Brooker
Anjin
- Messages
- 369
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Seattle, Washington
- Ethnic group
- Mainly: Italian, German, Scottish, Irish
If that's the definition, then just about every country is guilty of that.
Lets vote, for president
- Thread starter blessed
- Start date
Glenn
?J???n???g?I
Yeah, I wouldn't doubt that. I guess it just depends on who's doing the terrorizing as to whether it's acceptable or not. 
September 7, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
A Mythic Reality
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The best book I've read about America after 9/11 isn't about either America or 9/11. It's "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning," an essay on the psychology of war by Chris Hedges, a veteran war correspondent. Better than any poll analysis or focus group, it explains why President Bush, despite policy failures at home and abroad, is ahead in the polls.
War, Mr. Hedges says, plays to some fundamental urges. "Lurking beneath the surface of every society, including ours," he says, "is the passionate yearning for a nationalist cause that exalts us, the kind that war alone is able to deliver." When war psychology takes hold, the public believes, temporarily, in a "mythic reality" in which our nation is purely good, our enemies are purely evil, and anyone who isn't our ally is our enemy.
This state of mind works greatly to the benefit of those in power.
One striking part of the book describes Argentina's reaction to the 1982 Falklands war. Gen. Leopoldo Galtieri, the leader of the country's military junta, cynically launched that war to distract the public from the failure of his economic policies. It worked: "The junta, which had been on the verge of collapse" just before the war, "instantly became the saviors of the country."
The point is that once war psychology takes hold, the public desperately wants to believe in its leadership, and ascribes heroic qualities to even the least deserving ruler. National adulation for the junta ended only after a humiliating military defeat.
George W. Bush isn't General Galtieri: America really was attacked on 9/11, and any president would have followed up with a counterstrike against the Taliban. Yet the Bush administration, like the Argentine junta, derived enormous political benefit from the impulse of a nation at war to rally around its leader.
Another president might have refrained from exploiting that surge of support for partisan gain; Mr. Bush didn't.
And his administration has sought to perpetuate the war psychology that makes such exploitation possible.
Step by step, the fight against Al Qaeda became a universal "war on terror," then a confrontation with the "axis of evil," then a war against all evil everywhere. Nobody knows where it all ends.
What is clear is that whenever political debate turns to Mr. Bush's actual record in office, his popularity sinks. Only by doing whatever it takes to change the subject to the war on terror - not to what he's actually doing about terrorist threats, but to his "leadership," whatever that means - can he get a bump in the polls.
Last week's convention made it clear that Mr. Bush intends to use what's left of his heroic image to win the election, and early polls suggest that the strategy may be working. What can John Kerry do?
Campaigning exclusively on domestic issues won't work. Mr. Bush must be held to account for his dismal record on jobs, health care and the environment. But as Mr. Hedges writes, when war psychology makes a public yearn to believe in its leaders, "there is little that logic or fact or truth can do to alter the experience."
To win, the Kerry campaign has to convince a significant number of voters that the self-proclaimed "war president" isn't an effective war leader - he only plays one on TV.
This charge has the virtue of being true. It's hard to find a nonpartisan national security analyst with a good word for the Bush administration's foreign policy. Iraq, in particular, is a slow-motion disaster brought on by wishful thinking, cronyism and epic incompetence.
If I were running the Kerry campaign, I'd remind people frequently about Mr. Bush's flight-suit photo-op, when he declared the end of major combat. In fact, the war goes on unabated. News coverage of Iraq dropped off sharply after the supposed transfer of sovereignty on June 28, but as many American soldiers have died since the transfer as in the original invasion.
And I'd point out that while Mr. Bush spared no effort preparing for his carrier landing - he even received underwater survival training in the White House pool - he didn't prepare for things that actually mattered, like securing and rebuilding Iraq after Baghdad fell.
