EdPosted by Julie on 3/24/03 at 07:58 (114141)
One thing only could have brought me to make a post here: anti-semitism.
I don't know whether or not you are anti-semitic, but it's easy to see why your reference to Mein Kampf might have led Paula to think so.
I am a Jew too, and if you had made that remark to me, I too would have been angry.
I've gathered, from things you've said about your family background, that you are a Jew also. I may be wrong. But if I am right, then an appropriate response to Paula would have been to say something like 'I'm a Jew too, and I am sorry for my Mein Kampf remark'. If you aren't, an apology was even more in order.
But instead of coming clean, you baited her: you addressed her in Hebrew. (For those who may not know, 'Shalom' is Hebrew for 'peace' and Lila Tov' for 'Goodnight'. )
You may have thought you were being funny. To me, it was a perfect example of the deviousness, the duplicity with which you have presented your views here in the past six weeks.
You know, Ed, as well as I do, that the war against Iraq has been launched, as Mason said the other day, under false pretences. You know that the aim of the Project for the New American Century, as set forth in 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' by Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, is to maintain American global supremacy through four core aims, one of which is 'to fight and decisively win simultaneous, major, multiple theatre wars'.
And I think you probably know that these key figures in the current administration acknowledged in 2000 that 'a catastrophic, cataclysmic excuse, like a new Pearl Harbor' would be needed for this strategy to be put into operation. They got it, on 11 September 2001. And they have used it.
But you've never let on that you know all this. You've consistently pretended that you think this is a just, clean war, a war for democracy, a war to free the Iraqi people, a war against the evil Saddam Hussein. Of course Saddam Hussein is a vicious dictator who needs to be taken out. There has never been a single word of disagreement about that from anyone here, certainly not from me: only about how it should/shouldn't be accomplished. But you have known, and I have learned, that in the big picture envisioned by Rumsfeld and his rightwing associates, Iraq is only the beginning. Yet you have never let on. You have been devious, as well condescending, manipulative and insulting.
And it is you who have poisoned this website.
If anyone who is not yet aware of the New American Century agenda wants to check it out, they can do so by keying New American Century into Google. You may also key in Rebuilding America's Defenses.
And think: is this what you want for your country? 'Multiple, simultaneous, major theatre wars' to maintain US global supremacy? Think. Think.
P.S. Since I am writing, I would like to make it clear (again) that I was not 'run off' the board. Nor were my feelings hurt. I left because I did not want to be in this place any more. I have kept in touch with the friends I made here.
And I have been reading the board, out of a sense of responsibility to understand the rightwing mind. It hasn't been a pleasant experience, but it has been useful, because it has led me to do research, and to inform myself. What I now know about my country makes me angry, and it makes me weep.
Re: EdSteve P on 3/24/03 at 08:46 (114150)
Hi Julie --
Good to see you back.
' 'Multiple, simultaneous, major theatre wars' to maintain US global supremacy? Think. Think. '
Wow! A bit of hyperbole there, I would say!
But make no mistake....Bush & Congress will continue the global war on terrorism until final, definitive victory. I think you'll see more action in Bush's second term, especially after a decisive re-election & with increased Republican margins in both Houses. Count on it.
Afghanistan is taken care of. Iraq will be in several weeks. More than 3,000 Al Queda have been rounded up & arrested worldwide & the count keeps going up. Victory is certain. We have a president who says what he means & then does what he says. God bless him.
I've never been more optimistic as an American. 76% of Americans are behind the liberation of Iraq (weekend poll) & also a majority of Britons (weekend poll).
God bless them all!
Re: Edpala on 3/24/03 at 09:46 (114158)
julie, it is awfully nice to see you here.
Re: false pretensesEd Davis, DPM on 3/24/03 at 09:46 (114159)
The war has been launched under 'false pretenses.' Obviously you have such a significant distortion of reality that there apears little room to argue this. Luckily, polls show that the majority of Brits are standing behind the US.
The bottom line is that the board had become a place for rationale discussion as you wil note if you had read posts over the last couple of weeks. Pala re-entered the board yesterday with vitriol and abuse and she, I beleived was the only one to blame. It is now obvious that your pretense of moderation and being rationale is just that, a pretense.
I have consistently urged that personal issues, personalities be left out and that only issues be discussed. That plea has fallen on deaf ears. Yes, I baited Pala, but that was only to expose her for what she is. I am now learning what you are too. Such a shame.
Re: EdBGCPed on 3/24/03 at 09:46 (114160)
I wonder why, when people that hate Bush and conservatism, make the argument against war they often say the same thing. It is obvious Saddam is an evil person and has to go...... BUT.
The BUT is the question. They never have an answer as to how do you get him out. I still hear the occasional 'we needed to give inspectors more time' or 'we will just make the Iraqis mad from bombing and they will come at us stronger'
I never hear a very plausible explaination or solution. I think there must be a term for it when a persons beliefs or feelings make them so against something that they will dismiss logic and reality for that belief. I am not slamming anyone here but I really cant understand it.
Inspectors were impotent and had 12 years. I have seen and heard about 95% of Iraqis GLADLY supporting this action. DO you think if Iraqi tanks rolled into our country we would all run out to hugg them and gives thumbs up? Maybe if they landed in Hollywood or San Fran they would but nowhere else
Re: false pretensespala on 3/24/03 at 09:59 (114173)
ed you exposed yourself for what you are. i would think after your mein kampf shame that you and you fascist friends here would be ashamed to show up today.
Re: false pretensesjohn h on 3/24/03 at 10:49 (114192)
Paula: your post grow more bizarre each day. You talk about Ed and his 'fascist friends'. I have liberal friends who I disagree with on many subjects. At one time I paid some attention to your post and arguments but I really give no credence to any of your post anymore. Your arguments are unintelligible and filled with hate. I would think even the people who differ about the war in Iraq should be somewhat concerned about your post. If any of the people who agree with me somewhat start hurling around names like Fascist and using expressions like 'Jew dog' and referring to Mien Kampf I would quickly separate myself from them promptly. I am sorry I have let your rantings get me so upset that I fired off a tough response. I will try and do better in the future but will address what I perceive to be not in the best interest of our troops in combat and their familes who are at home..
Re: Welcome backSharon W on 3/24/03 at 11:07 (114199)
Welcome back, Julie; I hope you'll stay.
Re: false pretensespala on 3/24/03 at 11:57 (114220)
i guess when jews get baited, john, they get kind of upset by it. i assure you i will spend every minute of my life outraged and upset by jew baiting. and it is my opinion when a jew baiter is supported, is apologized for, when others rush to his defense then that, in my opinion, is anti semitism, john.
Re: Edmarie on 3/24/03 at 14:53 (114257)
I knew you couldn't resist this one. Nice to see you here.
Re: false pretenses / Eugene McCarthy, the real thingMason on 3/24/03 at 15:05 (114262)
Political News - March 24, 2003
Ex-U.S. Sen. McCarthy Questions Iraq War
March 24, 2003 08:30 AM EST
ST. PAUL - It was supposed to be a forum about the struggle of third parties in a dominant two-party political system. Instead, the discussion frequently turned toward war.
That tends to happen when Eugene McCarthy is around.
Last month, the former Minnesota senator and anti-war presidential candidate predicted that the United States wouldn't attack Iraq. On Sunday, he shook his head.
'I'm not clear as to what a pre-emptive strike means,' McCarthy said. 'I don't think we should call it a war. It's kind of a police action.'
McCarthy, whose 1968 Democratic presidential campaign helped galvanize opposition to the Vietnam War, has been a staunch opponent of war in Iraq and believes it's the result of a military and political system run amok.
The military industry has become too big and its influence on politicians - Republican and Democrat - too strong, McCarthy said. He compared President Bush to the Romans, who, he said, attacked northern Africa because they needed something to do.
'Bush has found a cause,' said McCarthy, who turns 87 Saturday.
More than 100 people attended Sunday's event, titled 'A Threat to Democracy: The Tyranny of the Two Party System,' at Central Presbyterian Church in downtown St. Paul. Dean Barkley, the independent senator who recently finished the late Sen. Paul Wellstone's term, also participated.
In 1968, an 18-year-old Barkley became inspired by McCarthy. 'You got me motivated to get off my butt and get involved,' he told McCarthy.
McCarthy, who lives just outside Washington in Virginia, has written more than a dozen books, as well as essays and poetry. He's currently at work on a book critical of the two-party system.
After 1968, McCarthy ran for president several times, most recently as an independent in 1992.
. . .
Regarding terrorism, McCarthy said Americans should look no further than themselves. The United States terrorized black people for 200 years and, later, other countries with its nuclear capability.
Of course, no McCarthy appearance would be complete without a few barbs.
On Gerald Ford: 'Ford was a good fellow, he wasn't too complicated.'
On Richard Nixon: 'Money couldn't hurt him. What do you want? A pure Richard Nixon?'
On the religious right: 'It's hard to judge these people because they're all reborn.'
On himself: 'I've been saying everything for 10 years - at least.'
Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Re: false pretenses / Eugene McCarthy, the real thingBGCPed on 3/24/03 at 15:33 (114275)
So Mason are you saying you agree with this statement that 'we have terrorized other countries with our nuclear capabilities'
I would say that we were more than fair when we dropped them on Japan. We warned them SEVERAL times. We have had it and not used it for almost 60 years, I would say that is a good record. Who did we terrorize with it?
Do you think most other countries would have the same record? I bet you think we were meanies for doing that to Japan. We should have not used power and just kept sending guys there to get killed. I think many on the left hate our countries power for some strange reason it is like a guilt or something.
Re: false pretensesJulie on 3/24/03 at 16:44 (114281)
Yes: false pretences.
As usual, Ed, you decline to acknowledge or deal with facts that are presented to you, while interminably going on about how you, and you alone, deal in facts while others name-call.
My post stands. And you know perfectly well what I am talking about. It's all there on the New American Century website, and in Rebuilding America's Defenses.
And now I have a little rhyme for you.
'I' before 'e'
Except after 'c'
Or when sounded like 'A'
As in 'neighbour' or 'weigh'
Lila tov to you
Re: SteveJulie on 3/24/03 at 16:48 (114283)
'Multiple, simultaneous, major theatre wars' is a quote from 'Rebuilding America's Defenses', a 90-page document which you should read if you haven't. This document, penned by the senior members of the Bush administration I mentioned, also calls for the buildup of the US nuclear capacity, and the use of nuclear weapons as needed.
You've never been more optimistic as an American? Good luck to you. Do you not realise that this new nuclear policy, which turns on its head all the careful disarmament work that has been done over the years, is certain to lead to another nuclear arms race, with - almost certainly, unless we are extremely lucky - disastrous consequences?
Re: false pretensespala on 3/24/03 at 17:14 (114286)
lol. and awfully glad to see you here.
Re: self-hateEd Davis, DPM on 3/24/03 at 18:18 (114302)
The left embodies a strange form of guilt that manifests itself as a 'self-hatred' of America. Pla displays that as well as a 'self-hatred' of her own religion. She is against everything her religion stands for despite laying some claim to labeling herself as a member of the religion.
Re: false pretensesEd Davis, DPM on 3/24/03 at 18:51 (114321)
Please state the 'facts' presented to me which you say I am ignoring.
Maybe it is hard to hear people over all the shouting.
I have suggested that we establish some rules of civility on this board that everyone can agree to and abide by. You have ignored that suggestion but prefer to encourage your attack dog, Pala, who is now attacking my family members who have survived Hitler's concentration camps. Shame on you.
Again, I am proposing rules of civilty that everyone on this board can accept and abide by. I invite you to lead off with suggestions. Once we have accepted such rules, all need to stand behind them and be willing to request that violators desist, voluntarily refrain from participation or ask Scott to block IP addresses of repeat violators. The same rules should apply to all irrespective of political bent.
Re: SteveSteve P on 3/24/03 at 19:20 (114332)
Yes, I've read the 90 page document & it is not as you represent it. It details the sharp decline in US military readiness under Clinton's 8 years (service by service) & recommends specific steps to be taken to restore the simultaneous-war capability that he & Gore destroyed. In no way does it advocate a change in American policy.
I spent 28 years in the defense industry & am well acquainted with the facts & figures. Your conclusions show that you are not. I'll debate you any time in any format. You're in my field.
What 'careful disarmament work' are you talking about? The ridiculous 'nuclear freeze' argument of the 1970s (now totally discreditied) or the ill-conceived nuclear test treaty that the Senate rejected under Clinton......the one that got only 49 votes when 67 were required for ratification? (Congress does have good judgment!)
Another nuclear arms race, you say? With whom? The Russians, who are half starving & barely have enough money to keep the lights on?
I'm curious to know.
Re: self-hatemarie on 3/24/03 at 19:25 (114334)
Ed these are the kinds of comments that get folks upset. I thought John had a good idea. I feel making a comment about a group of people is a form of name calling. Can't we work together and try to stop this kind of bashing. I'm going to locate the guidelines for success maybe we can build on it together as a group. We need a moderator at this board. They have them on other boards.
Re: SteveBGCPed on 3/24/03 at 21:23 (114366)
Yep thats right, I like to let my man Steve do my easy work.........enough said
p.s. I dont recall exact figures but under Clinton/Gore the military was decimated, that is fact. Thats what happens when you allow a person with a disdane for the military be its commander and chief Which brings to mind this question. If Gore did get in can you imagine what our capability would be after for more years. I am not just talking about our ability to go out in the world and kick butt. I am talking about our ability to DEFEND also.
Make no mistake the things that many countries hate us for is also why they dont mess with us, at least not directly.
Re: Stevejohn h on 3/24/03 at 21:41 (114375)
Steve: our current level of military spending is 3.2% of GDP. Ten years ago it was above 6.0%. We are near an all time low. That sort of surprised me. Curretly the Democrats are proposing to cut the Bush budget by $100 billion to pay for the war. Bush has gone to congress for $70 billion for the war. Of course we have no idea how this war will end or how long it will take. We have already repositioned millions of pounds of food stuffs for humanitarian aid in the area. I think it will cost each American $300 each if the cost of the war is $100 billion. This is the economic side of it. Time will tell how all this plays out in the mideast. In the tiny country of Quatar where General Franks is located every citizen is basically a millionaire. They have only a few hundred thousand citizens and untold amounts of oil. They had an enoromus number of workers from other countries (double their own population) to perform most of the work. They built a giant airfield to try and get anyone to come in and provide protection for them since they were so rich and had all this oil. That is how we gained access to their air field and why we are there. Kuwait remains very much our friends as they owe their lives to us. The fighting is getting tough as we near Bagdad. I do hope they are able to subdue the Republican Guard outside of the city with airpower before we take them head on. We will win in any event but many lives will be saved both our and Iraqui civilians if we can get them to give up. We should have a good idea within 4 days. Biological attacks are still very much in play.
Re: SteveEd Davis, DPM on 3/24/03 at 23:23 (114390)
I really worry that we are going to wait for a first strike on our troops with chemical or bio weapons just to give the naysayers the 'proof' they want that Saddam owns and will use such weapons. I really hope I am wrong on this. The troops may be adequately protected to absorb a limited attack and such weapons have a high degree of unpredictability. I just don't want to consider the thought of us sacrificing the lives of even a few troops for political purposes. The political pressure is high.