BS: Courage of Your Convictions

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 03:38 PM

Sorry, Doug, I didn't mean to ignore you. I got a phone call in the middle of posting and didn't see your "thumbs up" remarks.

How come I didn't know that we might disagree on TR? Jus' funnin'. I'll bet you got TR and Junior's pictures hanging right there in your pudder room.

Two peas in a pod, except TR probably had 2 or 3 more I.Q. points to work with... Jus funnin' again. They were probably about the same in that regard.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 03:52 PM

Little Hawk, The reason that the Romans and the Jews were unable to come to an accomodation was that there was a demand for major change--in this case in style of worship. The polytheistic Romans were demanding that the Jews violate a central tenet of what made them Jews: monotheism.

"I would try and resolve whatever had caused the overall situation in the first place which led to people having such hard feelings as to resort to terrorism!" While it does not explicitly apply to Bin Laden and company, the biggest cause of the situation is the sense of a big organization, the rich industrialized part of the world, not listening to the people who consider themselves downtrodden.

The current Iraq situation is really caused by the fact that both Bush and Hussein are peace loving men. What could be more peaceful than a world in which everyone agrees with you or dies? There was a parody in MAD magazine about 40 years ago called "The Rifle, Man." In it, the hero goes around protesting that he is a peace loving man as he blows everyone he meets into the great beyond. His son asks him how, if he claims to be a peace loving man, he can justify all the killing he does. His response: "There ain't nothing so peaceful as a dead man, son." Sound familiar?

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Ireland
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 04:31 PM

Mc G of H, Big Mick has rumbled guest, and guest you know that.

You said you did not see the alledged disrespect to vets,read what Big Mick has wrote about guest in the threads this person has started.

This thread is named Courage of Your Convictions, something guest does not have.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 06:50 PM

But is GUEST the same as GUEST, or perhaps the same as GUEST...? Some GUESTs have respect where respect is owed, some don't, some posts have respect some don't, some are clearly people who mean what they say, some are just trying to rattle people's cages. Some have even been known to write things I'd agree with - but the lack of a nod of identity devalues them, and they end up in the same bin as the rubbish ones.

Posting without some kind of a handle is bad manners and it's bloody silly, but it's not worth getting upset about, let alone trying to read between the lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 07:39 PM

And now I've read that Big Mick post I take it you're referring to, on this thread. And, very unusually, I find myself in disagreement with Big Mick. I can't see where there is what I'd call "disrespect" in the posts I think are being complained about. Maybe I've just missed reading them, or I've read them in a different sense or something.

When someone is trying to argue a pacifist case, that doesn't mean they are disrespecting people who have fought, and so far as I can see that is all that the posts that have been seen as offensive have been doing. As I said, I might have missed the relevant ones, but I've skimmed through this thread and couldn't spot ones that I'd feel qualify.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 08:43 PM

Teddy Roosevelt and Bushkin? To amend the quotation that dished Dan Quayle: "Mr Bush, you are no Teddy Roosevelt."

Flaws and all, noone could ever have made a case that Teddy Roosevelt was a coward. Bushkin's "wartime" record on the other hand...

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 02:55 PM

Good post, Ebarnacle... :-) "the biggest cause of the situation is the sense of a big organization, the rich industrialized part of the world, not listening to the people who consider themselves downtrodden."

Yup. Precisely.

Also, that rich industrialized part has helped to maintain a great number of local despots in the poorer parts of the world. Saddam was one of them, a hired hit man, until he failed to "take out" Iran...mistake #1...and then went into business for himself by invading Kuwait...mistake #2. Now the kingpin, the Boss, who lives in Washington, is going to take out the hitman Saddam who failed the Syndicate and disobeyed orders. That's what it amounts to.

Osama was another "soldier" of the Organization, who was useful for killing the soldiers of the opposing mob (Soviet Russia), but he and his people became a problem after the opposing mob went bust and got bought out by the Syndicate in Washington. Now Osama is persona non grata, and will be rubbed out if the Boss can find him. The Boss hasn't found him yet.

