scrambler

Look, didn't Saddam know that the Bush family are better poker players than him?

No, they did not comply and WE MADE A CHOICE to invade. Granted, I believe this was the right choice, as any other would have made us appear weak and open to further injury and/or attack. I'm curious and as I don't know the entire picture, did we also invade their airspace, testing them? This stratagem is not unknown and I believe it's practiced with regards to North Korea, perhaps Cuba, and was to some extent with the former USSR.

Johnny, isn't there a saying something like, 'when the chickens come home to roost'? Know what it means? Suppose that some ill behavior directed towards us is partly the consequence of this sort of blackmailing, i.e., threatening to cut off life supplies?

Post deleted by scrambler

Do you have Nutrasweet on the brain, Johnny?

Hmm…I’d rate that about a seven point five. Well written, abstract thinking. Good choice of evocative words (like ‘prime driver’—uh, not to be confused with ‘pile driver’). But flawed in pointing to one problem as the only problem and its proposed solution. It points out some of what we are experiencing as the contemporary problem but its solution lies in seeking to ‘'immanentize the eschaton' or, in other words, to create a society that seemingly represents heaven on earth, in the here and now. The problem is that class struggle is irresolvable in a world where the ‘wicked’ exist. By that, I mean, there are other countries willing to harm us so we cannot eliminate our military in favor of a system that relies solely on law. That law has to be backed up by threat of force.

III - A Discordian is Required during his early Illumination to Go Off Alone & Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog on a Friday; this Devotive Ceremony to Remonstrate against the popular Paganisms of the Day: of Catholic Christendom (no meat on Friday), of Judaism (no meat of Pork), of Hindic Peoples (no meat of Beef), of Buddhists (no meat of animal), and of Discordians (no Hot Dog Buns).

Official answer: To test your faith. Unofficial answer: He was fucking with you.

Hey that link doesn't work.

Bring back the Trask attitude. It's too sensitive in here.

If Trask were really back, he'd tell you to choke on a choad, rhymin' sphincter boy.

Am I trippin' but did I notice that tree has changed?

Well I read this story today and I thought our irrational superstitions had the better of us but then I read this and realized that there are parts of the world much worse off than us.

Isn't POSER spelled POSEUR? What would Twight say?

Regarding your quote of John Stuart Mills, I have no qualms about his statement. The distinction I’m making is not whether war should be waged or not, it involves the rush to war , in this case involving Iraq. I fully understand that war is a necessary ‘evil’. I also understand the necessity of periodically using military force to back up diplomacy. Theodore Roosevelt said it best: “You are probably acquainted with the old proverb: ‘Speak softy and carry a big stick – you will go far.’ If a man continually blusters, if he lacks civility, a big stick will not save him from trouble; and neither will speaking softly avail, if back of the softness there does not lie strength, power.” Roosevelt also said: “a bold front tends to insure peace and not strife… Diplomacy is utterly useless where there is no force behind it; the diplomat is the servant, not the master of the soldier.” Although I do feel some objection to the latter part of his statement. No, my beliefs are quite the opposite. The Axis Forces in WWII directly attacked us. Once that occurred, we saw the elimination of a basis for arguing the justification of our continued postponement of entry in that war in favor of inaction for further intelligence or negotiation. It becomes a matter of the question, “Will things get out of control with regard to the power of the military and its actions so we eventually find ourselves living under a different authoritative structure?” Is this the natural evolution of our world under technological and social change to end up under the aegis of a totalitarian system? Is this an unthinkable question? One only needs to review the history of countries that embarked on long and ever expanding military campaigns as militarism became the driving force. The disastrous course of the German and Japanese military as initiators of aggression is evident. O.k., you argue that we did not initiate the event of 9/11 so we are not the initiators of active aggression. I'm just taking a distant look at the road that stretches out from here. It's a possible future. I agree that the tactical strategy of a pre-emptive strike against North Korea would possibly be misguided, while 'softer' targets such as Iraq are to be exhibited as examples to the world. I do not know if I agree with the efficacy of the idea of Iraq as a ‘beachhead’ where we may extend the reach of democracy in the Middle East. At first glance, this appears to be extremely idealistic, perhaps designed to appease the folks back home. I would not be surprised if I found myself agreeing with you upon developing certain points because this process is essentially doing that. No comment. I would like to think that all of the candidates including Bush are coming from good intentions whatever each candidate may see as such. I offer no opinions at this time on whether one or the other would make the most effective leader during wartime or during military actions. The function of the military is to defend the nation against aggressors and as far as tactical strategy, the military brass should have full reign to plan and execute their actions. However, I do not believe that the military should overrule the civilian government. I’m not saying that civilians should determine military strategy rather what I am saying is that military strategy should not dictate the future course of this nation. In other words, it's my belief that the civilian government upon receiving and reviewing intelligence, in conjunction with the military, should have the final say in the decision to wage war. O.k., we haven't seen any internal conflict yet but is it a future possibility if we continue down this road? This appears to be the case in the proposed mission to Mars via the Moon where a large part of our strategic strength will derive from technological superiority and preeminence in orbital space, and the military mission of our space program may begin to overtly supercede the civilian application. I don’t believe in civil disobedience (or rebellion as some see it) for its own sake. I do believe that the good fight doesn’t necessarily mean one has to take up arms immediately. Often, there are ‘wars’ of debate before action. But I have to agree with you that when the time comes, action has to be taken. The question is whether we live in a world today where we no longer have the luxury of foreseeing and stopping danger. The Bush administration would have us believe that we live in a different world where danger is ever present and pre-emptive strike is a necessity (‘shoot first, ask questions later’). Does every case for war require a rush to wage it? I do believe that some people have blood lust as expressed in their need to support a rush to war.

