When will the "Right" apologize?

[jj]

When will the so-called "right" apologize for falsifying the positions of people who didn't support this war?

When will the so-called "right" apologize for calling them all "dupes of leftism" and "commies"?

When will the so-called "right" apologize for asking for enormously increased government interference in private life in the service of "protecting us from leftism"?

When will the so-called "right" apologize for ignoring the serious economic aspects of this war?

When will the so-called "right" apologize for giving every tin-pot dictator in the world the ability to claim "pre=emptive" status for their next war?

When will the so-called "right" apologize for inciting world opinion and inciting terrorist attacks on our large cities, all of which are not "so-called right"?

The list is endless. When will the "right" step up and start to make right, instead of shout "might makes right"?

As a right-leaning moderate, or a moderate rightist, I find the repugnant actions of the "new right" hard to distinguish from the insane paranoia of a Joe McCarthy or the psychopathic behavior of a Joseph Goebbels, and I am appalled and ashamed at this smearing of the meaning "right".

[Gem]

"Right" and "Left" are a very simplistic view.
If you didn't know, it refers to the political spectrum.
Left: Give power to the people and government (which sometimes contradict itself).
Right: Give less power to government, more power to the "Market" and Pro business (pro business and pro market are not always hand in hands, either, like quotas are pro business but un-market)
I lean to the moderate left in domestic issues, but on international issues I'm becoming more "rightist."
Saying the left is all stalin and communism is like saying the right is all about Hitler, Watergate and Enron.
Both sides have done questionable things, and we should judge policies, law, and ideas based on their intentions and how they will affect us.
Both sides will never "apologies" to anybody, their honor of their strong stance depends on it.

And frankly, we need a "skeptic" side on the political spectrum.:cool:
James Randi for president!

Gem

[corplinx]

"When will the so-called "right" apologize for falsifying the positions of people who didn't support this war?"

When will the anti-war movement come clean about their true motivations? This wasn't a pacifist movement at heart. It was anti-Bush.

"When will the so-called "right" apologize for calling them all "dupes of leftism" and "commies"?"

I for one did not call them "all" dupes of leftism. That was Jedi Knight. I hardly think he represents all non-leftists.

"When will the so-called "right" apologize for asking for enormously increased government interference in private life in the service of "protecting us from leftism"?"

Inteference in your private life? No such thing happened. Next.

"When will the so-called "right" apologize for ignoring the serious economic aspects of this war?"

We did notice the price of oil dropped. As for the actual cost of the war, its a drop in the bucket compared to the full budget. We didn't ignore it. We just didn't give it more attention than it deserved.

"When will the so-called "right" apologize for giving every tin-pot dictator in the world the ability to claim "pre=emptive" status for their next war?"

We didn't. This is pure whimsy based on gross oversimplification.

"When will the so-called "right" apologize for inciting world opinion and inciting terrorist attacks on our large cities, all of which are not "so-called right"?"

What attacks?

"The list is endless. When will the "right" step up and start to make right, instead of shout "might makes right"?"

Haven't heard "might makes right". Sounds like a strawman arguement made up by a leftist. Now go report to the soylent green factory and leave important matters to the rest of us please.

"As a right-leaning moderate, or a moderate rightist, I find the repugnant actions of the "new right" hard to distinguish from the insane paranoia of a Joe McCarthy or the psychopathic behavior of a Joseph Goebbels, and I am appalled and ashamed at this smearing of the meaning "right"."

Uhhhhh. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Can you say borb?

[Gem]

Well, Might DOES make Right.
The romans were right.
The British were right with their conquest.
the Nazis were right until both America and Russia were right.
Isreal is right.
The soviet union and the us had an argument about being "right," which we refer as the cold war, and in the end the US were right.
The thing that "makes it right" is might.
How long until the US isn't right? No idea, but it won't last forever.
Remember the old quote? "History books are written by the victors." or "History is in the hand of the victors."
"Right" and "just" are determined by those who win.

