New version of Toledo Talk


    September 20, 2006

Hugo Chavez presents his proof - It seems that 'ole Hugo doesn't know how funny he can REALLY be when working with props. He's pretty sure that Chomsky's book is prima facie evidence.

Here is the original bit.

I present this thread specifically because COMMUNISTS are fearful of declaring their INTENTIONS. Communism and socialism are antithetic to the nature of this nation, and I am repulsed by the pleasant MSM presentation of Hugo Chavez to the world. It is bullshit.

Also, this thread is an opportunity for GuestZero and I to finish that which was started (and that which he was unable to finish due to connectivity issues) several months ago.

Evil prospers when good men and women are silent.

posted by AirTrainer to politics at 8:29 P.M. EST     (48 Comments)


Comments ...


...after seeing that pic, it reminds me of another UN photo from a few years back...

So, let's put this image and post up to the mirror: [ahem]



Bush administration presents their "proof"

I present this photo because FASCISTS are fearful of declaring their INTENTIONS. Fascism and Reactionaryism are antithetic to the nature of this nation, and I am repulsed by the MSM presentation of the US Secretary of State to the world. It is bullshit...

You can all play along. find a photo of someone you don't like holding something up. Then follow this formula:

[Person in photo] presents their "proof"

I present this photo because [group you hate] are fearful of declaring their INTENTIONS. [credo 1 you hate] and [credo 2 you hate] are antithetic to the nature of this nation, and I am repulsed by the MSM presentation of the [person in the photo] to the world. It is bullshit...

Kinda like a mad lib....

...or maybe like a mad mad mad mad lib....

But remember, in this game, nobody wins.

posted by timault at 10:44 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 20, 2006     #



AirTrainer, you and I can't finish anything since you believe in the supremacy of the American Empire and I don't.

Noam Chomsky is in the top 10 of most-quoted Western intellectuals. I mean, he's waaay up there with Plato and Freud. You've got quite a ways to go to discredit such a man. Even subtracting his iconic contribution to the field of linguistics, he's a commanding intellectual presence.

The problem with Chomsky arises when imperialists like yourself can't deal with the truth of the American Empire that he presents. Like these so-called Communists, imperialists like yourself are deeply afraid of "declaring their INTENTIONS", since:

1) they don't even understand that their intentions are murderous and evil
2) they can't very well admit they want to enslave the rest of the world to capitalism, consumerism, Christianity, "Whiteness", or other leading aspects of their civilization

Here, let's have a nice demonstration of what I'm talking about. I'm basically talking about an Orwellian mindset where the very idea of self-evil has been wiped from the average American mind. In the September 14th, 2006 Wall Street Journal -- to which I subscribe, pinko hippie communist that I am -- in the opinions pages there is a 1-column article by Jin Ha Hwang, titled "Just Say No (To Roh)". It starts out thusly:

"North Korea is no longer a threat to South Korea. The wartime operational control (OP-CON) of 680,000 troops will be transferred back to South Korea by 2009, and the U.S.-Republic of Korea Combined Forces Command (CFC) will be consequently dismantled. At least that is what the presidents of the U.S. and South Korea think will happen in the next three years. But they would be making a grave mistake."

He then goes on to lay out his thinking as to why the USA should basically continue to occupy South Korea, as it has since 1950 or so. The "fnord" written here is that he assumes that the USA has any right whatsoever to invade and occupy any nation whatsoever. This assumption is just imperialism.

Another example from that same article:

"[T]he security situation on the Korean peninsula is more fragile than ever. It was only March of this year when the commanding general of the U.S Forces Korea, Gen. Burwell B. Bell, testified at the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that "North Korea poses a variety of threats to regional and global stability." His testimony tells us that we need a strong alliance with a well-coordinated combined defense posture, and most Koreans, military or civilian, agree."

Generally, you don't ask a murderer for his opinion on the legality of the killing he just performed. This is true since we already know the murderer did a bad thing and that his opinion on the topic is simply not relevant since he obviously has the strongest possible conflict of interest regarding the killing.

By the same token, we don't need to ask an Imperial General about his opinion on whether or not to continue occupying a foreign nation. His answer will ALWAYS be "yes, continue to occupy" -- since he is in an extreme conflict of interest. He wants to continue dominating the natives (and in fact, in line with Gen. Bell, he'd generally be all for expanding the domination). That's why he was sent to begin with, along with his Imperial Legions. But things like this whip past American eyeballs with little comment. The article author produced another "fnord" for the American public to internalize.

