Political Potpourri VIII

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-04 11:36:49

So what would a Republican SDV look like and what would a Democratic SDV look like?

The Republican one would use entirely off-the-shelf shuttle components but constantly refer to the Saturn V for comparison. It would be launched into space with insufficient crew to carry out the mission.

The Democrat one would be labeled as "Shuttle derived" but would in fact be an entirely new design using outdated components that never really worked in the first place. It would be grossly over-budget but hailed as eco-friendly for its use of hydrogen fuel.

clark · 2005-08-04 11:40:08

Of course, creating an SDV would require bi-partisan support, so perhaps they can devise a crew that meets both parties needs of a "represenative" hero...

A crew of militant-gay-fundamentalist-christians?

PS- good one Cobra (and if you mesh them together, you kind of get the current proposal...)

clark · 2005-08-04 11:41:43

We can call the first CEV, USS Irony.

Josh Cryer · 2005-08-05 01:30:25

Good going clark, you killed the thread, so now I don't have to scold you guys for being a bit annoying.

I hope the heads can cool and everyone can get a bit civilized now. This thread exists because all forums have their political opinions, but it can't hurt every now and again to, well, take a break. Just sayin'.

srmeaney · 2005-08-05 04:45:51

A crew of militant-gay-fundamentalist-christians?

Now why would we want clones of GW on a spaceship?

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-05 07:33:07

Hi Josh!
Yes, I hear you. But I don't add very much to this political thread in comparison to the hardened campaigners, so I figured I'd be O.K. to go ahead with this brief article below, taken from today's 'The Australian' newspaper.
-- It echoes my sentiments exactly regarding the irresponsible (at best) or traitorous (at worst) terminology which has been used by some media outlets when describing the situation in Iraq :-

STEVEN Vincent, a journalist who was found murdered in Basra, Iraq this week, on occhronicle.blogspot.com:
WORDS matter. Words convey moral clarity. Without moral clarity, we will not succeed in Iraq. That is why the terms the press uses to cover this conflict are so vital. For example, take the word "guerillas". Mainstream media sources like The New York Times often use the terms "insurgents" or "guerillas" to describe the Sunni triangle gunmen, as if these murderous thugs represented a traditional national liberation movement. But when the Times reports on similar groups of masked reactionary killers operating in Latin American countries, they utilise the phrase "paramilitary death squads". Same murderers, different designations. Yet of the two, "insurgents" and especially "guerillas" has a claim on our sympathies that "paramilitaries" lacks. This is not semantics: imagine if the media routinely called the Sunni triangle gunmen "right-wing paramilitary death squads". Not only would the description be more accurate, but it would offer the American public a clear idea of the enemy in Iraq. And that, in turn, would bolster public attitudes toward the war... Instead of saying that the coalition "invaded" Iraq and "occupies" it today, we could more precisely claim that the allies liberated the country and are currently reconstructing it...
The most despicable misuse of terminology, however, occurs when Leftists call the Saddamites and foreign jihadists "the resistance". What an example of moral inversion! For the fact is, paramilitary death squads are attacking the Iraqi people. And those who oppose the killers - the Iraqi police and National Guardsmen, members of the Allawi government - they are the "resistance". They are preventing Islamo-fascists from seizing Iraq, they are resisting evil men from turning the entire nation into a mass slaughterhouse like we saw in re-liberated Falluja. Anyone who cares about success in our struggle against Islamo-fascism, or upholds principles of moral clarity and lucid thought, should combat such Orwellian distortions of our language.

-- Very nicely put. The New York Times must be an especially poor quality paper, I guess, judging by various examples I've heard of its less-than-satisfactory journalistic standards (?). We have newspapers (and T.V. stations) like it here in Australia, too, and it's hard to imagine the kind of people with such uncritical minds who buy such politically compromised publications.
-- Everybody insists they understand that post-liberation Iraq must be made to succeed if it's humanly possible to do so. Yet irresponsible media like these go about mischievously undermining that success in subtle but very damaging ways - and they do this while their own countrymen are in harm's way!

-- No matter what anybody thinks about the wisdom or otherwise of the Iraqi liberation, it must surely be difficult for anyone to see such reporting as anything but deliberately malicious. :!: :?

clark · 2005-08-05 07:46:16

On second thought... I really, really, don't care.

Josh Cryer · 2005-08-05 08:23:04

Shaun Barrett, I agree with this. I saw about that journalist getting killed (I read Yahoo! headlines, I tend to stay away from politics, but the headlines are probably worthy of my attention, but I never click on the "more news" link). It really made me sad, I read his blog, and his posts to his wife back home, I actually choked up a bit.