Osama and Saddam are disgruntled former employees of the System. Osama, being a religious idealogue, has decided to make war on his former employers and die for the cause, if necessary. Saddam, being more of a pragmatist is trying to figure out how to stay alive and in power when outgunned 500 to 1. It's not an easy proposition, but no one can say he lacks determination...he's sort of like "Mad Dog Cole", if you recall your gangster movies...always preparing for one more glorious shootout.

The Boss in Washington and environs now has the entire "city" (the western world) terrified as to where Osama and Saddam may strike next, despite the fact that they are outgunned, as I said, 500 to 1. When you are outgunned 500 to 1, a direct confrontation can only be suicidal and pointless, so Osama (if not Saddam) has been reduced to hit and run attacks in unexpected locations...in other words, what is called terrorism by those who are not required to use such roundabout methods in terrorizing and destroying people...because they can just walk in anywhere with high-tech weaponry and do it openly.

The truth of the matter is, ALL the involved parties are committing terrorism and have been for A LONG TIME.

It is terrorism to maintain conditions of gross material inequality in the World, to rob people of their land and their civil rights without giving any recognition of having done so, and to maintain heavily funded despotic regimes over people as long as those regimes cooperate with Western corporations.

That is terrorism on a massive basis, and it has killed far more people than the 3,000 who perished on Sept 11th.

It is extraordinary to me that a group of people can be so blind to their own actions as to commit organized legal terrorism on millions of people for decades...and then go into absolute shock and rage when some of those people strike back with illegal terrorism on a few thousand...AND NOT GET THE CONNECTION!

Truly astounding.

I am opposed to ALL terrorism...not just to terrorism committed by the small and unofficially sanctioned players who are outside the wealthy club run by the Boss...and who, in fact, used to work for him as hired guns.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 06:41 AM

Donald Rumsfield - WHO ME ???? Got to be kidding!!!

Getting back to having the courage of your convictions, the current US President certainly has that. And please remember that America is not at war with Iraq. I have stated in other threads what I believe he was trying to accomplish, and he has succeeded in doing it. Now all we have to do is to wait and see what the Iraqi authorities declare and what the inspection teams report.

LH - a lot earlier in this thread we discussed the differences of the terms "unconditional" and "negotiated" with regard to cessation of hostilities.

The Second World War was fought on the agreed principle among the Allies that unconditional surrender was a requirement on the part of the Axis Powers. This resulted in a period of peace in Europe that continues to this day.

Examples of negotiated settlements used to end hostilities during the twentieth century have been:

First World War - What was negotiated contributed directly to the causes of the Second World War.
Korean War - What was in fact negotiated was a ceasefire
Arab/Israeli Wars - All negotiated, with no side honouring what they agreed to do - result continued conflict.
Gulf War - Iraq, the blatant aggressor in this conflict, ended up refusing to comply with obligations it agreed to fulfil - result yet to be determined.

In other threads parallels have been drawn between Hitler and Hussein. In the case of the former, had a number of European national leaders (basically those of France and Britain) had the courage of their convictions, and faced up to their responsibilities, in the face of blatant treaty violations on the part of Nazi Germany, the Second World War need never have happened. Instead, they proceeded on what they wanted to believe would happen, and blythly ignoring what they knew could happen.

The current incumbent of the White House is not making the same mistake.

The USA is not at war with Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 07:17 AM

The United States hasn't been "at war" with anyone since WWII -- the last time the Congress declared war. I'm not sure Congress has the guts to do so any more.

Japan did invade the United States: the Aleutian Islands.

And that's all I'm going to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 10:36 AM

Not only the Aleutians, but various Pacific Islands such as Guam, Midway, et al.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 11:26 AM

Hmmmmmmm? What to believe? We are at war. We're not at war. We are at war. We're not at war. We are.................. And the beat goes on.