You see, AirTrainer, the underlying problem you have with Chavez -- admittedly a bit of a Latin strongman -- is that when he holds up a Chomsky book your imperialism is immediately threatened by the "exposťs" that Chomsky has been doing over the years about Americans killing and looting in Central America (and all that killing and looting by proxy through supporting autocrats). There were two primary factors as to why the United States has attacked and assaulted Central America for at least the last 2-3 generations:

1) native resources (largely agricultural) that the capitalists naturally want to own entirely without regard for native laws or even ownership claims
2) the old excuse of needing to dominate the area before the Communists do, blah-blah-fŁckin'-blah

Heck, they aren't even much of exposťs since Chomsky regularly surveys information from published news media, even Western ones. The WSJ opinion page is one of those classic instances where the truth is right there in print, but it cannot be seen by the imperialized masses. It's kind of like what Robert Anton Wilson wrote in his "Illuminatus!" trilogy, with the "fnords" written into newspapers that Americans were unable to see but were subconsciously affected by. The American Empire writes its evil into its news and publishing media, where is is soaked up by the masses who then conform to the background assumptions of what's revealed. That's why the US Propaganda System is a marvel of alternative nomenclaure, like "pretexting" (i.e. lying, spying and fraud) and the #1 Orwell winner, "spontaneous energetic disassembly" (i.e. explosion).

Chomsky is somewhat popular around the world for his political analyses, but almost without exception he is demonized and marginalized in the USA -- you know, the nation he's a citizen of, and where he lives, and where he works. This makes perfect sense since he regularly reveals the hard truths behind America's propaganda-drenched news services. Americans largely don't want to face the fact that their nation is the world's largest rogue state and that -- with Britain, other European states, and Russia -- it commits the world's worst acts of terrorism (which in this case should be called "nationalist militarism" -- or IMPERIALISM for short). The stress between competing Empires (in this case, the USSR and the USA) helped immensely in motivating said Empires into committing the worst offenses behind such "hidden" (i.e. domestically ignored) terrorism abroad.

Moving imperial violence abroad is an American specialty. The USA maintains things like nuclear weapons and aircraft-carrier groups not for self-defense. Such a thing as an aircraft carrier is a weapon with only one real purpose, and that's to attack nations all over the Earth. You have ZERO need to have such military reach when you're an actual Republic, based upon good not evil, the rule of law over the rule of leaders and personalities, and are interested in real self-defense not defense-by-offense. No, you use such a military reach to rule the world.

It's time for you to admit, AirTrainer, that the USA not only cannot rule the world -- fŁck, Hitler couldn't even rule France, and that was just next door to Germany! -- but America now is in a downward spiral that will relegate it to the status of Britain soon enough. Britain may have some influence in world politics, but largely its population is no longer able to strut all over the world like they rule each patch of mud they walk on. America's elite will continue to have some influence as well in the decades to come, but the nation itself has passed the "glory days" and must now subside into a strong decline. The present point of honest appraisal only raises the question as to how violent that decline will be. (The Iraqis could probably answer that question pretty easily, eh?)

P.S. "Evil prospers when good men and women are silent." Well spoken, AT, and I obviously agree, since I'm not being silent to the evil commonly offered up by American imperialists to justify murdering foreigners right in their beds in their native lands.

posted by GuestZero at 11:48 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 20, 2006     #



Great photo, timault! I noticed in the shot that Powell seems to be holding something that looks remarkably like a small lever ... which makes sense, since he completely flushed his credibility and personal integrity right down the toilet with what he said.
posted by GuestZero at 11:57 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 20, 2006     #



Chavez is a essentially wants turn Venezuela into the next Cuba or North Korea or 1970s China. Of course, he thinks he can do it the "correct" way and not have his population live in poverty.

The American left has already started ignoring Chavez's lack of support of personal freedoms because of his anti-capitalist stance on economic issues. His comment saying that he thought the theory saying the US conspired to commit 9/11 is proof enough that this guy will say anything to get his way. He doesn't really believe the US was involved, but he knows saying that will likely win over radical supporters here and abroad for his cause.

posted by HeyHey at 12:23 A.M. EST on Thu Sep 21, 2006     #



Noam Chomsky is in the top 10 of most-quoted Western intellectuals.

That's kind of like being one of the top 10 Jewish NBA players.

posted by YakRider at 06:36 A.M. EST on Thu Sep 21, 2006     #



I'm not going to weigh in either for or against on this argument. But I would suggest all parties to look into the redistribution of American Forces in the Pacific.

1)American bases on Japanese soil are being turned over to Japanese Military

2)U.S. presence in the Pacific will be mainly spearheaded from Guam, a U.S. protectorate.

3)It is unclear currently if this would affect U.S. troop levels in S. Korea but it would cause a reorganization of the table of organization.

This is currently in progress due to two things. The ongoing changing political climate in East Asia and the Pacific. And the growing might of the Japanese Military.

posted by MikeyA at 07:02 A.M. EST on Thu Sep 21, 2006     #



AirTrainer concluded his post with this:

Evil prospers when good men and women are silent.


I would agree that this quote is of paramount importance these days. This is precicely why we bloggers are hard at work 'shouting' the truth to the good men and women.

posted by politics_in_mudville at 07:54 A.M. EST on Thu Sep 21, 2006     #



Noam Chomsky is in the top 10 of most-quoted Western intellectuals. I mean, he's waaay up there with Plato and Freud. You've got quite a ways to go to discredit such a man.

