BS: Maybe Bush is right.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: JennyO
Date: 09 Mar 03 - 12:26 AM

McGrath, as I have mentioned before, I had the same conspiracy theory as you, and I must admit I am really starting to believe we are on to something here. I ran it by several friends, and they said words to the effect of "Well why not? What better way to put people off their guard? You're probably right!"

Jenny

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 03 - 10:58 PM

Right -- put it like that and it sounds judicious and objective. But to look at My Lai as an exception is a critical error. My Lai was just an extreme example of normal activity--it is a very small step from hot battle in a jungler to massacre in a jungle village. You can't take it out of context and not wonder what those men of C Company had been through to bring out such reptilian savagery. This is exactly the kind of savagery -- bestial, brutal, degraded, violent, insane -- that we are now going to exercise on the descendants of ancient Persia. If we do it by pushing buttons from aloft, instead of using bayonets, we are even the worse for it, because we can then pretend it didn't happen. At least C Company came home with an irrefutable memory of what they had done.

In my considered opinion, noone who cannot confront the actual effort of war has any place or right in calling for it. And that includes the effort of clearing away burned and savaged corpses, once human men women and children.

Least of all someone who dodged the effort once and let his peers go over without him.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: DougR
Date: 08 Mar 03 - 03:56 PM

Amos: I know that atrocities like the My Lai massacre happen during war time. I believe that there are far fewer eposodes of this type that happen than many people seem to believe however. That was pure murder and the guilty should have been punished. As I recall, the commanding officer (Lt. Calley) was punished, but not as severely as he should have been in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 11:10 PM

"Some of the dead were mutilated by having "C Company" carved into their chests; some were disemboweled. One GI would later say, "You didn't have to look for people to kill, they were just there. I cut their throats, cut off their hands, cut out their tongues, scalped them. I did it. A lot of people were doing it and I just followed. "

I stand by my belief stated above- I've read the link (actually, I had read it before)and I still don't believe it. It is too pat, too storybook. As I said, no such charges were made during the My Lai investigation. That goes waaaaay beyond simple war criminal activity.

I have not read David Wallechinsky's book, 'The 20th Century'- being the son of Irving Wallace, I presume he is a serious, conscientious writer. I also suspect that those words above are not in his book. I'm going to find out. If I'm wrong, I'll post it later.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 10:02 PM

DG-The UN is being almost completely ignored by the American government. No matter how stupid you think people are, no one is going to believe that the UN had any power over Bush's decision. Bush himself has made it quite clear that he doesn't care about the UN.

What exactly is the cause of your fixation on alleged population reduction conspiracies? You seem to be convinced that the UN intends to massacre billions of people. Think about the fact that A) war is much less effective at reducing population growth than is plague, famine, or best of all, economic prosperity, and B) the U.S. would be the last country on the planet to be targeted by such schemes, having a low birthrate and more arable land per capita than just about any other nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 09:55 PM

Ebbie the link is in my 5:03 post, where you found the quote.

Re Bohemian Grove, DG said "Once a year, world leaders participate in this, and THAT is one of the reasons why we seem to be ruled by sociopaths with no conscience...they cleanse their conscience once a year with this ceremony."

If such ceremonies do take place, I doubt 'cleansing' to be the purpose. Wouldn't a more likely purpose be to desensitize the participants to the horrors of slaughter and war, helping them cope with the bloody means to whatever the current ends might be?

I'm reminded of the scene from The Prince of Egypt, where Seti, Pharoah of Egypt, 'justifies' the slaughter of the Hebrew infants by his armies to Moses ... "The Hebrews would have grown too numerous, and perhaps have risen against us. Sometimes, for the greater good, sacrifices must be made. Ah, my son *sigh* they were only slaves."

A pre-emptive war against infants?! Sounds strangely familiar! Such rulers must require very careful mental and emotional preparation indeed! Hmmmmm, wonder what Dubya would recommend?

