#150622 - 28/03/2003 09:22
Re: All's Fair
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
there is no conspiracy theory too far-fetched for you guys Let me clarify my position on this. (Note that I did use the term ``harangue'' referring to myself, which is not exactly a positive comment.)
I meant to say that the terminology they use is frightening, and, I think, indicative of a particular mindset. That doesn't necessarily mean that they intend to go through with their thoughts of colonialism/imperialism, or even consciously recognize it, but the terms they use point in that direction.
Other than GWB himself, these people aren't stupid. They know what words mean, both denotatively and connotatively. I don't think that they would have used the term ``homeland'' without reason. ``Department of Domestic Security'' sounds a lot better than what we have now.
GWB saying that we have ``sovereign right'' to enter Iraq strikes the same note perhaps even more. The word ``sovereign'' means ``possessing freedom from external control'', ``possessed of supreme power'', ``unlimited in extent'', ``enjoying autonomy''. The supposed rationale for entering Iraq were those ``substantial consequences''. But those were provided for (albeit not specifically) by the UN, not by the US's supreme right. His speechwriter knows what ``sovereign'' means, even if GWB and the majority of the US populace don't.
There must be reasons they're using these words. Whether those reasons come to fruition or not is another argument.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150623 - 28/03/2003 09:31
Re: All's Fair
[Re: wfaulk]
|
addict
Registered: 20/11/2001
Posts: 455
Loc: Texas
|
Other than GWB himself, these people aren't stupid.
So far, this discussion has been intriguing since a lot of it is things one has learned but need to brush up on for a response. What I don't understand is why do you say this? Is it really something you believe or is it just a argument tactic?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150624 - 28/03/2003 09:35
Re: All's Fair
[Re: blitz]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Is it really something you believe Which part? That GWB is stupid or that the rest of them aren't? Regardless, the answer to either question is, yes, I do.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150625 - 28/03/2003 09:38
Re: All's Fair
[Re: wfaulk]
|
addict
Registered: 20/11/2001
Posts: 455
Loc: Texas
|
That GWB is stupid[?]
Just curious, on what basis do you make that determination?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150626 - 28/03/2003 09:46
Re: All's Fair
[Re: blitz]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Observation. Mostly his inability to elucidate his speeches, especially his extemporaneous ones.
Also, history as a straight-C student. (I will admit that my standards for public office are higher than those for the average person.) Consistent business failures. Apparent inability or lack of desire to comprehend the other side of an argument (though this could conceivably be more closely related to sociopathy).
Actually, the thing that bothers me the most is (and this is a totally subjective observation) his pride in his ignorance. I absolutely cannot point to a specific episode that points this out, but I've known a good number of people who have this personality trait and there are unquantifiable (by me, at any rate) parallels between them and him.
At least he hasn't demonstrated an inability to spell. (Edit: Oh, but if he says ``new-cya-ler'' one more time, my head my explode.)
Edited by wfaulk (28/03/2003 09:59)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150627 - 28/03/2003 09:55
Re: All's Fair
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Sad that having not read the messages leading up to this, seeing this immediately told me you meant shrub.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150628 - 28/03/2003 10:13
Re: All's Fair
[Re: wfaulk]
|
addict
Registered: 20/11/2001
Posts: 455
Loc: Texas
|
At least he hasn't demonstrated his inability to spell.
That explains your position. Once a Grammar cop always a grammar cop. 
Seriously though. I pretty well discount grades in school. Some of the more productive people who work with me spent a lot of time socializing in college (beer, women, fraternities, etc.) and what they learned was how to interact with other people. I think the published SAT for GWB is 1207 (taken once with 566Verbal & 640Math). If you correct for the 1996 recentering (see table here) it would equate to 1313 today.
Obviously his verbal skills are not up to your standards ... but whose are?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150629 - 28/03/2003 11:20
Re: All's Fair
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
There must be reasons they're using these words. Whether those reasons come to fruition or not is another argument. Your role as BBS Grammarian is causing you to read way too much into these terms. Sovereign is rarely used with the connotation of "supreme power" or "unlimited in extent." I've always taken it to mean self-governing and autonomous, but not necessarily in the belligerent manner that you seem to be implying. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. The supposed rationale for entering Iraq were those ``substantial consequences''. But those were provided for (albeit not specifically) by the UN, not by the US's supreme right. And the U.N. was not going to enforce those serious consequences. Ever. France would not pass any resolution that held Saddam accountable. So they were refusing to enforce the serious consequences. If anything, the U.S. is the one making sure that the letter and spirit of the existing U.N. resolutions were followed, damn the French and their desire to protect their economic interests.
Edit: More French arrogance.
But asked by The Telegraph whether he hoped American and British forces would win the military campaign to remove Saddam Hussein, he replied angrily: "I'm not going to answer. You have not been listening carefully to what I said before. You already have the answer."
...
Embarrassed French officials tried to salvage the situation by pointing out that, on French television on Monday, M de Villepin said: "Clearly, we hope the US will win this war quickly."
...
Moreover M de Villepin did himself few favours with Washington when, recalling the "bleakest time in our history" during the Second World War, he extolled Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle but left out Franklin D Roosevelt's role in the liberation of France.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150630 - 28/03/2003 11:29
Re: All's Fair
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
[On Dubya being stupid]
I agree with all of this, Bitt. Some of my friends think that he just pretends to be stupid, but I will refrain from defending that position for two reasons:
To do that, he would need superhuman acting abilities
Tony would pronounce me a crazy conspiracy theorist, this time rightfully so 
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150631 - 28/03/2003 11:44
Re: All's Fair
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Your role as BBS Grammarian is causing you to read way too much into these terms. If I thought that GWB was writing his own speeches, I'd agree with you. (Edit: For example, I didn't read anything into GWB's horribly inappropriate extemporaneous use of the term ``crusade'' in reference to this invasion, as I don't think that he has the quickness about him for that impropriety to have occurred to him.) The average American doesn't really know what sovereign means, and I think it makes it that much the worse.
But speechwriters are usually very bright people, with an incredible flair for language. Honestly, I don't know the current speechwriter, so I could be wrong. But speeches of that importance go through, I'm sure, everyone in the administration, and I can't imagine they don't go through it with a fine-tooth comb. The fact that not one person brought up that sovereign means something that they didn't want to imply, or that any people who did so were overruled on it I think speaks volumes. And the U.N. was not going to enforce those serious consequences. That's not my argument. If the administration thought that the world had said something and that it had become the US's resposibility due to the rest of the world's inaction, then it's still not sovereign. I'm not arguing the correctness or incorrectness of the UN's wishy-washiness. I'm arguing the attitude of those in the Bush administration with the only evidence I've got.
Edited by wfaulk (28/03/2003 12:31)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150632 - 28/03/2003 11:46
Re: All's Fair
[Re: tonyc]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
For the record, I am the last guy who would accuse France of excess humility.
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150633 - 28/03/2003 11:46
Re: All's Fair
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4172
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
"I'm not going to answer. You have not been listening carefully to what I said before. You already have the answer." Leesten very carefullee, I shall say zis only onnce...
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150634 - 28/03/2003 11:47
Re: All's Fair
[Re: Roger]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
That's because it's true. I'm not saying that the US is arrogant. What I'm saying is that the US needs to take more care not to appear arrogant. The current administration is failing miserably, IMO. I agree with you 100% on this. If there's one thing I am definitely not, it's a GWB apologist. I think he's a complete dolt. And a large portion of his cabinet is, as well. But I also know that dolts can occasionally do the right thing, even if by accident, and I'm trying to judge the current policy on its own merit, and not how someone appears to come off, or on how arrogant they might be. The U.S. has indeed gone to more of a "carry a big stick" foreign policy, but it seems they forgot about the "walk softly" portion. On this topic, I feel we're in agreement. I just think the arrogance doesn't equal bad deeds.