You're correct, because Cambodia is roughly 8,000 miles from Toledo. That's a hike.

Read Voices from S-21. It's dry and I'll admit I struggled through some parts of it, but afterwards you'll realize the US had very little to do with the genoside that claimed the lives of millions of Cambodians, unlike what Noam will have you believe.

BTW, who claimed Chomsky is "in the top 10 of most-quoted Western intellectuals"?

Chavez is a essentially wants turn Venezuela into the next Cuba or North Korea or 1970s China. Of course, he thinks he can do it the "correct" way and not have his population live in poverty.

You're dead on. The last time I saw statistics on his handling of the economy of Venezuela, the number of Venezuelans below the poverty line has risen by over 2,000,000 citizens. This is at a time when oil revenues for the country have been at their highest levels in history. The socialist government of Chavez has taken in nearly $150 Billion dollars and has less than nothing to show for it.

Ibsen Martinez detailed what is happening in Venezuela and what will happen once the oil money dries up. Continued government mismanagement and corruption will doom Venezuela to a future as a failed petro-state. History has proven it can only end in tears.

posted by thenick at 08:21 A.M. EST on Thu Sep 21, 2006     #



The problem with TRUTH is that everyone who has an opinion thinks their opinions are based on the TRUTH.
posted by rooky at 08:25 A.M. EST on Thu Sep 21, 2006     #



Have any of your read his work or attended his talk when he was at UT?
posted by stukerr at 10:53 A.M. EST on Thu Sep 21, 2006     #



good article on Venezuela, thenick.

i read an article about their oil industry. their underfunding of the industry's infrastructure is well known and thought to be an approx 70% shortfall. one has to wonder how long that will continue.

posted by wholesaler1972 at 11:40 A.M. EST on Thu Sep 21, 2006     #



1)American bases on Japanese soil are being turned over to Japanese Military

True.

2)U.S. presence in the Pacific will be mainly spearheaded from Guam, a U.S. protectorate.

Guam is a US Territory, not a protectorate. There's a huge difference. Right now the Marines are early in the process of moving 8,000 troops from Okinawa to Guam. The Navy has once again began homeporting fast attack submarines on Guam. The Navy is also looking to forward deploy another aircraft carrier and Guam is being considered for that too, along with Hawaii. The other forward deployed aircraft carrier is homeported in Yokosuka, Japan. The Air Force is conducting an expansion of their facilities on Guam with an eye toward once again basing strategic forces out there. (The B-52's were removed from Guam about 15 years ago.)

3)It is unclear currently if this would affect U.S. troop levels in S. Korea but it would cause a reorganization of the table of organization.

US troops in South Korea have been drawn down by about 20%. Those that are left are in the early process of redeploying south of the Han River, out of range of North Korea's artillery. The US has also turned over the last stretch of the DMZ it guarded to South Korean troops.

posted by YakRider at 12:33 P.M. EST on Thu Sep 21, 2006     #



3)It is unclear currently if this would affect U.S. troop levels in S. Korea but it would cause a reorganization of the table of organization.

Q: How does South Korea feel about having US troops depart en masse?

I know very little about Korea, but the last satellite photo I saw of Korea, taken at night, shows a very clear border between the North and South; There are no lights in North Korea. While I understand that dictator Kim is hostile to S. Korea, I'm not overly worried about a country without electricity.

I'm a little curious about GZ's outlook on Imperial US and foreign affairs. GZ, how would you have had the US handle Iraq? I presume that you wouldn't invade, but what about human rights violations perpetrated by Saddam?

posted by madjack at 12:57 P.M. EST on Thu Sep 21, 2006     #



i feed this whole matter to be very discouraging. while i'm not a big fan of our president, i cannot believe chavez. this thug comes to our soil and belittles our commander-in-chief. i'd love to smack him......with my closed fist....multiple times.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/chavez.ny/index.html

it is good to see some dem's doing the right thing. it's too bad others in this country (and on this site) take this opportunity to further critize him and our nation. it truly is a shame.

posted by wholesaler1972 at 09:10 P.M. EST on Thu Sep 21, 2006     #



A bunch of great, candid photos taken in North Korea by a Russian tourist.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=82755

posted by YakRider at 10:47 P.M. EST on Thu Sep 21, 2006     #



YakRider, You're right Guam is a territory but I didn't want to confuse people so I used protectorate because it inferrs the U.S. Gov't's military involvment.

Everything I've read doesn't directly show a withdraw of U.S. troops from S. Korea on a long term basis. But it does show a significant drop in "Combat MOSes". This means the shift is we will be more of logistical support to the Korean military.