Gem

[jj]

Originally posted by Gem
"Right" and "Left" are a very simplistic view.
If you didn't know, it refers to the political spectrum.
Left: Give power to the people and government (which sometimes contradict itself).
Right: Give less power to government, more power to the "Market" and Pro business (pro business and pro market are not always hand in hands, either, like quotas are pro business but un-market)
I lean to the moderate left in domestic issues, but on international issues I'm becoming more "rightist."
Saying the left is all stalin and communism is like saying the right is all about Hitler, Watergate and Enron.
Both sides have done questionable things, and we should judge policies, law, and ideas based on their intentions and how they will affect us.
Both sides will never "apologies" to anybody, their honor of their strong stance depends on it.

And frankly, we need a "skeptic" side on the political spectrum.:cool:
James Randi for president!

Gem

If you're expecting me to more than argue with nits about what left and right are, you're going to have to wait a long time for me to argue about the rest of that!

[Frank Newgent]

WASHINGTON, DC (REUTERS) - At a Pentagon briefing on the progress of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs stunned reporters when she took famed debunker James Randi's "$1,000,000 Paranormal Challenge". Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's spokeswoman Victoria Clarke followed the claim "the inevitable outcome of victory is more than a feeling" not with an appropriate song lyric, such as "'till I see Marianne walk away" and a stirring guitar solo, but instead the simple declaration "It is reality" at the Monday afternoon press conference.

According to their website the James Randi Educational Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims. Additionally, it offers a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

Such demonstration must take place under certain rules and limitations a spokesman for the JREF, Jeff the Monkey Boy, said in a telephone interview late last night. Foremost among them in this case is the important condition that expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither the JREF nor James Randi will bear any of the costs of this invasion or war he said. In what some might consider a response, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was quoted as saying: "The blue print for this operation was drawn up under technology that makes the night vision on your Peugeot 406 look like a kicked-out headlight. Coalition forces will soon be equipped with highly effective "Save-An-Iraqi" acoustic whistles which emit a sound frequency at speeds over 35 MPH, warning Iraqi freedom lovers and preventing them from moving into the path of our humvees and tanks." He then added: "These dead Iraqis would have loved democracy. Are you willing to be responsible for that?" He concluded by saying: "Give us the million now."

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx
"When will the so-called "right" apologize for falsifying the positions of people who didn't support this war?"

When will the anti-war movement come clean about their true motivations? This wasn't a pacifist movement at heart. It was anti-Bush.
Says you. Evidence? Is my opposition to this war "anti-Bush" or have I become more "anti-Bush" because of the dumb*** way he started this war? Are you claiming to read my mind? Are you saying that all the war opposition is totally and without any exception purely motivated to hurt Bush? Really?


"When will the so-called "right" apologize for calling them all "dupes of leftism" and "commies"?"

I for one did not call them "all" dupes of leftism. That was Jedi Knight. I hardly think he represents all non-leftists.


I hope you're right.


"When will the so-called "right" apologize for asking for enormously increased government interference in private life in the service of "protecting us from leftism"?"

Inteference in your private life? No such thing happened. Next.

Two words: Patriot Act


"When will the so-called "right" apologize for ignoring the serious economic aspects of this war?"

We did notice the price of oil dropped. As for the actual cost of the war, its a drop in the bucket compared to the full budget. We didn't ignore it. We just didn't give it more attention than it deserved.

How about the effect on the deficit. That's much more important. The same amount of money in the 1970s' and 80's gave us "stagflation" like nobody has ever seen before.


"When will the so-called "right" apologize for giving every tin-pot dictator in the world the ability to claim "pre=emptive" status for their next war?"

We didn't. This is pure whimsy based on gross oversimplification.

India's evidence (even though India is not a tin-pot dictatorship) proves your claim wrong, and mine right.


"When will the so-called "right" apologize for inciting world opinion and inciting terrorist attacks on our large cities, all of which are not "so-called right"?"

What attacks?

Speculation on my part. Noted. It would be nice to be wrong, too.


"The list is endless. When will the "right" step up and start to make right, instead of shout "might makes right"?"

Haven't heard "might makes right". Sounds like a strawman arguement made up by a leftist. Now go report to the soylent green factory and leave important matters to the rest of us please.

Jedi, Luke, and some others have given the reason as "because we can and nobody else can". Dd you miss that?


"As a right-leaning moderate, or a moderate rightist, I find the repugnant actions of the "new right" hard to distinguish from the insane paranoia of a Joe McCarthy or the psychopathic behavior of a Joseph Goebbels, and I am appalled and ashamed at this smearing of the meaning "right"."

