|
Post by Jane on Oct 6, 2006 16:50:08 GMT -5
I think it was Biden who suggested just dividing the country in three parts, resettling ethic groups and booking out of there. It has been so badly managed, so ill-thought out, so hideous in every respect that "staying the course" just seems a travesty. But neither can we leave them to their own devices after the dissension, hatred that existed there before and that "we" have exacerbated.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 6, 2006 18:09:10 GMT -5
Unfortunately, perhaps, "we" don't have the right to divide the country, and people there would get as upset about it if we did, as they are about our presence. Maybe we could encourage the Iraqis to move in that direction.
More importantly for us is that we move as rapidly as possibly to a situation where the Iraqi government is able to handle the work of governing without our continued presence. Then we leave.
|
|
|
Post by carolion on Oct 6, 2006 20:23:32 GMT -5
My Guidance has been telling me we have about 19 months to wind things up in the Middle East. That's with the help of a multinational force and a host of angels and other helping beings. We've also got work to do in S. America and Africa - and all that goes for about 5 1/2-6 more years. Again, multinational force, the works. The end-of-hell-cycle wars - the skirmishes at the gate of the Age of Peace, are, like the next rounds of natural disasters, something we must endure and find ways to do our very best to help others through.... These things are "on the schedule", and I must say, they are far beyond human understanding - well, speak for myself - beyond MY human understanding. I've sometimes encountered God in one or another human form, but that's one of many shapes the Force assumes...It being too great and mysterious to be contained, truly, in any single form....So - God isn't human. We can surrender, we can "go home" to God, but can we understand this? Huh. I don't pretend to. But these things are on the docket, in the curriculum of Earth School right now.
Holding the picture of us being joined by a multinational force really helps me. I'm aggravated with the idiocy of our military using "spent" uranium weapons. Duh. I want this uranium deal OVER with. If only the USA and GB are handling stuff, they won't quit with the uranium. DUH again and again.....Double-damn DUH. But if we get more countries involved, they're gonna be very UNhappy about their soldiers being exposed to our DUHranium.
The key to all this is to understand that really, bottom line, armed forces are beginning to enter a new awareness of themselves as peacekeepers rather than warmongers. It's taken awhile. Our beloved Pentagon oldfarts still mostly don't get this - but some of the SOULjours - Bosnia vets, for instance - are waaaay ahead of the oldfarts. Way ahead. They've been initiated as peacekeeping forces and they've seen the light, and now you can't keep 'em down on the farm 'cause they HAVE seen Pareeee.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Oct 7, 2006 3:07:14 GMT -5
The "Iraqi government" should govern by itself? There is no "Iraqi government." Nobody in Iraq recognizes the authority of any existing centralized government. Members of the Iraqi Army won't even do that. The country is already divided. The Kurdish region is already virtually independent and separate. And the Shiites are setting up a Taliban-style religious state in southern Iraq. Meanwhile, the Suunis battle it out in the central region, where there is no oil.
Thus the civil war rages on. Mr. Bush has said, "We'll stand down when they stand up." Well, supposedly we've "stood up" 300,000 men in the Iraqi armed forces. So why no stand down? Because we don't trust the men we've stood up; and because of this, the U.S. will not arm them with heavy firepower.
Some version of the Biden/Murth/Galbraith scheme of redeployment within the theater (to Kuwait or probably Kurdistan) is probably inevitable, but only after the Baker-Hamilton Commission checks in. Although today's news was interesting:
//October 7, 2006 Warner’s Iraq Remarks Surprise White House
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 — The White House, caught off guard by a leading Republican senator who said the situation in Iraq was “drifting sideways,” responded cautiously on Friday, with a spokeswoman for President Bush stopping short of saying outright that Mr. Bush disagreed with the assessment.
“I don’t believe that the president thinks that way,” Dana Perino, the deputy White House press secretary, said when asked whether the president agreed with the senator, John Warner of Virginia. “I think that he believes that while it is tough going in Iraq, that slow progress is being made.”
Ms. Perino’s carefully worded response underscores the delicate situation that Mr. Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has created for the White House just one month before an election in which Mr. Bush has been trying to shift the national debate from the war in Iraq to the broader war on terror.