BTW YakRider - the Jewish basketball player joke had me rolling.

posted by MikeyA at 09:16 A.M. EST on Fri Sep 22, 2006     #



Also I think Mr. Chavez should try to focus on the 33% of his country that's in complete destitute poverty despite their rich oil wells before he begins lecturing the U.S. on it's policies.

I'm sorry I have a problem listening to a man who considers Illich Rameriz Sanchez AKA Carlos the Jackal (a worldwide assassin for hire/terrorist), a close personal friend.

posted by MikeyA at 09:22 A.M. EST on Fri Sep 22, 2006     #



i feed this whole matter

i have no idea what i did here. i may have to use the preview feature moving forward.

posted by wholesaler1972 at 09:28 A.M. EST on Fri Sep 22, 2006     #



YakRider, You're right Guam is a territory but I didn't want to confuse people so I used protectorate because it inferrs the U.S. Gov't's military involvment.

I lived out on Guam for 2 1/2 years. Think West Virginia, only tropical and more corrupt.

posted by YakRider at 02:13 P.M. EST on Fri Sep 22, 2006     #



More corrupt than West Virginia!? I find it hard to top Sen Byrd. How can that be? Are they represented by a Neo-Nazi?
posted by MikeyA at 02:17 P.M. EST on Fri Sep 22, 2006     #



I'm sorry I have a problem listening to a man who considers Illich Rameriz Sanchez AKA Carlos the Jackal (a worldwide assassin for hire/terrorist), a close personal friend.

Ahh another fan of Robert Ludlum??? (the bourne identity - the book not the movie) lol 8-)

posted by tm at 02:36 P.M. EST on Fri Sep 22, 2006     #



did someone say Robert Ludlum????
posted by MaggieThurber at 02:38 P.M. EST on Fri Sep 22, 2006     #



did someone say Robert Ludlum????

My favorite author. I got off topic, but when i seen the reference to carlos the jackal i had to comment. Sorry 8-)

posted by tm at 02:42 P.M. EST on Fri Sep 22, 2006     #



tm - MUCH more interesting topic than Hugo Chavez...one of my all-time favorite authors, as well.
posted by MaggieThurber at 03:07 P.M. EST on Fri Sep 22, 2006     #



A bunch of great, candid photos taken in North Korea by a Russian tourist.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=82755


Here's an account of an American who snuck into North Korea for the Arirang Festival. Thankfully for the author, North Korea allows for the stapling of visas, otherwise US Customs would have their hand so far up his ass they could use him as a puppet.

posted by thenick at 10:03 P.M. EST on Fri Sep 22, 2006     #



I only like Ludlum because his books are fiction. What's scary is when they come to fruition with real life people in power.
posted by MikeyA at 04:58 P.M. EST on Sat Sep 23, 2006     #



Maddie said: ďGZ, how would you have had the US handle Iraq? I presume that you wouldn't invade, but what about human rights violations perpetrated by Saddam?Ē

Iraq is (or WAS) a sovereign nation and as such "Human rights violations" are not the responsibility of any other nation to intervene with. Each sovereign nation has a native population who has an inherent right to throw off the yoke of their oppressor.

Of course, if such things WERE the actual responsibility of, say, America, then it would have intervened in the much more serious genocidal actions in places like East Timor, Rwanda and -- ohhh yeahhh -- Lebanon of late. However, those places don't have OIL. As well, if America was really all that concerned about, say, "Human rights violations" specifically in Iraq, then it had had plenty of opportunity to intervene when Hussein was performing gassing of the Kurds in the 1980s, as well as other hostile acts within the borders. Of course, Hussein was a so-called American ALLY then, so Hussein-the-Kurd-butcher naturally got a free pass by the so-called caring American government.

You see, "Human rights violations" is not a real care of the American government. When I hear that phrase, all I know is that the American government is after some resource in the nation in question. In another instance, America sent troops into Somalia when nearly the same "Human rights violations" were occurring in Ethiopia ... but Ethiopia didn't have what Somalia had: uranium deposits.

Individual Americans feel differently about rending real support for the oppressed, but their government is a complete bastard about it. So, Maddie, who are you really taking about when you ask about "the US" handling things?

posted by GuestZero at 11:02 P.M. EST on Sat Sep 23, 2006     #



GZ, Thank you!

If ever I had a problem with the Bush Administration it would be this paragraph Of course, if such things WERE the actual responsibility of, say, America, then it would have intervened in the much more serious genocidal actions in places like East Timor, Rwanda and -- ohhh yeahhh -- Lebanon of late. However, those places don't have OIL. As well, if America was really all that concerned about, say, "Human rights violations" specifically in Iraq, then it had had plenty of opportunity to intervene when Hussein was performing gassing of the Kurds in the 1980s, as well as other hostile acts within the borders. Of course, Hussein was a so-called American ALLY then, so Hussein-the-Kurd-butcher naturally got a free pass by the so-called caring American government. My opinion has always been that America is the modern day Roman and isn't doing enough to promote freedom. We can't let our foreign policy be dictated by financial interests.

