...seems to be fair game at this point. it's surprising but i'm glad.
it was revealed yesterday that the french and german governments have been working on a secret iraq peace plan since early january.
(funny thing is, you can hardly find anything about it on cnn.com or nytimes.com).
the plan calls for the occupation of iraq by UN military forces, which would enable unhindered inspection and demilitarization of iraq.
the germans and french have been talking with the chinese and russians about the plan, and have a good degree of support. german government leader schroeder will hold a speech on the subject next thursday.
rumsfeld and powell are furious about all this, of course. they only heard about it from the media.
it‘s hard for me to say whether saddam will agree to the peace plan, and whether the chinese and russians will decide to snub bush.
i give it about a 20% likelihood, but if it does work out, then it will be damn hard for bush to still attack iraq. hell, he‘d have four fifths of the security council against him.
what a surprise development! it amuses me endlessly that the french and germans have been silently working on this over the past few weeks, at the same time bush has been rattling his sabre against saddam and rumsfeld has been doing his best to humiliate chirac and schroeder. there's never been anything like it in the post-war era.
what a loss of face for bush if he had to back down from war just because the french and germans screwed him!
i think bush wants to be like reagan: a guy who pushed america to win against its enemies through military might.
i think bush is more like that other texan asshole lyndon johnson, a guy who screwed up the country when he tried to fight a stupid war while simultaneously busting the budget.
or maybe bush will end up like nixon and will be able to save his ass with sneaky electoral tricks and a phoney slogan like "peace with honor."
all ok by me, as long as this pointless war is prevented.
fucking with gw bush
fucking with gw bush
Nice one Martino. Oh my God that would be so cool if the EU stood up for itself.
Then maybe we Americans would finally see who the true enemny of our world domination plot is: Europe.
Without war with Europe, we will never complete Elvis Presley's secret plan and conquer the world through force.
Then maybe we Americans would finally see who the true enemny of our world domination plot is: Europe.
Without war with Europe, we will never complete Elvis Presley's secret plan and conquer the world through force.
fucking with gw bush
Hey everybody, my friend just forwarded this website to me about impeaching yes impeaching Bush. Apparently former Attorney General Ramsey Clark has drafted the articles of impeachment.
check it out:
www.VoteToImpeach.org
check it out:
www.VoteToImpeach.org
fucking with gw bush
mark: more power to 'em
ooh: i'm with you 100% on this one. gary b smith (the guy who taught me everything i know about technical analysis), last week put it better than i ever could:
"Personally, I think we should invade Hollywood, then France, THEN Iraq, but that's just me."
ooh: i'm with you 100% on this one. gary b smith (the guy who taught me everything i know about technical analysis), last week put it better than i ever could:
"Personally, I think we should invade Hollywood, then France, THEN Iraq, but that's just me."
fucking with gw bush
Martin ... I would take your comments more to heart if it weren't about the two nations who don't exactly have a track record when it comes to promoting peace in the world. I do NOT agree with all of the foreign policy initiatives that my government implemented but the sanctimonious, self-rightous attitude spewed forth in your post doesn't speak to me of a well versed opinion of what is wrong with US foreign policy ... I felt when reading your post that any minute you were going to shout "Nyah!" and somehow stick your tongue out. Shit ... the Europeans are the last group as a whole that I am about to trust when it comes to discussing ways to make the world safer. The Germans initiated 2 World Wars. The French have a horrible knack of rolling over at the slightest threat. I try to look at history and the facts when forming my opinion. I am an independent, moderate voter who refuses to join any political party at this time in my life. However, one thing I can not tolerate is the lofty, conceited, condescending attitudes directed at America that I often see on the internet and in some areas of the media. People that are to young to remember or to uneducated to know better seem to not be able to balance their hostile attitudes towards this country with the fact that it has often been our will ... whether willing or unwilling ... that has kept the peace in many areas of the world. The ironic thing is that many of those "hot spots" have often been on the European continent. I can easily point our Bosnnia-Herzegovina .. Croatia ... Slovenia ... even Aphganistan can arguably been called much better off thanks to US will ... military will. I'm certainly not going to argue that military will is the only way out in all situations in the world. However, sometimes it is the best method. The only method. Not always ... but sometimes.
