|A small circle: The American Way|
35 comments20 Sep 2003 @ 18:51 by rishi : Ironic, isn't it?
Right on. Too bad there's almost no mainstream talk of Constitutionality, amidst all this "patriotism". Such "patriotism" has nothing whatsoever to do with the principles or intent upon which this country was founded. Nor does it have anything to do with the universal principles of civil, world community, or spiritual wisdom.
But that doesn't seem to bother most modern "Americans", does it?
20 Sep 2003 @ 18:56 by martha : assumptions
"But that doesn't seem to bother most modern "Americans", does it?"
There you go again Rishi making inaccurate assumptions.
20 Sep 2003 @ 19:15 by vibrani : Let's go back a ways
(Clark) as he knows this is not new - it's been building for decades...taking businesses to other countries for cheaper foreign labor and parts is the main reason. Corporations who took their money off-shore, hoarding it, instead of putting it back into America. How about loaning money to numerous countries to help them, who can never pay us back? Help us, America, pay for our screw ups and wars! That came out of our pockets. Those are some of the reasons. It's not about the Constitution, unless you want to get into the founding fathers' ideas that everyone here deserves life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and posterity, big business, free enterprise, the promise of cars and houses and food - which is why America became the promised land. America became the world's ideal, m'dears, and it has tried to live up to that - sadly neglecting its own citizens at times in the process. So, ask the millions of people who emigrated here why they came here and if it was worth it to them. Then maybe you can start appreciating what you DO have, and help America regain what it was, and can be again. It doesn't take much to do that, either, just a change in perspective and putting into action. You can also try to be in Congress, or some other government position and fight it out for what you think this country should be doing.
Let's go back a way:
I am no economist and I certainly am no politician, but even though I am not a chicken either and have never laid an egg myself, I STILL CAN RECOGNIZE WHEN AN EGG IS ROTTEN. And what you are saying, vibrani, is simply not true:
"It", as you know, has not been "building for decades", let's not be afraid to say things as they are: RECORD SURPLUSES TRANSFORMED IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE INTO RECORD DEFICITS!
Mr. Bush hit the trifecta, the great majority of Americans lost, BIGTIME.
20 Sep 2003 @ 20:50 by invictus : Yeah...
It bothers the hell out of me, for sure. The climate, the current "state" of "patriotism" makes me think that... yeah, Mr. Clark is right about this one. Asking questions of this "government" is a very good idea. Funny that they don't seem to like it so much. On the subject of speaking out (the American way : ) ), did you hear the one about "Free Speech Zones"? A fascinating new interpretation of what "liberty" means, to say the least. Appreciate your rights to free speech and dissent, people; just not so much that you decide to use them for anything that might remind the Fuhrer that there are people in this country who aren't "united" behind him and his friendly administration. Realize that you'll have to do it nice and quiet like if the men who "represent" your interests and run your country are anywhere near you. Umm, I'd apologize for the sarcasm, but it suits my feelings for Shrub and company right now. Thanks for the post Dianne : ) . Very important.
20 Sep 2003 @ 22:27 by rishi : Ironic Isn't it?
I agree with you Invictus. The Shrub didn't lose his marbles because he never had any.
Regarding the "patriotism" now seen sweeping the country, land, air and sea, and evidenced by the profusion of flags in every third yard or window, I say this. That majority of "Americans" who talk a lot about "supporting our troops" and about "winning the war on terror" are frquently the ones who have also never read the Consitution, Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence, nor do they have much interest in doing so. They see little to nothing wrong with the Patrior Act or the Department of Fatherland Security, despite the fact that both of these conventions are as anti-Constitutional and anti-Bill of Rights as you could possibly go.
"Patriotism" is defined quite well for most people by the corporate media, thank you very much. And that definition is so incredibly shallow, so unquestioning, so puffed up with nationalistic egotism, that it dares to rule the world at the point of a gun in the name of "democracy", and then expect the other people of the world to offer up thanks for being "liberated". If we're so "Democratic" let's hold a vote in Iraq to see if they still want us in their country. If they said leave, do you think Bush would do so? Of course not, we didn't go to all that effort to "liberate" anybody, except in the sense of liberating them from the second largest reserve of oil in the world.
First we tell the UN to go to hell and invaded Iraq anyway. Now we tell them to do their duty by sending troops, munitions and money, because the whole caper isn't turning out to be the oil-rich adventure it was planned to be.
Bush.com says we have to attack Iraq to remove their threat of weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile we use such weapons on Iraq, (uranium depleted bombs, missiles and explosives by the hundreds of thousands) in unprovoked attack, but that's "OK" since we're morally better than them and that's our prerogative.
Now that we've got Iraq, no such weapons have ever been found, but oh well, let's not dwell on the fine print.
