Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Stop. What's That Sound?

By aristus in Op-Ed
Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 01:29:39 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

"When the strongest nation in the world can be tied down for four years in a war ... with no end in sight, when the richest nation in the world cannot manage its economy ... when the President of the United States cannot travel abroad, or to any major city at home, then it's time for new leadership for the United States."

The ellipses are to keep you from guessing too soon. Give up? That was Dick Nixon in 1968. Nowadays Kennedy and Johnson are heroes who made a "mistake" in Vietnam while Nixon twirls a handlebar mustache in Hell. But to look back at what we thought at the time is to see parallels to today.


The Camelot dynasty, born under the cloud of vote fraud* in 1960, was foundering. Lies stacked on lies were coming apart. A little Texas tailor named Farah was getting rich making uniforms and body bags. Nixon was a lot of things but one quality cinched it: he wasn't in Johnson's party. Nixon promised to get us out of the quagmire before his term was out. He promised to bring us together, end the draft and bring "peace with honor". He won with support from the anti-war crowd who wanted anyone but Humphrey. But Nixon was anything but an anti-war President.

The '68 rhetoric sounds a lot like what we are hearing today. That is because Kerry doesn't fundamentally disagree with where Bush is going any more than Nixon disagreed with Johnson. He has to run on differences in approach. He promises to wage war with the lessons he learned in war. Is he talking about compassionate cruise missiles? Perhaps a kinder, gentler invasion? I'd like you to imagine all the new powers gained by the present government in the hands of someone with more tact -- and the same blank-check mandate Nixon started with. Remember also we have untapped millions of young people of draft age.

What is different?

What is different between today and 1968? Anti-war songs are scarce on the radio. The science of "crowd control" has advanced beyond firehoses, tear gas and batons. Unions as a political force are a jest. Protests are reported, if at all, from helicopters or from behind police lines. The net result it to make criminals and terrorists out of people who go against the grain. Check out how often "anarchist" is used in the press as a scare word, with "internet-using" stuck in front of it like a cheap cigar.

The biggest difference is that the gloves are off. Our long war against Carthage-- pardon, Moscow --is over. Thinkers from both parties openly discuss the finer points of imperialism. At this moment we are being softened up to accept another invasion. Will it be Iran** or Sudan? Is it just a coincidence that the Darfur region supplies China with oil, or that Iran supplies natural gas to Russia? That isn't the way it's put by or leaders, naturally. We do what we do because we are humanitarians.

Many people are not voting for Kerry but against Bush. It's a bit of foot-gnawing. But please make no mistake: worse times are to come, whoever gets the prize. Kerry has no plans to stop attacking other countries. he only wants to get others to share the cost.

--

* There were allegations of fraud in Texas (LBJ's home) and Cook (aka "Crook") County, Illinois, where Mayor Daley delivered a suspiciously large margin for Kennedy.

** Recently Israel ordered F-16I jets capable of reaching Iran.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o vote fraud
o finer points of imperialism
o F-16I
o Also by aristus


Display: Sort:
Stop. What's That Sound? | 190 comments (142 topical, 48 editorial, 0 hidden)
Oooh, scarie! (none / 2) (#1)
by debacle on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 08:04:40 PM EST

But in all reality status quo is hard to beat, even if you fly a plane into it.

It tastes sweet.
Yes it is. (none / 1) (#2)
by aristus on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 08:13:58 PM EST

The most powerful tool for maintaining status quo is the illusion of change. And in all reality it works even better when people are jaded.
--

??? "A man of imagination among scholars feels like a sodomite at a convention of proctologists." -- Paul West


[ Parent ]
And political truisms are best served vague (nt) (none / 2) (#3)
by ksandstr on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 08:20:17 PM EST



[ Parent ]
lol touche! (nt) (none / 0) (#5)
by aristus on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 08:22:05 PM EST


--

??? "A man of imagination among scholars feels like a sodomite at a convention of proctologists." -- Paul West


[ Parent ]
lol a la flambé! (none / 1) (#7)
by Hide Teh Hamster on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 08:29:28 PM EST




This revitalised kuro5hin thing, it reminds me very much of the new German Weimar Republic. Please don't let the dark cloud of National Socialism descend upon it again.
[ Parent ]
À la flambée, mon frere /st (none / 1) (#42)
by i on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 05:16:57 AM EST



and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]
I'm not jaded (none / 0) (#4)
by debacle on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 08:21:42 PM EST

I'm just not really interested.

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]
Three havah nagilas for you! (none / 2) (#9)
by Hide Teh Hamster on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 09:04:19 PM EST

Blessed be your spiritual aura, my son!


This revitalised kuro5hin thing, it reminds me very much of the new German Weimar Republic. Please don't let the dark cloud of National Socialism descend upon it again.
[ Parent ]
Stop, hey what's that sound (1.78 / 14) (#8)
by Hide Teh Hamster on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 08:41:40 PM EST

everybody look who's voting -1, politics


This revitalised kuro5hin thing, it reminds me very much of the new German Weimar Republic. Please don't let the dark cloud of National Socialism descend upon it again.
Hey you! (none / 0) (#11)
by jacoplane on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 09:39:37 PM EST

what's that sound!

[ Parent ]
Everybody look (none / 1) (#14)
by acceleriter on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 09:56:45 PM EST

what's goin' down

[ Parent ]
Ahh Yes! (none / 1) (#15)
by jacoplane on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 10:06:50 PM EST

ain't that fresh, now everybody wants to get down like that....

[ Parent ]
-1, Nullo. (1.05 / 20) (#12)
by RyoCokey on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 09:49:03 PM EST

All posts are in relation to this story in the queue.



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick
So, are new users not welcome? (nt) (none / 0) (#20)
by aristus on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 10:50:23 PM EST


--

??? "A man of imagination among scholars feels like a sodomite at a convention of proctologists." -- Paul West


[ Parent ]
Generally... (none / 2) (#24)
by zrail on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 11:20:27 PM EST

New users are expected by the people who dominate this site to participate with comments and/or diaries before posting a story. Not as a rule, more of a general observation.

[ Parent ]
Sadly, it's a necessary precaution (none / 2) (#31)
by Kasreyn on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 01:33:43 AM EST

due to the large numbers of dupe accounts and trolls... if a person invests the time to develop a public record of useful contribution, we can feel confident of one of two things:

1. He's not a troll.

or

2. He's a troll who has no life because he has to spend half his k5 time commenting just to disguise the trolling half. Therefore, having no life, he suffers greater lossage than we do.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
The problem with nullos for a while (none / 2) (#37)
by jongleur on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 03:33:56 AM EST

was that we'd get posts on fishy or unfamiliar topics, and sure enough they'd be by a nullo, which tended to strengthen suspicion it was someone trying to exploit K5 to push something. But I don't see why it's a problem if it's not outlandish or peddling something.
--
"If you can't imagine a better way let silence bury you" - Midnight Oil
[ Parent ]
Jesus Fucking Christ (none / 2) (#88)
by felixrayman on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 10:31:08 PM EST

Why not just judge the article by its content?

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
what would be a good idea (none / 2) (#138)
by phred on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 03:44:05 PM EST

if we were somehow able to vote on the articles, to prevent bogus stuff from getting posted. That'd solve the nullo problem.