I personally feel we should be more involved in the Sudan situation that is currently happening.

posted by MikeyA at 12:39 P.M. EST on Sun Sep 24, 2006     #



So, Maddie, who are you really taking about when you ask about "the US" handling things?

Literally, Iím talking about hypothetical situations involving the United States of America and other foreign countries. Hindsight always being 20/20, Iím wondering what you would have done if you were commander in chief of the US armed forces. Your answer is more of a diatribe about the mistakes of the current administration than anything else.

Each sovereign nation has a native population who has an inherent right to throw off the yoke of their oppressor.

The populace may have all the right in the world to send their oppressors to Hades, but historically these people donít have the ability to carry out their rebellion. They often ask for help from future allies, such as China, Russia, Europe and the US. Since these decisions are generally made is desperation, the downtrodden populace doesnít stop and think what will happen once the big kid on the block is invited in to adjust someoneís attitude. The ally tends to hang around too long, sucking up resources.

The United Nations was supposed to fix all this, and it hasnít. The concept of the UN is good, itís just the application and the people involved that make it completely ineffective.

Personally, I would have waited until Saddam invaded Kuwait, and continued to wait until Kuwait invited the US to chase Saddam back to Iraq. I would have attacked until Saddam and his regime were dead, dead and dead, then handed the keys to the city over to the Kurds. Iíd provide air support, communications, advisors and intelligence until Kurdistan was founded and the new dictator held the official palace warming party (Iíd bring a plant. You canít go wrong bringing a plant.). Iíd remind Kuwait and Kurdistan not to forget who their friends are, and Iíd go home.

This isnít a perfect solution, but it prevents genocide against the Kurds and the destruction of a large portion of the ecology. Turkey will have a hissy fit about Kurdistan, but I donít care much about Turkey.

You see, "Human rights violations" is not a real care of the American government.

I agree. Itís unfortunate, but I tend to believe that the current administration, and all the administrations back to President Carter, really donít lose much sleep over the plight of an endangered populace. Conversely, the middle class does care, but there is little that can be done to save a segment of a population several thousand miles away.

Now then, as to Hugo Chavez. I wouldnít allow Chavez into the country. Heís a security risk, at best. In reality Chavez is nothing more than another banana republic dictator that will oppress random segments of the populace until he dies quietly in bedÖ of lead poisoning. Screw Chavez and the mule he rode in on.

So, what do you advocate the US doing in Iraq?

posted by madjack at 09:24 A.M. EST on Mon Sep 25, 2006     #



but... - then again...maybe not as hopeless as it appears on most evening news channels. The middle class does care. And is doing quite a bit about the problems - there is a huge number of programs - both Christian and secular - and in most professions. From the American Jewish World Service, Inc. to Doctors without Borders - and the world hunger (Christian/not for profit org's).

It would really boggle your mind - but google for American charity abroad and the like. Lots of people just got tired of waiting for the 'go ahead' and just did it. We keep a food pantry at my church, both locally and international relief. We raise alot of money and just send food and medicine where it's needed. Nobody approved this and the government would just muddy things up.

So keep the faith and don't believe people when they say Americans don't care. Yeah - we actually do. Americans pledged over 150 million dollars to Tsunami relief efforts and sent almost 1200 civilian volunteers and medical professionals in the aftermath. You won't read this in the main stream media - because it doesn't fit into their negative images of the American people.

posted by katie82640 at 01:33 P.M. EST on Mon Sep 25, 2006     #




Of course, if such things WERE the actual responsibility of, say, America, then it would have intervened in the much more serious genocidal actions in places like East Timor, Rwanda and -- ohhh yeahhh -- Lebanon of late. However, those places don't have OIL. As well, if America was really all that concerned about, say, "Human rights violations" specifically in Iraq, then it had had plenty of opportunity to intervene when Hussein was performing gassing of the Kurds in the 1980s, as well as other hostile acts within the borders. Of course, Hussein was a so-called American ALLY then, so Hussein-the-Kurd-butcher naturally got a free pass by the so-called caring American government.

You see, "Human rights violations" is not a real care of the American government. When I hear that phrase, all I know is that the American government is after some resource in the nation in question. In another instance, America sent troops into Somalia when nearly the same "Human rights violations" were occurring in Ethiopia ... but Ethiopia didn't have what Somalia had: uranium deposits.


Amen... although I'd love to know why I'm catching shit for saying some of that in a different way in the Citgo thread.

Odd that some will call for a Citgo boycott over Chavez's colorful comments and because of "human rights violations" yet they'll gladly overlook the human rights violations, censorship, pollution, and all that other stuff in Commie China and continue to buy Made in Commie China crap at Mao*Mart. Or they'll buy the blood diamonds of DeBeers. Or designer clothes and shoes made in sweatshops. Someone on this site said something about the lack of consistency with respect to the Bible being anti-gambling and the right-wing crowd not voting for gambling but allowing the lottery and Bingo/Monte Carlo nights down at the church. This is another case of lack of consistency... "oh we must do such-and-such because (insert country or leader here) is violating human rights", yet they'll gladly ignore worse or larger situations.