Bush also said we were attacking Iraq because of the "War on Terror" claiming they had "ties to Al Queda". Now the CIA admits there is no such credible link.
Prime Minister Blair digs up phony documents about Iraqs' nuclear program, which is used by the US media as "evidence" against them, but is later discredited.
Last but not least we say we attacked Iraq because Hussein was a really, really bad guy. Then we turn right around and hire many of his secret service and former police thugs, as allies in the war effort.
This is the stuff of true American patriots, (at least those who believe in their televisions) isn't it MM?
21 Sep 2003 @ 03:20 by repsyche : couldn't make it up
or people would laugh or cry and say "don't be ridiculous!"
the previous comments reflect many people's views in Europe.
14 Oct 2003 @ 10:20 by D :HIT AND RUN
Ooops! jmarc has run away. HERE right after repsyche's comment, came a rather long piece by jmarc. The comment was more a personal attack against Wesley Clark than an entry about the content of the quote this log was meant to be about. Anyway, i told jmarc that he and rishi were like the Energizer Bunny, they go on, and on, and on, and on... My guess is he took offense and ran off. He probably didn't like the quote from Clark that was also part of the comment he deleted:
' I am not making a partisan comment...Yet when we point out the facts, they will call us unpatriotic; or they will call us left-wing liberals - even though I have been non-partisan my whole professional life. I don't oppose the President's policies because they are Republican policies. I oppose them because they don't work. If they worked, I wouldn't be here. If he admitted they didn't work and changed them, I wouldn't be here. ' [Wesley Clark Sept 24 2003]
All of that is okay with me, I just don't find this was very considerate to Invictus whose comment was partly in response to jmarc's and whose entry had been left hanging out of context as a result. I am sure jmarc didn't mean any harm and doesn't mind my filling in the blank his hasty departure has unwittingly created.
21 Sep 2003 @ 09:18 by invictus : Yup...
That is important to clarify. Like I said, Mr. Clark is right about "this one". I agree with the comment in the original post, but I wouldn't want my agreement on that one to make anyone think I agree with him on everything. I most assuredly don't. And I certainly don't much like the idea of generals running politics.
21 Sep 2003 @ 09:27 by martha : now LZ
while i generally agree with you lets not forget old George Washington.
And I do believe old Dwight warned Americans about MIC (military industrial complex).
21 Sep 2003 @ 09:38 by invictus : We'll 'grandfather' him in...
as an exception, okay Martha ; ) ? In general, I don't like the idea of generals running politics. And, for the record, I'm much more of a Jefferson fan myself (Thomas, not Starship).
I can so relate w. you ~ loved your Peace Post! I feel much like Michael Moore about this:
'This is not an endorsement. For me, it's too early for that. I have liked Howard Dean (in spite of his flawed positions in support of some capital punishment, his grade "A" rating from the NRA, and his opposition to cutting the Pentagon budget). And Dennis Kucinich is so committed to all the right stuff. We need candidates in this race who will say the things that need to be said, to push the pathetically lame Democratic Party into having a backbone -- or get out of the way and let us have a REAL second party on the ballot.
But right now, for the sake and survival of our very country, we need someone who is going to get The Job done, period. And that job, no matter whom I speak to across America -- be they leftie Green or conservative Democrat, and even many disgusted Republicans -- EVERYONE is of one mind as to what that job is:
Bush Must Go.
This is war, General, and it's Bush & Co.'s war on us. It's their war on the middle class, the poor, the environment, their war on women and their war against anyone around the world who doesn't accept total American domination. Yes, it's a war -- and we, the people, need a general to beat back those who have abused our Constitution and our basic sense of decency.
The General vs. the Texas Air National Guard deserter! I want to see that debate, and I know who the winner is going to be.
The other night, when you were on Bill Maher's show, he began by reading to you a quote from Howard Dean where he (Dean) tried to run away from the word "liberal." Maher said to you, so, General, do you want to run away from that word? Without missing a beat, you said "No!" and you reminded everyone that America was founded as a "liberal democracy." The audience went wild with applause.
That is what we have needed for a long time on our side -- guts. I am sure there are things you and I don't see eye to eye on, but now is the time for all good people from the far left to the middle of the road to bury the damn hatchet and get together behind someone who is not only good on the issues but can beat George W. Bush. And where I come from in the Midwest, General, I know you are the kind of candidate that the average American will vote for.'
14 Oct 2003 @ 10:35 by D : ANOTHER HIT AND RUN
HERE jmarc had made some cynical comment about politics and cracked a joke about how funny it would be if Clark picked someone named Lewis as a running mate.
The following comments by Invictus and mmborders are both partly in response to this missing entry.
