Bush War rumination etc
telebob x
telebob98@hotmail.com
Mon, 08 Oct 2001 04:01:58 +0000
I think this forum is a great place to express opinions. Even if our
discussions don't amount to a hill of beans, and I think we have a right to
be irrelevant or even wrong. We are, after all, among friends, and friends
can disagree. I do not mean to be snide or insulting to anyone's ideas
here, and I do mean to avoid 'ad hominum' attacks.
I was taking issue with the 'tone' of some of the comments that seemed to
denigrate the military as dupes, oafs, or kill-crazies. We can take issue
with those who wield the tool of the military, but I maintain that putting
the knock on those who are in the service is akin to insulting firemen or
the police. It is those who control those tools who need to be taken to
task.
Yes, our situation is the result of failed policies. Some of the 'failed'
policies have been stupid, some have been justified, and some have been
merely unavoidable. But I still think our present options still boil down to
'fight or flee' though there is considerable wiggle room in what we can
agree are the advisable tactics of our 'fight' or our 'flight'.
Do the Muslim fundamentalists have a case?...Sure, and so did Ted Kazynski
and Tim McVeigh, but does the weight of their grievances force us to shrug
off the attacks against us as we did vis a vis Tanzania and the USS Cole?
How many more attacks does it take to see there is someone out there who
wants the great satan dead...and sadly, that means us.
The Vietnamese just wanted to run their own country. Well they got what they
wanted, and aren't they the happy ones.
As for Bin Ladin well, we can expect that there will be more attacks, and
each attack seems to wish to top the last one....what new horrors we will
face before we can stop these killers can not be imagined, but we can be
certain we have not heard the last of them...whether we attack or not. This
isn't a fight we have a choice about. We are in it, and they will not stop
until we are out of Saudi Arabia and Israel is destroyed. Not much of a
choice would you say?
Most of us think the USA is a big bad bully...and there are a ton of people
in Washington who think the USA can win any war....well, this is going to be
interesting when the next casualty count doubles the WTC. Bil Ladin is
right...we are a lot weaker than we appear. Our infrastructure is so
interwoven and vulnerable that major damage and I mean MAJOR damage is
possible when the enemy is willing to die so readily. As far as I can see,
if the attacks continue, the party atmosphere of the USA is going to come to
a screeching halt...this could mean a major depression, and a very
frightened population. The fear will be justified.
Teledamus
PS- OK Roger...how is that for a depressing post?
>From: "JIM BALDAUF" <jfbaldauf@prodigy.net>
>To: "Bill Irwin" <billi@aloha.net>, "telebob x" <telebob98@hotmail.com>
>CC: <austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>
>Subject: Re: Bush War rumination
>Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 18:35:36 -0500
>
>Bill hoped:
> >that this experience will qualify me in your eyes to exercise
>my rights of free speech to express my concerns and criticism
>of my government as I see it. After all, isn't it the "American
>way" to be allowed the freedom to express our opinions?<
>
>That's what I'm talkin' 'bout!
>Saving Corporal Baldauf
>
>
>(Would it be unpatriotic to oppose the following, on the heels
>of the bailout for airline companies that loath burdensome
>regulations and security procedures?)
>
>NYT - BUSINESS
>=========================
>In Bush Plan, Taxpayers Would Cover Terror Claims
>
>The Bush administration and Congress are preparing
>legislation to have taxpayers pay major insurance claims
>arising out of terrorist attacks. Profits demand the insurance
>industry just collect premiums, not actually pay claims.
>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/07/business/07INSU.html?todaysheadlines
>
>Insurers generally say they can survive the estimated $40 billion or >more
>in losses from last month's attacks, but cannot bear the full >risks of
>future attacks.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Bill Irwin <billi@aloha.net>
>To: telebob x <telebob98@hotmail.com>
>Cc: <austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>
>Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 5:38 PM
>Subject: Re: Bush War rumination
>
>
> > Bob:
> > I served from 1963 to 65 (if some of you don't remember me from those
>years
> > well now you know why). I didn't see any combat nor was I in any harms
>way.