[ Parent ]
It's a silly expectation, though. (none / 2) (#81)
by aphrael on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 08:16:51 PM EST

It's one thing to expect people posting meta articles to have a history with the site; but random articles on other subjects shouldn't carry that expectation. Articles are a great way for new users who have something intelligent to say on a subject near and dear to their hearts to pop in and generate conversation. Isn't that what we should be hoping for?

[ Parent ]
Not by some elitist arseholes. (nt) (none / 0) (#54)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 10:05:19 AM EST



---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
Actually you know what? (1.33 / 15) (#17)
by Hide Teh Hamster on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 10:37:44 PM EST

I just found out this story was written by a nullo account. I am therefore going to vote +1 if I have the chance.


This revitalised kuro5hin thing, it reminds me very much of the new German Weimar Republic. Please don't let the dark cloud of National Socialism descend upon it again.
What do you mean by "nullo"? (1.50 / 4) (#18)
by Enu the Subway Groper on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 10:45:05 PM EST

Is this guy actually a nullo like Fen? Did he really cut his balls off, too? It seems like an awfully strange criterium to discriminate by.

But what do I know? I just squeeze womens' asses on the morning train to Osaka.
[ Parent ]
Ha ha ha, no my friend. (2.57 / 14) (#19)
by Hide Teh Hamster on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 10:46:43 PM EST

Not that kind of nullo. It's a cute little term some choad swallowers on this site thought up to describe an account with little to no "community" interaction. See, kuro5hinians have this fucked up idea that you have to first diddle their assholes and little scrotums before you can submit a story, a deluded utopian discussion fantasyland akin to a game of Monopoly with a flaring pack of herpes.


This revitalised kuro5hin thing, it reminds me very much of the new German Weimar Republic. Please don't let the dark cloud of National Socialism descend upon it again.
[ Parent ]
But... (none / 3) (#22)
by taste on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 11:10:07 PM EST

Have you ever considered that we nullos used to be lurkers who happened to have been injected with a little inspiration one day and crawled out of our murky depth into troll country and temporarily leave our marks until the next round of inspiration comes?

Unlike trolls, us lurkers enjoy watching your rowdy behaviors from a safe distance while still being able to appreciate the peace and quietness of The Deep when we need to.

[ Parent ]

I hear what you are saying. (1.20 / 5) (#23)
by Hide Teh Hamster on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 11:18:18 PM EST




This revitalised kuro5hin thing, it reminds me very much of the new German Weimar Republic. Please don't let the dark cloud of National Socialism descend upon it again.
[ Parent ]
so you're guilty before having to prove... (none / 1) (#161)
by the sixth replicant on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 05:06:11 AM EST

..you are innocent.

Nullos are people too!

If someone wants to publish a story then so be it. If it's good it gets voted up, if it's bad then off to the dump.

I don't know why it's so difficult.

Ciao

[ Parent ]

In Honor of K5ARP (2.80 / 15) (#26)
by Peahippo on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 12:36:04 AM EST

              I've posted to K5 for months,
            O  but not once has anyone
 \ | /    o     tounged me! Fascists!
  \|/   .
---*---
  /|\
 / | \


[ Parent ]
I like... (none / 1) (#104)
by CodeWright on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 03:54:50 PM EST

...your beautiful unique snowflake.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Snowflake!!?? (none / 1) (#141)
by cdyer on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 06:03:00 PM EST

Er, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but I think, in response to Hide Teh Hamster's comments, that the ascii picture represents not a snowflake, but an anus....

[ Parent ]
Shit (none / 0) (#145)
by CodeWright on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 09:00:04 PM EST

Yer right.

Now I feel stupid. And dirty.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Modern Political Music (none / 1) (#21)
by Perpetual Newbie on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 10:51:42 PM EST

Most of the current anti-war/anti-Bush songs suck ("Idiot Son of an Asshole" springs to mind), but if you want to hear something like that on the radio, I recommend calling in and requesting Bad Day by REM. Not only is it a good song from a popular band, but it's timely what with the 9/11 commission report just being released.

Or zombie (none / 0) (#80)
by aphrael on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 08:15:14 PM EST

by the cranberries.

[ Parent ]
cranberry juice is good. (none / 0) (#99)
by LilDebbie on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 11:11:35 AM EST

nothing enraged me more than hereing that idiotic U2 song at the end of Bloody Sunday.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
sunday bloody sunday? (none / 1) (#105)
by aphrael on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 04:05:09 PM EST

i love that song. :)

[ Parent ]
Or Zombie (none / 1) (#142)
by cdyer on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 06:05:50 PM EST

by Fela Kuti.

I don't think he was directing at Bush, per se....

[ Parent ]

"The Mob Goes Wild" by Clutch (none / 0) (#110)
by nsayer on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 04:20:50 PM EST

More directly anti-Bush, I think, than any other cited example.


[ Parent ]
KMFDM (none / 0) (#118)
by TheBeardedScorpion on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 08:22:40 PM EST

Their new album, "WWIII" is pretty anti-Bush. They are not for everyone though.

[ Parent ]
Modern Political Music: International! (none / 0) (#177)
by tap dancing lenin puppet on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 05:27:49 PM EST

Most of Matt Good's past two albums have been a thinly veiled criticism of the Bush presidency/modern politics.  I don't think they suck, but then again, I'm a Matt Good fan.

(Lyrics from Avalance and White Light Rock and Roll Review)

[ Parent ]

Umm... once? (3.00 / 4) (#36)
by JKauffman on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 03:07:35 AM EST

Results 1-1 of 1 for "internet-using anarchist".

Result N where N is large for (none / 0) (#85)
by lwhalen on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 09:44:21 PM EST

"internet using anarchists". It's all in how it's worded.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&c2coff= 1&q=%22internet+using+anarchists%22&btnG=Search

[ Parent ]

problem (none / 0) (#95)
by WorkingEmail on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 04:32:29 AM EST

Who is using whom?

Read teh article.


[ Parent ]

Heh. Self-nullifying comments (none / 0) (#185)
by RadiantMatrix on Fri Aug 06, 2004 at 03:00:01 PM EST

The fact that you used that phrase in your comment invalidates the comment, as your link now returns two results for that phrase. :P

It's like the companion to the concept of "self-fulfilling prophecy". Yay!

"In any sufficiently large group of people, most are idiots" - Kaa's Law

[ Parent ]

History doesn't repeat itself, (2.87 / 8) (#39)
by Lode Runner on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 04:07:12 AM EST

historians merely repeat each other. Beware the gray ponytails!

** Recently. (none / 2) (#41)
by i on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 04:51:08 AM EST

In 1999.

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

you weren't alive in the 60s' were you (2.80 / 5) (#44)
by minerboy on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 07:33:17 AM EST

The net result it to make criminals and terrorists out of people who go against the grain - Probably the most famous protest, kent state, was followed by interview after interview with people saying that "the got what they deserved. Also allegations of marxist provacateurs who instigated the violence was commonplace in the press. Second, I doubt that Johnson is now considered a hero.



F-16i? (2.55 / 9) (#45)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 07:47:25 AM EST

I love these kinds of misleading statements.

Recently Israel ordered F-16I jets capable of reaching Iran.

Uh. Have you noticed that Iran and Israel aren't all that far apart? Israel has been able to reach Iran for 30 years now. New fighter planes are not a big deal.

It's not like Iran has an effective air force, is it?

Could be worse. Could be raining!

