as a war-time President.
And there's so many other issues under Clinton: Travelgate, Whitewater, and the larger connection to huge losses in the savings and loan scandal, Filegate, Vince Foster's death, allowing China to steal nuclear missile technology secrets despite repeated warnings by military advisors to improve security, etc.
I wonder how you feel about Clinton, as opposed to Bush.
Like I said, even though I'm a Republican, I haven't voted for a Republican President since 1988, because I'm all too aware that the two major parties are bought and paid for with corporate campaign contributions, and that those interests far outweigh those of the people.
In 1992, I voted Perot, the only candidate to address the real issues. In 1996, I wanted Phil Gramm, we were given Bob Dole, I again voted Perot(less enthusiastically). In 2000, I wanted John McCain, we were given G.W.Bush, I voted Ralph Nader (again, the only candidate to address the real issues).
I really don't think Gore would be any better. His candidacy was bought and paid for only a few million less than Bush's.
I don't think there is any "real democracy", the same as there can't be any pure communism. The democracy we all have is an elected oligarchy, in which the candidates are promoted through advterising paid for by special interest groups.
And sure, Clinton had suspect issues. He was morally bankrupt in some ways. As a non-American, I'm willing to forgive him for his transgressions because he tried to fix many things wrong with the world. He came as close as anyone got to secure a peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians and he took the blame for not interceding in Rwanda. He had enough courage to send troops to Somalia to try and bring peace there (it was a mess, but his motives were good).
Gore was willing to do something about Africa, and to stop global warming.
Bush has little to offer me: he is the epitomy of self-interest.
Yeah, that's absolutely true, and I can't deny that his principal role should be to look after American interests and be accountable to the American people.
Nonetheless, there is
1. scope for overlap between American interests and the welfare of people in the Third World. Even from a business perspective, the more healthy and wealthy people in stable countries there are, the more consumers there are of US goods, and the more profitable US companies are. In relation specifically to Israel and Palestine, if an American president (the only person both parties will listen to by reason of America's strength) does not keep a lid on things, it will boil over into the region and harm US busioness interests, the global economy, and US access to Middle Eastern oil.
2. a moral imperative (not an obligation, but an empathic urge), to stop suffering in other countries. Spread the benefits of democracy, rule of law, the rights of the individual. Its working in Afghanistan. That has a flow-on affect for US security - if people are well and happy, then they'll be less likely to try and drop planes into buildings. Discontent breeds violence. Keep people content = less likelihood of violence.
ill respond, even at risk of my previous 4-time-repeated-wcw-like-champion-post being passed over yet again.
i'm definitely all for the "we help others" mentality. personally, i think its the right thing to do. i do think that we shouldnt do it at our own expense, but like it or not, we're "superman" from the "justice league" (or, perhaps more aptly, "super-friends").
however, in this shitty lil world of ours, no matter what we do, its a lose-lose-lose-lose scenario.
i.e; israel vs. palestine.
we help out israel too much? palestinians and all their respective supporters all over the world are pissed, and we're fuck ups for trying to help israel, which is obviously just to help our own cause.
we help out palestine too much? israelies and all their respective supporters all over the world are pissed, and we're fuck ups for trying to help palestine, which is obviously just to help our own cause.
we help them both out too much? we're focusing too much on spreading (forcing) "american idealism," which is obviously just to help our own cause. people all over the world think that we should just butt the hell out.
we help ourselves and butt out? we're focusing too much on ourselves and being conceited, which is obviously just to help our own cause. we care only for americans, and people all over the world think that we're protentious ass holes.
chose your poison.
and i guarantee ya, no matter which selection is made, there's a "jack, the little death" to point out all its flaws, and how horrible we are.
Nah, actually, I agree with you on the subject of Israel vs. Palestine. It's a mess, and if there's a way out of it, it escapes me completely.
I'm actually starting to understand the people who say that we're left with no other choice than to simply pick a side and make that side the victor. I don't agree, but I understand it. When overwhelming force is an option, it's really tempting sometimes to use it.
We need Israel where it is. It is, for all intents and purposes, our colony in what might be the most important strategic region in the world right now. The importance of having a colony of western thought in the Middle East cannot be overstressed.
But on the other hand, the price we have to pay to keep that colony going might be more than I'm willing to accept. I just don't know.
Israel launches a missile at an apartment building, killing civilians (including children) and one terrorist leader. Was it worth it? Knowing only what we know right now, I'd have to say it wasn't, just like I'd say it isn't worth it to drop bombs on little girls in Afghanistan (especially considering we have yet to kill a single terrorist leader that we're aware of).
It seems to me that there's a lot of talk about what things are and aren't worth risking your life for. It seems to me that being the good guys is worth risking your life for.
And c'mon, this is America we're talking about. If we're too wussy to be the good guys -- 'cause make no mistake, being good requires a lot more courage and strength than being evil -- what can we expect from any other nation in the world? We're the biggest, baddest monkeys in the jungle. If we act like sniveling little cowards, insisting that "the end justifies the means," what we're really saying is that we aren't strong enough to do it the right way. I have more faith in us than that.
quote:Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: I have more faith in us than that.
this from the guy who feels our president and his government, the leaders of the free world, thoughtlessly slaughtered several thousand innocent american citizens for a better claim on a fossil fuel.
