BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

6 months of W

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:51 / 14.02.02
I received this in my email tonight:

quote:Whatever your beliefs, know what your president is doing.


By: Dr. David A. Sprintzen Professor of Philosophy
Co-Director, Institute for Sustainable Development
C.W. Post College, Long Island University
720 Northern Boulevard, Brookville, NY 11548-1300
(516)299-3051 fax: (516) 299-4140 dsprintz@liu.edu


Here is a list of his work in his first six months:


* Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered
crops.
* Cut federal spending on libraries by $39 million.
* Cut $35 million in funding for doctors to get advanced pediatric
training.
* Cut by 50% funding for research into renewable energy sources.
* Revoked rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic drinking
water.
* Blocked rules that would require federal agencies to offer bilingual
assistance to non-English speaking persons. This, from a candidate who
would readily fire-up his Spanish-speaking skills in front of would-be
Hispanic voters.
* Proposed to eliminate new marine protections for the Channel Islands
and the coral reefs of northwest Hawaii. San Francisco Chronicle, April
6, 2001
* Cut funding by 28% for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and
trucks.
* Suspended rules that would have strengthened the government's ability
to deny contracts to companies that violated workplace safety,
environmental and other federal laws.
* OK'd Interior Department appointee Gale Norton to send out letters to
state officials soliciting suggestions for opening up national monuments
for oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and foresting.
* Appointed John Negroponte - an un-indicted high level Iran Contra
figure - to the post of United Nations ambassador.
* Abandoned a campaign pledge to invest $100 million for rain forest
conservation.
* Reduced by 86% the Community Access Program for public hospitals,
clinics and providers of care for people without insurance.
* Rescinded a proposal to increase public access to information about
the potential consequences resulting from chemical plant accidents.
* Suspended rules that would require hard rock miners to clean up sites
on Western public lands.
* Cut $60 million from a Boy's and Girl's Clubs of America program for
public housing.
* Proposed to eliminate a federal program designed to help communities
(and successfully used in Seattle) prepare for natural disasters.
* Pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty global warming agreement.
* Cut $200 million of work force training for dislocated workers.
* Eliminated funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, which encourages
farmers to maintain wetlands habitat on their property.
* Cut program to provide childcare to low-income families as they move
from welfare to work.
* Cut a program that provided prescription contraceptive coverage to
federal employees (though it still pays for Viagra).
* Cut $700 million in capital funds for repairs in public housing.


* Appointed Otto Reich - an un-indicted high level Iran Contra figure-to
Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs.
* Cut Environmental Protection Agency budget by $500 million.
* Proposed to curtail the ability of groups to sue in order to get an
animal placed on the Endangered Species List.
* Rescinded rule that mandated increased energy-saving efficiency
regulations for central air conditioners and heat pumps.
* Repealed workplace ergonomic rules designed to improve worker health
and safety.
* Abandoned campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2), the waste
gas that contributes to global warming.
* Banned federal aid to international family planning programs that
offer abortion counseling with other independent funds.
* Closed White House Office for Women's Health Initiatives and Outreach.
* Nominated David Lauriski - ex-mining company executive-to post of
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
* O.K.'d Interior Secretary Gale Norton to go forth with a controversial
plan to auction oil and gas development tracts off the coast of eastern
Florida.
* Announced intention to open up Montana's Lewis and Clark National
Forest tool and drilling.
* Proposes to re-draw boundaries of nation's monuments, which would
technically allow oil and gas drilling "outside" of national monuments.
* Gutted White House AIDS Office.
* Renegotiating free trade agreement with Jordan to eliminate safeguards
for the environment and workers' rights.
* Will no longer seek guidance from The American Bar Association in
recommendations for the federal judiciary appointments.
* Appointed recycling foe Lynn Scarlett as Undersecretary of the
Interior.
* Took steps to abolish the White House Council on Environmental
Quality.
* Cut the Community Oriented Policing Services program.
* Allowed Interior Secretary Gale Norton to shelve citizen-led grizzly
bear re-introduction plan scheduled for Idaho and Montana wilderness.
* Continues to hold up federal funding for stem cell research projects.
* Makes sure convicted misdemeanor drug users cannot get financial aid
for college, though convicted murderers can.
* Refused to fund continued cleanup of uranium-slag heap in Utah.
* Refused to fund continued litigation of the government's tobacco
company lawsuit.
* Proposed a $2 trillion tax cut, of which 43% will go to the wealthiest
1% of Americans.
* Signed a bill making it harder for poor and middle-class Americans to
file for bankruptcy, even in the case of daunting medical bills.
* Appointed a Vice President quoted as saying "If you want to do
something about carbon dioxide emissions, then you ought to build
nuclear
power plants."Vice President Dick Cheney on "Meet the Press."
* Appointed Diana "There is no gender gap in pay" Roth to the Council of
Economic Advisers. Boston Globe, March 28, 2001
* Appointed Kay Cole James - an opponent of affirmative action - to
direct the Office of Personnel Management.
* Cut $15.7 million earmarked for states to investigate cases of child
abuse and neglect.