I'm glad your find President Bush to be such a devil of a man. Personally I think it can be easily stated as fact that there have been many, many more devilish and/or wimpy leaders born out of the European continent. England had Neville Chamberlain. France had Napoleon (to name just one). Yugoslavia had Milosevic. Germany had how many??? Perhaps you'd be better off you think had we stayed an isolationist nation and left your land to fly under the Swastika?? ...
myke
PS -- Another "Texan asshole"?? Is that the same as a Hamburg whore or a Bulgarian bastard or perhaps a French fuck wad?
I'm glad your find President Bush to be such a devil of a man. Personally I think it can be easily stated as fact that there have been many, many more devilish and/or wimpy leaders born out of the European continent. England had Neville Chamberlain. France had Napoleon (to name just one). Yugoslavia had Milosevic. Germany had how many??? Perhaps you'd be better off you think had we stayed an isolationist nation and left your land to fly under the Swastika?? ...
myke
PS -- Another "Texan asshole"?? Is that the same as a Hamburg whore or a Bulgarian bastard or perhaps a French fuck wad?
fucking with gw bush
LONDON (AP) - Britain joined the United States on Tuesday in dismissing a call by France, Russia and Germany to strengthen U.N. weapons inspections, insisting that even "a thousandfold" increase in the number of inspectors wouldn't guarantee Saddam Hussein's disarmament.
"If Saddam bows to the U.N. demand and cooperates promptly, what is the need for greater numbers of inspectors?" British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said in a prepared speech to the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, released by the Foreign Office.
"If he maintains his refusal to cooperate, how will higher numbers help? Lethal viruses can be produced in an area the size of the average living room," Straw said in the text.
Concise words from Mr. Straw ... hard to argue. Of course, I'm no military strategist or worldly politician. What do I know? I just try to educate myself as much as possible then give an opinion based on my best judgement. Sometimes I might be right. Sometimes I might be wrong. Such is life.
myke
"If Saddam bows to the U.N. demand and cooperates promptly, what is the need for greater numbers of inspectors?" British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said in a prepared speech to the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, released by the Foreign Office.
"If he maintains his refusal to cooperate, how will higher numbers help? Lethal viruses can be produced in an area the size of the average living room," Straw said in the text.
Concise words from Mr. Straw ... hard to argue. Of course, I'm no military strategist or worldly politician. What do I know? I just try to educate myself as much as possible then give an opinion based on my best judgement. Sometimes I might be right. Sometimes I might be wrong. Such is life.
myke
fucking with gw bush
myke, i think this is the kind of vigorous discussion we all enjoy around here, for which i want to thank you.
there is really nothing i can say to the thrust of your argument -- that because i come from a country that has started two world wars, i am not qualified to criticize a government that is starting a new one. depending upon where you stand, that is either an invincible argument or a riduculous argument. perhaps other people here at paxacidus have opinions on this.
let me try to explain why my posting had a "nyah nyah" tone. in my opinion, bush has been behaving like a unilateralist, which is a totally new development in the post-ww2 era. he has implicitly made it clear that he will do whatever he wants about iraq, just like he conveniently cancelled other multilateral agreements.
while he made it clear that (unlike his dad in '91), he is not going to spend much effort on creating an international coalition, he allowed people like rumsfeld to insult and bully any government that indicated it had an own opinion.
so now -- surprise, surprise! -- the sovereign governments of france, russia and germany have developed their own plan. and bush is feeling hurt, just hurt. i find this amusing. (i admit that i have a strange sense of humor, sometimes).
i am on the record here for having been all for the iraq war in '91; for the bombing of serbia, for the invasion of afghanistan. i have also said i love the US. i have also, out of sympathy to spike, retracted my earlier statement that only steers and queers come from texas. to use your words, don't be overly paranoid.
there is really nothing i can say to the thrust of your argument -- that because i come from a country that has started two world wars, i am not qualified to criticize a government that is starting a new one. depending upon where you stand, that is either an invincible argument or a riduculous argument. perhaps other people here at paxacidus have opinions on this.
let me try to explain why my posting had a "nyah nyah" tone. in my opinion, bush has been behaving like a unilateralist, which is a totally new development in the post-ww2 era. he has implicitly made it clear that he will do whatever he wants about iraq, just like he conveniently cancelled other multilateral agreements.
