SearchRecent blog posts
» more Syndicate |
Please sign in to post or comment.
Vietnam, still?Posted by gimpel on June 23, 2006 - 7:01 AM America once fought itself on the battlefield. Dissent is not the highest form of patriotism. Dissent, too, needs discretion, and loud and aggressive dissent during war is not patriotism at all. Our country, it should be obvious to all by now, is not in this war for conquest, for Haliburton, or for oil. We undertook this war because terrorism spread over the globe and attacked us and planned to attack us again. Patriotism has been used to justify evil many times in history. The type of patriotism used in Nazi Germany is dangerous. Defining dissent during war as patriotism sounds too much like The time for dissent by senators was BEFORE the vote for war, not after. Our soldiers are fighting on the front lines of the global terrorism war. Where would Boxer and Dodd put them? New York subways? Canadian mosques? Broad Street? President Reagan said, during another threatening time, We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. That was brave speech. That, was patriotism. Submitted by JohnRandolphHar... on June 24, 2006 - 7:38 AM.
Loud, aggressive, and truthful dissent against an illegal, unjust, and immoral war is the highest form of patriotism. No matter how many times Gimpel repeats "Our country, it should be obvious to all by now, is not in this war for conquest, for Haliburton, or for oil" does not make that false statement true. The truth is that this illegal, unjust, and immoral U.S. war of aggresion against Iraq is about American empire, profits for Halliburton, and access to oil. It is using U.S. military force as the instrument in a now clearly failed effort to impose the U.S. economic and political system on another culture. That is the definition of imperialism. It is about establishing a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq as a forward base to project U.S. military power throughout the region. Self-described "wartime President" and Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush has declared his intention to reshape the entire Mideast. In addition, this war is about trying to obtain access to the raw materials of empire. This war is about gaining and securing permanent U.S. access and control over the oil supply from Iraq and the Mideast region which the U.S. seeks to dominate. Look at the dominating restraints imposed by The World Bank (under the direction of one of the neoconservative architects of this war, Paul Wolfowitz). Look at the efforts that were made to privitize the Iraqi oil industry and allow giant American oil corporations to control Iraqi oil. The U.S. war against Iraq is also an effort to re-establish the U.S. dollar over the surging Euro as the world's de facto currency. The U.S. war in Iraq is being waged in the name of global corporatisim. War profiteering is rampant no matter how often you try to deny it, Gimpel. All of the above reasons make clear why the U.S. war of aggression against Iraq is an imperialistic war. Finally, the U.S. war in Iraq is being wage on behalf of the interests of Israel. The Israeli lobby has far too much influence over the foreign policy of the United States government. The United States needs to take more of a balance approach in its foreign policy towards Israelis and Palestinians if the United States is truely interested in peace, stability, and security in the entire Middle East. America is based on individual liberty, personal freedom, responsibility, Constitutional rights, and the rule of law. None of those rights, priviledges, or responsibilities are abrogated by any war much less the unending, ill-defined, so-called Global War on Terror. Truth is the first victim of war, and patriotism is the last refuge of scroundrels. Scapegoating is a tool used by fascist governments. Our strong ally, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, said just two days ago that the United States is going about fighting terrorism in the wrong way. The root causes of terrorism have to be addressed. If Gimpel or others are genuinely interested in the truth and in defeating the threat of terrorism, I suggest we all study and heed President Karzai's advice. Submitted by gimpel on June 25, 2006 - 7:53 AM.
Thank God our system of checks and balances can prevent the government from causing this, from “1984:†In its second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices in an effort to drown the maddening bleating voice that came from the screen. The little sandy-haired woman had turned bright pink, and her mouth was opening and shutting like that of a landed fish. Even O'Brien's heavy face was flushed. He was sitting very straight in his chair, his powerful chest swelling and quivering as though he were standing up to the assault of a wave. The dark-haired girl behind Winston had begun crying out 'Swine! Swine! Swine!' and suddenly she picked up a heavy Newspeak dictionary and flung it at the screen. It struck Goldstein's nose and bounced off; the voice continued inexorably. In a lucid moment Winston found that he was shouting with the others and kicking his heel violently against the rung of his chair. The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp. Thus, at one moment Winston's hatred was not turned against Goldstein at all, but, on the contrary, against Big Brother, the Party, and the Thought Police; and at such moments his heart went out to the lonely, derided heretic on the screen, sole guardian of truth and sanity in a world of lies. And yet the very next instant he was at one with the people about him, and all that was said of Goldstein seemed to him to be true. At those moments his secret loathing of Big Brother changed into adoration, and Big Brother seemed to tower up, an invincible, fearless protector, standing like a rock against the hordes of Asia, and Goldstein, in spite of his isolation, his helplessness, and the doubt that hung about his very existence, seemed like some sinister enchanter, capable by the mere power of his voice of wrecking the structure of civilization. But the mainstream media has no such checks, and has convinced some people that our President is evil. They make themselves “an invincible, fearless protector, standing like a rock against the hordes of Asia…†JohnRandolphHardisonCain has absolutely no evidence to support his charges. Without objectivity in the media, and evidence of the charges by them, the lies against the war are merely †undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.†"Loud, aggressive, and truthful dissent against an illegal, unjust, and immoral war is the highest form of patriotism?" Well, you are loud. You are aggressive. Submitted by JohnRandolphHar... on June 25, 2006 - 9:44 AM.