* Helped kill a law designed to make it tougher for teenagers to get
credit cards.
* Proposed elimination of the "Reading is Fundamental" program that
gives free books to poor children.
* Is pushing for development of small nuclear weapons to attack deeply
buried targets - weapons, which would violate the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty.
* Proposes to nominate Jeffrey Sutton - attorney responsible for the
recent case weakening the Americans with Disabilities Act - to federal
appeals
court judgeship.
* Proposes to reverse regulation protecting 60 million acres of national
forest from logging and road building.
* Eliminated funding for the "We the People" education program which
taught schoolchildren about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and
citizenship.
* Appointed John Bolton - who opposes nonproliferation treaties and the
U.N. -to Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International
Security.
* Nominated Linda Fisher - an executive with Monsanto - for the number
two job at the Environmental Protection Agency.
* Nominated Michael McConnell - leading critic of the separation of
church and state - to a federal judgeship.
* Nominated Terrence Boyle - ardent opponent of civil rights - to a
federal judgeship.
* Canceled 2004 deadline for automakers to develop prototype high
mileage cars.
* Nominated Harvey Pitts - lawyer for teen sex video distributor - to
head SEC.
* Nominated John Walters - strong opponent of prison drug treatment
programs - for Drug Czar. Washington Post, May 16, 2001.
* Nominated J. Steven Giles - an oil and coal lobbyist - for Deputy
Secretary of the Interior.
* Nominated Bennett Raley - who advocates repealing the Endangered
Species Act - for Assistant Secretary for Water and Science.
* Is seeking the dismissal of class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
against Japan by Asian women forced to work as sex slaves during WWII.
* Earmarked $4 million in new federal grant money for HIV and drug abuse
prevention programs to go only to religious groups and not secular
equivalents.
* Reduced by 40% the Low Income Home Assistance Program for low-income
individuals who need assistance paying energy bills.
* Nominated Ted Olson - who has repeatedly lied about his involvement
with the Scaiffe-funded "Arkansas Project" to bring down Bill Clinton -
for Solicitor General.
* Proposes to ease permit process - including environmental
considerations - for refinery, nuclear and hydroelectric dam
construction. Washington Post, May 18,2001.
* Proposes to give government the authority to take private property
through eminent domain for power lines.
* Proposes that $1.2 billion in funding for alternative renewable energy
come from selling oil and gas lease tracts in the Alaska National
Wildlife Reserve.
* Plans on serving genetically engineered foods at all official
government functions.
* Forced out Forest Service chief Mike Dombeck and appointed a timber
industry lobbyist.

What I don't get (and maybe this makes me a fucking idiot) is how the US could go so wrong. I bitch about it, but it is the premier democratic experiment, the nation spoken into being with each generation. Its existence is defined by an allegiance to a document whose tenets are, given their cultural context, at the core of notions of equality and freedom and so on. And here we are, with this amazing crap happening, and my sad little fucked and hopeful soul is just utterly bewildered. I don't think I realised how much I care about the States - even as a non-citizen - until I saw this.
 
 
alas
09:51 / 14.02.02
quote:how the US could go
so wrong. I bitch about it, but it is the premier democratic experiment, the nation
spoken into being with each generation. Its existence is defined by an allegiance
to a document whose tenets are, given their cultural context, at the core of
notions of equality and freedom and so on. And here we are, with this amazing
crap happening, and my sad little fucked and hopeful soul is just utterly
bewildered. I don't think I realised how much I care about the States - even as a
non-citizen - until I saw this.

Amen, Nick. After all the flags posted in windows and flying from little plastic poles that further lower the mileage of SUVs (by .5 gallons Harper's Index tells me), after the coopting of the touching images of the twin towers falling by people making bucks in any number of ways, after all the speeches and editorials, yours is one of the most patriotic statements I've heard, perhaps in my life.

This is a tragedy to be mourned, and many of us in the US are just as baffled and ashamed and, rightly or wrongly, feel just as powerless. I'm trying to determine what to do, but it's all a muddle. There's just too much power concentrated in a few hands, and they're using the name of "democracy" to do it, tainting and distorting the idea until it is unrecognizeable. And it needs to be mourned. And acted against.
 
 
shirtless, beepers and suntans
09:51 / 14.02.02
gosh, all this kinda makes me wish i didn't vote for him...........................nah.
 
 
Slim
09:51 / 14.02.02
quote:Whatever your beliefs, know what your president is doing.

A good job!
 
 
Random?
09:51 / 14.02.02
yeah great post. But i think speaking for most people wihtout their head in their ass isnt most political election in the states or else wher kinda like picking the lesser evil ?
 
 
Fist Fun
09:51 / 14.02.02
quote:yours is one of the most patriotic statements I've heard, perhaps in my life.


Alas, did you just use the term patriotic as a compliment?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:51 / 14.02.02
Okay, let's try and get some debate going here, shall we folks?

shirtless moron: why did you vote for Bush? Why are you still glad that you voted for Bush, given that you seem to concur that the list above is full of Bad Things he has done since taking office?