MikeyA said:

My opinion has always been that America is the modern day Roman and isn't doing enough to promote freedom. We can't let our foreign policy be dictated by financial interests.

I personally feel we should be more involved in the Sudan situation that is currently happening.


Can't let foreign policy be dictated by financial interests, we should be doing something with Sudan thing -- I agree wholeheartedly with that. The bit that triggers the alarm is the "promote freedom" bit. No. Full stop. That's one of those propaganda phrases that sounds real nice and gets used by everyone from the nicest advocate of democracy to the most militaristic/fascistisc dictator. If your butt-cheeks don't clench by reflex when you hear phrases like that.... Did anyone else watch Spike Lee's "When the Levees Failed" or whatever his Katrina documentary was called? Remember the bit where the Natl. Guard are all standing around with their rifles in the ready position, in their arms, pointed up? Remember Lt. General Honore coming in and yelling at everyone to get the motherloving guns down? Yeah. Tell me how you felt and you thought everyone else felt about having troops running around in America with guns up and ready? Not a nice feeling, right? I kinda doubt the folks in Iraq are keen on American-style freedom if what they see are American troops occupying their soil, running around with guns and tanks and stuff like that. You want to win hearts and minds and spread freedom? How about importing some of the people to run around in America for a while to see what America's like? How about air-dropping candy bars? You want to score points? How about the next time Israel bombs Palestine or Lebanon or whatever, the USA declares itself neutral in the conflict and goes in and does search and rescue in the rubble? No propaganda campaign, no military-toned BS, no pissing matches with dictators, Just do nice stuff and let the people figure out that the USA is not the bad guy. Basically what we did in East Germany and the USSR. Hey, we got McDonalds and cable TV, it could be yours... and the government eventually falls apart.

madjack said:


The populace may have all the right in the world to send their oppressors to Hades, but historically these people donít have the ability to carry out their rebellion.


Maybe not at gunpoint. However, the people can wait it out -- which isn't always the nicest option, but eventually a weakness will appear or the oppressors will die or or the generational change will fix the situation. Then there was the whole nonviolent/mass civil disobedience thing of Mahatma Gandhi.

Personally, I would have waited until Saddam invaded Kuwait, and continued to wait until Kuwait invited the US to chase Saddam back to Iraq. I would have attacked until Saddam and his regime were dead, dead and dead, then handed the keys to the city over to the Kurds. Iíd provide air support, communications, advisors and intelligence until Kurdistan was founded and the new dictator held the official palace warming party (Iíd bring a plant. You canít go wrong bringing a plant.). Iíd remind Kuwait and Kurdistan not to forget who their friends are, and Iíd go home.

I kind of like that, actually.


So, what do you advocate the US doing in Iraq?


Now that we're in there? Let the damn nation split up into Sunni Iraq, Shi'a Iraq, and Kurdistan. If any of them want to run their piece under the whole Islamic Law, women in burquas, etc. thing, then that's just too bad for us if we don't like it. Fix the crap that's been blown up by us or the insurgents, pull out, and go home. If they wage war amongst themselves after we're gone, that's just too damn bad. They're either figure out how to get along with each other, or they can keep killing each other. Don't see where we can make that much of a difference.

posted by anonymouscoward at 08:42 P.M. EST on Mon Sep 25, 2006     #



Let the damn nation split up into Sunni Iraq, Shi'a Iraq, and Kurdistan.


...but then how are we going to get their oil? I mean, that is why we went into Iraq...

posted by timault at 09:26 P.M. EST on Mon Sep 25, 2006     #



GZ, don't presume to know my beliefs. You know less than you think. I know it's easier for you to write your words if you think I'm an imperialist, but it would be helpful if you would ask FIRST.
**********************************************

While Hugo Chavez is an asshole of epic proportions, it really wasn't my intent to focus on him. He's got his own set of problems. My intention was to simultaneously present Hugo in his own words and actions, and focus upon his choice of props.

Here's how my math works.

-Hugo hates our President enough to compare him to the devil.
-Hugo likes Noam Chomsky enough to ensure that he brings a copy of Chomsky's book to the podium when addressing the UN.
-Chomsky hates the U.S..
-Hugo Chavez figures that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
**********************************************

Chomsky believes that we brought the attack on Pearl Harbor upon ourselves.

Looking back, though, we can see that the Japanese had very real grievances, and that the United States had quite a significant share of responsibility in those grievances back in 1941. In fact, Japan had rather a more valid case than is customary to admit.