Speaking to reporters on Thursday after returning from a trip that included a one-day stop in Baghdad, Mr. Warner said the United States should consider “a change of course” if the violence there did not diminish soon. He did not specify what shift might be necessary, but said that the American military had done what it could to stabilize Iraq and that no policy options should be taken “off the table.”
With the blessing of the White House, a high-level commission led by James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state, is already reviewing American policy in Iraq. But the commission is not scheduled to report to Mr. Bush and Congress until after the November elections, a timeline that the White House had hoped would enable Mr. Bush to avoid public discussion of any change of course until after voters determine which party will control Congress next year.
Now, Mr. Warner’s comments are pushing up that timeline, forcing Republicans to confront the issue before some are ready. In an interview on Friday, Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who has been critical of the administration’s approach in the past, said there was a “growing sense of unease” among other Republicans, which she said could deepen because of Senator Warner’s comments.
Ms. Collins, who is the chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, echoed Mr. Warner’s calls for a shift in strategy in Iraq. “When Chairman Warner, who has been a steadfast ally of this administration, calls for a new strategy,” she said, “that is clearly significant.”
She said the current approach, which she attributed to Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, had not led to an overall reduction in violence or any prospect that American troop levels would come down soon.
“We’ve heard over and over that as Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down,” Ms. Collins said. “Well, there are now hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops and security forces, and yet we have not seen any reduction in violence.”
Democrats, who have been using their fall election campaigns to tap into intense voter dissatisfaction with the way that Mr. Bush has handled Iraq, quickly seized on the Warner remarks, circulating them in e-mail messages to reporters. Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, convened a conference call on Friday afternoon to hammer home the theme that even Republicans believed that the administration must change course. “Warner’s statement is an important, important statement and, I hope, a turning point,” Mr. Biden told reporters.
He that at least two Republican colleagues other than Mr. Warner had told him that once the election was over, they would join with Democrats in working on a bipartisan plan for bringing stability to Iraq. Echoing Mr. Warner’s language, he said, “I wouldn’t take any option off the table at this time. We are at the point of no return.”//
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Oct 7, 2006 9:09:13 GMT -5
“We’ve heard over and over that as Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down,” Ms. Collins said. “Well, there are now hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops and security forces, and yet we have not seen any reduction in violence.”
Collins has it right - except that the violence increases. Pulling our people out can't happen too soon, but I think "orderly" is not a wiggle-word, it's a vital qualification. As our troops pull out, those left behind must be protected. We can't have a massive Fall of Saigon, with insurgents gleefully picking off stranded soldiers (and civilians) who need cover as they withdraw.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Oct 7, 2006 16:38:02 GMT -5
Fall of Bagdhad? This implies that the U.S. and its Iraqi allies somehow control this city now. They do not. It's a mix of tribes and factions, all well armed. "Two little Hitlers will fight it out until one little Hitler does the other one's will." --Elvis Costello
|
|
|
Post by carolion on Oct 7, 2006 22:07:09 GMT -5
Yeah, yeah, and yeah....But that's only half the picture. Less than half, really. That's the warmonger/terrified terrorist half.
The part I'm more interested in is the fact that there are teams of peacemakers working all through the middle east. There are Iraqui peacemakers. I'm interested in the fact that mothers in Israel and Palestine meet regularly together, figuring out ways of bringing sanity to THEIR region. The region does NOT belong to warmongering bully consumerite corporatocrats whether they be USA or Israeli or Whoever. The region belongs to the simple ordinary people, more than half of whom are women, children, and the aged and disabled.
NOW - back here in the US of A, we have, still, a deficit of women politicians. Other countries in the world have more women in politics - what's wrong with our picture? Sending out troops to trash each others' mothers, wives, parents and children does NOT make sense to women, as a rule. I think we could expect that if we had more women in positions in the Congress, Senate, Supreme Court, White House, and Cabinet, we would have more COMMON SENSE than to hurl billions and trillions into the project of creating another flaming hellhole on the planet. Jeez!
