BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 08:12 PM

"Reptilianoid," Little Hawk?

Then the Geico Gecko is actually a Superior Being from millions of years back? The scales fall from my eyes (so to speak)!

Did Arthur C. Clarke know about this?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 07:51 PM

??Hunh??

Oh...yeah, I think I saw that movie...same bill as "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 07:41 PM

Oh... and 100!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 07:40 PM

Mail me some of that stuff, LH... Just a small bud will do just fine...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 06:30 PM

It had to have been a joke, Bill. Kind of hard to nail down just what the point was, though. Anyway, there was some pretty funny stuff in that post here and there. I think it's an attempt to portray anyone who doesn't agree with Al Gore's view of Global Warming as a drooling idiot who expects the Rapture to occur in the very near future and is waiting to receive his heavenly reward when it does. (but I may be wrong...)

Now the men and monkeys thing...what really happened there is that men, apes, AND monkeys devolved from the highly intelligent reptilianoids who once inabited the Earth, prior to the breakup of Gondwanaland. It was the immense cities built by the Reptilianoids which unwittingly contributed to the breakup of the supercontinent, as they were sourcing heat energy from the Earth's mantle with a technology long forgotten, and they triggered a continental breakup of Herculean dimensions. The fault lines appeared right where the cities stood, naturally, and spread from there. This wiped out most forms of life at the time. It has taken millions of years for the Earth to recover and repopulate itself, and the Reptilianoid knowledge has all been lost with the exception of one incredible breakthrough: the selective breeding of primitive canine species into Dachshunds!    ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 06:12 PM

ED T.... do you really believe all that you posted at 7:03AM? Was that supposed to be a long, silly joke? If so, please explain it to me.

Taken at face value, it is so full of errors based on misunderstanding of what science actually says about evolution, that it is hard to know where to start.

re:evolution... We did NOT "evolve from monkeys"....We and monkeys evolved from 'something' even older.

"Do you really not believe the bible it says we were created in seven days not millions of years?"

Do YOU not comprehend metaphor? Do YOU have any notion of who God was supposed to have dictated that information to?

Oh, I do hope you'll tell me that I just didn't 'get' the joke...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 05:01 PM

"You just preach, then, and have no interest in hearing what any of the rest of us say."

Mousethief has it right.

Those who do the "preaching" and who themselves have no interest in hearing what others say, especially if those others happen to disagree with the sermon, are more often than not the ones who complain bitterly about others not listening.

I DO read what others here write and give it careful consideration. Then I make my OWN assessment of what they're saying (unless, of course, it is merely a rehash of what they have posted a dozen times before and I've already given it careful consideration). Just because I don't agree—or conclude that someone is emitting pure methane—does NOT mean I haven't paid careful attention. And I'm quite sure that most others here do the same.

That's one of the problems that "preachers" and "sermonizers" have here:   the people here tend to be pretty intelligent and well-informed. They are not necessarily the choir, and are not always going to burst into a chorus of "Hosannas" just because somebody happens to be overburdened with a bad case of flatulence!

Those who expect that their pet conspiracy theory should be treated by all others as if it were a Divine Revelation are the ones who never listen. And who invariably accuse those who don't buy it wholesale of being "stupid" or "knuckleheads" or of being "brainwashed by their liberal arts educations."

Which, in itself, indicates that they haven't a clue as to what a "liberal arts education" really amounts to.

Get over it, ichMael!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 03:54 PM

"You just preach, then, and have no interest in hearing what any of the rest of us say."

And there is someone here that does NOT do this??????

Well, me. A good part of the reason I come here is to read what other people have to say, not to preach at them. I will give my opinion, sometimes my strong opinion, but I am still open to what others have to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 11:03 AM

But, Ed, scientists don't all agree with each other. You're talking as if they did. I'll give you an example: a scientist named Alfred Wegener was one of the first, perhaps THE first to grasp the idea of continental drift and propose it as a theory in 1915. He was ridiculed, scorned, laughed at, and utterly rejected by virtually the entire authoritative science community of his day...although he eventually turned out to be right!

It wasn't until 1950, some time after Wegener's death, that Wegener's theory was proven through observations made with instruments and observation methods that didn't exist yet when he proposed the theory.

He was right. Virtually the entire science community of his day was wrong. And they made him a laughing stock.

Keep that in mind, Ed. An entire ruling science establishment can be wrong about something fundamental, they frequently have been in the past, and it is up to the independent minds IN the science community and out of it to keep that in mind...realize that present day science might not have ALL the answers...and listen with respect and attention to the few voices that deviate from the common herd, as it were, because those voices are sometimes right.