Iran has a whole load of F-15s that we sold them. (none / 0) (#61)
by skyknight on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 01:41:26 PM EST

Unfortunately for them, they all have mysterious problems with their fire control systems, and we refuse to give them parts with which to do maintenance, so they are completely useless.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
No (none / 0) (#70)
by edg176 on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 05:56:31 PM EST

The US sold the Shah of Iran F-14's. Not the F15.

[ Parent ]
I knew that it was one of the two... (none / 1) (#73)
by skyknight on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 06:59:37 PM EST

I just couldn't remember which it was, and so I took a 50/50 shot of sounding worldly, and blew it.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Important distinction (none / 2) (#78)
by aphrael on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 08:13:32 PM EST

We did not sell the Islamic Republic of Iran any weapons. We sold the weapons to a different state occupying the same territory - a state which was much more friendly to us than the current one.

[ Parent ]
I am aware of that fact. (none / 0) (#83)
by skyknight on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 08:38:23 PM EST

It is indeed an important distinction. I was just having some fun with porkchop's comment about Iran not having an effective air force, and I think it's hilarious that all of the F-14 aircraft had mysteriously dysfunctional fire control systems that rendered them useless. It would seem that we didn't even trust the original occupiers of said territory.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
30-year-old planes (2.75 / 4) (#154)
by DaChesserCat on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 11:19:01 PM EST

IIRC, we are still flying F-14's. The difference, though, is that they've had their weapons systems upgraded, a little bit at a time, over the intervening years. Consequently, even if we put our F-14's up against theirs, we'd still kick their a**es. When you buy a weapons system like the F-14 or F-16, you don't sit still, technologically. You still upgrade various systems over the years. The first F-16's I maintained when I joined the Air Force (1991) were NOT flying with their original Flight Control System (FLCS, or "flick-iss"). They were Block 40's, and we upgraded to Block 50's while I was there. The older Block 40's were sent to a Reserve unit, but they went through some upgrades before they were transferred.

When I was in RoK (South Korea), we were flying Block 30's, which had their fire control systems fooled into thinking they were carrying Mavericks when they were actually carrying HARMs. A software upgrade was later introduced which allowed the F-16's to carry HARMs, and have the fire-control system KNOW they were HARMs. Consequently, what started as a jury-rigged system ended up becoming standardized. It's my understanding they had been looking at the F-16 to take on the Wild Weasel mission for some time, but resources simply hadn't been available to pursue that (the F-4G and EF-111A were doing that mission rather well, already, and there wasn't a perceived need for another platform in that mission).

Consequently, someone who bought F-14's 30 years ago and hasn't had the option to upgrade their systems is going to be in for a nasty shock if they lock horns with ANYONE with a newer system. Hell, the Israeli Air Force has been flying upgraded F-4's for years, some of which can carry the same weapons as the F-14, F-15 and F-16. Their range is more limited (there is SOME benefit to a newer airframe), but they have the avionics, radar and fire systems to inflict some major damage, even in a modern combat theater.

Trains stop at train stations Busses stop at bus stations A windows workstation . . .
[ Parent ]
I don't think that's true. (none / 1) (#167)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 10:45:23 AM EST

In keeping with the push for "multirole" air craft, I think the last of the Tomcats has been retired and replaced with F-18As.

The F-18s can do both CAP and surface attack, so they replaced both the Tomcats and the old Intruders.

Could be worse. Could be raining!
[ Parent ]

F-14's, not F-15's. (3.00 / 3) (#144)
by John Asscroft on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 08:36:59 PM EST

Iran has a bunch of *F-14's* that we sold them. And while they have developed the ability to manufacture most spare parts they need in order to keep the planes operational, they are close to 30 years old now, and woefully obsolete. The biggest lack is a viable weapons system to carry aloft on them (all jet fighters are nowdays is a truck to get weapons systems up into the air). Without an equivalent to AMRAAM, we can shoot their F-14's out of the air at a distance where they can't even get a weapons lock on our fighters. Their F-14's would never get close enough to our jets to use their infrared missiles or dogfight with their cannon. (And Israel's F-16's have similar advantages over Iran's woeful fighter force).

The air war would be over within hours of imposing CAP over all Iranian airbases. There is not an airforce anywhere in the world that has our technology for shooting opposing planes out of the air (though the Russian AMRAAMSKI, never put into mass production, comes close) -- and we intend to keep it that way.

-- Your war-like Attorney General
We must destroy freedom to save it from the terrorists who want to destroy freedom. Else the terrorists have won.
[ Parent ]

We need more discussion like this... (none / 0) (#51)
by DLWormwood on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 09:45:16 AM EST

I dislike The Shrub In Chief as much as any Democrat, but I don't like Kerry either. I couldn't put my finger on it, until I read this article. While the Nixon analogy is a bit of a stretch, there is a grain of truth in it.

Oh, well. It looks like I'll be "protest voting" in yet another election after all...

Vote Badnarik! (-;
--
Those who complain about affect & effect on k5 should be disemvoweled

Kerry is so dishonest it makes my head hurt. (none / 0) (#164)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 10:10:11 AM EST

Anyone who manages to collect three purple hearts without actually having to be admitted to a hospital is dubious to begin with. But announcing that he's going to "preserve" social security and spend a ton more on other programs, while still cutting the deficit - that's proof that he and Bush were separated at birth.

You gotta love it: Vote for the rich yale grad who is driving the country into ruin or for the rich yale grad who will drive the country into ruin. Such a choice!

Could be worse. Could be raining!
[ Parent ]

Hallelujah, Brother! (none / 0) (#57)
by Mr.Surly on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 11:24:49 AM EST

God knows that if Gore had been elected we'd now have to vote "anybody but Gore" to get his war-mongering ass out of office to clean up the mess he made by invading Iraq; he's been itching to go after Saddam for a long time.

+1FP, a politics article that's interesting (none / 3) (#62)
by ELP Fucking Rules on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 01:49:47 PM EST



I may disagree with what you have to say but I'll kill you for my right to say that.
Nixon wasn't so bad (2.60 / 5) (#65)
by cronian on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 02:17:55 PM EST

As pointed Nixon wanted to work out the war in Vietnam, and he did found the EPA. In hindsight, he really doesn't look so bad. What exactly do you want?

The US has been a great world power since at least the end of World War II. Neo-Imperialism has been part of being an imperial power, and some might argue it goes back to the conquest of North America.

Many have argued that the Iraq war does not improve America's strength as world imperial power. The invasion shows the limits of US military power, and prevents credible threats elsewhere in the world. As often, the threat of force is much more powerful that its actual use. However, if the US doesn't use force occasionally it does also raise the risk, that threats of American force won't prove credible, but US military aid in Columbia, and small scale US military intervention elsewhere in the world would probably be enough to prove that.

For a time it even looked like the rest of the world was going to be able to work together in ending US hegemony, but it hasn't happened yet. Bush may be capable of enough to make it happen, but it would cause devestation to the United States, and require major economic reorganization throughout the rest of the world.

What exactly do you want for the future? The US is reliant foreign imports, which require running a trade deficit. Without these things, spurred by foreign investment and backed by the dollarization of oil, the US economy would collapse. These things cannot be maintained without continuing US hegemony. Working with other countries, and giving into token demands is the way to best maintain this hegemony. Mere intimidation, and threats only works well over the short-term.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
Nixon's politics (none / 0) (#76)
by aphrael on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 08:11:27 PM EST

Nixon's politics were typical of the internationalist wing of post-world-war-two republicanism: staunchly anti-communist in foreign policy, but generally in favor of the new deal and its side-effects, and economically "progressive". His administration was loathed as much by conservatives as it was by radical leftists; Kissinger, in particular, constantly drew the ire of the activist conservative wing of the party.

