Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (634218)	9/28/2004 10:40:57 AM
From: Doug R	Respond to of 769670

When Bush lies, he is not . . . addressing people who read news or who think or who look for sense in the world. He is speaking to those who want relief from thinking, from hard decisions, from complex judgments; he's speaking to those who want a likable authority to take care of the hard stuff. He's speaking to the "my president, right or wrong" folks. He's speaking to those whose need for reassurance trumps the need for truth. In fact, when Bush lies, he's not speaking at all. He's repeating the "empty utterances" of Rove's carefully crafted message. Mickleson hits the nail on the head when she says, when Bush lies, he is speaking to those who want relief from thinking, who want essentially not to think. Chris Lovell, a Greek literature graduate scholar in Texas, writes, saying that Rove's robbing words of their connection to reality reminds him of this passage from Thucydides. Chris writes: This reminded me of a passage from the Greek historian Thucydides, describing what happens to language during wartime: To fit in with the change of events, words, too, had to change their usual meanings. What used to be described as thoughtless aggression was now considered the courage of a loyal ally; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one's unmanly character; the ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action. Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was perfectly legitimate self-defense. Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted, and anyone who objected to them became a suspect. To plot sucessfully was a sign of intelligence, but it was still cleverer to see that a plot was hatching. If one attempted to provide against having to do either, one was disrupting the unity of the party and acting out of fear of the opposition. In short, it was equally praiseworthy to get one's blow in first against someone who was going to do wrong, and to denounce someone who had no intention of doing any wrong at all. Family relations were a weaker tie than party membership... --Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 382 Some of this seems quite Rovian. The idea that "the ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action" sounds a lot like the flip-flop accusation levelled against Kerry. What's chilling is that Thucydides was describing political behavior during a civil war. warandpiece.com

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (634218)	9/28/2004 12:40:42 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The problem is Iraq was caused by many things. After kicking the terrorists out of Afghanistan, they needed to go somewhere. For many the logical landing point was to go where they could best benefit the cause of evil. The easiest place to confront the forces of good is in Iraq. The borders are very porous. Iranians will support those who confront good. There is much confusion. Where there is confusion, it is much easier to hide in plain sight. According to Bush (in an interview with the independent Bill O'Reilly) Alawali said that after a police or military recruiting or training site is terrorized, more recruits show up the next day. It says a lot about the resolve of the Iraqi people. They want a Westernized democracy. As I see it, the problem with a true multinational police force is big egos. Ike had the same problem with Monty in WW II. Everyone wants to be perceived as being in control. With the current arrangement, we have a clear directive. Each force is responsible for their region, and reports to the US and the Iraqi. Based on the range of stories coming out of Iraq, it appears that there are many different feelings in different parts of the country. The Sunnis are already missing control. The Shiites may be playing us, or may be happy to be able to share control. The Kurds want a separate state, but seem willing to accept the unlikelihood of that outcome. The Sunni Triangle and Sadir City seem to harbor much resentment towards America, and the whole liberation. Foreign terrorists are becoming increasingly effective at working with the locals. As I have said before in other posts, the chaos resembles gangster-controlled areas of US cities during prohibition. Someone needs to lock up all of the gangsters, or kill them. The moral authority within the country needs to condemn violence that reduces freedoms. The people who want to be free need to stand up to the bullies. It is helpful to recall that there has been a repressive dictatorship ruling for a very long time. People who were brave are now dead. Even Saddam could not eliminate bravery, but his thugs beat it out of many potential righteous soles. Now explain to me why I wasted my time on a person who would say, "I believe Bush's postwar neocon plan screwed up the country so badly that the Iraqis didn't get it, thought we were screwing with them deliberately, and now see us as the problem." In response to your statement, "We don't want to do what we did in Vietnam, which was to draw the nationalistic elements to the other side." What we did in Vietname according to the Vietnamese was encorage the North Vienamese who were on the verge of collapse and surrender to keep on going. They took heart from people like Clinton and Kerry.