;)   daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 09:11 PM

Here's the post that made the Mudcat fall down, I think:

gaaaaahhhh I had blanked out the ditch incident at My Lai- I retained the image of their firing into the group of unarmed civilians, including women, children and aged men, and killing almost everyone. I just reread several accounts of what happened later- after his pardon Calley married and one link said that he is now working in Columbus, Georgia for his father in law. Can you imagine marrying the man?

daylia, your quote says Some of the dead were mutilated by having "C Company" carved into their chests; some were disemboweled. One GI would later say, "You didn't have to look for people to kill, they were just there. I cut their throats, cut off their hands, cut out their tongues, scalped them. I did it. A lot of people were doing it and I just followed. . This seems hyperbolic, not to say entirely false, to me- no such charges were made nor was any such activity reported. Would you give me the link where you found that statement? Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 05:59 PM

DougR:

I find no pleasure in blaming the US for anything. In fact, I don't blame the "U.S.".

But the hard truth is that a war, to happen at all, requires subscription.

Subscribing to war is easy until you have been on the ground -- which I add, I have not -- or seen or head the real story. Then it makes a lot less sense.

Now it is true that MyLai is one instance, and there are lots of stories of GIs in 'Nam acting with honor, treating civilians with as much compassion as they could. That is not the point. If Wm Calley went crazy at My Lai, who could blame him.

The point is that we subscribed to that war. Even if we had won it, it is doubtful in my mind that Vietnam would be any better off than it is today. And notice that the world has not succumbed to Communisam or suddenly burst into WW III, which were the two major arguments used by Johnson and Nixon to support the expansion of the war there. Big, spooky argument that didn't come true. That turned out, actually to be a bunch of bushwah that only cost trhousands of lives to disprove.

In the final balance, then, a political theory was approved which cost thousands of lives. Not the lives of those who espoused the theory or articulated it or made political hay out of it.

Not those with nothing to lose, who sat back and supported the idea from home with nothing at stake.

Thank God it wasn't your own teenage daughters or baby children who got burned or shot, regardless of which side was pulling the trigger.

A



A

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 05:53 PM

CAROL, you said..."I think some of the information you're getting is probaby correct, but some of the sites you're getting it from, that are drawing conclusions about that information, have agendas that are not in my interests."

Some of the information probably IS correct, but some is probably incorrect, too. But you can't be everywhere and see for yourself, so you have to rely on reportage. I try to rely on overseas, non-US sources, because the US media has become a govt mouthpiece. There were never any hard questions asked about the Sept 11 hijackings, for example, except by foreign journalists. That really woke me up as far as sources...give me foreign journalism anytime. And some of the sites I use gather info from a wide range of sources, and some ARE agenda driven...but at least they gather info on the topics that interest me and put it in one place. As long as they can still link back to the original story, I look at them pretty closely. Best source of information of all is the legislation and the govt sites themselves. And THOSE are the places you find the agendas REALLY against your interests. Some of the conclusions drawn from those sites (wording of legislation, etc.) may seem far-fetched, but they're not. If an abuse is POSSIBLE in the wording of a law, then that abuse was put there FOR A PURPOSE and will occur once the law is passed. Guranteed. And if you think traditional, comfortable old US news sources are looking out for your interests, you have Diane Sawyer (member of the CFR...anti-American) entertaining discussions about the absolutely unexceptable...torture. EVERYONE has an agenda. I only want to point out the U.S. has been taken over by non-Americans and is being destroyed from within, and I use a wide range of reportage and commentary to make my points. I don't ask folks to believe it all...just consider it.

And let's see...one way the govt-controlled media defuses govt detractors is to dillute the really damaging stories. Bohemian Grove, for example. Before the internet, word about Bohemian Grove could not be spread effectively. But now I can point to a film made by a man commissioned by a British news team to sneak in and get video of the 'Creamation of Care' ritual. Once a year, world leaders participate in this, and THAT is one of the reasons why we seem to be ruled by sociopaths with no conscience...they cleanse their conscience once a year with this ceremony.

All that was denied until the men sneaked in and got film of the ritual, then it was finally admitted by Bohemian Grove but passed off as 'frat boy' stuff. And suddenly there are HUNDREDS of sites which tie Bohemian Grove to UFOs and Aliens, etc. The kernel of provable truth...that our leaders engage in a human sacrifice ritual...is sandwiched in between the unprovable and thus rendered 'speculative' to most readers. So yeah, it's hard to work through all the garbage and the conflicting agendas.

You also said..."But I also think that the sites whose conclusions you adhere to are trying to make the UN look bad because it's good for their agendas and bad for the rest of us."