ANYWAY - I prefer to put my energy into what I know is going to happen for the highest good of all. That is, we are moving into a time of self-government by means of bioregional peace councils, world wide. It's not that long away.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Oct 7, 2006 22:17:19 GMT -5
Yes. If anything will strike fear into the hearts of terrorists, it's the threat posed by bioregional peace councils. Those murderous bastards may think they can run from bioregional peace councils, but they can't hide (from bioregional peace councils). It won't be long now, suckers.
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on Oct 8, 2006 16:05:34 GMT -5
//I prefer to put my energy into what I know is going to happen for the highest good of all. That is, we are moving into a time of self-government by means of bioregional peace councils, world wide. It's not that long away.[/quote]
I’ll wager that in one thousand years, a person could say something like this without being accused of smoking too much pot. Carolion, one wonders how you would carry this argument with Daniel Pearl’s mother.
This subject is trodden turf in another forum from a couple months ago. Don’t know if much was accomplished back then. Don’t know if any views turned about. I think some solid ideas were exchanged, some feathers were ruffled.
Give it some time and some interest may evolve. Right now, right here, this conversation is not going to happen. Maybe I’m mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Oct 8, 2006 17:39:55 GMT -5
The latest development (from TIMEONLINE.com):
// The Sunday Times October 08, 2006
America ponders cutting Iraq in three Sarah Baxter, Washington
AN independent commission set up by Congress with the approval of President George W Bush may recommend carving up Iraq into three highly autonomous regions, according to well informed sources.
The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James Baker, the former US secretary of state, is preparing to report after next month’s congressional elections amid signs that sectarian violence and attacks on coalition forces are spiralling out of control. The conflict is claiming the lives of 100 civilians a day and bombings have reached record levels.
The Baker commission has grown increasingly interested in the idea of splitting the Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish regions of Iraq as the only alternative to what Baker calls “cutting and running” or “staying the course”.
“The Kurds already effectively have their own area,” said a source close to the group. “The federalisation of Iraq is going to take place one way or another. The challenge for the Iraqis is how to work that through.”
The commission is considered to represent a last chance for fresh thinking on Iraq, where mass kidnappings are increasing and even the police are suspected of being responsible for a growing number of atrocities.
Baker, 76, an old Bush family friend who was secretary of state during the first Gulf war in 1991, said last week that he met the president frequently to discuss “policy and personnel”.
His group will not advise “partition”, but is believed to favour a division of the country that will devolve power and security to the regions, leaving a skeletal national government in Baghdad in charge of foreign affairs, border protection and the distribution of oil revenue.
The Iraqi government will be encouraged to hold a constitutional conference paving the way for greater devolution. Iran and Syria will be urged to back a regional settlement that could be brokered at an international conference.
Baker, a leading exponent of shuttle diplomacy, has already met representatives of the Syrian government and is planning to see the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations in New York. “My view is you don’t just talk to your friends,” he said last week. “You need to talk to your enemies in order to move forward diplomatically towards peace.”
His group has yet to reach a final conclusion, but there is a growing consensus that America can neither pour more soldiers into Iraq nor suffer mounting casualties without any sign of progress. It is thought to support embedding more high-quality American military advisers in the Iraqi security forces rather than maintaining high troop levels in the country indefinitely.
Frustrated by the failure of a recent so-called “battle of Baghdad” to stem violence in the capital, Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq, said last week that the unity government of Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, had only two months left to get a grip. Rumours abound that the much-admired ambassador could depart by Christmas.
Khalilzad’s warning was reinforced by John Warner, Republican chairman of the Senate armed services committee, on his return from a visit to Baghdad. “In two to three months’ time, if this thing hasn’t come to fruition and this government (is not) able to function, I think it’s a responsibility of our government internally to determine: is there a change of course we should take?” Warner said.
Bush and Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, have resisted the break-up of Iraq on the grounds that it could lead to more violence, but are thought to be reconsidering. “They have finally noticed that the country is being partitioned by civil war and ethnic cleansing is already a daily event,” said Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Gelb is the co-author with Senator Joseph Biden, a leading Democrat, of a plan to divide Iraq. “There was almost no support for our idea until very recently, when all the other ideas being advocated failed,” Gelb said.
In Baghdad last week Rice indicated that time was running out for the Iraqi government to resolve the division of oil wealth and changes to the constitution.