Slim: in what ways do you think Bush is doing "a great job"? Do you support any of the actions, appointments and policies listed above, and if so, why? If not, what positive actions and policies do you think Bush has undertaken?

Luther: are you implying Al Gore would have been a "greater evil" as President? In what ways?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:51 / 14.02.02
Alas - just for reference, I'm not actually American, though several others in my family are. But anyone who hopes for a free world - however much that term is over-used and sometimes abused - has money riding on the American wager.

As to patriotism...well, I'm more about a notion than a nation...
 
 
alas
11:07 / 14.02.02
it was meant as an ironic compliment--i should have put "patriotic" in quotes. i realized that nick isn't "a fellow American" compatriot, which makes it ironic, i guess, that his statement felt so much more sincere than most of the "patriotic" statements that have gushed forth in the US, from the US, since 911.

(as to luther's statement, buk, i read it as implying that we're always stuck, as individuals standing in the voting booths, choosing between the lesser of two evils. And most of us in the US did, actually choose Al Gore, remember. Bush was not elected by a majority of voters--unless you count the 5-4 vote of the supreme court as majority rule....)

alas.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
11:28 / 14.02.02
Unfortunately, Nick, most of the things in that list fall into three categories which the public and/or their legislative reps in Congress have little effect on:

(A) Federal Regulations - any federal agency falls under the supervision of the Executive Branch, which can change the regulations (non-exhaustive list of examples from that list: field testing controls of genetically modified plants; arsenic in drinking water(which, incidentally, Bush has reversed his position on and reverted to the Clinton standards); repeal of OSHA workplace standards; and anything that involves the defunding of a program - he can just close up shop rather than fight it out in a budget battle) these agencies operate under, at will. This is a constitutional privilege of the executive branch.

(b)Appointees to the Executive and Judicial Branch. The constitution basically says that the Senate must "advise and consent" the president on his nominees to office. Basically, this boils down to "consent," especially in the case of former fellow senators (Ashcroft, for one, were he not a former Senator, would have probably seen much more opposition). The only recourse opposition parties usually have is to delay indefinitely hearing on nominees. The Republicans, during the Clinton Admin, did this for many, many Judicial appointees, whos spots have gone unfilled until Bush has nominated people to fill them. The Democrats are for some reason loathe to use this delaying tactic, except in the case of Otto Reich (mentioned above) and Antonin Scalia Jr. (not sure if he's in that list, but he's the son of the man who basically handed Bush the presidency) who the Democrats tried to block. Unfortunately, Bush, over the winter break of the Senate, used a little-used Presidential Power to confirm these appointees while the Senate was out of office, effectively bypassing the Legislative Branch totally.

(C) Line items in the Budget - The US Budget is a huge, unwieldly thing, and if Bush wants to use his surrogates in the HOuse of Representatives, where appropriations bills are written, to strike a few million here and a few million there, it's going to happen. The Budget, no matter what it contains, will handily pass through the highly partisan House, and in the Senate, minutae such as 35 million for doctors to get pediatric training, will be ignored in favor of big ticket items such as Defense and Education. Coupled with a Line-item veto, which Republicans want, Bush would have total control over the budget.

The only thing on the list that was really liable to public scrutiny/scuttling was the Tax Cut. The public did not support the Tax Cut, by and large, and there is even less support for it now that we are in deficit spending mode (which, incidentally,is really a phantom issue created by Republicans which is ironically workign against them now). The most popular part of the Tax Cut, the 300 dollar rebate checks (which are really refunds against future earnings; borrowing from the future to pay the present) were actually a Democrat idea put in to make the Tax Cut more palatable to their consituents. Surprisingly, Bush went for it and the democrats rolled over.
 
 
Slim
16:04 / 14.02.02
quote:Slim: in what ways do you think Bush is doing "a great job"? Do you support any of the actions, appointments and policies listed above, and if so, why? If not, what positive actions and policies do you think Bush has undertaken?

To be honest, I can't tell if I was being sarcastic, truthful or just trying to ruffle some feathers. However....

I'd like to see some of the sources where Sprintzen got this information. I'm naturally skeptical and I going go ahead and doubt how close this list is to reality. Not only do I not see any sources, but some of this info seems unverifiable to the average person. Also, I'd like to see a conservative response to this list, i.e. explanations for the actions and/or refutations.

As for what I agree with on the list, they are few and far between (although like I said, I question whether all of these incidents are true). I agree with pulling out of the Kyoto Agreement. I think Bush or the armed forces have done an excellent job in Afghanistan.

In the end, this list neither shocked nor appalled me. Bush trying to drill for oil? Shocking! However, seeing as how Bush has done some good in office and I see none of that listed,I refuse to treat this list with any more seriousness than I would something published by the Republican party.

I think in the end, my reaction ("A good job") was more of a reaction to what is obviously a one-sided and subjective viewpoint of a professor of philosophy.