No. I would support the U.N. a hundred percent if they were the benign organization they're PR people have made them out to be. But they're monsters bent on absolute, tyrannical control of the planet. They have hundreds of on-going programs to murder people and destroy nations at the moment...one that comes to mind is genetically-modified grain in Africa. Hybrids that can't reproduce. Would be just as easy to give the farmers seed that they can re-plant next year, the natural way, but the U.N. doesn't want that. They want the villagers dependent on them year to year for food. The grain will grow THIS year, but if you want to eat NEXT year (another shipment of sterile grain), you have to teach your children this and that and make sure a percentage of your girls and boys are set aside for the brothels run by the U.N. for U.N. soldiers. And to their credit, most of the Africans are refusing to go along with the grain program.

Another U.N. story which comes to mind concerns the 8,000 Muslims killed in Serbia when a handful of Dutch 'peacekeepers' were assigned to guard a 'safe zone' (just type 'Dutch U.N. muslim massacre' etc. into google to turn up the story). The people killed were SET UP by the U.N. The U.N. is in the business of killing people. These 'accidents' happen over and over and over and over wherever the U.N. gets involved. The U.N. is the closest thing we have to world govt., and it's acting the part of the 'bumbler' right now just to deceive the on-lookers and to reduce world population. World population reduction is one of the U.N.'s primary stated missions, and war is one of the most effective population-reducers. The world govt coming our way is tyrannical and deceitful. The U.N. is a monster organization, and I don't have to try too hard to make it look bad. It is NOT working in your interest...it is working in the interest of the people who established it, just like any other business.

LURKER, you said "Explain to me how an organization known for being ineffective will have its power boosted by being ignored and proven ineffective once again. Further, what possible gain could your conspiracy realize from such a gain in power? The UN would be delegitimized by taking any action that the populace disapproves of. "

How is the U.N. being ignored? It is in the news every day. Every hour. Constantly. And it is probably in the news constantly so some upcoming dramatic moment will be seen by every eye on the planet. You don't build up something like the Iraq war this dramatically unless there's a big conclusion.

Personally, I think at the last minute the U.N. will sign on to war with Iraq, thus looking like they held back the U.S. all along. The world will view this as U.N. control of the US, thus empowering the U.N. in the future. I think it's all a done deal and the bitching nations involved are just posturing for the homefolk. In the end, Kofi Annan (who is DIRECTLY responsible for the murder of 800,000 Rwandans by using 'peacekeepers' like I described above, with the Dutch), will reluctantly give the nod and GWBush will then begin the process of securing the oil the U.N. so desperately needs.

And if the US DOES go to war alone, it will weaken the US by creating a slaughter which will repel the world, and the world will turn to the U.N. to put a stop to the 'last superpower's' rogue actions. Then a TRUE coalition of pissed-off European nations and Asian nations will infuse the U.N. with troops and money, and the U.S. will go the way of Iraq.

This is just a variation of what Bush # 1 did...that long process of 'coalition building' before Desert Storm. Only this time, Bush # 2 is building a coalition AGAINST the U.S. rather than FOR the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 05:31 PM

I dont' know where he got the story of the GIs pouring bullets into trenches though murdering civilians.

See Amos' and daylia's links to the My Lai Massacre, DougR.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 05:27 PM

Here's a link to the picture of the girl mentioned above:

Phan Thi Kim Phuc

Here's an article about her as she is now:

Vietnam's Napalm Photo Girl Forgives

I think it's a bigger shame that so many Americans hide their heads in the sand about the things we do that we shouldn't be doing. We can't correct our behavior if we aren't honest with ourselves about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 05:27 PM

Here's the TimeLife story and pictures of the My Lai Massacre. I'm pretty convinced.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: DougR
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 05:14 PM

Even before I read the article you posted, Amos, I knew the slant of the "persuasive" article by Professor Zinn. I read it but it didn't persuade me.

I do recall seeing the photo of the little girl running nude down a country road wounded from Napalm. I dont' know where he got the story of the GIs pouring bullets into trenches though murdering civilians. I join Ebbie (surprise)in her skepticism.

I think it's a shame so many Americans find pleasure in blaming the U. S. for the all of the ills of the world.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 05:05 PM

There are no trenches in this photograph but it may remind you that some of our boys did some very weird and awful things in that war. I mean no disrespect to anyone by this -- just a reminder how crazy it can get when the dogs of war are called out.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 05:03 PM

Ebbie, here's the story of the My Lai Massacre. I didn't care to search through for pictures of the slaughter though. The words in this quote are effective enough.