> > However, I did see lots of blood and guts and a number of dead soldiers
>so
>I
> > feel that I have some idea of what is at stake. I hope that this
>experience
> > will qualify me in your eyes to exercise my rights of free speech to
>express
> > my concerns and criticism of my government as I see it. After all,
>isn't
> > it the "American way" to be allowed the freedom to express our opinions?
> > As a veteran, tax payer (well, most of the time), citizen, and now
>senior
> > citizen I expect to be allowed to do so in an environment free from
>snide
> > comments about ones character, patronizing talk, and threats of
>violence.
> > Particularly if we are participating in a forum of our former friends
>and
> > acquaintances. I would hope that we could all strive to understand each
> > others opinions in a gentlemanly and scholarly manner (a little humor
>and
> > spiritual understanding would help also). Who knows, some of us may
>learn
>a
> > little something new - I heard that learning something new helps prevent
> > brain ossification in senior citizens. I must say that I am a bit
>shocked
> > at what I have heard several people say about Roger. I think it is
>uncalled
> > for and not correct. If you disagree, present your case in a logical
>manner
> > not by personal attacks that you would feel bad about latter.
> >
> > I don't agree with you that our only options are 'fight or flee'. Flee
>is
> > out of the question and for the most part war is the result of failed
> > policies of the past, which I think is the case this time. The WTC is
>not
> > the first action of this war, it has been going for at least 25 years
>and
> > has it's roots going back even farther. During this time we have done
>very
> > little to address the root causes of Muslim discontent. Mostly we have
>put
> > them on notice, shot off a few rockets and hoped that everything would
>die
> > down before elections. Never have we asked what the problem was or
>sought
> > real solutions that would neutralize the radicals. Until we make some
> > effort at peace and reconciliation we will never have any security.
>There
> > is plenty to criticize from the past and as long as our government
>continues
> > the failed policies of the past there will be more cause to continue
>that
> > criticism. I too would like to see us bring Bin Ladin to justice but we
>all
> > know that there will be others in his footsteps because so far, our only
> > solution is to "get Bin Ladin" and not get to the heart of the matter.
> > Toughing some band-aids and Big Macs at the problem will not do any
>good.
> > Likewise, "little flowers and signs" will not solve the problem but it
>may
> > start some people thinking about the problems and if there are enough
> > "little flowers and signs" the government may do something meaningful.
>As
>a
> > small citizen with no big campaign contributions my only recourse is to
>get
> > out them "little flowers and signs".
> > Bill "Ewie" Irwin
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: telebob x <telebob98@hotmail.com>
> > To: <austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>
> > Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 5:15 AM
> > Subject: Bush War rumination
> >
> >
> > > Frances et al....
> > >
> > > There may one or two others on this list who 'served' but from the
>tone,
>I
> > > expect not many. I was in the Army in 1964-65. I was in and out
>before
> > the
> > > going got hot and steamy in VC land, but I can tell you, as much as I
> > hated
> > > the military at the time, it was certainly one of the most intense and
>in
> > a
> > > way, better times of my life. The best thing was that I didn't have to
>'go
> > > anywhere and kill anybody.' But I can tell you for the most part, the
>guys
> > > in my units felt the same way. So this constant characterization of
>the
> > > Army as a bunch of low-IQ kill-crazies is both uninformed and kinda
> > stupid.
> > > My dad was a light colonel in the Army in Burma during WWII. He
>served
> > with
> > > the Burma Surgeon Dr. Gordon Seagrave under Gen Joe Stillwell (read
> > Barbara
> > > Tuchman's book on this era of history). I think of the US military,
>just
> > as
> > > I do of the firemen in NYC. They are mainly just people who want to
> > protect
> > > their friends and family...whatever their smaller more tactical
>reasons
> > > might be for being in the service.