while he made it clear that (unlike his dad in '91), he is not going to spend much effort on creating an international coalition, he allowed people like rumsfeld to insult and bully any government that indicated it had an own opinion.
so now -- surprise, surprise! -- the sovereign governments of france, russia and germany have developed their own plan. and bush is feeling hurt, just hurt. i find this amusing. (i admit that i have a strange sense of humor, sometimes).
i am on the record here for having been all for the iraq war in '91; for the bombing of serbia, for the invasion of afghanistan. i have also said i love the US. i have also, out of sympathy to spike, retracted my earlier statement that only steers and queers come from texas. to use your words, don't be overly paranoid.
fucking with gw bush
Myke I think it just comes down to the fact that in the world, with foreign policy, alliances change. They shift over time. For example, when I was growing up it was Iran that was our enemy more than Iraq. Sometimes those shifting alliances can blow up in our face, as when we might help one country to win a war against a greater enemy, only to find that the country we helped LATER uses those weapons and expertise WE gave them against us. This was the case with Afghanistan, as well.
My point is, talking about the history of Germany or France at this point seems rather irrelevant to the situation at hand. If you believe as some people on this website do, that Bush is an arrogant dimwit hellbent on starting a dangerous war and secretly eroding our civil liberties and constitutional rights in the name of terrorism, and if you want to see him stopped, then you are most likely going to side with the Europeans in this situation, regardless of anything to do with European history. Alliances change.
If, however, you support Bush, and that is your right, then obviously you aren't going to side with the Europeans. Just understand that at least on this website you may find yourself in a minority of sorts. I'm not sure it's fair to hold a country's history against any member of that country because for example, I am a U.S. citizen but I certainly don't condone what Bush is doing nor did I vote for him. I certainly don't want to be held responsible for the past actions of my country because I didn't vote for them, I wasn't even alive then etc etc.
If you are unsure about the current situation, I would like to point out that Bush has made himself a lot of enemies around the world in his term so far. It's not just Germany and France we're talking about here. China, Russia, Canada's "moron" comment, North Korea seemed real thrilled to be called part of an "axis of evil". I just say hey, you know, if one leader has made that many countries enemies in that short span of time, there's probably something wrong with HIM not THEM, right? Even before the Iraq issue, I was constantly reading about international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol that Bush was refusing to go along with. How embarassing it was even then to be seen as an American, the ONLY country that refused to cooperate with the others on issue after issue after issue. That's when I knew something was really wrong.
The Russian leader Putin made an excellent point the other day. He said that there is nothing within the U.N. charter that would allow them to go in and "change a regime" of a sovereign nation just because they don't like the way it's being run. And yet Bush has been "calling for 'regime change'" like it's the most normal natural thing in the world. I simply don't see how going to war with Iraq is going to make us safer. If anything it ought to make us that much more vulnerable, especially if we do it without U.N. approval.
But enough, I'm not here to argue. If we don't see eye to eye, Myke, I'm always willing to agree to disagree, and thanks sincerely for writing.
My point is, talking about the history of Germany or France at this point seems rather irrelevant to the situation at hand. If you believe as some people on this website do, that Bush is an arrogant dimwit hellbent on starting a dangerous war and secretly eroding our civil liberties and constitutional rights in the name of terrorism, and if you want to see him stopped, then you are most likely going to side with the Europeans in this situation, regardless of anything to do with European history. Alliances change.
If, however, you support Bush, and that is your right, then obviously you aren't going to side with the Europeans. Just understand that at least on this website you may find yourself in a minority of sorts. I'm not sure it's fair to hold a country's history against any member of that country because for example, I am a U.S. citizen but I certainly don't condone what Bush is doing nor did I vote for him. I certainly don't want to be held responsible for the past actions of my country because I didn't vote for them, I wasn't even alive then etc etc.
If you are unsure about the current situation, I would like to point out that Bush has made himself a lot of enemies around the world in his term so far. It's not just Germany and France we're talking about here. China, Russia, Canada's "moron" comment, North Korea seemed real thrilled to be called part of an "axis of evil". I just say hey, you know, if one leader has made that many countries enemies in that short span of time, there's probably something wrong with HIM not THEM, right? Even before the Iraq issue, I was constantly reading about international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol that Bush was refusing to go along with. How embarassing it was even then to be seen as an American, the ONLY country that refused to cooperate with the others on issue after issue after issue. That's when I knew something was really wrong.
