Why Saddam Hussein didn't deserve your vote

[Lucifer_Carroll]

What a delight it is to engage in wordplay without foreplay with such an astute gallery of players.

I have not kept track of the names thrown my way, but they include, 'ideologue' 'ignorant' drum beater..and now I am relegated to the category of, 'comic relief'...ah well...amicus muses, 'making an audience laugh is not as easy as you may think...'

A couple things..I withdraw the use of the phrase, 'anti-american', yes it is a buzz word, but I did not intend it as such. There must be a phrase that adequately describes a sense of value observed as 'common ground' for the people of this nation, I will search for another word.

Colly brought up a very important concept, historiography, that has not been really understood. I add to that word, another one, 'historicity' which is defined as: 'historical authenticity'..

It is common practice in scholarly endeavors, to quote out of context to support ones position. It is not an admirable trait, a little fraud is involved by using the 'name' of a respected person to support one's viewpoint.

It is less admirable to 'manipulate' the content of a quote so that it supports one's viewpoint.

Colly, I for one am not certain we can ever really find total truth in the historical documents we research. I spent a year on the Constitution of the United States...tracing the background and history of the writing and the writers and the philosophical and economical legends from which they drew their inspiration.

I found that research drew me deeper into the motivations of the men who had the thoughts and wrote them down. Of course, that leads one into biographical and autobiographical research and of course you know the pitfalls there.

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, "A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America in General Congress Assembled."

The second paragraph begins: "We hold these Truths to be self evident..."

Now this is a small example of Historiography and Historicity in which a document is not corrupted or even used to support a viewpoint. In this case...just those first eight words are worthy of extended debate.

There are those who will question what the word, "We" means and the word, "Hold" and certainly many question that 'Truth' can ever be perceived by the human mind, or even that 'truth' exists independent of the mind of man, i.e. in reality....and I have already run up against those who think, 'self evident' is not a tenable statement...that nothing can be viewed as axiomatic, or, 'self evident'

"We hold these Truths to be self evident..."

Personally, I do not support what America has become, very little of what it stands for and I surely do not defend any part blindly. I am quite prepared to list those values I support and defend, but not by quoting others aside from basic documents...

With a good number of pages on two threads being devoted to a discussion of war. It might be apropo to define the nature of conflict..in real terms..instead of emotionally charged personal opinions...passion has a place for sure....but....

amicus

Okay, there seems to be a lot going on here in this drama. On the one hand, you use verbosity mixed with crude insults and a devil-may-care attitude to attack and dismiss pretty much any argument no matter its form and on the other hand you are the hero of your own private show, the tragic hero being kicked around by the cruel and humorless Gods. This seems self-defeating.

Now, I am prone at times to hideous feats of ego, but you seem to pride in feeding it for no reason but to feed it. At first here you insult everyone who's commenting dismissing their arguments and counterpoints not with facts but a dismissive bluster. I hate to be confrontational, but THAT IS REALLY F***ING ANNOYING!!!

I'm kidding of course, I love to be confrontational. Moving on...

You move on to the land of your love, history. Yet, you approach it in such a nihilistic and postmodernistic fashion that I as a scientist am appalled. It is one thing to surmise that man is crude and prone to error and sin, that propaganda is rampant, and misinterpretation is high, but to suppose this eliminates the validity of all historical works? That's a bit too Phillip K. Dick for my blood. Mankind strives to leave some record of the real story somewhere. That's history's job is to leave this records. The propaganda will try to bury it, that's why we need to resist that for history, because if you toss history aside, it comes back with a hangover and an uzi.

The truly postmodern dessimination of the Declaration of Independence was as intriguing as it was purposelessly pedantic. People have done better examinations into the non-existance/purposelessness of life, using a much better source than misinterpreting and weaseling a fairly clear document. (Next time try entropy, it may help )

"apropro to define the nature of conflict in real terms...instead of emotionally charged personal opinion" These are your words. Your a literary history geek. Look real hard. Now I bash.

Emotionally charged personal opinion is exactly what this thread hasn't been. The other thread is passion. This thread has been as unpassionate as a dead white guy. Furthermore, if historical documents are "flawed", if all questions to clarify are dismissed as the ramblings of the uneducated masses, and if causation and the nature of logic are anathema to you, then...WHAT ARE WE LEFT WITH?!?

PLEASE IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT'S HOLY, ANSWER THAT ONE SIMPLE QUESTION. really, just a straight up answer for once. instead of bluster and a deflection.

 

[amicus]

Although you do not appreciate my style..whatever that may be, Lucifer Carrol...my post did elicit the desired result.

What are we left with? I think was the question you insisted I answer in no uncertain terms.

A couple basic things, my noteworthy friend: one, that truth, absolutes, do exist and that the mind of man can perceive those truths and absolutes. Secondly, in terms of logic and reason, there being no evidence to support the existence of a creator, thus, a creator does not exist.