Those are some very interesting links, and there are well-informed arguments on both sides. But I again think it's more perceived arrogance than actual misdeeds or imperial behavior. If Al Gore had been elected, would we look so arrogant? Is it just GWB's Texas-style arrogance that the world doesn't like?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150635 - 28/03/2003 11:50
Re: All's Fair
[Re: blitz]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I think the published SAT for GWB is 1207 I don't know that that is true or not -- I'll take your word for it -- but I got a score higher than that in the eighth grade, and I certainly don't think that I'm qualified for the Presidency on an intellectual level (now or then).
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150636 - 28/03/2003 11:51
Re: All's Fair
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Leesten very carefullee, I shall say zis only onnce... LOL!
Yeah. If it weren't for the U.S. and FDR's role in saving France, you'd be using a mock German accent instead. de Gaulle and Churchill were no slouches either, but to totally discount the U.S.'s role in the liberation and subsequent rebuilding of France is disgusting.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150637 - 28/03/2003 11:54
Re: All's Fair
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
walk softly Speak softly. But whatever. The gist is right. (Methinks you need to bone up on your Teddy Roosevelt history, though. ) it's more perceived arrogance Yeah, but isn't this what diplomacy (and I'm not talking Iraq diplomacy, but simple dealing-with-your-neighbors diplomacy) is all about? Or all not about?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150638 - 28/03/2003 11:56
Re: All's Fair
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
but to totally discount the U.S.'s role in the ... subsequent rebuilding of France is disgusting Damn straight.
I'm almost of the opinion that the Marshall Plan can almost overshadow anything else the US might ever do.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150639 - 28/03/2003 12:17
Re: All's Fair
[Re: tonyc]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
In all fairness, most European countries do have a single ministry/cabinet post responsible for all domestic security functions, but it is usually called Ministry of Interior or similar. US DoI seems to have different responsibilities (I meant to verify what exactly are these - something like national parks etc - but their web site is extremely unresponsive).
I agree with Bitt about significance of word choice ('Homeland', not 'Domestic'; 'sovereign right' etc). Speech and law writers are very careful bunch.
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150640 - 28/03/2003 12:21
Re: All's Fair
[Re: bonzi]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
You're right. From the web site: The Department of the Interior (DOI) is the nation’s principal conservation agency. Our mission is to protect America’s treasures for future generations, provide access to our nation’s natural and cultural heritage, offer recreation opportunities, honor our trust responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives and our responsibilities to island communities, conduct scientific research, provide wise stewardship of energy and mineral resources, foster sound use of land and water resources, and conserve and protect fish and wildlife. Certainly something quite different.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150641 - 28/03/2003 12:50
Re: All's Fair
[Re: tonyc]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 20/08/2002
Posts: 340
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Actually I read that as a reference to a British comedy show about WW II. I believe it was called 'allo allo'. The leader of the french (or communist?) resistance would say this pretty much every episode.
I really loved the undercover agent, 'I was just pissing by the deur'.
_________________________
40GB - serial #40104051 gpsapp
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150642 - 28/03/2003 13:09
Re: All's Fair
[Re: wfaulk]
|
addict
Registered: 20/11/2001
Posts: 455
Loc: Texas
|
I'm almost of the opinion that the Marshall Plan can almost overshadow anything else the US might ever do.
And the US's motivation for the Marshall plan was .... ?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150643 - 28/03/2003 13:16
Re: All's Fair
[Re: blitz]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
And the US's motivation for the Marshall plan was .... ?
Good will.
And, as you can see, the countries that benefitted from it are thanking us with in Denis Leary style. "Thank you, thank you, thank you, and F UCK YOU!"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150644 - 28/03/2003 13:22
Re: All's Fair
[Re: bonzi]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
No fair, you ignored the rest of my post... You opened up the can of worms regarding U.S. response to WWII and the Dick Cheney/Haliburton stuff... Come on, fight like a man!