Note that I am not speaking anywhere above about the authority of "God", the bible, or anything else like that. I am speaking about the pride, arrogance, complacency and fallibility of men in high places, including men of science.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 08:31 AM

The scientists say,
"it'll all wash away"
But we don't believe in them
any more...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 07:03 AM

There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, after studying them in-depth.Scientists and Al Gore have it all wrong. OK, I don't really care how God did what He did. I just know He did it. Look around, open your eyes, and think for yourfelf...and you will see it also.

"Gravity doesn't exist, even though Al Gore and his gang of scientists has also duped us into believing it does.

If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that's just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it's not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that?


What is going on here is this: These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn't the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is going to be.

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE.

Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. But, can we trust scientists to tell us about it after the Carbon emails? Are they hiding something from us? What do they and Al Gore know about this, that they are holding back?"

Creationism is based upon science, reason and tons of evidence. Evolution is based on the blind acceptance of superstitions and fairy tales. Evolutionists are narrow mindedly and dogmatically accepting evolution by scientists without questioning it. Sumed up in three words: Evolution is a lie. Common sense proof: several million years for a monkey to turn into a man. several million years for a monkey to turn into a man. oh wait thats right, let's ignore the fact that monkeys dont live several million years. Do you really not believe the bible it says we were created in seven days not millions of years? If'n we did evolve from monkeys then how come babies arent born monkeys? Darwin said his theories were wrong just before he died, so why do you still believe them? How come we cant speak monkey?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 04:23 AM

"You just preach, then, and have no interest in hearing what any of the rest of us say."



And there is someone here that does NOT do this??????

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Aug 10 - 12:52 AM

I don't debate here, Little Hawk

You just preach, then, and have no interest in hearing what any of the rest of us say. Not sure I'd admit that.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: ichMael
Date: 22 Aug 10 - 11:30 PM

ichMael, your postings about Obama would carry more weight and seem a hell of a lot more credible if you didn't allow your extreme personal loathing of him to be quite so obvious. ;-) Just a kindly tip from a fellow debater.

lol. I don't debate here, Little Hawk. This is a place where dissent is ridiculed and shouted down. I go offsite to make my points for the knuckleheads here. But thanks for the advice. I'll consider changing my ways and, who knows maybe I can, like, win a popularity contest here or something.

But back to the subject at hand.

Gore's sanity really is up for question. He tried the Copenhagen scam with the carbon emissions limits and all that. That would have killed no telling how many millions in Africa with the restrictions placed on their growth. They wouldn't have been able to upgrade to clean housing, middle class jobs created by manufacturing and such. The Africans saw through the scam at the last minute, when the final draft was released with the last-minute genocide clauses slipped in, and they walked out.

So would a sane man try to kill millions of Africans in that way? Prickly question. If you're a Nietzschean superman who believes he owes it to the species to cull the weak, then your genocidal actions are perfectly sane (to you). Gore views himself as a superman. Unfortunately, no jury except a jury of neo-nazis would find Gore innocent of attempted genocide. He's as nutty as a praline.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 12:31 PM

I think the SUpreme Court told him he couldn't have it, because BushDaddy was a closer insider thean GoreDaddy.

So by respecting the ruling of the Supreme Court, he was being treasonous? I do not think so. He amy have been upholding the Constitution, which was unheard of during the Bush era, but I don't think even Bush got away with calling it Treason.

Gore introduced himself at an Inconvenient Truth presentation by saying, "My name is Al Gore, and I used to be the next President of the UNited States"...nice to see someone with a little self-deprecating humor. Another sign of relative sanity.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 11:40 AM

How about "Not wanting the presidency badly enough." Isn't that considered sort of unacceptable? It implies that being president isn't as great as it's cracked up to be. Such an implication strikes at the very heart of what America is all about! He should be charged with treason. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 11:29 AM

I 'think' the charge will be something like "Failure to knuckle under to lobbyists for Big Business"

..or if that's too obvious, "Deviation from traditional groupthink"

maybe "Making sense without a permit"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 10:09 AM

Wait--what's he charged with?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Aug 10 - 01:02 AM

Bobert, I'll take your bored ramblings over the incohate rantings of any number of people on this board I could name, but am too polite to.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 10:29 PM

Well, gol danged...

I mean, some intersting reading there jury members but, ahhhh, ol' Al is out in the hall walking back & forth and forth & back for the last several days and, frankly, I'm a little concerned... I mean, I thought I heard him whisperin' into his cell phone that to someone that he wanted to buy up some depressed BP shares???

Hmmmmmm???

