Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2]


BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002

Little Hawk 29 Jul 02 - 10:33 AM
Amos 29 Jul 02 - 11:44 AM
McGrath of Harlow 29 Jul 02 - 11:49 AM
Ebbie 29 Jul 02 - 02:49 PM
Susanne (skw) 29 Jul 02 - 05:03 PM
mack/misophist 29 Jul 02 - 06:46 PM
Little Hawk 30 Jul 02 - 12:47 AM
DougR 30 Jul 02 - 01:13 AM
Bert 30 Jul 02 - 02:21 AM
GUEST,polaitaly 30 Jul 02 - 03:00 AM
GUEST,greg stephens 30 Jul 02 - 05:56 AM
Grab 30 Jul 02 - 08:44 AM
Little Hawk 30 Jul 02 - 03:33 PM
Little Hawk 30 Jul 02 - 03:48 PM
Lonesome EJ 30 Jul 02 - 04:04 PM
DougR 30 Jul 02 - 07:57 PM
Little Hawk 30 Jul 02 - 11:53 PM
Lonesome EJ 31 Jul 02 - 12:36 AM
DougR 31 Jul 02 - 02:05 AM
Little Hawk 31 Jul 02 - 03:41 PM
DougR 31 Jul 02 - 05:10 PM
Lonesome EJ 31 Jul 02 - 05:55 PM
DougR 31 Jul 02 - 08:21 PM
GUEST 31 Jul 02 - 08:22 PM
Bee-dubya-ell 31 Jul 02 - 10:18 PM
DougR 01 Aug 02 - 02:23 AM
GUEST 01 Aug 02 - 09:09 AM
Little Hawk 01 Aug 02 - 10:49 AM
Amos 01 Aug 02 - 11:22 AM
GUEST 01 Aug 02 - 11:58 AM
Lonesome EJ 01 Aug 02 - 12:47 PM
DougR 01 Aug 02 - 02:37 PM
GUEST 01 Aug 02 - 03:02 PM
Lonesome EJ 01 Aug 02 - 03:16 PM
DougR 01 Aug 02 - 04:15 PM
Little Hawk 01 Aug 02 - 04:26 PM
GUEST 01 Aug 02 - 06:36 PM
DougR 01 Aug 02 - 06:48 PM
GUEST 01 Aug 02 - 11:07 PM
Peg 02 Aug 02 - 12:03 AM
DougR 02 Aug 02 - 03:09 AM
Little Hawk 02 Aug 02 - 08:27 AM
GUEST 02 Aug 02 - 09:20 AM
GUEST,meriken 02 Aug 02 - 10:07 AM
Lonesome EJ 02 Aug 02 - 12:46 PM
Amos 02 Aug 02 - 01:21 PM
DougR 02 Aug 02 - 01:39 PM
katlaughing 02 Aug 02 - 01:56 PM
DougR 02 Aug 02 - 02:10 PM
Amos 02 Aug 02 - 02:15 PM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum Child
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jul 02 - 10:33 AM

I have just finished reading today's article from the New York Times on Yahoo, about the USA's future plans to invade Iraq....the latest version. I find it extraordinary that a superpower can spend months and months calmly discussing its plans for future aggression in front of the whole world, as if speculating on the possibilities of the next Superbowl. Consider how this may look to much of the world, when an enormous power discusses clobbering yet another small country, rather like Al Capone talking about taking out a local barber who won't pay protection money...

Now, take that same article, and reproduce it almost word for word, simply substituting "Japan" for the USA, and the USA for Iraq...and here is what you get:

Japan Explores Strike Options Against USA-Tokyo Times Mon Jul 29, 1941 2:43 AM ET

TOKYO (East Asian New Bureau) - The Empire of Japan is exploring the concept of taking out Pearl Harbour and one or two key command centers and weapons depots first in the hopes of prompting a quick collapse of Franklin D. Roosevelt's ( news - web sites) administration, the Tokyo Times reported on Monday. The aim would be to kill or isolate key American command personnel and preempt the USA's use of weapons of mass destruction, whether against an incoming force, front-line allies or in China. The Pearl Harbour-first or "inside-out" approach would capitalize on the Japanese military's ability to strike over long distances, maneuvering forces to envelop a large target, the Times said, citing senior administration and Imperial Naval Command ( news - web sites) officials. Advocates of the plan say it reflects the desire to avoid committing a quarter-million Japanese troops, yet hits hard enough to succeed, the newspaper said. The advantages and risks of strikes aimed deep inside U.S.-controlled territory country and radiating outward are under discussion, though no formal plan has been presented to Emperor Hirohito ( news - web sites) or senior members of his national security team. Officials say it may be possible to paralyze the highly centralized and authoritarian USA command-and-control system. Mid-level officers are not taught to improvise, should they be cut off from commanders. While other options are being considered, the Pearl Harbour plan could appeal to allies of Japan who are nervous about a large-scale Japanese military deployment, the unnamed officials told The Times. Yet the 250,000-man figure could still be accurate, the newspaper said, as it might take that many troops to ensure that forces dropped into Pearl Harbour and elsewhere (such as the Phillipines) are not isolated or surrounded, bereft of support, food and ammunition. Defense Department deputy spokesman Rikyu Hashimoto had no comment in response to the article, the newspaper said.

