Moonlapse

Iraq was choked by sanctions, then invaded on the WMD pretense. North Korea developed WMD and we don't dare invade while they have them. The message seems to be that once you have nukes, the USA doesn't turn your country into the next Iraq. At least, this is how I think other countries see it.

This is from independent reading, I haven't been in a classroom in years. Peabody, Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations are key, especially the last two. We're off topic now, so I'll put together some stuff and shoot you a PM.

If you really are sure of your stance, then watching that video can only help you to develop or refine your own arguments - which is the point of having discussions.

OK. Yes, of course, political groups are capable of conspiracies. What else would one call Watergate? Stupid is right. G. Gordon Liddy had previously proposed a plan that was twice as expensive and was outrageously stupid. The second plan, the one that was accepted, would cost half as much and was sane by comparison. The others who agreed to it were duped by perceptual contrast, people fall for it all the time from salesmen.

LOL, I'm not saying that Bush's failure is a conspiracy. I was responding to the notion that political leadership in the US is not capable of conspiracy as the word is defined. I'll agree that conspiracy theories are inherently suspect, but so are official explanations. You can't just expect anyone to hand you the truth. I see that you are insistent upon interpreting conspiracy as something that has to be secret. You've even illustrated the crackpot associations with the word. I'm saying that even large groups can 'accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means' and we don't care to accept the notion, even though there is nothing secret about it. Perhaps is because so many precedents have been set that people think that thats just how things work. I'm talking about things like huge industrial philanthropic foundations undemocractically instituting mass education regardless of popular opposition while their literature clearly illustrates their goals as providing a means of manipulating the masses for the common good. Do you consider this crackpot?

My German grandmother gave me my first shot of schnapps when I was 11, and my first Guiness was about the same time. College imbued me with a revolting aversion to hard liquor, though by now it's mostly subsided. Now, I stick to small, savored quantities of beer and sometimes wine.

I wish you the best care and pain relief along with a speedy recovery.

I agree that what the current administration has done is truly stupid. I wouldn't just pass off everything in the past 60 years as stupidity while thinking that the highest classes in this nation are incapable of complex plots or farsighted planning. The only secrecy needed is the self-imposed secrecy of people who automatically reject anything labeled as 'conspiracy'. Last time I checked, conspiracy was defined as an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means. However, just a mention of the word automatically conjures up images of raving lunatics. Strange that the word authority doesn't do the same. Granted there are idiots who contribute to this widely held belief, but there are idiots in every classification you can come up with. But anyways, no secrecy is needed. All the proof you need is in 100+ years worth of literature directly from the horses' mouths. If no one is willing to take the time to read it and understand it, and I don't mean from a textbook, then I guess it doesn't exist, right? Even if they do, they're classified as 'nuts'. You talk of the media and Congress as if they are unbiased and objective.

Oh, dear! That may be the US's belief, Moonlapse - but it is hardly a universal truth. You see, we in the West constantly cast ourselves as 'the good guys'. It is, in my humble opinion, the epitome of arrogance. At the end of the day, this is all about perspective. A Muslim perspective will hardly be the same as ours. The pespective of a superpower will hardly be the same as an allied state. Why do we start from the premise that spreading democracy will 'always be noble in the utmost'? Do we have some god-given right to enforce our idealism on the world? Don't get me wrong here. I am not 'sticking up' for the military dictatorships of the Middle-East or wherever, or the Islamic Revolution that changed Iran - I am merely trying to put forward the view that there are many viewpoints. Perhaps its a question of who is the most powerful? And then - if that is the case - do we have any right to call it a 'moral' standpoint at all? I will freely admit - even on this board where I have many American friends - the US governmental foreign policy terrifies me as much as any military dictatorship terrifies me. Personally - I can't wait until Bush is out. I'm not 'having a go' here, Moonlapse - I would merely welcome a discussion on this. I suppose that I've failed in making my point. I was trying to reveal the previously mentioned belief as a pretext that has been purposefully manufactured. Other pretexts are required to accept this belief, as you've indicated. This current conflict has roots going back to the 19th century. Coincidentally, that was a period when means of perception management were being scientized by people like Wilhelm Wundt. Everything is based on justifications, and therefore based on a notion of right (noble) and wrong. These things that we have been taught (implying the use of teachers in various forms) to accept as right and wrong are absolutely critical to our perception of current affairs. I don't consider your post to be contradictory to mine.

