posted 12-27-2003 11:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by the professor:
Well thats cool, tell me something how rough of a living is it in Mexico? are the police as corrupt as you hear?

---

Yes, they are. Politicians and government civil servants are just as corrupt, too. Really, most Americans have no idea what corruption means until they've lived a few years in a country like Mexico.

When I first moved here I thought, "Great, I'm just NOT going to pay any attention to U.S. political news and just relax." And it was great for about a year. But after awhile you start caring about local politics and, believe me, after about two years I was longing for the comparatively uncorrupt, pure American government and their politicians.

quote:

---

Theres not a thing wrong with being conservative

---

I didn't mean to sound like I was apologizing for being a conservative. More than anything I was trying to let some of the conspiracists know that I am personally interested in my political stance and reality, not in defending Bush or even the Republican party. I debunk conspiracies because they don't seem to be based in fact or reality--not because I have some dark allegiance to a political party or political figure.

quote:

---

I agree the Iraq war is a mess too but support it because of what the Hussein family has done within the last thirty years.

---

posted 12-28-2003 12:38 AM            

What is my point? In this rather lengthy and well-written article, not a rant by any stretch of the imagination, many, many valid points were made. This is a republican congressman writing rather eloquently on the very topics many of your so-called conspiracy theorists support. Mech, for one, supports Ron Paul's sound and accurate estimations of our present political climate. The term, "neocon," is used in academic circles, in journalistic jargon, and is a well-known term to anyone who has read at all on the subject of our present administration. It is NOT a term used by conspiracy theorists. In fact, in this piece alone, it was defined, given a history, linked to articles, documents, books, and groups that outline the goals and paths to the goals in an objective and relevent manner. For you to simply brush off the defining and educational information presented in this lengthy paper as a form of jargon or a broad brushstroke or labelling or stereotyping as a conspiracy theorist's mode of operandi is to not have read or absorbed the information you were given. Much of what this upstanding citizen said was obviously understood by you. None of what this writer said had anything to do with hating Bush, either.

Paul's concerns are valid and this paper brought you and others who can read, a clear and concise image of what is going on economically as well as in terms of foreign policy. He was warning us all and begging us to wake up. Agreeing with a couple of points he had to say really does this piece no justice, I'm sorry to say. The Machiavellian references to the basic governmental philosophies could have awakened you to what is happening, but no. You sit there smug and then go on to share your political beliefs and then talk drivle to the professor on the 'hate Bush' motivation of so called "liberals."

I'm frustrated that you are not reading, not responding to the meatiest and most intellectual of material and sweeping the most essetial message of the piece as a link to conspiracy theorists and then complaining that you're getting no information! It's the height and breadth of stubborn entrenched thinking on your part that creates in me a frustration beyond belief.

I don't care what party you belong to. I'm glad you voted and am glad you care. But what I'd like to see in a thinking and aware person is the ability to find the kernals of thought in a well thought-out, well-constructed essay, and respond to those kernals. I didn't see you doing that as you promised. Please try again.

One should not let code words of any kind prevent objective and intelligent assessment of the material presented. You heard the word "neocon" and rejected the material connected with it. How is this intelligent?

Try again! Use quotes, prove the writer wrong, agree with the platforms, but do something academic to prove your points or don't respond at all.

Thanks!

bc

posted 12-28-2003 10:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
What is my point? In this rather lengthy and well-written article, not a rant by any stretch of the imagination, many, many valid points were made.

---

Nothing says a rant can't be well-written and even have valid points. According to Dictionary.com, the first definition is "To speak or write in a angry or violent manner; rave." He seems angry.

Anyway, the word "rant" is generally used in Internet forums to refer to any piece or post that just goes on and on and on... which his article definitely did and which was really the way I meant to use the word. It just so happens it also is compatible with the dictionary definition of the word.

quote:

---

Mech, for one, supports Ron Paul's sound and accurate estimations of our present political climate.

---

So do I, as bothering as it may be to me that I agree with Mech on anything.

quote:

---

The term, "neocon," is used in academic circles, in journalistic jargon, and is a well-known term to anyone who has read at all on the subject of our present administration. It is NOT a term used by conspiracy theorists.

---

I didn't say it was used only by conspiracists. I simply said that broad labels, even when used in academia--and especially when used by journalists--are dangerous.

I say it is dangerous because in reading his rant, he refers to neocons in such a way that you could get the impression that it's some organized group working together towards a defined goal. I.e., if you say "The Republican party blah blah" you accept it is an organization which makes conscious decisions on what to do as a party. The danger in using labels such as "neocons" (or "liberals") is that it is easy for many people to get the impression that they, too, make conscious decisions as a "party."

But that's not the case, and the danger is in that misinterpretation. It can also lead to conspiracy-think if you think the neocons are out to get you or something.

quote:

---

In fact, in this piece alone, it was defined, given a history, linked to articles, documents, books, and groups that outline the goals and paths to the goals in an objective and relevent manner. For you to simply brush off the defining and educational information presented in this lengthy paper as a form of jargon or a broad brushstroke or labelling or stereotyping as a conspiracy theorist's mode of operandi is to not have read or absorbed the information you were given.

---

Re-read my previous post. I said I agree with most of what this man said. Where did this comment of yours come from?? Man, if that's the reaction I'm going to get when I agree with you guys I guess I'm better off disagreeing.

quote:

---

He was warning us all and begging us to wake up.

---

Yes, and that's a good thing. I hope more of America wakes up. That doesn't mean they necessarily have to believe in your conspiracy theories, though.

quote:

---

Agreeing with a couple of points he had to say really does this piece no justice, I'm sorry to say.

---

Again, re-read my original response. I said "But for the most part I agree with this man." So I'm not just agreeing on a couple of points, as you suggest, but agree with most of it.

quote:

---

The Machiavellian references to the basic governmental philosophies could have awakened you to what is happening, but no. You sit there smug and then go on to share your political beliefs and then talk drivle to the professor on the 'hate Bush' motivation of so called "liberals."

---

I'm sorry that we can read the same thing and have different reactions. But we are different people. That I can read something and consider it without going overboard and seeing conspiracies everywhere is just my personality. Perhaps you read the same article and see conspiracies. We're two different people. I won't apologize for thinking differently than you.

The reason why I went on to state my political beliefs, etc. is simply because as I read the rant, I got the feeling you were providing it to me in some way as bait so that I would defend Bush or the Republicans or the neocons, or whatever. My statement of my political beliefs was just to make it clear that I'm not going to blindly defend anyone or anything but the truth, and that I have no loyalty to Bush, the Republicans, or neocons. So no need to bait me.

quote:

---

I'm frustrated that you are not reading, not responding to the meatiest and most intellectual of material and sweeping the most essetial message of the piece as a link to conspiracy theorists and then complaining that you're getting no information!

---

What are you talking about? I am reading material, even the long rants. Perhaps you can tell me what you consider the "meatiest and most intellectual of material" in the rant is and we can discuss it? Perhaps I didn't respond since, as I already said, I agree with most of what this man said.

quote:

---

But what I'd like to see in a thinking and aware person is the ability to find the kernals of thought in a well thought-out, well-constructed essay, and respond to those kernals. I didn't see you doing that as you promised. Please try again.

---

Again, I said I agree with most of what this man said. What do you want me to respond to? We can just kick quotes back and forth and say "Yep, he's right!"

Basically, I don't know what you're looking for. The rant was his opinion and perception of current events and political climate. I basically agree with his perception. And even if I didn't, all we can argue is his perception or your perception or my perception. None of us will be wrong--it's just our perception.

