BS: Looking from the side

Subject: BS: Looking from the side
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 02:56 AM

This is so well written. Its in the Apr. 13th edition of the Guardian:


"On March 20 Baltasar Garzon, the tenacious Spanish judge who pursued General Pinochet, called for indictments against those responsible for "one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history" - Iraq. Five days later, the chief prosecutor of the international criminal court, to which Britain is a signatory, said that Blair could one day face war-crimes charges."

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 03:34 AM

As usual Dianavan...we should always expect things like this from you.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 03:19 PM

Georgiansilver - I'm not the only one who thinks Pilger has insight into the problems facing the world today.

Did you read the article or are you only interested in attacking me personally? We haven't heard much from you lately. Perhaps you have contributed using other names. Could it be that you have multiple personalities on this forum?

Poor baby. Time to chill. Take your meds and you will find that women aren't as threatening as you think they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Peace
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 03:56 PM

He's one of the nicest people on Mudcat. Think about it!

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 04:05 PM

He may be nice to you but he comes out of nowhere to personally attack me. Thats what I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Peace
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 04:42 PM

So message him. He's a nice guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 04:57 PM

Immediately after 9-11 I do not recall any dispariging remarks directed at dianavan.

Why the increasing hostility/cynacism now?

We better watch it or another civil war could be at our own doorstep.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 05:22 PM

Dianavan,

you are full of hate and you are starting too many threads about the same theme even for someone who thinks Blair played a dismal role before and in the Iraq war. You are overselling a necessary message. Yes, I have read the op-ed piece though you have neither provided a link nor the URL.

I have also read the first comment after the op-ed piece who used the word "baloney" to describe part of it. I tend to agree.

Donuel, you are a cynagogle.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 07:05 PM

I forgot to provide a link to the article, my apologies:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2056027,00.html

Perhaps, Wolfgang, it is the opening that you object to:

"The Israeli journalist Amira Hass describes the moment her mother, Hannah, was marched from a cattle train to the concentration camp at Bergen-Belsen. "They were sick and some were dying," she said. "Then my mother saw these German women looking at the prisoners. This image became very formative in my upbringing, this despicable 'looking from the side'."

John Pilger goes on to explain how we are all doing this today as we witness mans inhumanity to man.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 07:15 PM

DV, that is unnecessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 07:21 PM

Dianavan, I am sorry you see my rather gentle comment as an attack. I thought attacking was something done deliberately to inflict pain or suffering on another...If I have so done then please forgive me.
I believe that you have an attitude to all authority which is anti and comes out in apparent anger all too often.
The media portray the heads of the US and GB as real baddies...and they happen to be Bush and Blair at present. In a few years there will be others who will receive just as much flak from the press. We only know what we are fed (and some allow themselves to be fuelled by) inaccurate information.....the truth doesn't always out even in the long term but sometimes a little patience instead of cage rattling can be the way forward....
I prefer to give opinions on what is happening in the world or the Folk scene because that is my way. You have a right to your way of voicing opinions or making bold statements but if I choose to think to myself...or write in the forum "Oh no Dianavan is off again"! that too is my right. Sorry if that hurts.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 07:23 PM

You don't think I have a right to respond to insults, Richard?

I had only to quote from the article to make my point. He left himself wide open and he deserved it. I don't let anyone tell me what I am made of, especially if they think it is hate. He needs to look at himself and vent his anger elsewhere.

Read the article.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 07:34 PM

Incidentally, I don't find women threatening. I don't have more than one personality and I usually post if I feel like posting...if you haven't noticed my posts lately I'm sure you can access them...even find something to 'have a go at' Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 09:13 PM

Georgiansilver (Mike) - I took your first post as an attempt to put me down. I don't consider it an insult, it is your attempt to silence me. It seems that Wolfgang couldn't wait to jump on the bandwagon. Richard, too, chastised me. For what? For daring to speak up?

Like I said, if you have something to say, say it. This isn't a popularity contest and I'm not running for office. You'll probably never meet me so why is it so important to tell me to shut up. Are you the ones who keep your mouths shut and look sideways when you feel uncomfortable?