Has anyone watched Ted Koppel's documentary trip to Iran? There was a kid who was almost rebelliously pro-American. He had American clothes and an American bike, etc. One man wanted to say 'Hi' to president Bush among a crowd of other people. Some people criticized their current leaders. None of the people were openly hostile with the exception of criticism of our foreign policy. Do you guys think this is truly representative of people in Iran? I'm curious to know from anyone who would have some real life knowledge.

Agreed, but the Reagan administration looked the other way while he used them in his own country. True, this may have been critical to to keeping order in a unified Iraq, but as bad as it sounds I think things would be better off if the country had been left to fracture along cultural lines and I think it will ultimately end up this way. Regime change should primarily be left up to the people in whatever country is in question.

Agreed.

I've read quite a bit of 20th century US history lately from all different perspectives in order to try and make sense out of some things that I held to be contradictory. I see the Cold War reasons, but I don't see the justification. What I am saying is that good intentions are the best facade for any political actions, but I don't happen to believe in the honesty of any of these supposedly justifiable intentions, nor do I see any reason to, unless I wish to be a sucker. What I've found is an ideology centered around manufacturing realities as a means to an end. This includes the belief that we are benevolently spreading 'democracy'. These intentions will always be noble in the utmost. The realities lie in the outcomes of everything that we have been involved in. This is not to say that this what I consider the embodiment of America, but the embodiment of the ideologues who have hijacked our political system. I see no real distinction between Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, or Bush in this respect. When I personally think of how I would gain global control while evading the pitfalls of past attempts, I can appreciate the subtlety of our dominant politicians' policies. The best means of formulation is to take the final result and work backwards in the process with an eye to the most innocent and noble justifications. Manufacturing reality as a means to an end. If you don't question the fundamental assumptions that this reality is based on, then there is no logical solution but the one that has been handed out. When I consider 19th and 20th century history, I find that this approach fits perfectly. Massive progress has been made in perception management, not just other sciences. One assumption that I question is whether or not it is our duty to project our noble aims on the populations of other countries. In some cases, perhaps yes, but his assumption creates an extremely handy tool to many ends once people put trust in their politicians. Your arguments are perfect in the context that all these past actions have been carried out with only the noblest intentions. I refuse to unquestioningly believe this, so I look for answers and so far am very far from believing. I am not comforted by the thought that Bush's curtailment of the Constitution has peaked. I only consider Bush to be not so subtle in his approach, which is his downfall. BTW, I consider a loaded question to be one that automatically includes presuppositions that one must agree to in order to give a straight answer.

Your logic stops at the CIA. Why stop there? Taken further to its natural conclusion it was part of the Cold War and part of the larger struggle against the Soviets. Why not blame it on the Soviets, killing tens of millions of their own and other Europeans; they weren't poster boys for enlightenment. That reasoning only justifies a few actions, not the majority. I never said suicide bombing it was justified. I implied that CIA intervention in the affairs of other countries is a proximate cause of violent resistance. So you'd have allowed Saddam's regime access to everything after the Kuwait invasion, including military and dual-use technology? Oil for Food ended with Saddam's people taking a large cut. Why blame the West? It makes no sense, the blame falls squarely on Saddam and avoiding pointing the finger. It's always the highest of political chic to blame the US. Sole blame is neither on Saddam nor the West, but there is an incredible opposition to ever admitting that we have ever made mistakes or helped to cause any of this, however intentional or unintentional. To answer your loaded question, I'd try to find a better solution than just imposing backwards sanctions that empower a tyrant and make the population dependent upon him. If it's always the highest of political chic to blame the US, then its doublethink to think that it cannot be blamed. I doubt it's insuring its own demise, it certainly is insuring a large amount of antagonism. I've said it before, the invasion was utterly stupid and the occupation criminally mishandled. The US may not cease as a country but things that I love about it are surely dying. Is the invasion utterly stupid because it's now turned people against our foreign policies? I don't need to find them all, I was there in 2003/04. Most Iraqis are being killed by each other. It's our fault we took the lid off the pot by eliminating the Baathists and Saddam. It's the Iraqis fault for killing each other. They aren't friggin' children, they're complicit in this. As for 'war sucks...', I've been in the Gulf War, Kurdish Relief, Bosnia, Somalia and this mess, been in a few firefights and seen a lot of dead civilians and soldiers. War sucks and people die; ain't exactly sophisticated but it's about as square on as I can say it from my experience. I'm aware of your background, I've read about it several times. I still hold my country's politicians responsible for their actions regardless of any responsibility that needs to be shared by others.