Want to debate me? Let's return to the PNAC document that you brought up initially and now again in this rant (since it was mentioned in the rant). On that topic we disagree factually on what the PNAC document says and that is something we can debate point for point. You can tell me where PNAC supposedly wants a new Pearl Harbor and I can show you why you're wrong. Yet you refused to debate it. Now you give me an opinion piece that I generally agree with and complain that I'm not willing to debate it?? It's not that I'm not willing to debate it, I just don't see what there is to debate if we all basically agree with it.

quote:

---

You heard the word "neocon" and rejected the material connected with it. How is this intelligent?

---

Let me say again in capital, bold letters: I AGREE WITH MOST OF WHAT THE MAN SAID IN HIS RANT. Clear enough for you?

quote:

---

Try again! Use quotes, prove the writer wrong, agree with the platforms

---

Heheh, again, it's hard to "prove wrong" an opinion piece--and even harder when I agree with most of it.

quote:

---

but do something academic to prove your points or don't respond at all.

---

posted 12-28-2003 11:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
You sit there smug and then go on to share your political beliefs and then talk drivle to the professor on the 'hate Bush' motivation of so called "liberals."

---

posted 12-28-2003 03:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
It doesn't look like a conspiracy theory to me, nor does the author of the rant seem to be a conspiracy theorist in my opinion.

---

This is the thought that I reminded you about concerning conspiracy theorists and this author. Not only do you continue to disagree with me about the term "rant," which is defined as follows: 1.to talk loudly and wildly 2. to scold violently, you fail to support your definition with proof. How on earth did you find any tone in this piece to support your opinion that the writer was "angry?" Where is the support of your opinion? This is an essay and a well written one at that. I've taught writing and have an Eng. Lit. degree with a stack of essays a mile high and not only is this piece lacking in tone, but it is highly informational and supportive of its thesis. The reason why your initial response to this essay as lacking the conspiratorial bent, is that it is so well written. It, as I told you, holds many similar points to the typical conspiracy theorists that you have proclaimed as not valid. Glad you see that there is some common ground with you and Mech. Surprising, isn't it?

quote:

---

He has some very valid points about the size of the federal government as well as the federal debt and I agree with him 100% on both counts.

---

You agreed with these two points: the size of the fed. government and the federal debt.

quote:

---

He does seem to make some dangerous group generalizations ("neocon") in much the same way folks like Limbaugh make group generalizations regarding liberals--the generalizations and treating either group as an organized conspiracy is inaccurate. They're just people with similar thoughts reaching for their goals through the American political system.

---

As I tried to explain to you, the word "neocon" is used in all public debate and discussion in terms of the present administration. I do disagree with your claim that this author, who supports the definition of neocon with historical documentation (evidence of supporting documents devised by the "neocons" and their group meetings) is "dangerous" or "inaccurate." It is because of this response that I have pointed out to you your inability to read and absorb. You have obviously rejected this part of the essay which links the two parts you agree with as part of a total picture describing this administration. How can you negate the references to the PNAC, its history, its philosophy, and say you basically agreed with the whole essay? It was one of its largest parts! You say you want to debate the PNAC? Well, this was a great piece in which to do just that. You avoided it. I don't require you to agree or disagree with anything, but when you do criticize, you had better support it. Obviously from this essay, your little opinion of "They're just people with similar thoughts reaching for their goals through the American political system" cannot possibly be valid with the outstanding information you were just given about the actual organization and thought processes involved in the neocon goals and agenda -- in this piece. This is where my frustration comes in. You overlook the obvious and the credible.

quote:

---

I do see his referencing PNAC and, like some conspiracists, misinterpretting the Pearl Harbor reference since the PNAC document itself doesn't show any longing or desire for such an event. It simply said certain changes will happen quicker if such a "catalyzing event such as a new Pearl Harbor" were to happen.

---

Prove your above point! There was far more information about the PNAC and their agenda than just the Pearl Harbor quote.

quote:

---

But for the most part I agree with this man and see very little conspiratorial about his comments. What's your point?

---

Again, how can you say you agree with the article when you totally ignore the agendas for foreign policy that he outlines?

quote:

---

That said, I am worried about increased federal spending under Bush, although I recognize it would have increased after 9/11 under any president.

---

In the same way and to the same degree? Do you have a crystal ball? Would a Democratic president have gone into Iraq? Would he have required 87 Billion to support reconstruction? Would he have given a tax break to the rich and redesigned medicare with handouts to the insurance companies and the pharms? PLEASE!

quote:

---

I am worried about the Patriot Act and its potential threats to our liberties, though neither I nor anyone I know has ever been affected negatively by it.

---

Maybe because you don't live in America? Maybe you consider taking away habeus corpus a good thing? Maybe you don't mind that all citizens' medical, banking, real estate, car purchases, and other private business is open now to the scrutiny of any government offical is a good thing? You don't mind that e-mails and other communications records are now open to government surveilance? Because it doesn't personally affect you or some relative of yours or even me at this moment, does not mean the injustice of such invasions of privacy and due process do not affect someone who is innocent in our nation. This self-centered kind of thinking, with a lack of concern for others, is what creates the very apathy in citizens who will then cry out in alarm and surprise when they find their basic civil rights dismantled under their very noses. I respect your attitude of worry on the laws of the Patriot Act. You should be worried as all citizens should be worried!

quote:

---

I was not convinced that the Iraq war was necessary at that time and recognize it has become a mess, but I also believe we should have taken out Saddam in 1998 when we had world support--and I also think that the Iraqi people will be better off 20 years from now than if Saddam and/or his sons had been left in power.

---

Saddam was not a threat to our nation's security at that time. There was time and another more peaceful way to control him and ally with others as to this minor (in terms of national security) problem. There is an obvious connection to the PNAC and its agenda for the Middle East coming into play here. Your refusal to realize that the underlying philosophy and drive to "control" and "dominate" the Middle East as valid and somehow benign is the frustrating part of discussing this article and the Middle East agenda with you at all. You are free to disagree, but so far, I have only seen you avoid. Prove to me that it is essential to our American security to control the Middle East?

quote:

---

My participation in the debates here is because I don't believe in the conspiracy theories I've seen, not because I have any vested interest in protecting Bush or anyone else. Nor do I have an interest in disagreeing with a conspiracy theory if it turned out to be right. If I see evidence that convinces me someone is guilty of treason or murder, believe me, I have no reason to ignore that evidence.

---

Then you are saying you are somewhat open to learning and that is good.

quote:

---

But so far I simply haven't seen a single conspiracy theory that I feel was based on facts and that made sense.

---

Well, this piece just offered you credible evidence on the administration's agenda regarding its foreign policy, and you just dismissed it with this statement. How does it not make sense? How does this explanation and description of the drive to imperialistic power plays in the world not inform you with facts as to what is happening? MY GOD, it was the main gist of the article! Where are you?

quote:

---

Some conspiracy theories make a certain amount of sense if you are willing to accept that certain people are monsters, but these theories lack facts.

---

What theories? The chemtrail theory? The 9/11 theories (and there are many)? The neocon facts? Why do people have to be monsters to be conspirators for their own gains? Are the Enron guys monsters? It's fact, isn't it, that these people conspired to line their own pockets at the expense of innocent others? Is it so hard to believe that there may be other groups of human beings who conspire together for their own power interests as well as their own financial gain? You must be naive to think that there is no corruption of any kind in any part of government or finance! Please! Get a grip on reality!

quote:

---

Then there are those conspiracy theories that seem to have a certain amount of facts behind them, but they don't lead to any logical conclusion. I need something that both makes sense and is supported by facts--not assumptions, cirmcumstantial evidence, or facts that amounts to the absence of contradictory facts.

---

You're thinking too much and not reading enough! Like I said, you need to read and be discerning and line up the evidence as it accumulates, using your own powers of deductive reasoning. No one can do it for you. I gave you a great piece on which to gain information and disagree or agree with and you brush it off as having agreed when you actually DID NOT! You wouldn't take each of the author's points on the PNAC or its history and refute them logically! It was your chance and you ignored it!