I've heard Runsfield on C-Span radio saying it both ways depending on what point he's trying to make. So confusing?

I wish that Don would at least have just one answer but being the the man will say naything and min *in love* with hearing himself talk.

Anyone else ever listen to thye guy. I mean, there is one piece of work. And very tricky.

Excuse me, back to pulling the pedals off this flower. We are at war.
We're not at war. We are at war. We're not at..........................................................................................................................................

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 11:30 AM

Perhaps the war wouldn't have happened Teribus, but I don't know that you could say the same about the Holocaust.

As history has shown over and over again, the Western powers are very selected about what acts of genocide they choose to intervene in, and it is pretty apparent from all the historic evidence, that none of the Allied powers were likely to have intervened in the genocide within Germany's borders.

I agree the Allied powers didn't do enough to contain Hitler when they could have. But Hitler was pretty determined to go to war, and there isn't much you can do to stop an aggressor, despite the current fantasies being spun about "pre-emptive" abilities today. The Allies just didn't have their war machine tooled up and ready for the long haul the way Hitler did his--which made a difference too.

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 01:47 PM

Yes, when is a war not a war? When the Boss says it isn't! LOL!

The USA has been engaging in a limited war against Iraq ever since 1989. Like most limited wars, it is an undeclared one, and the rules of engagment keep changing, and it's hard to figure out what they even are. The result of this limited war has been the death of many Iraquis, a few Americans, and a few other people here and there, plus expenditure of a vast amount of money and propaganda, and handy testing out of new weaponry and spying techniques by the US Navy and Air Force.

Saddam has also been engaging in a limited war against Shiites, Kurds, Israelis, and various other people...for a long time now.

Israel has been engaged in a limited war against Palestinians and other Muslims for decades.

Those people have themselves been engaged in a limited war against Israel ever since 1948.

The unbroken period of peace teribus describes in Europe has included a bloody revolution in Rumania, and a horrendous series of wars in the former Yugoslavia, as well as other smaller incidents of bloodshed here and there in various localities...mostly as a result of the Cold War or of old ethnic feuds predating the Cold War and emerging again in the wake of the Soviet Empire's collapse in '89.

When is a war not a war? When the media say it isn't! The media work for the Boss.

And, yes...Japan did invade American territory. So?

So-called "unconditional" surrenders ALSO end with negotiations...but those negotiations come much farther down the road...entailing much greater loss of life than is necessary to secure a victory. Japan and the USA did negotiate various surrender conditions in 1945. It was mostly just a diktat by the USA, Britain, and Russia to Japan, but it did include quietly letting the Japanese know that the Emperor would not be arrested or tried or threatened in any way. That is a negotiated settlement, whether you call it "unconditional" or not.

The claim of having forced unconditional surrender on an enemy is almost always, in truth, a false claim, but it indicates a degree of hubris and self-righteousness on the part of the victor, that's all, Like gloating over the remains of the fallen and completely humiliated enemy. I do not admire such an attitude in victors, whichever side they are on. It lacks humanity. It lacks respect for the foe. It is dishonourable and crass.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Courage of Your Convictions
From: Amos
Date: 16 Nov 02 - 12:16 PM

the terrorist attacks that the invasion of Iraq might trigger....

Oh, come on.    The FBI can't protect us from the influence of aliens either. But using a scary piece of yellow journalism is hardly an appropriate response to what I said about factless generalizations of danger being anti-social. The fact that big newspapers do it all the time everywhere and infect everything with insanity...sorry, getting carried away there....is no evidence that using these sweeping and, if I may use the word, terrorizing propositions as substitutes for factual reporting is anything but mind-numbing oppression.

I am not interested in being terrorized or staying up at night trembling over non-events. There are enough real events out there requiring intelligent action and understanding without getting thrown into a media-trough fit for baby hogs.



But thanks for the opportunity.


A