> > >
> > > I remember someone saying that a gun is just a tool, but it is a tool
>for
> > > use when no other tool will do. Let the same be said for military
>action.
> > > Certainly there are some testosterone overamped gung-hos that want to
> > engage
> > > in the 'ultimate football game', but they are hardly the rule. Maybe
>that
> > > is what was wrong with Tim McVeigh, and maybe that is why they did not
>let
> > > him in to Special Forces. The army is pretty good at screening out
>the
> > nut
> > > cases. And even these gung-hos have a place and make pretty good
>weapons
> > to
> > > boot, if not great neighbors and citizens.
> > >
> > > I think about this stuff when I am driving down the road. But before
>we
> > can
> > > begin our Marshall Plan for Afghanistan, just as in Nazi Germany and
> > Japan,
> > > the atavistic monsters in charge have to be removed from power. Now,
>only
> > > the military can do this.
> > >
> > > No, I do not want the USA making the world safe for further corporate
> > > domination, Disneyland, and freeways, but I do want it to be a place
>where
> > I
> > > do not have to see office workers jumping out of firey buildings and
> > people
> > > hauling away kidneys and fingertips in buckets.
> > >
> > > When I see the peaceniks, the main thing I want them ask themselves,
>is,
> > > would they defend their belief in pacifism with their lives? That is,
>if
> > > someone who hates you and your belief system comes up and sees you
>with
> > your
> > > little flowers and signs and says...."Ah great, more enemy to kill,
>and
> > > these will be easier, since they will not defend themselves."
> > > Would they suddenly change their minds and fight or flee? And make no
> > > mistake, with the enemy we are facing today...those are our choices,
>fight
> > > or flee. Maybe later, or simultaneously we can begin our war for
>hearts
> > and
> > > minds....that phrase again.
> > >
> > > I, of course, have a special anger reserved for our bureaucratic
> > > "Intelligence Comunity" whose meddling I believe instigated many of
>the
> > > sources of the resentment we so achingly experienced on 9/11. Just as
>in
> > > Viet Nam, the 'blowback' from their actions is felt in far away places
>and
> > a
> > > lot closer to home than we expected. Perhaps this is the kind of
>thing
> > that
> > > will make every American realize how important it is to not leave
>policy
> > in
> > > the hands of a small group of 'professionals'. Small groups of
>'experts'
> > > always operate to first benefit the 'small group's' interests, and
>only
>in
> > a
> > > later sense to benefit the stated larger interest. That is how we got
>in
> > > Viet Nam and the Gulf War, and now that is how we are where we are
>now.
> > But
> > > FOR THE MOMENT, HOW WE GOT HERE DOESN'T MATTER. We have to end the
>present
> > > danger in order to re-think and re-structure the way "we are" and the
>way
> > > the USA relates to the rest of the world. (I have plenty to say on
>that
> > > topic too.)
> > >
> > > I do not think it does us much good to call this the 'Bush War'...the
> > action
> > > against us was planned long before the election. And would you be
>calling
> > it
> > > the Gore War if the exact same thing was happening with a different
> > > president? (I wonder if the Bush folks would have worked so hard at
> > stealing
> > > the election if they had know this was going to end up in their laps?)
> > >
> > > Hauling our all our old Viet Nam reactions to a totally different
> > situation
> > > is not constructive, and while I do not think of myself as a knee-jerk
> > > nationalist, I do think one has to make a decision as to which side of
>the
> > > 'fight or flee' line you are on.
> > >
> > > Tele
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "Wayne Johnson" <cadaobh2@brgnet.com>
> > > >To: <frances_morey@excite.com>, "telebob x" <telebob98@hotmail.com>,
> > > ><austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>
> > > >Subject: RE: [Austin-ghetto-list] Re: Bush War needs Arab approval
> > > >Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 08:28:20 -0400
> > > >
> > > >Uh, some how the idea of a lot of low IQ sociopaths running amok with
> > some
> > > >70T M1A2 tanks is not my idea of a good time.