So in conclusion, I have pointed out to you that you do not, in fact, agree with the basic fact of this article which substantiates the so-called conspiracy theory that neocons do indeed exist, do have an agenda (quite formally expressed) and are indeed following their agenda. Along with the outrageous spending and deficit situation, the agenda has been offered as factual and real. You continue to argue that the PNAC and the foreign policy connected to it is somehow just a matter of coincidence and just similar values somehow coming together from people who are not monsters at all. If one has a particular set of values concerning how we treat other nations and other peoples and our own people and that to us constitutes justice, peace, and a strong defense, and we see that very set of values being dismantled, what do you suggest we do? Sit back blindly and accept that all people holding those opposite values as somehow holding great keys to the future, great keys to peace and brotherhood anyway, and just trust them? Do we read the writing on the wall of their documents that propose that our nation become a police force in the world and because we're technicologically advanced and productive enough to support armies that we use those armies to advance our own national causes and support our economy with no thought to how other countries feel, how they will be impacted, how they will work in the world, and whether or not their national sovereignty is respected?

I read the PNAC yesterday and found even more alarming assumptions and attitudes within it. When it was written, the basis for feeling that a change in our world position was necessary and doable was based on our sound and productive economy with no deficits and plenty of funds to support the future invisioned as multiple small wars and power-grabbing opportunities for our national interests around the world. No thought was mentioned of helping others. No thought was mentioned as sharing medical, food, or technology for the benefit of human kind world wide. No, it was based on a self-centered notion that dominance is the key to our security and world peace. I discussed this before. This is the "danger" in this view of foreign policy, the "danger" in factual evidence pointing to a New World Order based in military might and power.

The true power is empowerment of other countries to contribute to their sovereignty and be respected in that sovereignty by all other nations while increasing their standard of living through productive pursuits. This should be the goal of a just and righteous nation such as ours, not a philosophy based in control and disrespect toward other nations. It is a fact, that even communism fails when the productivity and knowledge of its citizens progresses to a particular mass level. I believe that capitalism works and that a just world trade situation will also work. But to try to control the resources and governments of other nations is wrong in my value system and in the previous held respectable philosophy of our nation up until this obvious and disrespected group of people have unlawfully gained power in this country. And at this point I will concede that the incidences such as Iran Contra and other coups and violence created by our government in secret and openly (over the last 40 years including Vietnam regardless of party affiliation) have upset and inflamed the very people who now threaten us. I must also add that the American corporations that have placed themselves in various less advanced countries have also contributed their fair share of hatred toward us through unfair work practices, unethical treatment of host country's environments (pollution), and their same disregard for people and the environment here at home. And what's more damaging in this trade-related and business environment is our present party (Republicans) loosening the laws that aim to protect the people, workers, and environment even here in America. Not only that, the corporations under the big friendly arm of this government are getting tax breaks rather than paying into the public kitty that has been raped to pay for military (slashing benefits at the same time), homeland security, and hand outs to the rich! We won't even mention energy deregulation and malfeasance in corporate CEO's. And as was Paul's point in his article, how is the foreign policy situation of multi-theater small wars going to be financed if our tax base is so inadequate and our deficit so high? What is really going on?

Just the obvious examples in "you're with us or you're against us" and the "axis of evil" propositions are enough to enflame all peace loving peoples of the world!

To ignore corruption, even at the highest levels of government in our country is to be naive. To condemn all alternate theories with evidence supporting them as totally unreal, is to accept all information you get from main media sources as accurate. This is what the government wants you to think. It is their base of power -- ignorance. Once the larger mass of citizens wake up to the violence and greed ethic as unreal and not workable in the world as it is, as creating more violence, as endless in our ultimate pursuit of world peace and stability and ultimately suicidal -- those who pursue the warring agendas will be outed and no longer in power. Terrorism might be with us for a long time, and so were the criminals and terrorists of all kinds in the past.

But if we will take the lead as a just and wise nation, we must reduce our own weapons of mass destruction (allowing inspections), continue to support the same reduction in other countries who strive to accumulate the same, reduce our own striving for dominance and just concentrate on our own productiveness and domestic tranquility and place in world trade with ethical and responsible business, we will gain allies and trust in the world and the terrorism situation could be eventually eradicted in time through our peaceful and strong ethical ties with nations who share the same goals. But instead, this administration has inflamed, rather than quelled, the hatred toward us, even of our heretofore allies! We could have worked with other nations hand in hand, not unilaterally, to force compliance of peaceful ethics in Iraq. We could have taken our time, not used 9/11 as an excuse to overtake the Hussein regime, and created allies in the process. It was too hasty and the pretense for occupation was obvious to all that the main purpose was for oil -- not WMD-- and domination.

If we had, as a nation, produced our own alternative energies, which we have for decades had the technology and wherewithal to do so, no one would be thinking that dominance of the Middle East is essential. Isreal is also part of this. The connections to Isreal in domination are also well documented and our ties are obvious to all Arabic nations in this regard as well -- another reason for hate! Containing the Palestinian-Isreali situation and demanding a peaceful resolution of the conflicts would be far better for our nation than taking a supportive stance in dominating the region thus securing more peace for the Isrealies. Stirring up trouble is not the way to peace! Domination is also not the way to peace.

So again, the whole argument relating to this Republican agenda comes down to national security based on unsound economic practices and world trade, collusion with the Isrealies (not wise), a disregard for the sovereignty of various nations (occupation, threats), and the illusion that war and military dominance leads to peace. A nation can dominate by its respect gained in the world of nations. It can dominate by its productivity and ethics. It can dominate by its trustworthiness and ethical laws. It can dominate by its own national examples of liberty and freedom. It can dominate by its own quiet ability to defend. But when all of the foundations of ethical law both foreign and domestic, ethical relationships in business and world of domestic and foreign policy, ethical foreign defensive strategies are dismantled, the nation itself is dismantled. This is the "danger" in our present situation. We are a nation becoming dismantled. So what is going on?

These very questions, "what is going on?" are what the alternative thinkers who see the change in our laws, who see the change in foreign policy, who see corruption, who see the greed, are asking: What is the real story behind 9/11? What is the real situation concerning Iraqi occupation? What is the real situation underlying the quest for dominance? What is really going on with chemtrails? Why do our civil rights and our Bill of Rights have to be dismantled because of terrorism? Where do the money trails lead?

These questions are more valid than ever! Those of us who ask the questions and attempt to answer them are the true patriots of today! Those who stand by the law of the Consitution and the ideals of the founding fathers are the true loyalists to the right of thought and inquiry and to return to the age of reason. Those who believe that peace, justice, and liberty for our nation with a mutual respect for the sovereignty of other nations, and a strong quiet defense, are the true patriots of freedom.

The regime will fail! It's theories are old, outdated, and only designed to dismantle and bring down our nation (and whether intentially or not has to be questioned as well)-- it is happening in front of our very eyes! Yes, there is much good springing up -- many new businesses, more technology, but the technology should be grounded in ethical peaceful pursuits, not that of warlike dominance or overcontrol by various factions including the government. Period. In the PNAC, if you review, their statement of using technology for our dominance is also a clue to their bereft world vision of using technology for control rather than mutual peaceful pursuits including other world nations. Ultimately, nationalism has to give way to globalist democracy, with just laws governing sovereign states (countries) on a similar pattern of a peaceful republic founded on a world Constitution governing countries with their own country-based sovereign laws operating harmoniously within the basic laws of the international Constitution. We are far from that dream, but if we don't have a dream that guides us in the right direction, we are headed for global strife and species destruction. We must stay united as a world and ultimately become settled in peace in order to become galactic citizens with free-will intact and a united cosmology to protect from any forces that may intrude upon our world sovereignty.