Will it work? I don't know. But to win, Mr. Kerry must try to puncture the myth that Mr. Bush's handlers have so assiduously created.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
OP-ED COLUMNIST
A Mythic Reality
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The best book I've read about America after 9/11 isn't about either America or 9/11. It's "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning," an essay on the psychology of war by Chris Hedges, a veteran war correspondent. Better than any poll analysis or focus group, it explains why President Bush, despite policy failures at home and abroad, is ahead in the polls.
War, Mr. Hedges says, plays to some fundamental urges. "Lurking beneath the surface of every society, including ours," he says, "is the passionate yearning for a nationalist cause that exalts us, the kind that war alone is able to deliver." When war psychology takes hold, the public believes, temporarily, in a "mythic reality" in which our nation is purely good, our enemies are purely evil, and anyone who isn't our ally is our enemy.
This state of mind works greatly to the benefit of those in power.
One striking part of the book describes Argentina's reaction to the 1982 Falklands war. Gen. Leopoldo Galtieri, the leader of the country's military junta, cynically launched that war to distract the public from the failure of his economic policies. It worked: "The junta, which had been on the verge of collapse" just before the war, "instantly became the saviors of the country."
The point is that once war psychology takes hold, the public desperately wants to believe in its leadership, and ascribes heroic qualities to even the least deserving ruler. National adulation for the junta ended only after a humiliating military defeat.
George W. Bush isn't General Galtieri: America really was attacked on 9/11, and any president would have followed up with a counterstrike against the Taliban. Yet the Bush administration, like the Argentine junta, derived enormous political benefit from the impulse of a nation at war to rally around its leader.
Another president might have refrained from exploiting that surge of support for partisan gain; Mr. Bush didn't.
And his administration has sought to perpetuate the war psychology that makes such exploitation possible.
Step by step, the fight against Al Qaeda became a universal "war on terror," then a confrontation with the "axis of evil," then a war against all evil everywhere. Nobody knows where it all ends.
What is clear is that whenever political debate turns to Mr. Bush's actual record in office, his popularity sinks. Only by doing whatever it takes to change the subject to the war on terror - not to what he's actually doing about terrorist threats, but to his "leadership," whatever that means - can he get a bump in the polls.
Last week's convention made it clear that Mr. Bush intends to use what's left of his heroic image to win the election, and early polls suggest that the strategy may be working. What can John Kerry do?
Campaigning exclusively on domestic issues won't work. Mr. Bush must be held to account for his dismal record on jobs, health care and the environment. But as Mr. Hedges writes, when war psychology makes a public yearn to believe in its leaders, "there is little that logic or fact or truth can do to alter the experience."
To win, the Kerry campaign has to convince a significant number of voters that the self-proclaimed "war president" isn't an effective war leader - he only plays one on TV.
This charge has the virtue of being true. It's hard to find a nonpartisan national security analyst with a good word for the Bush administration's foreign policy. Iraq, in particular, is a slow-motion disaster brought on by wishful thinking, cronyism and epic incompetence.
If I were running the Kerry campaign, I'd remind people frequently about Mr. Bush's flight-suit photo-op, when he declared the end of major combat. In fact, the war goes on unabated. News coverage of Iraq dropped off sharply after the supposed transfer of sovereignty on June 28, but as many American soldiers have died since the transfer as in the original invasion.
And I'd point out that while Mr. Bush spared no effort preparing for his carrier landing - he even received underwater survival training in the White House pool - he didn't prepare for things that actually mattered, like securing and rebuilding Iraq after Baghdad fell.
Will it work? I don't know. But to win, Mr. Kerry must try to puncture the myth that Mr. Bush's handlers have so assiduously created.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
blessed
Regular Member
meme, for the war on terror... lets take one example: chechnya. umm, okey, they are strugling for independence, which is different, but there have been people willing to place bombs around russia for a good 10 years now, and more fighting has just brought more problems. the situation now is similar to Iraq: groups of terrorists (or as the US calls them, freedom fighters) who blow people up and take them hostage and ask for demands... reminds you of what you hear of Iraq?
are you telling me that if America does this, because they are somehow helped by some heavenly figure, they will stop people getting angry at them for killing their relatives?
about warmongers:
As the Center for Public Integrity has documented, this kind of thing is quite prevalent on the Defense Policy Board, where at least nine of the 30 members have ties to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002.