Mostly though, I appreciate your desire for a civilized debate
 
 
w1rebaby
18:37 / 14.02.02
As far as sources go, I found this: http://www.ca-dem.org/sixmonths.html
which gives sources for some of those details. I note that it is a Democratic press release, but the sources listed seem to be independent newspapers.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
20:39 / 14.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Slim:
I think Bush or the armed forces have done an excellent job in Afghanistan.

Well, they've done an excellent job of killing Afghan civilians who were not part of the Taliban or Al-Queda, and continue to do so... Is that what you mean?

<deep breaths, stepping away from the keyboard>
 
 
Tom Coates
22:38 / 14.02.02
I think whatever one's view of the 'war' in Afghanistan, most of us recognise that something remarkably similar would have happened under any recent American administration. What's happening NOW, of course - after the initial strikes... well that's another matter.

What is awful - and which was awful when it happened to Thatcher with the Falklands - is that bad policy and appallingly destructive political decisions get through because the country falls behind its leaders who immediately do all the things that the country wouldn't normally let them do.

So I suppose the question remains - what do you think of GW six months on?
 
 
shirtless, beepers and suntans
23:50 / 14.02.02
quote: shirtless moron: why did you vote for Bush? Why are you still glad that you voted for Bush, given that you seem to concur that the list above is full of Bad Things he has done since taking office?

OK, even though i'm being grilled on something that i wouldn't be grilled on in this BBS had i said i voted for Nader, i'll try to be a good sport about it anyway.

first of all, let it be known that by no means do i support EVERYTHING Bush/his administration's done; in fact, i think a lot of what he's done is pretty short-sighted.

but in the months leading up to the 2000 election, i felt that the bulk of Gore's platform was geared toward securing the old-people voting bloc.

furthermore, in my eyes, his association with the Clinton administration, which accomplished absolutely nothing in eight long years (for the record, the economic boom of the '90s had nothing to do with the Clinton administration, as its supporters often claim) didn't help establish any kind of presidential credibility.

and so i bit the bullet and chose the lesser of the two evils. Nader, from what i read, didn't have anything to say that would be feasible in a Democratic-Republican Congress. Harry Brown was never even a blip on the radar in any sense. And somehow i just got the feeling that Pat Buchanan wouldnt be the best man for the job, call me crazy.

i shudder to think how Gore and his administration (which surely would have packed with touchy-feely Clintonistas) would have reacted to Sept. 11, were they in charge: "OK, Admiral, send a couple Tomahawks in their general direction. That'll teach 'em."

Say, I just remembered something about the Bush admin i don't approve of: how they're starting to get away from focusing on destroying Al Qaeda by instead focusing on Iraq. But then again, who in Congress has been the most vociferous about taking military action against Iraq? Why none other than Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), Gore's former runningmate.

With regards to what the "Professor of Philosophy [and] Co-Director, Institute for Sustainable Development" would seem to suggest are high crimes and misdemeanors... if you did enough research and were careful with your word choice, you too could compile a list just as long and just as shady for any high-ranking public official.

...but then again, i could be just bullshitting you all, and all i really wanted to do was ruffle a few feathers.


[ 15-02-2002: Message edited by: the shirtless moron ]
 
 
Cherry Bomb
11:59 / 16.02.02
Words cannot express how much I desperately miss Clinton. Have sex with as many people as you want!! I don't care! Just LEAD US!

Not that Clinton was any great prize - he was a "moderate Democrat" and in that regard he was kind of like a Republican but with a little more lip service for the people and a little (just a LITTLE,mind) less obvious being in the pocket of big business (I mean, Bill WAS good pals with Ken Lay himself, took contributions from him and let the guy stay in the Lincoln bedroom, but hey, who DIDN'T Ken give money to?) - but watching W in action is almost like a bad dream that you can't wake up from.

Let's start with the way the guy was um, er, "elected." I am STILL FUCKING ANGRY ABOUT THIS. (sorry guys you know how I love the caps.) He didn't have the majority to start, and I'll give you the electoral college, which is goofy yes, and I think should be done away with BUT, OK, that's the system the U.S. has in place and OK, let's just pretend W actually WON Florida, I'd give him his victory.

But this is NOT WHAT HAPPENED. What happened was, the supreme court issued their obviously biased decision, and using a civil rights law (that they in general don't even use in actual civil rights cases) essentially said, "OK, Al Gore has the right to count his votes, but he only has four more hours to do it because if we give him more time, we will be DISCRIMINATING AGAINST George W (possibly not winning)." Is that ludicrous or what?!??


Grr. Grr. Grr.

So. We have this guy who was not even elected (and of course we'll never knew who won Florida, the election tallies published a few months ago indicated that Al Gore would have had a SLIGHT slight edge over Bush in Florida, but you can't really tell, can you because of the massive voter fraud that absolutely went on in Florida).

So we have this guy who all ready was not elected, and he comes into office as if he has the mandate of the people.

As an American I can't tell you how infuriating, embarrassing and worrisome that he is plowing ahead with these policies that I certainly don't agree with, and nobody I know really does either. He does NOT speak for me. He is NOT my voice.