I leave you to ponder.

posted 12-28-2003 05:32 PM            

Also...don't forget...plenty of democrats are going along with it.

posted 12-28-2003 06:05 PM            

Otherwise, I had some good points?

posted 12-28-2003 06:33 PM            

I understand the need for constant "new markets" in a 'capitalistic' economy and the need to aquire resources no matter how ethically. The question becomes though "at what price"? And as always who pays the price and for whom?

posted 12-28-2003 07:42 PM            

" .. no matter how ethically?" Hmmm! I see you added a condition? Might that be an indication of ethics?

posted 12-28-2003 08:21 PM            

Rewiring' the world's energy
By Ross Gelbspan, 12/21/2003 http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/
12/21/re
wiring_the_worlds_energy?mode=PF

CLIMATE CHANGE isn't just another issue in this complicated world of
proliferating issues. It's the issue that -- unchecked -- will swamp
all
others. Unfortunately, the urgency of the climate crisis is
overwhelmed by
competition from other major problems. We are under attack from
terrorists.
We are apprehensive about the aftermath of the Iraq war. Our trick-or-
treat
economy is as unnerving to investors as it is cruel to workers. These
diverse challenges may be susceptible to a common solution -- a rapid
worldwide transition to clean energy.
A clean energy revolution would reduce our dependence on oil and our
exposure to the political volatility in the Middle East. Conversely,
since
it generates a quarter of the world's carbon emissions, America's
continuing
indifference will likely guarantee more attacks from people whose
crops are
destroyed by weather extremes, whose homelands are going under from
rising
seas and whose borders are overrun by environmental refugees,
according to
the head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Rajendra
Pachauri.
Any meaningful deterrent to anti-US terrorism requires a major change
in our
posture toward developing countries. Energy investments in poor
countries
generate far more wealth and jobs than equivalent investments in other
sectors. Transferring clean energy to poor countries would begin to
address
the economic desperation that fuels most anti-US sentiment. A public
works
program to rewire the globe with clean energy would accelerate
economic
development around the world.
Our coal and oil burning attack the systems that have made this planet
hospitable for 10,000 years. We are heating the deep oceans, melting
ice
caps, triggering a wave of chaotic weather, and changing the timing
of the
seasons. We are living on an increasingly narrow margin of stability.
Nature's non-negotiable demand requires humanity cut its use of
carbon fuels
by 70 percent in a very short time, according to more than 2,000
scientists
reporting to the UN panel.
One approach involves three interactive policies which, while cutting
emissions, would simultaneously create millions of jobs around the
world:
Redirect energy subsidies in industrial nations. The United States
spends
$20 billion a year to subsidize coal and oil; industrial countries
overall
spend about $200 billion. If those subsidies were phased out and
equivalent
subsidies created for renewable energy sources, oil companies would
use them
to retool and retrain their workers to become aggressive developers
of fuel
cells, wind farms, and solar systems.
Create a fund of $300 billion a year to transfer clean energy to poor
countries. Virtually all developing countries would love to go solar;
virtually none can afford it. The fund could come from a small tax on
international currency transactions, which total $1.5 trillion every
day. A
tax of a quarter-penny-per-dollar on those transactions would yield
about
$300 billion a year for windfarms in India, solar assemblies in El
Salvador,
fuel cell factories in South Africa, and vast solar-powered hydrogen
farms
in the Middle East.
Alternatively, financing could involve a carbon tax in industrial
countries
or a tax on airline travel.
Establish a binding fossil fuel efficiency standard that rises 5
percent
per year. Starting at its current baseline, each country would raise
its
carbon efficiency 5 percent -- producing the same amount next year
with 5
percent less carbon fuel or 5 percent more with the same amount of
carbon
fuel -- until the 70 percent reduction was attained.
Because no economy grows at 5 percent for long, emissions reductions
would
outpace economic growth. Domestic emissions trading could help
countries
meet the progressively more stringent goal. Nations would initially
meet the
goal through low-cost efficiency measures. When those cheap
efficiencies
become exhausted, countries would meet the rising efficiency goal by
drawing
progressively more energy from non-carbon sources. That, in turn,
would
create mass markets for renewables that would lower their costs and
make
them economically competitive with fossil fuels.
A plan of this type would propel the metamorphosis of oil companies
into
energy companies. The progressive efficiency standard would make
renewable
energy a central engine of global economic growth. Competition for
the new
$300 billion a year market in clean energy would power the process.
A real solution to climate change has the potential to begin to mend a
fractured world.

Ross Gelbspan is author of "The Heat is On" and the
forthcoming "Fevered
Planet."

© Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

bc

posted 12-28-2003 09:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Not only do you continue to disagree with me about the term "rant," which is defined as follows: 1.to talk loudly and wildly 2. to scold violently, you fail to support your definition with proof.

---

As silly as debating definitions is, I'll oblige. Emphasis (bold) is placed on the definition that seems to fit in this case.

Dictionary.com rant v. rant·ed, rant·ing, rants. intr. To speak or write in a angry or violent manner; rave. v. tr. To utter or express with violence or extravagance

Webster
intransitive senses 1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner 2: to scold vehemently

quote:

---

You're thinking too much and not reading enough!

---

:Sigh: I'm doing both. That I don't reach the same conclusion as you does not mean I'm not reading.

quote:

---

I gave you a great piece on which to gain information and disagree or agree with and you brush it off as having agreed when you actually DID NOT! You wouldn't take each of the author's points on the PNAC or its history and refute them logically! It was your chance and you ignored it!

---

I'll happily do so if you will agree to debate them with me. You had previously posted a message about the PNAC and I started to debate it with you. You came back with a single message and said you would no longer the debate the issue. And now you expected me to debate PNAC again?

If you'll agree to debate it with more than a single reply, if necessary, I'll happily debate the topic with you.

quote:

---

So in conclusion, I have pointed out to you that you do not, in fact, agree with the basic fact of this article which substantiates the so-called conspiracy theory that neocons do indeed exist, do have an agenda (quite formally expressed) and are indeed following their agenda.

---

Again, if you're willing to debate PNAC I'm willing to debate PNAC. But why debate this man's article or speech (it's not clear whether it was a simple essay or, more probably, read into the Congressional record at 2am)--let's debate PNAC itself. What are your beefs about PNAC and let's see if they're founded in what the PNAC has said, or if you're letting others think for you.

quote:

---

Along with the outrageous spending and deficit situation, the agenda has been offered as factual and real. You continue to argue that the PNAC and the foreign policy connected to it is somehow just a matter of coincidence and just similar values somehow coming together from people who are not monsters at all.

---

The article discussed neocons, PNAC, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, and others. Yes, PNAC is mentioned but as far as my interpetation he doesn't seem to dwell on it. He is dwelling on "neocon" and an overall movement in our society and government over the decades, not any particular organization that may share some or all of their (neocon's) views.

quote:

---

If one has a particular set of values concerning how we treat other nations and other peoples and our own people and that to us constitutes justice, peace, and a strong defense, and we see that very set of values being dismantled, what do you suggest we do? Sit back blindly and accept that all people holding those opposite values as somehow holding great keys to the future, great keys to peace and brotherhood anyway, and just trust them?

---

No, of course not.

quote:

---

Do we read the writing on the wall of their documents that propose that our nation become a police force in the world and because we're technicologically advanced and productive enough to support armies that we use those armies to advance our own national causes and support our economy with no thought to how other countries feel, how they will be impacted, how they will work in the world, and whether or not their national sovereignty is respected?

---

It's a little more complicated than that. Ideally, I'd prefer we just defend our borders and let the outside world kill itself if it so desires. But despite all the criticism the U.S. receives abroad, I think we'd receive even more if we adopted that attitude. After the first 10 million were killed in a regional war, I'll bet the U.N. would be adopting resolutions asking for U.N. intervention--which really means U.S. intervention when it comes to military action.

quote:

---

When it was written, the basis for feeling that a change in our world position was necessary and doable was based on our sound and productive economy with no deficits and plenty of funds to support the future invisioned as multiple small wars and power-grabbing opportunities for our national interests around the world. No thought was mentioned of helping others. No thought was mentioned as sharing medical, food, or technology for the benefit of human kind world wide. No, it was based on a self-centered notion that dominance is the key to our security and world peace.

