PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum - Comrade Chris Matthew's Hero!

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/index.php)

- Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Comrade Chris Matthew's Hero! (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=267962)

Wow, I need to contact this fellow and have him copy right this one:

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining (Post 638576)

No matter whether we think we are Nazis or not, the problem with the course we embarked on with the pre-emptive doctrine is that we have not only caused ourselves to be perceived as Nazis, but we have also acted in a way that allows our enemies to successfully portray us as such. In effect, we have lost our first major battle in a new type of war we do not understand - digital war. In the digital wars of today a nation must do everything in its power to NOT do things that will cause it to be perceived as something it is not.

In order for our enemy to win, the false perception our enemy must create of us must be powerful and motivating, to the point it moves a human being to kill himself in order to kill us. Those who recruit these people win their battles by winning these people over to the warped perception, not the reality we know, of us. We've in effect, by continuing to practice war as if we were fighting the Russians, have become their best ally. We have, in effect, by projecting America-Uber-alles rhetoric and bombast on the rest of the world, have become our enemies best propaganda aide. Look at what we have done - by abrogating the UN we have allowed our enemies to portray us as a single colonial power, acting agressively in concert with the colonial power that came before us, the British, to invade them. Then we embark on occupation by force of arms, in a manner usually only practiced in Europe by fascists or in the Arab world by Israelis, both potent propaganda images for the Arabs and the European people we hope would be our allies. Both activities result in reams of digital images, of blown up children and grief stricken mothers in the moments of their greatest torment, of fathers holding dead children in their arms and young boys with their limbs blown off. We also did not seem to understand that their impact could be disproportional. There might be only 20 of them in all Iraq, but those 20 pictures flash around the world in an instant. Next, our occupation results in a steady stream of web pages and photos of sucide bombers and resistance fighters, who knows, maybe they are only fighting in a small corner of Iraq, but the Internet makes it look as the whole country is in flames resisting our oppression. Next we re-institute the prisons of the old regime, but again we lose the next battle of the new digital war as pictures of torture and humiliation like those practiced by totalitarian societies, are shot round the globe in instants. We have lost the digital war in Iraq because from the first day we have acted in the best way to do so. Those who initiated and prosecute this war have utterly failed to appreciate the new nature of war in the information age. For this, they should be fired for their incompetence come Nov 2.

No matter who we think we are, to the rest of the world, we have, thanks to the inability of our leaders to realize the new importance of perception, become Nazis. The thought of us as morally equivelent to Nazis or someone like me suggesting we are, repels you, because you as an American knows it is not essentially true. I actually believe it is not true. However, I believe your repulsion may cause you to miss the point of my argument: It doesn't matter if we are or not. Our actions, as Jim points out, are not based in self-defense, from the first step we made. The foundation was laid, the moral argument lost, from that point forward. In an earlier post someone said that Iraq may be some new kind of war we mere citizens don't understand. I think this shows the opposite is true, by using invasion and occupation, by not understanding the affect of the images of ourselves we are generating to the rest of the world, without trying to understand before we do something what perception our actions and bombast will create, we, are the ones practicing obsolete war, while the terrorists are skillfully not. Our misunderstanding of perception's role in modern warfare is currently our undoing. Instead of losing a war on a battlefield, we may lose it due to some images from a digital camera. In the new world we live in, powered by digital images, the Internet and instant communications, perception is a new, super weapon of war. Bush and company, powered only by their view of the end, never had a clue that the means they employed would make it a huge mess instead. In the words of an earlier post, we screwed the pooch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler (Post 2375877)

Before this gets completely irrational....
Perhaps the original posting about "traitor" should have been more clear. I think ( hope) the poster meant " Democrat Party LEADERS. I do not believe he meant to insult all the fine democrats and liberals who have served, and who currently serve this country. While I would not go so far as to call even some of the leadership "traitors", I can understand why some might want to make that accusation.
Again, communicatiuon is far more difficult than it would at first appear. The absence of facial expressions, etc, make web comments often seem more malevolent than they were intended.
My hat is off, and I give a hearty "Thank You" to all patriots whether democrat, republican, liberal, Conservative, Progressive, Independent, Muslem, Jewish, Christian, Agnostic, or Atheist.
As you were.....

Exactly the way I feel.

When you finish this debate maybe you can decide who was responsible for the Trojan war. It's just about as relevant to current politics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B. (Post 2375860)

Now:

Show one actual example where where he used the word treason, with specific regard to REPUBLICANS, the political party.

But he didn't say” with specific regard to REPUBLICANS, the political party” or the word “treason” did he, Jim"

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger (Post 2375624)

I can not recall one time in my entire life where I called Republican traitors. Misguided greedy self-centered knuckle draggers yes, but calling a fellow countryman a traitor simply because you disagree with his political views, political views that developed over centuries in this country, is a low and cowardly act, an insult of the kind that does not end well at the local bar, and it is unfortunate that you cannot do it to my face.

A simple-minded attempt at hairsplitting misdirection usually fails!

The complete statement Kirk makes is clear to anyone that his objection was not constrained to political party affiliation but to exactly what he said and meant, “fellow countryman” with differing political views.

“but calling a fellow countryman a traitor simply because you disagree with his political views, political views that developed over centuries in this country, is a low and cowardly act, an insult of the kind that does not end well at the local bar’

Maybe political discourse just isn’t your thing Jim, rather relationship advice is more your forte?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger (Post 2375861)

he doesn't understand the difference

We'll all leave it to you to understand the difference between what you say and what you mean!

Another look back moment : http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/...n/post_old.gif 10-02-2003, 12:17 PM
chuckyreturns
Guest
Posts: n/a

You guys make me laugh...

For the first time ever, the neoconservatives essentially controlled the Republicans and the entire U.S. Government. They'd dictated the Presidency, dominated the House and Senate, and owned the future of the Supreme Court. They didn't have a majority of the voters, but they did have a majority of the Fox News and Talk Radio audiences and a big pile of eager corporate money.

How could they miss?

They were going to show the whole world what true American patriots could accomplish leading a great Christian nation in the new century.

And so they did...

A funny thing happened on the way to Mr. Bush's second term.

In a country run by and for millionaires, the surplus got spent. The rich got tax cuts, and the future got hocked. The environment got screwed. Bechtel and Halliburton got contracts. Religious schools got public funds. Big CEOs robbed and ran free. Good jobs disappeared by the millions. Bankruptcies and child poverty set new records. Big Oil did just fine, thank you.

Ken Lay still has your money.

The rich got richer, the poor got poorer, and in the mean time, in between time, ain't we got war?

Mr. Bush claimed Saddam Hussein's well known WMD presented an immediate danger to the whole world, so we set out to topple him, destroy his WMD and win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. "They'd welcome us in the streets."

A parade of retired talking head generals danced on TV amid a sparkling CGI World of maps and cute graphics. Fox had the war wired -- they had Geraldo.

Ever notice how one culture's noble rescue mission is another culture's ugly infidel invasion?

Just before we started "Operation Iraqi Freedom" we exploded the 'Mother of all Bombs.' It's sort of an apt title for the entire Bush War Plan so far.

The whole world told us not to do it, but Mr. Bush knew better. Mr. Cheney smugly knew better. Mr. Rumsfeld absolutely knew better! Don't mess with "Tex" Bush! Cable news proceeded to "Riefenstahl" the war to be. Country music got mixed with tracer fire in promos. Hot Damn! Shock and awe!

The Press got embedded and blurry. Reality went South. The Polls and TV ratings went up, so the balloon went up too.

Americans died. Iraqis died.

We spent millions on massive air attacks to finally kill Saddam himself: over and over and over. He reportedly still checks in by phone.

And then Mr. Bush dressed up just like GI Joe and flew out to the carrier on May 1st to tell us that 'non-victory' was at hand in Iraq. We never found the WMD, but over 300 of our people are still dead -- more than half of them since that flight deck photo-op. Mr. Bush was at the very top that day.

Absolutists of all sorts can be a risk because they and their followers have so much invested in their own perfect worldview they must and will prevail, so the 'War on Terror' is an odd fight. Consider that America and its darkest enemies are both currently run by ultra-conservative religious fundamentalists, with ties to big oil.

Both sides are certain that their God can beat up your God. To each, theirs is the only 'true' cause, and they can justify anything to win. Both sides exploit conflict and fear, but it's hard to sustain.

Sometimes you just have to fib a little.

History will have to sort out the long, complex, but fruitful alliance between the Bush, bin Laden, and Saudi Royal families, and all that it portends.

Mr. Bush, never quite found or defeated Mr. bin Laden's boy Osama, for staging 9/11 despite his proud promises to do so. He then decided our real terror problem was actually Saddam, and he demanded we invade Iraq and impose peace. Somehow, Al-Quaida, 9/11, and Mr. Hussein all merged in the growing public panic. The neocon irresistible force had finally met the Islamic immovable object.

The Bush folks then tragically inserted our kids into a deadly and endless radical Islamic shooting galley that now draws angry militants from everywhere. Time is on their side.

We may have saved Iraq from Mr. Hussein, but can we save the US from Iraq? The Bush people plan a bright new multi-billion dollar Islamic democracy there. The fundamentalists plan a simple, traditional Jihad.

When Mr. Bush entered the Presidency through the back door, he took over a nation at peace with a little cash in the bank, a fat investor class, and low unemployment. He just needed to keep a reign on Big Business and a sharp eye on a troubled world. He did neither.

Mr. Bush's return to address the U.N. this week was mythic. He boldly asked the same people he'd belittled last Spring to risk their own troops and money and triumphantly join him, as long as America still runs the show. The French and Germans and many others were polite enough not to laugh out loud. That's what diplomats do best.

Absent international help we're set to call up even more Guard and Reserve folks, to join tired forces already stretched thin by worldwide commitments.

The Bush people still publicly contend that everything's really swell in Iraq, but the liberal media just focuses on the 'few' bad apples. Meanwhile the U.N. is pulling the bulk of its people out because the US apparently can't protect them in 'Free Iraq.'

This leaves the Republican-controlled Congress in a delicate position. They'll have to decide if their own political survival is better served by backing the Bush people or by grilling them in front of hot TV lights on the Evening News. It would be bigger than O.J.

Almost everything they ever told us about Iraq was wrong. Mr. Bush has the only absolute defense -- he was just following orders.

For all this Administration's compliant media friends, hyper-secrecy, and careful spin, Mr. Bush is now at an all-time low in the polls. Sending in the Troops is always a winner at first. Mr. Bush got a 20-point bump last March. To openly question 'The Plan' back then was to border on treason.

O'Reilly ranted, Rush roared, and Rummy ruminated. Everything was going exactly according to the detailed Bush Administration Iraq Victory Plan.

American kids are still dying today for the lies we were all told last Spring.

Ever notice neocons just love the Troops? They proudly use the Troops for grip & grin photo-ops, but they also tried to screw them out of extra pay, benefit hikes, small tax breaks, and even veterans care.

Our courageous Troops have been short-supplied, over-deployed, under-supported, under-protected, and generally sold out by the politicians who so bravely sent them to get the critical WMD by which Saddam was holding the world hostage.

The kids on the line die now by ones and twos at the hands of the very people they came to 'liberate.' They and their worried families have but one question, "Who will be the last American to die in Iraq for George W. Bush?"

Their sacrifice is very genuine, even if their leadership is not. They keep the faith anyhow, and their families wait. They are the best we have.

They are led by the sort of men who allegedly ‘outed' a serving CIA officer via syndicated columnist Robert Novak. He named her just after her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, questioned Mr. Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to purchase African uranium. It not only ended her operational career, but leaking it happens to be a serious crime.

Some people figure one great way to really support our Troops is to call them all home now and let the Iraqis sort this out for themselves. A lot of people wonder what $87 billion could do for our own country. In either case, we'll have to borrow the money. The Bush folks have seen to that, too.

Dictating policy is so much simpler when God is on your side and you're 100% right every time. Saddam's deadly WMD left us no option! The Bush people wrapped themselves in the Flag and the Lord and proceeded to screw up in front of the whole world in truly ‘biblical' proportions.

Meanwhile, the people who brought us 9/11 are still out there. They'll be back. They watch us constantly, and they know where we're strong and where we're trying to get by on the cheap. They know where we live and work and play. They are patient, vicious, and not facing an election. It's not clear how really scared they are of Tom Ridge.

Despite the best efforts of the folks at Fox News, a majority of Americans polled reportedly want Mr. Bush replaced, a full 13 months before the election. Even the people who never vote are pissed off. It's a good thing he's only up against the Democrats or he might be in real political trouble.

George W. Bush has created a war he can't quite seem to win or explain, for reasons so clear and urgent that nobody who backed the war can now recall them. Both Mr. Bush and Tony Blair have alienated their voters.

Mr. Hussein, in all his messianic madness, could never have hoped that he'd really damage both the Bush and Blair Governments. All he had to do was lose the war, and two creepy sons nobody much liked anyhow.

The nervous voices of the far right continue to insist the economy is strong and the Iraq War is going fine -- the 'real truth' about the Bush Administration just isn't coming out in the liberal media.

We wonder. If the 'real truth' got out about the Bush people and what they have done, would they still serve just one term?

Perhaps, but only if they all run concurrently...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob (Post 2375898)

But he didn't say” with specific regard to REPUBLICANS, the political party” or the word “treason” did he, Jim"

A simple-minded attempt at hairsplitting misdirection usually fails!

The complete statement Kirk makes is clear to anyone that his objection was not constrained to political party affiliation but to exactly what he said and meant, “fellow countryman” with differing political views.

“but calling a fellow countryman a traitor simply because you disagree with his political views, political views that developed over centuries in this country, is a low and cowardly act, an insult of the kind that does not end well at the local bar’

Maybe political discourse just isn’t your thing Jim, rather relationship advice is more your forte?

You have become delusional.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger (Post 2375893)

Exactly the way I feel.

Don't you just hate it when we agree?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob (Post 2375869)

Is it really so difficult to admit it when you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about?

With regard to the positions of the geopolitical players of the day you can learn much if you actually read Patti’s book, Why Viet Nam?: Prelude to America's Albatross and it’s contemporaneously generated documentation of Lt. Col A. Peter Dewey, the first post WWII US casualty in Indochina. The position of the US was ambivalent and had been to do nothing to support or contradict British and French colonialism.

With regard to Uncle Ho’s “only allied with the USSR out of desperation” it must be noted that it is documented that Ho had been a communist since before WWI as a member of Comintern, and more than 25 years later still declared himself a communist in 1945. So turning to the USSR was less an act of desperation than the solicitation of support from a like-minded wealthier fellow traveler.

And why do you suppose communism appealed to Ho and gang? Mightn't the horrible treatment they received at the hands of capitalists have had something to do with it?

The British and the French were our most closely related (culturally speaking) allies in WW2. We (under Truman anyway) were unlikely to go against them to support some group of independence minded gooks with commie leanings. FDR supposedly wanted to make a new start in Indochina but didn't live long enough.

Truman was an admirable guy in many respects. He like most Americans had terminal commie phobia. It got us into one of the most distasteful wars in our history in Korea and garnered him lifelong hatred from many Americans. But I'm not going to make the absurd reach that things would have been any different under an Rr admin. McArthur (R) wanted to take the war to China. Oh hey, can you say "quagmire" boys and girls?

Many US Rrs supported MacArthur in that. Truman came before Ike? Give this boy a lollipop. Do you have anything to say that actually matters here? Are you implying that Ike's hands were tied by what Truman had done 4 to 6 years previous? Or that Nixon simply had to bomb Cambodia even further into the dark ages because LBJ had tied his hands?

It's all crap. The war in Nam was assinine and had to stop and finally did stop. Get over it.

There used to be a set of ground rules to discussions like this, too bad they have become a thing of the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012 (Post 2376023)

I think Ho was a Communist in the most communist sense of the word, but he wanted peace so he could build his utopia. Just look at them, they ended up a bunch of quaisi-capitalists in the end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger (Post 2375889)

Wow, I need to contact this fellow and have him copy right this one:

That is a good one. We may as well have embraced Al Qaeda recruiters worldwide. Cheney/Bushism has been their best friend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger (Post 2376029)

I think Ho was a Communist in the most communist sense of the word, but he wanted peace so he could build his utopia. Just look at them, they ended up a bunch of quaisi-capitalists in the end.

The John Birchers called Patti a stooge and a dim-witted pawn of Ho. I don't buy it. Patti wasn't the greatest writer (his book badly needed professional editing IMO, his daughter did it instead IIRC) but his account of Ho makes sense to me and rings true in the light of history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012 (Post 2376023)

FDR supposedly wanted to make a new start in Indochina but didn't live long enough.

“Supposedly”?

Except that when it came to acting he did not! Funny how once again the romanticized view that is liberal mythology isn’t supported by historical fact. Can’t pull up a direct cite of the work in question, but from some people’s perspective “Roosevelt agreeing to France holding on to its Southeast Asian territory as long as it would only act as a trustee and allow Vietnam to move toward the goal of independence” is the same as “FDR supposedly wanted to make a new start in Indochina”

In the post-World War II years, the United States did not have a definite foreign policy objective toward Vietnam or
Southeast Asia. Historically, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a staunch opponent of colonialism. Given that
he believed that Indochina should become a protectorate of Western coalition nations and maintained through some
form of international cooperation, shortly before his death he veered from his normally rigid views and told France
that he would agree to France holding on to its Southeast Asian territory as long as it would only act as a trustee and
allow Vietnam to move toward the goal of independence.5

George McT. Kahin, Intervention: How America Became Involved in Vietnam (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986), p. 4.

http://www.anselm.edu/NR/rdonlyres/5CDDE900-9FC1-4143-9B1C-D4AF85090155/6308/paper4Lamm1.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012 (Post 2376023)

Give this boy a lollipop. Do you have anything to say that actually matters here?

Thanks! Got quite a few lollipops pointing out your falsehoods. A better question is do you have anything to say that is acurate and that matters?