> > > >
> > > >B.
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: austin-ghetto-list-admin@pairlist.net
> > > >[mailto:austin-ghetto-list-admin@pairlist.net]On Behalf Of Frances
>Morey
> > > >Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 3:31 PM
> > > >To: telebob x; austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
> > > >Subject: [Austin-ghetto-list] Re: Bush War needs Arab approval
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >tele,
> > > >That was a brilliant analysis, and a perfect solution: civilize the
> > > >bastards. Unfortunately it is a terrible challenge to re-educate the
> > > >individual for sanity. Timothy McVeigh didn't suffer a third world
> > > >upbringing. His profound disappointment at being rejected from the
> > special
> > > >forces propelled him to get even with the federal government and blow
>up
> > > >the
> > > >federal building. Since when did we allow the military to become
> > > >"selective." I am for bringing back the draft and letting those who
>would
> > > >otherwise be in prison play soldier to their hearts content.
> > > >Frances
> > > >On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 05:13:15 +0000, telebob x wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Roger's perceptions are all very well for leading us into group
> > > >suicide,
> > > >but
> > > > > check this one out.....Skunk Baxter? SKUNK BAXTER FROM STEELY
>DAN?
> > > >Yes,
> > > >
> > > > > one and the same...Skunk is now a military analyst and he has
>some
> > > > > suggestions on how to deal with the ongoing crisis....
> > > > > BTW...calling it Bush War is
> > > > >
> > > > > (forwarded from the Jive95 list)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > excerpted from --- Unlikely Doves: Counter-terrorism Experts
> > > > > David Corn, AlterNet
> > > > > September 28, 2001
> > > > >
> > > > > The need to think beyond military solutions was also raised at a
> > > > > bizarre talk given by Jeff "Skunk" Baxter before a group of
>military
> > > > > policymeisters, defense contractors, and Defense Department
>employees
> > > > > a few days after the attack. Weeks before September 11, the
>Potomac
> > > > > Institute for Policy Studies, a Pentagon-friendly think tank, had
> > > > > asked Baxter, who was a lead guitarist for the Doobie Brothers
>and
> > > > > Steely Dan and a music-technology wiz before fashioning himself
>into
> > > > > a military-technology expert, to present the case for a national
> > > > > missile defense. After the World Trade Center and Pentagon
>attacks,
> > > > > Baxter -- with his droopy mustache and old-guy pony tail -- was
>still
> > > > > happy to do so. He argued that in the post-9/11 world, missile
> > > > > defense remains "imperative" because China still could intimidate
>the
> > > > > United States by threatening to launch one or more of its two
>dozen
> > > > > or so nuclear missiles. Beijing, he claimed, would not be
>deterred
>by
> > > > > a U.S. counterstrike: "If we launch a nuclear attack against
>China --
> > > > > all we do is solve their housing crisis." He maintained that
>Chinese
> > > > > leaders do not think about "protecting the public." So imagine,
>he
> > > > > commanded his audience, if in the midst of another September
>11-like
> > > > > event, China moved against Taiwan and told Washington, back off
>or
> > > > > we'll take out Los Angeles. How could the president appear on
> > > > > television and say, I am going to prosecute a war in Taiwan, and
> > > > > America must prepare for further casualties?
> > > > >
> > > > > Here was an undiluted Star Wars fanatic. What was interesting,
> > > > > however, was that even a hawk like Baxter, who is a consultant to
>the
> > > > > Pentagon, saw the limits of a counterterrorism policy that
>depends
> > > > > upon military action. The problem, as he put it, is the United
>States
> > > > > faces an adversary driven by powerful forces: "You live in a
> > > > > dirt-poor place, but if you blow yourself up in the name of
>Allah,
> > > > > you'll get 73 virgins, all the dope you can smoke, a backstage
>passes
> > > > > to Bruce Springsteen ... How do we nullify and negate that
>threat?"