However, of all the administration members with potential conflicts of interest, none seems more troubling than Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney is former CEO of Halliburton, an oil-services company that also provides construction and military support services - a triple-header of wartime spoils.
read the whole thing here:
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:...halliburton.php+dick+cheney+halliburton&hl=en
BTW Iraq war no.2 has killed an estimated 12 thousand civilians, bringing about many new possible reqruits for terrorism. the same problem happened in chechnya where the arrival of Russian troops caused many chechen's deaths (and other things), their relatives became really angry at russia for the "invasion" and so decided to blow people up. you can't beat human emotion, which is what terrorism spurs from, you might be able to subdue it, but at what cost? now somebody wont drive a car bomb into an American mall, killing 70 people. great, that took 1000+ lives.
what I'm saying, is that your war on terror cost you a 1000 deaths, thousands more injured, and for what? to prevent another 9/11? you're joking right? what means of transport do you think the'll use now? planes again? sure, but the US wont make any mistakes this time cause they are ready for hell after 9/11, especially concerning planes. And how many terrorists are capable of doing a 9/11? 1 from what I know, since only one has happened... and he hasn't even been captured by the US... just sidelined... Why? because they have no idea of where the hell to find him... Bin laden obviously played more hide and seek that Bush in his younger years.
are you telling me that if America does this, because they are somehow helped by some heavenly figure, they will stop people getting angry at them for killing their relatives?
about warmongers:
As the Center for Public Integrity has documented, this kind of thing is quite prevalent on the Defense Policy Board, where at least nine of the 30 members have ties to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002.
However, of all the administration members with potential conflicts of interest, none seems more troubling than Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney is former CEO of Halliburton, an oil-services company that also provides construction and military support services - a triple-header of wartime spoils.
read the whole thing here:
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:...halliburton.php+dick+cheney+halliburton&hl=en
BTW Iraq war no.2 has killed an estimated 12 thousand civilians, bringing about many new possible reqruits for terrorism. the same problem happened in chechnya where the arrival of Russian troops caused many chechen's deaths (and other things), their relatives became really angry at russia for the "invasion" and so decided to blow people up. you can't beat human emotion, which is what terrorism spurs from, you might be able to subdue it, but at what cost? now somebody wont drive a car bomb into an American mall, killing 70 people. great, that took 1000+ lives.
what I'm saying, is that your war on terror cost you a 1000 deaths, thousands more injured, and for what? to prevent another 9/11? you're joking right? what means of transport do you think the'll use now? planes again? sure, but the US wont make any mistakes this time cause they are ready for hell after 9/11, especially concerning planes. And how many terrorists are capable of doing a 9/11? 1 from what I know, since only one has happened... and he hasn't even been captured by the US... just sidelined... Why? because they have no idea of where the hell to find him... Bin laden obviously played more hide and seek that Bush in his younger years.
I suspect some US organizations like the CIA and the underground CIA (known as the Enterprise) to be among the worst terrorist groups in the world. Not only do they eliminate people that know too much, try to contradict their projects or they considered as undesierable (communists. etc.), they do it in all impunity all over the world and often selecting their targets among rich or well-placed people. They also don't hesitate to commit bombing or large-scale terror attack (maybe even knowing all about the 9/11 attack, or organizing it) and blame them on groups they want the US government to attack. It's just a crooked way of gaining public support by lying to them. I wonder if they learned that from the Japanese who bombed a their own train line in China on purpose then blame it on Chinese rebels to get the right to have their own police forces in China.