I choose to criticize Bush, Blair and Harper because of their political policies. I linked this article because so many people do not understand how the Germans stood by and allowed the Holocaust to happen. It happens because people look away or look sideways or look at the ground. They do not look directly at the people who are suffering or they choose to believe that they are less than human, anyway.

Its your choice to read or not to read. I will not, however, be silenced. Contrary to what some may believe about me, I will never let anyone forget the Holocaust and I do not believe it will never happen again. Never Again! Thats bullshit, a catch phrase at best. Its happening all around us and most of us just look sideways.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: GUEST,tolerance
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 10:26 PM

Off topic somewhat, but closer to the topic of the thread which I do find interesitng. Anyway back to what I'm gonna post, I watched an interview with Jeremy Scahill, (the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army) he mentioned that many of the mercenaries employed with Blackwater are ex-employees of Pinochet. Fully trained and experienced. Just right for the job demanded of them over in Iraq, just rithe right skills for our Brave New World.

Scahill's book looks like a good read.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Peace
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 02:51 AM

Youtube video

The link has been on Mudcat before, but in case you missed it, Tolerance. Worth seeing. (I still think Bush will try a coup d'etat before he leaves office, because I think he doesn't WANT to leave office.)

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Peace
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 03:04 AM

Oh: And I think Blackwater will play a large part in that.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Peace
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 03:30 AM

"Are you the ones who keep your mouths shut and look sideways when you feel uncomfortable? "

You are saying that to a man who has gone into dangerous territory to help orphans who became so because of warfare in Europe. He's done that a few times. (Sorry, GS, don't mean to embarrass you.) I know neither Richard nor Wolfgang, so I won't presume to speak for them, but I will speak for GS, because he's too modest and unassuming to speak for himself in this matter. You may think your question is a zinger. It's not.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 04:30 AM

Peace - Apparently this article hit a nerve. I would have expected a negative reaction from others on this forum but not from them. Why should Georgiansilver have to say, "we should always expect things like this from you." Thats a clear put down.

Besides that, I think Mike is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. We have already sorted this out and you are just making it worse. Its really none of your business. If people want to be rude to me, I can be twice as rude. I'm not a 'lady' who is easily intimidated and I certainly did not start the crap and I won't take it either.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Peace
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 04:40 AM

It is indeed my business in that he is a friend of mine. You have become a dictatorial individual and the remarks by Wolfgang that you spew hatred are accurate. You have been rude to people even when they have been reasonable with you on threads. As to your ability to be twice as rude, there is no doubt about that. None at all. You are full of shit that you didn't start the crap. You have started piles of it in the past few weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Peace
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 04:58 AM

"I'm not a 'lady' who is easily intimidated "

It inevitably comes down to that with you. Repeatedly. You argue with people on level ground, then when shit hits the fan there is Dianavan playing the gender card. No one else does, only you. I don't see where anyone has cared that you are purportedly a female, except you. Why IS that? The people who have argued with you have done so as strongly as you have with them. But in the final analysis, there you are saying "I am a lady who doesn't take crap from anyone." What the hell is THAT about? No one cares whether or not you are female. People argue because your points are on occasion irrational, not because they come from a female, but because they don't make sense regardless of who they come from.

This is not quite Dianavan's forum, so your remark that what you post is none of MY business is more bullshit from an increasingly loud and increasingly obnoxious individual. As you said, you are not in a popularity contest. Well, ma'am, you don't want crap thrown back at you, don't be so eager to dish it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 05:07 AM

Peace. I thank you for 'standing my corner' so to speak and I appreciate your comments. I see you...although we have never met...as someone who is genuine and could be a true friend... however... Dianavan you seem to have taken this whole thing out of context and however valuable you feel your opinions and in fact judgements on people and situations are, not everyone agrees with you and some ...yaaawwnnn get a little bored of hearing the same flak being let off over and over again. As I said in my PM to you..I do not know you personally so cannot comment on what kind of person you are but your apparent anger at everyone and everything that does not fit in to your 'Utopia' is a little too obvious sometimes. Saying that does not mean I am attacking you...just making a most simple observation that anyone could make. I would never try to shut as I know I would fail miserably and I, like you, don't like failure.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 04:06 PM

Mike - I don't expect everyone to agree with me but I didn't appreciate your initial post or the fact that it provided an opportunity for others to pile on.

