Coincidence or Connection?

[knip]

hell, firsty, i completely understood your response to my first post...the second post wasn't directed to you at all, but more to jimbo's assumptions and co-option of my point (which was, in itself, a co-option of another point)




i don't know...it seems no matter what the fuck i talk about around here, it seems to always get co-opted to another, very predictable place

either i'm destined for the looney bin as i completely misunderstand, or there is some serious lobbying going on around here

[firsty]

well if i'm making sense then something is wrong. i must be running out of something here, hm...

[jimboloco]

i understand the osama as the bogey man argument, but wonder what level of american death needs to exist before one becomes concerned and reacts with force (not discussing what proper reaction is at this point)

and once that threshold is reached, are the accusations of inaction and ill-preparedness NOT permitted?

ok so I'll back up, I don't wanna censure you, by any means.

I gotta search back into the St Pete Times and dig out from the archives my letter in support of the war on the Taliban in Afghan wool country, fall, 2002, in which I stated support for the troops over ther, yet also expressing concerns about expanding the war into Iraq.....as an absolute question, perhaps I see that your question wants some kind of qualitative answer. But we are very much interested on quality as well. In Vietnam, we werwe taling over from the defeated French colonialists, when the lie was told that North Viets had fired upon a US Navy patrol boat. More lies about falling dominoes and wrath of the communist hordes coming up from Mexico if we didn't stop them over there.

I refer to Iraq not as an exclusive case, yet as perhaps the perfect example of how Americans are missled into unnessessary fracas, the history of American military force has mostly been for imperial hegemonious ends rather than to protect the homeland. Fir instance, the amount of domestic violence that endures here is unacceptable, yet our resources are not intended to contaiin that, but rather to arm the Armies of the military-industrial complex for profit and global domination, not for peace, but for greed.

So your well intentioned question does not fit ionto that scenario. Youtr question is a valid one, and it should be a rationalle for hoe the military and police fotrcea are structured, which, if heeded, would be tantamount to a complete restructuring of our "defense" militia as well as how our trillions are spent, into effective means rather than the overwhelming heavyhanded militarism that we have today. There are a number of dissaffected military veterans who are clamboring for this, but as yet, we ain't got the dough-re-me.

Going a bit looney is not all bad. I am at work, taking a break. Got to do 2 acu-checks, hang ,ast anti-biotics and give meds, have been busy today doing dressings, somfort measures, encouragements, explanations, etc, so this is a welcome break. Cheerio!

I do support wars of social liberation, altho I like the current model happening in several South merican countries right now. The right wingers with the collusion of American spooks tried to get Chaves, but to no avail. In the past, every democrativcally elected socialist government was overthrown by right wing coups with the collusion of the American capitalist pigs, what can I say?
It's why Cuba had their communist revolution, and the current socialist leaning governments in Bolivia, Brazil, and Venezuela will hopefully NOT face the same fate.

So what amount of external force would the Americans need to take forceful action? Well, the threat of force was used to motivate Americans into the Iraq debacle, and it was a lie, so, my answer to tou is, really, not much force against the USA would be needed at all, just the fanciful notion of a threat as proclaimed by the lying sons of bitches that run the fucking country.

So I don't really agree with an absolutist kind of question as the one you posed, because the quality of the force used against us has always been fancied, with one exception on 9/11 and that had been exaggerated to inflame us against anyone whome the American government deems worthy of our fear and anger.

Inshort, I don't think it is an entirely cogent question, I mean, anyone who threatened my wife would evoke an enormous anger and in fact I feel threatened by my own government more that anyone else. peace out.

[jimboloco]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
i understand the osama as the bogey man argument, but wonder what level of american death needs to exist before one becomes concerned and reacts with force (not discussing what proper reaction is at this point)

and once that threshold is reached, are the accusations of inaction and ill-preparedness NOT permitted?

It's really a rhetorical question. How can one take it outside of any context? It's no wonder the thought turns to Iraq.

Where should this force be directed?

Knip stated, what level of American death needs to exist before one becomes concerned and reacts with force, he does

so it has been placed in a particular context.

If it had been queried as, what level of death needs to exist before one reacts with force, then it would depend upon to whom it was addressed, as for instance, Gandhi in colonial India, or maybby Crazy Horse, two entirely different kinds of warriors.
Just visit the Civil Rights Memorial in Montgomery, Alabama, for a dose of courage thru ahimsa, raw courage.

In asking about America's tolerance for an inflicted death, it also assumes a unanimity, which 9/11 did evoke.

How is the question posed. It is as I said an epitome of a posed, rhetorical question that wants context yet refuses to allow for that context to be accepted.

