no prob weekender we all make mistakes, in general i recommend to all of us to keep the discussions as factual based as possible otherwise we get distracted into side issues.
I think the point Jack and I are making (and Jack correct me if I misrepresent your view) is that the Bush team has other interests in mind than the ones they represent in public (freedom, democracy). The other point is that the version of democracy as practiced by them makes a lot of us laugh and cry at the same time, laugh because it is a caricature at best of what a democracy is supposed to be. Cry, because of what the potential ramifications of what they are doing are:
The loss of the democratic principle by virtue of what they are doing in practice (and no matter how one justifies, keeping people imprisoned and tortured offshore is a path that in my mind cannot result in anything good…once things like that are ok other things will become much easier to justify…
Everyone else who supposedly is pressured to become more democratic look at the US these days and find the leadership to have no credibility and certainly no moral superior standing..Look at Putin and his cohorts, in fact all these folks feel more encouraged in their own actions…
Remember every single empire in history has crumbled, every single one…The US decay has unfortunately begun it is only in hindsight that most of us see the long term effects and we may in fact not be around long enough to see the result, but i see red flags all over the place…
Yes, you did. I note no similar kind retraction from you, though. Huh.
That’s a truly annoying request, to make someone go search for another’s gracious acts that you can’t recall or acknowledge. But from this thread, the unacknowledged: “I do use the edit feature, regularly, when I realize I have made a mistake. I am sorry about that.” And from other threads, here:
“I hereby announce that I have been guilty of thread diversion, probably more than Gilder.”
"Good points, Gilder. Thanks for staying on topic. "
Those from the first page of search results for posts by 'Enders containing “Gilder”. And both, from what I can see, in earnest. I don’t know why you asked for this, though, since I actually wrote “a gracious gesture”, and didn’t speak of others.
Well, see, maybe you only saw what you decided to see, or something. I don’t know. There’s two above, and I didn’t even have to look hard. I’m certainly not feeling compelled to do more research for you on the subject, digging through 400-odd pages of the “Politcal…” thread and others. Geez, dude.
I have not said nor implied that you’re guilty of always attacking first. I do think that you are liable to take mild dissent as an “attack”, and I think you protest in ways much stronger than the perceived “attacks” deserve, and I think it’s tiresome to hear the noisy repeated protestations, even from a guy whose stances I often support. It’s like hearing an English speaker yell repeatedly “You have to go over there to catch the bus! Don’t you understan?!” over and over at some poor non-English speaker.
Anyway, had a long day dealing with difficult issues, didn’t appreciate seeing your unneeded snub of a member who’s far more reasonable than you seem willing to allow (even if I often disagree with the guy), and got irritated. And I’m not sure what to think of a person who, finding a particular thing galling and wrong in others when directed at him, admits that he feels justified in replying in similar manner. But hey. That’s just me.
I just get tired of all the noise, is all. I’m done now. Sorry for the thread hijack; I now return y’all to the actual discussion.
–Dad
PS
I’ve enjoyed your playing several times locally, at the pub and other places. Nice stuff. Prefer that.
There is no question in my mind that they act in the self-interest of the U.S., the capitalist status quo, the interests of keeping the oil flowing. I do think that there is a philosophical and social interest at stake though in trying to get a democracy going in a multicultural, potentially wealthy mostly Islamic country such as Iraq. Frankly, it is much more likely to succeed in Iraq exactly because they do not have a monoculture. I think that is calculated. Does it get them on “our side ?” Yes, if it works. Do they end up with representative democracy? Yes, if it works. If all is as evil as is often ascribed, why don’t we just have some henchman dictator installed, like in all the bad old days? I know that the first reaction is: well, it looks like we are going to have soldiers there for a long time. Yeah, well, how long were we in Japan and Germany after WW2? Bush broke all these eggs and he has to clean it up, but I don’t think it’s some intrinsic evil pattern that fits as nicely as an old John Birch society presentation, but for the other side of the spectrum.
I sincerely think that Jack’s description of Bush is missing the actual dynamic truth of the present of 2005; this President, this Congress, this world, this Israel, this Palestine and so forth. I feel that his working hypothesis does not include the variability of today, but instead forces it into a paradigm of the past. I can’t blame anyone for having a jaundiced eye, though, especially thinking of Latin American misdeeds, the Shah or Iran and so forth. AND, maybe Bush is just not up for the job of being someone to forge a new paradigm with success. Maybe both Bush and his many detractors are all stuck in the past.
To me, Bush got elected with perhaps an ineffectual grasp of world politics other than the legendary spookiness often ascribed to Dick Cheney. 10 months later, we were attacked. Under attack, any one or nation is likely not to be an enlightened beacon of nobility, but more like an injured and aggressive combatant. He used the incredible goodwill of the world and took it to Afghanistan, then squandered it in Iraq. I think he has lost most of the faith of many in making the decision to invade, even though there are many, myself included, who SERIOUSLY wonder if the whole world has not been done a great favor in ousting Saddam. This is a very dark realpolitik place to go, but where is the rest of the world when they act out their self-interests, if not in that same dark place?
And to fault the US for thinking in such big terms? In addition to all the bad things ascribed to us for the last 50 years, what was our role? Was it not proscribed by the Cold War? Were we not hamstrung by having to support an entire platform of bad business associates just to keep the ideological beast of the Iron Curtain at bay?
I think that, if there is any real coherent plan, such as the execution of the mandate Jack quoted a month ago by the Neo-cons, it is aimed at dynamic prevention of the damned stalemates that we were stuck with in the Cold War; an end to the stalemate in Israel as well.
But in these discussions, I keep hearing about the evil US financing the Mujahadeen etc etc. Bush didn’t direct that policy. Bush is not Ronald Reagan, he is not Richard Nixon. He ain’t even his own father, quite obviously.
Unlike Gilder and others, I cannot just look at a 50 year pattern of manipulation and country rigging, lay it at Bush’ feet, then accuse him of trying to perpetuate something he never started.
I have no reason to believe that ANY president is so effective, that he could carry out a hidden agenda with any success. Our election cycle frankly prevents it. So to me, much of the fear of execution of this mandate is a lot of noise. It’s like actually believing the promises of the Inaugural speech, insteading of anticipating the usual messy chaos of democratic process for four or eight years.
And, when you think about it, what about before those 50 years? What about fighting Hitler and Japan? Was this all part of the same cynical plan?I often feel that Gilder’s philosophic view is a linear fait accompli
of American malfeasance, much like Ward Churchill, that overlooks any good or noble act by the United States in its history. It’s like a transference of the failures of capitalism, hung onto this country, because its the most powerful practictioner of it. I cannot lump them together, scream myself hoarse from my personal ineffectuality, then feel morally superior in the end.
As for the caricature statement, I understand you, perhaps. I am not sure, though, whether this is an indictment of how our democratic republic is faring under George Bush now, compared to perhaps, the CLinton years or in some other earlier version. I keep hearing Gilder claim linkage with all these corporations and Bush, but I felt my freedom slipping away long before Bush took office. I felt that, during Clinton, there was no meaningful protection from corporate oppression, rather Clinton practiced a strange combination of adding some centralized government via restrictions, like in areas of environmentalism, all the while allowing major corporations to get more and more intrusive and controlling. As for a police state, I hate to keep harping on Waco and Elian Gonzalez, but I felt more potentially oppressed in those days frankly, seeing the posse comitatus barrier dissolve. Yes, we have the Patriot Act, which is the usual stupid governmental over-reaction to the attack, and yes, Bush is not doing enough to champion the rights of those who elected him, but they are NOT ignorant of that betrayal and his support among the libertarian oriented right is history.
As for the alleged tortures etc: as usual, in this society, we are hearing plenty about it, aren’t we? If we are so damn good at being oppressors, we are doing a terrible job at keeping it secret. I think that any reasonable person in any country in the world understands what is happening with extended imprisonments and the personal abuses of power by the jailers. I often feel that there is an air of condescension by the very people making the charge, that the rest of the world can’t possibly understand the hypocrisy or failures of the US to fit some never-realized noble mold.
As for your mention of emboldening Putin etc. I think that is an interesting take. Pressure to be more democratic comes from within a country though., don’t you think? We can’t be both vilified, and in the gun sights of up and coming social-economic-political entities (like the EU and newer CHina) and yet be held to some lofty standard, can we?
I hear this a lot. But, really, what are we supposed to do about this prophecy? Hasten it? Welcome it? Fight it?
I really don’t see any ideological, personal or social advantage in believing that my country is in decline, even if there are signs.
Osama is not gonna give you a pass because you were alienated with the US, nor will China.
Unlike Gilder and others, I cannot just look at a 50 year pattern of manipulation and country rigging, lay it at Bush’ feet, then accuse him of trying to perpetuate something he never started.
“Perpetuating” and “initiating” are discrete concepts, and one has no bearing upon the other.
In other words, the fact that Bush didn’t start something has nothing at all to do with whether he is or is not currently perpetuating it.
I’m not even sure what he retracted because apparently he edited it out.
I’ve been involved a bit more closely in these discussions with Mr. Enders and my memory of the exchanges isn’t represented in your random samples. The pattern in Weekender’s behavior towards me has consistently been what I described earlier. If you did a thorough search you would find outright unsubstantiated dismissals based on prejudice and with no evidence to back them up. There are also examples, if you were to continue your search, where his language became insulting. This is unacceptable and it’s also when my behavior towards him transforms into what you don’t approve of.
The day Weekenders ceases to dismiss me in the way he has we might discover that we can learn from each other rather than posturing and defensiveness. If you’re genuinely interested in continuing your examination of this, contact me privately and perhaps I can help direct you to the threads that I’m talking about. I’m sure at this stage that the subject is tiresome for anyone reading this thread. Thanks for your concern, but if you don’t mind I’d prefer we just stick to the topic of the thread.
We already tried that with Saddam, now it was time to install something more palatable for the American public – Corporate Democracy. The result will be part of the design – US military bases, and puppet leaders. They’re sitting on our oil after all.
Besides being incorrect, this is a naive view of what I’ve been talking about. Bush’s cabinet, nominees and advisors are all part of the power structure that has been working towards building Empire for decades. Negraponte was involved in training and funding para-military death squads in El Salvador – that’s why they brought him in. I’m beging to think you haven’t been reading the articles I’ve been posting because this was covered with great detail. Examine Bolton’s past and you’ll find similar connections and agendas related to atrocities from the history of US foreign policy atrocities.
”Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it”
Bush was never elected. What we all witnessed in 2000 was an American coup d’état. It was repeated in 2004. There’s so much evidence to support it that you could open a whole new discussion board on the topic. (Get away from me with that hat, Chang)
9-11 provided an opportunity for the Bush Administration; they even said that in their speeches directly afterwards. They had planned to attack Afghanistan and Iraq as far back as 1991 as outlined in the Project for the New American Century’s RAD document. The attack on the WTC etc. has many serious unanswered questions remaining, and functioned exactly the way they needed to carry out the plans in the PNAC/RAD. In that document they talked about how the American people would never support their plans of attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, and funneling the necessary billions of dollars away from other domestic programs unless there were to be a “Pearl Harbor type event.” 9-11 was that event, it transformed the country perfectly to carry out their plans. (put the tin-foil hat away, Chang)
I’m assuming you’re referring to the PNAC/RAD, but your understanding of the document is incorrect. I provided links to the document on that thread, did you read it?
Again, Bush is continuing the policies. HINT: Look at the people around him.
During Bush’s reign he overthrew a democracy in Haiti and installed a brutal regime, just like in Chile, the CIA is no doubt involved with the problems in Venezuela. (We didn’t have proof until years later about the US involvement in Chile.) And he has overthrown two countries in the Middle East. When you examine the history of the US relationship with both countries it’s impossible not to see that it’s part of a long term agenda. It’s true that Bush wasn’t president all that time, but it doesn’t mean he’s not acting in concert with the people who were… and are.
The more you learn about it – the more upset you become. I never said the US never does anything good, as you imply, but I am not in denial about the things the US government did that were horribly wrong.
Don’t worry – they tried to keep it secret.
I think the rest of the world has a better understanding than you think. If you expand your reading to International press and independent media you will soon find out that the rest of the world often has a clearer picture of what’s going on with more information and less omission of important and crucial facts. If you weren’t so quick to dismiss this information simply because it’s not the US press, it could open your eyes a bit.
weeks - you have stated a lot of things I, too, think, but I’d like to expand on this one a bit:
“I have no reason to believe that ANY president is so effective, that he could carry out a hidden agenda with any success.”
I’ve said exactly this many times. Our government is set up with a system of “checks and balances”. It was truly disturbing to me in the last election how the Senate and House races (at least in our area) took such a back seat to the Presidential race. We had a Republican incumbant running for the House - I heard absolutely NOTHING about his Democratic opponant! No commercials, no signs - I can’t even tell you who it was without going back and doing some digging.
The President doesn’t MAKE laws. The House and Senate does. Yes, I know the President can and does “influence” those laws, but it’s the House and Senate that must pass them through. And, of course, the Supreme Court is to decide the Constitutionality of said laws.
These other two branches of our government are as important as the one man in the Presidency. More so, in my opinion, at least in long term consequences.
If the populace is SO concerned about Mr. Bush - why did they vote in the same majority party into the House and Senate?
Of course, on the local level. we had a referendum for term limits on city council that passed - at the same time the SAME councilpersons that had been there for years were voted back into office.
We have the government that the people voted in (and I understand the concept of the Electoral College - and how a “majority” President doesn’t necessarily win). Instead of concentrating on the “evils” on one person, work to have change in the entire complex.
