Iraq

As per previous post...

Sorry im just not going to get started on the comparisons in freedom between present USA and the old Soviet union
 
Originally posted by clivex@Oct 25 2006, 07:15 PM
They have had nuclear weapons for 50 years.....
Click to expand...
And..... err...... used them?

Or let me put it to it this way, there are in the region of 24 soverign countries with varying nuclear weapon capacity. How many can you recall having ever used them in anger.
 
Originally posted by clivex@Oct 25 2006, 07:15 PM
well the answer to that is obvious but soemtimes its all too easy to pick up the fringe elements of any administration and assume that those are the underlying real views.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to inform us as to when the office of the Secretary of State of Defence and his Deputy was a "fringe element"?

If you wish to talk about peripheral figures in the regime, then I think its quite clear that is was the office of the Secretary of State (Colin Powell in the first administration that was marginalised) and that the Pentagon held the President's ear rather than the State Department. It's probably no coincidence that Dr Rice replaced General Powell. If you think I've read that incorrectly, then I'd welcome your assessment?
 
The idea that the largely discredited rumsfeld and rice are seeking world domination is a bit beyond belief.

Take it or leave it i suppose

They used an atomic bomb...not a nuclear weapon :)
 
Originally posted by clivex@Oct 25 2006, 07:15 PM
America, after this episode is more likely to become isolationist i believe. In fact american culture and history has often demostrated that to be their most natural instinct
Click to expand...
Well if you'd prefer to walk away from the idea that the American is a serial 'observer' of its own people, then who am I to ask you to expand?

I'm interested by this notion though, and don't necessarily disagree with you in some respects. Can you not however seperate the battle for the heart of the Republican party and what you call isolationism and with it an inference of adopted American foreign policy? Indeed, would you not accept that you could be confusing the concept of America with a political party? The Democrats, have afterall traditionally reached out more internationally than their Republican opponents. Do you not think that there's a possibility that a change of partisan political leadership might actually trigger a knee jerk reaction to embrace a wider global perspective in recognition of the previous regimes failures?

I'd be interested to hear if you have any analogies regarding the debate that challenged the heart of the Republican party in the 1950's regarding the internationalist Eisenhower, and the isolationist Taft. The latter of course, lets not forget was another limited horizon thinking, an America 1st, 2nd and 3rd Texan. Eisenhower of course being a General of recent global magnitude possessed an international perspective, and argued this successfully so. Number 43 by contrast, until becoming President had only ever spent a 2 week holiday in Mexico, I had more international diplomatic experience than he. Number 41 when in power, actually tried to throw off his Texan background for fear of it being conceived as baggage. He was happier to trade on his on his Ivy League, Vice Presidential Statesman role. His son by contrast, is only to happy to have himself photographed in cowboy outfits, he even tries to mimick the walk of the archetypal gunslinger (watch him next time he walks face on to a podium)

And do you remember when he was famously interviewed on Foreign Affairs in the Presidential Campaign, and asked to name the President of Pakistan? In faltering hesistancy he said "err...... the General..... General.....He's recently taken power" (if I'm verbatim incorrect, can someone please do the decent thing - preferably in bold type and block capitals preferably ;) ). So you think the USA might get even more isolationist? i doubt it, so long there's Gold in there damn hills!!!! Corporate America will demand, and more importantly, finance it.
 
Originally posted by clivex@Oct 25 2006, 08:15 PM
The idea that the largely discredited rumsfeld and rice are seeking world domination is a bit beyond belief.

:)
Click to expand...
Have you really taken that, that was what I was suggesting? That some axis of evil between a poker player and concert pianist was trying to take over the world?

Clive I have to say, with a sense of disappointment again, I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, when defending America.

please therefore correct if If I've read you wrong?