Those two suppositions...statements..about, 'What is left...?' Go hand in hand towards establishing that knowledge is possible through the use of logic and reason; and in the absence of a 'predetermined moral system' formulated by the believers in that creator...that we must, through reason and logic, discover what is right and wrong, moral and immoral in terms of our ethical behavior and actions.

All this really does...if you accept the postulations, is to agree from the beginning that we can actually have a meaningful conversation and that it can be communicated without relying upon faith.

I await your pleasure.

amicus

 

[KarenAM]

Once again, amicus, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Sorry.

 

[Xelebes]

Once again, amicus, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Sorry.

Ditto.

 

[shereads]

What a delight it is to engage in wordplay without foreplay with such an astute gallery of players.

I have not kept track of the names thrown my way, but they include, 'ideologue' 'ignorant' drum beater..and now I am relegated to the category of, 'comic relief'...ah well...amicus muses, 'making an audience laugh is not as easy as you may think...'

A couple things..I withdraw the use of the phrase, 'anti-american', yes it is a buzz word, but I did not intend it as such. There must be a phrase that adequately describes a sense of value observed as 'common ground' for the people of this nation, I will search for another word.

Colly brought up a very important concept, historiography, that has not been really understood. I add to that word, another one, 'historicity' which is defined as: 'historical authenticity'..

It is common practice in scholarly endeavors, to quote out of context to support ones position. It is not an admirable trait, a little fraud is involved by using the 'name' of a respected person to support one's viewpoint.

It is less admirable to 'manipulate' the content of a quote so that it supports one's viewpoint.

Colly, I for one am not certain we can ever really find total truth in the historical documents we research. I spent a year on the Constitution of the United States...tracing the background and history of the writing and the writers and the philosophical and economical legends from which they drew their inspiration.

I found that research drew me deeper into the motivations of the men who had the thoughts and wrote them down. Of course, that leads one into biographical and autobiographical research and of course you know the pitfalls there.

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, "A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America in General Congress Assembled."

The second paragraph begins: "We hold these Truths to be self evident..."

Now this is a small example of Historiography and Historicity in which a document is not corrupted or even used to support a viewpoint. In this case...just those first eight words are worthy of extended debate.

There are those who will question what the word, "We" means and the word, "Hold" and certainly many question that 'Truth' can ever be perceived by the human mind, or even that 'truth' exists independent of the mind of man, i.e. in reality....and I have already run up against those who think, 'self evident' is not a tenable statement...that nothing can be viewed as axiomatic, or, 'self evident'

"We hold these Truths to be self evident..."

Personally, I do not support what America has become, very little of what it stands for and I surely do not defend any part blindly. I am quite prepared to list those values I support and defend, but not by quoting others aside from basic documents...

With a good number of pages on two threads being devoted to a discussion of war. It might be apropo to define the nature of conflict..in real terms..instead of emotionally charged personal opinions...passion has a place for sure....but....

amicus

So your point would be...?

Amicus, why not just come right out and say what you mean, on the topic at hand? I think you're probably smarter than you make yourself seem here, when you avoid a direct point-for-point argument of any issue and simply state that those who disagree with your world view are doing so out of ignorance or in the service of some disreputable motive?

You're in this thread for some reason, and I'm going to guess that it's one of these:

1) You don't believe that the Reagan/Bush administrations, assisted by Donald Rumsfeld, sold military equipment to Saddam Hussein during the Iran war, while maintaining a public stance of neutrality; and that we continued to do so at a time when we knew he was using chemical weapons; and that Ronald Reagan chose not to share what he knew about Pakistan's nuclear weapons development program with Congress, to avoid sanctions against Pakistan that might have reduced their aid to the anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan; and that we, with Britain and France, sought to protect Saddam from condemnation by the United Nations. Those are the conclusions supported by declassified documents obtained by a variety of sources under the Freedom of Information Act, and contributed to the Archive's document library.

That's the topic of the thread. I don't think you read it, or you would have known that I disclaimed having researched and written that first long post on my own, and that I provided a link to the source. You would also know that these are documented facts, or as close as it's possible to fraudulently produce some without being sued for libel.

2) You do believe it, but you think that I should not have posted it, because to do so makes America look bad. In your view, to which you are certainly entitled, it's better to keep quiet about what might be perceived as hypocrisy by the current administration and its secretary of defense, whose dismay over Saddam's use of chemical or biological weapons against the Kurds after Desert Storm allegedly firmed their resolve to invade Iraq and liberate its people. Calling attention to it, in your opinion, is disloyal on my part.

3) You neither believe nor disbelieve the documents and what they represent. You just don't like it when I fail to look at the bright side.

Which is it? Please explain. I'd like to know what it is you find offensive - if you prefer not to call it anti-American - about a point of view that says those who live in a democracy have a duty to know what actions are being taken in our names, and to expose hypocrisy if we believe it to be dangerous and not in our best interests? It's not as if this website isn't available to anyone in the world with internet service. I found it in a quick Google search. I knew there had been some less than entirely ethical dealings by the president's father and Ronald Reagan that made the current attitude toward Saddam Hussein seem disingenuous; I also wanted to know the story behind that Rumsfeld-Saddam handshake photo. Rather than post something I made up and calling it the truth, I did a few minutes of research and found more than I expected to.