Gosh, it all sounds so reasonable...so responsible...if you're Japanese...doesn't it? Now, imagine if they had had the sheer brass (and bad judgement) to publish that sort of stuff daily in '41, and how the world might have reacted to it at the time. Inconceivable. We are living in extraordinary times, when the most blatant things are done and said as if they were really quite ordinary.

- LH


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 02 - 11:44 AM

LH:

Get it said, bro'!!!

This whole discussion is mind-boggling. The notion that we as a nation should engage in preemptive aggression is so stupid it makes me wonder if this planet is really here!!

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jul 02 - 11:49 AM

...it makes me wonder if this planet is really here

They are working on that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jul 02 - 02:49 PM

thud I'm waiting for the other shoe... There's always something. This administration seems almost guileless, almost as though they literally aren't aware of the pernicious nature of their proposals and plans.

The only thing I'm pleased with, proud of, is that we know that this is one of the eras/administrations on which we'll look back in utter astonishment. (Assuming we survive all this)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Susanne (skw)
Date: 29 Jul 02 - 05:03 PM

On German news I read today that the Bush administration justifies its plans by pointing to Iraq's "manufacture of weapons of atomic, chemical and biological mass destruction". Does this mean they'll be discussing pre-emptive strikes against India, Pakistan, Israel, Red China and maybe France next? All of these are in possession of weapons of atomic mass-destruction at least, and very likely of the other types as well. And what about the United States themselves?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: mack/misophist
Date: 29 Jul 02 - 06:46 PM

If I were a Christian, I'd start wondering about the anti-christ. Isn't gw a good bet?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jul 02 - 12:47 AM

Naw...but the rich men who stand behind him are. You don't get to vote for them, just for their servants.

- LH


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 30 Jul 02 - 01:13 AM

Gee, I don't know folks. If old Saddam decides to take out NYC, Washington, D. C., Chicago with an atomic bomb...somebody might legitimately say, "Why didn't we get rid of Saddam before he did that?"

Or maybe you folks think a nice old guy like Saddam wouldn't do a think like that. :>)

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Bert
Date: 30 Jul 02 - 02:21 AM

Gee Doug,

..."Why didn't we get rid of Saddam before he did that?"...

I seem to recall that THAT was a job that Daddy Bush fell down on ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST,polaitaly
Date: 30 Jul 02 - 03:00 AM

No, a nice old guy like Saddam wouldn't do a thing like that, because he's not stupid. Now he's the boss, king and rais in his own country, and he knows that if he should do a thing like that his country would be erased from the face of the earth.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST,greg stephens
Date: 30 Jul 02 - 05:56 AM

Interesting that this thread currently co-exists with a thread entitled "Songs of the Lincoln Brigade". It can cause confusion in us lefty/liberal folkies, whether it is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing for Americans to interfere in the domestic government of other nations. This is further clouded, comparing the circumstances of the two threads, by the fact that Franco was a bit of a Mother Teresa compared to Saddam. May I suggest a compromise that should please everybody: the USA should be allowed to invade Iraq, as long as the soldiers sing "Viva la Quince Brigada" while they're going in.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Grab
Date: 30 Jul 02 - 08:44 AM

This is the same Saddam Hussein who was *put* *in* *power* by the US. The same Saddam Hussein who was called "a man we can work with" by the US. And having put a megalomaniac dictator in power, it's now apparently OK to blitz his countrymen.

I would say that someone needs to remind these guys of the phrase "as ye reap, so shall ye sow". 9/11 should be enough of a lesson for anyone of what happens when you fuck over entire countries. When you reckon that 9/11 was done by a small group of determined men, the thought of what a large group of similarly determined men could do scares the hell out of me.

By all means attack the cause of the problem, which is Hussein and his cronies. Afghanistan shows how much support an unpopular leadership gets when there's a real campaign to remove them. But the typical US action of high-level bombing is unethical, and the inevitable death toll amongst ordinary Iraqis will just drive them against the US.

