Post #59,574
10/25/02 10:37:22 PM
|
Re: Hard core facts are just 'hard core' to too many here
That is a simplee but clear statement of reality as I perceive it. It is reinforced repeatedly in other think tank studies & reports that we have posted in the past.
But, due to the age old problem of our individual abilities to digest and comprehend the value and significance such information (who it came from, what were their motives etc: etc:), I think we are asking to much by way of intellectuall assesment from the ordinary posters here who keep reciting their mantra "it isn't about oil".
What has intigued me though is that I can't recall a single case of one of the "not about oil" posters, backing up their argument with think-tank or foreign policy reviews/studies - IIRC they mostly back up their case with links to right-wing or political press rants.
Doug Marker
|
Post #59,591
10/26/02 12:23:28 AM
|
But don't forget Part II of the dance -
There are only Two Positions:
The fRightful-Wing one - which is Certainly the Correct one.
The Librul Com-symp Idiot one - Wrong without inspection: none needed.
[unchanged cant from 1946 ---> on]
Actually I believe that even our most polarized reps here are more intelligent than to believe such digital-think is worth a bucket of warm spit. I can't account for our continuing the habits of The Paranoid Style in American Politics into our frequent M.Python confusions of argument with contradiction. (Although it IS EZier than actual thought.. izzat it? Just another form of Nintendo, for some?)
The still-fascination with the UndeadHorse merely underscores the provincialism and repetion <--cancelled-out with--> actual daily Dubya excretions.. hmmm verbal dev/null.
{sigh} Intelligence appears to be quite subordinate to early conditioning - and maybe irrelevant to Wing-picking. But hey.. occasionally matters rise above this BS - and we gots folk like Chris, with debating experience.. if anyone cares to heed his brief but wise observations on well-formed arguments.
Besides.. for all our vaunted TechnoAge Toy-stuff (and I've been around such stuff for a couple careers) our milieu today is even *more* superstitious than the Hottentots, expresses more banal religiosity than 'spirituality' - and worships dumbth. Merkins generally despise anything which begins with intellec--
That makes zIWE a kinda oasis.. by comparison. Scary, ain't it?
Ashton
Ah well - if we should go all-Nintendo all the Time, that would be time for exit.
|
Post #59,605
10/26/02 8:53:54 AM
|
Then there are the ones who contend...
...that it isn't that simple.
Its neither all about oil, nor is it all about Israel. And you can spend a great deal of time deciding which one is more important...but they both are significant factors in the Middle East.
Although it appears that there are some who must feel that we put Jerusalem in that location so that we could put the jews there a couple thousand years later to protect our interests.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #59,638
10/26/02 4:42:27 PM
|
I would have thought that, by now
it has been definitely established: No, it is Not! 'just about oil' BUT: it also is never Not 'about oil' Too...
No US assessment of strategy could *possibly* ignore the [oil]. None, I assert - that would be so disingenuous as even to provoke comment at a DAR meeting attended by Nancy Reagan AND Ann Coulter AND [WTF was Reagan's primo speechwriter -?-]
We've also had numerous tedious Israel discussions. Consensus would have to be [??] that *no one* (here anyway) has anything resembling a "plan for an amicable or at least bearable 'solution'" ... whatsoever. Just deuling slogans ignoring the atrocities on one side or the other: blaming the side the poster deems Awfullest. Nintendo brownie points level of thought. Lazy shit.
One might suppose that these two issues: [oil] + Israel ALONE! would indicate the folly of blasting our way into this morass in full John Wayne fantasy mode. Yet.. our 'Leadership' is obviously still myopically intent upon Just That (when the weasel-words and patriotic blab is excised from the speeches).
So - Brain Trust:
Have we nothing more profound to suggest re the present stalemate between an over-armed, frustrated Sole Superpower\ufffd VS. nasty little black-clad Gnats who sting and then disappear.. as noseeums ever would?
Personally, I've yet to hear anything anywhere which resembles even a coherent strategy - let alone any PLAN (and especially.. for disengagement: EVER!)