I post to a really liberal forum, and I never once use "resistance" without double quotes (this does not bring me much fanfare to be sure). There's no significant resistance in Iraq. Anyone who thinks so is delusional. Is that an ad hom? No. It's not. The facts are clear. The vast majority of "resistant actions" kill more Iraqi civilians than they do the occupation. This is an irrevocible fact, thus they cannot logically be consider "resistant fighters" because not only do they not have a significant number of real sympathizers, they target innocents, innocents of their "own" country. And yes, it's targetting innocents when innocents wind up being killed. Collateral damage is BS. Civilized countries attempt to minimize collateral damage because it says "we care," and the people are generally grateful for it. However, the "resistance fighters" will use massive amounts of explosives to kill one or two Americans. One of those school bombings resulted in only two American deaths, while two dozen children were simply massacred. No goup claimed responsiblity for the act. Of course, it would be bad to claim responsiblity. They probably didn't "mean" to kill those children, but this is what happens when you think civilian populations are fair targets. They happily claim responsiblity when adult civilians are killed, so it's only logical.

I remember when the occupation went in to Fajullah (and yes, I chose to call it an occupation, but I don't think that's wrong, either, I don't consider them liberators, persay, because liberation, to me, implies one who has no motive other than liberating; the US has its motives, and they aren't to explicitly liberate). Many, many reports from forums I go to were talking about the "atrocities" that were occuring there, by the occupation. However, after we started getting real world reports from the people there, it was clear that Fajullah was a despot that no one wanted to be in in the first place. Every single first person account was that the "resistance" had taken over the city and was essentially holding everyone hostage.

I don't sympathize with the "resistance" at all. And on liberal forums I frequent, I do get flack for it. But I'm probably more liberal than any other poster on this forum.

BWhite · 2005-08-05 09:38:31

Lemmings. Blind lemmings, headed for a cliff.

From Vincent's blog "In the Red Zone" - -

As I've written , the fact that many, if not most, of Basra's constabulary harbors primary loyalties to the city's religious parties is--as you might imagine--a serious problem. To the despair of many secular-minded residents, the British are doing a cracker-jack job of teaching Iraqi police cadets close-order drills, proper arrest techniques and pistol marksmanship, without, however, including basic training in democratic principles and a sense of public duty. As a result, our Anglo allies may be handing the religious parties spiffy new myrmidons to augment their already well-armed militias. Worse, the knowledge that a cop's sympathies may lie more with the Badr Organization than the Basran citizenry erodes general trust in the police. "If someone, say, stole my car, I wouldn't go to the police to get it back," an Iraqi journalist told me. "I'd negotiate directly with the thieves."

Who murdered Vincent? Shia militia most probably, the people who took power in Basra (with Iranian assistance) after we removed Saddam. We created a vacuum, Iranian backed militia filled that vacuum and the Brits are training those folks to be better at what they do.

For the most part, the Shia leave the United States alone. Why? Because we are fighting their mortal enemies - - the Sunni/Baath - - for them. Unless we discuss Iraq in the context of Shia, Sunni and Kurd we are talking nonsense.

The people who murdered Vincent are most likely in cahoots with the police and the local leaders we and the Brits currently acknowledge as the legitimate authority in Basra. Vincent was murdered by the people we helped gain power.

When do we liberate the secular residents of Basra from these militias?

= = =

Shaun, Josh.

I have quoted Mr. Vincent. Do you believe he is telling the truth, here?

= = =

I believe Iran is giving considerable assistance to the Shia in and around Basra and is assisting the current elected Iraqi government. Iran just offered to build a new airport at Najaf to assist pilgrims avoid the instability of Bagdhad. for crying out loud.

I deny Iran is assisting the Sunni/Baath the US Marines are fighting in western Iraq.

Josh Cryer · 2005-08-05 10:00:20

Yeah, I read the whole front page of his blog, like, 15 or so long posts, it was a long read. I think his POV is the most accurate POV available in Iraq. Of course our presence there has caused these problems to an extent. The question is what is the solution? Why all the finger pointing?

I read recently about Iraqi's forming militas to go after the "resistance." Literally, there was a post, hold on let me get the link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050718/wl_ … litia_dc_2

The Iraqi's themselves are against these so called "resistance" fighters. Is this a solution?

Probably a better solution than we have now. The key is that these three religious factions are going to have to learn to get along. I don't believe "segregating" is the key, I think that only increases hostilities. I think the Iraqi people can be seen as an example for the world of three different religious sects working together and being a part of one another. And I personally feel the resistance is making that happen even better.

The blame game isn't working.

BWhite · 2005-08-05 10:35:14

Josh, what if the new Iraqi army is mostly Shia and Kurd?

That is the statistic we need to know before we can say whether an integrated Iraq is feasible. My reading suggests that the new Iraqi army is itself very, very heavily segregated between Shia, Kurd and a few Sunni, especially the officers.

Josh Cryer · 2005-08-05 10:48:19

What causes the segregation? I feel as though the suicide bombings have brought some of them together, and they are starting to change their point of view here. At least in the areas that are hardest hit by the "resistance."

I'm not ruling out segregating and creathing a three part state later on, but I think unity should be tried.

edit: btw Bill, I'm not talking about making an army, I'm talking about militias, arming the civilians. That's what that link is talking about, basically neighborhood watch taken to the next level.

clark · 2005-08-05 11:07:43

a bunch of people sitting in a neighborhood looking around is a "watch".

One person doing the same thing is a peeping tom.

Go figure.

I think the fact that lemmings *can* swim only compounds the sick joke that is their natural instinct. Jumping from a cliff isn't enough. Noooooo, they have to swim till they drop too.

BWhite · 2005-08-05 11:15:12

What causes the segregation?

Tribal hatred.

The question can be posed this way. "Did Saddam make Iraq or did Iraq make Saddam?"

Given the patchwork quilt of tribes, Saddam believed that only his heavy hand could keep Iraq together as one country. The Shia (such as those who murdered Vincent) would routinely rebel against Saddam and be brutally repressed. Sadr, the Shia firebrand who we deem as dangerous is the son of a cleric murdered by Saddam.

Before the 1920s, the Sunni/Baath (Saddam's tribe) were the henchmen used by the Turks to suppress the Shia and the Kurds. The Iraqi Shia have more than 100 years of animosity towards the Sunni.

The Sunni also hate the Shia as apostates. bin Laden hates the Iranians as much as he hates us in the West, maybe more - - think Catholic versus Protestant at teh time of Cromwell in England.

The Kurds have been steadily laying a foundation for an independent Kurdistan, which terrifies the Turks, Syrians and Iranians and Israel has started giving Kurdish militias support.

Within these three large divisions (Kurd Sunni & Shia) numerous sub splinters exist as well and alliances form and dissolve with great frequency.

= = =

Iran has a very powerful interest in assuring that a Shia dominated govenrment run Iraq. Not a Sunni, Shia Kurd coalition but a Shia dominated government.

The newly elected Iraqi President (remember the blue fingers?) is VERY friendly to Iran. If the elected President chooses to make Shia Iraq an ally of Iran what do we do?

clark · 2005-08-05 17:47:15

Point of reference to all who can hear me...

Anyway, Bill, who told me not to name names, linked to a rather brilliant thinker. Anyone quoting Orwell usually has a few extra neurons firing.

Well, if you do some research, and apply your own gray matter, you can see the future. I have a one eyed hobo that proves the point. But I digress.

The speaker, who shall remain nameless, made some very interesting points and managed to capture the essence of American foreign policy and some of the short-term effects. We are now living in the long-term effects that are actually born out by the theories presented by this nameless person.

What's the take away?

One, the United States has learned nothing. We continue the same sorts of policy that we have always used. There is no wisdom guiding our actions, no foresight from our hindsight to teach us how to plot a better course. (This is largely why i believe the FDV...as in Frankenstein Derived Vehicle will be an abysmal failure).

We are building a "democracy" in Iraq that will be largely religiously oriented, largely sectarian, and largely waiting to blow once we remove our support (now aimed at 2006). All of this is the result of poor planning, poor follow through, and being hemmed in by a constantly changing reason for our mandate.

You know, this Bush has been likened to Regan, and it was Regan who played a large part in creating this mess (not to mention Bush Sr.). Little Boy George is following in his mentors, and his father’s footsteps.

Find out who this nameless one is. Read what he has to say. Think about it, and apply those little firing neurons, and you will see it too.

But just remember, enjoy the ride.

DonPanic · 2005-08-05 18:30:22

LO Bill
I think that describing Saddam power as only relying on Baath or Sunnis is a mistake.
Regime played on Shias divisions and antagonisms and had agreements with what was to his eyes "moderate" Shia religious leaders, as well as some Kurds allies.
Shias and Kurd revolts against Saddam regime were boosted by Bush-the-father during and after Gulf War 1.
Gaz wich had been polically correct a weapon against Iranian troops during Iraq-Iran war became WMD when used at shia and kurd insurgents.

One, the United States has learned nothing.

What about Blair saying there is not the very tiniest link between London attacks and Iraq ? his nose's inflating
The leading bunch don't want to learn, it wants to teach democracy.
And War On Terror
I've just understood its strategy, I understand quite fast if explained a very very long time :?
it is very brilliant.
It's based on the concept "If we can't go to Usama, Usama will come to us", :shock:
therefore, if we stand in Iraq, Usama will come into Iraq, there, we'll just have to capture him, and we'll win war on terror, and have Jed elected
Machiavelic, is it not ?

clark · 2005-08-05 19:07:40

Of our British lap dogs, I can say nothing.

I'm actually disappointed in Blair, as he has at least had the balls to say what needs to be said. Honesty in a word.

But I'm not surprised, Blair is hemmed in by playing stalwart ally to the imbecile in the Whitehouse, and trying to be his own man.

I think the EU could do a lot worse for a central leader. If I had a vote, I would vote for Blair. I respect his conviction, and feel sorry that he must try to deal as best he can with a unilateral US.

But Chirac, no offense my friend, is a politican of the first order, so I hate him. Does "politican" versus "leader" translate well? Chirac is more politican, because he is an opportunist. Blair is more leader because he plots a course he thinks best, even if it is not widely accepted.

Bush is an idiot, for he is an opportunist that thinks the course he plots is best. The worst of both worlds, while you in the EU have but one half of a bad world.

Remember, I want duck.

DonPanic · 2005-08-06 06:11:00

LO

Of our British lap dogs, I can say nothing.
I'm actually disappointed in Blair, as he has at least had the balls to say what needs to be said. Honesty in a word.
But I'm not surprised, Blair is hemmed in by playing stalwart ally to the imbecile in the Whitehouse, and trying to be his own man.

I think that GB and Blair had no choice but to support war at Irak because of secret treaties USA and GB have signed during WWII and cold war.
Something that prevails as the "perpetual peace treaty" between France and Spain does. Spain was obliged to side France against GB, that led to Trafalgar.
British advocacy on reasons to fight at Iraq were such a poor and akward when you rembember that US AF and RAF had so frequent Saddam's Iraq overflying reconnaissance and bombing raids which destroyed any iraqi radar tracking system.

But Chirac, no offense my friend, is a politican of the first order, so I hate him.

Would you lived in France, you would hate him for his economic results...
Even market and entrepreneurs had more trust when France was ruled by pink coalition.

You get the duck , although as a farm bread kid, if idea of killing a chick to feed on doesn't upset me at all maybe because they are red eyed, naturally, I would never kill any as a harmless and sympathetic animal as duck by myself.
But they are too delicious a meal :oops:

srmeaney · 2005-08-06 17:25:56

The problem wasnt the people who fled these little cesspools of terror for a life in the commonwealth, it was the clergy that invited itself into the commonwealth from these little cesspools. They represented the policies of the regieme (or they would have been rounded up and slaughtered) and rather than allow free people to start their own breakaway church, they take control and push their nasty point of views.

Just deport the priests to the rather nice prison hulks circling Antartica and let ordinary people reach their own conclusions about what is right and wrong.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-06 20:22:22

Hi Josh!
Thanks for your response to my quote. I understand your liberal stance on things, though I don't necessarily agree with all aspects of it, and I'm always impressed by your ability to stand back from situations and evaluate them with a strong equanimity. I regard this as a sign of a higher intellect. (If that sounded to you like a full-on unashamed compliment .. you're right, old man .. it was! )

-- I also agree with your tendency to see things in a more optimistic light than some others, who are inclined to see a morass of insoluble problems in every direction and advertise their pessimism long and loud for various reasons. This optimistic brand of realism sets you apart, in my mind, from the general run of doomsayers among the left-leaning elites, examples of whom are clogging up the media with their politically motivated agendas every day.

-- Just lately, on the anniversary of the Hiroshima bomb, a newsreader said: "There are still some who think the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was justified". Isn't that incredible?! The implication is quite clear, that the great majority of people are of the considered opinion that the bombing was not justified. It also carries with it the insinuation that only a small number of people, who evidently haven't thought this through properly or are perhaps incapable of doing so, are being left behind by the 'moral majority' who understand Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified.
-- I wonder how many others listening to that newscast recognized the subtle propaganda in that item? I wonder on what statistics they based that statement? How many people in the world today have studied the situation which obtained in mid-1945, as American forces approached the Japanese mainland? How many understand the mindset of the Japanese leadership and the Japanese people at that time? How many have soberly weighed up the possibilities, the pros and cons of that terrible decision, and come to a rational conclusion about whether it caused more suffering or less, in absolute terms? And how many of those who have considered it, understand how much clearer everything is in retrospect and how easy it is to sit in judgment when you have the perspective of 60 years of subsequent history to help you?
-- This is just one, small, subtle example of the kind of degradation of journalistic standards I'm talking about. It's not just reporting the facts as the journalist gathers them any more, it's politically slanted statements designed to manipulate how we think.
-- In this case, it was designed to sway people to believe the A-bombs on Japan were definitely and categorically unjustifiable, when the whole episode is still subject to debate among those in a position to understand it properly. It's not an unequivocal past evil by the U.S., as that T.V. network would have us believe, but an open question. And it should be treated as such.
-- Today, in publications like The New York Times and many others, the terminology used is carefully designed to lend the murderous Islamo-fascist thugs in Iraq a subtle air of legitimacy, as Steven Vincent reported.

Bill.
You ask if I "believe" Vincent's account of British troops arming and training the wrong people is true. I don't know. But I have no reason to doubt the man and he's probably 'calling it as he sees it'. There's no question in my mind that all sorts of mistakes have been made in Iraq and will continue to be made but we won't know the final outcome until it's all over.

-- My point wasn't to beatify Steven Vincent but to utilize his eloquent report, about the subtle use of terminology by the liberal left to control our thoughts, to illustrate something I know to be true - because I see it every day on my television set and in newspapers. The liberal left, who seem to me to have an unusually strong representation among journalists and, at least in Australia, among lawyers (no offence, Bill), are infiltrating every aspect of society and acquiring a firm grip on our 'short and curlies'.
-- And one of their most potent weapons is this ingenious but devious recourse to a kind of subliminal wordplay.

-- Watch for it in the media. It's definitely there and it's not hard to spot once you know what to look for. Steven Vincent and I are in agreement on at least that much, which was my main point.

clark · 2005-08-07 07:39:38

The liberal left, who seem to me to have an unusually strong representation among journalists and, at least in Australia, among lawyers (no offence, Bill), are infiltrating every aspect of society and acquiring a firm grip on our 'short and curlies'.

I for one welcome our new liberal media overlords...

Recently, I've taken to cutting out the articles in the NY times and plastering them on my walls. There are hidden messages in those articles. So i sit in this room and look at all the articles, trying to find the hidden messages.

I mean, that is, when I am not being brainwashed by FOX.

srmeaney · 2005-08-07 21:05:57

Recently, I've taken to cutting out the articles in the NY times and plastering them on my walls. There are hidden messages in those articles. So i sit in this room and look at all the articles, trying to find the hidden messages.

Clark, put the rifle away.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-07 21:15:27

Clark:-

Recently, I've taken to cutting out the articles in the NY times and plastering them on my walls. There are hidden messages in those articles. So i sit in this room and look at all the articles, trying to find the hidden messages.

Make sure you remember to get all that paper off the walls before your mother comes home.
(And just wait 'til your father sees what you've done with his New York Times!)

clark · 2005-08-07 21:52:22

Thanks for the concern Shaun. But we review the paper for secret messages together, as a family.

Remember, a family that is paranoid together, stays together! I'm sure it works the same way in your own household.

Fledi · 2005-08-10 19:13:48

No, clark, you're looking at the wrong place, it's all in the toilet paper, with watermarks. But it takes a lot of time, only very few papers are marked (haven't found one yet, but keep looking), obviously for safety reasons.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2005-08-04 11:36:49

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#202 2005-08-04 11:40:08

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#203 2005-08-04 11:41:43

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#204 2005-08-05 01:30:25

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#205 2005-08-05 04:45:51

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#206 2005-08-05 07:33:07

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#207 2005-08-05 07:46:16

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#208 2005-08-05 08:23:04

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#209 2005-08-05 09:38:31

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#210 2005-08-05 10:00:20

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#211 2005-08-05 10:35:14

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#212 2005-08-05 10:48:19

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#213 2005-08-05 11:07:43

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#214 2005-08-05 11:15:12

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#215 2005-08-05 17:47:15

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#216 2005-08-05 18:30:22

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#217 2005-08-05 19:07:40

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#218 2005-08-06 06:11:00

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#219 2005-08-06 17:25:56

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#220 2005-08-06 20:22:22

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#221 2005-08-07 07:39:38

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#222 2005-08-07 21:05:57

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#223 2005-08-07 21:15:27

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#224 2005-08-07 21:52:22

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

#225 2005-08-10 19:13:48

Re: Political Potpourri VIII

Board footer