Which bothers you, and makes you feel righteous and superior. Why?

 

[shereads]

Although you do not appreciate my style..whatever that may be, Lucifer Carrol...my post did elicit the desired result.

What are we left with? I think was the question you insisted I answer in no uncertain terms.

A couple basic things, my noteworthy friend: one, that truth, absolutes, do exist and that the mind of man can perceive those truths and absolutes. Secondly, in terms of logic and reason, there being no evidence to support the existence of a creator, thus, a creator does not exist.

Those two suppositions...statements..about, 'What is left...?' Go hand in hand towards establishing that knowledge is possible through the use of logic and reason; and in the absence of a 'predetermined moral system' formulated by the believers in that creator...that we must, through reason and logic, discover what is right and wrong, moral and immoral in terms of our ethical behavior and actions.

All this really does...if you accept the postulations, is to agree from the beginning that we can actually have a meaningful conversation and that it can be communicated without relying upon faith.

I await your pleasure.

amicus

One word leaps to mind: "Huh?"

Amicus, it's fun to play, but people are trying to give you an opportunity to state your case regarding the topic of this thread.

Can you stoop down for a few minutes and talk to us like we're just people asking questions? You have things to offer. You know things. Tell us. If you ramble or stray from the subject, I for one won't be able to follow you because I didn't get any sleep last night and my brain hurts when you beat around the bush. So to speak.

 

[shereads]

... that's why we need to resist that for history, because if you toss history aside, it comes back with a hangover and an uzi.

Where have you been? The Authors' Hangout has been waiting for the arrival of the antichrist before we perform the blood sacrifices. You took long enough.



Honestly, Luc, this is just a delightful post. I love it when smart sarcastic people play with the language. The language can only benefit from the exercise, considering that it spends most of its time in sedentary pursuits, like legal documents, or twisted into uncomfortable combinations of grim caution and perkiness like those disclaimers in prescription drug commercials.

("Zoloft can make you feel more like yourself again, even in anxiety-producing social situations. May cause diarrhea and projectile vomiting. Do not use if you suffer from high blood pressure or if you have ever awakened from a trance to find yourself standing on a ledge.')

The truly postmodern dessimination of the Declaration of Independence was as intriguing as it was purposelessly pedantic. People have done better examinations into the non-existance/purposelessness of life, using a much better source than misinterpreting and weaseling a fairly clear document. (Next time try entropy, it may help )

I'll say it does! Entropy is the best.

This thread has been as unpassionate as a dead white guy. Furthermore, if historical documents are "flawed", if all questions to clarify are dismissed as the ramblings of the uneducated masses, and if causation and the nature of logic are anathema to you, then...WHAT ARE WE LEFT WITH?!?

I reject your evaluation of my new thread as "unpassionate." This thread is passionate as the dickens. It has all the elements of good entertainment, if you just know where to look: Deception at the highest levels of power, a moustachioed villain, some white guys who seem okay but behave like moustachioed villains when they're hanging with their homeboy Saddam; scantily clad women (see the AVs); references to pornography; evidence of all sorts of social disorders; and a nutritious snack.

PLEASE IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT'S HOLY, ANSWER THAT ONE SIMPLE QUESTION. really, just a straight up answer for once. instead of bluster and a deflection.

There's no need to be coy. Say what you mean.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Originally posted by
Although you do not appreciate my style..whatever that may be, Lucifer Carrol...my post did elicit the desired result.

What are we left with? I think was the question you insisted I answer in no uncertain terms.

A couple basic things, my noteworthy friend: one, that truth, absolutes, do exist and that the mind of man can perceive those truths and absolutes. Secondly, in terms of logic and reason, there being no evidence to support the existence of a creator, thus, a creator does not exist.

Those two suppositions...statements..about, 'What is left...?' Go hand in hand towards establishing that knowledge is possible through the use of logic and reason; and in the absence of a 'predetermined moral system' formulated by the believers in that creator...that we must, through reason and logic, discover what is right and wrong, moral and immoral in terms of our ethical behavior and actions.

All this really does...if you accept the postulations, is to agree from the beginning that we can actually have a meaningful conversation and that it can be communicated without relying upon faith.

I await your pleasure.

amicus

Of course, I could always be wrong, in my reading of Mr. Amicus' post, but I have tried.

By my reading --

[1.] Truth & absolutes exist

[2.] Where no evidence supports an idea (like God) logic declares the idea is false.

[AND] Since no evidence can support the existence of ideas (truth & absolutes) logic declares there is none.

[SO] Without truth or absolutes to be measured, logic has nothing to work with.

POOF!

Existence has just disappeared up its own jumper.



I quit.

Mr Amicus can make any claim he wishes. He can’t prove it’s right, but no one can prove him wrong.


Someone help me off this whirligig.

 

[cantdog]

Aw, let the kid up

He's young.

We know him now. I ask tolerance.


it was funny though!


I love the nutritious snack! It's maybe the best part except the scantily-clad women.


cantdog

 

[shereads]

Of course, I could always be wrong, in my reading of Mr. Amicus' post, but I have tried.

By my reading --

[1.] Truth & absolutes exist

[2.] Where no evidence supports an idea (like God) logic declares the idea is false.

[AND] Since no evidence can support the existence of ideas (truth & absolutes) logic declares there is none.

[SO] Without truth or absolutes to be measured, logic has nothing to work with.

POOF!

Existence has just disappeared up its own jumper.



I quit.

Mr Amicus can make any claim he wishes. He can’t prove it’s right, but no one can prove him wrong.


Someone help me off this whirligig.

Interesting analysis. I think he's just in a pissy mood.

 

[cantdog]

.... if you toss history aside, it comes back with a hangover and an uzi.

Welcome Lucifer, excellent son of the morning.

Art heightens memory. Write on.


cantdog

 

[amicus]

Shereads....one must admire your persistence and your uncanny ability to 'not see' or hear what is being said.

I do not think I can satisfy your requests to debate on the turf you have staked out.

During Vietnam...I was attending the University of Hawaii, in Honolulu, after being discharged, (honorably) from the US Air Force. I was in crypto communications and I knew a lot more than I could say at that time.

I hired on at an independent radio and tv station as a moderator for a talk show, and host of a sunday night television show.

Over the period of time I was doing that...I began receiving the Congressional Journal from the nations capitol, and more reports than I could read from the various departments of government from both the state and federal level.

I subscribed to dozens of newsletters and magazines concerning current events, interviewed people from all levels of government and all walks of society.

I was even called in to the FBI Field Office in Honolulu and was quite surprised to find they had a file on me. Apparently, my pro war stance was being recorded and replayed in Hanoi.

I say these things to you, not to impress you, but to qualify the following statement: You can not and do not have enough information to make a qualified statement about the inner functions of the Federal government, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of defense, the material that you are referencing from 30 years ago that is still classified.

I think you are not aware of the potential damage you might do in terms of claiming to be 'fighting for the america you love' rather than just admitting that you have a political agenda that supports the far liberal left.

You have every right to do that but not with impunity.

As I have every right to challenge your basic theme that the economic system, capitalism, our industrial base..that you claim is corrupt and in conspiracy with government, and the general foreign policy of the nation has been a bumbling failure.

I see it in other terms than you do. I also tried to say to you and others, that debating in terms of flawed history, such as you refer to, is a futile effort outside the propaganda value.

You simply cannot know and nor can I , or any one else, except those few in government who actually do know both the classified and the unclassifed information. That, I guess, is the lesson I learned throughout the Vietnam years...and as time has gone by, I realize just how little information was available at the time of the conflict. There is much going on now that we will not learn for another 30 years...if then.

So...not pushing a 'partisan political crusade' for either side, I am open to a debate concerning the fundamental issues that as a whole, make up what this nation is all about.

But I cannot, nor can anyone even communicate if you remain only, anti Bush, one and two, anti reagan, anti republican, anti big business, pro abortion, anti nuclear, anti war, pro gender equality, pro environment, anti gun...all those 'buzz' issues that define modern liberalism.

As I said, I do admire your persistence and even your passion for a failed philosophy, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, not that you adhere to any one of those...but all the 'command economies' where government directs the lives of the people...all have failed. And it seems only a few, most in Massachusetts...have not yet realized that.

amicus

 

[postobitum]

ok, I have one point I would like to make concerning this thread. Before I do, I want to say I am cringing a little here, trying to stay out of the path of flying mud...I sorta see the point of the original post, but I think one thing everyone should keep in mind when comparing Bush admin 2 with Bush admin 1 or even Regan/Bush is this : GWB is NOT his father, or Reagan. GWB has balls. That doesn't neccesarily make him 100% right, but show me a single pres who has been, or anyone for that matter. I am glad he has taken the stance against terror that he has, and I am glad we have gone to war with Iraq. Now that I have left myself open to what will probably be a very messy slaughter, I bid all thee well.

 

[Xelebes]

I see it in other terms than you do. I also tried to say to you and others, that debating in terms of flawed history, such as you refer to, is a futile effort outside the propaganda value.

So...not pushing a 'partisan political crusade' for either side, I am open to a debate concerning the fundamental issues that as a whole, make up what this nation is all about.

But I cannot, nor can anyone even communicate if you remain only, anti Bush, one and two, anti reagan, anti republican, anti big business, pro abortion, anti nuclear, anti war, pro gender equality, pro environment, anti gun...all those 'buzz' issues that define modern liberalism.

As I said, I do admire your persistence and even your passion for a failed philosophy, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, not that you adhere to any one of those...but all the 'command economies' where government directs the lives of the people...all have failed. And it seems only a few, most in Massachusetts...have not yet realized that.

amicus

Let's do this by paragraphs, mk?

1. Ok, so what history is not flawed? Is the history of the holocaust so flawed that it must be disregarded? Is the history of the Great World War so flawed that it may not be used as an example for any studying and debate? Please re-visit that stance. You claim makes your argument based on propaganda too so how can you dismiss our argument when your argument is founded in sand?

2. Being open yet still dismissing official documents? Or simply picking which documents to agree with, like Reagen's re-election pamphlets? Which sources have their words massaged and molded so to put a specific 'good' light on the author?

3. The biggest problem is that you have yet to have a decent argument to have us think different. For every PhD there is an opposite PhD, i.e. use of statistics does not work. What can we rely on? History? Oh right, you obviously dismiss any reference to history. You might as well throw science out too, because you know, our science is so flawed too. Discredit gravity cuz you know, the idea is flawed somewhere.

4. Socialism has succeded in history. Look at Sweden, Norway and China. Capitalism hasn't worked always - Chile, Haiti and Venezuela come to mind. A liberal right now believes that their political power is being threatened by those with gobs and gobs of money. Should power be split by how much you can exploit others?

 

[amicus]

xelebes...huggy bear...I have been to Amsterdam, I recommend you search for information on the countries you mentioned. In China, the government permits you to have one child in each family...this is what you advocate? Let alone the fact the China is hand over fist in acquiring as much capital as it can and embracing a modified 'free enterprise system" the chinese people may even soon be able to own land!

In general...view the history of socialist and communist countries as those countries who have produced no art, no literature, no science since sputnik.

There are thousands of books on the holocaust and thousands on the 'great war', I have not read them all...but many. And for as many as I have read...I get a different viewpoint from each author. Which is as it should be..but...history is complex..and those who write it...are often pushing an agenda all their own.

And not even with the 'chaos theory' or quantum physics, do I reject science...although...there is much yet to learn..and surely some will contradict what is called, 'truth' here in 2K4.

Thats all I can remember of what you posted....

amicus

 

[KarenAM]

I say these things to you, not to impress you, but to qualify the following statement: You can not and do not have enough information to make a qualified statement about the inner functions of the Federal government, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of defense, the material that you are referencing from 30 years ago that is still classified.

I think you are not aware of the potential damage you might do in terms of claiming to be 'fighting for the america you love' rather than just admitting that you have a political agenda that supports the far liberal left.

You have every right to do that but not with impunity.

As I have every right to challenge your basic theme that the economic system, capitalism, our industrial base..that you claim is corrupt and in conspiracy with government, and the general foreign policy of the nation has been a bumbling failure.

I see it in other terms than you do. I also tried to say to you and others, that debating in terms of flawed history, such as you refer to, is a futile effort outside the propaganda value.

You simply cannot know and nor can I , or any one else, except those few in government who actually do know both the classified and the unclassifed information. That, I guess, is the lesson I learned throughout the Vietnam years...and as time has gone by, I realize just how little information was available at the time of the conflict. There is much going on now that we will not learn for another 30 years...if then.

Well, amicus, I think I'm actually able to make sense of this post. Thanks.

Unfortunately, I find your reasoning flawed. As an American, I expect certain things, chief of which is freedom. That seems to be your position as well, yet you argue here that the fact that Sher does not have access to information that the government is deliberately keeping from her means that she is both wrong and being used for propaganda purposes. Is not openess the first requirement of a free society? By arguing that Sher cannot comment because she is deliberately being made ignorant, are you not yourself participating in the denial of her freedom to make an informed choice?

If the far liberal left (who I myself have not much agreement with) are only doing their naughty deeds because information is being witheld from them, wouldn't that place responsibility for their naughtiness squarely on the shoulders of the government that keeps them in ignorance? And shouldn't you, as a man who values the freedom of the individual so highly, be demanding that the government be releasing all the information to Sher that she needs to make an informed decision?

For myself, I make my assessments of things based on the information I have, and I reserve the right to change my mind if new information emerges. But to argue that I have no right to an opinion because my own government is keeping secrets from me is not a position I will accept, because it is contrary to the most basic precepts of a free society, and I, my dear amicus, am a firm believer in a free society.

 

[amicus]

Nicely said, Karen in the morning...I also served 4 years in the United States Navy..as a radioman, aboard ship for 3 of those years...I had access to much information about operational matters that I was sworn to secrecy over.

It is the same with military operations and foreign policy decisions that are kept from the people.

There are many things about our government that I greatly dislike. My opinion, expressed in a book published in 1984, strange coincidence...my opinion was that this government was so corrupted as to not survive. That is still my opinion, but my timing was off. I did not think it would survive this long, but now, I see no immediate collapse of it.

And I too, advocate a 'free society' based on the protection of individual rights and liberties, both those enumerated in the bill of rights and those implied by the constitution.

I find the original experiment in freedom in this nation has waned and I fear it will be darkened..and what comes next? I do not know.

amicus

 

[Xelebes]

xelebes...huggy bear...I have been to Amsterdam, I recommend you search for information on the countries you mentioned. In China, the government permits you to have one child in each family...this is what you advocate? Let alone the fact the China is hand over fist in acquiring as much capital as it can and embracing a modified 'free enterprise system" the chinese people may even soon be able to own land!

In general...view the history of socialist and communist countries as those countries who have produced no art, no literature, no science since sputnik.

There are thousands of books on the holocaust and thousands on the 'great war', I have not read them all...but many. And for as many as I have read...I get a different viewpoint from each author. Which is as it should be..but...history is complex..and those who write it...are often pushing an agenda all their own.

And not even with the 'chaos theory' or quantum physics, do I reject science...although...there is much yet to learn..and surely some will contradict what is called, 'truth' here in 2K4.

Thats all I can remember of what you posted....

amicus

Uh...

Amsterdam is not in Sweden. Nor is it in Norway.

Stockholm, Malmo, Trondheim and Oslo are in those two countries, but not Amsterdam.

What I was saying was that a socialist government can have a fully functioning society. What? You truly think that the US truly stands for democracies when they put dictators into power, like in Iraq, Iran, Chile, El Salvador, Pakistan and Afghanistan? Please.

On your second point - you are still denying all the references made by shereads. Did those actions really take place?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Lots of comments today it seems...<cracks knuckles> Let's see...

To ami, I know I've been harping on you a bit, but you leave yourself open, my dear intellectual. I'm flattered at your attribution of deep spiritual faith to me. Seeing as I have adopted the name of God's henchman as part of my alter-ego, I find it delightful to the extreme. That one should turn to logic and reason where one can, I believe in deepest faith and you admit so here. That it came as a mockery of my (imagined?) religiosity rather than an admission is unique, but I am glad to have an answer no matter the form. Thus, I must ask...

If you admit that logic and reason are key and they are the keys to a path of morality, then why do you attack shereads' post so much? It uses no religion, no emotion to make its point, just a series of quotes of classified documents that have become unclassified.

That you ignored this fact in the dismissing of shereads and in fact seem to derive great pleasure in torturing her not because of the validity of her arguments nor the method of her presentation, but rather her political background. Fair enough, after all in America where our two-party system has become twisted, reason flights to divisive conflict and buzzwords. Still, t'were it not so. Tis so, tis pity. Tis pity twere too and now we're in a play with a dead guy and a hero with a hell of an oedipal complex. Moving along...

That you seem to believe that the left do not love their country and that all their bluster is a secret plot to bring down the glories of the state is a sad thing, but uncurable. If you are unwilling to believe that the other side of the debate has anything to offer the table, then you might as well push up the sock puppet on the other side and drone. (Not that I got the idea from spying your dinner parties of course )

The economic rationale is just stupid. Just because someone believes that (oh, i don't know, let's say) America should be a more peaceful place, that racism and sexism should be strived against, that more money could be spent on education and aid for the poor than building big new bombs and weapons that we no longer need when all our enemies have turned to extreme guerilla warfare, doesn't mean that they wear a hammer and sickle and read Karl Marx. There is a huge difference between liberal and leftist.

That all the "buzz issues" are off limits let it be so, they're stupid anyway. But, let's at the same time get rid of the other side's meaningless trivial "buzz issues" and we can all sit in here like good little sheep alluding to the pocky-clypse that's occuring outside. Before, you rant on that turn of phrase, notice I didn't say who was responsible for it. Personally I blame the Martians and support President Bush's idea to colonize Mars to combat them. That way when Earth blows up from mass stupidity I won't be there and me and the other scientists who were setting things up can get on with our lives.

The fundamental issues, fraid they're the "buzz" issues. Sorry to disappoint you. (And you know I'm lying).

To post, Bush may have balls, but he has a tiny dick. I know he has a tiny dick, because he's done way too much to compensate. Shoving a few socks down his flight suit so he had a manly protrusion for his speech, summed up everything that needs to be said about that. Furthermore, you do realize that that OBL guy and that little (what's it called, oh yeah) Al-Queda thing were (what were they again, oh yeah) bitter hated enemies of Saddam Huessein. Our war in Iraq will only add a country to the list of AQ sympathizers, not remove. Iraq is not the war on terror. That's all I'm going to say about that, because the other thread is the one with the bitter discussion on Iraq's unique clusterfuck properties.

To shereads-
You weren't salting the live sacrifices right, before. That's why I've been having trouble rising. I delight that I have to the delightful information that you were delighted and have set up a special wing of the Department of Redundancy Department down here to house that delight.

As to the passion thing, I was telling it in reference to the style. This being a thread dealing with the presentation of facts and historical documents, it is far far less "passionate" (in his use of the term) than the other thread's shouting matches and deleted posts. I also think his dismissal of your original post as too passionate and political frightening. Once one begins to dismiss history as being intrinsicly political, then people are unable to notice that the cosmic record player of time is starting to skip. That we are living in the past 20 years ago today because people somehow believe that dystopias are something that happen to other people sorrows me. Though I have been trained to know better, I try to imagine that people aren't really as dumb as they seem.

Now, I must to dine as I have a tasty soul nearly done on my barby.

 

[amicus]

hmmm...mutters amicus...Lewis J. Carrol...nope not that one, Lucifer....never meant to imply faith to your posts, I know full well, that most leftists/liberals are agnostics...which fits, they do not, in general accept any 'absolutes' and do not have the courage to claim 'atheism' thus the fence sitter position is both preferable and pleasureable for anal retentives...grins...take that with a smile....

I visited Amsterdam...and Heidleberg and Paris and London, on a motorcycle, 30 some years ago...I do admit, although I do not fully understand how these, 'communal' societies continue to exist. I can only refer to the 'brain drain' of european countries some years back, when all the 'creators' of wealth, (the intellects) were abandoning the rat infested ship of social democracy in most western european nations.

They wised up, and confiscated the life savings of any who would leave and made it impossible for them to escape.

Any intellectual, (simply one who thinks) that would advocate government ownership of the resources of a country, and the forced redistribution of wealth, is not worth the Sagan he nursed upon...

So, please, again, I ask...all you budding socialists...tell me the country and the system you admire most and tell me how hard you are trying to achieve citizenship in your chosen liberal haven? Please...defend...your positions..or...can you only attack?

amicus

 

[cantdog]

You can not and do not have enough information to make a qualified statement about the inner functions of the Federal government, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of defense, the material that you are referencing from 30 years ago that is still classified.

......

I see it in other terms than you do. I also tried to say to you and others, that debating in terms of flawed history, such as you refer to, is a futile effort outside the propaganda value.

You simply cannot know and nor can I , or any one else, except those few in government who actually do know both the classified and the unclassifed information. That, I guess, is the lesson I learned throughout the Vietnam years...and as time has gone by, I realize just how little information was available at the time of the conflict. There is much going on now that we will not learn for another 30 years...if then.
...........

amicus

Why should we bother our heads thinking, when all those experts are already doing it for us?

Because we run the place. They don't give civics courses in high school any more, but we are citizens of a republic, a grand experiment in government of the people, by the people, for the people. Just like the Republican fella said.

We are the employers of these experts. They must therefore tell us what our wages have bought, and we must duly fire them if they've frivolously misused the trust we've placed in them.

When they finally do, as in the declassified documents thay didn't manage to shred, it always seems these inner workings are sordid and self-serving, corrupt and short-sighted, and not really very expert at all.

And the naivete of being surprised the FBI has a dossier on you!!

Wow.


cantdog

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

hmmm...mutters amicus...Lewis J. Carrol...nope not that one, Lucifer....never meant to imply faith to your posts, I know full well, that most leftists/liberals are agnostics...which fits, they do not, in general accept any 'absolutes' and do not have the courage to claim 'atheism' thus the fence sitter position is both preferable and pleasureable for anal retentives...grins...take that with a smile....

I visited Amsterdam...and Heidleberg and Paris and London, on a motorcycle, 30 some years ago...I do admit, although I do not fully understand how these, 'communal' societies continue to exist. I can only refer to the 'brain drain' of european countries some years back, when all the 'creators' of wealth, (the intellects) were abandoning the rat infested ship of social democracy in most western european nations.

They wised up, and confiscated the life savings of any who would leave and made it impossible for them to escape.

Any intellectual, (simply one who thinks) that would advocate government ownership of the resources of a country, and the forced redistribution of wealth, is not worth the Sagan he nursed upon...

So, please, again, I ask...all you budding socialists...tell me the country and the system you admire most and tell me how hard you are trying to achieve citizenship in your chosen liberal haven? Please...defend...your positions..or...can you only attack?

amicus

Nope, not agnostic either, but thanks for playing guess my religion. (And before you say it, it's not satanism either, though I admit to liking a few of the more british heavy metal bands)

For the last time, a civics lesson. London, Paris, and Amsterdam are all cities in quite capitilast countries. They may be less laissez-faire (not all that true in jolly old England), and their politics are all more liberal than ours, but they are NOT SOCIALIST. I know you may have a scewed idea of what capitilism is and believe that only the republicans want it. You also seem to be a great admirer of Ayn Rand and her dream of an intellectual utopia. This perhaps is the reason for your scewed view of what capitilism mens, but ah well such is life.

Now, you told me to defend me actions, instead of attack. I am far from a socialist, though I admit it would please me if mankind was ideal enough to live in a harmonious communistic anarchy. However, since we live in a reality where man is brutish, corrupt, and conniving, capitalism and a republic seem to be the more stable of the non-dictatorships. Still, this system needs to have checks and balances to ensure that the free-market system is not permanently scewed by the machinations of monopolies and oligarchies in the business world.

The evil communistic anti-intellectual European countries that I apparently want to make love to in wild abandonig agnostic lust and evil, recognize this and make steps to insure that the oligarchies do not become to powerful and that one man cannot hog 1/5 of the GNP without paying a reasonable amount to help those on the bottom. This "redistribution of wealth" does not "bleed" these poor sods to death. They are still left with an obscene amount of cash and though they may grumble and complain at the "unfair percentage they give away" they still have enough money for bizzarre and exotic luxuries.

Take for example these excesses of the super-rich. The Tyco CEO had an extravagent party for his wife on his company's credit card that had a melting ice sculpture of Michaelangelo's David that let out chilled vodka and many more offenses. Take also Michael Jackson who has so much money he has not only bought Disneyland for a day, but has bought live giraffes and other "necessities". Considering that on the other end of the spectrum, people are working double jobs just to stay out of debt and to afford one decaying slum...i'm sorry, "city-accessible or urban" apartment. A small imbalance in the percentages of taxation makes sense with these two lifestyles. When a hundred buck expense at the end of a month is a life-threatening affair to some and not even worth as much as a penny to others, there are limits to what you can take. With a flat tax rate, you are taking a bit more from people who can't give it. What's that old quote about squeezing blood from an onion?

Furthermore, we are past a flat tax in our current American "capitalism". Our IRS is ordered to lay off investigating the upper income bracket and companies (even though these have in recent past demonstrated quite clearly their willingness to flagrantly abuse tax laws for that little extra profit) and to increase the heat on small-business owners, the middle class and poor. So the next time, you're fined an extra $3,000 for miscarrying a 2 in the change column, remember that Ken Lay won't have his vacation inconveinenced. Also, these same companies, have begun making money through purely unscrupulous means. Pushing desperately for California energy deregulation just so you can increase profits by selling false electricity and limit supply? Or manipulating the stock price and unemployment benefits so only the upper management profits from the bankruptcy they've driven their company into at the expense of both millions of loyal poor workers (lazy un-intellectual bastards that they must be) and stockholders? These are ludicrous affronts against America and the ideals of capitilism. To let them get away with it because they were "smart" enough to bribe a few key poilicians seems about as dumb as shoving your dick in an electrical socket.

Furthermore, capitilism in recent years has shifted from a 50s, Japanese work for life, ideal into something more Adams-esque (Scott). With outsourcing sending millions of even white-collar jobs overseas, we are left with an overwhelming abundance of unemployed. Also, company structures have slowly been becoming more closed and advancement up the chain nearly impossible. One, if they are loyal and their company not out to get them in random downsizings, outsourcing, or a mere lack of ethics, may only hope for one maximum of two promotions in his life and neither can be gained by hard work or other Adam Smith ideals.

Also, let us not forget that the lazy bastards on the bottom of the pecking order are kept there not only through their laziness. Greenspan demands that our country have an unemployment rate of at least 4% so that we can fight inflation. Seeing as how our unemployment rate counter stops counting an unemployed person gives up on finding a job, this translates to quite a hefty amount of the population that must be unemployed for the rest of us to enjoy our lives. For these reasons a minor, though by no means extreme redistribution of wealth is neccessary, for no other reason than to avoid unconscious genocide of the poor souls on the bottom of the heap.

Now, since I have criticized American business practices (though many of these American businesses have their headquarters and factories in other countries for "tax" reasons) I must be a socialist and thus must name the country I want to go to. Thus, I'd like to go to Metropolis (it's just as much a country as Amsterdam is after all). I think the friendliness of everyone and the soaring figure of Superman will be a rip roaring communistic time.

P.S. Question on Rand. If we eliminate the lower classes and create a utopia of "thinking men" and businessmen, who's going to mine the raw material to make anything?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

You simply cannot know and nor can I , or any one else, except those few in government who actually do know both the classified and the unclassifed information. That, I guess, is the lesson I learned throughout the Vietnam years...and as time has gone by, I realize just how little information was available at the time of the conflict. There is much going on now that we will not learn for another 30 years...if then.

In other words, we can't possibly know what's really going on, so we should just shut up and obey our leaders.

---dr.M.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

In other words, we can't possibly know what's really going on, so we should just shut up and obey our leaders.

---dr.M.

Why not? It's not like they've been ritualistically lying for the past umlao years.

 

[amicus]

Nope Mab..that was not what I was saying and you know it.

If you truly believe, for surely you do not know, that the foreign policy of the United States of America, is guided by 'corporate' America and the intent is to 'milk' the resources of third world countries to benefit the 'wealthy' in this country then you surely are in a world of your own.

It is the 'free trade' and the interchange between nations that has lifted many parts of the world, from, 'tribal' to third world.

The 'Outsourcing' of American jobs, is a bounty for third world nations and American labor, a win, win scenario for both. Everyone but 'diehard' isolationists recognize that.

A 'Global' economy is upon us...and many...as the 'flat earthers', before can not envisage a 'new' world where the free market operates to give the benefits of an open economy to all.

Dr. Mab...you are an intelligent man...look down the road, a thousand years and do you not see a 'united earth' wherein all men are free to live as they choose, with their rights protected by a representative government?

And do you not see the time when the petty, medieval conflicts between witch doctors, christian or muslim, finally recedes and the mind of man overcomes faith?

If not..then surely..we have no common ground.

It is the nature of man, his strivings for excellence, his desires to protect his loved ones, his drive to explore and expand, that will take us to the stars.

If you do not have this vision, then what?

amicus