But nevermind them PB shares, the point is thins... Ya'll arguin' over how many line dancers can dance on a hood orniment of a '46 Packard when poor ol' Al is about to loose it... Ya'll want that guilt???

Just say either, "Yeah, he's sane enough and will be found innocent", 'er "Yeah, he's sane enough and will be found guilty", 'er "The boy is a friggin' nutcase and therefore cannot be brought to trial"!!!

Those are the choices... Not shit that happened 70 years ago...

Nevermind... I was just bored!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 10:25 PM

The Liechtensteiners aren't giving out that info, Bill. It's classified.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 10:15 PM

*I* want to know what the re-entry coefficients are for custard.

(I once suggested in jest to a self-described wannabe 'soldier of fortune that we settle wars by issuing bags of marshmallows to soldiers, and declaring then 'out' when they had 'X' amount of dusty white spots on them. He looked thoughtfully, then said..."Yeah, that might work...for awhile.. then some bastard like me would come along and put a rock inside each one, and off we'd go again.")

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 08:51 PM

Oh, they're clever. And ruthless. If you've even been nailed with a custard pie right in the kisser, you know what I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 08:45 PM

They were going to use the Schlieffen Plan but their army's too small. Hence the retreat to custard-tipped warheads.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 02:56 PM

Now I'm scared!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 02:48 PM

well, I plan to apply for the job of programming Lichtenstein's ICBM's... and I even have coordinates for Orilla... ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 02:44 PM

Well, no...I think they plan to take over central Europe first. That would be the logical approach, wouldn't it? Then the UK. Then Africa and North America. And so on...Korea would be way, way down the list.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 02:34 PM

I hope they land one of those custard pastries right on Kim Jong-il's pointy little head..(you can't see the point under the hair)

And Al Gore makes more sense every day....and we can't afford to bet otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 01:56 PM

"We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency -- a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. But there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst -- though not all -- of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively, and quickly."

He is clearly alluding to the stealthy, diabolical rise of Liechtenstein and its plans to achieve planetary domination through missile-launched custard pastries. I, for one, applaud his sagacity.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 10 - 12:44 PM

"We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency -- a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. But there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst -- though not all -- of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively, and quickly.

However, despite a growing number of honorable exceptions, too many of the world's leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored Adolf Hitler's threat (and I quote): "They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent."

So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the sun.

As a result, the earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing distress, is that something basic is wrong.

We are what is wrong, and we must make it right."

(Al Gore, speaking in acceptance of the Nobel Prize)


Sounds pretty sane to me.

Maybe the wrong trial is being proposed...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: mousethief
Date: 17 Aug 10 - 02:36 PM

To a tune by Flanders & Swann:

Hate, hate, blistering hate
Better than logic for warming the pate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 10 - 02:17 PM

Bruce:

Grow up, amigo. I have all the room I want. If you are even thinking of comparing my analysis of Bush's flaws with Ichor's rants, let me know so I can start looking on Craig's List for a second-hand asshole costume...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Aug 10 - 02:06 PM

"It is not only his hatred, but his disrespect for his readers, of whom he expects complete acceptance of outtrageous, unsubstantiated sweeping statements which smell like sewer scum and have about the same substance. "





And when we look back at the anti-Bush threads????


It seems like you have little room to comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Aug 10 - 01:48 PM

These days, with all the tensions in the world, and finances a mess and terrorists abounding (and exploding) and natural disasters increasing, people seem to be desperate to try to VOTE their way to a 'better' situation...and even thought they KNOW it don't work that way, it is still hard for ANY candidate of party to stay in power very long... anyone 'on duty' when trouble arrives gets blamed.

Now, these days, in the US, the Republicans are making it worse by trying to link Obama and the Dems to absolutely everything bad, and simultaneously to predict that he will cause anything bad that can be imagined. Dozens of 'Hitler' references, in almost every context are not accidental.....neither is gross stupidity.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: mousethief
Date: 17 Aug 10 - 01:42 PM

And they call it democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 10 - 01:11 PM

It's sad, isn't it, Bobert, the way the Democrats and Republicans both seem to have a real talent for killing the credibility of their party once it gets elected?

I think it's sort of inevitable, though, because of the system that drives them both and which they really serve once they are in office. They do not serve the public which elects them, they serve their major funding sources.

It's kind of like that in Canada, too, only it's a lot more low key here... ;-) The issues involved aren't as extreme, but the general situation is similarly non-representative of the interests of the general public.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 10 - 12:59 PM

It is not only his hatred, but his disrespect for his readers, of whom he expects complete acceptance of outtrageous, unsubstantiated sweeping statements which smell like sewer scum and have about the same substance.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Aug 10 - 12:57 PM

Well, LH, lets put it this way then: if Obama orders up anythig like wat Bush/Cheney pulled off, he'll be a one termer and kill the Democratic Party in the process...