And yes, Peace, this is a woman's issue. It may not be every woman's issue but it is part of radical feminist theory. Language and how it is used has been dictated by men for a very long time. If men do not approve of the way a woman talks or if they think women talk too much there are very subtle but effective way for men to silence them. I am not playing any cards, here, but I am telling you that I am hip to these methods and men should begin to be aware of how they abuse their power.

Expectations play a big role in this. When someone says, "we should always expect things like this from you," it means I do not appreciate your contribution or the fact that you linked this article. You bore me. Please shut up. Fine, don't read it but don't think its going to shut me up. And don't think for one minute that I will let you get away with it. Its called tit for tat.

I agree that his message could have been sent to anyone, regardles of sex, but it wasn't. Like you said, he's a nice guy. Well, guess what, lots of nice guys do and say things to women without realizing they are patronizing and lots of men say things to women that they would never say to men.

Like I said before, its your choice to read or not to read. I did not insult anyone on this thread and I don't believe I have ever insulted Georgiansilver. If I feel insulted, I have a right to defend myself and I will.

On the other hand, Peace, we have both insulted each other plenty of times and I know that you are only to ready to chime in when the opportunity arises. Its typical of you to "gang-up" when you have the chance. I will refrain from using harsher terminology which most radical feminists would use. I am surprised at the others who jumped on top of me. What I have posted is not particulary offensive. Others have also quoted Pilger. Why is that they are not attacked?

And actually, Peace, the reason I put lady in quotes is because I don't consider myself a lady. I consider myself a woman. As a woman I have the same rights as a man. 'Lady' is something men want a woman to be. I don't buy that role anymore. In other words, just like most men, I don't take crap from anyone, including you. Do not try categorize me according to your own needs. If you have gender issues, deal with it.

I talk tough because in public I am not allowed to. As a woman it would be very dangerous and would put me at risk. The internet gives me the freedom to speak without any harm to my real-life persona and I will continue to do so because its the only place I can.

Thanks for the opportunity to rant and Mike, I'm sorry if your words provided the catalyst but they certainly did. I hope you remember this when speaking to other women. Language is who we are and when we are told to shut up, we are being told that we are worthless.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Azizi
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 06:28 PM

"I talk tough because in public I am not allowed to. As a woman it would be very dangerous and would put me at risk. The internet gives me the freedom to speak without any harm to my real-life persona and I will continue to do so because its the only place I can."
-dianavan

dianavan, I think that an individual's personality more than her or his gender influences how she or he responds to comments on the Internet.

Does gender have an impact on personality? Well, yes, I believe so if you are saying that females have been taught to be more submissive than men.

But I've personally known and have also read about women who have talked tough in public-if talking tough means 'speaking truth to power'. There have been times in public that I've also talked tough-in spite of the risks.

However, there's more than one way of talking tough and what I mean by that phrase may not be what you mean.
Nut

There are times that righteous anger may be justified, but it's my belief that if you loose your cool and react in anger even when you feel that your anger is justified, you may cause people to shut themselves off from considering or agreeing with the points that you-and others-consider to be worthwhile.

["You" here is the plural 'you' and not just 'you' dianavan]

I don't expect all posters who are women to agree with each other-just because we share the same gender.

Needless to say, YMMV {Your mileage may vary}

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Azizi
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 06:32 PM

Oops.

The random 'Nut' in my previous post was meant to be a "But" that was supposed to be at the beginning of that next sentence.

I absolutely did not mean to call anyone here a nut.

Nor did I mean to refer to any sexual appendages.

Although the saying "Make love not war" sounds pretty good to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 07:02 PM

"I think that an individual's personality more than her or his gender influences how she or he responds to comments on the Internet." Azizi, I totally agree with that.

Yes, I too, know women who talk tough in public and so do I, occasionally. There are many more who wouldn't dare and even more who are conditioned not to. I also agree that "an individual's personality more than her or his gender influences how she or he responds to comments on the Internet." Thats why I enjoy it.

I did not start this conflict. I posted an article that I thought some might be interested in reading. That is all. The rest of this crap is just that. Crap. If you or anyone else wants a French feminist perspective on women and language, I'd be glad to discuss it.