21 Sep 2003 @ 09:41 by martha : I agree
big Tom has always been a favorite of mine cause he sent Lewis and Clark off to explore our country.LOL
And i am inclined to agree that the military should be separate from the presidency just like religion.
Oh and lets not forget honest Abe, another favorite of mine.
(I am fan of early Jefferson Airplane)
21 Sep 2003 @ 10:13 by invictus : I feel that cynical...
About most things in politics. That's an interesting thought, actually. I wouldn't think they're ALL in it for that, but I could imagine that happening sometimes. And, *grin*, you're right about Clark picking Lewis. I would think something is up too; one must be very careful/watchful with the power of name recognition (California; I don't feel too strongly one way or the other about Arnold, "Kindergarten Cop" is one of the first movies I remember seeing when I was little, but I do wonder).
21 Sep 2003 @ 12:41 by rishi : Let's try that again
I found the above discussion so important that I re-worked the post I gave here earlier. Forgive the observation, but I notice such points were entirely ignored by everyone here, including those who would like to discredit my words. Being humorous about all this is grand, but so is getting serious about the serious consequences of our national actions.
Ironic, isn't it?
Your post is right on. Too bad most people couldnt define democracy or how its supposed to work if they tried, let alone do what it takes to make it work. Its also too bad there's almost no mainstream talk of Constitutionality, amidst all this trumped up "patriotism". Were supposed to get in line, and quit asking question as a measure of supporting the troops. Well it seems to me that the best way to support them is to tell them the truth. Such "patriotism" has nothing whatsoever to do with the principles or intent upon which this country was founded. Nor does it have anything to do with the universal principles of civil, world community, or spiritual wisdom.
But that doesn't seem to bother most modern "Americans", now does it?
Bush didn't lose his marbles because he never had any.
Regarding the "patriotism" now seen sweeping the country, land, air and sea, and evidenced by the profusion of flags in every third yard or window, I say this. That majority of "Americans" who talk a lot about "supporting our troops" and about "winning the war on terror" are frequently the ones who have also never read the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence, nor do they have much interest in doing so. I doubt theyd understand them even after intense study, since the modern America bears no resemblance to the times when they were written.. They see little to nothing wrong with the Patriot Act or the Department of Fatherland Security, despite the fact that both of these conventions are as anti-Constitutional and anti-Bill of Rights as you could possibly go. The TV has got them brainwashed.
"Patriotism" is defined quite well for most people by the corporate media, thank you very much. And that definition is so incredibly shallow, so unquestioning, so puffed up with nationalistic egotism, that it dares to rule the world at the point of a gun in the name of "democracy", and then expect the other peoples of the world to offer up thanks for being "liberated". If we're so "Democratic", then let's hold a vote in Iraq to see if they still want us in their country. If they said leave, do you think Bush would do so? Of course not, we didn't go to all that effort to "liberate" anybody, except in the sense of liberating them from the second largest reserve of oil in the world. Were there to stay, and anybody who thinks otherwise I completely naïve. Hell, were still in Germany 60 years after the second World War, Korea for fifty, and they dont even have any oil to speak of.
Examples of what Im talking about;
First we tell the UN to go to hell and invaded Iraq anyway without their approval. Now we tell them to do their duty by sending troops, munitions and money, because the whole caper isn't turning out to be the oil-rich adventure it was planned to be. Now thats arrogance .taken to a new, never before seen extreme.
First Bush.com says we have to, attack Iraq to remove their threat of weapons of mass destruction to the civilized world. Meanwhile we use such weapons on Iraq in the name of the civilized world, (uranium depleted bombs, missiles and explosives by the hundreds of thousands) in unprovoked attack, (pre-emptive war as it is now called) but that's "OK", since we're supposedly morally better than them, and that's our prerogative.
Now that we've got Iraq, no such weapons have ever been found, but oh well, let's not dwell on the fine print. Nobody talks about that any more, and they surely dont want to discuss the implications. Besides, if any are ever found, theyre likely to have their made in USA tags still intact! But lets not talk about that either that might upset our fine American sensibilities.
Bush also said we were attacking Iraq because of the "War on Terror", claiming they had "ties to Al Queda". [Yet there were no Iraqis involved with the high-jacking of planes in 9-11. Those were mostly Saudi nationals.] Now the CIA publicly admits there is no such credible link. Nobody talks about that any more either. The war with Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, because Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.
Prime Minister Blair digs up phony documents about Iraqs' so-called nuclear program, which is used by the US media as "evidence" against Hussein, but that is later totally discredited. Well, whats a lie or two told between allies? I mean, so what if we killed tens of thousands of people based on phony evidence, were Americans, we have that right, correct?
In the now infamous Camp X-ray of Guantanamo Bay Cuba, there are over 600 prisoners, (and growing) of the war on terror some of which are British and Australian nationals, many of whom have been there for over TWO YEARS. During all this time most have never been charged with anything, nor do they have access to legal representation, relatives, or even decent medicine and food. All of these conditions fly in the face of the due process we supposedly pride ourselves on as a democratic society. They are also completely contrary to the Geneva Convention. Meanwhile, Bush has repeatedly lobbied to remove American soldiers from prosecution by the International Court in Hague, demonstrating that not only does he think Americans are above international laws, but above their own as well.
Last but not least we say we attacked Iraq because Hussein was a really, really bad guy. Then we turn right around and hire many of his secret service and former police thugs, to do our bidding in the Iraq war effort. What was good for Hussein must surely be good for us too, right?
And the world, let alone the public, is supposed to take the Bush administration agenda at its face value? Can we please talk about credibility, or is that un-patriotic?
This is the stuff of modern American patriots, (at least those who believe in the average news broadcast) Wave your flag and never mind the small details, since the truth doesnt matter anyway, right? This is the land of freedom and justice. If you forget that, the Department of Homeland Security will be happy to give you an indefinite prison term without charges, to remind you just how free and civilized we really are.
14 Oct 2003 @ 04:44 by vaxen : freedom...
means free from domination. the battle going on is for your minds. it has been going on for a very long time. double speak is rampant as are many out and out lies. america was and is a grand prize. world domination is the game. a wonderful global plantation raped by the one percent.
``Patriot I and II'' have taken what was left of your liberty away. you have been assimilated. silent weapons for quiet wars. the takeover took a long time. are you willing to fight for the republic? incidentally that is our form of government and not democracy. i have defined them both time and time again through these channels till i'm blue in the face. no one cares.
are you aware of any 'electromagnetic pulse experiments' going on in your area? you wonder why 'americans' per-se are not thinking, are not reacting to this fascism? i suggest that you become aware of us government mind control experiments on this population spanning the last 50 ++ years. maybe look at the fare being broadcast (media mind control) everyday in your newspapers (corporate controlled) on your radios, your televisions, (Also corporate controlled) and then after you've studied the 'programming' foisted off on a dumbed down populace things should start to get clearer, a bit...
congress wo'nt help you for they are part and parcel of the 'garden plot,' your presidents are all lackeys, hit men, front men, for the global elite, such as 'gorbachev,' so who is to blame? do'nt blame the average men and women who are being bio-electro-magnetically pulsed and drugged, poisoned and manipulated from cradle to grave. blame the 'controllers' of this insidious and hideous game. find out, if you do'nt already know, just who they are.
military, indusrial, entertainment, education, complex. very complex, indeed, but not that complex. after all, look who they put in the whitehouse. a joke, if ever there was one, but a very sinister joke indeed. any solutions in sight?
14 Oct 2003 @ 10:22 by i2i : Oh come on vaxen!
Listen to yourself,...'electromagnetic mind control'...'gorbachev's hit men'... Do you know what you sound like?
14 Oct 2003 @ 13:29 by b : We(USA)have a Constitution
Some of you need to read it. When it is being thwarted there are remedies for correction. BUT, you need proof and evidence to charge and indict. Generalities, non specifics, blame, shame, regret are not going to charge anything except emotions. You keep them. You are entitled to express your opinion or paste in anothers.
As for saying the President is unintelligent. He is not. He IS intelligent.
14 Oct 2003 @ 13:42 by i2i : The simple truth
'One of the principles that we operate on in this country is that leaders are held accountable. The simple truth is that we went into Iraq on the basis of some intuition, some fear, and some exaggerated rhetoric and some very, very scanty evidence. We found a situation that wasn't at all what was predicted. We're in there now, we're committed, we need to do our best. But that's a classic presidential-level misjudgment. And I think the voters have to be aware of that. And they have to appreciate it. And if democracy means something, then that will be reflected in the ballot box. ' [Wesley Clark CNN Aug13 2003]
14 Oct 2003 @ 16:39 by b : That is rhetoric i2i
The real reason that we(USA)went into Iraq is to deal with the Muslim"world".
Iraq is a starting place to see if we can create a democracy in Islamic countries. And a seperation of religion and state in the Islamic world since their religion dictates hate of us(see Quran). If we don't deal with the Islamic world now particularly the Arabs, we will have to deal with them later. If we deal with them later they will be richer and more advanced militarily. After we(USA)deal with them we will have to deal with the PRC. If we don't deal with the Arab world now for example, when they are stronger, they will be allies of PRC. Bottom line on this is if we don't deal with the Muslm "world" now, they will deal with us.
15 Oct 2003 @ 07:31 by i2i : Question
This is not a rhetorical question:
bbee, you are a participating member of the New Civilization Network. So, i must ask you. Are the views that you are expressing above (which may or not be the views of the Bush administration) are those the way (one of the paths) in which you see that New Civilization unfold, is this the path to the "bigger dream" to you?