He is running the US in the most arrogant, imperialist manner. If the U.S. drops out of the Kyoto treaty, how can any other country possibly continue with it, even if they want to? We're the biggest, "we've got ALLLL the guns and ALLLL the money," to paraphrase the Black Panthers, and so we dictate policy.

Abandoning the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty? AAAAARGH. Just so we can build MORE weapons than we all ready have?? Is russia honestly a threat anymore? Seriously?

*Sigh*

Just reading in the paper this morning that U.S. spends more on military defense than its Nato allies, Russia and China COMBINED. COMBINED. That is absolutely insane.

And meanwhile, I don't have health insurance, my Dad doesn't have a job, and I've all ready discussed the state of the welfare system in the U.S. But Ken Lay had to sell off a few houses, so I guess we're all hurting.

I haven't even begun to touch on the supreme injustice of the richest nation in the world beating the living crap out of one of the poorest nations in the world, continuing to kill civillians and damage a country that has all ready seen nearly three decades of war. Oh, and have we caught ANYONE in Al Qaeda yet? The alleged reason we began this war?

And then of course there's the jingoistic flag-waving Olympics, which of course parellel Hitler's in 1938.


I could go on. I really do love my home (the U.S.), and that's why these things absolutely infuriate me.
 
 
Slim
16:11 / 16.02.02
Sometimes innocents die, Flyboy. I don't like it, but if some Afghanis are going to be killed in order for the US to protect itself, so be it. It's a sad thing, but it's also something that's been happening for centuries upon centuries.

quote: Let's start with the way the guy was um, er, "elected." I am STILL FUCKING ANGRY ABOUT THIS.

Let it go, Cherry. Harping on the election fiasco doesn't help solve the problems in the here and now. The laws will be changed in time for the next election.


quote:So. We have this guy who was not even elected (and of course we'll never knew who won Florida, the election tallies published a few months ago indicated that Al Gore would have had a SLIGHT slight edge over Bush in Florida, but you can't really tell, can you because of the massive voter fraud that absolutely went on in Florida).

The right decision was made, Bush won the presidency. I've also read reports that say even if the counting had continued, Bush would have won. Furthermore, as far as the actions of each party go, the Republicans were no more shady than the Democrats were.

quote:As an American I can't tell you how infuriating, embarrassing and worrisome that he is plowing ahead with these policies that I certainly don't agree with, and nobody I know really does either. He does NOT speak for me. He is NOT my voice.

I felt the same way about Clinton. In fact, wasn't Clinton the president who delinked human rights violations when trading with China? Yes, he was. Clinton was a slimeball.


quote: If the U.S. drops out of the Kyoto treaty, how can any other country possibly continue with it, even if they want to
I'm glad we dropped out of it. I think it was flawed. However, I wish someone would get the ball rolling on a new treaty, or at least revise the Kyoto treaty.

quote:Just reading in the paper this morning that U.S. spends more on military defense than its Nato allies, Russia and China COMBINED. COMBINED. That is absolutely insane.

Why is this insane? US troops, whether you want to admit it or not, save a lot of lives. The US wouldn't have to spend as much money as we do if other countries would step up to the plate. But do they? Of course not. The US is powerful. Let US soldiers risk their lives. The US wouldn't have to act like a hegemon if other countries, like France or Germany, would try and take a leading role. But they don't. Sure, the French government issues proclamations about what should be done, but they don't want to do the dirty work. They'd rather try and boss the US around. It's a shame that this is the way things are, but you have to realize that all of this is not the fault of the US.

quote:And then of course there's the jingoistic flag-waving Olympics, which of course parellel Hitler's in 1938.

Of course it does. All the Jews and Gypsies should run for the hills right now.

quote:I could go on. I really do love my home (the U.S.), and that's why these things absolutely infuriate me.

I'm sure you do. But I'm also sure that millions of conservative Americans who hold the exact opposite viewpoint of you love America too.
 
 
Jackie Susann
20:12 / 16.02.02
quote: Sometimes innocents die, Flyboy. I don't like it, but if some Afghanis are going to be killed in order for the US to protect itself, so be it.

Could you explain how this isn't also a justification for the attacks on the WTC?

quote: Sometimes innocents die, Slim. I don't like it, but if some Americans are going to be killed in order for the Arab countries to defend themselves, so be it.
 
 
Hieronymus
20:45 / 16.02.02
Mmmm. Thread rot. Yummy.

Help me out here, Crunchy. What event prior to the WTC attacks necessitated an armed response to the US from Afghanistan? Was it our arming and training of the mujahadeen in the 80s? You make it sound as if the WTC attacks were a planned affair straight from the Taliban's inner circle, which couldn't be farther from the truth if you tried. Harbored them, yes. Masterminded it, no.

Here I thought it was an act of fundamentalists who cringed at the US and its hedonistic Western values invasion. Silly me.

Personally I can't stand nationalism. I find Bush's saber-rattling and inept fumbling of the Osama Bin Laden situation to be no different than the coal-shoveling his father did to fuel the war machine in the early 90s. But this anti-America bashing is slowly becoming a creepy replacement to the anti-Semitism of the 20th century. When are countries going to take responsibility for themselves and quit blaming/whining about the US for all their ills? On one hand we have a moral obligation to help nations as a superpower. And on the other hand, we're sticking our nose in people's business where it doesn't belong. Which is it?
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:02 / 17.02.02
Huh? I didn't say Afghanistan did it, I said the people who did - presumably - felt they were protecting Arab nations from US imperialism and aggression. In particular, the incessant bombing of Iraq and support for Israel's occupation of Palestine (and the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia). I'm not saying it was a reasonable, justifiable, or ethical response to that situation; I am saying it had about the same 'protective' function and prospects as the US attack on Afghanistan.

I thought about adding a 'this is a criticism of Slim's argument, not an argument in support of terrorism' clause to my post, but it seemed obvious. I guess not. And at risk of continued thread rot, the comparison of anti-American sentiment to twentieth century anti-semitism seems to me to be, at best, offensive and historically misguided. I'd suggest if you want to pursue this you start a new thread.
 
 
Hieronymus
09:02 / 17.02.02
Sorry about the thread rot.


quote:Originally posted by Dread Pirate Crunchy:
Huh? I didn't say Afghanistan did it, I said the people who did - presumably - felt they were protecting Arab nations from US imperialism and aggression. In particular, the incessant bombing of Iraq and support for Israel's occupation of Palestine (and the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia).

quote: I'm not saying it was a reasonable, justifiable, or ethical response to that situation; I am saying it had about the same 'protective' function and prospects as the US attack on Afghanistan.

I understand you weren't supporting terrorism. But your statement that the 'we had to defend ourselves' claim can be justified to wage war against a memetic threat (Western culture vs. Islamic theocracy) as opposed to a real threat of extinction of a people (that of all Americans, military targets or otherwise)is a major obfuscation.

Get out your umbrellas. Here comes the pissing contest.

The United States is not in the business of wiping out Islamic fundamentalists. Only those that find violence their favorite recourse and even then we were happy to leave them to the responsibility of their perspective governments to handle. Groups such as al-Qaeda, the People's Mujahadeen of Iran, Abu Sayyaf, they aren't interested in anything but the establishment of an Islamic theocracy and have nothing but a bullet for Western culture. Last time I checked, the current US administration has no agenda bent on steamrolling over Muslim nations because of a disagreement of ideas. If this is not the case, I'd love to see the documentation that stipulates otherwise.


quote: And at risk of continued thread rot, the comparison of anti-American sentiment to twentieth century anti-semitism seems to me to be, at best, offensive and historically misguided. I'd suggest if you want to pursue this you start a new thread.

Born from a from-the-hip snarky comment but you're right, I think it would be a great idea. Certainly deserves commentary or speculation.

[ 17-02-2002: Message edited by: Dekapot Mass ]
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:02 / 17.02.02
quote: But your statement that the 'we had to defend ourselves' claim can be justified to wage war against a memetic threat (Western culture vs. Islamic theocracy) as opposed to a real threat of extinction of a people (that of all Americans, military targets or otherwise) is a major obfuscation.

It would be if that was what I said. Happily, the 'real threat of extinction of a people' is, at least in this case, at least as 'memetic' as US imperialism. I looked at the link you provided, and unless I missed the part that even suggested Osama Bin Laden has the resources to so much as come close to seriously considering wiping out the US citizenry, I don't think it's particularly telling.

What I was trying to point out was that in both cases (al-Qaeda and US) the attacks were non-specific (not effectively aimed at those responsible for whatever was being responded to), involved massive civilian casualties, and served no discernible purpose as far as 'defence' was concerned. Levelling the WTC and/or Afghanistan were equally useless in terms of 'protecting' people who'd never been attacked by the building or the nation-state in question.

quote: Last time I checked, the current US administration has no agenda bent on steamrolling over Muslim nations because of a disagreement of ideas. If this is not the case, I'd love to see the documentation that stipulates otherwise.

I'll happily provide this documentation when you show me where I said this was the case. I will say that you seem to think anti-US sentiment is based entirely or mainly on a religious opposition to US values, whereas I think this plays a relatively minor part compared to opposition to the US's active military involvement in the region. This link, for example, generally supports this claim.
 
 
Slim
16:31 / 17.02.02
There's a difference between attacking a group like the Al Queda and accidentally killing citizens along the way and purposely killing innocents like the terrorists did. That's one of the main differences between "war" and "terrorism".
 
 
Ganesh
16:36 / 17.02.02
The difference is intent, then?
 
 
Rev. Wright
17:52 / 17.02.02
This one's for Slim.
 
 
Jackie Susann
20:32 / 17.02.02
If you're an Afghani civilian who's been injured or lost loved ones to the US attacks, whether or not the US meant it or just couldn't help killing thousands of innocent people is as irrelevant as al-Qaeda's intentions are to the average US citizen. To do another obvious inversion:

quote: There's a difference between attacking a group like the the US government and accidentally killing citizens along the way and purposely killing innocents like the imperialist aggressors did. That's one of the main differences between "resistance" and "colonialism".
 