Unfortunatley, as these organizations do all their dirty work in secret and are sponsored by the most powerful state on earth, there is little that can be done against it. People who try are eliminated or sent to jail - as the US government protect them. Is there worst terror on earth than them ?
thomas
Unswerving bicyclist
- Messages
- 142
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 18
Stumbled across this page today:
Praying for President George Bush. Please stand with me in prayer
=> http://www.annointed.net/ForumTopic_29897__15.htm
Praying for President George Bush. Please stand with me in prayer
=> http://www.annointed.net/ForumTopic_29897__15.htm
why do you all post this slander??!!!!!
Let me predict the future............Bush will win, yes, yes, it is true
4 more years of glory BABY!!!!!!!
I dont hate kerry or democrates, unlike the democrates who hate all republicans
and Bush.I wish kerry the best life possible with many riches, except those of the presidency, but best wishes
Let me predict the future............Bush will win, yes, yes, it is true
4 more years of glory BABY!!!!!!!
I dont hate kerry or democrates, unlike the democrates who hate all republicans
and Bush.I wish kerry the best life possible with many riches, except those of the presidency, but best wishes
thomas
Unswerving bicyclist
- Messages
- 142
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 18
Why did I actually post it....? Well, I guess I was simply unable to believe that these people and I live on the same planet. Yes, I guess it was an emotional reaction caused by sheer disbelief and stupefaction. I hope it didn't hurt your feelings.meme9898 said:
meme9898 said:
Just so you know, it's only slander or libel if it's not true.
I know it must be difficult for you to hear opinions that are in disagreement with Bush and his policies, since you are in favor of him and his administration, but you have to understand that most of the world does not support Bush and his policies, so when you frequent a forum with people from all over the world, you are simply going to encounter views that differ from your own on this matter.
Another thing to understand is that the rest of the world receives information that oftentimes does not get through to those of us here in the U.S., as it has not been censored over there, so people from Europe and elsewhere are much more informed on the issues than some of us here in the U.S.
Just my two cents ...
meme9898 said:
If you had read it, you would have noticed that it was not slander, so in fact you are NOT right. Or is this another one of those instances where you are trying to use big words that you don't know the meaning of? No wonder you are a Bush follower. You know what they say about assuming, right? Make an ass out of you....
Tateishi said:Now that's just starting to insult people that don't have the same view as you on issues like Bush. And that's making an arse of yourself, no wonder you're a Kerry supporter,J/K
Not at all. Its not the fact that meme is a Bush supporter that made me write that, its the fact that meme passes judgement on things about which he (or she) readily admits to knowing nothing about. I've had lots of reasoned debates with knowledgable people whose opinions differed from mine, but mind-numbingly ignorant statements like:
meme9898 said:
are, as far as I'm concerned, open game for ridicule of any type.
Tateishi
Regular Member
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
But I am pretty sure you also have not read articles just because you didn't want to listen what the writers have to say about the topic. Otherwise you would be reading all the pro-Bush articles as well. I know I have choosen not to read articles just because the first few paragraphs too me seemed completely bias. Meme was probably just saying that he didn't read the articles because it seemed to him what the article was talking about were untrue and therefore slander. I thought Michael Moore's film was alot of slander, but I don't go calling people who disagree with me idiots.
Tateishi said:
Actually, nothing in Michael Moore's film was slanderous. Check it out for yourself, line by line:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=16
In addition, the 911 Commission has confirmed the movie's facts:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=24
Tateishi
Regular Member
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Satori said:Actually, nothing in Michael Moore's film was slanderous. Check it out for yourself, line by line:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=16
In addition, the 911 Commission has confirmed the movie's facts:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=24
As I said that's what I believe, I haven't seen the entire film, and don't really plan to. But from what I have seen alot of footage taken out of context.
Tateishi said:
Well, in order to comment on a subject, you really do need to do your research first. And that would include seeing the film in its entirety. If you haven't seen the film and don't even plan to, then how can you expect the rest of us to take your comments seriously?