The Russian leader Putin made an excellent point the other day. He said that there is nothing within the U.N. charter that would allow them to go in and "change a regime" of a sovereign nation just because they don't like the way it's being run. And yet Bush has been "calling for 'regime change'" like it's the most normal natural thing in the world. I simply don't see how going to war with Iraq is going to make us safer. If anything it ought to make us that much more vulnerable, especially if we do it without U.N. approval.
But enough, I'm not here to argue. If we don't see eye to eye, Myke, I'm always willing to agree to disagree, and thanks sincerely for writing.
fucking with gw bush
History is important ... especially recent history.
I did not vote for Bush. I did not vote for his father. I did not vote for the new Republican governor of my state. I actually come across much more liberal in my state than I do here but hey, that's because this place is really way to the right of the average voter. That's what happens to us moderate middle of the roaders ... we have to place fit in!
Again ... not that I necessarily agree with him (I never said I did) ... but doesn't Bush have Britain, the Czech Republic, Poland, etc. agreeing with him? As many do as don't. Of course, they are much more smaller nations on the world stage. And many of them were formally under the thumb of tyrants themselves. I'm not sure what that says.
I can easily agree to disagree. I am all for lively debate. Isn't that what people who are interested in things do? Sometimes I take the opposite point of view of things to provide a different perspective. If by doing so or stating my views I'm being in the "minority" here, does that mean I shouldn't state what I think or not be here at Pax Acidus at all? Isn't this an area of free thought and expression? Was I wrong in thinking that? Should I leave?
You know, some of my main reasoning for some of my expressions here that are looked at as against the main grain of Pax thought ... is not trying to put forth approval of everything GW does. It's just that everyone seems to always thing that the Europeans are so much better and more wonderful than everything having to do with the entire US. I don't see it that way. Each has it's good points and bad points. Having one leader in a democratic republic that will likely be gone in just a few years does not make it a place of total derision.
myke
I did not vote for Bush. I did not vote for his father. I did not vote for the new Republican governor of my state. I actually come across much more liberal in my state than I do here but hey, that's because this place is really way to the right of the average voter. That's what happens to us moderate middle of the roaders ... we have to place fit in!
Again ... not that I necessarily agree with him (I never said I did) ... but doesn't Bush have Britain, the Czech Republic, Poland, etc. agreeing with him? As many do as don't. Of course, they are much more smaller nations on the world stage. And many of them were formally under the thumb of tyrants themselves. I'm not sure what that says.
I can easily agree to disagree. I am all for lively debate. Isn't that what people who are interested in things do? Sometimes I take the opposite point of view of things to provide a different perspective. If by doing so or stating my views I'm being in the "minority" here, does that mean I shouldn't state what I think or not be here at Pax Acidus at all? Isn't this an area of free thought and expression? Was I wrong in thinking that? Should I leave?
You know, some of my main reasoning for some of my expressions here that are looked at as against the main grain of Pax thought ... is not trying to put forth approval of everything GW does. It's just that everyone seems to always thing that the Europeans are so much better and more wonderful than everything having to do with the entire US. I don't see it that way. Each has it's good points and bad points. Having one leader in a democratic republic that will likely be gone in just a few years does not make it a place of total derision.
myke
fucking with gw bush
If North korea had oil we would be invading them first. It's all about the Benjamins. In the end, only the Iraqi people will suffer.
They are just like you and me... living in fear day by day and almost powerfless to stop their evil government.
For once I say we do something peaceful. War is so easy when you have the necessary hardware.
We have the benefit of hindsight now. We have Gulf War films like 3 Kings. We have Hamburger Hill, our 35 year legacy.
Myke there is nothing to be gained in Iraq. This is not about Democracy (Kuwait and Saudi our allies are fucking monarchies!) This is not about chemical or nuclear weapons (many countries have and use them, and USA is only nation to ever use nukes).
This war is about a blood feud and control of the worldwide oil supplies.
Innocent Iraquis and ignorant American soldiers will die for the greater finanical success of the Bush family and his oligarchic pals.
BELIEVE IT... ITS MOSTLY TRUE!
Might does not make right.
And my favorite new anti-war slogan...
War does not prove who's right, only who's left.
They are just like you and me... living in fear day by day and almost powerfless to stop their evil government.
For once I say we do something peaceful. War is so easy when you have the necessary hardware.
We have the benefit of hindsight now. We have Gulf War films like 3 Kings. We have Hamburger Hill, our 35 year legacy.
Myke there is nothing to be gained in Iraq. This is not about Democracy (Kuwait and Saudi our allies are fucking monarchies!) This is not about chemical or nuclear weapons (many countries have and use them, and USA is only nation to ever use nukes).
This war is about a blood feud and control of the worldwide oil supplies.
Innocent Iraquis and ignorant American soldiers will die for the greater finanical success of the Bush family and his oligarchic pals.
BELIEVE IT... ITS MOSTLY TRUE!
Might does not make right.
And my favorite new anti-war slogan...
War does not prove who's right, only who's left.
fucking with gw bush
It might be somewhat true but not entirely. I have never had a problem coming to the conclusion where to side on an issue. However, with this one .. I can see both sides. The anti-war positions have been well stated here (for the most part). Some of the rationale that I can somewhat agree with in the other direction mainly for me deals with the UN. Sanctions clearly do not work for despots. They find a way to get money and wealth for themselves in palaces and foreign bank account and only their citizens end up suffering. Look at Iraq. Hell, look at Cuba. Over 40 years of sanctions there have did nothing to oust Castro or bring about human rights reform in Cuba. So what does the UN do when sanctions clearly are not working? I can not believe that nothing is the answer. Perhaps war is not either but what is? I think with mass communication and modern technology, the UN can be an important facilitator in world affairs including peace keeping and some times peace making. If the UN doesn't figure out what to do when sanctions fail, either nations like the US will inevitably act on their own or other organizations will such as the African Union or else the UN will risk irrelevanctcy.
As for North Korea ... Kim Jong Ill is bigger megalomaniac than his father was. He rules with an iron fist and a million man army while his people starve. Very different situation. Kim Jong Ill has a reputation of sabre rattleing in order to engage the US. He was quoted just the other day of saying that the only way to solve the tensions there was thru direct dialogue with the United States. China, South Korea, and Japan have offered to help mediate but North Korea only wants to talk to the US. Puts us in a tight situation.
Ironic thing is to me is that the US is the country everyone seems to love to hate. Everyone seems to aspire to many of the freedoms, material goods, and wealth many people here have at the same time they are burning the flag. I saw a picture the other day of a teenager in the Gaza Strip chanting against the US at the same time he had on Nike shoes and a Michael Jordan t-shirt.
Seems that many times the vitriole is focused on a single leader versus the entire nation of Americans.
Also ... on a final note ... everyone seems to be consistantly pointing out the support of the French, Germans, and Belgians for the anti-war movement. Does that mean the British, Spanish, Italians, Czech, Poles, etc. are all war mongers as well?
Just a few thoughts ... does that officially kick me out of the Pax Acidus world??
myke
As for North Korea ... Kim Jong Ill is bigger megalomaniac than his father was. He rules with an iron fist and a million man army while his people starve. Very different situation. Kim Jong Ill has a reputation of sabre rattleing in order to engage the US. He was quoted just the other day of saying that the only way to solve the tensions there was thru direct dialogue with the United States. China, South Korea, and Japan have offered to help mediate but North Korea only wants to talk to the US. Puts us in a tight situation.
Ironic thing is to me is that the US is the country everyone seems to love to hate. Everyone seems to aspire to many of the freedoms, material goods, and wealth many people here have at the same time they are burning the flag. I saw a picture the other day of a teenager in the Gaza Strip chanting against the US at the same time he had on Nike shoes and a Michael Jordan t-shirt.
Seems that many times the vitriole is focused on a single leader versus the entire nation of Americans.
Also ... on a final note ... everyone seems to be consistantly pointing out the support of the French, Germans, and Belgians for the anti-war movement. Does that mean the British, Spanish, Italians, Czech, Poles, etc. are all war mongers as well?