15 Oct 2003 @ 07:43 by i2i : Anyone else?
Does anyone else among the participating members of the New Civilization Network feel the same way bbee does ('if we don't "deal" with them now, they will deal with us")? How many feel this is the way to the New Civilization, one of the paths to the "bigger dream"? vibrani? jmarc? Bruce Kodish? Anyone else?
15 Oct 2003 @ 08:50 by invictus : Okay...
I've said this before. But just for the record, I think that if "America" or anyone else comes to represent a force that thinks it has some right to "deal" with any part of the world like that, then it is functioning on assumptions that must be resisted on every front if anything "new" is ever to come into being. I wouldn't blame anyone, anywhere, for resisting it, if that is truly how "America" would use its unprecedented power to deal with the world. I am NOT in favor of violent methods on the part of any group, least of all my own country, which claims to be ever so moral and righteous blah blah "value of human life" and "thou shalt not kill". If what's going on now is our idea of how a benevolent, "just" power shows the world that terrorism, violence, and murder are not the ways to deal with our problems, I don't think we should be at all surprised when people resist our little military occupations. YES, 9-11 was VERY tragic, lots of innocent people died. Lots of innocent people also died (and continue to die) in Iraq. And I doubt most of their families give a damn about our "justifications" or our astounding conceit. And I don't even know how many would die in the other wars in which we are to "deal with" the enemies-of-the-week on our hit list. So is our response to tragedy to go and inflict in on thousands of others? And if anyone thinks that these deaths are NOT a tragedy, OR that they're a justifiable tragedy, a "necessary evil", they're using the same ideas that were used to justify the atrocity on 9-11. And worse. If we think we have any right whatsoever to try to control the world like that in the name of "good" or that of our "security", I think this country is the perfect example of the old "the road to hell is paved with..." saying. I think that the idea that we can deal with those who hate us through massive destruction/murder and by casually justifying thousands of deaths with poisoned rhetoric about the "export of democracy (at the point of a gun)" comes from the same mindset that monsters like Hitler and Bin Laden functioned on in their dealings with the world. They, too, were able to poison people's minds enough to make the murder of thousands of innocents look justifiable. And now Mr. Bush and friends are doing the same thing. Quite simply, I hope that any power that would "deal" with the world in such a way fails miserably, and completely, whether such outright murder and domination have the support/participation of a government or not. I really hope we don't have to learn what happens to powers with "ambitions" such as those expressed above and in Washington the hard way.
15 Oct 2003 @ 13:24 by b : i2i & Invictus
No, this is not the civilization I would envision for a future in which there is no war, no hate, No suffering for anyone. I state what I see as obvious in the world now. A world(Earth)that is divided in countries that each wants to be soveriegn.
And if Pakistani and Chinese troops are swaggering around in Boulder, Colorado and one of them slaps your moms face because she did not get off the pavement fast enough, would you go to her assistance? You can not appease evil. It occurs when the good stand by and do nothing. War is not peace, I have seen war close up, it stinks. Only a fool justifies it. Same as karma. Name calling is not going to prevent anything.
15 Oct 2003 @ 13:25 by invictus : Good...
Glad you think that only a fool justifies war. I agree with that. Absolutely.
If I thought, at this time, that there was any immediate threat of Pakistani troops invading Boulder, I'd probably go in and get myself checked for signs of paranoid schizophrenia. If I started using that thought to justify military action on the other side of the planet, now or any time soon, I'd get myself committed. Thankfully, I'm not affected by either of those misconceptions right now.
15 Oct 2003 @ 14:30 by rishi : Getting real
Good answer Invictus. The statements made by Bee here certainly do not reflect my intent or thinking in any way, shape or form, in answer to i2i's question. Such thinking as, "we'd better invade them before they invade us" is as ludicrous as saying you'd better walk down the street well armed, to shoot everyone in sight before they shoot you.
It's also more than a little naive to presume that the U.S. imperial, "righteous" war on the so-called "axis of evil" is based upon anything but the same old conquest for world power, seen throughout human history. The formation of Homeland Security is a power grab, as was the installation of an un-elected president, as was the "war" with Afghanistan, Iraq, Viet Nam, Korea, the War on Drugs, the war on the Native Americans, the Spanish-American war and so forth.
Bee, I'd like to hear you explain how the United States is morally superior to Iraq or the Arab world in general. You must think this or else you wouldn't believe such wars would be justified. So let's hear it. Tell us all why Americans are better than anybody else, and how this is what gives them the prerogative to bomb whoever they please, for any reason they care to invent.
15 Oct 2003 @ 15:11 by b : Because you kept it short
Rishi, I'll answer you. One, you twist my words: I said deal with them before they deal with us. I did not say or imply the word invade. Two, because of the activities of Homeland Security we have yet to see suicide bombers in our malls.
The President was elected. Your other comments: generalities of war show your lack of "experience" with it. Three, My comments on this blog were restricted to the Islamic world with a reference to PRC. Not to any other country. I was not being rightious or superior as the tone you take. I did say here that the Quran has reference on why USA will deal with the Muslim world. Read it. I am not going to quote sura(verse)or hadith(commentary)re hate for non muslims and Muslim remedies for that. I will cite one example from the Koran. "If a believer of Islam converts to Christianity, a fatwa is to issued by a mullah comdemning the converted as a renegade and they are to be put to death." I.e., no freedom of religion. Intolerance, something you too echo in your posts.
15 Oct 2003 @ 15:31 by i2i : Putting the NEW back in NCN
Thank you bbee for your answer (the case for war). I disagree with you of course, but I like your blunt honesty. You have not answered my question though. You talk of a New Civilization as of some utopian vision far removed from the real world in which we live. You said 'if we don't "deal" with them now [the Arabs, and then the Chinese], they will deal with us". What I was asking is do you feel this to be the kind of thinking that is going to help bring a New Civilization about? I am asking [its not a trick question] because what you are proposing, the kind of things vibrani, jmarc and Bruce Kodish have been supporting, the kind of things Bush has been doing, well, call me naïve, but it doesnt seem very NEW to me, as a matter of fact it looks as old as civilization itself and I thought, I was hoping, that we were all looking for new creative ways to approach the world and its problems.
15 Oct 2003 @ 15:57 by i2i : My other misgiving
has to do with what you imply when you talk of the real reasons we went to war, as opposed, am I to believe, with the made-up reasons, the one that were sold to congress and the people? Bush never was given a mandate to carry the kind of war for the real reasons you gave bbee.
Greg Thielmann, the person responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Colin Powell says the Secretary of State misinformed the people during his speech at the U.N. last winter, he says that key evidence in the speech was misrepresented and the public was deceived. Dont you think thats what Clark was talking about (the quote on this Log): it [the Constitution] doesn't say that it's okay to mislead people, it doesn't say the end justified the means."
Greg Thielman report will be covered on 60 Minutes II, this evening, at 8 p.m. ET/PT.
15 Oct 2003 @ 16:08 by b : Well, i2i
Again, no, I don't think this is the kind of thinking that will bring about a "new" civilization. I have been coming here to newciv for over five years and have posted a number of "visions" for a new civiliztion primarily based upon spiritual values. Spiritual values that can be acompanied with proofs and evidence. What is your vision for a new civilization?
Re my comments regarding the conflict of the intolerance of Islam versus freedom of religion with no dictates and no demands. That is the way I see it.
Threats of violence against USA are real not imagined. And violence must be dealt with. Yes,I would like to see a more enlightened utopian future. That is my preference. In USA we citizens still have preference and choice. This is not a totalitarian existence as some would infer.
15 Oct 2003 @ 16:16 by b : i2i
I really don't care about Greg Thielman or Wesley Clark any more then they care for me. I do care about someones religion being imposed on me so that I have to think that it is right. Do you wear birka or cover up?
15 Oct 2003 @ 16:43 by i2i : spirituality
is not something that is "accompanied with proofs and evidence", it is a way of life! The New Civilization is not an "enlightened utopian future", it starts here and now and every moment of our lives.
'We're not the sort of `you're with us or against' kind of people...We're a come-and-join-with-us kind of people. Americans know in their hearts that you don't make our country safer by erecting walls to keep others out. You make us safer by building bridges to reach out.' [Wesley Clark sept 19 2003]
15 Oct 2003 @ 16:55 by b : Oi!
So, you too would tell me how to think.
Israel builds a wall to keep out suicide bombers. USA is not doing that. Try building a bridge across the Atlantic Ocean.
For a discussion, better your words then anothers quote. Wesley Clark does not come to NCN. He is running for public office. Another would be politician.
15 Oct 2003 @ 17:25 by i2i : The American Way
It's not about you bbee. Why so upset? This Log is about the American Way [check out the title], this is my Log and I'll quote whomever I god dam please!
'You can't have a democracy when people don't get the facts and when people don't get the chance to agree or disagree. We've got to have a dialogue in this country that is premised on an understanding that asking questions, demanding evidence, and holding people accountable is not unpatriotic, it's the duty of every American.' [Wesley Clark Jul 18 2003]
I don't expect you will [your choice] but I know I'll be watching 60 Minutes this evening and find out what Greg Thielman has to say [my choice]!
15 Oct 2003 @ 19:26 by bushman : Hmm,
Don't have TV, and with all the time on here I spend, TV would just get in the way, lol. The world way, not the American way, will be the future. But we have a choice of how that new world order will enevitably be. I agree with i2i and respect him for mister Clarks quotes, whoever this mister Clark is. As far as how NCN fits into this, is totaly different. I'm glad that you understand what NCN is about and how we are the only network on the net with the most diverse goupe of people that real accualy are makeing a differance out there. The politics in this country is way out of control, as it's being run by old gray haired men who walk with bovine grace too the sound of unheard music. Our leaders have squandered their time and our money for self empowerment, when now we have a population problem because they kept history a secret and the tech that went along with it, kept all to them selves, when right now we could have all sorts of people living in space , on the moon, Mars maybe, by now. This is our choice, follow them, or do as we are allready doing here on NCN. What are we doing? We are wakeing the sleeping minds to a more technicly advanced state, better ways to run a government with out a government, better more ecofriendly ways of doing things, but maybe what is the most important thing we do is get people to speak their mind, we force them to have an oppinion, that my friends, is way better than a voteing box. :}
Good points, bushman, my friend. We are indeed far away from the inclusive collective intelligence model on which, ideally, one would expect a true democracy to be built. Is NCN making a difference? I don't know (wouldn't it be nice?) but, I agree with you here, getting people to speak their mind is a good beginning! Now, is it better than a voting box? Well, I wouldn't turn down that voting box just quite yet, my friend, no matter how "out of control" the whole system is. It's not as easy as you make it seem (i.e. a simple choice between following/participating into politics as usual or dropping out and finding new ways.) There is no doubt that new ways must be, [will be], [are being] found. But, in the mean time, it's way too dangerous a time to just turn one's back on what's going on in this country (and the world) and abandon politics to others. That we dare not do!
"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber."---Plato
15 Oct 2003 @ 19:34 by rishi : Reality and Fabrication
i2i, I'd like to thank you for three things. First, the progressive focus of your log, secong the truthful focus of this post, and third, your attempts here to reason with others who refuse to reason. Well done on all counts.
I've been going that route for some time here myself, and had many agreements, not to mention many disagreements with people. In the case of disagreements, most of these have been with people such as Bee who make short statements and then quickly take cover, not to be heard from for a long period. You see, persons such as this are not here to discuss, or reason, use logic or have any concept of spiritual progress. They're not interested in evidence of any kind, nor do they offer anything that stands on its own merit. They make fantastic statements which everyone is apparently expected to accept at face value without evidence, and then proceed to build on those false premises to make even more false conclusions.
For instance, I've spoken with Bee about these very issues many times before, on my own log and elsewhere. He knows very well that Bush was NOT an elected president and was INSTALLED by the Supreme Court, (which at the same time, prevented further recounts of the vote). This has been said many times here before, and Bee knows this. So what does he and others do? They make this pretense like they haven't heard it before. They also pretend that going to war with Iraq was perfectly justified, even though the "evidence" used has been disgraced, disproven and shown to be utterly fabricated. Even in this thread I've posted plenty of evidence to that effect. Even so, those who hold on to cherished and often fascist-oriented beliefs, will conveniently have short memories whenever the need arises. That's a trend to be witnessed in mainstream society as well. it is largely due to a great naivete', given a willingness to believe EVERYTHING they hear on television no matter how absurd it may be.
So you see, what you're dealing with here is a head game, and a rather sick one at that if I may take the liberty of saying so. What Bee is saying here has nothing to do with honest discussion. It has everything to do with creating conflict and a lot of "buzz" around Bee and others, which they desire. Why they desire this is a good question...it's bizarre and it's ridiculous. To be sure it's a form of mental illness. In any case, keep all that in mind, and don't necessarily assume that what such people say is honestly spoken, or to be taken at face value.
16 Oct 2003 @ 08:04 by rishi : More Fraud, no Surprise
Letters from US troops exposed as Pentagon fraud
By Kate Randall
16 October 2003
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
Gannett News Service (GNS) reported Saturday that identical form letters signed by different US soldiers in Iraq have appeared in hometown newspapers across the country. The letters paint a rosy picture of troop morale and improving conditions for the population in warn-torn Iraq. However, the soldiers whose names appear at the bottom of the letters didnt compose them, and many say they signed their names under false pretenses, or not at all.
The letter-writing blitz appears to be part of the Bush administrations efforts to boost US support for the Iraq occupation in line with its campaign against what it calls negative media coveragethat is, any news that doesnt toe the White House line.
Speaking Thursday at a fundraiser in Kentucky, Bush commented on the situation in Iraq, Were making great progressI dont care what you read about. This week, the administration also launched an effort to reach regional broadcasting companies, granting a series of exclusive interviews to regional news organizations that dont regularly cover the White House, hoping for more favorable reporting.