"Charlie Company met no resistance; there were no Viet Cong soldiers at My Lai. Calley then ordered the slaughter of the civilians. People were rounded up into ditches and machine-gunned. They lay five feet deep in the ditches; any survivors trying to escape were immediately shot. When Calley spotted a baby crawling away from a ditch, he grabbed her, threw her back into the ditch, and opened fire. Some of the dead were mutilated by having "C Company" carved into their chests; some were disemboweled. One GI would later say, "You didn't have to look for people to kill, they were just there. I cut their throats, cut off their hands, cut out their tongues, scalped them. I did it. A lot of people were doing it and I just followed. I just lost all sense of direction."

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 04:19 PM

I don't know about the mothers with their babies in the trenches, but I remember the picture of the girl and her little brother running down the road with their clothes off after having just been napalmed. It was in Life Magazine.

( ...some day I'm going to have to learn how to spell "conspiracy")

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 02:32 PM

Quote: "And the pictures appeared - the littl"e girl struck by napalm running down the road, her skin shredding, the mothers holding their babies to them in the trenches as GIs poured rounds of bullets from automatic rifles into their bodies. "

I don't understand this statement. When is this supposed to have happened? Unless somebody comes up with a link to a picture that shows this, or somebody can direct me to where I can read such a thing, I DO NOT BELIEVE IT.

And if it is not true, Howard Zinn loses all credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 01:21 PM

DG-Explain to me how an organization known for being ineffective will have its power boosted by being ignored and proven ineffective once again. Further, what possible gain could your conspiracy realize from such a gain in power? The UN would be delegitimized by taking any action that the populace disapproves of.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 01:14 PM

Dreaded Guest, here's where I'm having some problems with the particular conspiricy theories you subscribe to. I think some of the information you're getting is probaby correct, but some of the sites you're getting it from, that are drawing conclusions about that information, have agendas that are not in my interests.

This is what I think. I think that much of the information you put here in the Mudcat has at least some basis in fact. But I also think that the sites whose conclusions you adhere to are trying to make the UN look bad because it's good for their agendas and bad for the rest of us. That's my conspiricy theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 12:21 PM

No, Lurker...the U.S. may be 'restrained' by the U.N., but once again that will just empower the U.N. If the U.N. comes onboard now, it'll be 'legitimate' because the U.N. says so. This is a no-lose situation for the U.N. It's been contrived that way. You will die beneath the boot of a U.N. peacekeeper. Or that's the plan.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 12:01 PM

Donuel - amazing art, whattamessage! You go, dude! (Man, have I changed my tune about your communcation tactics or what?)

Amos, thanks for the excellent article.

"There is a basic weakness in governments, however massive their armies, however wealthy they are, however they control the information given to the public, because their power depends on the obedience of citizens, of soldiers, of civil servants, of journalists and writers and teachers and artists. When these people begin to suspect they have been deceived, and withdraw their support, the government loses its legitimacy, and its power."

IMO, that can't happen fast enough.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:26 PM

If this was supposed to empower the UN, they would simply have had the UN pass a resolution directing Dubya to invade. That would have been faster, simpler, more legitimate, and more effective than the games DG imagines.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:10 PM

Not confused, just a bit sceptical about the bona fide of Dratted Guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 09:07 PM

Here's a highly persuasive piece of rhetoric on the issue:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0227-12.htm.

Enjoy!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 08:42 PM

IF you want something done right - do it yourself.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushiraqa.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 08:22 PM

Sorry you're confused, McGrath, but I just tell it like I see it.

I think people want to believe in political conspiracies because they can't believe they let themselves be so OBVIOUSLY taken advantage of. It makes it more tolerable if you tell yourself it was some convoluted scheme you couldn't have anticipated. But with Iraq and the U.S., it really IS as simple as I've laid out. This stuff is being done to empower the U.N.

Examine what GWBush is doing. It makes no sense on any level. Gas prices are up at the pumps in the U.S., and the Iraqi oil will be going to the U.N., not the U.S. And Caspian sea oil secured by the US is going to China, not the U.S. The U.S. consumer won't benefit oil-wise from this at all. And a war would just drain our treasury and push us further into debt. And the situation is already creating ill-will towards the U.S. around the world. There is absolutely no benefit to the U.S. in engaging in a 'war' with Iraq.