Many Kurds are already hoping for their own national state, while the Shi’ite Islamist leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim is pressing for regional autonomy. The Sunnis are opposed to a carve-up of Iraq, which would further deprive them of the national power they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein and could leave them with a barren tranche of the country bereft of oil revenue.
Many Middle East experts are horrified by the difficulty of dividing the nation. “Fifty-three per cent of the population of Iraq live in four cities and three of them are mixed,” said Anthony Cordesman of the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, who fears a bloody outcome.
Baghdad is a particular jumble, although ethnic cleansing is already dividing the population along the Tigris River, with Shi’ites to the east and Sunnis to the west of the city.
America may have passed the point where it can determine Iraq’s future, according to Cordesman: “The internal politics of Iraq have taken on a momentum of their own.”
Gelb is under no illusions about the prospects of success. “Everything is a long shot at this point,” he said.//
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Oct 10, 2006 22:54:49 GMT -5
The idea of partition has been obvious for years to anyone paying attention - nothing about the Biden/Gelb proposal was new any more than the commission's consideration of it is now. The problem is that it sounds about as workable as dividing Jeruselem. They haven't managed a peaceful partition of Palestine and Israel, let alone coming to a satisfactory accommodation in Jeruselem. Iraq is beginning to look just as intractable. Afghanistan is the same ugly battleground of sects and ancient loyalties. I'm afraid the commission can only come up with a political solution that is worth no more than the paper it's written on - but it will give us cover under which to withdraw. And that is its true purpose.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Oct 11, 2006 1:03:49 GMT -5
The proposal isn't a true partition. It's a federation of three quasi-independent states, with profit sharing agreements vis-a-vis oil. Certain basic function will be retained by the central government, but the three "provinces" will primarily defend themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Oct 11, 2006 1:53:52 GMT -5
Will three quasi-independent states be stronger against Iran? (Please don't say anything is better than what they have now.)
OR (the real question), will three quasi-independent states be stronger against the US?
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Oct 11, 2006 8:54:29 GMT -5
I realize it's not a total partition, but the central government sounds more like a trade pact. I'm sorry to be so pessimistic, but - well, I'm pessimistic. And that was before Trusty's comment, which is making me queasy. More hidden agendas? Is absolutely nothing straightforward?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 11, 2006 10:08:14 GMT -5
I don't think they'll be stronger against either Iran or us, but I don't think Iran is very likely to invade their Shi'ite neighbors, especially given our evident willingness to take military action there.
|
|
|
Post by carolion on Oct 12, 2006 21:48:45 GMT -5
Y'all are STILL talking in masculinese - or maybe it's masculite. That is, you're thinking from the nega-past, which keeps reproducing itself through your recreations of concepts like "partitions." What do partitions ever do except make yet another line for this bully to step over to trounce that victim? These ideas don't make good sense.
I'm not saying good boundaries don't make sense. Good boundaries are vitally important.
But human-centric "logic" such as partitioning a country - from the outside?! Whaaaaa? Some government (USA) thinks it has the RIGHT to do this? Not! - This is not logic, it's insanity.
The universe has provided our race with dreamers, prophets, healers, and visionaries who maintain contact with higher guidance and are given information and guidance for the highest good of all. Just as in all walks of human life, we must learn how to pay attention to the highest and the best, to those with the most integrity - And there ARE some very high ones at work on the planet now. There ARE sane solutions. These are SOULutions......Certainly not the slap-dab politico-military "fixes" we're indoctrinated to believe are the only way.
Anyhow - I'm going on about this not to convince the unawakened or indifferent, or those totally entrenched in mascu-think brain tracks. I'm going on about this so that some who are awakening and who are able to access both sides of their brains, and even step out of the indoctrination/propaganda brain tracks for a little minute - I'm going on about this for those folks.
RMN and PT, do not worry - I have no desire to convert you or otherwise attatch expectations to you. But I am using your assumptions as a springboard. Hope you don't mind. Some people would spring back into the same-old same-old pond. Me, I jump up to look around for other ponds.
|
|
|
Post by carolion on Oct 12, 2006 21:55:19 GMT -5
PT - your bit about bioregional peace councils - lol!
