i get some odd enjoyment from the ends justify the means mentality of "well, the reasons we went to war turned out to be bullshit but we're freeing people now." so mister "double play numbers" why didn't we do this 20 years ago? or 10? or anytime during any hawkish republican administration? BushI didn't oust saddam because that wasn't the point of the persian gulf war, at least not ostensibly but why didn't Reagan? too busy single-handedly defeating communism?

the fact is most republican voters still believe wmd have been found in iraq since the invasion. they believe iraq was directly involved with september 11. do me a favor, you seem to have figured out that the wmd thing was wrong and are now just happy we'll be liberating people, please inform other republicans, they don't seem to trust me when i say it.

whiskerando wrote:most republican voters still believe wmd have been found in iraq since the invasion. they believe iraq was directly involved with september 11.

''A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.'' - Joseph Goebbels

unarmedman wrote:two questions for you mattw, since you're the "troop" around here.

first, were you saying your old supervisor went to Iraq, or Canada? I think you meant Iraq, but you said it after the Canada part, so I wasn't totally sure.

second, (i've always wondered this...) is being "in the shit" real military slang, or just Full Metal Jacket slang?

Ha, it pays to proofread posts sometimes

Yeah, he wanted to go to Iraq a little over a year ago. Apparently there are mortars going off every night. That's what I heard about Afghanistan when some of our guys went awhile back- I guess it's calmed down a bit now (according to yr friend)

'In the shit' is more Marine/Army slang. I've never used it 'til just now, to tell you the truth...

''A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.'' - Joseph Goebbels

that joe was a smart guy...also evil, smart and evil.

though i usually try to stay away from comparing people to nazis because the discussion ends there, this is accurate.

cheney would speak to a throng of registered, prescreened republicans at a campaign stop and would say "and we know iraq had weapons of mass destruction" (this is not a direct quote) and then a day or two later go on television even in a debate and not only deny thinking that but deny even saying it. his choice to deny it in a venue where he knew he couldn't get away with it is particularly insidious.

so yes, mr. W the current administration has taken a page or two from old books of misinformation.

Okay, all of you vs. me... Bike racks, after school.

Funniest post thus far in 2005:
solum wrote:
“An observation: this forum seems very conservative.â€

Okay, all of you vs. me... Bike racks, after school.

ok but no punching in the face, no pulling hair, no kicking in the stones, biting is both allowed and encouraged.

anyway, not against you, my gracious friend. probably would have been during the lead up to the war but at this point i think it's safe to say we're both hoping for the same thing. you seem to know it will happen while i think it's highly unlikely that iraq will become a free, democratic society and stand as a beacon in the middle east, too much history says no for me to be too optimistic.

also, what the hell is happening in 18 days? if you don't at all mind my asking.

pitchers and catchers report for spring training?

[quote="6-4-3"]Okay, all of you vs. me... Bike racks, after school.

Funniest post thus far in 2005:
solum wrote:
“An observation: this forum seems very conservative.â€

I just stumbled onto some gigantic databases for Iraq history, etc.




http://vlib.iue.it/history/asia/Iraq/index.html

http://coombs.anu.edu.au/WWWVL-AsianStudies.html

My travels began at the International Institute of Social History:
http://www.iisg.nl/index.html





As an aside, though I’m honestly loath to ride in on my social theory horse, I really think the American election demonstrated that the facts and the admin’s record were not determining factors for the majority of voters.

Hard evidence, social research, alternative media, etc, may be the bedrock of social change, but they are clearly not enough. The truth is out there but it is not enough, and making it more readily accessible is important, but it too is not enough.

I’ve said this here before, but if we could punch a little hole in the boundaries of the possible for just a moment and envision that someone like Nader, or better yet, professor Noam Chomsky, had been able to debate Bush or Cheney on prime time television for one hour every night for one week in the lead-up to the election, this would have had an absolutely negligible effect, if any, on election day.

Why?



I submit: a) political economy b) ideology (ie, religion, bourgeois liberalism, nationalism, etc)



"Stupidity is not a natural quality, but one socially produced and reinforced." - Adorno



At times, to the little corner of the earth that is not America, America appears as a gigantic factory whose chief product is stupidity.


But old Theo also wrote:


"[Today], it is part of morality not be at home in one's home."


In conclusion, Slint.

LAD, nice to hear your socially critical voice from afar again.

I think I agree with your opinion on the worthlessness of a Bush-Reality debate. We must realize some things:

1. Noam Chomsky speaks an esoteric language
2. Nader, to his credit, at least speaks a language that enables him to be a figure to the mass public, but he too speaks too esoteric a language
3. Bush could respond to every allegation with "duh, [defensive tone] er... we are! blah blah...progress/freedom... this guy, professor something, I bet he spells real good!" and it would not detract from his reputation, not in the least.

The intellectuals, they (or is it we?) talk too much. Talk is a defense mechanism. It's just another use of logic. The shrub is a buffoon, but he uses logic, a certain kind of logic that works on a certain kind of audience--and audience with which he is familiar and which is familiar with his logic.

The kids, they ought to learn to read. But really, it takes years and years of instruction. I didn't really learn until I was almost out of college, and I was one of the good students.

All of the swept-aside details of history and alternative media in the world is not going to have a shit's worth of an effect on the mainstream. And let's face it, in American Democracy, the hunk of the vote is in the mainstream. I have a weird part of myself that kind of wants the mainstream to be stupid. I like sitting on my esoteric high horse, watching all the automatons. But you know what---maybe all people actually aren't so stupid, and when I realize this, I fall right the fuck off the horse.

I mean, if people are so "stupid," then why the hell is it so hard for "smart" people to convince them of things? Eh? Are we too smart to speak the language of "stupid?'"

Or are we just going to scoff and go take another crack at A Thousand Plateaus and feel so damn proud of ourselves with the turn of every page?

Don't get me wrong, there are some fantastic ideas in all of that esoteric jumble. But when you start to discuss actual change, you have to realize how far down the line from the point of theory you have to be in order to make that happen.

There I go again, talking so much.