So, as with any crime, you ask 'Who stands to gain?' The only answer is...the U.N. and the cause of world govt. Bush's father himself said this was the plan...to establish a New World Order at the expense of national sovereignty. This isn't a conspiracy. We've been TOLD what is going on.

I DO believe there are some things govts do that are so unacceptable they MUST be covered up and confused (JFK's assassination, GWBush's bombings on Sept 11), but this Iraq thing is all being done in plain sight because the Bushes want to advance the U.N and the New World Order. And I don't like it because global govt means scrapping my U.S. Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 07:50 PM

I'm beginning to actually believe in the theory I put up, that Dratted Guest is really working for a secret US government organisation that might be called the Conspiracy Invention Agency, which exists to try to drown the evidence for real conspiracies, by propagating ones intended to drown them out.

The idea being to make people sceptical of the whole idea that we are being consistently lied to by our leaders, which on the evidence of history is pretty consistently true.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 06:32 PM

Bush's actions are meant to EMPOWER the U.N. The Iraq situation is a win/win for the U.N.

If the U.S. stands down, then the mighty U.N. is the new 'superpower'...able to restrain even the most rogue of the old superpowers.

If Bush launches war, the U.N. will someday do an Iraq job on the U.S. (can't have unsanctioned wars going on, so a new 'coalition' will be formed to fight the U.S...beginning with accelerated economic warfare from Europe).

This whole Iraq deal is about empowering the U.N.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 05:01 PM

Dreaded Guest, You might have learned from this crisis that the US is the only voice that matters in the UN. Unless GW recants his ridiculous tactic of saying he doesn't need the security council, whaile at the same time bullying and bribing members for agreemant, the UN will lose all relevancy.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 04:48 PM

Here's an interesting article from E.J. Dionne Jr. in the Washington Post, from a hawk's perspective:

Heed the Hawks

(If you don't want to give personal information to get into the page, you can give them fake info. I've done it and it works.)

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 12:43 PM

Bush is a puppet. His orders are to create chaos. The order which emerges from the chaos will mean fascism in America and expanded U.N. control. Sure some nukes will fly, but the global elite don't care. They attend a yearly 'cremation of care' ceremony at Bohemian Grove so they don't have to be bothered with conscience.

Personally, I believe Japan is the ultimate target in all the Asian chaos. They'll never accept outside rule and are willing to die at the drop of a hat. They have to be eliminated, just like the U.S. Constitution has to be eliminated.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: *daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 11:55 AM

Well if Bush could extract his head (pardon the overstatement!) from the oily sands of Iraq, he might see that the only way to win his 'war on terrorism' is to conquer himself and his war-mongering double-speaking cohort.

I still say what the world needs right now is the 2003 version of 'the burning Bush', before he burns us all. At this point, if it takes so-called 'terrorists' to do that, then so be it. But I'm feeling really cranky right now, so please just ignore my ranting if it bothers anyone.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:49 AM

Well he is about as right as you can get without joining the John Birch Society. The part I am uncomfortable with is his stupidity. He handles North Kora with the delicately nuanced strategy of an elephant forced to wear a two-piece bathing suit from K-mart. Klunky, mismatched, not good-looking, inappropriate, and missing the purpose....



A

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: GUEST,noddy
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 04:24 AM

maybe Bush is right and maybe pigs can fly.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 02:05 AM

No, the medication is part of a plot to keep him in the dark. How else do you explain his inability to see conspiracies when he takes it?

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: DougR
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 01:53 AM

Yeah, Dreaded Guest, you're right. You unmasked me. I'm a consipiracy Republican plant charged with the responsibility of keeping the liberals on the Mudcat in a dither. Guilty! Now, it's probably time for your medication so be a good boy or girl, okay?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 08:43 PM

I got a kick out of this term in the PNAC site: "advocacy journalism".

( ...can you say "propaganda"?)

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 08:00 PM

Here's another link to that piece by Terry Jones that Jack the Sailor gicked out, but in the Observer itself, which is prhaps more reliable at archiving tbis ,ind of thing. And it is easier reading too, in the newsprint format.

And here is a link from another comment by Terry Jones which was run in last Sunday's paper:
"It's heart-warming to hear Tony Blair's concern for the plight of the Iraqi people and how the only possible way to help them is to bomb them with everything the Americans have.
Mr Blair's sudden sympathy for the Iraqis' political aspirations comes as a welcome relief after all these years of US, UK-led sanctions, which have caused the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children, according to the UN...

...But I'm a bit worried that Tony may be deluding himself that his friends in the White House share his altruistic ideals. I'm sure Tony has been reading all the recent stuff about PNAC - "The Project For The New American Century" - but has he looked at their website? (www.newamericancentury.org)"

One interesting point here is that The Observer actually backs Blair over the war, but on primnciple it finds room for opposing views. Well, it's a "liberal" paper after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: GUEST,A regular
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 07:27 PM

If given a choice, I'd rather hear that Monica Lewinski went down than that the stock market went down--

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 02:49 PM

Dreaded Guest

"HARD TO THINK"

For me it is easy to think and I think the mess is a leftover from the previous "blowjob in the oval office" administration.

Try some Ginkgo Biloba.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 02:23 PM

I've got "Farewell To Ireland". It's quite a mixture of stuff and they quality of recording, performance and even tuning is variable. I think it is well worth a listen. There's a nice booklet with it too.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 02:04 PM

Yeah, TIA...I recall that. Thanks for your effort to cool things down. But this is a forum, with emphasis on music. I post on lots of forums with different areas of specialty, and a point I've made a bunch of times is that we HAVE common ground in government and politics. People may not want to DISCUSS politics, but in America we'd better get real involved real fast or the next generation will be living in the Soviet Union of America. Things are that bad.

And since DougR posted just above this, I'll use him as an example. This is a 'liberal' forum. The 'free world' has been polarized between liberal and conservative, and DougR is a token conservative on a liberal forum. I suspect his purpose is solely to keep this group of people polarized, because all the claims I've seen him make are unsupportable. They don't stand up to logic. But his job is to keep people focused on the left/right paradigm, so he pops in and says, 'Oh, yeah? Bush is good!' and everyone falls back on 'Clinton was better!', etc.

And it's all pointless. The organized criminals running the world created the left/right system over a hundred years ago to distract the masses. And this phony paradigm has been perfected, so that now Americans are apparently ready to condone torture. The Nazis tortured people. The East German Secret Police and Stalin tortured people. And now the elite-controlled media is conditioning Americans to accept torture as 'a necessary evil in the fight against terrorism'. Bushit. It is NOT acceptable, but DougR will run in here and say 'You can't talk that way about Bush!' and the subject of torture will be forgotten in a clamor of partisan bickering.

I need to work up something on torture. They're torturing the latest al Qeada guy the CIA got tired of, and one of the methods of torture is the threat of harming his family. And the American media is saying this is acceptable. But the USA PATRIOT Act expands the definition of 'domestic terrorist' to anyone who breaks a law, and the new Patriot Act 2 expands that to anyone who looks like they MIGHT break a law. So, by extension, if torture is OK for one terrorist right now, it will be OK for you a year from now when your shifty eye movements attract the attention of a cop at the stop light next to you.

We need to discuss politics now, no matter how heated it becomes, because the elite are about to use us in our compartmentalized capacities to utterly destroy each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: DougR
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:28 AM

So this IS a music thread?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:12 AM

DG-Remember, Lucifer is a fallen angel. Therefore, even if only angels play the accordion, one can still play accoridon like the devil.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: TIA
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 07:37 AM

"...people questioned my right to be here on the basis of musicality..."

TDG:

I believe I might be the one who first asked (quite a while ago) if you play or sing. I truly was not challenging your right to be here. If you have thought this ever since, I apologize. I was curious, because I figgered you must have some musical interest to have found this place. The discussion had gotten heated, and my question was intended to lighten things up and establish common ground. Again, I never intended it as a challenge to your right to be here...was trying (clumsily I suppose) to be welcoming.

TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 01:27 AM

Thanks. I marked it to read tomorrow. Looks interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 01:17 AM

I'm not familiar with Esteban Jordan, but I'll be on the lookout. I've heard of Planet Squeezebox but I've not actually heard the recording. Sound like I ought to be looking for that one, too.

I started a thread yesterday about accordions from around the world...

Some accordion with your Pad Thai?

If you like accordions, you might find it interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 12:55 AM

Only angels play accordion, Carol. You know that. I need to dig out my accordion recordings. I have one by a guy...Esteban something. They call him 'the Jimi Hendrix of the accordion' and he's amazing. Eyepatch...darn. Can't think of his name. But he plays like the devil, so maybe I should amend what I said at the top.

Sometime I'll start a music thread about the music I like Jack. I'm just passing time here tonight waiting for an e-mail reply.

When I have time nowadays, I listen to all types of music. Got a box set last week called 'Farewell to Ireland' I'm eager to listen to...been too busy. Must be the influence of all you folk music types caused me to get it. Some of the people listed are James Morrison, Patsy Touhey, Michael Coleman, Dan Sullivan's Shamrock Band, John McKenna, John McGettigan and his Irish Minstrels...and many more. According to the box. A 'Proper Box Set'.... Anyone know about this set? Good one?

Steve Jordan! Esteban Jordan! Incredible accordion, Carol. The one I have is either Rounder or Arhoolie. A 'best of' type recording. Amazing. I started to get a set called 'Planet Squeezebox' years ago but didn't. Accordion, concertina, etc from all over the world. Have you ever listened to that?

And Guest...'the public has spoken'...does that mean they didn't speak kindly? The only comment I've ever cared for regarding music was something Miles Davis said...something about 'If you like it, someone else will'. For what it's worth.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 12:41 AM

Once upon a time I played the piano, saxaphone, clarinet, and flute. Today I don't even hum. The public has spoken.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 12:32 AM

Yeah I do, there are a lot of singers and players of other instrumsnts here too.

What kind of music do you like DG?

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 12:29 AM

Doesn't everyone here pretty much play the guitar?

What are you talking about? I thought everyone here played the accordion!

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 12:27 AM

Yeah I do play guitar, Jack. Been a while, though. I've pointed that out a couple of times when people questioned my right to be here on the basis of musicality, but I guess they didn't see it because it wasn't tattooed on my jugular. Doesn't everyone here pretty much play the guitar? I take it you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 12:18 AM

I like your style D.G.! You don't happen to play guitar do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 12:08 AM

He called Kim Jong Il a PYGMY, Old Guy! Damn! Said he loathed him and then said he would nuke him. Bull Clinton didn't make him say that! He called a nuke-wielding lunatic a PYGMY!

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 12:03 AM

Now who made this mess? Mr Bill Clinton through diplomacy.

Really? Give details and documentation please.

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 12:02 AM

That's pretty funny Oldguy. You're right, we ought to rely on GW's diplmacy. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 11:56 PM

Yes, It is satire.

Now who made this mess? Mr Bill Clinton through diplomacy. Now let's see if Mr Bush can clean it up.

Does anybody here have a plan about what to do except bitch about George Bush?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 11:44 PM

That is good. Funny and true. For some reason it made me think of the 'Bush logic' behind this piece, which unfortunately is all too real:

HARD TO THINK HOW BUSH COULD MAKE A BIGGER MESS OF N. KOREA CRISIS

"...North Korea had been sending lots of signals that it was ready to deal, ready to open up and to make concessions. But the Bush administration denounced it as a "rogue state" and used it as a prime excuse to promote the national missile defense system. Bush, ever the soft-spoken diplomat, told a reporter that he "loathes" Kim Jong Il on a "visceral level" and also called the dictator "a pygmy." True, Kim Jong Il is vertically challenged and a repellent dictator, but insulting paranoiacs who have nukes is not smart. Then came the "axis of evil" speech in 2002. According to Bush's speechwriter David Frum, North Korea got thrown into the axis as an afterthought, apparently for rhetorical purposes. Unfortunately, Kim Jong Il, like, kind of took it personally. Then the Bush doctrine of "pre-emptive war" was announced, along with the policy of using nuclear weapons to maintain American hegemony. In October, North Korea admitted it was running a secret uranium enrichment program, so Bush promptly renounced the Agreed Framework and blah, blah, blah..."

Molly Ivins piece

(I mean, the North Korea thing is such a disaster it's almost comic. 'Pygmy'. '...thrown into the axis as an afterthought'. lol)

Subject: BS: Maybe Bush is right.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 11:27 PM

A fine piece of satire in the London Observer


Bush

Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who -- quite frankly -- look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.