But here's the difference in our ways of operating, perhaps (feel free to clobber me if you feel wronged): PT works with the concept of "Time" as a straight historical line, stretching from the deep "past" to the far "future." Carolion works with the concept to "Time" as a circle - a pie, actually, with each wedge representing one historical paradigm; and if a person stands in the center, she can participate in all paradigms simultaneously and even stand in 2 at once. Carolion also plays with "Time = Sphere", which is not so much historical as it is Truth / Mythos.
Carolion used to do her best to believe what she was taught in school - that time is a straight line. But then she went into other worlds and played with time in different ways, and it ain't over yet.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Oct 13, 2006 2:05:48 GMT -5
//Carolion: PT works with the concept of "Time" as a straight historical line, stretching from the deep "past" to the far "future." Carolion works with the concept to "Time" as a circle - a pie, actually, with each wedge representing one historical paradigm; and if a person stands in the center, she can participate in all paradigms simultaneously and even stand in 2 at once.//
Well, no. As Stephen Hawking points out, there may be both real time and imaginary time. In real time, the universe extends itself in, as you say, a straight historical line from the Big Bang to the eventual heat death of the universe. In terms of imaginary time, however, the past, present and future exists in the same moment; each moment lasts forever; and the "passage" of time is but an illusion. That seems reasonable to me.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Oct 13, 2006 2:11:28 GMT -5
//Trusty: Will three quasi-independent states be stronger against Iran? (Please don't say anything is better than what they have now.)//
The best counterweight against Iran would have been a secular strongman whose military ambitions were held firmly in check by international enforcement of no-fly zones both north and south of Bagdhad. Wait, that's we got rid of! How inconvenient. Oh, well. In its place, we have been propping up a pro-Iranian religious regime whose more ardent followers are intent upon establishing a Taliban-style theocracy in Iraq. It would seem to me that a federation would limit the reach of the Shiites and, thus, serve to dilute the influence of the Iranians on Iraq as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by sisterbeer on Oct 13, 2006 11:10:09 GMT -5
The best counterweight against Iran would have been a secular strongman whose military ambitions were held firmly in check by international enforcement of no-fly zones both north and south of Bagdhad.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Oct 14, 2006 12:21:39 GMT -5
From a bumper sticker, spotted at the farmer's market:
"The problems we've got will not be solved by the minds that created them."
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 14, 2006 14:05:17 GMT -5
Nicely put. Not necessarily true, but nicely put.
|
|
|
Post by carolion on Oct 14, 2006 22:31:25 GMT -5
J* - good one. And Joe - Right. And PT - what Sister quoted above - Why a "strongMAN" ? I understand the current political paradigm of the male-dominant Mideast. But the strongPERSON doesn't have to be a politician. That person could be a female visionary, a child avatar, a crippled war veteran or legless landmine victim..... Once again I'm not criticizing you at all - but wondering why it's still taken for granted among most political thinkers that only a strongMAN can turn things around. But you know me - I believe in miracles.
|
|
|
Post by carolion on Oct 16, 2006 15:29:37 GMT -5
We need some miraculous mind-users now: have you all gotten word of the deployment of the aircraft carrier Eisenhower plus some minesweepers etc to Iran? Come one, folks - using our "picture minds" we can begin to SEE a positive outcome - such as the arrival of a multinational peacekeeping force which is mandated by the planet to keep U.S. aggression (nuclear ambition madness) in check. Jesus teaches that "as a man thinketh, so he doeth" - so those of us who choose to try this can THINK first - think VERY GOOD THINGS and hold those thoughts, and see what happens,eh?
|
|
|
Post by carolion on Oct 16, 2006 15:30:49 GMT -5
Well I meant to say "come on," but maybe "come ONE" is more to the point.
|
|
|
Post by dwarnold on Oct 16, 2006 19:46:07 GMT -5
good idea hope is all we have
|
|
|
Post by SeattleDan on Oct 21, 2006 0:37:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Oct 21, 2006 7:51:34 GMT -5
I had a bit of trouble bringing up this article, but it's certainly worth the effort. Thank you, Dan.
|
|
|
Post by scotbrit on Oct 21, 2006 8:06:39 GMT -5
Wow!