You've called their President; I para phrase you but I'm sure you're reasonable enough to accept it in the context? - "untrustworthy"

Their Secretary of Defence - "Discredited"

as indeed you've extended the same accolade to their "Secretary of State"

Their once Deputy Defence Secretary as "extreme"


Now am I alone?, (and believe me, I'd welcome other input to tell me otherwise)

I take it you support this White House? and yet you've systematically denounced the principal holders of their foremost Office's of State. I'm struggling to reconcile your anti Bush sentiments here. :confused: I'm sure we'd all benefit if you would be prepared to re-state them? if only to clarify the situation?. Now if I'm stupid or a "nut" as you've told me already, or even in need of a "nurse" :D then so be it, but again I offer you the opportunity to say so, ()in the spirit of debate of course) and for the third time I'd like to ask you to read the document that you comment on with such pseudo authority

And if their any Nurses out there ;)
 
Originally posted by krizon@Oct 25 2006, 10:21 AM
Actually, I'd like to ask you, Brian, whether the assertion that you could set up a news network in the USA AND SAY WHAT YOU LIKE (clivex's capitals)? Could you set up a full-on Red Radio and do nothing but spout Leftist propaganda all day, praising atheism, vilifying the current US Government and urging its citizens to take to the streets to overthrow it, and vote for the Left? Come to think of it, I really don't know the answer to this - is there a registered Communist Party (probably called by any other name) in the USA?
Click to expand...
OK, one thing at a time.

The Communist party is not illegal in the USA. The CPUSA (as it is called) has since the sixties mainly lost out to the "New Left".

In the late eighties It didn't agree with Gorbachev's perestroika and after its criticism the Soviet Communist party cut of support for the CPUSA. Its leader is Sam Webb, who claims 15,000 members.

Although advocates of a socialist revolution, the party calls for a peaceful and democratic transition to a socialist system in the United States and rejects the use of violence in a US uprising. Since the sixties it has mainly lost out to the "New Left".

You wouldn't be allowed to set up a radio station of the type that you describe but thsi is the USA and it's quite interesting to look at what happened to Air America Radio. Set up two years ago to offer a liberal alternative to the Rush Limbaugh right-wing (his choice of words) style commentary it has just filed for Chapter 11, one stage away from bankruptcy. There are two schools of thought - that there is no room for such a viewpoint in the US so it was a doomed commercial venture or that the pressure was put on advertisers and banks to bring about the collapse. I'll leave it to you to make up your own opinion.
 
How simplistic to think that you are either all for them or all against them

Warbler... You have alluded to the US being both as bad as the Soviet union in terms of freedoms and being as agressively expansionist as the the nazis with an undertone of genocidal aims against races

The trouble with the conspiracy theories (such as the 9/11 jewish plot one aired here) is that people spout paranoid rubbish and then say "disprove it". you can logically argue why it would be a waste of time for the FBI to be contsantly monitoring a pretty content and realtively preosperous popualtion, but of course I cant prove it.

I dont particualrly rate Bush and have misgivings about a hell of a lot of USA the overseas adventures (which have frequently been naive as much as anything else) but there are many worse places in the world in which to live and work...in fact a large proportion of worlds population would venture that tehre is no where better
 
Could you set up a full-on Red Radio and do nothing but spout Leftist propaganda all day, praising atheism, vilifying the current US Government and urging its citizens to take to the streets to overthrow it, and vote for the Left?
Click to expand...

Yes you could

No one would listen to it and no one would advertise on it

The authorities probably wouldnt care beacuse communisim is a laughably failed system which very very few people believe in still

There would be limits on race hate etc of course.
 
clivex - you wouldn't be allowed to do any of the "vilifying the current US Government and urging its citizens to take to the streets to overthrow it"
 
Yes. not sure about that one, although that would apply in most countries of course, though I would imagine that some of the weirdo fringe sects in montana and Idaho and so on probably broadcast much the same thing in one way or another
 
Originally posted by clivex@Oct 26 2006, 12:10 PM
How simplistic to think that you are either all for them or all against them
Click to expand...
Interesting choice of words there Clive. Who famously said "You're either with us, or against us"?. By very definition therefore, someone who isn't terribly concerned about freedom to make up your own mind other than a heads or tails call, and something which the French were at pains to point out.
 
Can someone provide me with an idiots guide on the steps necessary to post a link please, I think I might have found a copy of the original, before the PANC started watering down "Rebuilding America's Defences"
 
Im a bit bored with this now but

take it you support this White House? and yet you've systematically denounced the principal holders of their foremost
Click to expand...

I dont unequivolcally support anything. Pidgeon holing the world into goodies and baddies is for the lazy minded extremes on the right and left
 
Originally posted by clivex@Oct 26 2006, 02:42 PM
. Pidgeon holing the world into goodies and baddies is for the lazy minded extremes on the right and left
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more. Pity the 43rd President of the United States and his not-so-merry men don't share our views.
 
"Im a bit bored with this now but"

Oh that's disappointing :o

Still I'm sure you'd accept that even if I'm not as well briefed on the subject as your good self, if you think that it's constructive to denounce people with glib one liners, or even one worders in your case, that verge on the personal, then they respond? To then find that you're getting bored with it is a shame really.

Still I'm quite sure that anyone whose been able to witness the merry banter, is capable of drawing their own conclusions.

Until we meet again Clivex ;)
 
Taken from their own library this a list of their members, or the one's that they'll own up to. There's a whole bevvy of corproate interests tangled up in the lower strata which is actually quite difficult to unpick, although as I said at the outset, the name of Lockhead Martin crops up with an alarming regularity. I'd be me than casually interested to know how many, and to what extent, these corporate contributors have benefited from Bush's foreign policy? but that would be a serious research under taking. "Headstrong" are you out there gal?

PNAC Members


Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
Jeb Bush
John R. Bolton
Elliott Abrams
Richard Armitage
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Seth Cropsey
Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama
Bruce Jackson
Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol
Lewis Libby
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Randy Scheunemann
Dov S. Zakheim
Robert B. Zoellick
The complete list with background information on all can be found here.

Leo Strauss Philosopher whose ideas influence many PNAC members and neoconservatives. Among his philosophies are the advocacy of deception and state-sponsored religion as tools to control and manipulate the masses

(I couldn't resist leaving the entry to Leo Strauss in, especially as it goes so close to the heart of what I'd been banging on about, and the much more subtle ways that America denies freedom, by manipulation and conditional programming etc. Where as I believe I'm correct in pointing out the role of technology and the private sector, and essentially saying that these are areas where they critically differ from the Soviet Union. I had of course overlooked the impact that state sponsored religion plays too. In this context of course America embodies aspects of fundamentalism, lining it up in the same camp as Iran)
 
I see that vice-president Dick Cheney has now enthusiasticaly endorsed a form of torture that is banned not only by the Geneva Convention but also by the US military.
 
Thought it may be worth ressurecting this debate now that Bush and his mates powers have been neutered by the electorate...

Now given that the USA is supposedly only about as free (or was it less so) than the old Soviet union, can you remind me of the elections that took place which dealt a similar bloody nose to Stalin etc?

..............
 
Interesting that you appear to have run from it.

But I've always been prepared to test your intelligence, perception and observation Clive?

What's changed? and I'd appreciate your analysis as to why? and a definitive answer as to whether you belive it?I stand by every dot and comma, until such time as you can prove otherwise.

Lets not forget you were the one who got bored. Lay on MacDuff, I'm waiting for you, but don't ever undersetimate me, and my access to info :D
 
Apologies for the bombastic tone of previous post Clive. I had just come off another argument, and transferred some of my emotion etc and it looks like a came dangerously close to disclosing something I shouldn't have as well. Mind you since you've called me the odd name here and there, I'd say it makes us even.

The central tenet of what I was saying remains unaltered though. I honestly don't believe that anything changes as a result of rotating the figurehead. All the apparatus in the state hegenomy remains in place still. In that respect the outcome of an election is largely futile, and makes no difference to the way American society is structured and manipulates and manages its population through a variety of subtle methods.
 
Back
Top