No arguments there. Just seems that you and Rodchester serve as political advocates (cheerleaders) for the Bush administration’s agenda for the rush to war over the objections of those who proposed the extension of nonviolent means to assess the WMD issue. Now the chameleon like nature of the Bush administration has been to downgrade using the potential presence of WMDs as a justification for war to a non-issue and to assert that the real issue was regime change to dispose the repressive Baathist government. You seem to be implying that one who has not seen combat is not fit to comment on matters of war. By this reasoning, one would assert that the ideal choice for Commander-in-Chief would be someone who has actually seen combat such as Clark or Kerry. Bush does not have the qualifications for this role and, I might add, his advisors with the exception of Powell fall well short of the requirements. The men driving the war policy are chicken hawks (and I’m not talking about the tactical logistics that are executed by the military brass). I’m talking about the rationale espoused for war in Iraq as opposed to what our intelligence indicates as the greater threat of real danger from rogue states such as North Korea and Iran. There will always be justifications for war and, in this case, if the justifications were fabricated, it doesn’t matter as it pertains to events in Iraq because the war is already in progress. It only matters if there was a pattern of deception in the rush to war as it affects the fate of the current Presidential administration and what changes may be effected on the future course of projection of American military might. So, justifications aside, it would be like placing some idealistic goals on one side of an imaginary scale and American lives on the other side. How many American lives will be sacrificed in the name of bringing a different order to the Iraqi people? (And notice that I didn’t necessarily say ‘bring our Western ideals of democracy or freedom or justice to the Iraqi people.’) Personally, I believe that war in the name of ideology is often a lie and that we fight wars for more base matters. Sure, wars are fought as ideological struggles but it often boils down to an issue of control whether we proclaim freedom to the oppressed or not. Witness the fact that we have not given the Iraqis complete autonomy to hold entirely free elections. But it does matter. Just as you are a cog in the military machine or, to give you your share of humanity, you are like a cell in the military arm of the American body. We here are acting as the conscience and the reflective mind of the American body. It’s a necessary process. Your job is to follow your superior’s orders. We didn’t take a similar oath to a commander to obey. Our allegiance is to the US Constitution not to a particular imperial president’s agenda. The question is, is the administration justified in perpetrating a pattern of deception for political gain? Remember, politics in its basic form is quite simply the business of getting other people to do what you say assuming that you alone know what is good for the people. Then maybe you will come to an understanding closer to that expressed by Senator Kerry’s statement expressed in his speech in 1971 concerning the Vietnam War. In this speech, he asked a question, which I modified, "how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Iraq?" And, you keep telling yourself that you are doing good deeds and you are. But aren’t we also preparing the ground for the same thing we claim to be fighting against? Are we not invoking the reasons for the generation of terrorist minds, in other words, does our occupation and its support for a single unified Iraqi state paradoxically create the primary seeds for violent fanaticism? God, this reads like some kind of fairytale story, black and white so clearly defined. Don’t you know that this world of absolute good and evil doesn’t exist? Your idea of what’s good is someone else’s evil. It comes down to the legitimacy of might and those who win, write the history books so that the official explanation of good and evil aligns with the victor. The statement, ‘do the right thing’ is a slogan and an infectious meme that carries no information content. It is a mantra to hypnotize you to ease your conscience. I am saying that you should have some doubt as a thinking person rather than a completely clear conscience that indicates a simplistic understanding of the world we live in and the complete uncritical acceptance of authority, the latter of which is the function of a soldier.