What an excellent resource.
I had difficulty getting to it, but it is superb.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 21, 2006 10:41:06 GMT -5
"Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that." — The last phrase, "Something like that," shows that Kevin knows that he is not giving an accurate or fair representation of the reasons for invading Iraq. E.g., Saddam's pursuit of WMD — including not the purchase, but the attempted purchase, of uranium from Niger — combined with his ongoing defiance of the U.N. and the terms of the Gulf War armistice, made it reasonable to regard him as a threat to America and the world; of course the business about civil war and insurgency is post-invasion (so that including it here is either muddled thinking or a rhetorical attempt to mislead the reader); other reasons were additional — not "or" but "and" — hoped-for by-products of eliminating the threat.
"Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is." — A meaningless generality
"Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few “bad apples” in the military." — Back when Kennedy was President, the CIA and covert operations were glamorous. But Kevin's right: torture is bad. Are there ever situations where the safety of large numbers of innocent people can be protected by gaining information which can be obtained by torture, and only by torture? If so, who knows for absolutely sure that any specific case is such a case; and who knows for sure that it isn't? (OTOH Abu Ghraib looks like people tormenting other people for the fun of it.)
"Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It’s interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat." — Sarcastic, but fair enough
"Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes." — Huh? Where did that come from? I've never heard anything like that. Straw man. Unsupported charge of illegality "Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground." — Unsupported charge of illegality — Rant and insult
"Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started." — Insult with unsupported charge of illegality
"Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated." — Insult
"Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated." — Vague, meaningless
"Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated." — Lie. We've been trying, unsuccessfully to stop the killers.
"Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated." — Tell me about it. Free exercise of religion has been removed from the state schools; the right to bear arms is only at the consent of the state; and the Tenth Amendment is a dead letter, while the federal government takes over everything it feels like.
"Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe." — Fair enough; but that's the perpetual trade-off, isn't it: how much freedom/how much security.
"Somehow torture is tolerated." — Fair enough, but see what I said in response to the earlier reference to torture.
"Somehow lying is tolerated." — Vague generality. Helen Thomas was recently quoted as saying the only completely honest President she covered — and she goes back at least to Kennedy — was Ford. And "we" loved it when Kennedy did it — that lovable rogue. — Modified Oct. 24 to note that with Kennedy I am thinking of the lighthearted, bantering tone of his press conferences, where he could get away with evading questions. I don't recall offhand specific instances of lying about matters of great importance. Take Helen Thomas's remark for what it's worth.
"Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense." — Nonsense as well as an insult to people of faith with its implicit false dichotomy. Cf. Benedict XVI at Regensburg.
"Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world." — The world has been very dangerous for a long time — cf. Twin Towers bombing in the 1990's, American Embassy in Tehran, Marines in Beirut, 9/11/'01. How do you quantify? Is increased risk ever worth it?
"Somehow a narrative is more important than reality." — Meaningless
"Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is." — Meaningless generality
"Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world." — Overstated at both ends. There were people who disliked us for opposing the Soviet Union during the Cold War; and there are people who approve of our struggle agains terrorism.
"Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance." — Well crafted, but meaningless, unless insulting to people who thoughtfully chose to support the government.
"Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country." — Name-calling: does it make you feel good to come up with such invective? These public servants are still in power: it's called elections, Kevin.
"Somehow this is tolerated." — Somehow the voters thought it over and the majority decided that your side was worse.
"Somehow nobody is accountable for this." — It's called elections, Kevin.
"In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites." — Nice name-calling at the end. That must really make you feel good. First sentence was correct, but the next two insult the voters by refusing to acknowledge that any reasonable person could possibly disgree on the merits.
"Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday." — It can't start then, because it has been happening all along: in 2004, 2002, 2000, and all the way back to 1788. Mistaken dismissal of the other side.
I am sure Kevin's piece is delicious red meat to those who are on his side, but it is a tissue of misrepresentations, insults, unsubstantiated charges, and meaningless generalities, unsupported by adducing a single fact. A feel-good rallying cry for the committed opponents of the war, nothing more.
|
|