That said, Nixon had terrible impulses, and drew the country into a serious constitutional crisis, and was the single most important factor in undermining popular faith/respect for government. Everything good that he accomplished is marred by that singularly negative fact.

[ Parent ]

Jesus consorted with the devil (none / 1) (#86)
by debacle on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 09:49:43 PM EST

But people don't hate him, do they?

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]
After all, (none / 1) (#87)
by aristus on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 10:10:44 PM EST

only Jesus could go to China. No, wait...

Is there some sort of corallory to Godwin's law for bringing up Messiahs?


--

??? "A man of imagination among scholars feels like a sodomite at a convention of proctologists." -- Paul West


[ Parent ]
the problem? (none / 1) (#100)
by cronian on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 01:27:55 PM EST

His 'anti-communist' foreign policies involved opening relations with Red China. What is wrong with undermining faith/respect for government?

He was before my times, but his policies seem like some of the best of any president. Besides his popularity, what exactly do you find wrong with him? He was corrupt, but so was every other president.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
His corruption (none / 1) (#108)
by aphrael on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 04:07:40 PM EST

revealed a total lack of belief in the democratic process. This is not something that we should encourage in politicians, or in ourselves.

As for lack of faith - what we have now is a hostility and a cynicism that seems to presume that everyone in politics is operating from a place of base motives. An inability to believe that people mean what they say. How is that a *good* thing?

[ Parent ]

It's a good thing (none / 1) (#111)
by Cro Magnon on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 04:51:16 PM EST

if it's the truth. And there's plenty of evidence that it is. Yes, I'm a cynic.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
Sorry you don't like the nature of politics (none / 1) (#120)
by cronian on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 12:35:45 AM EST

I guess you want to have the ideal sense of democracy like what is in theory supposed to be taught in some sort of civics class. What exactly do you mean by belief in the democratic process? Political corruption has been around since democratic elections.

His methods may have been sleazy, but that is just the nature of politics. How was he supposed to get things done? Do you think the president should be incapable of action?

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
Spying on your opponents (none / 0) (#122)
by aphrael on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 12:59:51 AM EST

and using the power of the state to interfere with their campaign is required to get things done?

We might as well abolish elections, then.

[ Parent ]

The US really ought to invade Canada... (3.00 / 2) (#134)
by skyknight on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 12:57:00 PM EST

and then Mexico, and then snag a South American country once every five or ten years, depending on how restless the rest of the world is. Iraq is so far away, and there's so much land waiting to be taken right here at home. Why not take the low hanging fruit first? What's Canada going to do, bleed on us?

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Fighting a fellow western nation is different (none / 0) (#188)
by Mithras on Fri Aug 13, 2004 at 02:03:47 AM EST

As a Canadian, I resent your comment, "What's canada going to do, bleed on us." I would think that a nation with large numbers of smart, university educated citiznes could do a lot more than that. Sure you'd conquer Canada in less than a day, but holding it might be difficult.
I need a sig
[ Parent ]
Haven't been here long, have you? (none / 0) (#189)
by skyknight on Fri Aug 13, 2004 at 07:21:35 AM EST

You need to realize that people sometimes use satire and parody to make a point.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Actually nixon did do a lot of good (none / 0) (#156)
by mcgrew on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 11:36:11 PM EST

EPA, relations with China, Clean air act, etc. However, he was still a crook. Third rate burglars broke into the Democratic party looking for ways to throw the election, with Nixon's knowledge and blessing.

That's why I regret voting for him, despite any good he accomplished. I just don't like the idea of having a criminal running my country.

Which is a problem I have with Bush. Even if I'd planned on voting for him all along last election (which I didn't; I didn't like those shifty eyes or what he said or how he said it) when I found out that he had a conviction for drunk driving, that would have killed it for me. I don't want a drunk driver in the white house.

Mr. Bush is definately not a man of honor. He's just as damned crooked as Nixon.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

On Israeli F-16s (none / 1) (#67)
by kuroXhin on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 02:37:57 PM EST

Who do you think Iran is going to threaten with its nukes - sorry - engage in the realm of nations with its peaceful nuclear energy program while sitting on a sea of oil? It is not going to be the US or Russia (if it even thought of that the country would be leveled in 15 minutes). Israel may have been a bad idea, but it has a right to defend itself.

The Economist - The Playboy of the new world order!

Interesting (none / 1) (#71)
by eberkut on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 06:30:39 PM EST

Maybe if innocence presumption is apparently not revelant for states, maybe we should just drop it for simple citizens, don't you think ?

'course they can buy new toys and threaten implicitly potential aggressors (hmm more or less like what nuclear dissuation is used for...) but if they fire up without being attacked first, they'll be responsible for any resulting (nuclear) war.

One last thing, Israel developped nuclear weapons in violation with non-proliferation policies. If everybody accepted that, why should'nt we let Iran do the same ?

"you can tune a file system but you can't tune a fish" (man 8 tunefs, BUGS)
[ Parent ]

In a (nuclear) war (none / 2) (#72)
by i on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 06:49:38 PM EST

there are no guilty and innocent. There are winners and losers. Welcome to Planet Earth.

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]
Winning a nuclear war (none / 0) (#84)
by astatine on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 08:50:38 PM EST

would be rather Pyrrhic, considering what a task even surviving one would be...

Society, they say, exists to safeguard the rights of the individual. If this is so, the primary right of a human being is evidently to live unrealistically.Celia Green
[ Parent ]
There's no hard data. (none / 1) (#91)
by i on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 02:36:00 AM EST

Only speculations, and those are mostly about a nuclear conflict between superpowers.

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]
Clearly... (none / 1) (#107)
by CodeWright on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 04:06:57 PM EST

...a local or even regional nuclear war would have little (environmental) impact.

Thermonuclear weapons have been detonated repeatedly in regional areas with very limited external effects (Arizona desert, Semipalatinsk, Lop Nur desert, Bikini atoll, etc).

I remember living in Central Asia that "weird cloud days" were indicative of Chinese nuclear weapon testing over the Tien Shan mountains in the Lop Nur desert.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Depends what you call environmental. (none / 0) (#127)
by brain in a jar on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 07:15:47 AM EST

I would call elimination of all the major cities of both participants a fairly major environmental impact.


"The ships hung in the air the way that bricks don't." Douglas Adams.
[ Parent ]

No (none / 1) (#128)
by CodeWright on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 09:15:31 AM EST

Impact on civilization? Without a doubt.

Significant environmental impact? No.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
What if we nuked the polar ice caps? (none / 1) (#132)
by skyknight on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 12:51:02 PM EST

Actually, I'm not being entirely facetious and silly. I'm just wondering what are the boundaries to the assertion that there would be no environmental impact. Also, couldn't radiation poisoning from particle distribution outside the blast zone have substantial effect if it were in an inconvenient place?

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Still not a big environmental impact (none / 1) (#139)
by CodeWright on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 04:01:25 PM EST

An even larger impact on civilization, but if you look at the historic record, sea water levels have varied by tens of meters even during the period of modern humans (i.e., the past two million years).

Even converting all of the current ice caps to sea water would only raise global ocean level by what, 30 feet? 50?

While having a truly profound impact on civilization (most habitation being within 30 miles of water), the environmental impact to the biome would be negligible.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Well that's good to know... (none / 0) (#163)
by skyknight on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 08:56:04 AM EST

though I'm not sure it's of much consolation to the people at ground zero.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Ummmm.... (none / 1) (#169)
by CodeWright on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 11:30:39 AM EST

What do the people at ground zero have to do with the environment?

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Fertilizer? /nt (none / 1) (#171)
by skyknight on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 12:14:41 PM EST



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
There is that (none / 0) (#172)
by CodeWright on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 12:43:40 PM EST

However, I'm not sure I would want to use highly radiated ash as fertilizer.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
I guess more to the point... (none / 0) (#173)
by skyknight on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 12:46:12 PM EST

we should be asking what these people won't have to do with the environment, and the answer to that is more or less everything.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Oh my unborn great grandchildren! (none / 1) (#176)
by CodeWright on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 03:12:30 PM EST

What don't you have to do with the environment!?

Oh Frumptious Bandersnatch, oh Jabberwocky out Grabe, what don't you have to do with the environment?

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Indeed... (none / 1) (#166)
by Znork on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 10:40:59 AM EST

The real damage would probably come from the removal of the nuclear taboo, massive destruction of infrastructure in target regions, psychological effects resulting in economic collapses around the world (oil price, stock markets), etc.

A small nuclear conflict would not cause too much environment damage, but it would probably make life in this world suck quite profoundly for a long time ahead. Especially for the industrialized nations.

[ Parent ]

I'm not arguing... (none / 1) (#168)
by CodeWright on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 11:18:30 AM EST

...about the effects on civilization (which I believe I already characterized as profound) -- I just get really tired of fuzzy-headed new age wackjob ignoramus thinking that equates damage to civilization as damage to the environment and then argues on that basis.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Personally, I'm OK... (none / 1) (#133)
by skyknight on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 12:52:17 PM EST

with there only being baseless speculation. I'm willing to eschew doing hypothesis testing just this once.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
All nuclear wars are not created equal (2.50 / 2) (#155)
by mcgrew on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 11:27:15 PM EST

When the US and the USSR each had tens of thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at each other, there could be no winners in a nuclear war, only losers- everybody except the cockroaches. That many bombs would release enough radioactivity to kill everybody.

However, say there was a nuclear war between Iran and Iraq. Maybe two, three bombs would go off, total. Perhaps each would get two or three off. It would completely ruin both countries.

Just another drop in the ocean. Thousands of nuclear bombs were detonated after WWII, in Russia, in the USA, in the Pacific Islands.

The extra radaition wouldn't hurt a bit. The extra cancer deaths would be blamed on cigarettes, like they always have. It's a fact, though, that there is a 100% chance of getting lung cancer if you get any amount of Plutonium at all in your lungs. I haven't heard the risks of stuff in fallout, like Thorium or strontium.

I grew up in the St. Louis area during the cold war. I remember vividly one winter, probably around 1958 or 1960, when there was the weirdest snowstorm I had ever in my short life seen. What was disturbing was that neither my parents or grand parents had ever seen anything like it, either. It was a snow thunderstorm! Lightning and thunder crashed and the wind blew like a summertime storm, but giant fluffy flakes of snow fell thickly.

The government warned parents not to let their children play in the snow, and that snowstorm had unleashed a child's paradise, with three feet (more or less) of perfect, fun looking snow. We hated it, but managed to get outside any way, every single kid in the neighborhood.

A couple of years later and they were collecting childrens' teeth, to do a study to determine how much strontium 90 was present in us kids.

But I'm still alive and cancer-free (knock on wood) despite smoking cigarettes for 30 years. My grandmother died in 2003 at age 99. Both my parents are alive, as is my sister.

But living anywhere east, northeast, or southeast of Nevada before the nuclear test ban treaty was like living in Yugoslavia when Norway was having a nuclear war with Iceland.

World War II was the first nuclear war. Japan got over it.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Just couldn't resist (none / 0) (#158)
by DaChesserCat on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 11:50:23 PM EST

When the US and the USSR each had tens of thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at each other, there could be no winners in a nuclear war, only losers- everybody except the cockroaches. That many bombs would release enough radioactivity to kill everybody.
The cockroaches will have some company.

Trains stop at train stations Busses stop at bus stations A windows workstation . . .
[ Parent ]
No. (none / 2) (#82)
by aphrael on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 08:24:09 PM EST

The presumption of innocence that applies to ordinary citizens exists in a framework of law: in order to ensure that the state treats individuals fairly, the state must presume that they are innocent in the absence of conclusive proof to the contrary.

There is no direct analogy to that on the international scene. The closest you could get is an argument that the UN, World Court, GATT, and other transnational bodies with enforcement power against states presume that those states are innocent of anything they are accused of, and only enforce judgements against them in the presence of conclusive proof of guilt. But that's a weak analogy, because international law - however much it has advanced in the decades since the Great War - is still very much an abstraction dependant upon the individual participating states for enforcement, and is still subject to significant questions regarding legitimacy.

The situation you are decrying is that of a state arming itself to protect itself against another state. This is analagous to me arming myself to protect myself against a stalker. I am not required to presume that the stalker is innocent (although I am, ethically, enjoined against attacking him); the city police are required to have that presumption. Similarly, Israel should not presume Iraq's innocence; the UN, or the World Court, or whatveer international agency you deem to have jurisdiction, should.

[ Parent ]

also, (none / 1) (#90)
by Lode Runner on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 12:31:38 AM EST

Israel never signed any non-proliferation treaties whereas Iran and Iraq both did. This complicates your "innocence" thesis in a number of ways. Can a nation that does not chose to participate in a treaty proscribing the development and proliferation of nukes be held guilty of violating said treaty?

People think this is too fine a point until they realize that the signatories deflected warranted scrutiny by swearing off of The Bomb.

[ Parent ]

Iran hates Iraq more than Israel (none / 1) (#103)
by nh1 on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 03:12:56 PM EST

Who do you think Iran is going to threaten with its nukes

They were unvaded by Iraq in the 80s, with support from the US. So now Iraq is becoming a client state of the US, they can be excused some nervousness, especially with the American neo-cons openly advocating invasion.

[ Parent ]

Iran (none / 1) (#115)
by kurioszyn on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 06:44:18 PM EST

" they can be excused some nervousness"

Good.
The need to.

Regardless of who will pull the triger, their time is coming.

[ Parent ]

see here, son (2.90 / 10) (#74)
by mcgrew on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 07:27:22 PM EST

You said, "Nowadays Kennedy and Johnson are heroes who made a mistake in Vietnam while Nixon twirls a handlebar mustache in Hell. But to look back at what we thought at the time is to see parallels to today."

I realize you're trying to use an exageration for illustration, but this is just stupid on so many levels I stopped reading right there.

Kennedy is regarded as a hero because of his injury suffered in wartime, not because of anything we did in Asia. Johnson isn't much seen as any kind of hero by anybody- his "Great Society" was an utter failure, resulting in multigenarational poverty and state welfare that lasted until 1996.

Nixon is seen as a mustache-twirling villian because he was a crooked son of a bitch who ran a crooked Presidency. Watergate wasn't some silly little blowjob, it was over a burglary done with Nixon's blessing with the intent to affect a Presidential election. Short of treason, I can't think of a better reason for impeachment.

His first Vice President was in prison for tax fraud before Nixon left office, making him appoing Gerald Ford, the only man ever to be President of the United states without having been elected.