Graham.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jul 02 - 03:33 PM

I was simply drawing attention to the utter gall of a great power which calmly and self-righteously informs the entire world for months and months of its intention to presently invade a small sovereign nation and topple its government, causing probably a hundred thousand or so immediate casualties (virtually all Iraqui, I am sure), and a great many more after that.

No other country in the world has this kind of gall, nor is permitted to get away with it by the international community...which can only look on in amazement, while its bought politicians try to act like everything is "normal".

None of what I'm saying is meant to imply that Saddam is a nice guy, so don't suggest that it is! That's not the point here.

Remember that the USA originally helped put in place, befriended, and armed the administration in Iraq that it now plans to "take out", finding them convenient at the time for the purpose of killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians! After Iraq is taken out, will Iran be next? Quite possibly. These actions will not be taken on behalf of the Iraqui and Iranian populations, but on the behalf of western financial and strategic interests.

I try to think of other imperial powers who had this sort of gall...and I come up with Nazi Germany, Rome, Stalinist Russia, Red China...what a lovely crew they are!

To consider Iraq as any kind of real threat to the USA is asinine. It is the USA which is a mortal threat to the very survival of Iraq, while an Iraqui attack on America would be simply suicidal and utterly self-defeating, as Saddam well knows.

Could the Boers at the time of the Boer War have attacked the British Isles? The Iraquis, comparatively speaking, are even less capable of fighting the Americans now than the Boers were of fighting the whole British Empire then.

It's ludicrous.

The only condition under which I can imagine Iraqui agents secretly planting and blowing up an atomic bomb in Washington D.C. is AFTER they have been invaded and massacred by the USA...then I could see them giving such an order, yes. It's called "revenge", and they would have nothing left at that point to lose, would they?

Saddam is not a religious fanatic, he's a pragmatist. Pragmatists do not make moves guaranteed to result in their own destruction, but once they know their destruction is unavoidable, they may well try to take as many of their opponents down with them as possible.

Keep it in mind.

American lives will not be made safer by destroying Iraq. Quite the contrary.

- LH


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jul 02 - 03:48 PM

BTW, regarding the philosophy of "why don't we get rid of Saddam before he does" whatever....

That was the central philosophy of Lapp-Goche, a fictional self-defense system advertised in a humorous ad by National Lampoon back in the 70's. Its main premise was: the world is full of potentially violent people who may attack you without warning at any time! What do you do about it? Learn Lapp-Goche, master 150 or so techniques of brutally killing people, and get them first, before they have a chance to get you. Pre-emptive strike, baby!

See that mailman heading for your door? One ugly customer! He could be a killer with a letter bomb, so shoot that sucker through the letter slot before he gets the chance.

See all those jerks in that bar downtown? Potential robbers and muggers, all of them...so get some plastic explosive, plant it behind the bar at midnight and blow 'em all to hell!

The town will thank you afterwards...

Most likely by putting you in an asylum...or executing you, if you happen to be in Texas or certain other places.

Unfortunately, there is no world tribunal with the authority and the means to arrest and incarcerate American politicians for conspiracy to commit homicide on a mass basis. If there were, I imagine the USA might have to do a pre-emptive strike and "take them suckers out" in order to keep the world "safe for democracy".

- LH


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 30 Jul 02 - 04:04 PM

In The Golden Bough, Frazer says "less damage is usually inflicted on a State by an intelligent rascal than by a sincere fool when in a position of power." This staement summarizes my feelings vis-a-vis Clinton and Bush. While I am convinced that removing Hussein would be a good thing, the public discussion of it is ridiculous. I think Bush is running up test balloons to see how our allies and others in the region will react.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 30 Jul 02 - 07:57 PM

Yep, Lonesome, I suspect you are right.

Why the U. S., L.H.? Not to slight your country, L.H., but I don't think Canada could do it.

Fine by me, Greg! Let 'em sing away!

Bert, you're kidding me! You know as well as anyone here that removing Saddam was not included in the U. N.'s approval of Daddy's invasion of Iraq the last time. You're right, though, in hindsight, that certainly is what should have been done.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jul 02 - 11:53 PM

Doug - Hmmmm...I'm actually not quite sure what you mean by that, but I don't feel you have slighted Canada in any way. I am relieved to live in a country that arms to merely defend itself, rather than to attack others, but that is the way with minor powers generally. Still, Canada is a particularly unaggressive country as they go, while the USA is a particularly aggressive one...as they go. I give the old USA a 9.5 out of ten on the aggressiveness scale.

I think that as soon as Saddam is gone, another symbolic enemy will be found, and as soon as that one is gone, another, and so on. It's a game. A big one. And a game requires an opponent or two. In this game, the opponent must be a "monster", a villain of superhuman proportions, the "next Hitler", that sort of thing...