---

So you have a philosophical difference of opinion with PNAC. That's fine. I can accept it. It's the dove vs. hawk debate. But one thing is disagreeing with their policies and another is accusing them of conspiracy, and some even going as far as saying that PNAC wanted a Pearl Harbor type event. That's where things go from a legitimate difference of opinion to a conspiratorial, fanatic point of view.

quote:

---

The true power is empowerment of other countries to contribute to their sovereignty and be respected in that sovereignty by all other nations while increasing their standard of living through productive pursuits.

---

And I 100% support that. But until every nation is sovereign and responsible, both to its own people and to other countries, I am not willing to disarm and I believe to do so would be dangerous. You're free to disagree with me, but that doesn't make you right or me wrong.

quote:

---

I believe that capitalism works and that a just world trade situation will also work.

---

I agree. I live in Mexico and am exposed to world trade situations on a daily basis. Believe me, I'm 100% in favor of free (=just) world trade.

quote:

---

But to try to control the resources and governments of other nations is wrong in my value system

---

I would agree that it is wrong. Unfortunately, the reality of the world doesn't always grant us the luxury of being the saints we would all strive to be if it it were a utopian world. I don't offer this as an excuse, but as a statement of reality. Those that ignore the cruel realities of this world are condemned to be interesting reads in academia, but their proposals won't be implemented ever.

quote:

---

I must also add that the American corporations that have placed themselves in various less advanced countries have also contributed their fair share of hatred toward us through unfair work practices, unethical treatment of host country's environments (pollution), and their same disregard for people and the environment here at home.

---

Whatever. I agree that American companies should set examples even overseas. However, just as much blame--if not more--should be placed on those foreign governments that don't protect their own workers. I'd like to see companies go above and beyond what the local law may require, but again, we're talking about the cruel reality. And the cruel reality is that most companies--even most individuals--will try to get as much as they can for as little as they can, both at home and overseas.

quote:

---

Not only that, the corporations under the big friendly arm of this government are getting tax breaks rather than paying into the public kitty that has been raped to pay for military (slashing benefits at the same time), homeland security, and hand outs to the rich!

---

If it were up to me, corporations would pay nothing and we'd all be taxed a fixed 15% or 20%, end of story. I see no reason why corporations should pay taxes anyway. They are fictional creations that exist only on paper to allow lots of individuals to get together and produce products and wealth. Those individuals pay taxes, why should the fictional paper-bound creation (the corporation) have to pay taxes on their earnings as well? The government is double-dipping.

I used to be upset about the fact that corporations don't pay taxes until I realized that, well, they shouldn't--they don't really exist. People exist, and we should pay taxes--not some convenient group of people that have gotten together and happen to be defined as "XYZ, Inc."

quote:

---

And as was Paul's point in his article, how is the foreign policy situation of multi-theater small wars going to be financed if our tax base is so inadequate and our deficit so high? What is really going on?

---

We're spending too much, that's what's going on. And I would agree with balancing our budget and making it a constitutional requirement.

quote:

---

To condemn all alternate theories with evidence supporting them as totally unreal, is to accept all information you get from main media sources as accurate.

---

This is blatantly untrue. The fact that I don't believe any given conspiracy theory--or any conspiracy--does not mean that I accept all information I get from the main media sources as accurate. That's certainly untrue. And I think that may be a problem you have in general--it may be you who seems to believe "You're either with us or against us." I either believe your conspiracy theories or I am a Bush stoodge that thoughtlessly believes the media. That's rediculous.

I disagree with you. That doesn't mean I'm stupid, asleep, a Bush stoodge, or blindly believe everything I read on the Internet or in the traditional media.

quote:

---

But if we will take the lead as a just and wise nation, we must reduce our own weapons of mass destruction (allowing inspections), continue to support the same reduction in other countries who strive to accumulate the same, reduce our own striving for dominance and just concentrate on our own productiveness and domestic tranquility and place in world trade with ethical and responsible business, we will gain allies and trust in the world and the terrorism situation could be eventually eradicted in time through our peaceful and strong ethical ties with nations who share the same goals.

---

I'm sorry, but this seems like wishful thinking to me. You think that we can heal all the world's woes and usher in an era of piece of we just withdrawl our forces from the world and retreat to within our own borders? I'm sorry, that's just naive.

Why did Europe (not just the US) get involved in Bosnia? Why didn't everyone just mind their own business and let them kill themselves off? They weren't threatning anyones' borders. Why did people get worked up in the U.S. because of Apartheid in South Africa? It wasn't our problem! Why should we care about human rights in China? It's not within our borders.

The world is not a perfect place and will not be a perfect place any time soon. Countries will invade other countries, there will be genocide, there will be evil tyrrants. And you think that by removing our restraining influence that things will magically get better in the world? Sure, we might get some short-term goodwill in the Arab world, but I'll bet within two decades you'll see a heck of a lot more wars between countries as they realize the U.S. isn't going to get in their way.

quote:

---

But instead, this administration has inflamed, rather than quelled, the hatred toward us, even of our heretofore allies! We could have worked with other nations hand in hand, not unilaterally, to force compliance of peaceful ethics in Iraq. We could have taken our time, not used 9/11 as an excuse to overtake the Hussein regime, and created allies in the process. It was too hasty and the pretense for occupation was obvious to all that the main purpose was for oil -- not WMD-- and domination.

---

Whatever. I agree that Iraq was too hasty, but I have yet to see a trace of reasonable evidence that proves it was for oil or domination. We aren't dominating Iraq, we're getting shredded there. And we aren't exploiting oil, we're seeing Iraqi oil infrastructure the target of constant attack.

quote:

---

If we had, as a nation, produced our own alternative energies, which we have for decades had the technology and wherewithal to do so, no one would be thinking that dominance of the Middle East is essential.

---

I would like to see alternative energies, too, as long as they are commercialized when they are viable. I am not interested in an "alternative" solution that costs twice as much and is half as efficient. But when we have something that works and makes financial sense I'll be thrilled to see it made available.

quote:

---

Isreal is also part of this. The connections to Isreal in domination are also well documented and our ties are obvious to all Arabic nations in this regard as well -- another reason for hate! Containing the Palestinian-Isreali situation and demanding a peaceful resolution of the conflicts would be far better for our nation than taking a supportive stance in dominating the region thus securing more peace for the Isrealies. Stirring up trouble is not the way to peace! Domination is also not the way to peace.

---

So what are you proposing we do in regards to Israel?

quote:

---

So again, the whole argument relating to this Republican agenda

---

Oops, I thought it was the neocon agenda. Just a slip on your part, I'm sure.

quote:

---

A nation can dominate by its respect gained in the world of nations.

---

What, like France? Sorry, the only dominance that means anything in the reality of our world is economic and military. Not that I'm endorsing a particular plan to achieve those goals, but that's the reality. Everything else you mentioned is great and would be a good thing, but no country in the world will achieve any meaningful dominance based on those other issues. Respect and admiration, perhaps. Dominance? No.

quote:

---

These very questions, "what is going on?" are what the alternative thinkers who see the change in our laws, who see the change in foreign policy, who see corruption, who see the greed, are asking: What is the real story behind 9/11?

---

Alternative thinkers can be concerned about aspects of our country or our leaders and propose changes without having to automatically assume our country or our leaders had a hand in 9/11. And that's what I'm really debating here (or at least that was my initial reason for stumbling on this site). I'm not saying Bush or anyone else are saints. I'm just here presenting my view that the conspiracy theories I've seen are factually flawed.

quote:

---

What is really going on with chemtrails?

---

I assume that "chemtrails" are important to you guys here, given the name of the site, but that seems to me to be a total goose chase and I'm not even going there. I'm a pilot myself. Just because some contrails last longer than others and those contrails apparently don't appear on Flight Explorer hardly makes me suspect something dark and sinister.

quote:

---

Those of us who ask the questions and attempt to answer them are the true patriots of today!

---

Yes, as long as the answers are based on reality, and these "partiots" don't refuse to consider answers that may not agree with their personal beliefs. Otherwise, they're just demagogues.

quote:

---

Yes, there is much good springing up -- many new businesses, more technology, but the technology should be grounded in ethical peaceful pursuits, not that of warlike dominance or overcontrol by various factions including the government. Period.

---

While I agree with you in theory and if this were a utopian world, I still insist that you are not being realistic. There is nothing I have seen in human history to suggest to me that humans will suddenly become peaceful.

quote:

---

Ultimately, nationalism has to give way to globalist democracy, with just laws governing sovereign states (countries) on a similar pattern of a peaceful republic founded on a world Constitution governing countries with their own country-based sovereign laws operating harmoniously within the basic laws of the international Constitution.

---

Whoa, that's interesting. You said "Ultimately, nationalism has to give way to globalist democracy" and that country-based laws would "operate harmoniously within the basic laws of the international constitution."

Am I to understand that you would support making our Constitution secondary to a world constitution? That seems like it would be a complete betrayal of the ideas of the Founding Fathers and not my definition of a patriot.

Or am I to understand that you would only support this because you would insist that the international constitution would basically echo our own so as not to be incompatible with our own constitution? That seems suspiciously like forcing our ideals on other nations--something which you supposedly don't approve of.

quote:

---

We are far from that dream, but if we don't have a dream that guides us in the right direction, we are headed for global strife and species destruction.

---

Sounds a little alarmist to me. But that's just my opinion, as is the previous quote your opinion.

quote:

---

We must stay united as a world and ultimately become settled in peace in order to become galactic citizens with free-will intact and a united cosmology to protect from any forces that may intrude upon our world sovereignty.

---

So it's bad for the U.S. to act and build up military defenses against other humans which may kill us next year, but it's ok for the world to prepare for an ET invasion in a couple centuries?

posted 12-29-2003 01:18 AM            

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A nation can dominate by its respect gained in the world of nations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What, like France? Sorry, the only dominance that means anything in the reality of our world is economic and military. Not that I'm endorsing a particular plan to achieve those goals, but that's the reality. Everything else you mentioned is great and would be a good thing, but no country in the world will achieve any meaningful dominance based on those other issues. Respect and admiration, perhaps. Dominance? No.

---

Lexta, picking one sentence out of a whole paragraph that makes a complete point, is not fair practice. I also mentioned a strong defense and made several other points as to my definition of dominance including economic prosperity.

Bosnia? We were not the only nation to participate in Bosnia.

I understand you want to debate the PNAC with me. I have basically shared my opinions and political values concerning the PNAC with you in this piece and is it not obvious that we disagree in matters of dominance and what constitutes national security? I'm not purporting isolationism at all, which is what you seem to be alluding to in your response, either. It's called "cooperation." Unilateral I-don't-care-what-you-think kind of national policy, bullying those who do not agree, and paying off those on the fence, withdrawing from signed treaties, is more isolationist than a cooperative one, now isn't it?

For you to even WANT to defend the PNAC as somehow legitimate strikes a chord of disgust in me, I'm sorry. This is the reason I posted Ron Paul's speech/essay, to show you that even a Republican can have decent values concerning the present dismantling of our nation and a warning note and explanation of the neocon's PNAC. You didn't even respond to that point I made, did you, about dismantling?

Picking and choosing sentences out of context and refuting them is not a smart way to deal with my opinions, and you didn't even go so far as to address the PNAC points Ron Paul made.

It's obvious to all who are reading, that my basic values and visions for the world contrast with the PNAC's and your views. So why debate? We disagree and you see dominance in a military sense as legitimate, not accepting that that same dominance can be held in check and legimate for defense and that same kind of dominance made insane through offensive policy. Defense is different than offense. The PNAC is offensive in that it mandates that countries suspected of threat should be overpowered even before they express "threat." This is a big change in overt national policy. It may have been a covert policy in the past, regardless of party, but it is now out in the open for the world to see and it is not appropriate. Nothing is wrong with a good defense. Yes, our troops can be withdrawn from many countries and called upon in allied necessity to help when needed. But to spread our troops thinly across the world and maintain multiple war theaters is the dream of maniacs.

Yes, oil was the reason and Halliburton, K Brown and Root were there to get the first American taxpayer handouts, while scrimping on the feeding of our troops and allowing filth in the kitchens, and the main contracts went to American companies! Give me a break! The oil infrastructure, yes, is being attacked, but that doesn't make the end game impossible, now does it? I'm glad the Iraqi's are bombing the pipelines -- their anger is legitimate! If our troops would leave and a U.N. force enter, like it should have in the first place, none of this anger would have been created to as great a degree. The greed and hegemony is obvious! All smart prognosticaters foresaw the unrest in Iraq who knew about the various factions. But the neocons wouldn't listen to reason.

So they, yes, not the Republicans so much as the neocons, wanted the scenario of Middle East dominance to begin. You doubt that this wasn't planned? And remember, that Paul mentioned the Congress was to blame in allowing the neocons the power.

You seem to be hell-bent in defending the PNAC for some reason, so I will just let you start a thread of your own on that for the rest of the board to respond to, and see what happens. Go ahead, start a thread on the PNAC itself. Post the link, and get it started. I already know how I feel about it and I expressed most of it, but I will not take my time to line by line, paragraph by paragraph point out its insane and destructive logic when more learned and wise people have done so in far better a manner than I could ever do, ie. Ron Paul.

Suffice it to say, that I have expressed my opposing values in my last blog and that should be good enough for anyone on matters regarding the PNAC.

Now let's dance the freedom dance of liberty and justice for all! Heh? While Rome burns and Nero plays his fiddle?

Yes, the dream of world cooperation and peace can be realized. And yes, of course our Constitution would remain intact with possibly more amendments, and thrive under a similar democratic world Constitution of the future! Why not?

To assume, as the PNAC does and you obviously do, that the world's people will always be warlike is to assume that we, as a race of humans, cannot learn from history, do not have the capacity to live together in cooperative peace, and cannot respect the rule of law. Quite the contrary, I see this era as a time for change in humanity, as a testing time for the world's leaders and the world's peoples, a fork in the road if you will. It is time for the truth to rise to the surface in all matters. It is the moment of truth that will set the wheels in motion for creating a better tomorrow or a non-tomorrow. No it's not fatalistic nor pessimistic, it is realistic.

Our world resources are dwindling (fresh water, fossil fuels, etc.), our biosphere is degrading, our climate is changing, and all effort must be launched in uniting our world efforts to insure survival of our children and our children's children, etc. etc. War does not fit into this scenario of responsiblity. It is a creator of fear and destruction, a killer of humanity, a depletor of resources, and a contributer to pollution in its most simple sense -- pure destruction and contamination -- nuclear? bio-weaponry? weather controlling? bombs of all kinds? You never refuted the future scenarios I mentioned about species survival, did you, except to wave it off as some kind of fanatical thinking. Now who's unrealistic here?

Ethics? You didn't even respond to "ethics."

And when I die, do I want to leave my children and their children a police state or a nation with freedom and justice for all, heh? Civil rights? A chance at a decent education? A chance to raise families and live in peace? A world with healthy food and affordable health care? A way for them to contribute to society and obtain a decent lifestyle, not necessarily based on over consumption. And no, this basic wish for our nation's progeny and world peace is not aquired through military offensive dominance and control. NO.