So your last statement reminds me of what Nietzsche said, "There are not facts, but only interpretation." Now, one's interpretation usually shows identity with a larger political body, an action that I find interesting in a psychological sense when you take a stand as an article of faith to a political authority as if it were a political religion. In a sense we are dealing with a political religion because there is a sizable amount of influence on the Bush administration from a neoconservative philosophy informed largely by the ideas of the late Leo Strauss. Strauss understood the necessity of the lie as a political tool. So a policy of deception evolves where the masses would be deceived for their own good and to protect the ruling elite. Strauss categoried people into three groups so the question of whether it is all right to deceive the people depends to whom you ask the question. Strauss used the term, noble lie, to refer to the perpetration of deception for a higher cause or what Straussian neoconservatives see as the higher cause. Their ideas show a contempt for the 'vulgar' masses (the "great unwashed") who are not fit to govern themselves. "For Strauss, the rule of the wise is not about classic conservative values like order, stability, justice, or respect for authority. The rule of the wise is intended as an antidote to modernity. Modernity is the age in which the vulgar many have triumphed. It is the age in which they have come closest to having exactly what their hearts desire – wealth, pleasure, and endless entertainment. But in getting just what they desire, they have unwittingly been reduced to beasts." --- Source As a side note, another major part of Strauss' philosophy is the need for secrecy. The secrecy exhibited by the Bush administration may be countered by calls from Democratic candidates Clark and Kerry for more transparency in the governmental process of decision-making. Regarding deception, here's what Irving Kristol, a student of Strauss', says about the noble lie: "There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work." And, listen to what Kristol says about religion: "If God does not exist, and if religion is an illusion that the majority of men cannot live without...let men believe in the lies of religion since they cannot do without them, and let then a handful of sages, who know the truth and can live with it, keep it among themselves. Men are then divided into the wise and the foolish, the philosophers and the common men, and atheism becomes a guarded, esoteric doctrine - for if the illusions of religion were to be discredited, there is no telling with what madness men would be seized, with what uncontrollable anguish." -- Source I suspect the Bush administration will never admit to lying or to an executed plan of deception whether they actually lied or not. It'll probably come down to an explanation how communications broke down, a series of misunderstandings revolving around such words as 'imminent' threat, Saddam's intent, etc., all of those justifications for war. And, all of those justifications for war will turn out to be nebulous after careful examination distanced from the heat of 911. What name do we give to this? Plausible deniability. Anyways, as far as political philosophy as justification for action, I came across something said by the conservative historian, Eric Voegelin. Voegelin talked about a phrase--'immanentize the eschaton'--which "refers, in technical theological language, to the heresy of the Gnostics, who wished to produce heaven on --this earth instead of postponing it until after death. Vogelin says this heresy underlies all forms of radicalism and rebellion, and he is probably right. Modern history is a war between Authority and Desire, and if Authority must demand submission, Desire will settle for nothing less than the attainment of its gratification." --- Source

Klenke, Isn't about time to change your avatar image?

Samuel Johnson is the actual source of the quote and I believe he was referring not to patriotism per se but rather to false patriotism.

So, ok. Money is a medium of exchange. As I understand the US dollar, the value of it is backed by property. If you print too many dollars, this is inflationary and the value of the dollar declines in its purchasing power. Seems the flow of money is essential, keeps the ball afloat, when it stops then the thing comes crashing down. And, the idea of interest (e.g., interest bearing) depends on the existence of a future where transactions continue to occur so the idea of stability (economic/political) is crucial to the maintenance of the monetary system. With electronic transactions, seems real money has gone the way of the dinosaur rather its a virtual ledger that keeps score of the flow of money (little bits of congealed power).

I don't understand what that means, 'create wealth'. Greenspan mentioned that once but isn't it really the illusion of wealth? I understand the 'concentration' of wealth but not 'creation' of wealth. So are you talkin about an increase in production or lowering of prices?

Mars needs guitars.

what about girls? Give us your women.

Ya. BTW, Scott H, Arabs are also Semites. So anti-semitism is hatred directed at either Jews, Arabs or both. How 'bout using the term, anti-Zionism? or is that too loaded?

So you're a believer in a win-win situation. I tend to see life as more of a zero-sum game where someone has to lose something for another to gain. It's a harsh way of seeing the world and discounts the existence of compromise but it's how I see the majority of interactions. I think seeing the world through 'infinite potential win-win situation' glasses is just more New Age mumbo-jumbo.