sexual_chocolate

I think the notion of "legitimacy" in warfare is a grisly joke, one that I cannot pander to.

Jon, if you go back and read my second post in this thread, I think you'll note what seems to me a rather diplomatic attempt to misappropriate syllogisms. Can one garner the necessary hubris when juxtaposed tangentally in one's cross-hairs? I think not, but without exterior painting services, self-reliance necessitates the continued removal of facial hair, with or without kleenex. Which reminds me: did verbatim usage of dorthdrop connote a mal-aligned spine? Or did extra-mundane space-ships usurp quagmires and dairy farms? Glee factories produce art for women's sake, q tips for pea-knuckles too. Anyway, I wish you luck in Yogiland. I wish you luck in Yogiland. Do you dance? I hope you dance, without undue pressure, of course. (A traveler checks into the local hotel, sees Allah in the mirror behind the desk clerk. "Ah dear desk clerk, do you know that Allah has taken up residence in the mirror behind you?" To which the desk clerk replies: "That's funny. You don't look like a Teen-Age Mutant Ninja Turtle.")

Hey Jay, would you like me to start your very own "JayB's pouty-time no playthings for a while" thread? Or perhaps the same as what you started for me, something about your personal projections about "passive-aggressive" observations? Or maybe you can simply "practice" your grammatical notations, thereby becoming a more "efficient" reactionary, able to make your points and convert others through your superior "argument structures". Or you can just pick up your "dual-use" chains (what was the brand again?) and threaten me like the man that you are, instead of brandishing your rather tasteless innuendos and condescensions. I don't know....So many options. My money is on condescension and innuendo though; it seems to be the only response you've been able to develop when faced with disagreements. But, perhaps you will surprise me with something gentle and loving, a caress with a feathery word; perhaps a poem by Keats (or your own! I'd love to hear one!). Will you sing me a song, something from yonder years, either Louis Armstrong or Judy Garland (Somewhere over the Rainbow)? Or draw me a picture of your favorite childhood memory, from when you were, oh, 7? Was that a good year? Ahhh gentle lover, I must end this repartee now since the gymnasium gently calls me by name (Sexual Chocolate Sexual Chocolate; can you hear?). Au Revoir, mon ami! Bon Nuit.

And the latter seem to outnumber the "hostages" by oh, about a thousand to one. That's also pretty grim.

Yeah the beheadings are pretty grim. As are children and mothers and brides and grooms and entire families being torn into pieces by cluster bombs and du bombs and kids losing their moms and dads and arms and innocence because of the invasion. That's pretty grim too.

[quote I'd say yes, but they need to *know* for sure that someone is doing it, not just suspect it. Is this the same litmus test used by the US? "knowing", instead of suspecting? And, it sounds like the only qualm you have with the Iraqi resistance is their resort to the kidnapping of civilians who could be thought of as perhaps only marginally aiding the US effort....

About voting for Bush? I'm not angry about the election, nor who you voted for. Perhaps this was your question? And my point was that you have a one-sided view of the events in Iraq. You have cultural and national blinders on. Perhaps this is more apparent to me since I am not "american".

Are those who provide assistance to the soldiers legitimate targets?

Yes it's true, I AM brainwashed. I try to wash my brain regularly of the type of jingoistic pablum that you ascribe to. But! I digress. Your assumptions are a marvel. You don't address a single point I make, yet you continue with your Norman Rockwell americanisms, about our "military court" justice and them bad "terrorists" and their pagan god "Allah". So answer the following: All US opposition in Iraq is the work of "terrorists"? Only "terrorists" are killing "innocent" people? The only justice for these alleged "terrorists" is a bullet in the head? (What happened to the military court.) And in the above statement: "The terrorists answer to Allah and they will not pay for killing these innocent people until we put a bullet in their head." Which "terrorists" do you speak of? I guess you haven't heard that the guerrilla opposition to the US isn't comprised entirely of Muslim fanatics. There are even secularists who oppose us! Surprise Surprise! And one more question: Do you not see the guerrilla opposition in Iraq as "legitimate"? If someone invaded your country, would you fight back?

Perhaps being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Perhaps being the wrong age? The wrong sex? Perhaps giving the evil eye to an american soldier who just invaded their country? Perhaps coming across an american with a bad hair-day? Perhaps being an Iraqi? Who do you think will pay for it? Will Bush pay for starting an illegal war? Will Powell pay for it for lying to the UN? Will the CIA pay for it by incorporating into their policy actions leading inevitably to the excessive use of force, and a climate conducive to the attrocities we have witnessed? (Remember that the onus is on the US, since WE invaded THEIR country! Don't get so self-righteous! That seems to be a bit of a racist generalization, not even worth addressing. But, if this country was invaded, would you take up arms and strategize about how to fend off the invaders?