Wait and see. Saddam is just the latest one to wear that handy crown, for the sake of the propaganda mill, now that Osama is nowhere to be found (or possibly dead).

- LH


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 31 Jul 02 - 12:36 AM

Say, Little Hawk, are you saying that Saddam is merely a convenient scapegoat here? That he didn't violate international law and the sovereignty of Kuwait by invading, sacking, and occupying it? That he was not and is not engaged in the manufacture of biological and chemical weapons in violation of his surrender agreement? That he isn't involved in the international financing and training of extreme Islamic terrorists? That he hasn't employed assassination and murder to take and hold power in his country? That he didn't take an active role in the attempted extermination of Kurds and other minority sects in Iraq? That he wouldn't, if he had the technology at hand, launch a nuclear strike on Israel that would endanger the rest of the world, even including unaggressive Canada?

Well, I think all of the above is true. And if someone gets to wear the crown of "symbolic enemy", this guy has more than enough credentials.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 31 Jul 02 - 02:05 AM

Now come on, LEJ, be fair. Uh, but as I read your post again, I don't see anything unfair about it!

L.H.: Would it be possible for you to get triple citizenship with Canada, Cuba, and Iraq? I would think that it would be the best of all worlds were that possible! :>) DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jul 02 - 03:41 PM

Hey, Doug...cool idea, but what I'd actually like is WORLD citizenship...for you, me, and everybody else. That, however, is a long way off at this point. Until people have basically the same rights, more or less the same standard of living, and the same legal protections and representation in all places, it will not happen.

For the time being, I would like to go for triple citizenship in Canada, the USA, and Cuba...3 places I love to visit now and then...but not if I have to pay both US and Canadian taxes! I'm not that rich. Cuban taxes, I can handle. Iraqui citizenship? Doesn't interest me in the least. You misunderstand my views on Iraq, I think...but yeah, I know you're just being funny. :-)

LEJ - Agreed. Saddam is everything you say he is. And...he is also a mere scapegoat for much larger purposes than Iraq will ever serve in the plans of corporate America.

Regarding Kuwait...Iraquis have always considered Kuwait to be a part of Iraq. They had a previous conflict over that matter with the British, back during the colonial era. It is a situation rather analagous to Argentina and the Malvinas/Falklands. The Iraquis considered Kuwait to have been an artificial creation, sponsored by the Western powers (England, actually) for commercial purposes and stolen from Iraqui territory. They were basically quite correct in that assessment. This did not, however, justify Saddam's lauching of an invasion of Kuwait, no more than Argentina was justified in taking similar action in the Falklands. These kind of territorial disputes simmer on and on in various places, and usually break out when it looks like there may be a window of opportunity available to the potential aggressor. The US ambassador's communications with Saddam very shortly before he attacked Kuwait created the false impression in Saddam's mind that there was such a window of opportunity...and he moved. In doing so, he was doing what many other Iraqui leaders might well have done under the same circumstances.

I don't doubt that Saddam would like to fry Israel, if he thought he could get away with it. He can't. The Israelis would fry him...twice over.

So, though I agree with your overall assessment of Saddam's character, I still feel that yes, he is a convenient scapegoat, allowing the Bush administration to advance great strategic policies that it wishes to advance, while providing a symbolic villain in order to get American public opinion onside. The only thing in the world that scares the US State Department is American public opinion. They WANT your hearts and minds!

What Saddam really ought to do, if he wanted to seriously HURT American plans, is become a born-again Christian, leave Iraq, retire, and go and live a quiet life growing rose bushes in a monastery or someplace like that...if he could. That would royally screw up the whole plan for the USA, and they would have to find a new demon to focus the public attention on. However, I doubt highly that he will ever do that...he's too accustomed to being numero uno in Baghdad. It may be "lonely at the top"...but it's hard to step down.

It's just like a Hollywood movie. Simplistic, bombastic, and predictable. But in movies, nobody really dies, starves, or has their livelihood and economy destroyed, as has happened to millions of Iraquis. Imagine what it must be like to live there, waiting for the bombs to fall...

- LH


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 31 Jul 02 - 05:10 PM

I read in the National Inquiror (sp?)that the U. S. is going to invade Iraq tomorrow (August 1, 2002) with 250,000 midgets armed with bows and arrows. They predicted that it would be quietest war fought since the middle ages.

I don't put a lot of stock in the story though. I'm suspicious of that publication's veracity.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 31 Jul 02 - 05:55 PM

Doug, are you snacking on the cactus buttons again?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 31 Jul 02 - 08:21 PM

Yep.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jul 02 - 08:22 PM

DougR--ah, yes the "nuke 'em first" strategy.