It is ironic that you should bring up the issue of checks and balances with respect to the press. Article I of the Bill of Rights provides that the government shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. However, there is another far more dangerous threat to the system of check and balances to which you allude, Gimpel. I support the system of checks and balances in our government which were written into the United States Constitution. The problem is the seizure of unconstitutional powers by the Executive branch under the so-called "Unitary Executive" theory which is untested in court. As Commander-in-Chief in his self-declared Global War on Terror, President Bush claims virtually unlimited powers. This puts him above the law. This makes the Commander-in-Chief THE LAW. I do not support the Unitary Executive theory. The Executive, The Legislative, and the Judicial branches of government are co-equal AFAIC. More learned minds than mine (Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal are two of them) have already reached the conclusion that President Bush has seized dictatorial powers that are clearly unconstitutional. The United States has crossed the threshold and is now a de facto fascist state. I support the rule of law, Gimpel. Declaring an unending global war on terror does not negate the Constitutionally provided balance of powers between the three branches of government nor does it negate any of the freedoms guaranteed Americans by the Bill of Rights. You should be concerned that the system of checks and balances in our government is broken. You clearly believe our system of checks and balances can prevent the government from overstepping its powers. You wrote as much in the opening sentence in your post above. Now, you need to put your money where your mouth is, Gimpel. Submitted by gimpel on June 25, 2006 - 5:34 PM.
Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal? Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Vote Number: 237 Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay Submitted by thudge on June 25, 2006 - 11:33 AM.
Gimpel writes: The highest form of patriotism is to disagree with your country, yet to still support your country. So, gimpel, when did you stop beating your wife? Before all else, you need to get it through your head that this disagreement is not between man and country. It's between man and man, about direction of country. Georgie is not America. Dick is not America. The president's gang of neocon strategists are not America. The Congress is not America. The conservative boob-tube talkers are not America. Neither are Al Gore, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and the Democratic senators and representatives on Capitol Hill. This dispute is between you and me, not between me and my country. Don't ever forget that. Submitted by gimpel on June 25, 2006 - 6:25 PM.
Isn’t typing fun? Who, exactly, do you consider to be America? Submitted by thudge on June 26, 2006 - 6:47 PM.
You're right. We certainly cannot debate so important a topic as war. We must never examine why we are actually there, or what the parameters are for "mission accomplished." That's need-to-know, and the American people don't need to know. We must never look closely at the fact that every single reason given for entering the war was fictitious. It's better for our young men and women to continue dying in the meat grinder of Iraq. 5,000 deaths will be better than 2,500, as long as we all just keep pretending as hard as we can that it has a purpose. We must never look at the lost opportunities to fight terrorism in other, more effective ways. We must instead continue pumping billions of dollars into Iraq and soaking its ground with American blood. To expect anything better of ourselves and our leaders would be unpatriotic. Submitted by gimpel on June 27, 2006 - 6:25 AM.
Dissent, too, needs discretion (from the original post). Submitted by logos on June 29, 2006 - 1:53 PM.
"Every single reason for entering the war was fictitious." Apparently, that's an incorrect assumption. Congressman Pete Hoekstra on the liberal criticism of the war: "Well, I think — I'm not going to respond to the left. I mean, first, they said there were weapons of mass destruction. You know, you've got a lot of Democrats on the record saying, you know, very forcefully, there were weapons and this is why we need to go and get rid of Saddam Hussein. The Duelfer report came out, and they said, wow, see, there were no weapons of mass destruction. And now that we have found quantities — but I think the other thing that is implied here, John, is that Secretary Rumsfeld has also said there are many, many more WMD in Iraq. We don't know how many more there are. It is not a WMD-free zone." Both sides of the aisle called for getting rid of Saddam because he had WMD. Evidence is accumulating that both sides were correct in doing so, despite the flip-flops of some Democrats now. Submitted by mar_1081 on June 26, 2006 - 5:00 PM.
Wow! I just want to mention one thing about the opening statement. I worked for Halliburton. It was a great company to work for. I truly believe that the work initiated, in progress and completed in the Middle East helped our soldiers complete their jobs and perform to the best of their abilities. Yes, they did get a job through a shady deal...Oh by the way Thanks Dick! However, the job that Halliburton (or more accurately KBR) is doing is fantastic. They are audited by the highest standards and their employees are expected to perform to the highest standards! So, get off your high horse and thank them for the job they are doing for our troops! |
Monthly Archives for gimpel |
Recent comments
Posted 40 min ago by Retiredebetfreehappy
Posted 43 min ago by Retiredebetfreehappy
Posted 3 hours ago by siast36
Posted 4 hours ago by thrashman85
Posted 5 hours ago by bullet1114