My first voting mistake was my vote for Nixon. I sincerely thought he was trying to get us untangled from the Democrat war and fixing the Democrat ruined-economy thing.

He did some good things as President, but I imagine Ken Lay did some good things as President of Enron, too.

And it was Eisenhower who got us into Vietnam, son. Kennedy and Johnson just ramped up the bloodshed.

I wish I'd seen it before it went into voting. That one statement alone makes reading the rest not worth my time.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie

Johnson and heroism (2.50 / 4) (#75)
by aphrael on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 08:08:28 PM EST

Many of us on the left consider Johnson's commitment to civil rights - it was he who shepherded through the voting rights act, after all - to have been heroic. It required that he turn against his longtime constituents, that he stand up to his southern democratic allies in the Senate, and that he sacrifice the future of his political party. But he did it, because he belived it was the right thing to do.

What greater leadership could one ask for from a politician?

[ Parent ]

ok, pops (none / 1) (#101)
by aristus on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 02:28:40 PM EST

It's unfortunate you didn't read it, because the mistake you now regret -- voting for Nixon -- is exactly what I was getting at. I'm trying to point out to the anti-war vote that Kerry is *not* substantially different from Bush.
--

??? "A man of imagination among scholars feels like a sodomite at a convention of proctologists." -- Paul West


[ Parent ]
It depends on why you're voting for him. (none / 1) (#121)
by aphrael on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 12:58:36 AM EST

I'm voting for him in part because I don't expect him to try to change the constitution to prohibit me from marrying. I know Bush will do so.

[ Parent ]
*sigh* (1.00 / 3) (#153)
by mcgrew on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 10:43:52 PM EST

Nobody's keeping you from marrying. Gheys marry all the time. The point is that you have to marry a woman unless you are one, in which case you must marry a man. Or stay single.

Do you really think Bush's isiotic amendment will avtually be voted up by 2/3rds of all legislators, then be ratified by 2/3rds of the states? Hell, the liberals tried to get the ERA amendment passed for twenty years, and it's finally died a well deserved death.

If they legalize "marrieage" between two men, I'm going to sue for the right to a harem.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

The Fed won't go there (none / 1) (#157)
by DaChesserCat on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 11:36:25 PM EST

There has been some effort to get something done on the federal level regarding gay marriage, one way or the other. The FedGov has (wisely?) stayed the course, and left it to the states (when you are married, it is by the authority of the state and (maybe) God; the FedGov doesn't bestow that authority, the states do). Thirty-seven states have laws which ban gay marriage. In Massachusetts, such laws were struck down by the courts. Now, many of the states are enacting constitutional amendments, to ensure that their Supreme Courts don't pull a Massachusetts on them. My home state, Missouri, passed such an amendment yesterday, by a large margin. Consequently, while the Shrub talks about doing something like that, that would end up in a major States-vs-Federal argument. The Shrub can't win that fight, and neither can John Kerry. Consequently, that right will be snuffed out, regardless of who is in the White House.

Trains stop at train stations Busses stop at bus stations A windows workstation . . .
[ Parent ]
Re: *sigh* (none / 0) (#159)
by drsmithy on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 01:56:50 AM EST

If they legalize "marrieage" between two men, I'm going to sue for the right to a harem.

I'm not quite sure I see the logical progression there...

[ Parent ]

No, I don't think it will pass. (none / 0) (#160)
by aphrael on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 02:09:31 AM EST

But I have a hard time voting for a man who considers it to be an important enough issue to have pushed for it. And the point is that I can't legally marry the man I love, and that Mr. Bush wants to write that into the constitution.

[ Parent ]
But he is. (none / 1) (#152)
by mcgrew on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 10:39:37 PM EST

Neither one would be my first choice, but Bush has proven himself the absolute worse President I've seen in my lifetime. I never thought I'd ever see anybody beat Carter at Presidential suckiness, but Bush has managed to. In spades. No matter how bad Kerry turns out, he's going to have to go a long way to be a worse President than Bush.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

By "wartime injury" do you mean (none / 0) (#114)
by vyruss on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 06:33:09 PM EST

his getting shot in the head during the Vietnam war? Because that's what made him a hero :) People always make you into a hero when you're killed no matter what.

  • PRINT CHR$(147)

[ Parent ]
I was referring to Kennedy (none / 0) (#151)
by mcgrew on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 10:36:34 PM EST

PT109

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

So was I [nt] (none / 0) (#170)
by vyruss on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 11:45:33 AM EST



  • PRINT CHR$(147)

[ Parent ]
No... (none / 0) (#178)
by SPYvSPY on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 05:45:53 PM EST

...he meant the WWII injury that Kennedy apparently suffered on his PT109. You know, a boat like the one that John F Kerry used to play Kennedy fan-boy during Vietnam.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

OK black humour is wasted here...[nt] (none / 0) (#187)
by vyruss on Sun Aug 08, 2004 at 01:59:52 PM EST



  • PRINT CHR$(147)

[ Parent ]
biggest domestic difference (2.75 / 12) (#92)
by bankind on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 03:52:25 AM EST

In the Vietnam war: Napalm babies were shown on the covers of national magazines.
In the Iraq war: bombed babies are shown only by Michael Moore.


"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman

see 'Control Room' (none / 1) (#131)
by Wah on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 12:07:46 PM EST

if you think Moore is lying.

[note: general comment, not directed at bankind)
--
umm, holding, holding...
[ Parent ]

LOL! (none / 1) (#179)
by SPYvSPY on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 05:48:58 PM EST

Yeah, 'Control Room' is *real* impartial. That was the most absurd spin on Al Jazeera. It bore no relationship to the agit-prop broadcast on "the jihad network" every day. The only honest moment in that movie is when the interviewer voice over is silently mocking the interviewee between questions. C'mon, Wah, I know you well enough to know you can do better than cite a propoganda flick about a propoganda broadcast network.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Umm propoganda from whom (none / 1) (#183)
by Wah on Fri Aug 06, 2004 at 12:44:37 PM EST

?

Propaganda needs a government, not a filmmaker with a steady cam.

It bore no relationship to the agit-prop broadcast on "the jihad network" every day.

I don't think it was a movie about how amazing Al Jazeera is, but insted on how information is controlled whomever you get it from.  CentCom in particular.

And the babies they showed blown up, I guess they were props for the agit-prop, huh?

You are fucking' lying to yourself.  People die in war.  Smart bombs kill kids too.  Quit deluding yourself, and calling everything that challenges your worldview 'propaganda'.

You haven't even seen the movie, so please STFU.

C'mon, Wah, I know you well enough to know you can do better than cite a flick about a propoganda broadcast network.

Oh, I'm sorry, I see you are confused.  You are thinking of 'Outfoxed' [open today in cool cities].  I was talking about a different movie.
--
umm, holding, holding...
[ Parent ]

Uh, yeah (none / 1) (#112)
by theantix on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 05:05:24 PM EST

Kerry's greatest asset is that he will lead the USA on the downhill path at a slower rate than Bush will.  You just have to ask yourself how bad that scenario really is.

--
You sir, are worse than Hitler!
Incorrect (none / 2) (#123)
by kurtmweber on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 01:10:46 AM EST

He will lead on a downhill path much faster than Bush will.