We are heading for Uncle Remus territory at full gallop. It is plainly labeled and illuminated by a Megawatt laser from Hell:
Danger! Tar Baby Ahead <<<
Neither more flag-waving and Dubya-grade generalized slogans, nor rants from the vast army of Ego-besotted Single-Interest blab-mongers - infotainment-as-substitute for the difficult task of individual thought: can make this Tar Baby an iota less Fatal.
(There is One.. alternative Plan, of course):
Help Gawd Along --> towards that self-fulfilling prophecy, now a Big-Bizne$$: don't worry pretty-little heads with any difficult, rational effort to preserve a stupid little planet full of those Awful heretics - let's just Rapture Outta Here and get a brand new planet to dismantle! next (as reward for our earnest efforts at self-government??) Sheesh: we created a Gawd even loonier than We Are.
Ashton
Gotta Love them End-Times folks: wimps, who imagine Gawd Loves lazy sanctimonious Assholes. (And is too stupid to recognize sychophants, besides..)
(My Gawd be Smarter thankyouverymuch: She will know what to do with these pewling Loosers)
|
Post #59,644
10/26/02 6:13:46 PM
|
Actually, it is just about the oil.
List ALL the "reasons" for invading.
ALL of them.
Then, see if there are any other situations with those reasons that do not include the oil.
See what our response has been there.
It is all about the oil. The other things are just window dressing to make people feel good about going in for the oil.
Take away the oil, and we would not invade.
Not even if things were worse there than they are now. Just look at N.K.
|
Post #59,649
10/26/02 6:57:14 PM
|
While this logic test might indeed work -
it would not be 'applied'. I believe that in Power Circles\ufffd - euphemism rules, and the simple parsing down to basics rarely occurs (and then - everyone present squirms). Then too, Muricans are the biggest employers of euphemisms since the mythical Cain mentioned that the mythical Abel was.. collateral damage. And we all never die.. we pass away.
So your logic might prevail on starkest level. But that level is rarely reached and the sheer volume of unsorted Yes, but..s guarantees that there can be no overtly cynical 'Reason' ever later uncovered, amidst the camouflage coded-phrases.
Why do we suppose that The Leader immediately prevented release of prior Presidents' docs. - (for National Security natch - where else have we used that phrase.. over decades, now?) Ditto - re Enron + Cheney 'advice' to the newly Selected group. Hell.. megadittoes all over. (These guys Know that their lips flap a lot; nor were even JFK, RFK safe from unintended meaningful statements.. we see.)
I admit my prejudice: I believe that language was invented [primarily] so that men could disguise their thoughts from each other. "Pass the cheese", was just a fringe benefit used to sell the idea. (Like "catch criminals" is the rectum-lubricant for universal surveillance cameras and databases. Despite 1984 and a million clones since.)
Ashton
Who would never lie.
Hey, I'm Honest!
[Bonus for most incisive disassembly]
|
Post #59,654
10/26/02 7:00:59 PM
|
Or "catch snipers" for that matter
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
|
Post #59,731
10/27/02 3:06:37 AM
|
Depends upon how you view it.
While this logic test might indeed work -
it would not be 'applied'. This is why N.K. could (and did) go public with its nuke program. Euphemism only works while all parties care to employ it. So your logic might prevail on starkest level. But that level is rarely reached and the sheer volume of unsorted Yes, but..s guarantees that there can be no overtly cynical 'Reason' ever later uncovered, amidst the camouflage coded-phrases. Deniability. But, again, N.K. Deniability only works as long as someone isn't able to call you on it. I admit my prejudice: I believe that language was invented [primarily] so that men could disguise their thoughts from each other. Quite possible. Whether it was originally or not, today we are innundated with *blab* words. And most people are happy to not dig too far or think too much about the situation. As long as they are warm and fed, it is okay with them.
|
Post #59,650
10/26/02 6:58:52 PM
|
Problem is....
the report which your link references provides nothing to suggest that
we should go to war with Iraq. Read it. It says nothing. Nothing.