Let it suffice to say that most men are conditioned to use a variety of methods to silence women and this thread says it all. Basically, women have no language. We only have a language that has been given to us by men and it is men who determine how and when we are able to use it. Since language is who we are, women are only discovering their voice and how they wish to use it.

I, too, believe that if you shout, all they can hear is shouting. I am not, however, shouting and if you or anyone else objects to my use of direct language, too bad. You don't have to read it. I'm finished 'couching' my words so that the politically correct can hear and understand. As far as I'm concerned, too many people use 'polite' language as a means of manipulation and deception. I'm sure that the wives of Bush and Cheney use very polite language.   

If you have something to say, say it. I'll be glad to listen but don't tell me how to talk. I'm sure you have had many generations of learning what to say and what not to say. Go ahead, continue to play the game but its an oppressive game and I'm not going to play it anymore. My language is who I am.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Azizi
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 07:26 PM

Let me rephrase what I wrote:

I think that an individual's personality more than her or his gender influences how she or he makes comments and/or responds to comments.

I don't agree with the statement that language is man made {with "man made" here meaning "made by males" alone}.

I'm sure that females have coined at least one or two words or phrases. I've coined at least that many in my lifetime, and hopefully I'll coin a few more before I leave this world.

As for women just finding their voice, I've known, read, and heard of many women who have never been hoarse.

I consider myself to be one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Peace
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 08:17 PM

Dianavan, I don't perceive what you say to be anything to do with feminism. I think it has everything to do with venom and hatred. I feel sorry for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: GUEST,tolerance
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 09:34 PM

Thanks for the 'link' Peace. The interview I mentioned to was on CBC's The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos (now that's a name).

Blackwater is definately a new para-military organization to fear.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Peace
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 09:42 PM

I agree with you. A youtube video--don't recall if it's the one I lined to--said there were 120,000 contracted 'soldiers' in Iraq. I think organizations like that are dangerous because they are accountable to no one. At some point a government will say, "I'm sorry, but you must disband." Yeah. So who then will force them to disband if they decide they don't want to? I mean, how does one tell who's who without a script?

IMO, this is really Bush's private armyy, and I think he'll employ it to attempt a coup d'etat. I would love to be wrong about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: GUEST,tolerance
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 10:26 PM

I'm with you on that Peace. Bush's SS. This 'corporation' is a very fast growing profitable corporation.They are basically not accountable in regards to a traditional army.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 03:03 AM

Peace - How can you feel sorry for someone you do not know anything about? Save it for someone who cares what you think or feel.

btw - Just because I don't care about you doesn't mean I'm full of venom or hatred. At least I don't stalk you.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Peace
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 03:22 AM

I don't stalk you either. You pull THAT shit when anyone disagrees with you. Christ, weren't you on a thread a few days back (or maybe the Help forum) suggesting that Dickey was Martin Gibson? Keriste you have issues. If you think the whole world is out to get you, maybe you're right. You fuck off and leave me alone and I'll do the same for you. But understand this: there is NO way you'll get the last word with me. You wanted hostility, you got it.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Barry Finn
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 04:01 AM

Blackwater may be a new division or arm of Bush's shadow government but the use of merc's isn't new. These were the same folks that brought us Nicargua & the mining of Managua Harbor. It just been refinded into a sleeker & meaner, big business machine.

As for this post by Georgiansilver "As usual Dianavan...we should always expect things like this from you"

it was a cheap shot though it seems as if it wasn't meant to be, seeing as an apology was given afterwards. I for one find this post very appropriate & would expect it from any one of sane mind. And yes I do have a problem with an attitude to all authority, I know it as a strength & a weakness. It comes from being a child of the 60's and it has served me well. I question all authority because those with it sometimes wielded it with power & lously judgment as Bush & Co. has done for the past 6 yrs. This unchecked, unnoticed & unspoken practice of allowing authority it's will & way is why we're in Iraq now, so if any one needs to speak now let them be heard.

Bringing up Dickey was also uncalled for Peace, shame on you for holding up that as a past point to be made. Don't go back to the past deal with what you've got to say about the present.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 04:33 AM

Thanks, Barry. I hope you read the article. I have seen that 'looking from the side' all too often. It is long past the time for us to speak out.