I'm punting on the homeland/sovereign thing because neither of us can prove what they meant. I just know that the nature of the Department of Homeland Security was Sept 11th and not a desire to turn our armed forces into our Department of Imperialism.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150645 - 28/03/2003 13:24
Re: All's Fair
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Damn straight.
I'm almost of the opinion that the Marshall Plan can almost overshadow anything else the US might ever do. Apparently, the Europeans disagree, and see that as yesterday's news... Thanks, but no thanks, Yanks!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150646 - 28/03/2003 13:32
Re: All's Fair
[Re: blitz]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
And the US's motivation for the Marshall plan was .... ?
...primarily to fend off Soviet influence, then to open new markets, but to recipients of aid it was quite irrelevant. We have a saying: "If a guy gives you a horse, don't complain about its teeth!"
(BTW, my parents told me that as a little kid in a summer camp, circa 1960, I ate last remnants or UNRRA peanut butter and processed cheese; apparently, I liked it )
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150647 - 28/03/2003 13:32
Re: All's Fair
[Re: tonyc]
|
addict
Registered: 20/11/2001
Posts: 455
Loc: Texas
|
Good will.
With a fair bit of US self-interest thrown in for fear of a collapse of Western Europe into further political instability and communism. Which led to "an Army of Occuputation" of the United States in Western Europe, the Cold War and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#150648 - 28/03/2003 13:34
Re: All's Fair
[Re: tonyc]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
OK, OK, I'll be back in a ring, it's just that this thread grows too fast and I have other things to do )
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150649 - 28/03/2003 13:44
Re: All's Fair
[Re: blitz]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
With a fair bit of US self-interest thrown in for fear of a collapse of Western Europe into further political instability and communism. Which led to "an Army of Occuputation" of the United States in Western Europe, the Cold War and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire. Like I said, good will. I suppose you would rather have communism throughout Western Europe? To me, "comrade" doesn't have a nice ring to it when spoken with a British, French, or German accent.
Nobody's yet taken my challenge of providing an example when a Government has ever committed a major act of complete selflessness and humanitarianism that didn't have an element which was designed to protect its own interests. The Marshall Plan did so ethically and philanthropically. Does anyone here have a problem with the idea of stopping the spread of communism?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150650 - 28/03/2003 13:56
Re: All's Fair
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Does anyone here have a problem with the idea of stopping the spread of communism? Yes.
Stalin was certainly one of the more evil dictators in history, and his regime was horrendous, but the concept of communism itself is not. For example, other than some very legitimate human rights concerns, Cuba is doing quite well as a communist state. It's certainly better than when Batista was running it.
Battling a philosophy is just stupid, unless that philosophy is ``kill 'em all'', which Communism's never was. In addition, though the Marshall Plan was one of the best examples of US foreign policy ever (hell -- anyone's foreign policy), our battles with communism usually installed or supported a more tyrannical regime than it deposed or decried.
There are other arguments about whether or not Communism is a functionally practical government type (and I won't get into government vs. economy here; we all know what I mean), but that's not a reason to fight someone else's country over, nor is it within the scope of this argument, I think.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#150651 - 28/03/2003 14:04
Re: All's Fair
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Stalin was certainly one of the more evil dictators in history, and his regime was horrendous, but the concept of communism itself is not. Burn him! He's a witch! Cuba is doing quite well as a communist state. Yeah, Cuba is about the closest thing we have on Earth to paradise...
nor is it within the scope of this argument, I think. I think it is. Communism is indeed not "kill 'em all." But it doesn't work. It encourages each cog in the communist machine to do the minimum amount to get by, and the government will take care of them just as if they had tried harder. It encourages mediocrity. And they're all dictatorships. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index