On November 6, 1941, just a month before Pearl Harbor, Japan had offered to eliminate the main major factor that really led to the Pacific war, namely the Closed Door Policy in China. But they did so with one reservation: that they would agree to eliminate the closed door in China, which is what we'd been demanding, only if the same principle were applied throughout the world -- that is, if it were also applied in, say, Latin America, the British Dominions, and so forth. Of course, this was considered too absurd to even elicit a response. And Secretary of State Cordell Hull's answer simply requested once again that they open the closed door in China and he didn't even deign to mention this ridiculous qualification that they had added.


Chomsky would have one believe that since Japan didn't get it's way in diplomatic channels, that Japan's attack upon Pearl Harbor in 1941 was justified. Chomsky would have one forget that China and Japan hadn't gotten along for many years prior to WWII, and that in the immediate period preceding WWII, Japan had been killing Chinese folks on a regular and frequent basis.

Wasn't Japan an empire at that time?
**********************************************

Now let's read a few words about how a self-proclaimed pacifist named Chomsky thinks terrorism is okey-dokey:

I don't accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this -- and I think we should -- we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified.

Not long after I posted this Chomsky-ism the first time, 'ole GZ developed a case of the internet disconnections. He had just finished painting America with the same type of disparaging brush used by Chomsky. From his HATE AMERICA NOW post:

The military operations of the USA throughout the world are largely terrorism. Noam Chomsky has largely outlined this in ways more eloquent than I can do so here. In short, go read him first, and then refute his points here second.

And if you can't see that what's going in Iraq (as a result of an unjustified invasion and occupation) is truly awful, then you're an immoral b*stard who has no business speaking on the topic of war with reasonable adults. Really, you're a truly evil person to support so much death and mayhem.


GZ must have thought that no one would call him out on it.

Whoops. Then there was me.
**********************************************

If you're going to be a communist, then have the where-with-all to be a communist. Don't try to paint this nation and this culture as being communist so as to gain traction. That is

COWARDLY
DECEPTIVE
BULLSHIT.

If you believe in communism, you are in the wrong nation. We don't do that here.

And so I sign off in the same way I did some months ago...

We are no longer trying to determine if you are a prostitute, GZ; we're just negotiating a price.

Hypocrite!

Most sincerely,

the Immoral Bastard

posted by AirTrainer at 09:38 P.M. EST on Mon Sep 25, 2006     #



AC - I do agree with this statement you made - "Now that we're in there? Let the damn nation split up into Sunni Iraq, Shi'a Iraq, and Kurdistan. If any of them want to run their piece under the whole Islamic Law, women in burquas, etc. thing, then that's just too bad for us if we don't like it. Fix the crap that's been blown up by us or the insurgents, pull out, and go home. If they wage war amongst themselves after we're gone, that's just too damn bad. They're either figure out how to get along with each other, or they can keep killing each other. Don't see where we can make that much of a difference."

However, I did watch the Levees/katrina documentary. But I also recall hearing/seeing on the news, WHY they had their guns aimed. These poor Katrina victims were pilaging, looting, destroying - and basically standing in the way of help. Don't paint it with too broad a brush.

posted by starling02 at 10:00 P.M. EST on Mon Sep 25, 2006     #



Coward:

Here's the best thing you wrote in the past several months:

...yet they'll gladly overlook the human rights violations, censorship, pollution, and all that other stuff in Commie China and continue to buy Made in Commie China crap...
***********************************************

Here's the most ignorant thing you wrote in the past 45 minutes (I think; I haven't looked at the other threads):

Let the damn nation split up into Sunni Iraq, Shi'a Iraq, and Kurdistan.

Dumbass!

Should the early United States have split up along religious lines? You should know by now that there was little religious continuity in the nation.

Should we have divided our nation because of disagreements about slavery? Was Lincoln mis-guided because he refused to accept a divided nation?
***********************************************

Here's what I want. I want you to go to Iraq and teach political correctness to the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds.

Good luck with that.

Do you really think that the many faces of Iraq are going to learn acceptance for 'different points of view' in a 3-year time span?

If the U.S. exits Iraq prematurely, all of Iraq will suffer.

posted by AirTrainer at 10:03 P.M. EST on Mon Sep 25, 2006     #



AirTrainer, how do you think Iraq will turn out? You can split it into "how we want it to turn out" vs "how it will turn out" if you like. Or you can just ignore my request if you like.
posted by pink_slip at 10:40 P.M. EST on Mon Sep 25, 2006     #



I just read part of Chomsky's view about the attack on Pearl Harbor. Chomsky fails to mention that the US was already damaging the krauts by selling ammo to the British. Hitler had to do something, and he got Japan to do it for him.

Had Japan failed to attack the US, we probably wouldn't have entered into WWII until it was too late. As it was... Ok, I'm not going to bother.

The attack on the United States by Japan is not now, nor ever has been justified by anyone except the Japanese and their allies. The dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan was entirely justified, was the best thing the US could have done, and the destruction brought the war to a close.