Of course if posed to a good red blooded American, the answer would be zero tolerance and so the blood boils and war becomes the passion. Unfortunately, it was used as an entry into an expanded war that was fueled by those passions and manipulated into an expanded war, which in fact was exactly what Al_Qaida wanted, a diffused angry response, never mind that a lot of money was made and lives lost and the bogieman proved ellusive and Al+Qaida's influence live in perpetuity.

Ill preparedness includes the airport seciurity, the intell that was purposefully ignored andf the lies that rushed an ill-prepared infantry into a war agaimst an insurgent rebellion and a civil war in a failed state that cannot survive, Iraq. Yet America toils on, wearied by all this and far less than optimal the state of the union is, padawans. It's a good day to die.

[knip]

ignoring good intel is bad, and acting on bad intel is good (i haven't yet bought into the 'lie' argument...i'm still at the 'how could they be so stupid?' stage)...the problem is you don't know what is bad and what is good until history analyzes it...i have first-hand experience in this area

yes, i believe folks get painted worse than they deserve because we look at things with the benefit of history, and not so much within the times in which events occurred (still think bush is a moron, though)

i read sometime in the last week that the US had about 250 hits of 'solid' intel of imminent al qaeda attacks between 1 jan & 1 sep 2001...6 of those 250 involved planes....one was accurate

i think i'm rambling

[Dave The Dov]

The War On Terror
The War On Drugs
The War On Communism

Which one of these was painted worse????
_________________
Honda MT50

[mnaz]

knip:

The problem with the "how could they be so stupid?" take is that they had an opportunity to have the inspectors go in and check out their suspicions, without war and occupation. To me, this speaks to a premeditated agenda over any sort of bumbling due diligence.

[knip]

no doubt in my mind they WANTED to go to war

what i haven't fully accepted is that they intentionally misled people

every time i turn on the tv, radio, read the internet, i see nothing but people jumping to conclusions or convincing themselves of things

maybe in my efforts to not allow myself to be convinced, i miss the obvious - i don't know

in the end, we can all only know what we know

[mnaz]

no doubt in my mind they WANTED to go to war

what i haven't fully accepted is that they intentionally misled people

In terms of security, Iraq was cause for concern in 2003, but it was not cause for unilateral war. The military pressure put on Saddam to re-admit weapons inspectors was justified, but the invasion and occupation were not; they can only be sold by more abstract ideas such as "spreading democracy", etc.

I have little doubt that the Admin. sought to mislead. Check out the "Real reasons for the Iraq war" thread on this board, written by retired Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, a former Pentagon insider, or check the numerous links on the Pentagon's Cheney-installed Office of Special Planning (O.S.P), which stitched together weak intel into carefully-orchestrated, ominous talking points. Check out the fraud associated with the Admin.'s lynchpin in its case for war, the Niger uranium connection.

[jimboloco]

Interesting Knip what you add of course, I know what it means to not want to admit that we were deliberately lied to and there is evidence that was so.

But the process of coming to accept something like this can be very gradual.

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydo ... &up_day=29
"Bush doesn't think about anything. He just believes things, so is never conflicted by reality."


I was in the AFROTC for 4 years surrounded by anti-war, anti military sentimenr and I persevered, got a scholarship, had a successful training and graduated with a commission, all the while refusing to believe that my country could be wrong. It continued while in pilot training, as much from the conformist nature of some of my peers, also a friendship with a Guard troop who had earned his Guard slot in Massachussetts by serving two years in the Peace Corps in Africa prior to that (He told me Vietnam was not an option. It was jail, Canada, or the Guard) So he flew old F-87's for 6 years and became a forester.
I really learned a lot while in Vietnam, from seeing the theatre, to the various incidents that happened, saw brazen vulgar behavior amongst my superior officers or cold hearted indifference, lies and faked missions for medals, and also witnessed a counter-culture within the military, enlisted men, and on returning to the States, I had to make a choice based upon my moral-ethical perspective. I joined the VVAW and had a fine association with them and a rather emphatic rejection of the power structure, awakened to the manipulation and lies.

We were lied to and manipulated. They will deny it, no matter.
I knew it wwas a scripted scenario from the getgo when Bush called for the confirmation for war in the preceeding fall, 2002.

Unfortunately, Bush is painted in far better colors than he deserves as well as Cheney, etc.

I have a friend, Mohammed (oops, will we get in trouble?) He is Iranian. He walked out of Iran in the early 1980's a draft dodger from the Iran-Iraq War. He is intelligent, kind, a physical therapist here. He goes by Mo. Saya he hates Cheney more than anyone.
That is one asshole that is going to die rich and satiated, Cheney that is.