But yer 100% correct that itchy undermines anything that might possibly be accepted with his extreme hatred of Obama... And, unlike the hatred we saw for the last 8 years of Bush's policies, it is way over the line in terms of personal hatred... That hatred completely negates anything else that he might have to add that might be cpnstructive... Kinda like gettin' on stage and singing on key with an instrument badly out of tune...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 11:07 PM

ichMael, your postings about Obama would carry more weight and seem a hell of a lot more credible if you didn't allow your extreme personal loathing of him to be quite so obvious. ;-) Just a kindly tip from a fellow debater. I tend to agree with your view on JFK standing up to the military-industrial bastards, and paying the ultimate price for so doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 10:51 PM

I'm not sure I follow that last post of yours, Bill. Could you go into real detail about it? Like about 20,000 words? Give me specific examples from each nation, and show me where they differ along the finer points. ;-D (I'm joking! Please don't.)

Bobert - I'm not saying the American public is ready for another war. I agree with you that they are not at all ready for or desirous of another war. However, these things can happen very fast, as Ichmael says, and the general public ain't got a thing to say about it in that case...they get to react to it after it has already happened, and the other side (Iran) gets blamed for it all somehow. Once the missiles fly, the deed is done, and Pandora's box is well and truly open. The soldiers on station there will do exactly as they are ordered to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: ichMael
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 10:00 PM

On the war thing, what'll happen is the Secret Service will burst into Obama's bedroom at 3 o'clock some morning and tell him to unplug himself from Reggie Love. They'll say Israel has just bombed Iran and is waiting for Obama's statement of support before they launch the nukes. The SS will be standing there with their Israeli-made Uzis in their hands, and Obama will have his dick in his, and he'll cave. He'll give them one of his pencil-necked nods and that'll be the end of 20 million people.

And it really will happen that fast. More than 2/3rds of Wall Street stock exchanges are now done via flash trading. In May, the Dow lost 10% of value in just 10 minutes. And any initial exchange in a war will be just as fast. Netanyahu is going to get Obama into so much trouble so quickly that no one'll ever be able to sort it out. Saudi Arabia's already given Israel permission to fly offensive sorties over their airspace, so it's just a matter of time. Probably in the dark on the moon in October (dark of the moon is when stealth weapons work best). I think that's Oct 7. That'll be Obama's October Surprise before the mid-term elections.

Or maybe he'll say no. Maybe he'll make a stand (on his knees, in bed, with his dick in his hand) and show the kind of resolve JFK did. The coward Eisenhower warned about the "military-industrial complex" as he left office, but then JFK tried to actually do something about the situation and got killed for his efforts. Maybe Obama, fortified by a fresh dose of Viagra, will say no in the face of the Uzis and Israel will have to go it alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 07:54 PM

Well, I'd agree with you, LH, but I think at least for a good while the US citzenry is about full of war propaganda... I mean, the war mongers have spread a steady diet of the shit to at least 3 and perhaps 4 generations and right now I see the mood of the country in more of an "isolationist", "let-'um-work-their-own-problems-out" mood... In other words, even Bubba has had enough and pushed his bigass war-lovin' ass back away from the table...

Thanks to the Bush/Cheney war machine stuffing wars down our collective throats for the last 8 years the times have changed...

I mean, look at the US economy... The economists say that the reason it is tankin' is because people ain't spendin'... No shit, Sherlock!!! They ain't... That represents a culture shift... Same with war... Peop,e are fed up with war being stuffed in 'um like it was some Thanksgiving turkey...

No, I must disagree here... I don't think that selling the American people on yet another war would be that easy... Especially at a time when they need more outta the government on a personal level than a new & shiney war...

So, ya'' who think that the American people are ready for a war with Iran??? Think again... That's bullshit!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 06:15 PM

"...one can't get too specifically into the many details...

*grin*...no, one just generalizes and allows as how almost everyone 'really' acts & thinks pretty much like everyone else. Sure saves a lot of typing...and if one doesn't plan to type it, it's hardly worth sorting out clearly, hmmm? ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 05:04 PM

When summing up a general situation, Amos, one can't get too specifically into the many details or one has to go to, what? 10,000 words?

But how does war propaganda work? With very simple messages. You have to scare people to get them to support a war...or make them angry (which is another way of scaring them). The USA, Iran, and Israel all give much thought to how they can scare their people or make them very angry in order to get them to back some aggressive national policy. That requires very simple messages, messages like "They intend to destroy our way of life!" or "They murdered babies!" or "They're insane fanatics and can't be trusted!"