....
if the above statement were the only thing you posted in this thread, i'd have a completely different view of ya, jack. cuz, quite frankly, i agree with most of what y'just said (or i agree that you agreed with me... whichever).
but, im completely perplexed by the enormous conflict you created, near-split personality level, uttering the above words only hours after the horrifying ones we're all so familiar with now.
and my previous, frequently-forgotten comments were forgotten again. ...damnit.
quote:Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen: ill respond, even at risk of my previous 4-time-repeated-wcw-like-champion-post being passed over yet again.
i'm definitely all for the "we help others" mentality. personally, i think its the right thing to do. i do think that we shouldnt do it at our own expense, but like it or not, we're "superman" from the "justice league" (or, perhaps more aptly, "super-friends").
however, in this shitty lil world of ours, no matter what we do, its a lose-lose-lose-lose scenario.
i.e; israel vs. palestine.
we help out israel too much? palestinians and all their respective supporters all over the world are pissed, and we're fuck ups for trying to help israel, which is obviously just to help our own cause.
we help out palestine too much? israelies and all their respective supporters all over the world are pissed, and we're fuck ups for trying to help palestine, which is obviously just to help our own cause.
we help them both out too much? we're focusing too much on spreading (forcing) "american idealism," which is obviously just to help our own cause. people all over the world think that we should just butt the hell out.
we help ourselves and butt out? we're focusing too much on ourselves and being conceited, which is obviously just to help our own cause. we care only for americans, and people all over the world think that we're protentious ass holes.
chose your poison.
and i guarantee ya, no matter which selection is made, there's a "jack, the little death" to point out all its flaws, and how horrible we are.
You mean facing criticism is a good reason not to do the right thing?
I'm a fan of Clinton because he had the courage to try and do the right thing by trying to resolve that dispute, even if it meant taking abuse for it if he failed, by being an honest and impartial broker between the two sides.
quote:Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death: Nah, actually, I agree with you on the subject of Israel vs. Palestine. It's a mess, and if there's a way out of it, it escapes me completely.
I'm actually starting to understand the people who say that we're left with no other choice than to simply pick a side and make that side the victor. I don't agree, but I understand it. When overwhelming force is an option, it's really tempting sometimes to use it. [/b]
I'd say that's happening already, and has been happening for a while. I don't see America selling the PLO helicopter gunships.
Its a flawed strategy. How can the US be an unbiased mediator while it supplies one side with weapons and not the other?
"Picking one side to be the winner" also assumes the fight can be won. Do you really think the Pals would back down if the US decided Israel was the winner?
quote:
We need Israel where it is. It is, for all intents and purposes, our colony in what might be the most important strategic region in the world right now. The importance of having a colony of western thought in the Middle East cannot be overstressed.
Spoken like someone who has never been to Israel. Israeli culture isn't exactly a little depository of US culture, you know. Still, it is a democracy, and it deserves to prosper. Simultaneously, the Palestinians deserve a nation.
quote:
But on the other hand, the price we have to pay to keep that colony going might be more than I'm willing to accept. I just don't know.
Israel launches a missile at an apartment building, killing civilians (including children) and one terrorist leader. Was it worth it? Knowing only what we know right now, I'd have to say it wasn't, just like I'd say it isn't worth it to drop bombs on little girls in Afghanistan (especially considering we have yet to kill a single terrorist leader that we're aware of).
I'm mixed on this. If he was the key guy, then maybe it would be worth it. I don't think the implications of this have been thought out. On the face of it, though, its a horror - a war crime.
quote:[b] It seems to me that there's a lot of talk about what things are and aren't worth risking your life for. It seems to me that being the good guys is worth risking your life for.
And c'mon, this is America we're talking about. If we're too wussy to be the good guys -- 'cause make no mistake, being good requires a lot more courage and strength than being evil -- what can we expect from any other nation in the world? We're the biggest, baddest monkeys in the jungle. If we act like sniveling little cowards, insisting that "the end justifies the means," what we're really saying is that we aren't strong enough to do it the right way. I have more faith in us than that.
Its more than that. Your use of the word "strength" implies going in and getting something done. Israel doesn't want US troops keeping the peace in Israel, because its sovereign Israeli territory (and no colony). Your government will keep talking up Israel and people will keep dying.
Israel launches a missile at an apartment building, killing civilians (including children) and one terrorist leader. Was it worth it?
Knowing only what we know right now, I'd have to say it wasn't, just like I'd say it isn't worth it to drop bombs on little girls in Afghanistan (especially considering we have yet to kill a single terrorist leader that we're aware of).
The terrorist Hammas leader killed was indisputably involved in countless previous suicide bombings, and was in the process of orchestrating even more suicide bombings. I think he definitely had to die, from the Israeli viewpoint.