Taken out of context it just brings a distorted view of what really happened. The US and most of Europe, as well as most of the Arab states had a vested interest in keeping the radical regime of Komenhi from defeating and occupying Iraq. It's not brain surgery; the Cold War wasn't over yet, Russians were in Afghanistan, whatever Saddam's inclinations at the time he at least provided oil to the West. Iraq invaded Iran and used US chemical weapons against them. That entire scenario can be traced directly to the CIA and its activities in regime change in both Iraq and Iran. I'm sure you understand the origins of Islamic radicalism. Iraq, by its natural cultural aspects, should never have been a unified country. So previous mistakes justify further mistakes? What was the intended purpose of the sanctions, and what was the actual outcome? The only effect sanctions had were to consolidate Saddam's power while taking a horrible toll on the population. Can you dispute this? This is another mistake supposedly justified by previous mistakes. War sucks, people die, what does anyone expect? More Iraqis have died killing each other than anything the US/UK has done. Those Iraqi deaths have everything to do with the actions of the US/UK, or rather politicians who feel that their decisions are best despite any democratic consensus. What I expect is for my country to quit ensuring its own demise. Find all the videos that you can that show people being horribly killed as a result of this interference with matters half way around the globe and then say, "War sucks, people die, what does anyone expect?"

What an exquisite generalization. I want to pay exactly how much I owe for the roads I drive on. Anything less would make me a leach. I don't think that someone who hardly ever drives should pay as much as I do. I don't want to pay taxes, because taxes are mostly wasted... because I have no choice but to pay them and I have no choice in how they are spent. This is not to say that our transportation system should be abolished tomorrow; I mean that we should push for a more democratic and efficient means of funding our transportation system while keeping public, not corporate, interests in mind. As it is, I certainly do not trust politicians with my interests. You mean the agency that offers fast track drug testing, while a naturally occurring plant like marijuana is illegal? Indeed there should be quality control on something as vital as food, but I have become cynical with the current system and like transportation think we should push for something more democratic and efficient while keeping public, not corporate, interests in mind. I think that qualifies more as anarchist than libertarian. That's because non-Republican/Democrat candidates are usually shut out from any election publicity, but it's nice to see that you are basing your remarks on real knowledge of the subject and not just generalizations based on a label. For the record, Sun Myung Moon is a turd-licker.

How many Iraqis did US-supported Saddam kill with US-supplied WMD? How many Iraqis died due to US-backed sanctions? How many Iraqis have died in the aftermath of the US invasion? I think that everything about this situation is so incredibly f**ked that I can't even see what is right about anything. Seeing that footage all over the television is sickening to me.

The idiot the libertrarians ran for president. The whooples they run in other elections. Badnarik? What do you think qualifies him as an idiot? Originalism?

I had this same problem the winter after I first moved into my house, except that part of the hot water return had rusted out. My only clue that something was amiss was that my utility bill was about $500. When I looked down in the crawl space under the house where the water heater was, I saw that about 6 inches of water had filled up the foundation. I had all sorts of fun down there in that muddy water. It certainly sucked, like every other hardship, but it's just a funny memory now.

I was poking fun at the idiots who banned absinthe! Do you know these symptoms from experience? BTW, my Christmas turkey was seasoned with sage, ahhh the urge to kill!!!

You forgot to mention that the artemisia will turn you into a violent psychopathic criminal.

Paine's Common Sense. It's wide appeal was due in part to its articulate but very readable language - at least for its time.

It's Orwell again. I can think of a few here who might appreciate this. http://www.george-orwell.org/Politics_and_...Language/0.html It makes me think of Common Sense.

Seriously, I'm curious about this. Give me a hint at least!

The Level 5 tour with Tool? As Pertinax already knows, I would also like to point out Fripp as high on my list. Indeed.