Georgiansilver did apologize and as far as I'm concerned thats the end of it.

I'm not sure why Peace is obsessing on this but if he wants the last word he can have it.

Go for it, Peace. Its all yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: SINSULL
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 12:56 PM

Perhaps it is because I was the only girl with four brothers and a strong-willed father, but I never have trouble saying what is on my mind in public or private. So I don't understand the point you are trying to make, dianavan. People, male and female, disagree. The trick is not to take it as a personal affront but rather as a difference of opinion. Differences of opinion are good things. When we all start spouting the same "doctrines", we end up in trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 01:38 PM

Esactly. "The trick is not to take it as a personal affront but rather as a difference of opinion."

This did not offer a difference of opinion.

"...we should always expect things like this from you."

It was a personal affront.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: SINSULL
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 02:31 PM

No - it was a simple comment based on Georgian Silver's experience with your posts. He never told you to shut up. He meerly pointed out that the article is typical of your outlook on world politics.

You want to be free to speak or post your opinions - you have that. Others want the same. When they agree or disagree with you, it is up to you to continue the discussion and not resort to angry name calling.

This is a bit of thread creep and I apologize.

On topic:
Only the losers are tried for war crimes. I don't see bush or Blair ever facing a trial. I cannot comment on Blair but in my opinion bush is a mass murderer responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands all in some sick attempt to impress his father. The mess in Iraq will go down in history as a debacle. The incoming president will be left with the thankless task of getting us out of Iraq. It will cost him/her (her not likely) re-election and four years of potential productivity.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 03:21 PM

Sinsull - "When they agree or disagree with you, it is up to you to continue the discussion and not resort to angry name calling."

O.K., I get that. When was there a comment about the subject that I could agree or disagree with? I responded defensively to a 'cheap shot'. What was the point of his comment? Are you saying that I have no right to defend myself? You're right, I should have turned the other cheek but thats not my style. I am not courteous to those who do not respect me.

Like I said, its settled between me and Georgiansilver but if you want to keep rubbing it in, I will definitely accuse you of piling on. Do I need to give a more graphic illustration?

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 05:01 PM

This is really too bad. I would guess that all the posters on this thread oppose Bush--but we're squabbling among ourselves---wasting our energy on that.

I'd be curious to hear Peace's evidence that Bush will try a coup. As you may know, I'm not Bush's #1 fan--but I would think Bush will have a good time the rest of his life hobnobbing with plutocrats who for some reason are impressed with somebody who officially was president of the US--albeit the worst one ever. A coup would not be successful, I believe, and even Bush is not crazy enough to try it.

But if anybody has evidence about such a plot, that would be definitely worth exploring.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Peace
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 07:39 PM

I have no evidence at all. Just a feeling. If I'm wrong you can have a good chuckle about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 07:49 PM

The best chuckle will be when he leaves the White House for the last time. Sure hope it's January 2009--and not later.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Peace
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 07:59 PM

I think most Americans will join you in a celebration when Bush goes, Ron. Indeed, much of the world.

This thing with organizations like Blackwater, and Bush's reluctance to heed Congress--not that they seem to be doing much about him either--, and the way in which Neocons got inserted in Washington so easily make me think there will be a power grab. Perhaps I am totally misreading the state of affairs and the grab has already taken place. The American national debt is massive, and to me it looks like the only way out for Washington is to scrap the dollar and start all over with some other form of currency, whether real (as in based on SOMEthing) or simply electronic and based on nothing but numbers.

As to a coup, I truly hope I'm wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: ragdall
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 08:01 PM

I have no evidence at all. Just a feeling. If I'm wrong you can have a good chuckle about it.

And if you're right?

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 09:18 PM

I think a coup may have already taken place. I can't imagine anyone being able to wrestle the power away from the Neocons who are already in place. Its just that you won't be certain that it a coup until Jan. 2009, when he refuses to give up power. By then, he'll have us all so broke and powerless that it will be easy. Besides that, who will want to take over the mess he's made?