But they could have picked him off anywhere. Israeli helicopters use very precise missiles with relatively low explosive force, that are frequently used to target Palestinian soldiers in cars while driving, and often kill them on an open street with very little if any "collateral damage" to buildings and people on the street, unless someone happens to walk close to the targeted car at the moment of impact.
My point being: Israel could have targeted this Hammas leader anywhere. Even Hammas was rumored to have been on the brink of negotiating an end to the suicide bombings.
That is, before this building was destroyed, killing the Hammas leader, 9 Palestinian children, and injuring 100 or so other civilians. The assasination was personally approved by President Ariel Sharon and the Israeli Defense Minister. They KNEW the assassination and widespread damage (called a "massacre" by Palestinians) would put a halt to the negotiations, and it's believed that's what Israel actually wanted. Israel's present hardline doesn't believe in negotiation with Palestine, and if they DID negotiate with Palestine, the radical conservative powerbase who elected him would call for Sharon's resignation for betraying what they elected him to do.
This is exactly what happened to Netanyahu in 1998, when Netanyahu negotiated with the PLO, and his powerbase abandoned him, screaming for his resignation.
And that loss of support resulted in Yehud Barak being elected, who pursued negotiation again. And when the relentless suicide bombings continued, Israeli people again got scared and elected Ariel Sharon, who is about the most hardline conservative militarist that Israel could have elected.
Sharon's government doesn't trust Palestinians to keep any promises made in negotiations. They believe the only way to stop the terrorism is to decisively neutralize them in an all-out war. And it's believed this messy assassination was deliberately done to undermine the peace process and continue that policy.
Certainly, Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 would support the contention that Palestine will not honor a peace agreement. Instead of respecting Israel's peaceful withdrawal, Palestinians saw this as a sign of weakness on Israel's part, and began the current ongoing campaign of suicide bombings and violence to force Israel to give them what they want.
Much of the language Palestinians use toward Israel is also used against the United States. If we send in peacekeeping forces to stop slaughter and establish peace and stability, we're labelled as tyrants. If we withdraw troops from any Muslim area (such as Somalia, or 1983 Beirut, similar to Israel withdrawing from southern Lebanon), we are labelled as cowards on the run, and that just emboldens terrorists (whether they are Hammas, Islamic Jihad, PLO or Al Qaida) to bolder acts of destruction and violence.
So the current Israeli government seems to believe that, despite the bloodshed, they are pursuing the only policy that will bring long-term peace to Israel.
And perhaps they're right.
* * *
Regarding the other issue about the war in Afghanistan:
From the news I've read and watched, most Afghans seem to welcome the U.S. forces, and recognize that U.S. involvement is Afghanistan's last/best hope for a stable centralized government and lasting peace, after 20 years and more of Afghan wars and ethnic internal fighting.
And I hasten to add that a number of deaths in Afghanistan have not only been Afghan civilian deaths, but also included U.S. and Canadian soldiers killed in similar friendly fire incidents.
Accidents of war are just that, accidents, not to be confused with senseless slaughter.
I don't buy into the idea that we shouldn't go to war if it means the death of even one innocent person.
That's a good ideal, but it's just not realistic. By that standard no war is justifiable. Using that standard, the U.S. never would have fought in World War II, Germany would have won, the entire population of European Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and others deemed by Nazis as racial inferiors, numbering well into the hundreds of millions, would have been exterminated. And we'd be having this online conversation in German.
Innocent deaths are, regrettably, the price of war. Sometimes a necessary price, to save millions of other lives.
Dave, your use of the word "war" suggests that the Israelis are fighting a war aginst a Palestinian state.
This was an act against a terrorist (the member of a terrorist organisation, not a general of an army of a foreign power) within the territory of Israel, which resulted in the deaths of civilians ostensibly under Israeli sovereignty and the responsibility that this entails.
You're using an incorrect standard, to mask the fact that the Israelis, in killing a known terrorist, also indiscriminately killed seven children.
You say a just war has its costs. What about a counter-terrorist action? Can you imagine the outcry that would erupt if this had happened in the United States, and seven children were killed during a counter-terrorist operation?
quote:Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy: [QBIf we send in peacekeeping forces to stop slaughter and establish peace and stability, we're labelled as tyrants. If we withdraw troops from any Muslim area (such as Somalia, or 1983 Beirut, similar to Israel withdrawing from southern Lebanon), we are labelled as cowards on the run, and that just emboldens terrorists (whether they are Hammas, Islamic Jihad, PLO or Al Qaida) to bolder acts of destruction and violence.
[/QB]
I almost missed this. How does this dovetail in with repeated Palestinian calls for interntaional peace-keepers? Israel rejects these calls, saying that its an internal issue wihich does not necessitate peacekeepers.
Also, the US pulled out of Somalia because the corpse of an army ranger was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu and this was broadcast to the US public. The US public lacks the stomach to see its troops killed in foreign theatres (understandably, in one sense). The US military was opposed to it, because it wasn't fighting, it was nation-building. And so the US pulled out. I don't think it was cowardice: it was more lack of committment.
![[who, me?]](graemlins/whome01.gif)
![[yuh huh]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif){kind=icon}