Why?  He's more up front with his socialism, and it's more politically incorrect to oppose Kerry's socialism than it is Bush's socialism; thus, it's less likely to meet significant opposition.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
[ Parent ]

Just discovered Rand, did we? (3.00 / 4) (#129)
by revscat on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 09:43:44 AM EST

Ahh yes, "socialism". That great Bugbear of Evil, hated by all freedom loving people everywhere. Of course what it actually IS is rarely if ever said, just that it's SuperBadWickedNasty and that anyone who is labelled "socialist" is an Enemy of Freedom and who probably eats babies.

It has been my experience that 99% of the time when someone mentions socialism in a perjorative context that they are either (a) some dipshit fascist like Michael Savage or (b) some college sophomore who is going through a libertarian phase.

Either way, it bothers me not in the slightest when someone is so labelled, whether they are (R) or (D).

- Rev.
Libertarianism is like communism: both look great on paper.
[ Parent ]

Socialism (and Fascism) - realpolitik definitions (none / 0) (#174)
by hentai on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 02:02:07 PM EST

Heh. Socialism - when you think the Government wants to treat people lower than you in the social order better than it treats you. Fascism - when you think the Government wants to treat people higher than you in the social order better than it treats you.

[ Parent ]
socialism, plan economy whats the diference right? (none / 1) (#140)
by dudsen on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 04:23:59 PM EST

I simply can't stand it wry do people have to say socialism when they really are indicating an system where all distribytion of wealth is managed by some central power.
Socialism is some idealistic dream abour real personal freedom, and that all off mankind schould be equal.
Besides some small comunities before the industrial revolution it has only been an distant dream.

Pleese do make that distinction between economic realities and the general ideology.

[ Parent ]

Anarchist (none / 2) (#116)
by jmzero on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 07:14:49 PM EST

Check out how often "anarchist" is used in the press as a scare word

I've met many people who call themselves anarchists and who are offended that the word "anarchy" is thought of as scary - associated with confusion, lawlessness and disorder.  Well, that's just too bad.

Whatever you may want "anarchy" to be is irrelevant, because what the word means to most people is chaos, disorder, and confusion.  If you don't want your philosophy to be associated with those scary things then you'll need pick a new word.  "Anarchy" and "anarchists" are words that already have meanings to most people, whether or not you may like those meanings.  

The meanings of many words drift over time, but you cannot simply reverse this drift by fiat.  
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife

Obligatory (none / 3) (#117)
by NateTG on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 07:57:54 PM EST


 DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We
take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the
week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified
at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal
affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels sing] her arm clad in the
purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of
the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to
carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing
swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive
power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some
farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!


[ Parent ]
But how do you KNOW he's king? (none / 0) (#150)
by mcgrew on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 10:32:47 PM EST

Simple, he's the only one that hasn't got shit all over him.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Help! I'm being opressed! (none / 1) (#119)
by aristus on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 10:53:53 PM EST

That's not what I was getting at, silly. I'm trying to point out the scare tactic itself as applied to protestors, especially the new internet-using epithet. It's an attempt to paint anyone who organizes with the same brush.
--

??? "A man of imagination among scholars feels like a sodomite at a convention of proctologists." -- Paul West


[ Parent ]
Liberal! (2.50 / 4) (#143)
by John Asscroft on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 08:23:41 PM EST

Remember, boys and girls, it doesn't matter what you call yourself, because we good Republicans and the Ministry of Truth (ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN, NBC) will just re-define the word to mean "evil scary satanic and Communist". Why, if these "anarchists" called themselves "heros", we'd just redefine the word "hero" to mean "evil scary satanic and Communist" within months using our control of the media!

Yours in enjoying Republican Newspeak,
Your Attorney General
We must destroy freedom to save it from the terrorists who want to destroy freedom. Else the terrorists have won.
[ Parent ]

Indeed (none / 0) (#165)
by jmzero on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 10:11:16 AM EST

It was a master stroke for Fox to start using "anarchist" as an insult.  It was one of their many triumphs in 18th century France.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]
Libertarian Socialist (nt) (none / 1) (#186)
by kamera on Sat Aug 07, 2004 at 07:00:35 AM EST


"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -- Oscar Wilde
[ Parent ]

everyone one look whats goin down! (none / 0) (#124)
by Ashur on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 03:39:05 AM EST

my olds love that song. wow.

Better lyrics from better songs (none / 2) (#149)
by mcgrew on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 10:29:45 PM EST

Any of these songs would fit today's situation. Pride Of Man is even more contemporary now than when it was written, considering that Babylon was the ancient name for Iraq.

What About Me
Quicksilver Messenger Service

You poisoned my sweet water.
You cut down my green trees.
The food you fed my children
Was the cause of their disease.

My world is slowly fallin' down
And the airs not good to breathe.
And those of us who care enough,
We have to do something.......

(Chorus)
Oh.......oh What you gonna do about me?
Oh.......oh What you gonna do about me?

Your newspapers,
They just put you on.
They never tell you
The whole story.

They just put your
Young ideas down.
I was wonderin' could this be the end
Of your pride and glory?

(Chorus)

I work in your factory.
I study in your schools.
I fill your penitentiaries.
And your military too!

And I feel the future trembling
, As the word is passed around.
"If you stand up for what you do believe,
Be prepared to be shot down."

(Chorus)

And I feel like a stranger
In the land where I was born
And I live like an outlaw.
An' I'm always on the run..........................

An I'm always getting' busted
And I got to take a stand........
I believe the revolution
Must be mighty close at hand.......................

(Chorus)

I smoke marijuana
But I can't get behind your wars.
And most of what I do believe
Is against most of your laws

I'm a fugitive from injustice
But I'm goin' to be free.
Cause your rules and regulations
They don't do the thing for me

(Chorus)

And I feel like a stranger
In the land where I was born
And I live just like an outlaw.
An' I'm always on the run..........................

And though you may be stronger now
My time will come around
You keep adding to my numbers
As you shoot my people down

(Chorus)
(Repeat)
(lyrics sung during final chorus)
I Won't go
What about me Now.
I ain't lookin' for no trouble

Pride Of Man
Quicksilver

Turn around, go back down, back the way you came
Can't you see that flash of fire
Ten times brighter than the day
And behold a mighty city broken in the dust again
Oh, God, pride of man broken in the dust again

Turn around, go back down, back the way you came
Babylon is laid to waste, Egypt's buried in her shame
The mighty men are all beaten down
Their kings are fallen in the waste
Oh, God, pride of man broken in the dust again

Turn around, go back down, back the way you came
Terror is on every side, lo our leaders are dismayed
For those who place their faith in fire
In fire their faith shall be repayed
Oh, God, pride of man broken in the dust again

Turn around, go back down, back the way you came
And shout a warnin' unto the nation that the sword of God is raised
Yes, Babylon, that mighty city, rich in treasure, wide in fame
Oh, God, pride of man broken in the dust again - yeah

Oh oh-oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh

And it shall cause your tower to fall
Make of you a pyre of flame
Oh you, who dwell on many waters
Rich in treasure, wide in fame
You bow unto your, your God of gold
Your pride of might shall be your shame
For only God can lead his people
Back unto the earth again
Oh, God, pride of man broken in the dust again

A holy mountain be restored
Have mercy on the people - the people, Lord
Ah-ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah

Monster
Steppenwolf

Once the religious, the hunted and weary
Chasing the promise of freedom and hope
Came to this country to build a new vision
Far from the reaches of kingdom and pope
Like good Christians, some would burn the witches
Later some got slaves to gather riches