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Adrianel
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 09:49 PM

To return to the original subject - Baltazar Garzon, the tenacious Spanish judge. He was apparently asked to exercise his considerable talents to investigate the abuse of Basque prisoners (more than 800 have died in Government custody, a few more than the number ETA have assassinated/murdered) in his own country, and refused point-blank. It makes you wonder, doesn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: SINSULL
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 09:54 PM

A variety of candidates are trying the waters and/or announcing their candidacies. There will be an election and a transfer of power. bush will be a footnote in the history books. Coup???? Please explain.

Subject: RE: BS: Looking from the side
From: Peace
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 11:36 PM

I don't know that I can, SINSULL.

It's just something I've felt for a long time now. About two years. I've never thought that Bush could have been elected on his merits. Demonstrably, he has none. He was a failed oil businessman: put a company that was given to him into the red. He had no military record to speak of, and other than a father who'd been President, what is there about him to like? He was elected by BIG money, and once he got in office he began to change the very substance of American law. His attempts to change the way America work have been largely successful.
On his watch, the USA has sunk into a massive debt from which it may not be able to recover. All of these are observations, and I don't doubt there will be people along to argue with every proposition/postulate in this paragraph. AND, damned near everything from now on is circumstantial.

In chaos is opportunity. People have known this for ages. Whether by chance or design, 9/11 happened. The bin Laden family (en masse) was allowed to depart the USA and in the aftermath, America was driven to a frenzy and incited to allow their C-in-C to mobilize the military and invade Iraq. The evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks on the US was always flimsy, but it was credible, because it came from agencies charged and entrusted with the protection of the US as a country. Defying the UN, the US took as its 'Coalition of the Willing' the UK, Spain and Bulgaria. (In the Gulf War, there were close to twenty countries that got into it with the Iraqis over their invasion of Kuwait.) Not so this time, but that didn't matter. Iraq was invaded. Meanwhile, bin Laden was hunted and the press was full of reading and the news with pictures meant to inflame the people of the USA. The whole approach worked. As 9/11 sank into the background, allegations of sloppy security were leveled against Bush. As the Boss, the buck stopped on his desk. But that flak was absorbed by the group with which Bush had surrounded himself. Then Katrina.

It was a horrible time for the US and its people, especially the people in New Orleans. (Interesting to note that fifty search and rescue folks from Vancouver, BC, were in New Orleans doing SAR before the head of FEMA was even aware there was a problem. And we are finding now that Blackwater (a mercenary group made up of ex Special Forces types) were doing 'security' work in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina nad the flooding. THAT is the responsibility of the legitimate armed forces of the USA.

The Homeland Security Act was implemented by what seemed to be a castrated Congress. It has the potential to be extremely repressive legislation. The fact it hasn't be yet just means, IMO, that the time is not right for it to be used to an extreme. But the laws are on the books, and when soemone decides they're needed, there they are. Ready and available.

One of the most powerful organizations in the world (that people are aware of) is the World Bank. It has the ability to change whole countries with simple yeas and nays. Who becomes the President of the World Bank? None other than Paul Wolfowitz (who seems to have been overstepping his authority by getting raises for his girlfriend contrary to policy of the World Bank. Yet, he's still there.

Halliburton: Who the hell gives no-bid contracts to companies just because? And who was a former CEO of Halliburton?

There are too many unanswered questions, IMO. Too much chaos. And even now, when there SHOULD be investigations into the actions of the whole damned Executive branch of government, AND investigations into the Judiciary, very little is happening. The USA has sunk into a miasma of apathy. There has been an 'outsourcing' of torture (I hate that term, because it seems to distance the people who do it from the crime they commit in the name of the American people) and many other illegal acts done in the name of 'security'. The change people have FINSALLY come to see they need is quite a way off. Yes, some good people are running, but why would it be in the best interests of the group that got Bush into power to allow any of the 'good' candidates to take power? I feel that something is rotten. If it comes to pass, it will be on the heels of a 'terrorist' attack in the mainland US. It would have to involve great loss of life and allow the government immediately to bring all the legislation already on the books into play. I think the US would see mass arrests, and with the right to suspend habeas corpus, there would be little people could do about any of it. Behind the scenes, the US is not the country it was ten years ago. It now has laws that are Draconian. They simply await Executive Order to be enacted. The boys have been very busy taking care of business while the public has concentrated on an undeclared war in Iraq, and bad guys have taken control of what was one of the finer democracies in the world.

What's next? I have no idea.