May we remind you DougR, the only country in the world to ever use nuclear weapons against another country is...

the United States of America?

S0 WHO ARE THE TERRORISTS?

We've seen the enemy, and we is it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 31 Jul 02 - 10:18 PM

Question: What is the likelyhood that the U.S. will actually launch an unprovoked preemptive strike against Iraq?

Answer: Zero!

The fact is that Dubya et al are fully aware that most of the world and even most U.S. citizens would be totally outraged if they were to launch such an attack without provocation. So, what they need is some provocation. They have to goad Saddam Hussein into "taking the first punch". That is precisely what is happening with the current spate of "newsleaks" about "invasion plans" etc. They are trying to convince Saddam that they're really going to do it, in hopes that he will feel threatened enough to take the first shot. And, it will probably work because Hussein is far too much of a hot-head to realize that he is only being baited. He'll do something rash and stupid in "self-defense" and give Dubya all the justification he needs to go ahead with the plan that hasn't been leaked to the press.

Bruce


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 02:23 AM

Far out, Bruce! Yep, I think that makes a lot of sense. Bush goads Saddam into taking out New York City so that the U. S. can invade Iraq. I seem not the only one to be dipping into the cactus buds.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 09:09 AM

We are coming up on the anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6th & 9th respectively. If there is ANY anniversary which begs us NOT to repeat our own follies of war, it is this one.

I repeat: the United States of America is the ONLY nation to use nuclear weapons against another country.

WE DID THIS (WARNING-THESE PICTURES ARE VERY DISTURBING):

http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/RETAIN/burns1.html

AND THIS:

http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/RETAIN/burns3.html

Here is a photographic essay, now published on the web, of Yosuke Yamahata's photographs taken the day after the bombing of Nagasaki:

http://www.exploratorium.edu/nagasaki/mainn.html

Also, the Avalon Law Project at Yale provides chilling reading about our "courageous act which saved thousands of American lives" here:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mpmenu.htm

And finally, here is a link to Howard Zinn's article in the Progressive magazine, from the August 2000 issue, titled "The Bombs of August":

http://www.progressive.org/zinn0800.htm

WE are responsible for the nuclear madness we have unleashed on this planet, not Sadam Hussein. To suggest that we now begin "pre-emptive" attacks against our enemies who may one day have nuclear capabilities, while we prepare a new generation of nuclear weapons technology to use against the rest of the world, goes beyond all sense of human decency, even in the "good war" philosophy.

What possible good could come from the United States unilaterally attacking it's "enemies" (which are just dictators who aren't under our control)? Answer: no good. Such a provocative, heinous attack against another sovereign nation, simply because it's despot defeated the father of our despot, is something no democratic nation can defend. Yet that is exactly what the war mongerers are doing.

Fight for peace, not for war.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 10:49 AM

A lot of interesting points there, GUEST. I wouldn't say, though, that Saddam "defeated" George Bush the elder, rather that he took a nasty defeat himself (inevitably)...but avoided being destroyed in the process. Saddam is one of the world's great survivors.

I particularly like your point about America's "enemies" merely being "dictators who aren't under our control". Exactly. Dictators who ARE under America's control are called "friends and allies".

The USA was the only country in World War II capable of completing a successful A-bomb project. The Germans made a pretty feeble attempt in that direction...notably discouraged by Hitler, who wasn't even interested in the concept! Incredible, considering he was developing very effective V-2 rockets which would have been perfect for delivering the bomb to the target without any possibility of interception.

The British would have liked to develop A-bombs, but they didn't have the monetary or material resources to do it during the war.

It hadn't even occurred to Stalin, and would probably not have occurred to him later, had not the Americans done it first, obliging him to catch up fast! This was why some of the key nuclear physicists begged Truman NOT to openly test or use the bomb...in other words, not to open Pandora's box, and create a new and terrible arms race.

One wonders what would have happened if they had kept it under wraps? Unfortunately, given the general climate in central Europe, I fear that a 3rd World War would have arisen between the Russians and the West, fought on a conventional basis...and that would have caused many millions of casualties, even without the bomb.

The A-bomb, in a peculiar way, prevented that by simply raising the stakes too high for anyone to contemplate.

The domestic health of the Soviet Union was set back tremendously by the huge effort they put into achieving nuclear parity, and that was a tragedy for the Russian people. It would have been set back similarly by a conventional war between Russian and the West.

Looks like a no-win situation, whatever way you add it up.

The only win-win situation would have been: mutual friendship and respect between nations despite their differing philosophies, trade, good relations, and disarmament on both sides...

Naw...WAY too sensible, right? They kill people who are that sensible.