But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands to court the wild
And she just patiently smiled and bore a child
To be their spirit and guiding light

And once the ties with the crown had been broken
Westward in saddle and wagon it went
And 'til the railroad linked ocean to ocean
Many the lives which had come to an end
While we bullied, stole and bought our a homeland
We began the slaughter of the red man

But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands to court the wild
And she just patiently smiled and bore a child
To be their spirit and guiding light

The blue and grey they stomped it
They kicked it just like a dog
And when the war over
They stuffed it just like a hog

And though the past has it's share of injustice
Kind was the spirit in many a way
But it's protectors and friends have been sleeping
Now it's a monster and will not obey

The spirit was freedom and justice
And it's keepers seem generous and kind
It's leaders were supposed to serve the country
But now they won't pay it no mind
'Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
And now their vote is a meaningless joke
They babble about law and order
But it's all just an echo of what they've been told
Yeah, there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watchin'

Our cities have turned into jungles
And corruption is stranglin' the land
The police force is watching the people
And the people just can't understand
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watching

America where are you now?
Don't you care about your sons and daughters?
Don't you know we need you now
We can't fight alone against the monster

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

The Fugs (none / 0) (#162)
by Wallas A Hockpock on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 05:32:19 AM EST

"Wide, Wide River" by the Fugs. Pretty much sumed it all up for me at the time. Pretty much sums it up still as far as LBJ, Humphrey and the Daleys go these 30 plus something years later in my opinion.

Nixon was a crook, a bastard and, a liar. Nixon got us out of Viet Nam, opened China and started the end of the Cold War. LBJ was just a crook, bastard and, liar.

[ Parent ]
Bible stories (hidden hand of why Iraq?) (none / 0) (#190)
by bloodnose on Sun Aug 15, 2004 at 03:01:37 PM EST

Reputedly Assyrian (Iraqi) kings in the Bible were cruel (I refuse to read that curse source text, but it was mentioned in Nat'l Geographic).

I've mentioned this nibble of info on the Intarweb before, but thought I'd throw it again to see if it would splat against the wall next to the mtg of President Bush with Rapture-believers to ask them about a part of Israel's eschatological significance w.r.t. to his public policy.

[ Parent ]
If you own all the ponies... (none / 0) (#125)
by stpna5 on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 03:52:19 AM EST

you don't really care who wins the race. Some other differences between 1968 and today, besides the lack of a draft and lots of tear gas, riots erupting in many US cities with entire city blocks burned down between the '63 JFK assassination and the '68 Nixon election; the elimination of many civil rights activists in the period prior to the rise of antiwar movements on college campuses just at the dawn of the Nixon regime. Oh yea, and also Nixon was so crooked he had to screw his pants on in the morning as Hunter S. Thompson put it. Kerry may be a dullard, but he "is not a crook."

Er... (2.80 / 5) (#126)
by trhurler on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 03:57:09 AM EST

Johnson isn't exactly worshipped; he's widely regarded as a man who was in way over his head, and who really was a bumbling idiot. Kennedy is worshipped, but mainly because he was young and friendly and popular and then he got shot("she's the one in fifty million who can help us to be free... 'cause she died on TV...") But in any case, yes, Kerry is an assclown, and so is Bush, and it doesn't really matter which of them wins, because nothing meaningful hinges on it at all - they'll do the same damned things. They are, after all, the two big party contenders in a presidential race - what else did you expect?

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

In over his head (none / 0) (#136)
by aphrael on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 02:13:54 PM EST

I suppose that, with respect to Vietnam, i've heard that - but i've never heard the "bumbling idiot" description before. Interesting how the history of that time gets passed down differently in different traditions.

[ Parent ]
Want to really read some amusing things about him? (none / 0) (#137)
by trhurler on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 02:20:07 PM EST

Pick up a copy of "Unravelling America". It is a big book, and fairly old, but it is truly entertaining reading as regards the mid-20th century Democrats.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Not just a bumbling idiot (none / 1) (#148)
by mcgrew on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 10:06:14 PM EST

But an evil bumbling idiot. Some people think Johnson was behind teh Kennedy assassination; that it was a coup

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

he also (none / 0) (#181)
by aphrael on Thu Aug 05, 2004 at 09:25:51 PM EST

was primarily responsible for pushing the voting rights act and the civil rights act of 1965 through the Congress.

[ Parent ]
if you really believe this, (none / 1) (#182)
by Rahaan on Fri Aug 06, 2004 at 03:09:45 AM EST

in any case, yes, Kerry is an assclown, and so is Bush, and it doesn't really matter which of them wins, because nothing meaningful hinges on it at all - they'll do the same damned things. They are, after all, the two big party contenders in a presidential race - what else did you expect?
What are you going to be doing on Election Day?


you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
[ Parent ]
Heard this before... (none / 0) (#146)
by Okatu Nineteen on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 09:23:25 PM EST

To me, this is just a veiled comparison of the Bush administration/Iraq War, with the Johnson administration/Vietnam war. I say veiled because you mention events of corruption, and venture into the Nixon era of politics. We all heard these comparisons before from media drones before the "monumental" handover of power in Iraq. However, you were brief and direct. As an opinionated summary, this was a good article.

Bush - Nixon Comparison (none / 1) (#184)
by NateTG on Fri Aug 06, 2004 at 01:57:38 PM EST

Woodward, who ought to know, indicated that the Bush administration is more secretive than the Nixon administration was.  This could very easily be an administration that turns out to have even more skeletons in the closet than we know about.

I don't know much about the accumulation of power in the office of the president (which Nixon was big on) but there has certainly been an unusually overt, and possibly unusually strong, tendency for the federal government to co-opt state jurisdiction during this administration.


[ Parent ]

Jesus Christ, son, I was there (2.22 / 9) (#147)
by mcgrew on Wed Aug 04, 2004 at 10:04:33 PM EST

"He won with support from the anti-war crowd"

Bullshit. The anti-war crowd stayed home on election day 1968. The ones that weren't were in jail.

I was in high school.

"who wanted anyone but Humphrey"

WTF??? Humphrey wasn't President, only vice. Nobody gave a shit about Humphrey. People voted for Nixon because he was a Republican.

At the time, conventional wisdom was you could have war or recession. Vote Republicans and screw the economy, or vote Democrat and send your son to some Godforsaken jungle. At the time, we'd had Democrat prosperity for close to a decade and had forgotten whet it was like to be laid off, and grisley pictures from Vietnam came to our TVs nightly.

" The Camelot dynasty, born under the cloud of vote fraud* in 1960, was foundering."

The "Camelot dynasty" died in Texas in 1963 when his head was blown off by a high powered rifle. The "Camelot dynasty" was Kennedy and his wife, you stupid halfwit

"Nixon was anything but an anti-war President."

Nobody ever believed he was, except maybe you.

"The '68 rhetoric sounds a lot like what we are hearing today."

It sounded nothing like today. Humphrey was the dove, Nixon the hawk who was going in like any good Republican and kick ass like those wimpy Democrats never could. Never mind WWII or Hiroshima/Nagasaki

"Check out how often "anarchist" is used in the press as a scare word, with "internet-using" stuck in front of it like a cheap cigar."

Ok, I'll give you that one. But otherwise your story is pure bullshit, fantasy. Even the vote fraud- of course there was vote fraud. There is every election, no matter who runs or wins.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie

Stop. What's That Sound? | 190 comments (142 topical, 48 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!