War use for campaigning

[loki09789]

"Beginning a large scale counter-terrorism operation, and then handing to your successor might be seen in a bad light. It is widely acknowledged that Sandy Berger delivered the Clarke plan to Condoleezza Rice in a series of meetings during the transition period."

And what would that matter if it was the right thing to do, as well as the fact that Clinton was leaving office - what would he care what it looked like?

We don't know what the real motivations are/were nor do we, as a public, generally take the press statement explanations that are given to us at face value. We also don't have all the data that they did/do when they make such decisions.

Here, at least, it seems that politicians aren't viewed as public servants, making far less in salary than their private industry equals, but evil manipulators who only are interested in power and priviledge. There is a point where the citizen's right to scrutinize and openly question turns into smearing and bias.

 

[michaeledward]

And what would that matter if it was the right thing to do, as well as the fact that Clinton was leaving office - what would he care what it looked like?

But if the operation would require continued support from the succeeding administration, wouldn't it be prudent to get their buy-in. I am not laying blame here, but if the operations require time and money, and you have neither, doesn't it make sense to inform and seek collaboration from the next in line?

We don't know what the real motivations are/were nor do we, as a public, generally take the press statement explanations that are given to us at face value. We also don't have all the data that they did/do when they make such decisions.

My fishing buddie used the 'We don't know what they know' arguement before we launched the invasion of Iraq. So far, it seems that we had available more information than the Adminstration had. They just chose to view the 'intelligence' in a way that has been shown to be invalid.

There is a difference between a 'press statement' and a 'press report'. The Administration releases 'press statements'. Journalists do reports, in which they (hopefully) test the validity of statements. There was a nice piece on the radio this morning about how news departments are cutting back on the 'Journalism' piece - less investigation and validation.

Here, at least, it seems that politicians aren't viewed as public servants, making far less in salary than their private industry equals, but evil manipulators who only are interested in power and priviledge. There is a point where the citizen's right to scrutinize and openly question turns into smearing and bias.

Certainly, I view most politicians as valuable public servants. The current administration does not seem interested in serving all of the public equally. By examining what the say, and comparing it to what they do, it does seem that they are more interested in serving the super-rich and multi-national corporations than providing services for my family and me.

 

[Makalakumu]

the '/' symbol is for and/or so: (oops didn't cap the firs letter )

/ also stands for division. Iraq/Afganistan = more oil per dollar spent. Inversely Afganistan/Iraq = Less money for a real war on terrorism.

Of course it could all equate to a pile of feces if you insert that darn chaotic fudge factor!

How is that for tongue in cheek!

Certainly, I view most politicians as valuable public servants. The current administration does not seem interested in serving all of the public equally. By examining what the say, and comparing it to what they do, it does seem that they are more interested in serving the super-rich and multi-national corporations than providing services for my family and me.

Oh brother, where art thou...

I think the political office itself is a valuable public service. The people who fill them have to fit high expectations. It is entirely right to denounce someone for not fitting those expectations.

I am not pished at you or anyone here, only disgusted with the tone and language of some of these posts, including your previous ones - and thank you for taking charge of that. I find it interesting that when the subject of politics and religion come up, people have a hard time separating themselves from the topic - which leads to very personal and sometimes hostile reactions. It is natural though because the topic of politics and relig. are really individual values that are being expressed and it is very intimate (in an emotional sense).

So what is the appropriate way to conduct yourself when discussing religion or politics? Do we always have to be hashing out some compromise or trying to solve disputes? Isn't it okay to just throw out your opinions and let them get sliced and diced in order to learn where they are deficiant? Hey, its okay to get angry when discussing topics like this. In fact, its pretty natural. There is nothing immature about it unless you don't know when to stop. On internet forums this can get really out of hand because there is no direct consequence, so its important to be the person who can take the step back and let it go. In all situations...it depends on the context. I would say that it is a mistake to assume the tone of someone's language on the net reflects the tone they use in all situations.

 

[loki09789]

And I would think that it would be a mistake to assume that the language we use here should be any different than if the people were phyically in the same room with us. Consider the power of the LORD OF THE FLIES as an example of how a seemingly consequence free environment can reveal an individuals true character. Integrity isn't doing the right thing when people are watching, it is what you do when no one can see you...

 

[Makalakumu]

And I would think that it would be a mistake to assume that the language we use here should be any different than if the people were phyically in the same room with us. Consider the power of the LORD OF THE FLIES as an example of how a seemingly consequence free environment can reveal an individuals true character. Integrity isn't doing the right thing when people are watching, it is what you do when no one can see you...

It still depends on context. With a group of friends, joking around, someone may disparage another person and laugh and that is fine in that context. In serious discussions, this is different. Not all political discussions are so serious and not all the discussions on this forum are that serious. Some of them are. I didn't mean to offend you with my rhetoric. Its hard to see the ironic smile on this side of the computer screen, sometimes.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I would say that it is a mistake to assume the tone of someone's language on the net reflects the tone they use in all situations.

And I would think that it would be a mistake to assume that the language we use here should be any different than if the people were phyically in the same room with us. Consider the power of the LORD OF THE FLIES as an example of how a seemingly consequence free environment can reveal an individuals true character. Integrity isn't doing the right thing when people are watching, it is what you do when no one can see you...

So you might consider being judged or judging others by the company they keep as well? Not just their actions, but also the actions of their friends and associates? As in the Lord of the Flies, the children were guilty since they allowed the death to occur by not stepping forward to stop it. So, if you associate with someone, should you be judged by their actions as well?

Just Curious, form the philosphical point of view of this discussion / arguement.
:asian:

 

[loki09789]

So you might consider being judged or judging others by the company they keep as well? Not just their actions, but also the actions of their friends and associates? As in the Lord of the Flies, the children were guilty since they allowed the death to occur by not stepping forward to stop it. So, if you associate with someone, should you be judged by their actions as well?

Just Curious, form the philosphical point of view of this discussion / arguement.
:asian:

You could take that interpretation if you wanted. Love to see the essay on that view

I am not talking about guilt or innocence for the sake of this point, only how each character behaved differently, according to the author's view, when the restraints of society were no longer there to moderate their behavior.

I was using it as an example of how, individually, a persons character is revealed when there is the perception of no consequences. The individual nature of each character came through. Some were natural followers, some were natural leaders.

Of the leaders in the story, one is depicted as manipulative and vindictive (Post WWII, Hitler/antisemetics/racism....take your pick) when he, as the former choir leader, is 'consequence free' and can get away with fear tactics, deception, bullying and ultimately murder. He sees the lack of consequences as an excuse to throw off decency, integrity and humanity.

The other is depicted as compassionate, rational, and demonstarted integrity by leading by example or motivating followers to accomplish tasks with logic and clear, honest communication and goals of being rescued (Plug in the moral leader of your choosing: Ghandi, Martin Luther King, JFK take your pick again). In the same consequence free environment, he still maintained the spirit of respect and cooperation that his society was hoping to teach.

After the death of the Piggy character and the rescuers get to the island, the characters are forced to reflect on their individual behaviors relative to the society that they are reintroduced to symbollically by the adults' present on the island at the end.

Guilt/innocence of the groups could be discussed, but I think the more significant message/theme is that it that we carry moral/ethical codes inside us and choose how far to stray from them in response to the contextual freedom/restrictions in any situation. In the story, those who saw a consequence free context as license to act and do what ever they wanted spiralled downhill until they lost all respect for humanity and committed murder. Of course as a piece of drama it goes to dramatic extremes.

That said, on these 'consequence free' internet forums, I have noticed a tendency to exercise the equivelent of 'beer muscle' talk. You are alone looking at a screen and it is easy to throw stuff out that wouldn't be appropriate in person. Threats, jabs, curses.... If it isn't appropriate in person, it shouldn't be appropriate here. Especially when we are not all casual or familiar friends here. We are friendly and cordial, but I don't really know any of you here personally let alone your values or anything else well enough to assume that my tone/word choice will be fine. I can not assume that you all will understand or find my jokes tolerable. I think, on this thread, the only people I have actually had direct contact with are you, Rich, and TGACE. Based on our last meeting and conversation, I would hope that we have established a healthy repoir. But, it takes a lot longer to get a feel on fellow posters purely on the posts.

 

[Makalakumu]

That said, on these 'consequence free' internet forums, I have noticed a tendency to exercise the equivelent of 'beer muscle' talk. You are alone looking at a screen and it is easy to throw stuff out that wouldn't be appropriate in person. Threats, jabs, curses.... If it isn't appropriate in person, it shouldn't be appropriate here. Especially when we are not all casual or familiar friends here. We are friendly and cordial, but I don't really know any of you here personally let alone your values or anything else well enough to assume that my tone/word choice will be fine. I can not assume that you all will understand or find my jokes tolerable. I think, on this thread, the only people I have actually had direct contact with are you, Rich, and TGACE. Based on our last meeting and conversation, I would hope that we have established a healthy repoir. But, it takes a lot longer to get a feel on fellow posters purely on the posts.

First of all, I seem to remember some rather volitile posts on your part. I bring this up, not as an attack, but as an observation/statement, that sometimes people get hot in conversation and start spouting some not so nice things.

Secondly, everyone has different tolerances for irreverence. You are right we don't really know each other, but that doesn't mean we need to walk on pins and needles. We just need to be sensitive to the fact that we may upset someone. Then we need to mature enough to apologize.

Therefore, if my "George Bush is the Enemy/Morgoth/Sauron" comment offended anyone, I apologize. Perhaps we can discuss whether his current actions are "American" or not in a different thread.

Thanks for the civil discussion and the reminder to be be a little more sensitive.

Upnorthkyosa

 

[loki09789]

First of all, I seem to remember some rather volitile posts on your part. I bring this up, not as an attack, but as an observation/statement, that sometimes people get hot in conversation and start spouting some not so nice things.

Secondly, everyone has different tolerances for irreverence. You are right we don't really know each other, but that doesn't mean we need to walk on pins and needles. We just need to be sensitive to the fact that we may upset someone. Then we need to mature enough to apologize.

Therefore, if my "George Bush is the Enemy/Morgoth/Sauron" comment offended anyone, I apologize. Perhaps we can discuss whether his current actions are "American" or not in a different thread.

Thanks for the civil discussion and the reminder to be be a little more sensitive.

Upnorthkyosa

Generally, when I am making a point about an observation I am doing so with me included in that observation. I know I have been reactive, hostile and immoderate on this and other forums. Upon reflection, some off it was flat out wrong and some of it I would stand behind. My own behavior, along with others, could be used as a cautionary tale if it helps illustrate my point. The things I thought were wrong, I resolved/reconsiled as best I could with the parties involved - just as I would have if it was in person. The things I consider appropriate, I leave it up to either 'agree to disagree' and a willingness to stand for my convictions and face the criticism that comes with that at times - just as I would in person. But, I make that decision based on my personal values.

People who have known me on and off forums for a long time will attest to my imperfections , but, hopefully, also to my demonstration of a basic belief that is isn't the mistakes a person makes, but how they act during the aftermath that is a testamony to character. Since that is a small population of this forum, I have to accept responsibility for how I present myself in this limited forum based only on this limited forum. I am not responsible, though, if people choose to form opinions without seeking further explanation/communication. That is why I have my email contact on the profile. If you don't understand or agree or want to clear the air in a less 'public' way, write me.

No, pins and needles isn't my point either, but sensitivity is a good word.

And, the last long post about 'beer muscle' talk was in general - not specifically pointed at you or this thread specifically. I could say that my mental direction and thoughts that were partly inspired by this thread were evident, but it was not intended as a not so sublte 'below the radar' personal jab/criticism directed at you. I am sorry if it read that way. When I was writing that post, it was intended for Rich Parsons as a response to his interp. of L of the Flies.