(its circa 100 pages and bland in places but its a decent read for a rainy day).
It actually proposes removing the sanctions and replacing them with ones
which will work to control armaments and weapons.
It then suggests lifting any controls on investing in the Iraqi oil industry.
It talks about being careful not to do anything which piss off other oil
producers (such as invading).
That's in the limited places where Iraq is mentioned. The rest is a lucid examination of the energy problem and makes recommendations about what to
do about it.It actually makes a lot of sense.
Textbook for invasion INDEED!
Go ahead and read it.
OR......
You can just blindly take the word of people with a clear and demonstrable bias.
(Look that up too).
-Mike
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
|
Post #59,662
10/26/02 7:46:27 PM
|
I have. There is *one out* that I see,
given the drumbeat and daily propaganda of this Admin (also authors of the CFR Report)
That is: that.. all the patent G\ufffdbbelsian propaganda [but of far lesser eptness] has been largely for Saddam consumption. Accordingly we have to *seem* to be John Wayne incorrigible Yahoos just about to slaughter a few more Indian tribes with our Gatling guns ---> Any. Day. Now.
IF.. that is indeed the actual Plan (since nothing like a long-term plan has surfaced from any source) -
A) If it succeeds, it Will be announced as having been The Plan. And some respect for the Admin might (grudgingly or happily) be earned next [?]
but
B) If it doesn't work, this Admin will Saddle Up and ride, on the backs of the ovine Corp-Congress. Hmm - sheep with saddles?
I sincerely doubt there exists
C) A Wise Plan of intricate and methodical action, to ferret out the criminals on whose behalf we 'plan' to attack a variety of Countries. Because we can. And we can name our own conditions for calling it an 'Emergency' - screw world opinion.
Ashton
|
Post #59,671
10/26/02 8:23:49 PM
|
Not sure its the plan or not...who knows
The point is that what the report recommends has precious little in it
which would suggest that going to war with Iraq is a good idea.
And its sad that somebody can suggets that it might be
"the textbook in use on how to, in the interest of oil, invade Iraq and make it look like it's for the good of the Iraqi people and a campaign against weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein."
Its a shame that this stuff gets peddled around like it represents "gospel".
It is propoganda and the fact that there are some who will readily consume and accept it without challenge is as disturbing as any other propoganda.
One the water (or the truth) is poisoned...does it really matter what poisoned it?
Some believe that it is a complex problem space which plays host to the
motivations and conflicting agendas of many parties. To try to view it only
through the lens of the "oil issue" is too simplistic.
I'm also not sure why the administration has to have any ONE plan.
Is it not plausible (indeed likely) that they have multiple plans and contingencies in place?
Even if its along the lines of
a) Send in weapons inspectors
b) If inspections are thwarted threaten sanctions
c) If inspections are still thwarted....actually apply sanctions
d) If inspections are still thwarted.....threaten to invade
e) If inspections are still thwarted actually invade......remove
Saddam Hussein...... then take all of Iraq's oil for ourselves keeping
the Iraqi people in indentured servitude (Yugoslavia........? Sod that fellas!
This is different. These mother@#!$ers have OIL!)
...... or something like that.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
|
Post #59,624
10/26/02 1:46:36 PM
|
Not sure that I'm in the
..."not about oil" camp.
Not sure who is. I think there is a body of people
that believe that its not JUST about oil.
That said......
>>IIRC they mostly back up their case with links to right-wing
>>or political press rants.
...or they back it up with Congressional reports, statements from the
Secretary Of Defense, articles from the Boston Globe, CNN.....
all well known sources of Right wing political press rants.
You need to chase down the link which Ashton posted a bit more thoroughly,
and read the report it is based on.
It does very little for your argument......it actually damages it quite a lot.
-Mike
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
|
Post #59,697
10/26/02 11:25:55 PM
|
Re: Will follow thru - cheers Doug
|