I'm sorry but I really don't understand what you are saying above. And the last sentence loops me a bit. About how some perhaps deserve their fate more than others?

It's not about wrong or right, it's about self-righteous anger; it's about anger directed at the "enemy", when there's a friggin' redwood sticking out of your eye (not Jon, but tribalism in general). And as far as civilians go, abducting them is less palatable than bombing them with a surface-to-air missile? This is the mind-set I was commenting on in my above post.

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I also want to explain that my comment above was added with some hesitation; I didn't want you to think I was disregarding your anger and disbelief. I had a similar reaction when I heard about it (but then I remembered the horrors committed by the US side, and again came back to the inevitability of such horrors during war).

I'm curious if you had the same reaction upon hearing of US soldiers killing and raping Iraqi prisoners.

Oh great. Another 12 year old in the possession of a handgun. Or rifle. Or whatever he owns.

Selkirk, I can't really fathom your arguments. You talk about Powell tempering the extremism of Bush etal; can you really give me any specifics? Just one, please? The administration has followed through on all of their agenda pieces, and Powell helped. Is this not true? What did he temper? Please, one thing. I also cannot fathom that a man, supposedly principled, would stand up in front of the WORLD and fabricate (oh all right-it was fabricated for him!) a case for the invasion of an already decimated country. My eyes cannot see how a principled respectable man with integrity could ever ever ever do that. Maybe I'm sounding harsh, but I've really never understood the support Powell has received from so many varied educated city-dwelling "liberal" types. And the "voice of reason" tag has me equally baffled. How has he been a "voice of reason", moderation, etc? I will agree that his COUNTENANCE gives perhaps this APPEARANCE, a demeanor of intelligence and reason (perhaps superficially a little like Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird), but is there a substantive underpinning that lends support to the view that there is more at work than simply Appearance?

Hey there was this guy named Hitler or something. Didn't he like take away all the people's guns and stuff when he git into power? Like all of them? Is this true? I heard this thing once, but I just don't know for sure. Thanks for your erudite answers, in advance I thank you. Sincerely, Sexual (Mmmmmmmm!) chocolate

Sorry for getting so worked up, but I just don't understand this defense of a military guy who was a mouthpiece for such an antagonistic and militaristic administration.

Come on, selkirk, didn't you see him in front of the UN? Was this part of his "plan" of working for good "from the inside"? Trying to talk the world into supporting the invasion? (Perhaps he knew that the world wouldn't buy his shtick, so he felt justified in presenting it? This way he could be a good double-agent, pretending to work for the administration, yet secretly working for truth, justice, and the American way. Golleee he was more clever than I thought. So THAT'S why he accomplished so much good, and kept Bush and the rest moderated! Thanks for clearing it all up.)

Hey, didn't this Hitler feller disarm the populace right after gaining power?

It seems to me that if you are a person of principle, you stand up for those principles. You don't let your name and reputation get used for unscrupulous purposes. I don't know him, but the feeling I have is that he's a military guy with a strong sense of loyalty and allegiance, and perhaps allows those traits to get the better of him. I'd like to know some day the honest truth of everything he wrestled with regarding this situation, if there was deep consideration etc etc. I doubt this truth would ever come out in a book though, maybe not even to his wife? So, if he really felt like his integrity was being compromised, then certainly he could have resigned. I suppose that my wish would be that he would've refused to do or say anything that he didn't really believe in, forcing the administration to take a step, ie. fire, reprimand, etc. Does this seem reasonable, not compromising on something as monumental as war, war that will kill thousands upon thousands?

He didn't HAVE to make those "ridiculous half-truths" in front of the UN; I doubt he was tortured at Abu Ghraib shortly before. If he really was a voice of reason, then one would assume that reasonable things would emanate from within.

Didn't Hitler disarm the populace right after gaining power?

Great Mexican food in Yakima. Stopped there for breakfast once: mmmmmm chilaquiles. Yakima rocks. It's a real town.

It depends on what what means by "failure". Tibet has seen its share of desperation, but to think that a violent response to the Chinese oppression would be changing the outcome I think seems a little naive. Plus, this view overlooks the fact that some have taken up arms in the struggle, but I think China kinda has military superiority. I think it's kinda hard for many to understand what the Buddhist and/or pacifist mind- and heart-set is, when most of our collective aim has historically been survival at any cost. Could it be possible that there are people who have come to see that the greatest harm and danger is violence itself, greater even than death? And when one has gone beyond violence and fear entirely and absolutely in one's life, then the taking of life under any circumstances becomes inconceivable due to one's insights?