Uhhhhh. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Can you say borb?
Yeah, sure. BORB anything you don't like. You've just shown your true stars when you have the temerity to say that.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
WASHINGTON, DC (REUTERS) - At a Pentagon briefing on the progress of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs stunned reporters when she took famed debunker James Randi's "$1,000,000 Paranormal Challenge". Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's spokeswoman Victoria Clarke followed the claim "the inevitable outcome of victory is more than a feeling" not with an appropriate song lyric, such as "'till I see Marianne walk away" and a stirring guitar solo, but instead the simple declaration "It is reality" at the Monday afternoon press conference.

According to their website the James Randi Educational Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims. Additionally, it offers a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

Such demonstration must take place under certain rules and limitations a spokesman for the JREF, Jeff the Monkey Boy, said in a telephone interview late last night. Foremost among them in this case is the important condition that expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither the JREF nor James Randi will bear any of the costs of this invasion or war he said. In what some might consider a response, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was quoted as saying: "The blue print for this operation was drawn up under technology that makes the night vision on your Peugeot 406 look like a kicked-out headlight. Coalition forces will soon be equipped with highly effective "Save-An-Iraqi" acoustic whistles which emit a sound frequency at speeds over 35 MPH, warning Iraqi freedom lovers and preventing them from moving into the path of our humvees and tanks." He then added: "These dead Iraqis would have loved democracy. Are you willing to be responsible for that?" He concluded by saying: "Give us the million now."

Could you provide the link to this article?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by jj

Inteference in your private life? No such thing happened. Next.

Two words: Patriot Act

Just curious, what increases in government interference in your private life have you experienced since the Patriot Act was passed?

[jj]

Originally posted by ssibal


Just curious, what increases in government interference in your private life have you experienced since the Patriot Act was passed?

That, sir, is none of your cursed-to-hades business.

[corplinx]

"Says you. Evidence? Is my opposition to this war "anti-Bush" or have I become more "anti-Bush" because of the dumb*** way he started this war?"

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

"Two words: Patriot Act"

Two words: no facts.

"How about the effect on the deficit."

The deficit is a very low percentage of GDP currently. Tell me you aren't comparing the raw dollar amounts to amounts from 20 years ago.

"India's evidence (even though India is not a tin-pot dictatorship) proves your claim wrong, and mine right."

You think India would not strike Pakistan without using this convenient excuse? Mind you,we haven't made any preemptive attacks so I find it hard for other countries to use us as an example.

"Jedi, Luke, and some others have given the reason as "because we can and nobody else can". Dd you miss that?"

Ask them to apologize then.

[jj]

What ever, Corplinx. Whatever. You're not going to change you rmind, I know that. Anibus Fidemus!

[jj]

prod

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by jj

When will the so-called "right" apologize for asking for enormously increased government interference in private life in the service of "protecting us from leftism"?


If you mean the Patriot Act, I'm opposed to it being enacted permanently, but how much is it really affecting the everyday American? Do you know anyone that its affected? Or even know anyone who know anyone who has? If you are concerned about government interference in private life, start looking at our current illict drug policy, that makes the patriot act look pale in comparison.


When will the so-called "right" apologize for ignoring the serious economic aspects of this war?


I don't see anyone ignoring the economic aspects of the war, the war budget has been debated openly for some time now. If the war lowers and stabalizes oil prices it will be a boon for our economy.


When will the so-called "right" apologize for giving every tin-pot dictator in the world the ability to claim "pre=emptive" status for their next war?


Dictators, tin-pot or otherwise, don't justify anything, let alone wars. History has shown this time and time again.


When will the so-called "right" apologize for inciting world opinion and inciting terrorist attacks on our large cities, all of which are not "so-called right"?


Please give a list of terrorist attacks on our large cities since our war effort has begun. You are asking for an apology for something that hasn't, and may not, happen.


As a right-leaning moderate, or a moderate rightist, I find the repugnant actions of the "new right" hard to distinguish from the insane paranoia of a Joe McCarthy or the psychopathic behavior of a Joseph Goebbels, and I am appalled and ashamed at this smearing of the meaning "right".

And I'm appalled and ashamed at the left for rendering the word "liberal" and the Democratic party a joke with their inane politics. Part of the reason the "new right" has made so much progress recently is due to the chronic insanity of the leftists.

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


And I'm appalled and ashamed at the left for rendering the word "liberal" and the Democratic party a joke with their inane politics. Part of the reason the "new right" has made so much progress recently is due to the chronic insanity of the leftists.

I can agree with that, perhaps you're not surprised.

[crackmonkey]

Sometimes trolling is more subtle than others. This thread is one of the less overt ones, but trolling nonetheless. Feelings hurt that Saddam lost? Just be man enough to admit that you were wrong, and let's move on.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj
When will the so-called "right" apologize for falsifying the positions of people who didn't support this war?

When will the so-called "right" apologize for calling them all "dupes of leftism" and "commies"?

When will the so-called "right" apologize for asking for enormously increased government interference in private life in the service of "protecting us from leftism"?

When will the so-called "right" apologize for ignoring the serious economic aspects of this war?

When will the so-called "right" apologize for giving every tin-pot dictator in the world the ability to claim "pre=emptive" status for their next war?

When will the so-called "right" apologize for inciting world opinion and inciting terrorist attacks on our large cities, all of which are not "so-called right"?

The list is endless. When will the "right" step up and start to make right, instead of shout "might makes right"?

As a right-leaning moderate, or a moderate rightist, I find the repugnant actions of the "new right" hard to distinguish from the insane paranoia of a Joe McCarthy or the psychopathic behavior of a Joseph Goebbels, and I am appalled and ashamed at this smearing of the meaning "right".

Was the liberation of 30 million Iraqis a lie?

JK

[kedo1981]

When will the "Right" apologize?

When it's wrong!

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal


Just curious, what increases in government interference in your private life have you experienced since the Patriot Act was passed?

http://lincoln.lpnc.org/lincoln/supporting-patriot.html

[crackmonkey]

Heavens. The tyranny of having library records examined. The sky is falling.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
If you mean the Patriot Act, I'm opposed to it being enacted permanently, but how much is it really affecting the everyday American?

Read the link I gave above. Real people are being affected.

Do you know anyone that its affected?

Oh, that makes it all right? What if we were living 200 years ago—would you say slavery was okay just because you personally didn't know anyone who was enslaved?

If you are concerned about government interference in private life, start looking at our current illict drug policy, that makes the patriot act look pale in comparison.

I will willingly grant you this without hesitation. But is one piece of bad legislation okay just because one exists that is worse? They all need to be fought.

Dictators, tin-pot or otherwise, don't justify anything, let alone wars. History has shown this time and time again.

They do to their followers. All they need is a plausible-sounding reason or five. For evidence, look at how Bush's followers flocked to him even as the reasons he was giving for the war were completely ludicrous.

[quote]Please give a list of terrorist attacks on our large cities since our war effort has begun. You are asking for an apology for something that hasn't, and may not, happen./quote]

Statistically, the chances of a terrorist attack during that time period is infinitessimal, so you can't weasel out of it that way.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Was the liberation of 30 million Iraqis a lie?

Time will tell.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by shanek


Time will tell.

Are the Iraqi people liberated? Yes/No.

I say they are because it is a fact they are, but I find it important to ask you since you seem to not be thinking clearly of this fact.

JK

[Gem]

Are the Iraqi people liberated?
Remember Eastern europe in 1945? They were liberated by the glorious people's army of the USSR. Didn't hold for long though.
"Liberation" is used by those who win. Are the Iraqis liberated? Yes. "Time will tell" means will it end up like a US puppet government or a real democraticly elected government?

Time will tell.

Personally I hope for the latter, dictators/despots are outdated.

Gem

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Are the Iraqi people liberated? Yes/No.

I say it's too early to tell.

I say they are because it is a fact they are,

And on what are you basing this "fact"? The fact that your Fuhrer George III says so?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem

Remember Eastern europe in 1945? They were liberated by the glorious people's army of the USSR. Didn't hold for long though.

Remember how we "liberated" Afghanistan and Kuwait? "Liberating" Kuwait meant taking the country from their current murderous tyrant and giving it back to the previous murderous tyrant. And we "Liberated" Afghanistan after our previous "liberation" put the Taliban in power!

And I mentioned in another thread (completely ignored by the pro-war side) that Iraq has been "liberated" many, many times in the last century. With all this liberating, shouldn't they have been the freest country on Earth?

[Frank Newgent]

WASHINGTON, DC (REUTERS) - At a Pentagon briefing on the progress of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs stunned reporters when she took famed debunker James Randi's "$1,000,000 Paranormal Challenge". Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's spokeswoman Victoria Clarke followed the claim "the inevitable outcome of victory is more than a feeling" not with an appropriate song lyric, such as "'till I see Marianne walk away" and a stirring guitar solo, but instead the simple declaration "It is reality" at the Monday afternoon press conference.

According to their website the James Randi Educational Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims. Additionally, it offers a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

Such demonstration must take place under certain rules and limitations a spokesman for the JREF, Jeff the Monkey Boy, said in a telephone interview late last night. Foremost among them in this case is the important condition that expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither the JREF nor James Randi will bear any of the costs of this invasion or war he said. In what some might consider a response, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was quoted as saying: "The blue print for this operation was drawn up under technology that makes the night vision on your Peugeot 406 look like a kicked-out headlight. Coalition forces will soon be equipped with highly effective "Save-An-Iraqi" acoustic whistles which emit a sound frequency at speeds over 35 MPH, warning Iraqi freedom lovers and preventing them from moving into the path of our humvees and tanks." He then added: "These dead Iraqis would have loved democracy. Are you willing to be responsible for that?" He concluded by saying: "Give us the million now."
Originally posted by Baker
Could you provide the link to this article?
Of course not. I made it up.

And I might suggest a more strenuous personal responsibility for your experiences of any change in the sodium-potassium equilibrium across your neural membranes.

[jj]

**poke**

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by shanek
And on what are you basing this "fact"? The fact that your Fuhrer George III says so?

Ah, now I know why you are denying truth. You dislike President Bush.

Well, I think President Bush should stay in office another 10 years. So there!

JK

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Ah, now I know why you are denying truth. You dislike President Bush.

Well, I think President Bush should stay in office another 10 years. So there!

JK

Are you Egyptian?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by jj


Are you Egyptian?

No, but I lived there for a time. I even went down inside the great pyramid before the radical Islamists banned it. I have traveled from one end of Egypt to the other, even in the security zone.

JK

[Thumper]

Originally posted by shanek


Remember how we "liberated" Afghanistan and Kuwait? "Liberating" Kuwait meant taking the country from their current murderous tyrant and giving it back to the previous murderous tyrant. And we "Liberated" Afghanistan after our previous "liberation" put the Taliban in power!

Well, we really didn't go into Afghanistan to 'liberate' it in the 80's. Our objective in aiding the Mujahadeen was to stop the Soviets from expanding. We felt it was the lesser of two evils. Much of our foreign policy (I dare say all of it) was based on supporting governments that were less evil than the Soviets.

Also, I know the Kuwaiti leadership is a monarch, but I didn't know they were murderers. Just because Kuwait is not free, doesn't mean the people are being repressed. (Ok, enjoy that offering:) )

[crackmonkey]

We put the Taliban in place? I had no idea that the US was even IN Afghanistan when it was under Soviet occupation. I'd heard that the US gave some fighters shoulder-launched antiaircraft missiles, but I had no idea that the US kicked the USSR out of Afghanistan! Wow... most versions of history don't even mention the US war machine kicking the Soviet's asses out of Afghanistan. Damn revisionists..

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


No, but I lived there for a time. I even went down inside the great pyramid before the radical Islamists banned it. I have traveled from one end of Egypt to the other, even in the security zone.

JK

I just wondered, Jedi, because you are

IN DE NILE!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Ah, now I know why you are denying truth.

If I'm the one denying the truth, then why didn't you answer my question?

Well, I think President Bush should stay in office another 10 years. So there!

The Constitution forbids that. But then you, just like George III, don't care the first thing for that document, do you?

[shanek]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
We put the Taliban in place? I had no idea that the US was even IN Afghanistan when it was under Soviet occupation.