- LH


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 11:22 AM

Today's Times discusses the debate on the Hill as to whether the Executive Branch does or does not already have the right to launch this pre-meditated violent excursion into Iraq without further permission from the Congress of the United States.

This man looks more and more outlaw the longer he stays in office.

Unless there is credible evidence of "mass destruction" weaponry in Iraq, or some other concrete aggression against the US, we are doping something we haven't done since the Indian Wars -- openly discussing intentional encroachment against another country with whom we are not at war.

The only decent thing to do, if this folly is going to go ahead, is to have a declaration of war issued by Congress against the person of Saddam and the nation he leads. No, I take it back, that would not be decent. But at least it would be more honest than this shell-game, in which the stakes are so high for so many.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 11:58 AM

I'm not concerned with who won the A bomb race. I know who the parties were in WWII who were working on the technology, and who the parties are now working on the technology.

But none of that changes the most chilling fact of all:

We won the race, and used the bombs the minute we had the ability to do so. We will also be the first to the finish line to develop "theatre nuclear weapons" purportedly to be used only on the battlefield.

The so-called "war against Iraq" will be the test phase of the use of those weapons, just as Nagasaki and Hiroshima were.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 12:47 PM

Of course, Sadam could defuse the entire situation by making a big show of actually complying with the agreement he signed after losing the war. Invite in CNN, Time Magazine, and Dan Rather to tour the suspect facilities, thus showing the World he's not producing doomsday weapons.

And Hawk, sure Israel could toast Iraq in a nuke-out. And maybe every other mid-east power who are hiding nukes under the carpet could jump in to the fray. That's THEIR problem, right? We only have to deal with the little aftereffects like a toxic atmosphere, radiation poisoning on a world-wide scale, nuclear winter, a vast poisoned desert from Italy to Southeast Asia.

How to deal with outlaw nations who threaten the stability of the world with nuclear weapons? Do you appeal to their better nature, hoping that reason will convince them to pull the plug on their new toys? Maybe you could bribe them not to use them?

It is past time when an international forum should have been created to deal with nuclear proliferation among third world countries consumed by religious blood-feuds with their neighbors, or simply led by monomaniacs who would rather push the button than be deposed. I think the United States has a moral obligation to its people and to the rest of the world to lead the way in creating such an organization.

Now...go ahead and take some pot shots at me. Then show me a better way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 02:37 PM

I certainly agree that you chose the "right" people and publications to tour Iraq's war making capabilities. Good old left-leaning liberals all, LEJ. How about a "fair and balanced report" from Fox News Network, hmmm?

GUEST: If anyone on the Mudcat is not aware that the U.S. dropped the first atomic bombs in history, they shouldn't be out of their cages. Yes, a lot of people were killed. People are killed in wars. A lot of lives in the Allied forces and the Japanese population in particular were SAVED as a result of that action. I know you will never be convinced of it, but what the hey!

I haven't heard or read of anyone in the U. S. government that is proposing that we "Nuke" Iraq anyway. Bunch of nonsense.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 03:02 PM

Righteeoo there DougR. We know it's "full speed ahead to Baghdad" for you. And about three other right wing nuts. Not even the top military brass supports the plan, but let's not let that stand in the way of Cheney and Rumsfeld.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 03:16 PM

OK, Doug. Limbaugh can go, too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 04:15 PM

What about Sean Hennety? Fred Barnes? Bill Crystal? Let's even the playing field, LEJ!

GUEST: Uh, think you better check your facts on the top Brass at the Pentagon. Don't believe everything you read in the NY Times and the Washington Post. I doubt either newspaper carries "Drabble" in their comics either.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 04:26 PM

LEJ - Saddam has to deal with the after effects of such a conflict too, and that's why HE is very unlikely to do anything of the sort. As I said before, he's a pragmatist, not a religious fanatic. I agree that religious fanatics are deeply worrisome, because they're not rational. Pragmatists are worrisome also, when they have that "window of opportunity" I mentioned earlier, because they ARE rational. Saddam has no such window, and he knows it.

How do we deal with outlaw nations? Tough question. LEJ, the USA itself is an outlaw nation. It has been throughout most of its history. Ask anyone in Latin America or elsewhere where the big Red, White & Blue hammer has come down economically and militarily. How do we deal with that? You've got me...no one has found a way to deal with it, because this world is ruled by force, not reason, and no one has force to match the USA.

As I said, there is no existing world authority with the legal clout, the military clout, and/or the moral authority to do anything whatsoever about the USA...or any other really big military power.

Then there are the smaller outlaw nations...and they are numerous. Some of them are "enemies" of the USA...some are allies of the USA. The world can't do much about that either, since the world is at the mercy of the USA. One can occasionally patch together a coalition to go after a small outlaw nation...when the USA so desires, and ONLY then. That's power politics in action, not justice.

The USA is not the world, and it does not have the world's interests at heart, but strictly its own interests. Yet it acts as if it were the center of the world...and the rest of the planet just an opportunity for development or a nuisance to be stamped out of existence.

I find it ironical that the biggest outlaw tars others with the term "outlaw nations", but it's typical of the self-serving rhetoric of politicians when they are after something.

Regarding weapons of mass destruction...it seems to me that every nation has the "right" to build them, if it can...but NOT to use them on someone. That's the same way I feel about guns, machetes, etc... It is clear that one sovereign nation has the same right as any other sovereign nation to build whatever it is capable of building...as long as it does not use it harmfully against someone else. This is so obvious that it should hardly need to be said. If you were a small country, and a bigger country told you: we can build item X, Y, or Z, but you cannot, because we are more important than you, more moral than you, and more valuable than you...what would you do? You'd get royally pissed off, that's what, and you'd build it anyway...secretly, if necessary.

You can't go attacking people pre-emptively for doing the very same thing you have already done (building weapons of mass destruction). If so, India should have nuked Pakistan before the Pakistanis completed their first bomb, right? The world should also have nuked Isreal before they got theirs ready, etc...etc...etc...

How can one country have the arrogance to say: "These are the rules. The rules apply only to those whom we say they apply to, and certainly NEVER to us. We are exempt, because we MAKE the rules."

That is precisely what the USA keeps on doing. You have to be born outside the USA to appreciate just how extraordinary such an attitude is.

- LH


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 06:36 PM

Well DougR, I'll stand corrected as soon as you prove the reports in the Washington Post wrong with YOUR information.

And no, DougR, Fox News DOESN'T count as a legitimate news source, so you'll have to do better than "I heard it on Fox".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 06:48 PM

GUEST: FOX News doesn't qualify according to YOUR definition. I have a feeling any news service that offered a balanced reporting of the news, or any news that did not coincide with your POV wouldn't qualify as far as you are concerned.

If you accept as "proof" something you read in any newspaper, that says a lot about your standards. You have presented no "proof" to us that the top brass does not support the administration's policies. You have produced gossip.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 11:07 PM

You know what DougR? Only a gutless chicken shit hides behind this lame ass "anyone who disagrees with me has a biased point of view" you are always using as your facade to hide behind when you start talking out your ass in these threads..

How about having the guts to stand behind your words for a change, and tell us where you are getting information to contradict all the major news services on this issue?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Peg
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 12:03 AM

amongst my pals, we refer to Fox News as "Faux News." The Boston affiliate begins every broadcast (and continues through the first half hour or so) with the most sordid, violent, perverse headlines they can find (murders, kidnappings, rapes, assaults, terrible accidents, kids left in hot cars, you name it) and if you're lucky they might toss in an international news story for five seconds; then on to the next horrific white-trash scandal.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 03:09 AM

Welcome back, Peg, I've missed your sarcasim!

GUEST: I will be happy to continue dialogue with you when you decide to stop hiding behind the "Guest" handle. You have the audicity to talk about "gutless chicken shits?" How about one who doesn't have the conviction of his/her own beliefs enough to identify oneself? Hmm?

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 08:27 AM

Gosh, Peg, Fox sounds exactly like the Toronto Sun...the dumbest newspaper in Canada. Its editors, I assume, wake up and cry every morning because Canada has not yet become the 51st state of the USA...

They certainly give that impression anyway. America would have to start burning millions of white virgins in concentration camps before they would get the notion to offer any criticism of US policy.

Curiously enough, the Toronto Sun is the chosen paper of the most poorly educated, the unemployed, the welfare cases, those at the bottom of the heap...check out any donut shop and see what 99% of such people are reading. What is truly odd about that is: the Sun constantly dumps on those very people, specially welfare cases...they just HATE welfare cases...yet those are the very people who READ the Sun.

Ironical, isn't it? Of course, the Sun dumps on intellectuals too, and they DON'T read it, except in utter contempt.

The front page normally is emblazoned with an almost naked woman...or a hideous murder incident...or something else violent or sensational.

- LH


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 09:20 AM

OK DougR, I'm a gutless chicken shit too. But you have the ability to exonerate yourself here and now in the presence of your member friends with names, who also have come to know you for blowing hot air and making outrageous claims with absolutely no substance to them. Just like Fox News does.

We already know you are the Mudcat resident right wing nut DougR. I was just offering you a chance to redeem yourself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST,meriken
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 10:07 AM

LEJ:

Saddam is certainly a criminal, but so are the Bushes, in some parts of the world.

Iraq spent approx. 2 billion dollars on their military last year. We spent close to 400 billion. Where's the threat (Russia was second with 60 billion dollars)?

GWB and his friends will lie to you at every turn, just as Clinton and his friends did. Buy no crap coming out of DC, especially now.

"If the king loves music, there is little wrong in the land."

-MENCIUS

This king doesn't love music.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 12:46 PM

Ok, Little Hawk. Let me address several points you make.

Sadam is a pragmatist. He might be. His use of extremist rhetoric and financing of Jihad causes may be to merely strengthen his position. But his desperation to hang on is his prime motive, and I think he'd do anything to maintain his grasp. He certainly isn't a realist, for a realist would have understood that the Coalition wasn't going to back down after the bombing began. A realist would have withdrawn his ground forces to avoid their unecessary destruction. A realist who was determined to go down fighting might have also shorn up his western flank to avoid the greatest mass flanking movement since Patton. He may be pragmatic, but his pragmatism is overruled by stubborness, stupidity, and meanness.

The US is an outlaw nation. My understanding of your point is that you are condemning America because you resent our values, culture, government, and society. You think this country is immoral and unethical. You have a perfect right to express those opinions, but your opinion doesn't add up to an indictment as a criminal or outlaw nation. Outlaw means to exist in violation of existing international laws. I have sited in a previous post the reasons Iraq is an outlaw nation. It isn't based on my opinion, but on fact. Your statement reminds me of the man who compares an armed robber to a wealthy landlord : How can we condemn the robber while letting the landlord, who gouges his tenants for the rent, go free? Well, we can condemn the robber because he has in fact violated a law. The landlord, whether or not we dislike his motives, hasn't.

We will nuke Iraq in order to prevent them building nukes. I never said or implied this, and its a clear attempt to carry my argument to a ridiculous extreme. What I said is the development of nuclear weapons in third world countries should be controlled by an international body under ordained agreed upon controls, such as the one governing atmospheric nuclear tests.

All nations have an equal right to build their own nuclear weapons. This is quite similar to Right to Bear Arms arguments made in this country. Anyone should have the right to bear nukes? Even in my NRA-infested country, their is a realization that the insane and the convicted criminal element should be prohibited from possessing rocket-launchers.

meriken says that "the Bushes" are criminals in some parts of the World? Other than Iraq and other countries operating already outside of International Law, where? I'm know Bush fan, but I have a problem with arguments based solely on emotion.

Finally, what is the basis for the US taking a holier-than-thou position on nuclear proliferation? This country has held nuclear weapons for 57 years without using them,including several years when no other country on Earth held them, and when direct confrontation with the USSR and others could have prompted their use. This country is not under the control of Bush or any other one term anomaly : It is controlled by a democratically elected government of checks and balances which maintain the national course regardless of its executive at any given time. Anyone who sees the same degree of nuclear responsibility on Saddam's part that they see on the part of the US is not much of a pragmatist himself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 01:21 PM

Anyone who sees the same degree of nuclear responsibility on Saddam's part that they see on the part of the US is not much of a pragmatist himself.

I dunno about how pragmatic such a view might be, LEJ, but it certainly wouldn't qualify as realistic -- he already demonstrated that with his tanks in Kuwait. To extend what you said to LH, the invasion of Kuwait was unlawful, regardless of justifications offered on moral or historic grounds. The fact that Iraq considers Kuwait "really part of Iraq" is not a legal position.

Imagine that "Americans consider, for example, that Mexico and Canada should become annexed to the United States, adding their multiple states to our fifty. It makes sense, and was always inherent in our Manfest Destiny doctrine which is time-honored. We should never have stopped at California. Any laws that don't take this into account are of course ill-conceived and can be safely ignored".

Doesn't quite add up, does it?

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 01:39 PM

L.H. I assure you The Fox News Network is a legitimate news source and does not rely on sensationalism to report the news. You should consider the source of those comments and the political leanings of the person who uttered them ...just as you do mine. Lefties probably don't like the network because it DOES present both the liberal and the conservative point of view. They see no legitimate reason for the conservative view to be reported at all. Yet they take great pride in wallowing in their liberalism, and purport to support free speech.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 01:56 PM

Just stepping in for a moment to urge all of you who have so much to say to PLEASE TELL IT TO YOUR CONGRESSPEOPLE, TOO!!! None of this matters if we don't carry it forward and tell them how we feel.

Thank you,

kat


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 02:10 PM

You REALLY want me to do that, kat? :>)

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 02:15 PM

DougR, are you sure you still have a congressman? LOL!


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 15 November 7:01 PM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 2022 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.