This guy Chomsky, of whome I was happily ignorant until very recently, is not representing historic facts accuratley. He's a fraud.

posted by madjack at 12:26 A.M. EST on Tue Sep 26, 2006     #



Should the early United States have split up along religious lines? You should know by now that there was little religious continuity in the nation.

There wasn't jihad in the US, either. Genocide against native North Americans, sure. No jihad, and I'm willing to bet there were no Islamics. There wasn't even anything remotely resembling religous intolerance until the Indian wars were over, and even then it's nothing like people have in the Middle East.

The only thing wrong with splitting up Iraq is that the three sections will immediatley start fighting each other. Well, what do you expect? They've all been at war for over 1000 years.

posted by madjack at 12:32 A.M. EST on Tue Sep 26, 2006     #



The Iraqi's are holding elections. They are voting. We shouldn't have any right to even dialogue about what 'should be done with' their country. We should do what we can to provide necessities, train a military to support an elected government and get the hell out.

And we'd ought to move smartly about it. This is not 'our' country. It is the Iraqi's country. And they finally are having open elections. It's their time to decide. If they put a dictator back in office? Is this not up to them? You can bring an opportunity of freedom to people - you cannot force them to accept the concept.

posted by katie82640 at 11:48 A.M. EST on Tue Sep 26, 2006     #




Should the early United States have split up along religious lines? You should know by now that there was little religious continuity in the nation.


This is known as "AirTroller's run out of arguments and has to pull something out of his ass".

Here's what I want. I want you to go to Iraq and teach political correctness to the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds.

Here's what I want. I want you to sign each and every paycheck of yours over to Iraq, c/o George W. Bush, since you are all for wasting money on fixing problems that we created by going to war under false pretenses. Show me the WMDs and mobile weapons labs and so on that Bush promised us Saddam had, cause those things were the reasons we were given to invade. Not "regime change" or "spreading freedom".

posted by anonymouscoward at 02:20 P.M. EST on Tue Sep 26, 2006     #



October 2002 speech: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat.
posted by jr at 04:02 P.M. EST on Tue Sep 26, 2006     #



Well AC I've always been for the war but not for WMD's. The ultimate flaw with the WMD case for war is they never defined what a WMD is.

Realistically I could define a Weapon of Mass Destruction as any weapon that can kill more than one person at a time. Well that could be a hand grenade and even a high powered rifle if the two people are standing back to back or in the case of a .50 cal next to one another. So I agree the WMD case for war was inherently flawed from the begining.

As for my view on splitting up Iraq I think Katie has it the best. The responsibility will lie in the Iraqis hands. After all it took almost 30 years for Japan and Germany to have thriving democracy and it's naive to think that Iraq can do it in 5. Iraq will be unstable for years. But once it is stable we will finally have a diplomatic democracy in the middle east(aside from Turkey).

posted by MikeyA at 06:15 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 27, 2006     #



But once it is stable we will finally have a diplomatic democracy in the middle east

You're assuming that the Iraqi people will choose democracy.

posted by pink_slip at 07:28 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 27, 2006     #



Nice thought if it happens, but not likely
posted by starling02 at 07:55 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 27, 2006     #



Well it kind of blew me away also. On January 30th, 2005 "Millions of Iraqis cast ballots Sunday in the nation's first free election in half a century -- a vote hailed by officials as a success despite sporadic violence that killed more than two dozen people"

Story is here for those who missed this.

This IS democracy and millions chose it. They have elected their own government. Over a year and a half ago.

Now what they do with it - should be up to them. This too, is democracy.

posted by katie82640 at 08:01 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 27, 2006     #



Pink I believe the majority of Iraqis want a democracy. It's only a small minority who want to fight amongst one another. What always defeats insurgencies is whether they can gain "popular support" from the masses.

Civil wars are very personal wars because it directly will affect your family. Generally as a civil war goes on most will just want it to end not caring who wins in the end. So the way to win a civil war is not through body count, area control, or military might. It's through perserverance.

posted by MikeyA at 06:47 A.M. EST on Thu Sep 28, 2006     #



Pink I believe the majority of Iraqis want a democracy. It's only a small minority who want to fight amongst one another.

I'm not suggesting that they all want to fight amongst each other in lieu of democracy. Just because a country doesn't choose democracy as a form of gov't doesn't mean they automatically choose civil war. Perhaps the Sunni's and Shia will end up choosing a from of fundamentalism after we leave. What will be our role then, to go back and tell them "no you must choose democracy"?

posted by pink_slip at 08:56 A.M. EST on Thu Sep 28, 2006     #



Pink they've already choosen a democracy. The point now is when does it stand up on it's own.
posted by MikeyA at 11:38 A.M. EST on Thu Sep 28, 2006     #



<< Older Help me, I'm out of money    |    Nookular Option to Interview JR, founder... Newer >>


This is an old topic and is no longer allowing comments.



home | about | archives | customize | contact | forums | post | search

© 2003-2007 ToledoTalk.com
All posts are © their original authors.

.