Hardly a persuasive argument, since the Taliban movement wasn't even formed until 1994, well after the collapse of the Soviet Union! :rolleyes:

And we gave the Taliban tens of millions of dollars in aid every year they ruled over Afghanistan.

Learn history, people.

[Baker]

Originally posted by shanek


Hardly a persuasive argument, since the Taliban movement wasn't even formed until 1994, well after the collapse of the Soviet Union! :rolleyes:

And we gave the Taliban tens of millions of dollars in aid every year they ruled over Afghanistan.

Learn history, people.

Clinton gave them money for stopping the opium crops but of course ignoring the human rights violations.

[jj]

*bump*

Still waiting. You can't say terrible things like that and then just pretend you didn't.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Thumper

Well, we really didn't go into Afghanistan to 'liberate' it in the 80's. Our objective in aiding the Mujahadeen was to stop the Soviets from expanding.
I remember this quite well. The USSR claimed that the Afghanis were launching guerrilla attacks on their southern states. In retrospect, our recent discoveries about the tactics used by tribal leaders in Afghanistan indicate that we should not find that claim unbelievable at all. The Soviets tried to go in and root the "terrorists" out of their tunnels, but got their asses kicked big time. As I recall, we in America were laughing our asses off. It was called "The Russian Viet Nam". Had the Russians succeeded in expelling the guerrillas (they were not called Taliban then, but it was many of the same people) then perhaps 9-11 would not have occurred.

Of course, I was one of the ones laughing at the Soviets getting their asses kicked, and cheering for the underdog Afghani nationalists bravely fending off the second most powerful country in the world from their little mountain caves. I was also one of the ones cheering the Iraqis on as they waged war on Iran, who had taken our citizens hostage. I have learned from such events that trying to divide things into "good guys and bad guys" is a very serious mistake. Funny how things change.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Baker


Clinton gave them money for stopping the opium crops but of course ignoring the human rights violations.

And Bush II continued the policy. Next excuse?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tricky

I remember this quite well. The USSR claimed that the Afghanis were launching guerrilla attacks on their southern states. In retrospect, our recent discoveries about the tactics used by tribal leaders in Afghanistan indicate that we should not find that claim unbelievable at all. The Soviets tried to go in and root the "terrorists" out of their tunnels, but got their asses kicked big time. As I recall, we in America were laughing our asses off. It was called "The Russian Viet Nam". Had the Russians succeeded in expelling the guerrillas (they were not called Taliban then, but it was many of the same people) then perhaps 9-11 would not have occurred.

Of course, I was one of the ones laughing at the Soviets getting their asses kicked, and cheering for the underdog Afghani nationalists bravely fending off the second most powerful country in the world from their little mountain caves. I was also one of the ones cheering the Iraqis on as they waged war on Iran, who had taken our citizens hostage. I have learned from such events that trying to divide things into "good guys and bad guys" is a very serious mistake. Funny how things change.

You live and you learn, don't you. I too recall cheering on the Iraqis. This point of view was made much easier since the press was providing all the information needed to take this point of view.

When the US went into Afganistan to get rid of the Taliban, I saw the pictures of the 'Northern Alliance' going into action to fight for freedom. Alarm bells instantly rang, and I recalled how much this reminded me of the backing for the Iraqi army fighting the Iranian.

It also reminds me incredibly of '1984', with the wars that are constantly waged, with allies who were formerly enemies, and allegiences that change without reason.

The impression you got from that book is that war is more than just a tool of political manipulation. It is used to keep the population in line.

[jj]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

It also reminds me incredibly of '1984', with the wars that are constantly waged, with allies who were formerly enemies, and allegiences that change without reason.

The impression you got from that book is that war is more than just a tool of political manipulation. It is used to keep the population in line.

My impression is that the book was simply premature. I think Orwell failed to realize that human beings weren't as efficient as he thought.

We could always retititle it "2002-A totalitarian Oddessy", though, couldn't we?

And I am one of those people who notice cameras. I have no idea why, I just tend to look both up and down, as well as in front of me, and it's starting to look like Orwell was right. I mean, all we need is some kind of "homeland security" agency to hire all the unemployed right-wingers to watch them. Oh, wait. I forgot.

[jj]

When will Jedi Knight remember that his favorite general said "the first report is always wrong?"?