People are easily persuaded by their deepest fears. They see their own madness reflected in the face of their supposed enemy.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 04:53 PM

I think your paradigmatic script is oversimplified and omits a great deal of serious info, LH...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 04:52 PM

I'm not saying they're trustworthy, Bill. ;-) LOL! Look, are the Israelis trustworthy? Is the USA trustworthy? Are the Russians trustworthy? Are the Chinese or the Indians or the French trustworthy? No one in international politics is trustworthy, Bill. They all will do whatever they feel is to their (perceived) advantage whenever they think they can get away with it.

Saddam, for example, invaded Kuwait because he thought he could get away with it. He had been assured by the USA's ambassador (April Glaspie) that the USA had no interest in "inter-Arab" quarrels. In my opinion they faked him out cleverly, and he paid the price for it. In any case, neither was he trustworthy, nor were the Kuwaitis (who made up a bizarre story about babies being killed in incubators) trustworthy nor was the USA whose ambassador misled Saddam trustworthy.

None of them are ever trustworthy...from the other's point of view.

Israel and America cannot be trusted not to use their nukes either...they also have hinted (very strongly) that they may attack Ira, and they, unlike Iran, can get away with it, because who in the world would dare to launch a nuclear counterstrike against them if they did?

Iran, on the other hand, cannot get away with a first strike, and neither can North Korea. The inevitable counterstrike would ruin them. In my opinion, that makes them a far better risk than it does both Israel and the USA, both of whom feel they have the freedom to make wars of choice because they think they can handily win those wars with minimal loss to themselves.

This has already been demonstrated a number of times in the last few decades. The USA and Israel always attack whoever they want to, whenever they want to, and they feel quite safe from suffering equal retaliation. That is what is truly dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 04:15 PM

"2. A great power (USA) claims that that country is a threat to the entire world! And is planning to attack its neighbours!"

Umm.. I think the thinking is: a country that 'hints' at attacking its neighbors, and 'might' do so, is a threat to the stability of the regions and thus, of a lot of the world.

'Leaders' like Iran and N. Korea currently have simply cannot be considered trustworthy NOT to do something strange....and having nuclear weapons seems to make N. Korea more belligerent.

Let's be careful exactly what we accuse folks of......Obama doesn't have a Dick Cheney to put saber rattling in his head.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 03:37 PM

Why wouldn't they wish to be self-sufficient rather than dependent on an outside source?

You're correct that no one is invading them now at this moment. I am saying that if someone does invade them in the near future, they will have one hell of a fight on their hands, even if they nuke them first.

Haven't you noticed a pattern, Amos?

1. A vital strategic resource (oil) is located in a Third World country that will not do exactly what the great powers want it to do. It insists on pursuing an independent policy regarding its management of that strategic resource.

2. A great power (USA) claims that that country is a threat to the entire world! And is planning to attack its neighbours!

3. Israel claims that that country wants to wipe Israel off the map! (quite possibly a grain of truth in that, given the fact that Israel has made itself the most feared and detested country in that entire region by its own aggressive policies in the past few decades.)

And now (drum roll)...the clincher that provides the final excuse for a war of choice:

4. USA claims that the targeted country is making "weapons of mass destruction" and must be stopped NOW before it uses them!

This has been done before with Iraq. It is presently being done with Iran.

How many times can the same transparent propaganda ploy fool the population of a great power that is armed to the teeth into imagining that they have the right to invade and conquer a smaller power that is really no threat to them at all, and that has not even thrown the first stone?????

As many times as the Germans were fooled by Hitler? Yeah, probably. People will believe anything if they hear it often enough in their own mass media...and they are already inclined to fear and distrust foreigners, specially if they're darker-skinned than Mr Average USA and have funny-sounding names that are hard for the mentally lazy to pronounce.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 03:19 PM

Except that no-one at present is invading them, or (as far as I know) about to.

If all they were wanting was nuclear energy, why couldn't they accept the fuel deal with Russia instead of having to procees their own enhanced uranium?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 10 - 02:09 PM

Fine. Let's just say that a number of wealthy countries, all for their own various reasons of aggressive self-interest, armed and in varous ways assisted Iraq in the 1980's with the intention of administering a serious defeat to Iran and hopefully bringing down its Islamic government. Russia was one of those countries. The USA was another. They failed utterly in their objective, because the Iranians outfought the Iraqis.

I'm suggesting that the Iranians fought very hard against invasion once before, and they will do so again.