You are either for peaceful solutions to world problems or you are not. It comes down to this.

bc

ps And please don't respond with quoting one sentence. A paragraph would be more accurate and fair, if you choose to quote. I didn't choose to quote you in this blog.

posted 12-29-2003 11:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Lexta, picking one sentence out of a whole paragraph that makes a complete point, is not fair practice. I also mentioned a strong defense and made several other points as to my definition of dominance including economic prosperity.

Your Original Quote: A nation can dominate by its respect gained in the world of nations. It can dominate by its productivity and ethics. It can dominate by its trustworthiness and ethical laws. It can dominate by its own national examples of liberty and freedom. It can dominate by its own quiet ability to defend.

---

To take your whole section on how a nation can "dominate".

By respect? No. It will be respected, not dominant.

Productivity and ethics? Well, inasmuch as productivity leads to financial success, yes. But ethics? No. Yes, we may be respected if we employ decent ethics, but that doesn't give us a position of domination.

Trustworthiness and ethical laws? I don't see where that leads to domination.

Examples of liberty and freedom? I agree these are great goals, but they will not ensure domination.

By its own quiet ability to defend itself? I'm sure France can defend itself, but it certainly doesn't dominate anything.

We may disagree on whether or not domination is a good thing, but the alternatives you suggested to economic and military domination are not useful factors in domination in this world.

quote:

---

Bosnia? We were not the only nation to participate in Bosnia.

---

Re-read my post, please. I think you are reading too quickly. I said we weren't the only ones. That was my point. That even other nations understand that meddling in the affairs of other countries is sometimes necessary. That we do so more often than other countries is not suprising given our superpower status.

quote:

---

I understand you want to debate the PNAC with me. I have basically shared my opinions and political values concerning the PNAC with you in this piece and is it not obvious that we disagree in matters of dominance and what constitutes national security?

---

How convenient that you have someone that does the work of debating for you. Rather than work through you as a middleman, I guess I might as well just contact Ron Paul and debate him directly. Since he speaks for you, apparently.

quote:

---

I'm not purporting isolationism at all, which is what you seem to be alluding to in your response, either. It's called "cooperation." Unilateral I-don't-care-what-you-think kind of national policy, bullying those who do not agree, and paying off those on the fence, withdrawing from signed treaties, is more isolationist than a cooperative one, now isn't it?

---

When we can accomplish our goals through cooperation I am certainly in favor of doing so. When old, obsolete Cold War treaties get in the way of our current defense I think they should be scrapped. I also don't think we require anyone's permission to act militarily. I think the founding fathers would agree with me. If in doubt, please see the original justification for deploying the U.S. Navy. We didn't get anyone's permission to act.

quote:

---

For you to even WANT to defend the PNAC as somehow legitimate strikes a chord of disgust in me, I'm sorry.

---

And for you to even suggest that 9/11 was desired by PNAC disgusts me, but I'm still willing to debate you to try to prove my point.

quote:

---

This is the reason I posted Ron Paul's speech/essay, to show you that even a Republican can have decent values concerning the present dismantling of our nation and a warning note and explanation of the neocon's PNAC.

---

I insist that Ron Paul's piece was about neocons in general. In the process he mentioned several organizations, including PNAC, but none of those organizations were the focal point of his essay. Not everything endorsed by Advanced Strategic and Political Studies is endorsed by PNAC yet they are all grouped together as "neocon." This is partly why such groupings are dangerous. One thing is to talk about PNAC, another ASPS, and another neocons in general. Yet it all gets blended together here.

quote:

---

You didn't even respond to that point I made, did you, about dismantling?

Your original quote: But when all of the foundations of ethical law both foreign and domestic, ethical relationships in business and world of domestic and foreign policy, ethical foreign defensive strategies are dismantled, the nation itself is dismantled. This is the "danger" in our present situation. We are a nation becoming dismantled.

---

I'm sorry I don't know which of your sentences are critical to you and to which you expect a specific reply.

You are welcome to your point of view. If you feel the nation is becoming dismantled, that's fine. I see threats to our liberty such as the Patriot Act, but most of the points you cite as being sources of the "dismantling" are just basic problems our society and country face--they are not part of any conspiracy, at least as far as I can see.

I agree we have problems in this country and we need changes. I'm not debating that. I'm debating--or trying to debate--either PNAC or a 9/11 conspiracy or some link between PNAC and a 9/11 conspiracy.

quote:

---

Picking and choosing sentences out of context and refuting them is not a smart way to deal with my opinions, and you didn't even go so far as to address the PNAC points Ron Paul made.

---

Tell you what. If you're not even willing to debate the topic yourself and rather are just letting Ron Paul do the work for you, at least tell me which points you feel Paul specifically aimed at PNAC and which you want me to respond to. Because I read most of his piece as a general comment on neocons, not specifically PNAC.

I am not interested in debating neocons in general. I am interested in debating PNAC because, on another site, I already found that PNAC was being misrepresented. It's not that I have any specific love for then. I hadn't even heard of them until some conspiracist on another site brought them up. But what he claimed PNAC was saying seemed outrageous so I read the document--and I found it said nothing close to what the conspiracist was claiming.

This is why I'm interested in debating PNAC. I'd be interested to see if you can cite anything from PNAC documents that would make me think they are evil or wanted a new Pearl Harbor or, better yet, were somehow involved in 9/11. If you can, I'll concede those points. But my experience from my previous debate on another cite is that PNAC is being misrepresented, especially by conspiracists.

Let me stress here that the issue isn't whether or not you agree with their hawkish stance. You don't, and that's fine. The issue is whether or not PNAC is a) evil, b) part of a conspiracy, c) wanted a new Pearl Harbor, d) involved in 9/11. And on point (b) let me state that a special interest group isn't automatically a conspiracy any more than the Sierra Club is an environmental conspiracy.

quote:

---

It's obvious to all who are reading, that my basic values and visions for the world contrast with the PNAC's and your views. So why debate?

---

You mean you only debate with people that agree with you? Must lead to some pretty boring debates, but lots of pats on the back.

The idea of debating is two people with different viewpoints discussing the issues so that they can each learn and grow from the exchange, as can others that view the debate. That's the excercise that provides value and a path to mutual enlightenment.

quote:

---

We disagree and you see dominance in a military sense as legitimate, not accepting that that same dominance can be held in check and legimate for defense and that same kind of dominance made insane through offensive policy. Defense is different than offense. The PNAC is offensive in that it mandates that countries suspected of threat should be overpowered even before they express "threat." This is a big change in overt national policy.

---

I'd like to see the PNAC document that says that. I don't deny it might exist, but it's not in the 90-page document I read. There are many other documents which I've started to read as time permits, but so far I haven't seen that endorsed as a PNAC policy.

In any case, even if it is there that's there right. It's the right of anyone to state their position. It's the right of anyone to attempt to reach political office in order to implement their ideas. If these people are in power they were simply successful. I'm sure environmentalists would love to be in the same position to implement what many others consider to be their radical ideas and which many would consider threats to America itself. Just as you see PNAC.

I'm not really interested in debating whether the hawkish or dove viewpoint is better. That's a valid political debate, but not what we're really debating here. The issue is whether PNAC is conspiratorial, wanted 9/11, or had a hand in 9/11. THAT'S what I've seen suggested by conspiracists yet which I have seen no evidence to support.

quote:

---

The oil infrastructure, yes, is being attacked, but that doesn't make the end game impossible, now does it?

---

Not impossible, just unlikely in any reasonable amount of time that would lend credence to the belief that anyone really expected to get oil out of this.

quote:

---

I'm glad the Iraqi's are bombing the pipelines -- their anger is legitimate!

---

Whatever. The only thing those desert countries have is their oil so it seems silly to blow up their own infrastructure. But I'd rather they blow up pipelines than American soldiers.

quote:

---

If our troops would leave and a U.N. force enter, like it should have in the first place, none of this anger would have been created to as great a degree.

---

You expect me to believe that when one of the most deadly attacks in Iraq to-date was on the U.N.? These guerillas even attack Iraqi policemen and police stations. They're killing their own. I see no reason to believe it would have mattered if forces were there under the American, U.N., or French flag.

quote:

---

The greed and hegemony is obvious! All smart prognosticaters foresaw the unrest in Iraq who knew about the various factions. But the neocons wouldn't listen to reason.

---

Or, if you give them the benefit of the doubt, they calculated that the inherent risk of leaving Saddam in power was larger than the inherent risk of the Iraqi unrest. You say they were wrong, but we really don't know that.

quote:

---

So they, yes, not the Republicans so much as the neocons, wanted the scenario of Middle East dominance to begin. You doubt that this wasn't planned? And remember, that Paul mentioned the Congress was to blame in allowing the neocons the power.

---

Planned? Do I think they all huddled in some political "war room" in 1998 and said, "Hey, let's run Bush for president, and then we'll have a terrorist attack, and that'll give us an excuse to attack Afghanistan and Iraq." No, I don't think that happened.

Do I think that many people believe that our interests are best served by an American military force somewhere in the Middle East? Sure. Do I think that it made sense to attack Afghanistan after 9/11? Sure. Do I think it made sense to attack Iraq when we did on the basis of the justifications we provided? Probably not. Does that mean the whole thing was bad? Probably not. As I said, I think Iraqis will be better off in 20 years as a result of the war than if we had left Saddam or his sons in power.

quote:

---

You seem to be hell-bent in defending the PNAC for some reason, so I will just let you start a thread of your own on that for the rest of the board to respond to, and see what happens. Go ahead, start a thread on the PNAC itself.

---

I'm not hellbent on defending PNAC if someone can show we facts to support what they state. But, at least in the other debate I was involved in, the conspiracist had a bunch of bad things to say about PNAC that just seemed incredible to me that anyone (i.e. PNAC) would actually say. And when I read the documents I found they hadn't said what the conspiracist claimed.

I'm hellbent on the truth and it bothers me to see anyone--including conspiracists--mischaracterize anything unfairly or untruthfully in an attempt to perpetuate or strengthen their particular theory. Conspiracies that depend on such mischaracterizations should be very suspect.

I don't care about defending PNAC--I care to make sure that everyone sees the mischaracterizations that many conspiracists make in an attempt to support their particular conspiracy. I'm interested in talking about PNAC because I've found that it's a talking point among conspiracists, but reality does not support what the conspiracists say about PNAC (at least what I've seen conspiracists say about PNAC). So when I shine a light of truth on the topic of PNAC hopefully some will ask, "Wow... I wonder why these people said these things about PNAC that were untrue... what other 'facts' might be distorted here? DO they have an agenda?" THAT'S what I'm interested in.

I will start a "pre-emptive" thread on the the topic and we'll see where it goes. Unfortunately, it's easier to answer accusations then to try to defend it in general since, as I said, I'm not really looking to "defend" PNAC. So I'll probably just end up refuting the same things I refuted in my other debate and which, I suppose, are probably the same misconceptions people here have about PNAC. We'll see where it goes from there. Give me a couple of days to get my post together with links, etc.

quote:

---

I already know how I feel about it and I expressed most of it, but I will not take my time to line by line, paragraph by paragraph point out its insane and destructive logic when more learned and wise people have done so in far better a manner than I could ever do, ie. Ron Paul.

---

Yes, but the excercise of debating it yourself rather than letting Ron Paul do the thinking for you causes you to think. It's easy to read through Ron Paul's article and just agree with it without really thinking yourself or checking what PNAC actually supports.

That is the value of debate... making each side THINK. That doesn't happen when you just provide a link and let Ron Paul do the thinking for you.

quote:

---

Yes, the dream of world cooperation and peace can be realized. And yes, of course our Constitution would remain intact with possibly more amendments, and thrive under a similar democratic world Constitution of the future! Why not?

---

What if the World Constitution doesn't agree with our values as Americans and what our Constitution says? Who wins? The World Constitution or our Constitution?

quote:

---

To assume, as the PNAC does and you obviously do, that the world's people will always be warlike is to assume that we, as a race of humans, cannot learn from history, do not have the capacity to live together in cooperative peace, and cannot respect the rule of law.

---

Well, I'd like to believe it can happen. But I see absolutely no reason to believe that it will. NOTHING in history suggests that it will. NOTHING in the present suggests that it will. I see this as being no different than suggesting that crime will finally go away in our time because we have learned from history.

I just don't see where you can believe that. Strive for it, yes. But base important foreign policy on it? Not yet.

quote:

---

Quite the contrary, I see this era as a time for change in humanity, as a testing time for the world's leaders and the world's peoples, a fork in the road if you will. It is time for the truth to rise to the surface in all matters. It is the moment of truth that will set the wheels in motion for creating a better tomorrow or a non-tomorrow.

---

Everything is a fork in the road. The American Revolution, WWI, WWII, 9/11. Everything is a fork in the road. I just don't see why you think this fork is any more significant than any other fork in history.

quote:

---

Our world resources are dwindling (fresh water, fossil fuels, etc.), our biosphere is degrading, our climate is changing, and all effort must be launched in uniting our world efforts to insure survival of our children and our children's children, etc. etc. War does not fit into this scenario of responsiblity.

---

It's the same today as it has been for thousands of years. No-one really wants it, but yet it happens.

quote:

---

You never refuted the future scenarios I mentioned about species survival, did you, except to wave it off as some kind of fanatical thinking. Now who's unrealistic here?

---

You're asking me to refute things that haven't even happened yet? Sigh...

I believe you are being unrealistic. You believe I am. And we can't know who's right unless we can travel 500 years into the future. It's hard enough for us to debate past and current events--I'm not even going to try to engage you on what "might" happen in the future.

quote:

---

Ethics? You didn't even respond to "ethics."

---

Because that's not what we're debating. I don't disagree we need ethics and that ethics are good. But I'm debating CONSPIRACY, specifically as it relates to 9/11. All these other topics are interesting and can be debated themselves, but it's simply not what I came here to debate and will get us off-topic as to whether 9/11 was a conspiracy or not.

quote:

---

You are either for peaceful solutions to world problems or you are not. It comes down to this.

---

Do you think war was the right path for the U.S. in WWII? Or should we have let Hitler do his thing?

quote:

---

ps And please don't respond with quoting one sentence. A paragraph would be more accurate and fair, if you choose to quote.

---

Fine, I'll do so in the future. I usually quote just the sentence as it is more concise and keeps the messages from becoming obscenely huge. But if you want entire paragraphs, I'll do that in the future. I didn't mean to quote you "out of context," I just meant to keep things more readable. Sorry.

quote:

---

pps Just listing a definition of "rant" is not proving it in the piece itself. You'd have to quote parts of it and point out the tone of anger you seem to feel is there.

---

I got an angry "feel" from it considering how you usually see representatives debating or making speeches on the floor. Perhaps that was unfair, but it's the feeling I got.

But even if it wasn't angry, as the Dictionary.com definition said: "To utter or express with violence or extravagance" I would feel the speech qualifies as extravagent. You may disagree. The Webster definition "1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner" certainly fits. The article is definitely "excited".

And, again, even if you don't like those definitions, I assume you've seen the word "rant" used on many Internet forums regarding any long, drawn-out post. So I feel I was accurate in calling it a "rant" both according to Dictionary.com, Webster, and colloquial use on the Internet.

quote:

---

I also defined rant, but I wasn't saying it was a rant so the burden of proof was on you and still is. You haven't proved it yet! But it's not that important, so don't bother!

---

posted 12-29-2003 01:28 PM            

Unfortunately, Bush is still president, and the world is lurching ever closer to WWIII.