> > > > > Simple, he said: "The way to keep a kamikaze pilot out of
>aircraft
> > > > > ... is to deal with it at the source" -- that is, the motivation.
> > > > >
> > > > > The goal of U.S. policy, he said, should be to "re-engineer the
> > > > > perceptions of our enemies." Suicide bombers have to be convinced
> > > > > "they get nothing for dying for Allah," and the people who
>support
> > > > > terrorists -- leaders or commoners -- have to be persuaded such
> > > > > violence is an insult to Islam and counterproductive. So Baxter
> > > > > proposed a Manhattan Project of "perception engineering," which
>would
> > > > > explore and develop a variety of means: psychological warfare,
> > > > > propaganda campaigns designed by advertising executives ("these
>guys
> > > > > were selling Chevrolets when they were crap with the 'heartbeat
>of
> > > > > America'"); nanomachines that can invade the circulatory system
>and
> > > > > effect the brain and thought patterns of the target; cultural
> > > > > products that can engender warm feelings toward the United
>States.
> > > > > "This World War III is a different war," Baxter commented. "It's
>an
> > > > > information war ... a war fought with ideas ... I can give you a
> > > > > valium and make you feel good. I can give you a musical score and
> > > > > engineer your perceptions ... All this is doable."
> > > > >
> > > > > The audience's positive response was intriguing. Most listeners
> > > > > appeared to accept his premise that motivation and causation had
>to
> > > > > be addressed. Baxter, of course, skipped past the possibility
>that
> > > > > persons who harbor ill-will toward the United States might
>possess
> > > > > legitimate grievances about, say, economic conditions, the
>repressive
> > > > > conduct of governments backed by Washington, or the pervasive
> > > > > influence of American culture. His answer was not to solve
>problems,
> > > > > but to manipulate the responses to problems. Nevertheless, his
>kooky
> > > > > proposal focused on ideas, not missiles.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: Roger Baker <rcbaker@infohiwy.net>
> > > > > >Reply-To: rcbaker@eden.infohwy.com
> > > > > >To: austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
> > > > > >Subject: [Austin-ghetto-list] Bush War needs Arab approval
> > > > > >Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 03:07:33 -0500
> > > > > >
> > > > > >When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor things were simple; we
>just
> > went
> > > >to
> > > > > >war and bombed them right back twice as hard with weapons of
>mass
> > > > > >destruction. Whatever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >But Bush's new infinite crusade against terrorism, fought
>wherever
> > it
> > > >lurks
> > > > > >and as long as it takes, is a bit trickier than he made it seem
>at
> > > >first:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"...The central strategic conundrum is this: the more the United
> > > >States
> > > > > >presses moderate, often autocratic leaders in the Middle East to
> > help
> > > >in
> > > >
> > > > > >its
> > > > > >campaign, the more it jeopardizes them. If they go too far, they
> > risk,
> > > >at
> > > > > >best, being labeled American stooges, and at worst, losing power
>to
> > > >Islamic
> > > > > >militants in their own societies..."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >It seems that we forgot that we might need Arab permission to go
>to
> > > >war
> > > >or
> > > > > >else the war itself could destabilize the Arab host countries,
>kind
> > of
> > > >like
> > > > > >the evil Mr. bin Laden was warning us. So this will necessarily
>have
> > > >to
> > > >be
> > > > > >a kinder and gentler war calculated not to create too many
> > inflamatory
> > > > > >headlines in Egyptian newspapers, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> > > >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >"The Skinny on Weight Loss: One Woman's
> > > >True Journey to Fat and Back" by Frances Morey
> > > >Order online <www.xlibris.com/bookstore>
> > > >or by phone at 1-888-795-4274 Extension #276
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________________
> > > >Send a cool gift with your E-Card
> > > >http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp