Greetings, fellow political obsessives! With the world as it is, anyone who is not political is ... well, let's be polite and say, 'misguided'.
Perhaps my view will be too discordant to find a place here, but on the other hand, we are supposed to believe that Diversity Is Good, so ... here I go.
My parents were hard-line FDR Democrats from poor/workingclass backgrounds. I was born (in 1943) and raised in Houston Texas, where there were few Republicans but a lot of conservatives, whom we (my parents and I) hated like death itself. The right wing then, as we experienced them, were mean-spirited, hateful racists. If a liberal wrote a letter to the editor and they could get your phone number, they had a 'phone tree' that would ring your phone every 15 minutes 24-hours a day.
My parents were nominal Methodists, and I have kept a lovely little gold medal I received for regular Sunday School attendance. But when I was about 12 I decided that the existence of God was most unlikely, aided by reading some Voltaire. So I am an atheist, although I don’t believe that materialism can account for the world we experience. (In other words, I am not persuaded by people like Daniel Dennet.)
Anyway, I got into the Civil Rights movement early -- a friend and I went down to the first sit-in at Weingarten's supermarket. This was about 1960 or '61. We nearly caused a riot because we started arguing with the crowd of whites gathered around --- fortunately an undercover policeman from the Texas Department of Public Safety escorted us away before the fists began flying.
These experiences, and others, made me move left from my parents' liberalism, and I joined the Young Peoples Socialist League in 1959. I had found out about it from reading liberal magazines available at a newsstand in downtown Houston, then answering classified ads for more radical magazines (like Dave Dellinger's Liberation).
I stayed active in the Civil Rights movement after going to University. Friends of mine and I drove up (five of us in a VW bug) from Austin Texas to Washington for the March on Washington in 1963. I took part in a voter registration drive in Fayette County, Tennessee in the summer of 1964. By this time I had moved 'way left and joined a small communist (Trotskyist) sect. The Vietnam war was heating up about then and of course I went to every march I could, including the first big SDS-sponsored march in Washington in 1965.
I got drafted when I graduated from university in 1967. I had had a previous experience with the draft when I took a year out from college in 1965, and had refused to sign the loyalty oath. The second time I was interviewed by two FBI guys, with everything I said being taped. I was young and stupid and proudly told them I wanted to see the NVA drive the American Army into the South China sea.
I got inducted into the Army anyway, was trained as a combat infantryman, deserted on my way to Vietnam, hid out in the Bay Area for 18 months, turned myself in, and was sentenced to six months at hard labor and two-thirds reduction in pay, the max they could give for AWOL. (They had wanted to charge me with desertion, which carries a maximum sentence of five years, but could not make it stick legally.)
This post is too long already, even for an introduction, so I’ll stop here. My views have evolved quite a bit in the last couple of decades. I think in a formal sense, taking my positions and sensibilities out of any current context, I am closest to being a pre-1960s liberal. But in practice I find that I most often agree with the neo-cons today.
As a final point: my experiences in politics have made me draw the conclusions that human motivations are almost always mixed; that there are nasty and nice people holding almost every political position you can think of (save, perhaps, for outright racists and neoNazis); and that it’s best, in debate, to assume that your opponent has honourable motivations and only holds his erroneous views because you have not been persuasive enough in your arguments.
I like to read a lot, fiction and non-fiction, and enjoy swapping tips on good authors with other readers.
Doug
Full Version: Ex-communist Neo-con (sort Of) Says "hello"
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Politics In General
What do you and your troupe have to gain from jumping into our forum? I don't like the idea of guilt by association, but considering you were personally mentioned by someone that was obviously trying to pick a fight with one of our members, I'd almost stretch and call this a board invasion.
I've got my eye on you.
I've got my eye on you.
Rakshasa:
(1) I don't have a "troupe".
(2) I'm flattered that I was mentioned personally. I'll have to check it out. Does the ego good.
(3) If this Board is closed to non-Leftists, I will of course leave immediately. Or if there is a section open only to Leftists, I will not post there. I think such restrictions are completely reasonable.
(4) I came across this board by accident -- probably by Googling on "Invision Power Board". I was attracted by the "White Rose Society" title -- the original White Rose Society are among my personal heroes.
(5) I just discovered these Forums a few months ago. The first one I used was LiberalForum -- run by liberals, but with a section open to conservatives as well. It's the most interesting section of the Board, in my opinion, and Left and Right clash there every day, often pretty hard, but almost always with civility. I've played a pretty big role there -- if you're worried, check with their moderators about me (I use the same nickname). I've learned a lot there, and possibly others have learned something from me.
(6) In my cyber-travels, I've noticed that different Boards seem to attract different sorts of people, with respect to their debating styles. As I said, LiberalForum is a very civilized Board. I have found others which are not: everyone seems to spend most of their time engaging in juvenile insults. I have been banned -- at least temporarily -- from two such boards: one, a Left-run one, effectively for claiming that, as a conservative, I opposed the use of torture by American forces, and the other, a famous Right-run one, for just raising the issue.
(7) I believe, and I try to adhere to this, that personal attacks are out of place in political debates, even if they are in some sense morally justified on occasion. Best just to assume that your opponent has honorable motivations, but is misguided or ill-informed, and argue on those grounds. One's aim should not be to win the argument, but to win the person.
(8)In the same spirit, I try to adhere to the advice of the great Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, who pointed out, in a review of a book by Bukharin, that in physical warfare we avoid our enemy's strongpoints, and attack his weak points, but that in political warfare, we must do just the opposite.
Doug
(1) I don't have a "troupe".
(2) I'm flattered that I was mentioned personally. I'll have to check it out. Does the ego good.
(3) If this Board is closed to non-Leftists, I will of course leave immediately. Or if there is a section open only to Leftists, I will not post there. I think such restrictions are completely reasonable.
(4) I came across this board by accident -- probably by Googling on "Invision Power Board". I was attracted by the "White Rose Society" title -- the original White Rose Society are among my personal heroes.
(5) I just discovered these Forums a few months ago. The first one I used was LiberalForum -- run by liberals, but with a section open to conservatives as well. It's the most interesting section of the Board, in my opinion, and Left and Right clash there every day, often pretty hard, but almost always with civility. I've played a pretty big role there -- if you're worried, check with their moderators about me (I use the same nickname). I've learned a lot there, and possibly others have learned something from me.
(6) In my cyber-travels, I've noticed that different Boards seem to attract different sorts of people, with respect to their debating styles. As I said, LiberalForum is a very civilized Board. I have found others which are not: everyone seems to spend most of their time engaging in juvenile insults. I have been banned -- at least temporarily -- from two such boards: one, a Left-run one, effectively for claiming that, as a conservative, I opposed the use of torture by American forces, and the other, a famous Right-run one, for just raising the issue.
(7) I believe, and I try to adhere to this, that personal attacks are out of place in political debates, even if they are in some sense morally justified on occasion. Best just to assume that your opponent has honorable motivations, but is misguided or ill-informed, and argue on those grounds. One's aim should not be to win the argument, but to win the person.
(8)In the same spirit, I try to adhere to the advice of the great Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, who pointed out, in a review of a book by Bukharin, that in physical warfare we avoid our enemy's strongpoints, and attack his weak points, but that in political warfare, we must do just the opposite.
Doug
Hey Doug. even though I'm just as new here as you are, I would say you are quite welcome no matter which side you're on. You don't have to be a "leftist" to be level headed. I'm sure your contributions will be well worth reading without your being a "leftist". Looking forward to whatever comes. Welcome !
What's a Leftist? 
Who gets to define that label? The Right? Or the moderates? Who gets to define the center? James Carville? Pat Buchanan?
These days, it seems as though a leftist is anyone to the left of say, Barry Goldwater. That's hardly a leftist. Eisenhower to some modern "Republican" ideologies appears as though he's some sort of Revolutionary Marxist.
Don't buy into that labeling crap. It'll get you into trouble here. This isn't the Free Republic Board.
Who gets to define that label? The Right? Or the moderates? Who gets to define the center? James Carville? Pat Buchanan?
These days, it seems as though a leftist is anyone to the left of say, Barry Goldwater. That's hardly a leftist. Eisenhower to some modern "Republican" ideologies appears as though he's some sort of Revolutionary Marxist.
Don't buy into that labeling crap. It'll get you into trouble here. This isn't the Free Republic Board.
....exactly....which is why I used italics on the word. I agree.
| QUOTE (Doug @ Thursday, 12 May 2005, 4:05 am) |
(3) If this Board is closed to non-Leftists, I will of course leave immediately. Or if there is a section open only to Leftists, I will not post there. I think such restrictions are completely reasonable. |
Like I've said above. Who defines what a Leftist, or a Non-Leftist is? Right Wing boards?
| QUOTE (Doug) |
(4) I came across this board by accident -- probably by Googling on "Invision Power Board". I was attracted by the "White Rose Society" title -- the original White Rose Society are among my personal heroes. |
You have personal heroes who are Leftists? Hmmm. That's interesting.
Unless of course you buy into that lame argument that Nazis are Socialists. Then I suppose the White Rose Society might be considered Right Wingers.
| QUOTE (Doug) |
(8)In the same spirit, I try to adhere to the advice of the great Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, who pointed out, in a review of a book by Bukharin, that in physical warfare we avoid our enemy's strongpoints, and attack his weak points, but that in political warfare, we must do just the opposite. |
Rove uses that tactic all the time. Is Rove a Marxist?
Seamus: of course you are right, that people cannot be labelled, with respect to their political views, so easily as atoms. So, although I would call myself a conservative, I opposed the invasion of Iraq at the time it occurred, on prudential grounds [but hope that I have been/will be proven wrong]; am an atheist; support abortion rights; and favor the implementation of a national health insurance scheme in the US. At the same time, I generally support the neo-con approach to foreign policy; hate Political Correctness; and don't generally like the centralization via judicial review of politics which has gone on in the US in the last few decades.
Thus I think it would be wrong of me to pretend that, overall, my views would find favor among those who call themselves liberals, or Leftists. Thus I do not post at Democratic Underground, and stay away from sections of Boards which proclaim them to be for liberals/progressives only.
I think the problem is, there is a kind of geometry of conflict, which says: all struggles will ultimately be between two sides: you can't have a three-way battle. So we all have to join one side or another, and resign ourselves to having allies with whom we may quarrel.
This is certainly the case with the conservative movement: one can easily identify at least four intellectual tendencies within it, some of them bitterly opposed to each other. I'm not so familiar with the liberal side, so I don't know if you are similarly divided.
Nonetheless, there is often enough common ground so that we can talk to each other, even if we sometimes shout, and some of us, at least, try to retain the scientific spirit about what we believe, i.e. that all of our beliefs are just a hopefully-reasonable approximation to reality, our best guess, and are open to being refined, or even refuted, if new evidence is brought to our attention.
Another image I like, in addition to the way scientists (ideally!) go about their work, is the way wars used to be fought among gentlemen.
For instance, the British had plenty of reason not to feel warmly towards George Washington, given that he had deprived them of their best North American colonies.
Yet, when news of his death in 1799 reached the other side of the Atlantic, the British Channel Fleet honored him by firing a twenty-gun salute (just one less than is given to a reigning monarch).
I cannot see this happening in our enlightened times, more's the pity.
Doug
Thus I think it would be wrong of me to pretend that, overall, my views would find favor among those who call themselves liberals, or Leftists. Thus I do not post at Democratic Underground, and stay away from sections of Boards which proclaim them to be for liberals/progressives only.
I think the problem is, there is a kind of geometry of conflict, which says: all struggles will ultimately be between two sides: you can't have a three-way battle. So we all have to join one side or another, and resign ourselves to having allies with whom we may quarrel.
This is certainly the case with the conservative movement: one can easily identify at least four intellectual tendencies within it, some of them bitterly opposed to each other. I'm not so familiar with the liberal side, so I don't know if you are similarly divided.
Nonetheless, there is often enough common ground so that we can talk to each other, even if we sometimes shout, and some of us, at least, try to retain the scientific spirit about what we believe, i.e. that all of our beliefs are just a hopefully-reasonable approximation to reality, our best guess, and are open to being refined, or even refuted, if new evidence is brought to our attention.
Another image I like, in addition to the way scientists (ideally!) go about their work, is the way wars used to be fought among gentlemen.
For instance, the British had plenty of reason not to feel warmly towards George Washington, given that he had deprived them of their best North American colonies.
Yet, when news of his death in 1799 reached the other side of the Atlantic, the British Channel Fleet honored him by firing a twenty-gun salute (just one less than is given to a reigning monarch).
I cannot see this happening in our enlightened times, more's the pity.
Doug
I think the young people in the White Rose Society were liberals, not Leftists, if I am not mistaken. Not that formal ideology meant much under the Nazis (who of course were not Socialists, but of the far Right -- they only stole Socialist and Communist social policy and organizational methods for their own purposes, and their main purpose was to shore up capitalism.
But I have a few genuinely Leftist heroes also.
Karl Rove most decidedly does not follow Gramsci's advice. He fights political fights as if they were physical wars. Not a nice man.
Doug
But I have a few genuinely Leftist heroes also.
Karl Rove most decidedly does not follow Gramsci's advice. He fights political fights as if they were physical wars. Not a nice man.
Doug
My dime... (used to be two cents, inflation you know) I don't think this is the Doug ol poopeye was referring to... It's just a coincidence that this one showed up almost immediately after the other being mentioned...
This other Doug is clearly an imposter. (Unless he's my evil twin, separated from me at birth and adopted to a different family.)
| QUOTE (Doug) |
| I think the young people in the White Rose Society were liberals, not Leftists, if I am not mistaken. |
A good point. Wingnutz wouldn't see that. Then again, there's much that wingnutz miss.
| QUOTE (Doug) |
| Not that formal ideology meant much under the Nazis (who of course were not Socialists, but of the far Right -- they only stole Socialist and Communist social policy and organizational methods for their own purposes, and their main purpose was to shore up capitalism. |
OK... You're not a lunatic.
| QUOTE (Doug) |
| But I have a few genuinely Leftist heroes also. |
Once a person sees only a "pure" ideology as the only viable ideology they're useless.
| QUOTE (Doug) |
| Karl Rove most decidedly does not follow Gramsci's advice. He fights political fights as if they were physical wars. Not a nice man. |
I'll have to disagree with you there. He does attack his opponent's strengths.
Example 1: Ann Richard's plurality. Example 2: John Kerry's War Record. And these are just off the top of my head.
But I will agree that he practices War By Other Means.
I'll agree with you on what Rove is. He is an asshole. Pure and simple.
I see what you mean about Karl Rove. I think Gramsci and I are talking about political warfare of the "battle of ideas" sort, not electoral politics.
I think the rules in electoral politics are -- or should be -- that you must not do anything that degrades the general political consciousness. But of course electoral politics is much different from the battle of ideas.
I myself am uneasy with the word "ideology" -- on the one hand, one wants to approach the scientific ideal, arriving at a set of relatively simple general laws about society and individuals from which political guidance can be derived. (In my opinion, a weakness common to both American liberalism and conservatism is a lack of interest in outlining such general laws.)
One of the attractions of Marxism to intellectuals was its generally 'scientific' approach to explaining why things had happened in history, where human society was going, how it was structured, and so on. It purported to give you tools with which to see below the superficial explanations by power agencies of why they did things, to the self-interest below. Ex-Marxists miss this sort of certainty.
On the other hand, society is so complex, as shown by the way it differs from culture to culture, and across history, that we must be very careful in formulating such laws. We tend to make do with some culture-specific truisms, and a few sensibilities and dispositions. Thus liberals are very concerned with fairness, conservatives with order and stability. Liberals are uncomfortable with American military and corporate power, conservatives are uncomfortable with weakness of the same.
At least it gives us a lot to talk about.
I think the rules in electoral politics are -- or should be -- that you must not do anything that degrades the general political consciousness. But of course electoral politics is much different from the battle of ideas.
I myself am uneasy with the word "ideology" -- on the one hand, one wants to approach the scientific ideal, arriving at a set of relatively simple general laws about society and individuals from which political guidance can be derived. (In my opinion, a weakness common to both American liberalism and conservatism is a lack of interest in outlining such general laws.)
One of the attractions of Marxism to intellectuals was its generally 'scientific' approach to explaining why things had happened in history, where human society was going, how it was structured, and so on. It purported to give you tools with which to see below the superficial explanations by power agencies of why they did things, to the self-interest below. Ex-Marxists miss this sort of certainty.
On the other hand, society is so complex, as shown by the way it differs from culture to culture, and across history, that we must be very careful in formulating such laws. We tend to make do with some culture-specific truisms, and a few sensibilities and dispositions. Thus liberals are very concerned with fairness, conservatives with order and stability. Liberals are uncomfortable with American military and corporate power, conservatives are uncomfortable with weakness of the same.
At least it gives us a lot to talk about.
| QUOTE (Doug @ Thursday, 12 May 2005, 6:55 am) |
| This other Doug is clearly an imposter. (Unless he's my evil twin, separated from me at birth and adopted to a different family.) |
That afore mentioned other Doug is the owner of another forum and a liar...
Do you own a forum, Doug?
Also, I have to dispute your allegation that Liberals are against the military and point you to the fact that more Democrats in congress served their country in the military than their repooplican counterparts...
I don't own a Forum. I think I know who you're talking about though, because I tried to register on a Forum and was denied, because my name was the same as the name of the owner.
I didn't say, or rather didn't mean if I did say, that Democratic Party politicians are uncomfortable with American military power. They have a more complex relationship to it (and a better one).
I meant liberals. That is, the sort of people who consider themselves liberals (not necessarily the Democratic Party voting base).
I wasn't trying to be provocative in this: I thought it would be generally accepted. I tried to put it in a neutral way.
Example: you would seldom see a liberal bumper sticker calling for increased military spending. You might see one calling for more benefits for service personnel, but that's not quite the same thing. That's calculated to get votes and to counter the (valid) impression of many people that ... many liberals are not comfortable with American military power.
Thus on various campuses, ROTC is banned, and/or the military are not allowed to recruit. It's not conservatives doing this.
Does anyone seriously disagree with the statement -- I will put it in the most nuanced and qualified way that I can -- that a significant number of liberals are not comfortable with American military power?
Doug
I didn't say, or rather didn't mean if I did say, that Democratic Party politicians are uncomfortable with American military power. They have a more complex relationship to it (and a better one).
I meant liberals. That is, the sort of people who consider themselves liberals (not necessarily the Democratic Party voting base).
I wasn't trying to be provocative in this: I thought it would be generally accepted. I tried to put it in a neutral way.
Example: you would seldom see a liberal bumper sticker calling for increased military spending. You might see one calling for more benefits for service personnel, but that's not quite the same thing. That's calculated to get votes and to counter the (valid) impression of many people that ... many liberals are not comfortable with American military power.
Thus on various campuses, ROTC is banned, and/or the military are not allowed to recruit. It's not conservatives doing this.
Does anyone seriously disagree with the statement -- I will put it in the most nuanced and qualified way that I can -- that a significant number of liberals are not comfortable with American military power?
Doug
Military power is neither here nor there.
Creating it and maintaining it are no-brainers, given how quickly we manage to do both.
What I am uncomfortable with is the prevailing, imperialist, social darwinist, and Christian militant policy judgment that is humiliating me and my country.
Creating it and maintaining it are no-brainers, given how quickly we manage to do both.
What I am uncomfortable with is the prevailing, imperialist, social darwinist, and Christian militant policy judgment that is humiliating me and my country.
| QUOTE (TheStripey1 @ Thursday, 12 May 2005, 8:39 am) |
| My dime... (used to be two cents, inflation you know) I don't think this is the Doug ol poopeye was referring to... It's just a coincidence that this one showed up almost immediately after the other being mentioned... |
It's like this forum stepped into the Twilight Zone or something.
What're the odds?Sorry for being skeptical... if you saw the part where they mentioned a Doug running Capitol Hill Blue, you'd understand. Welcome aboard.
| QUOTE (Rakshasa @ Thursday, 12 May 2005, 6:06 pm) | ||
It's like this forum stepped into the Twilight Zone or something. What're the odds?Sorry for being skeptical... if you saw the part where they mentioned a Doug running Capitol Hill Blue, you'd understand. Welcome aboard. |
I understand, when I saw Doug's post, I read it straight away too, to see if this D was A. that D or maybe B. a different D or C. the same D as an academy award winner... At this point I'm going with B. ... a different D...Purely alphabetically speaking... you understand...
| QUOTE (fons_castaliae @ Thursday, 12 May 2005, 4:51 pm) |
| Military power is neither here nor there. Creating it and maintaining it are no-brainers, given how quickly we manage to do both. What I am uncomfortable with is the prevailing, imperialist, social darwinist, and Christian militant policy judgment that is humiliating me and my country. |
Fons said:
| QUOTE |
| Military power is neither here nor there. Creating it and maintaining it are no-brainers, given how quickly we manage to do both. What I am uncomfortable with is the prevailing, imperialist, social darwinist, and Christian militant policy judgment that is humiliating me and my country. |
I think it depends on how you view the world. If there are no more threats of the order of the Soviet Union, and will not be, then we can begin to stand the military down, and let it wither away.
If there are, then we need not just a strong military, but the strongest military.
I don't see how you can call current American policy any of:
imperialist
Social Darwinist
Christian militant
I suppose to a Leftist, it's obvious. But not to me (and not to a lot of other Americans). Could you justify those statements?
Doug
| QUOTE (Doug @ Monday, 16 May 2005, 6:05 pm) |
I don't see how you can call current American policy any of: imperialist |
What do you call having over 700 military bases in something like 100 countries? Just good fun?
Sorrows of Empire
By your definition Rome didn't have an empire.
You know, a rose by any other name will still prick you in the finger and give you nasty case of Necrotizing fasciitis.
| QUOTE (Doug @ Monday, 16 May 2005, 6:05 pm) |
Social Darwinist |
What is destroying ("reforming" in GOP Orwellian Dialect) social safety nets, the middle class and labor, while we support right wing dictatorships overseas who make the world safe for Corporate Feudalists and their never ending need for cheap labor and resources? Disney World? Dickensian Hell Redux?
| QUOTE (Doug @ Monday, 16 May 2005, 6:05 pm) |
Christian militant |
Please educate yourself. Pay close attention the the Texas GOP Platform for 2004
The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party
a public information project from TheocracyWatch.org
Read and understand the concept of Theonomic Dominionism.
| QUOTE (Doug @ Monday, 16 May 2005, 6:05 pm) |
I suppose to a Leftist, it's obvious. But not to me (and not to a lot of other Americans). Could you justify those statements? |
Leftist? What's a Leftist? Dwight David Eisenhower? If you're going to insist on using these silly labels we'll need you to clearly define what the center is. It ain't going to be pretty if you do.
I'll tell you Doug. If you want to get an education the first step you need to take is to step away from the infotainment pabulum.
"To keep information from the public is the function of the corporate media."
--Gore Vidal, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace
Seamus? there was the site you showed us earlier this week on a site far far away... remember? the Onward anti-Christian Soldiers one? Purrhaps you could post that link here as well and let our newbie Doug explain it...
And as far as there being no USSR to guard against, it sounds to me, Doug that you haven't yet heard about the BRICS... you think we're the only superpower on the planet?
Think again...
You think we are the strongest on the planet?
Think again...
And as far as there being no USSR to guard against, it sounds to me, Doug that you haven't yet heard about the BRICS... you think we're the only superpower on the planet?
Think again...
You think we are the strongest on the planet?
Think again...
| QUOTE (TheStripey1 @ Tuesday, 17 May 2005, 8:53 am) |
| Seamus? there was the site you showed us earlier this week on a site far far away... remember? the Onward anti-Christian Soldiers one? Purrhaps you could post that link here as well and let our newbie Doug explain it... |
Stripey,
Ask and ye shall receive!
Do you mean these folks? You know Stripey, Soldiers who splatter people's brains for Jesus? Say hallelujah!
Onward Christian Soldiers - Equipping Military Personnel for Christ-Centered Duty
Or do I need to post General Boykin's quote about his god being a real god as opposed to the god of Islam? Boykin's our poster boy for creeping theocracy.
General Casts War in Religious Terms
"I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."
--Lt. Gen. William G. ‘Jerry’ Boykin, speaking about battle with a Muslim warlord.
Top terrorist hunter’s divisive views - General casts military, anti-terror efforts in religious terms
The Holy Warrior
| QUOTE (TheStripey1 @ Tuesday, 17 May 2005, 8:53 am) |
| You think we are the strongest on the planet? Think again... |
The USN is scared shitless of Sunburn.
They have no adequate defense against this new generation cruise missile.
| QUOTE (Seamus @ Tuesday, 17 May 2005, 10:16 am) | ||
The USN is scared shitless of Sunburn. They have no adequate defense against this new generation cruise missile. |
And that's not even the best cruise missile the Iranians have. Have you read about the SS-NX-26 Yakhonts, Seamus?
| QUOTE (Rakshasa @ Tuesday, 17 May 2005, 10:17 am) | ||||
And that's not even the best cruise missile the Iranians have. Have you read about the SS-NX-26 Yakhonts, Seamus? |
Rakshasa, I haven't read about them...yet...have you got anything handy on those. Otherwise, I'll start googling.
| QUOTE (Rakshasa @ Tuesday, 17 May 2005, 11:17 am) |
| And that's not even the best cruise missile the Iranians have. Have you read about the SS-NX-26 Yakhonts, Seamus? |
Da!
Sadly, all I know is that it's a more advanced Sunburn. I didn't realize that they were operational outside of the FSU.
Apparently I'm behind in my reading.
One of the scenarios with Sunburn was to bottle up the Straights of Hormuz and turn the Persian Gulf into a killing field. Sunburns are nasty shit. Imagine how much worse it would be if they were using something more advanced.
| QUOTE (Seamus @ Tuesday, 17 May 2005, 11:30 am) |
| Da! Apparently I'm behind in my reading. |
The bane of my existence.
Let's see... A new advanced Sunburn? What do you want to bet that it has the same advanced technology that our cruise missiles do.... errrr... did.
Remember Magnequench?
Doug? what happened to Doug? He seems to have disappeared... maybe he's out looking for some suntan lotion... Doug?
Remember Magnequench?
Doug? what happened to Doug? He seems to have disappeared... maybe he's out looking for some suntan lotion... Doug?
Doug's here, he's here, and as I look out the window at a cold, damp English afternoon, I can only dream about sunburn.
Sadly, not having chosen the right parents, I've got to work for my living (sort of), which consists, as the moment, of marking zillions of exam papers. So I don't have the time to take up all the points raised above, until, maybe, this weekend.
So I will just make a couple of observations:
On Empire: let's agree on a definition, or at least some way of making a decision about what's an empire.
You say 700 military bases overseas equals an empire?
If a country hosts an American military base, then it's part of our empire?
Maybe this isn't your view -- I ask just to get it clarified.
On another point: do you believe that we faced a serious threat from the Soviet Union and allied communist movements after WWII? Or do you believe that the Cold War was just a put-up job by greedy corporate racist media against the peace-loving USSR? Or ...?
So much for empire. Give me something to respond to on that and away we'll go.
Now, as for "Sunburn," I think I must have missed some earlier discussion, because I am almost completely in the dark here, not only about the things being referred to, but also about their significance. I gather we're talking about missiles? Are these missiles arguments for, or against, current American foreign policy? Or maybe I've missed something here.
Do give me more information, it sounds like it may be yet another reason we should greatly increase our military spending.
Also: a few koo-koo generals saying silly things proves what? Again, I don't see the connection.
America is a secular state. We have no fundamentalists to speak of. (Oh, I know, you think those Southern Baptists who are Biblical literalists are fundamentalists, but (1) they will never get near real political power, and (2) if they did, they would only take us back to the 50s. Your real fundamentalists are the head-hackers who would take us back to the Middle Ages, your Taliban and such like. Bless your heart, we atheists live in paradise in America!)
I'll read that Texas Republican manifesto, especially as I'm a Texan who would probably vote Republican if I voted, but I'll also keep in mind the nice Texas Republicans whom I know, both the upper middle class Christians, and the good old boys I sometimes drink with out in the country, sitting under our Confederate Flag. Good folks who mean no harm to anyone.
Okay, back to my exam papers.
Doug
Sadly, not having chosen the right parents, I've got to work for my living (sort of), which consists, as the moment, of marking zillions of exam papers. So I don't have the time to take up all the points raised above, until, maybe, this weekend.
So I will just make a couple of observations:
On Empire: let's agree on a definition, or at least some way of making a decision about what's an empire.
You say 700 military bases overseas equals an empire?
If a country hosts an American military base, then it's part of our empire?
Maybe this isn't your view -- I ask just to get it clarified.
On another point: do you believe that we faced a serious threat from the Soviet Union and allied communist movements after WWII? Or do you believe that the Cold War was just a put-up job by greedy corporate racist media against the peace-loving USSR? Or ...?
So much for empire. Give me something to respond to on that and away we'll go.
Now, as for "Sunburn," I think I must have missed some earlier discussion, because I am almost completely in the dark here, not only about the things being referred to, but also about their significance. I gather we're talking about missiles? Are these missiles arguments for, or against, current American foreign policy? Or maybe I've missed something here.
Do give me more information, it sounds like it may be yet another reason we should greatly increase our military spending.
Also: a few koo-koo generals saying silly things proves what? Again, I don't see the connection.
America is a secular state. We have no fundamentalists to speak of. (Oh, I know, you think those Southern Baptists who are Biblical literalists are fundamentalists, but (1) they will never get near real political power, and (2) if they did, they would only take us back to the 50s. Your real fundamentalists are the head-hackers who would take us back to the Middle Ages, your Taliban and such like. Bless your heart, we atheists live in paradise in America!)
I'll read that Texas Republican manifesto, especially as I'm a Texan who would probably vote Republican if I voted, but I'll also keep in mind the nice Texas Republicans whom I know, both the upper middle class Christians, and the good old boys I sometimes drink with out in the country, sitting under our Confederate Flag. Good folks who mean no harm to anyone.
Okay, back to my exam papers.
Doug
| QUOTE (Doug @ Wednesday, 18 May 2005, 11:17 am) |
| Doug's here, he's here, and as I look out the window at a cold, damp English afternoon, I can only dream about sunburn. |
Interesting time zone dilemma, eh?
| QUOTE (Panda @ Wednesday, 18 May 2005, 4:46 pm) | ||
Interesting time zone dilemma, eh? |
Sticky Wicket that.
| QUOTE (Doug @ Wednesday, 18 May 2005, 12:17 pm) |
| On another point: do you believe that we faced a serious threat from the Soviet Union and allied communist movements after WWII? Or do you believe that the Cold War was just a put-up job by greedy corporate racist media against the peace-loving USSR? Or ...? |
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in their right mind that honestly thinks that. I wasn't even politically aware during the Cold War, and I know that it was a power struggle between two superpowers and nothing more.
| QUOTE |
| Now, as for "Sunburn," I think I must have missed some earlier discussion, because I am almost completely in the dark here, not only about the things being referred to, but also about their significance. I gather we're talking about missiles? Are these missiles arguments for, or against, current American foreign policy? Or maybe I've missed something here. |
Sunburn and Yakhonts are Russian cruise missiles that are currently impossible to intercept. Iran owns both of them. How much, I'm not certain.
| QUOTE |
| Do give me more information, it sounds like it may be yet another reason we should greatly increase our military spending. |
Or not pick a fight with a country that could flatten our Navy. You don't take knives to a gunfight.
| QUOTE |
| Also: a few koo-koo generals saying silly things proves what? Again, I don't see the connection. |
They're Generals, the ones making the decisions. It would be different if they were even Captains, but they're Generals, casting wars in a religious light. It's very dangerous to have Generals that view our army as Crusaders.
| QUOTE |
| America is a secular state. We have no fundamentalists to speak of. |
Wrong. America has fundamentalists, and you know it.
| QUOTE |
| Oh, I know, you think those Southern Baptists who are Biblical literalists are fundamentalists, but (1) they will never get near real political power |
Here's a brief list of fundamentalist power players in Washington.
Frist
Delay
(formerly) Ashcroft
Inhofe
Santorum
Falwell
Robertson
Reed
Miller
Brownback
Coburn
Lott
Scalia
Thomas
And that's just scratching the surface. There's more than that, but I'm not in the mood to pull more up.
| QUOTE |
| if they did, they would only take us back to the 50s. |
Where a woman's sole purpose was to essentially be a concubine to her husband and lynchings were commonplace, right? I think you need to turn off "Happy Days" and realize that the 50s were not exactly a bright spot in our history. And even then, I don't think they would have stood for a girl being forced to marry her rapist, an idea I've heard bandied about by fundamentalists when I lived in the South.
| QUOTE |
| Your real fundamentalists are the head-hackers who would take us back to the Middle Ages, your Taliban and such like. |
The Middle East was a cultural and intellectual center in the Middle Ages, and had a more advanced civilization than Europe. I think a trip back to that time wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for Arabia...
But I digress. They are hard-line fundamentalists, and we have our share of hard-line fundamentalists as well. I honestly think the two of them are more similar than different.
| QUOTE |
| Bless your heart, we atheists live in paradise in America! |
Atheists have it fairly good. But the impression I get for you is that you want your lot in life to get worse. Right?
| QUOTE |
| I'll read that Texas Republican manifesto, especially as I'm a Texan who would probably vote Republican if I voted, but I'll also keep in mind the nice Texas Republicans whom I know, both the upper middle class Christians, and the good old boys I sometimes drink with out in the country, sitting under our Confederate Flag. Good folks who mean no harm to anyone. |
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
I also noticed that dougie stealthily sidestepped my BRICS question and proffered instead ancient Russo/US history... that might work for him in kindergarten, but it ain't gonna fly here...
BRICS... they are happening now... what's your take, doug? do they pose a threat or not? please explain in as much detail as you can muster... without cutting and pasting that is... oh I insist on links... but I want to see your words, your thinking... not someone else's...
up for the challenge?
BRICS... they are happening now... what's your take, doug? do they pose a threat or not? please explain in as much detail as you can muster... without cutting and pasting that is... oh I insist on links... but I want to see your words, your thinking... not someone else's...
up for the challenge?
doug, you can google for the info, just read through it and paraphrase the parts you understand... doug? you there?
doug?
doug?
| QUOTE (Doug @ Wednesday, 18 May 2005, 10:17 am) |
| Doug's here, he's here, and as I look out the window at a cold, damp English afternoon, I can only dream about sunburn. I'll read that Texas Republican manifesto, especially as I'm a Texan who would probably vote Republican if I voted, but I'll also keep in mind the nice Texas Republicans whom I know, both the upper middle class Christians, and the good old boys I sometimes drink with out in the country, sitting under our Confederate Flag. Good folks who mean no harm to anyone. Doug |
doug... You claim to be old enough to drink... and that you're from Texas but, you say you don't vote...
why not? don't you believe, as I do, that voting is a responsibility of citizenship?
or are you just another skater? maybe even a felon... so why don't you vote, doug?
Okay, Tiger, I'm back.
| QUOTE |
| I also noticed that dougie stealthily sidestepped my BRICS question and proffered instead ancient Russo/US history... that might work for him in kindergarten, but it ain't gonna fly here... |
Whoa! It's been half a century since I was in kindergarten, and I am flattered that you think I might sidestep stealthily, but it's sadly not so.
BRICS: what are they? I may or may not be "up for the challenge" but you'll have to tell me what they are? (Nothing to with Area 51, I hope?)
Doug
I don't vote in America, because I live in England.
On other miscellaneous points: it's funny to find liberals who know something about weapons systems, since liberals usually think that war is not good for children and other living things, and the Navy should have a bake sale, etc. and that nasty old weapons are just too horrid to contemplate. So maybe you're on your way to becoming conservatives. Well done, if so. I'll give you character references if you want to enlist, as I urge all new and eligible conservative (men) to do.
Speaking from a platform of complete specific ignorance though, I would earnestly advise the Iranians not to try to exchange missiles, and test missile-defense systems, with the US Navy. I do not say this with any sense of national pride, not being an American nationalist, but as someone who has Iranian friends.
For you, of course, the Cold War is "ancient history," so you probably read the adviertisements for Russian weapons systems and are very impressed.
I know a little bit about the Soviet military (I even lived in the USSR for a few months, believe it or not), and I can tell you ... if they start firing off complex technology made in the Union of Soviet Soused Republics, try to stand a long way away. You'll probably be able to find a large pile of vodka bottles behind which to take cover.
And don't go down in a Russian submarine. (I had to fly about in the USSR a little, from Kharkov to Akedemgorodok and back to Tallin, lecturing on Mikrokomputerii i Ibrazovanie, and I tell you I lost five years off my life, staring at the riveting job on the wings of the planes.)
This is not the place, I suppose, but I can tell you a couple of funny stories, one from a man who was one of Stalin's chief airplane designers, about how things get done under socialism. Be glad you live under capitalism, even though you obviously don't deserve to.
Doug
On other miscellaneous points: it's funny to find liberals who know something about weapons systems, since liberals usually think that war is not good for children and other living things, and the Navy should have a bake sale, etc. and that nasty old weapons are just too horrid to contemplate. So maybe you're on your way to becoming conservatives. Well done, if so. I'll give you character references if you want to enlist, as I urge all new and eligible conservative (men) to do.
Speaking from a platform of complete specific ignorance though, I would earnestly advise the Iranians not to try to exchange missiles, and test missile-defense systems, with the US Navy. I do not say this with any sense of national pride, not being an American nationalist, but as someone who has Iranian friends.
For you, of course, the Cold War is "ancient history," so you probably read the adviertisements for Russian weapons systems and are very impressed.
I know a little bit about the Soviet military (I even lived in the USSR for a few months, believe it or not), and I can tell you ... if they start firing off complex technology made in the Union of Soviet Soused Republics, try to stand a long way away. You'll probably be able to find a large pile of vodka bottles behind which to take cover.
And don't go down in a Russian submarine. (I had to fly about in the USSR a little, from Kharkov to Akedemgorodok and back to Tallin, lecturing on Mikrokomputerii i Ibrazovanie, and I tell you I lost five years off my life, staring at the riveting job on the wings of the planes.)
This is not the place, I suppose, but I can tell you a couple of funny stories, one from a man who was one of Stalin's chief airplane designers, about how things get done under socialism. Be glad you live under capitalism, even though you obviously don't deserve to.
Doug
Oh yes: you know nothing about the 50s, and even less about the Golden Age of Islam.
| QUOTE |
| I don't vote in America, because I live in England. |
I don't know the intricacies of the absentee ballot system, but you should be able to vote if you're a citizen.
| QUOTE |
| On other miscellaneous points: it's funny to find liberals who know something about weapons systems, since liberals usually think that war is not good for children and other living things, and the Navy should have a bake sale, etc. and that nasty old weapons are just too horrid to contemplate. |
First of all, this forum has many ex-military members. One of the more vocal members spent 33 years in the Navy, and even served in Vietnam. He's on vacation right now, but trust me, you'll know him when you see him.
Secondly, it's good for anyone interested in foreign policy to know weapons systems, whether liberal or conservative. And if there's one thing we pride ourselves in here, it's being highly informed.
| QUOTE |
| So maybe you're on your way to becoming conservatives. Well done, if so. I'll give you character references if you want to enlist, as I urge all new and eligible conservative (men) to do. |
No thank you. This war just doesn't strike me as a war to uphold the right thing, and if it was, then maybe I'd consider it. Besides, I'm in the middle of a long-term relationship, and I don't think I could do that to my girlfriend.
| QUOTE |
| Speaking from a platform of complete specific ignorance though, I would earnestly advise the Iranians not to try to exchange missiles, and test missile-defense systems, with the US Navy. I do not say this with any sense of national pride, not being an American nationalist, but as someone who has Iranian friends. |
I highly doubt that Iran is interested in firing the first shot. They're just bulking up so that when they fire back, it'll mean something.
| QUOTE |
| For you, of course, the Cold War is "ancient history," so you probably read the adviertisements for Russian weapons systems and are very impressed. |
No, there's information from sources both liberal and conservative, regarding the Sunburn and Yakhonts. And, no, I don't think the Cold War is ancient history. Sure, I was 7 when it ended, but I still think we are seeing the effects of it today.
| QUOTE |
| I know a little bit about the Soviet military (I even lived in the USSR for a few months, believe it or not), and I can tell you ... if they start firing off complex technology made in the Union of Soviet Soused Republics, try to stand a long way away. You'll probably be able to find a large pile of vodka bottles behind which to take cover. |
We're not talking Soviet, but Russian. And what does it matter, you've pretty much proven that you don't know anything about the situation.
| QUOTE |
| This is not the place, I suppose, but I can tell you a couple of funny stories, one from a man who was one of Stalin's chief airplane designers, about how things get done under socialism. |
Stalinism is not socialism or communism. And I know perfectly well how inefficient Soviet machinery is.
| QUOTE |
| Be glad you live under capitalism, even though you obviously don't deserve to. |
Once again, leave it to a conservative to lower the level of discourse.
Sounds like Doug likes to post after sitting under that Confederate flag, downing a few with the good ol' boys.
| QUOTE |
| ...liberals are very concerned with fairness, conservatives with order and stability. Liberals are uncomfortable with American military and corporate power, conservatives are uncomfortable with weakness of the same. |
Liberals are uncomfortable with a swacked out military industrial complex that spends it's money on making 'new and improved' nuclear weapons, weaponizing space, feeding tax $$$ to greedy rightwing 'stockholders' who in turn increase war in the world to further their profit. I don't like bombing people who never did anything to harm us so that we can take their resources as we do in country after country. Iraq is just one more we have attacked because they have something we want.
As a liberal I am more than uncomfortable with corporate power that takes our jobs away, finances rightwing, antiAmerican politicians, eats our retirement accounts, jacks prices on necessities up to where many can not afford them, despoils our air, water and lands, ravages our wilderness, ignores inner cities and poverty stricken rural areas, gobbles our old growth forests, blows the tops off mountains and dumps them into rivers destroying both areas, and on and on and on.
You like these things?
Are you nuts?
And yes, I care that the vast monies spent on our military-industrial complex still leaves our military men and women in desperate circumstances. Do you not care? How much stock to you have in our killing industry?
Conservative's values stink. Me, me, me, money, money, money. Strong? The only thing strong about conservative values is their odor!
| QUOTE (Doug @ Friday, 20 May 2005, 3:43 pm) |
| I don't vote in America, because I live in England. |
Where in England?
Are you a U.S. citizen?
Dori, Stripey, Rakshaha: I've been a bit lazy and not very serious, and have been replying to a kind of cobbled-together collective of you all, with my 'level of discourse' at the lowest common denominator (Stripey's, I think).
I'll do you the courtesy of individually-aimed responses from now on.
I'm pleased to hear that there are serious and knowledgeable people on this Forum. It means I'll learn something, albeit at the (small) price of risking being kicked about a bit occasionally. Well, if I couldn't have stood the heat I would have gotten out of kitchen, as a great liberal Cold Warrior once advised.
Doug
I'll do you the courtesy of individually-aimed responses from now on.
I'm pleased to hear that there are serious and knowledgeable people on this Forum. It means I'll learn something, albeit at the (small) price of risking being kicked about a bit occasionally. Well, if I couldn't have stood the heat I would have gotten out of kitchen, as a great liberal Cold Warrior once advised.
Doug
| QUOTE |
| Where in England? Are you a U.S. citizen? |
In a little village called Bramley, near Guildford, which is about 25 miles southwest of London. And yes, I'm a US citizen.
Doug
| QUOTE | ||
Once again, leave it to a conservative to lower the level of discourse. |
Just teasing. Give the lie to that old conservative canard, and show me that liberals have a sense of humor. After all, we've given you plenty to laugh at.
Doug
| QUOTE (Doug @ Saturday, 21 May 2005, 4:26 am) | ||
In a little village called Bramley, near Guildford, which is about 25 miles southwest of London. And yes, I'm a US citizen. Doug |
I lived in Surrey.
Do you vote by absentee?
Dori says:
| QUOTE |
| Sounds like Doug likes to post after sitting under that Confederate flag, downing a few with the good ol' boys. |
Damn straight! And sometimes they pass around one of those funny cigarettes too.
And the rest of Dori's reply, on how horrible America is, is pure, undiluted post-60s Berkeley-liberalism, of the sort that would give FDR, Truman, JFK, or Hubert Humphrey a heart attack.
It makes me feel good to read it, because it stokes all of my prejudices about liberals being nice people, but being unable to think, and thus dangerous to have running the Republic.
I don't mean to be personally insulting here: I am quite sure that the people who believe that the history of the world since WWII [why start there, though -- look what we did to the poor Germans and the poor Japanese] is just one long tale of aggressive Amerikkkan imperialism, needlessly developing weapons systems to feed the greed of stockholders and steal the valuable resources of Haiti, etc, that these people are as individuals intelligent and well-educated.
So, let's argue about some of these things.
Let me start with this, to Dori: do you accept that there can be people who are also intelligent, and just as well-educated as you, and in every other respect than their loathesome political beliefs, decent people? I.e. "decent" in terms of their personal ethics, their charitable works, their conduct in day to day life?
If you don't see that, or cannot admit it, it's difficult to have a reasonable argument, (although I will try). This is because if you believe your opponent must be either a knave, or a fool, then why try to marshall evidence and deploy logic against him? A denunciation is enough, perhaps superficially clothed as an argument.
But if you believe, as I myself always assume, that your opponent is, until proven otherwise, an honorable person with decent motivations, only wrong, perhaps grievously so, then it follows that they may perhaps be won over. This will condition how you argue, and it makes for a more enlightening, and more pleasant, engagement.
I have seen many Boards [I've looked at dozens since discovering this addicting diversion a few months ago] in which Left and Right just trade personal insults, and usually not even very creative or clever ones at that, which is why I go on at such length about it.
Anyway, I shall try over the weekend to answer some of the points raised above.
Doug
And the rest of Dori's reply, on how horrible America is, is pure, undiluted post-60s Berkeley-liberalism, of the sort that would give FDR, Truman, JFK, or Hubert Humphrey a heart attack.
It makes me feel good to read it, because it stokes all of my prejudices about liberals being nice people, but being unable to think, and thus dangerous to have running the Republic.
I don't mean to be personally insulting here: I am quite sure that the people who believe that the history of the world since WWII [why start there, though -- look what we did to the poor Germans and the poor Japanese] is just one long tale of aggressive Amerikkkan imperialism, needlessly developing weapons systems to feed the greed of stockholders and steal the valuable resources of Haiti, etc, that these people are as individuals intelligent and well-educated.
So, let's argue about some of these things.
Let me start with this, to Dori: do you accept that there can be people who are also intelligent, and just as well-educated as you, and in every other respect than their loathesome political beliefs, decent people? I.e. "decent" in terms of their personal ethics, their charitable works, their conduct in day to day life?
If you don't see that, or cannot admit it, it's difficult to have a reasonable argument, (although I will try). This is because if you believe your opponent must be either a knave, or a fool, then why try to marshall evidence and deploy logic against him? A denunciation is enough, perhaps superficially clothed as an argument.
But if you believe, as I myself always assume, that your opponent is, until proven otherwise, an honorable person with decent motivations, only wrong, perhaps grievously so, then it follows that they may perhaps be won over. This will condition how you argue, and it makes for a more enlightening, and more pleasant, engagement.
I have seen many Boards [I've looked at dozens since discovering this addicting diversion a few months ago] in which Left and Right just trade personal insults, and usually not even very creative or clever ones at that, which is why I go on at such length about it.
Anyway, I shall try over the weekend to answer some of the points raised above.
Doug
Panda wrote:I lived in Surrey.
Do you vote by absentee?
Where in Surrey?
No, I'm a bad citizen, I have never voted absentee. In fact, I have ever voted in just one election in America in my life, and that was when I lived in the Bay Area, and voted for a bond issue to build another bridge across the Bay. And I think I voted at the same time for a Socialist Workers Party candidate for Berkeley City Council.
I investigated absentee voting once, and found I would have to register where I last lived, and that I needed my last address there, which I had forgotten. So I didn't pursue it any further. I suppose I should have.
I did think about trying to do it again last year, when I was considering voting for Kerry. Then I decided the outcome would be equally disastrous whoever won, so I didn't carry on.
I've changed my mind since then and am sorry that I at least didn't make the effort to see if I could have. With you liberals nagging at me about it maybe I will.
Doug
Do you vote by absentee?
Where in Surrey?
No, I'm a bad citizen, I have never voted absentee. In fact, I have ever voted in just one election in America in my life, and that was when I lived in the Bay Area, and voted for a bond issue to build another bridge across the Bay. And I think I voted at the same time for a Socialist Workers Party candidate for Berkeley City Council.
I investigated absentee voting once, and found I would have to register where I last lived, and that I needed my last address there, which I had forgotten. So I didn't pursue it any further. I suppose I should have.
I did think about trying to do it again last year, when I was considering voting for Kerry. Then I decided the outcome would be equally disastrous whoever won, so I didn't carry on.
I've changed my mind since then and am sorry that I at least didn't make the effort to see if I could have. With you liberals nagging at me about it maybe I will.
Doug
Rakshasa:
| QUOTE |
| On other miscellaneous points: it's funny to find liberals who know something about weapons systems, since liberals usually think that war is not good for children and other living things, and the Navy should have a bake sale, etc. and that nasty old weapons are just too horrid to contemplate. First of all, this forum has many ex-military members. One of the more vocal members spent 33 years in the Navy, and even served in Vietnam. He's on vacation right now, but trust me, you'll know him when you see him. Secondly, it's good for anyone interested in foreign policy to know weapons systems, whether liberal or conservative. And if there's one thing we pride ourselves in here, it's being highly informed. |
Excellent! As Karl said, ignorance never did anyone any good.
| QUOTE |
| So maybe you're on your way to becoming conservatives. Well done, if so. I'll give you character references if you want to enlist, as I urge all new and eligible conservative (men) to do. No thank you. This war just doesn't strike me as a war to uphold the right thing, and if it was, then maybe I'd consider it. Besides, I'm in the middle of a long-term relationship, and I don't think I could do that to my girlfriend. |
Well, of course if you don't support the current war, it would make military service very awkward. (Ask me how I know.) And the personal relationship thing trumps all, of course. [As a conservative, at this point I am required to say: Marry her, man!]
Yet maybe in the future you will have the motivation to serve: the military needs well-informed people, and, paradoxically, the kind of war/foreign policy that the United States should be waging needs people with liberal or even Leftwing sensibilities running it more than it needs natural-born conservatives. (The present shambles in Iraq comes from the whole thing being planned by rich white Republicans rather than by former revolutionaries.)
Yet maybe in the future you will have the motivation to serve: the military needs well-informed people, and, paradoxically, the kind of war/foreign policy that the United States should be waging needs people with liberal or even Leftwing sensibilities running it more than it needs natural-born conservatives. (The present shambles in Iraq comes from the whole thing being planned by rich white Republicans rather than by former revolutionaries.)
| QUOTE |
| Speaking from a platform of complete specific ignorance though, I would earnestly advise the Iranians not to try to exchange missiles, and test missile-defense systems, with the US Navy. I do not say this with any sense of national pride, not being an American nationalist, but as someone who has Iranian friends. I highly doubt that Iran is interested in firing the first shot. They're just bulking up so that when they fire back, it'll mean something. |
Let us hope that we avoid all conventional war. I have been agitating among my Iranian students in favor of a repeat of 1979, but this time with the aim of a liberal democracy rather than a reactionary theocracy. A few million people out on the streets, a few thousand willing to die, and it could be done, especially if we were able to lend them the Marines to smooth out the bumpy spots. Then we would have a good Iranian ally, and we could sell them our own advanced weapons systems, as we used to, to the Shah. (A historical note, of which you are no doubt aware: the problem with modern weapons systems is that they've got to be maintained. It broke my heart to read about some very nice British air-defense systems sold to some African republic, where, of course, they pretty quickly turned into rusty junk.)
| QUOTE |
| For you, of course, the Cold War is "ancient history," so you probably read the adviertisements for Russian weapons systems and are very impressed. No, there's information from sources both liberal and conservative, regarding the Sunburn and Yakhonts. And, no, I don't think the Cold War is ancient history. Sure, I was 7 when it ended, but I still think we are seeing the effects of it today. |
Sorry, then. I was conflating you with someone else who breezily dismissed the whole think as "ancient history". "Those who don't learn from history," etc.
| QUOTE |
| I know a little bit about the Soviet military (I even lived in the USSR for a few months, believe it or not), and I can tell you ... if they start firing off complex technology made in the Union of Soviet Soused Republics, try to stand a long way away. You'll probably be able to find a large pile of vodka bottles behind which to take cover. We're not talking Soviet, but Russian. And what does it matter, you've pretty much proven that you don't know anything about the situation. |
No, I don't know much about current missile technologies, although I don't suppose it would take much effort to learn, or at least to learn at the superficial level at which information and mis-information is released to the public.
| QUOTE |
| This is not the place, I suppose, but I can tell you a couple of funny stories, one from a man who was one of Stalin's chief airplane designers, about how things get done under socialism. Stalinism is not socialism or communism. And I know perfectly well how inefficient Soviet machinery is. |
Okay, I won't call it socialism, although by not doing so I know I am contributing to the maintenance of deadly illusions, since I also know that for True Believers socialism is by definition -- literally, by definition -- Utopia, and because Utopia can never be achieved, socialism can never be proven wrong. So, the Soviet Union was not socialist, although Lenin would have been very surprised to find that out.
Doug
Doug
First... for someone who claims to be on top of the news, you obviously know nothing about the alliance recently undertaken by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa... or BRICS... political, economic AND strategic...
That makes THEM the other superpower on the planet... want more info on them? Try google... you do know how to use google don't you?
Second, shove your sanctimonious crap up your keister, pal. I served in the military, I volunteered to participate in the war of my youth... Have you? Or did you do as many of the conservatives in congress and the media today, and just sashay around it? In other words, doug... are you a chickenhawk?
Third, China has alot to say about the US attacking Iran considering China just signed a long term deal with Iran for the delivery of natural gas... and since Russia also has an interest in maintaining control of the Caspian Sea... there's two good reasons to stay away from Iran...
Fourth, what do you know about Magnequench?
Fifth, leave it to a conservarat that doesn't vote to lecture us democrats that both believes AND PARTICIPATES in the democratic process...
That makes THEM the other superpower on the planet... want more info on them? Try google... you do know how to use google don't you?
Second, shove your sanctimonious crap up your keister, pal. I served in the military, I volunteered to participate in the war of my youth... Have you? Or did you do as many of the conservatives in congress and the media today, and just sashay around it? In other words, doug... are you a chickenhawk?
Third, China has alot to say about the US attacking Iran considering China just signed a long term deal with Iran for the delivery of natural gas... and since Russia also has an interest in maintaining control of the Caspian Sea... there's two good reasons to stay away from Iran...
Fourth, what do you know about Magnequench?
Fifth, leave it to a conservarat that doesn't vote to lecture us democrats that both believes AND PARTICIPATES in the democratic process...
| QUOTE (TheStripey1 @ Saturday, 21 May 2005, 7:50 am) |
| First... for someone who claims to be on top of the news, you obviously know nothing about the alliance recently undertaken by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa... or BRICS... political, economic AND strategic... That makes THEM the other superpower on the planet... want more info on them? Try google... you do know how to use google don't you? Second, shove your sanctimonious crap up your keister, pal. I served in the military, I volunteered to participate in the war of my youth... Have you? Or did you do as many of the conservatives in congress and the media today, and just sashay around it? In other words, doug... are you a chickenhawk? Third, China has alot to say about the US attacking Iran considering China just signed a long term deal with Iran for the delivery of natural gas... and since Russia also has an interest in maintaining control of the Caspian Sea... there's two good reasons to stay away from Iran... Fourth, what do you know about Magnequench? Fifth, leave it to a conservarat that doesn't vote to lecture us democrats that both believes AND PARTICIPATES in the democratic process... |
Stripey: probably we shouldn't debate. It obviously gets you angry, and in my experience no one learns much from that kind of exchange. But this time only:
(1) I don't think I claimed to "keep on top of the news", since, for reasons not relevant to this discussion, I haven't been doing so recently. The BRICS alliance is interesting, but -- this is not a partisan point -- believe me, it's chickenfeed. I'm surprised anyone would take it seriously. Some of these countries will, perhaps, be military superpowers some day, but it will take at least a generation, and hopefully they will have evolved into liberal democracies by then.
(2) It's good to hear that you, unlike the great majority of Americans, have done military service. Whether I did military service in my youth is of little relevance to my beliefs now, since I have changed my beliefs since then.
For the record, though, I did, although it was not voluntary, and I was a very poor soldier, being at the time an active communist and supporter of the military victory of the NVA. I had an interesting experience, in fact, being drafted after a lengthy FBI interview and then trained as an 11B10 [light weapons infantryman] and then ordered to Vietnam.
Various facts made me believe at the time that I was headed straight for a bullet in the back [the Army was well aware of my beliefs -- I had put out an anti-war newsletter at Fort Polk, and gave a speech (in uniform) against the war at a meeting in Berkeley just before reporting in], so I deserted from the Oakland Army Base just before boarding the big bird.
After 18 months hiding out I turned myself in and was tried for AWOL [the charge sheet originally said "desertion" but they would have had trouble making that stick] and given the max, six months at hard labor and two-thirds reduction in pay. After I was released I was processed for a Bad Conduct Discharge and then kicked out, being "barred from reinlistment".
If I had my life to live over again, knowing what I now know, and believing what I now believe, I would have behaved much differently, of course, not that it would have had any effect on the outcome of the war (which I think we lost needlessly).
So am I a chickenhawk? Difficult to say. I certainly am not physically brave. I did voter registration work in the South (I am a Southerner) during the summer of 1964, not too far from where Cheney, Goodman and Schwerner were murdered. I had several scary things happen to me, and I fear I was not a cool, collected, fearless James Bond type while they were happening. I did the right thing, as I saw it, but I always felt fear. Perhaps you would have done better.
Okay, Stripey, your turn. If you feel it necessary to insult me personally, then you will have the last word.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.