 
Slim
09:30 / 18.02.02
Interesting, Wright. But this one's for you: http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/aliens_story.cfm?instanceid=19596

The US attacked the Afghanistan to put a stop to its government and the terrorists it harbors. Afghanis got killed in the crossfire. The terrorists attacked US citizens. Perhaps the Americans should never have fought in WWII because innocent civilians could have been killed.

While it is unfortunate that the US had to react this way, there wasn't much else of a choice. The government has the responsibility of protecting the lives of its citizens. Going after Bin Laden and his associates in Afghanistan was a necessary action.
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:40 / 18.02.02
quote: The US attacked the Afghanistan to put a stop to its government and the terrorists it harbors. Afghanis got killed in the crossfire.

So the US attacked 'the Afghanistan' but al-Qaeda attacked US citizens. I may be wrong, but I think you'll find that 'the Afghanistan' consists largely of citizens - not US citizens, admittedly, but let's pretend for a minute that people in the Middle East are as important as Americans. The US attacked a series of targets, not some vague national abstraction; there wasn't a qualitative distinction between the targets chosen by the US military and those chosen by al-Qaeda. If you were in either, you were probably going to wind up dead. You can't disguise that by pretending the US attacked an abstract country where a bunch of innocent people kept inconveniently getting in the way.

The US attacks did not serve any defensive function that I can see. I will be happy if anyone can point one out. The US wasn't attacked by the Afghan government; it wasn't under attack by anyone. The WTC attacks were motivated largely by widespread Arab discontent with US policy in the area; it's hard for me to understand how bombing another country and switching its government to more acceptable dictators is going to change that.
 
 
Slim
09:40 / 18.02.02
quote: So the US attacked 'the Afghanistan'
Way top point out a typo! Since this mistake makes the rest of my post irrelevant, I'll make sure to run my post through spell checker next time.

quote:let's pretend for a minute that people in the Middle East are as important as Americans.

You're absolutely right. I don't agree with you and therefore I'm a bastard worthy of your derision and mockery. Thank you for showing me the light with this clever jab.

quote:The US wasn't attacked by the Afghan government; it wasn't under attack by anyone
I'd say ramming two planes into an office building is an attack.

quote:it's hard for me to understand how bombing another country and switching its government to more acceptable dictators is going to change that.

If said government harbors terrorists that attack America, then it is necessary to do what it takes to stop this, even if it means the US has to attempt to remove it. Only after this should the US focus on diminishing the anti-American feelings present in many Arabs.
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:40 / 18.02.02
Yes, the US was attacked. That's not the same as being under attack, which seems to me a pretty clear distinction. Somebody punches you, you've been attached. If somebody is punching you repeatedly, you're under attack. It's the difference between the US, which was attacked, and, for example, Afghanistan which was under attack for weeks. You can't be acting defensively against an attack that has already taken place; this is the distinction I was trying to make. Please don't bother responding that they were defending themselves against possible future terrorist attacks, unless you can show some way in which attacking Afghanistan accomplished this.

On the other hand, you may have a point that if Afghanistan were harbouring terrorists, the US had a right to attack and attempt to depose that government. Leaving aside whether this was the case - I seem to remember that the Taliban offered to extradite bin Laden to a neutral country for trial - this is, again, an argument justifying the al-Qaeda attacks on the US. The US is harbouring and, indeed, sponsoring terrorists who have attacked middle eastern nations. By your logic, this gives al-Qaeda the right to attack them.

By the way, it's not so much that I mock you because you don't agree with me. I mock you because you don't appear to agree with yourself. I wouldn't say it makes you a bastard, but it certainly makes you worthy of derision.
 
 
Slim
09:40 / 18.02.02
quote: Somebody punches you, you've been attached. If somebody is punching you repeatedly, you're under attack.

Typo

I understand your point now. However, I still don't agree with it. Bin Laden and his associates have a history of terrorism. Just because there are long lengths of time between them does not negate the fact that they have been attacking America. It's just the way terrorism works.

quote: The US is harbouring and, indeed, sponsoring terrorists who have attacked middle eastern nations

To whom are you referring to?

quote: By the way, it's not so much that I mock you because you don't agree with me. I mock you because you don't appear to agree with yourself. I wouldn't say it makes you a bastard, but it certainly makes you worthy of derision.

Quite right, old chap. Perhaps I'll just take the high road and stop posting, since it seems that you're interested in continuing personal attacks. It's just as well- I couldn't decide if I should label you as an elitist or someone who's ignorant.
 
 
MJ-12
09:40 / 18.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Dread Pirate Crunchy:
Somebody punches you, you've been attached. If somebody is punching you repeatedly, you're under attack.

With all due respect, and let me say that I believe the Afghanistan campaign is fairly bugfuck, that's like saying "The Manson Family went on a killing spree, but they're not killing anyone right now."
 
 
Hieronymus
09:40 / 18.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Dread Pirate Crunchy:
Yes, the US was attacked. That's not the same as being under attack, which seems to me a pretty clear distinction. Somebody punches you, you've been attached. If somebody is punching you repeatedly, you're under attack.

It's always wise to run spellcheck after you've spent so much time mocking someone else's typos, Crunchy. Just to save a bit of face.

quote:Please don't bother responding that they were defending themselves against possible future terrorist attacks, unless you can show some way in which attacking Afghanistan accomplished this.

It's been a while since I followed the papers so you might have to point me to acts of terrorism perpetrated against the US by the Al-Qaeda network. And the kid who crashed his Cessna doesn't count.

quote: Leaving aside whether this was the case - I seem to remember that the Taliban offered to extradite bin Laden to a neutral country for trial - this is, again, an argument justifying the al-Qaeda attacks on the US.

Huh? So they they were justified in attacking us because we didn't forsee the Taliban offering to extradite Bin Laden to a neutral country over an act we would have never predicted? How does that make any sense? To hell with Enron, I say bring Miss Cleo up in front of a Congressional investigation.

quote: The US is harbouring and, indeed, sponsoring terrorists who have attacked middle eastern nations. By your logic, this gives al-Qaeda the right to attack them.

While I understand your need to revise the facts to support your argument, you seem to have conveniently forgotten that American officials pursued diplomatic options with Afghanistan before we ever loaded the first bombs. First the Taliban government denied that Osama Bin Laden was even in Afghanistan. Then, at the midnight hour of the request to extradict him, only THEN did they offer to hand him over to Pakistan courts. Nice try though, Crunch.

As for your comment that the US grows its own terrorists to attack the Middle East, you're going to have to work a little harder to prove that one. Not to say it's not possible. But selling arms to Israel isn't exactly training troops and shipping them out. An unforgivable act, sure. But not the same thing no matter how much you'd like it to be.

And if your intent was to connect Israel to the Al-Qaeda network and Afghanistan, you'd be a little off on that one. The Taliban and Bin Laden haven't cared about the Palestine conflict to make it their focus until JUST recently. Bin Laden's original gripe was that the Yanks were occupying and infecting the Holy Land. A valid gripe, sure. But slightly insipid given that we were INVITED by the Saudi government.

quote: I mock you because you don't appear to agree with yourself. I wouldn't say it makes you a bastard, but it certainly makes you worthy of derision.

Can you possibly try to be more of a smug hypocritical prat, Crunchy? Jesus. Lay off the personal attacks just a bit and try to stick to the issues. Typos happen. Loosen up a little.

Man, I'll never get those quote brackets right.

[ 18-02-2002: Message edited by: Dekapot Mass ]
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:40 / 18.02.02
I will post something substantial in a bit, but I just wanted to clarify that I haven't devoted much time to making fun of typos, as I see it. The phrase 'the Afghanistan' seemed pretty telling to me, in the course of an argument that effectively turned Afghanistan into an abstract unity (compared to a US made up of a mass of individual citizens). If anyone wants to make a case that hitting 'h' instead of 'k' in attacking was a telling insight into my argument, please do so.

I went on to make fun of Slim because I am a sarcastic bastard, and it's how I argue. Really, if people are put of by sarcasm I don't know why they post on message boards, especially this message board.
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:40 / 18.02.02
There are, so far as I can tel, two substantive arguments in the posts above. If I've missed any, whic is more than likely, point them out and I'll respond. Number one:

quote: ...that's like saying "The Manson Family went on a killing spree, but they're not killing anyone right now."

... with reference to my claim that the US wasn't actually under attack. But I really disagree with this analogy, because it confuses law with war. You don't lock up the Manson Family for 'defensive' reasons, surely, but to get justice. Surveys indicated that most people in the world wanted the US to do just this with regard to the WTC/Pentagon attacks; to bring the perpetrators before some kind of court, and sentence them appropriately. Not go to war with a country accused of harbouring them.

Similarly, in law you can only plead 'self-defence' if you're actually being attacked. You can't say, 'he'd hit me before on a number of ocassions, so I was defending myself'. Especially if you'd actually punched the roommate who refused to unlock the door so you could come in and beat up the guy responsible.

I'm sure that was a bad metaphor, but you get my point?

Number two was that the US doesn't actually harbour Middle Eastern terrorists, just arms them. But surely this is beside the point? Unless you are suggesting that Afghanistan was harbouring the individuals who carried out the suicide attacks, the 'terrorists' they were harbouring were implicated in sponsorship, arms supply, training, etc. The US is certainly 'harbouring' people who have taken comparable roles in Middle Eastern atrocities; to pick just one example, Bill Clinton. Largely responsible for a massive bombing campaign against Iraq.

It would be absurd, for obvious reasons, for the Iraqi government to apply to have Clinton extradited. And I don't think any of you would suggest they would be justified in going to war against the US for 'harbouring' him.

Again, if I have missed anything, tell me.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply