Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

BWhite · 2004-12-07 09:33:29

*Due to laws within this nation, Jerry Falwell's powers are limited. He can't build dirty bombs or store up a cache of weapons without the Feds pouncing on him and tossing him in the slammer. (And I'm not implying I think Falwell WOULD do those sorts of things in the first place, but then I'm not eager to give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to much).
Do we have that same sort of control over the rag-tag religious jihad nuts in the Middle East? They aren't beholden to our legal process.
--Cindy
How about forcing my chidlren to learn that creationism is as equally valid as evolution? After all, both are just theories and neither theory is better than the other.
That "threat" is happening today.
= = =
You see, Cindy, the West vs Islam WILL morph into Christians versus Islam - - "My God is bigger than their God" - - is how it is being played out TODAY!
*Oh, I know. Don't get me started...! :angry: :;): I'm the LAST person here who cares for religion.
But Falwell and folks in this nation are "muzzled" by laws, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Falwell can't order some of his goons to ransack my house and harrass me for not believing the way he does. That could, does and has happened in nations like Afghanistan and Iran, etc., etc.
--Cindy
::edit:: You added more as I was responding As for the last -- yes, I think that's likely. But that doesn't prevent me from seeing the threat (BOTH pose) independently. Particularly those folks who are outside the reach of our laws, our concepts of human rights and freedoms, etc. I fear them more, because they aren't "muzzled."

We are protected by laws, correct? That;s why Jerry Falwell knows he needs http://www.washingtondispatch.com/artic … ml]lawyers.

Lawyers who will become judges in 20 years.

Open link:

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/artic … 0163.shtml

Liberty University's School of Law Mission Statement: "Liberty University School of Law aspires to produce future leaders who are clear thinkers, skilled legal practitioners, and morally responsible leaders of society. Thus the purpose of the School of Law is to equip graduates in law with a superior legal education in fidelity to the Christian faith expressed through the Holy scriptures."
At first blush, Liberty University's School of Law Mission Statement appears innocuous, but it is actually a dangerous and radical declaration. Falwell is making no bones about his Law School’s mission, saying that graduates of the school "would be on the Judeo-Christian side of every issue."

Cindy, my point is that the radical Right desires to whip up fervor against Islam precisely in order to distract us from their agenda.

Besides, we have already had the argument that the Bush strategy for fighting terror is giving steroids to a TB patient.

Edited By BWhite on 1102433717

BWhite · 2004-12-07 09:36:28

What have we come too when the friggin' Fascist is the calm one? :hm:

Because you guys are winning? :;):

= = =

Yet for better or worse, the neo-con fantasy of "laying your Risk cards" and running the table ends up with the USA being several pieces short of total domination.

???

Edited By BWhite on 1102433902

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-07 09:38:36

Quote (Cobra Commander @ Dec. 07 2004, 10:30)
What have we come too when the friggin' Fascist is the calm one?
Because you guys are winning?

I resent the implication that George Bush and Karl Rove are fascists.

It reflects poorly on the rest of us.

BWhite · 2004-12-07 09:40:46

Quote (Cobra Commander @ Dec. 07 2004, 10:30)
What have we come too when the friggin' Fascist is the calm one?
Because you guys are winning?
I resent the implication that George Bush and Karl Rove are fascists.
It reflects poorly on the rest of us.

Fair enough. And I agree. Mayberry Machiavellians says it best.

Tell me, Putin, Chirac, bin Laden and Bush sit down together at a World Series of Poker table. Everyone has equal table stakes.

Who do YOU bet on?

= = =

I truly am a western chauvinist. The stakes are high. And I resent being led by "Bozo" and being told to stand in line and obey.

Do we really want to defeat Islam?

Job #1 - - stop buying Saudi oil - - build fission plants and crack H20 for our fuel. Buying Saudi oil is like sending LendLease to Hitler.

Edited By BWhite on 1102434256

Palomar · 2004-12-07 09:46:19

Cindy, my point is that the radical Right desires to whip up fervor against Islam precisely in order to distract us from their agenda.

*I don't doubt that in the least. Sure they have their own agenda and etc.

But I still consider Islamic extremists more of a threat, for reasons I've already outlined. And independant of what the Falwellian-type dingbats think (or their own motives).

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-07 09:48:24

Tell me, Putin, Chirac, bin Laden and Bush sit down together at a World Series of Poker table. Everyone has equal table stakes.
Who do YOU bet on?

Is this how the Left calls for a truce? We were in a discussion about the dangers of radical Islam, which you rightly pointed out we need unity to confront... then resumed dividing. :hm:

This appears to be symptomatic of the Left in general, if both sides simply admitted that they are guided by their own respective faiths and prejudices maybe we could make some progress, unfortunately there is plenty of denial to go around.

BWhite · 2004-12-07 10:00:38

Cindy, my point is that the radical Right desires to whip up fervor against Islam precisely in order to distract us from their agenda.
*I don't doubt that in the least. Sure they have their own agenda and etc.
But I still consider Islamic extremists more of a threat, for reasons I've already outlined. And independant of what the Falwellian-type dingbats think (or their own motives).
--Cindy

Fair enough.

So can you agree that I am entitled to fight for a strategy that does not needlessly empower then Falwellian Right?

And not thereby be labeled unpatriotic?

BWhite · 2004-12-07 10:08:38

I need to move on to other things, today. This may be my last word for a while.

= = =

Any discussion of fighting "Islam" that does not include ending our cash transfers to Saudi Arabia in exchange for oil is a waste of time.

We CANNOT defeat Islam without kicking the petroleum habit.

Therefore, any strategy that does not include ending our dependence on petroleum simply is not a serious strategy.

To the extent the Right rallies us to fight Islam and does not include getting off oil as a critical element of the strategy, I immediately suspect "fighting Islam" is mere subterfuge for another agenda altogether.

= = =

A call to build 100 new fission plants and terminate ALL imports of foreign oil would go a long way towards convincing me GWB is serious about figting "global Islam"

The cute thing is this can be done under the pretense of Kyoto compliance. :;):

Otherwise, I believe "fighting Islam" is what Rove tells the yahoos while he and Bush dine with Prince Bandar.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-07 10:10:42

So can you agree that I am entitled to fight for a strategy that does not needlessly empower then Falwellian Right?
And not thereby be labeled unpatriotic?

I too consider the "Falwellian" Right to be an enemy, yet they don't represent all conservatives or Republicans any more than all liberals are staunch Marxists.

Which I have to remind myself of on occasion.

BWhite · 2004-12-07 10:17:03

So can you agree that I am entitled to fight for a strategy that does not needlessly empower then Falwellian Right?
And not thereby be labeled unpatriotic?
I too consider the "Falwellian" Right to be an enemy, yet they don't represent all conservatives or Republicans any more than all liberals are staunch Marxists.
Which I have to remind myself of on occasion.

100% agreed!

Palomar · 2004-12-07 10:23:02

Cindy, my point is that the radical Right desires to whip up fervor against Islam precisely in order to distract us from their agenda.
*I don't doubt that in the least. Sure they have their own agenda and etc.
But I still consider Islamic extremists more of a threat, for reasons I've already outlined. And independant of what the Falwellian-type dingbats think (or their own motives).
--Cindy
Fair enough.
So can you agree that I am entitled to fight for a strategy that does not needlessly empower then Falwellian Right?
And not thereby be labeled unpatriotic?

*Yes Bill.

And yes, Falwell and ilk like him do use faith and belief (in their belief system of course) as "evidence" for patriotism ... or lack thereof as disagreement with them goes.

I've mentioned before at different points of discussion (not this thread specifically) that agnostics (me) and atheists are often unfairly castigated as being "less than" human or "less than" patriotic because we don't adhere to a religion or particular religious viewpoint.

Thankfully, Falwell has said enough crass and stupid things over the years that he's lost some of his prestige even among non-adherents who may have otherwise looked up to him. He's not cheating on his wife (that we know of), but lots of people (even of various Christian persuasions) didn't take too kindly to his assertion that God punished us by allowing 9/11 to happen because of the gays. :-\ I think he's smart enough, though, to realize he can only go so far before he "hangs" himself.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-07 10:27:31

Any discussion of fighting "Islam" that does not include ending our cash transfers to Saudi Arabia in exchange for oil is a waste of time.

What is meant by "fighting Islam" is the first issue that must be addressed. Do we mean simply stopping it from establishing a foothold in our own countries? If so, all Islam or just the radical variety? Do we mean defeating it everywhere? All of it? What constitues victory? Poverty, vassal status, utter destruction? "Fighting Islam" means many different things to different people.

That said, I agree that our current dependance on foreign oil is a severe problem. Unfortunately, none of the proposals on the table really solve the problem.

What would I do? Well, assuming dictatorial powers your "100 fission plants" suggestion has merit. There is no reason why all electric utilities can't be nuclear, we then only need oil when the thing needing fuel has to move under its own power. Hybrid vehicles can help, but they're over-rated. Hydrogen might solve it, but it's a ways off and assuming it would be imprudent. So hybrid, with the size and performance that Americans want. Not as efficient as a little electric box, but a hybrid Suburban is preferable to a standard petroleum engine. A coherent urban public transit plan could alleviate a significant chunk of automotive use as well.

We have massive oil reserves we have not tapped, they could potentially completely solve the probelm, though most likely only alleviate pressures. Particularly given that it would take several years to reach full production if we started today.

Regardless we significantly reduce the need for oil while increasing our own supply. However, it may still be preferable to buy from others, use up their gas first. Canada (our largest oil supplier) is not a threat and so we need not cut back with them. We could potentially work some dealings with Russia from their Caspian Sea developments, though not a given. So where does that leave us with the Saudis?

They need us buying the oil more than we need them selling it to us. Carrots and sticks. US oil money keeps the House of Saud in power. We can use that to great effect.

BWhite · 2004-12-07 10:29:36

Not gone yet. . .

I cannot say this enough times.

To stir up emotions about "fighting Islam" without a plan to escape our dependence on petroleum does far more harm than good.

We CANNOT fight Islam and continue to send billions & billions of dollars to the Saudi royal family at the same time.

Period.

Therefore IMHO, any anti-Islam diatribe that does not include a plan to end our use of petroleum is either:

(a) not sufficiently thought through; or

b) willful scapegoating for ulterior motives.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-07 11:25:54

To stir up emotions about "fighting Islam" without a plan to escape our dependence on petroleum does far more harm than good.
We CANNOT fight Islam and continue to send billions & billions of dollars to the Saudi royal family at the same time.
Period.

I agree that dependence on foreign oil, specifically Arab oil must be ended. However ending that oil dependence is only part of an overall strategy that needs to be implemented. Cutting back but still buying just enough to string the Saudis along can be far more beneficial, if nothing else it can keep them in check while other matters are attended to. It increases our options. If we cut off the Saudis the royal family will not be able to maintain control, the country erupts into civil war then caliphate, openly supporting anti-American terrorism. Cutting off the money is only the start of a solution, if we aren't ready to take further steps then it would be unwise to knock Saudi Arabia over.

Now, I've laid out an off-the-cuff outline for a plan to end or at least drastically reduce dependence on foreign oil. Not perfect, but a start. It isn't flashy and full of new clean-greeny tech fixes but it is workable with what we presently have. That's the problem we face, most "plans" for ending oil dependence are at best optimistic speculation and at worst outright fantasy. We need to solve he problem, and doing so will require a high degree of centralized direction and compromise solutions.

Unfortunately, most people would rather hear about magical clean-burning fuels that never run out and make the sky bluer all while not costing us anything more. It would be nice to have cheap hydrogen cars and fusion, but I'm looking in the national toolbox and I'm not finding them in there...

Palomar · 2004-12-07 11:26:07

Tell me, Putin, Chirac, bin Laden and Bush sit down together at a World Series of Poker table. Everyone has equal table stakes.
Who do YOU bet on?

*Tony Blair!

You left out Tony Blair!

My bet's on him. Most handsome man in the group.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-12-07 11:47:03

If we can't play GO, maybe we should at least try Chinese Checkers...

So we end our reliance on cheap arab oil. Take the US off the market, and crude just got that much cheaper. Of course, replacing our dependance has advantages, but then the alternatives csot a bit more, which reduces our economic competiviness. The rest of the nations that rely on crude will get cheaper oil, and thus have a greater economic advantage.

So let's say things get ugly with one of those nations, the US is less likely to be able to get involved because the US population will not see a neccessity (the practical people tend to say, hey, gimmie oil, it's in my interest).

Maybe this dosen't make much sense- but neither does stationing 30,000 US troops in South Korea. They can't stop and invasion from North Korea- that's why they are called a "trip-wire". How hard do you think it would be to get US public opinion to go bomb N.Korea if a bunch of (thousands) GI's are dead? That's the point.

We remove ourselves from the Mideast we will create a power vacum to be filled by any other nation that wants secured access to cheap crude oil. By maintaining control over that area, we deny them that opportunity, and if push comes to shove, are in a better position to deny access (apart from just going nuclear and A-bombing the place).

Competing stratgeic interests make this mess and preclude taking a more sensible approach to the whole matter. Just because we want out dosen't mean we want anyone else in there- which is what will happen. By keeping reliance on cheap oil, the US population must support strategic plans that require a strong control of the area.

Of course, none of this solves anything, merely throwing it out there. :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-12-07 11:58:11

clark, one current issue is the "crusade against Islam' meme that is sweeping the right wing blog boards and filtering into places like NewMars.

Big picture, you are correct, of course. That is why we must find common ground with moderate Muslims and why generalized "anti-Islam" agitation is counter-productive.

We remove ourselves from the Mideast we will create a power vacum to be filled by any other nation that wants secured access to cheap crude oil. By maintaining control over that area, we deny them that opportunity, and if push comes to shove, are in a better position to deny access (apart from just going nuclear and A-bombing the place).

Jack-boots on their necks is worse IMHO than just leaving.

Residents of Fallajuh now need retina scans and to give DNA samples in order to return home. That will win us support.

Boston Globe link to follow:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articl … ...ampdown

Mandatory work battalions are under consideration.

Edited By BWhite on 1102442475

clark · 2004-12-07 12:12:54

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the moderate Muslim in Iraq found predominantly among the Sunni minority?

Shiite Whabism got us here, no?

Palomar · 2004-12-07 12:13:30

*Bill, aren't you mixing phrases up a bit?

Anti-Islam implies being opposed to that religion and all of its adherents entirely. Falwell and his cronies may fall into that category.

Some folks (like myself) do acknowledge that there are good, productive, humane, progressive Muslims. We're anti-terrorism, whether by the radical adherents of Islam (or radical adherents to Christianity).

I think you're using the words "anti-Islam" too freely here.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-12-07 13:00:55

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the moderate Muslim in Iraq found predominantly among the Sunni minority?
Shiite Whabism got us here, no?

Sorry, factual error clark. (We need a ref's whistle icon!)

bin Laden is Sunni.

If google is my best friend on all the internets, wikipedia is a close 2nd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism] … /Wahhabism

= = =

Since many Sunni consider the Shia apostates, Sistani is the perfect leader for Iraq if our goal is to fight bin Laden's terror rather fighting than all Islam. (Sadly, that empowers Iran.)

Sunnis are not unanimous in their view of the Shi'ites. However the Sunnis do not consider the difference between the Shi'ites and the Sunnis to be comparable to the difference between the different mazahib of Sunni Fiqh. A tiny minority maintains that Shias (specifically the Jafaryia or The Twelvers) can be considered a "fifth madhab" of Islam. A decree from the prestigious Al-Azhar university in Egypt supporting this later viewpoint was widely condemned by Sunni scholars the world over. Generally, most Sunnis consider Shia to be a misguided and heretical sect, but within the fold of Islam. However all three of established Sunni schools in South Asia, i.e the Berailvi, the Deobandi and the Wahhabi consider Shia to be apostates from Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Isla … her_groups

Edited By BWhite on 1102446593

clark · 2004-12-07 13:16:50

Give me 50%

Iraqi Sunni's are usually presented as more secular, while the Shiite's are villified as more tradional in Islamic-theological leanings.

Bin Laden preaches a particular virulent strain of Whabbism, right?

Again, it seems the moderate muslims would be found among the Sunni's (the same ones that supported the secular rule of Saddam). How moderate are the Shiite majority if we are already predicting a theocracy of some sort and beholden to Sistani keeping everyone peaceful?

So throw some more wood onto the fire...

Shiite's in Saudia Arabia are second class citizens... Bin Laden wants to go home.

Hmmm.

Bin Laden wanted the US out of Mecca. Didn't he do that?
Bin Laden wants to overthrow the current regime in Saudi Arabia. Can we really help out there if Bin Laden makes a move for some type of coup while we are occupied with the Iraqi mess? If Shiite dominance in Iraq leads to a theocracy of sorts, wouldn't that lead to confrontations between Saudi Arabia and Iraq? Wouldn't that bring Iran in?

BWhite · 2004-12-07 13:36:19

These are part of the reasons Saddam was convinced we would never remove him from power. A secular "strongman" in Iraq or Iran serves our interests best. Bush 41 knew this quite well indeed.

Chalabi was the heir apparent until we discovered his Iranian connections. Allawi is our new hope except Sistani has been crafty by renouncing violence and building an electoral coalition.

Now we are trapped. If not the Shia, who do we transfer power to?

Edited By BWhite on 1102448210

clark · 2004-12-07 13:41:29

Told ya that we were out of options.

I guess we could stay, until Iran falls.

Of course what isn't really said is that we have to solve all of this before 2010.

BWhite · 2004-12-07 13:56:19

Nha. The "Rapture" solves everything.

Saw a great sig: "In event of Rapture, can I have your car?"

Josh Cryer · 2004-12-07 17:09:43

Why 2010?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2004-12-07 09:33:29

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#177 2004-12-07 09:36:28

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#178 2004-12-07 09:38:36

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#179 2004-12-07 09:40:46

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#180 2004-12-07 09:46:19

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#181 2004-12-07 09:48:24

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#182 2004-12-07 10:00:38

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#183 2004-12-07 10:08:38

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#184 2004-12-07 10:10:42

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#185 2004-12-07 10:17:03

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#186 2004-12-07 10:23:02

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#187 2004-12-07 10:27:31

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#188 2004-12-07 10:29:36

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#189 2004-12-07 11:25:54

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#190 2004-12-07 11:26:07

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#191 2004-12-07 11:47:03

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#192 2004-12-07 11:58:11

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#193 2004-12-07 12:12:54

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#194 2004-12-07 12:13:30

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#195 2004-12-07 13:00:55

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#196 2004-12-07 13:16:50

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#197 2004-12-07 13:36:19

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#198 2004-12-07 13:41:29

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#199 2004-12-07 13:56:19

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#200 2004-12-07 17:09:43

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

Board footer