Facing sagging public support for the war at homeA USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll released September 23 found only 50 percent of Americans thought the Iraq situation was worth going to war overthe White House and the military have now resorted to outright fabrication in an effort to rehabilitate the war effort. The letters from soldiers that appeared in hometown papers across the country last monthsome of the only good news to come out of Iraq in recent weekswere in fact bogus.
A search by GNS, USA Todays parent company, found 11 identical letters that had appeared in different papers signed by soldiers with the 2nd Battalion of the 503rd Airborne Infantry Regiment. The letters appeared in large metropolitan dailies, such as the Boston Globe, as well as smaller publications such as the Beckley (W.Va.) Register-Herald and the Tulare (Calif.) Advance-Register.
The letters read in part, Things have changed tremendously for our battalion since those first cold, wet weeks spent in the mountain city of Bashur. On April 10, our battalion conducted an attack south into the oil rich town of Kirkuk, the city that has since become our home away from home and the focus of our security and development efforts. Kirkuk is a hot and dusty city of just over a million people. The majority of the city has welcomed our presence with open arms.
The quality of life and security for the citizens has been largely restored and we are a large part of why that has happened, the letters added. The fruits of all our soldiers efforts are clearly visible in the streets of Kirkuk today. There is very little trash in the streets, many more people in the markets and shops, and children have returned to school. This is all evidence that the work we are doing as a battalion and as American soldiers is bettering the lives of Kirkuks citizens. I am proud of the work we are doing here in Iraq and I hope all of your readers are as well.
In fact, the northern city of Kirkuk has been the scene in recent weeks of angry demonstrations of Iraqis protesting unemployment, poor conditions and repression by US forces. US soldiers around Kirkuk and across Iraq have been continually targeted by sniper fire, ambushes and remote-controlled explosions. Suicide car bombings have become a regular occurrence.
At least 19 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq so far this month, with five killed on October 13 alone. A total of 387 have been killed since the invasion, 216 of these since Bush declared the end of major combat on May 1. With this bogus letter-writing campaign, these same men and womenwho face death on a daily basis as a consequence of Bushs military policyare being cynically exploited to advance the administrations propaganda.
Pfc. Nick Deaconson of Beckley, W.Va., told GNS that he didnt know about the letter until his father congratulated him by phone after it appeared in the Register-Herald. His father, Timothy Deaconson, said, When I told him he wrote such a good letter, he said, What letter?
16 Oct 2003 @ 08:07 by rishi : Here's more
US army bulldozes Iraqi farms
By Chris Marsden
16 October 2003
An October 12 report by Patrick Cockburn in The Independent draws attention to how US soldiers in Iraq bulldozed groves of date palms and orange and lemon trees in central Iraq as part of a new policy of collective punishment of farmers who refuse to inform on guerrillas attacking US troops.
The action taken last month beside the road at Dhuluaya, a small town 50 miles north of Baghdad, destroyed the livelihood of 32 farmers and their families.
The children of one woman who owned some fruit trees lay down in front of a bulldozer but were dragged away, according to eyewitnesses. When a reporter from Iraq Today attempted to take a photograph of the bulldozers at work a soldier grabbed his camera and tried to smash it. One farmer told Cockburn, They made a sort of joke against us by playing jazz music while they were cutting down the trees.
Sheikh Hussein Ali Saleh al-Jabouri was a member of a delegation that went to the nearby US base to ask for compensation for the loss of the fruit trees. He said US officers described what had happened as a punishment of local people because you know who is in the resistance and do not tell us.
A petition to the US Army demanding compensation reads, Tens of poor families depend completely on earning their life on these orchards and now they became very poor and have nothing and waiting for hunger and death.
The parallels between what the US army is now doing in Iraq and the actions carried out on an almost daily basis by the Israeli occupation forces in the West bank and Gaza Strip are all too obvious. The deliberate destruction of Palestinian agricultural capabilities is one of Israels favoured methods of collective punishment and well in excess of 400,000 olive, citrus and almond trees have been uprooted by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF).
Other entries in Diary
13 Jun 2006 @ 23:54: The Final Frontier?
4 Mar 2006 @ 07:17: The Age of disinformation
20 Feb 2006 @ 08:21: Political Fiction---or is it?
10 Nov 2004 @ 03:22: "Family Values"
18 Oct 2004 @ 21:58: One Nation Under God
23 Aug 2004 @ 01:24: The Planet is Fine...
27 Apr 2004 @ 15:23: 54%
24 Apr 2004 @ 14:32: The Schmürz
5 Apr 2004 @ 16:54: Does the end justify the means?
18 Sep 2002 @ 12:52: Where is Away?