Just a few thoughts ... does that officially kick me out of the Pax Acidus world??
myke
fucking with gw bush
myke, i am confused. what exactly are you saying? that the US should have invaded cuba because sanctions didn't topple castro?
you say a lot but it sounds rather muddled. you are for this war -- but maybe you aren't.
you are for the UN -- but only if it supports an invasion in iraq which is not backed by the UN charter?
ever heard of the concept of cognitive dissonance?
the only clear thought i can hear in your posting is that you wish that less people would criticize the US which after all, is historically pro-freedom. but the historical quality of the US (which I will be the last to criticize) isn't the topic of any discussion here.
we are talking about iraq, for chrissakes. we are talking about the US initiating "regime change". we are not talking about ben franklin or hubert humphrey, as much as i would like to under other circumstances.
you say a lot but it sounds rather muddled. you are for this war -- but maybe you aren't.
you are for the UN -- but only if it supports an invasion in iraq which is not backed by the UN charter?
ever heard of the concept of cognitive dissonance?
the only clear thought i can hear in your posting is that you wish that less people would criticize the US which after all, is historically pro-freedom. but the historical quality of the US (which I will be the last to criticize) isn't the topic of any discussion here.
we are talking about iraq, for chrissakes. we are talking about the US initiating "regime change". we are not talking about ben franklin or hubert humphrey, as much as i would like to under other circumstances.
fucking with gw bush
Myke you sound like the guy on MSNBC.
I am beginning to sound like fucking Noam Chomsky!
But here we go...
Many people believe Bush to be a despot and America has a terrible human rights record! Look at Waco. Look at the death penalty. Look at Vietnam, the Gulf War, Guantanamo Bay, Nicaragua, Somalia, etc, etc. This is typical American hypocrisy.
Bush loves to quote that Iraq is in violation of the UN. Almost every country is in violation of the UN! Including the US! Our insane and violent actions in South and Central America (Columbia, Panama, Nicaragua) were loudly condemend by the UN and we basically told them to go to hell in a handbasket. And we responded by INCREASING our violent behavior to unprecedented levels.
I agree that the Gulf War was necessary, although it was done sloppily. I do not believe this new war against terrorism is necessary. It cannot work... not without the full support of the UN. America cannot and should not be a rogue nation. Without a strong UN we will have a world war... again. Soon. It's time for some humility from us.
Myke... thinking and debating will not get you kicked out of Pax Acidus web site. Sorry if that's your goal. We are not a bunch of liberals. We are not hippies although I smoke dope every day. Someone like you has gotta stick around and keep us in check.
Final point: I can't imagine living in a place where parents are anxious to send their kids to war to kill peasants and die for Bush and his cronies grandchildrens' trust funds!
Anyone try to deny this war is about oil and money!
I am beginning to sound like fucking Noam Chomsky!
But here we go...
Many people believe Bush to be a despot and America has a terrible human rights record! Look at Waco. Look at the death penalty. Look at Vietnam, the Gulf War, Guantanamo Bay, Nicaragua, Somalia, etc, etc. This is typical American hypocrisy.
Bush loves to quote that Iraq is in violation of the UN. Almost every country is in violation of the UN! Including the US! Our insane and violent actions in South and Central America (Columbia, Panama, Nicaragua) were loudly condemend by the UN and we basically told them to go to hell in a handbasket. And we responded by INCREASING our violent behavior to unprecedented levels.
I agree that the Gulf War was necessary, although it was done sloppily. I do not believe this new war against terrorism is necessary. It cannot work... not without the full support of the UN. America cannot and should not be a rogue nation. Without a strong UN we will have a world war... again. Soon. It's time for some humility from us.
Myke... thinking and debating will not get you kicked out of Pax Acidus web site. Sorry if that's your goal. We are not a bunch of liberals. We are not hippies although I smoke dope every day. Someone like you has gotta stick around and keep us in check.
Final point: I can't imagine living in a place where parents are anxious to send their kids to war to kill peasants and die for Bush and his cronies grandchildrens' trust funds!
Anyone try to deny this war is about oil and money!
fucking with gw bush
<< Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which has two major effects on learning:
if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are not likely to admit that the content of what has been learned is not valuable. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned". >>
Yes ... I obviously have heard of that psychological term though it was several years back in psych 101. Just for the record, Martin, I find that comparison to me to be quite personally insulting. It makes a person sound like more than a pushover. Anyone ever watch the old Star Trek Next Generation show? I've never been a big "trekkie" at all but I do like some sci fi and liked the Borg stuff on that show. Having cognitive dissonance makes one seem like a Borg. Easily assimilated ... unable to espouse truly independent thought away from what's been shoved down your throat. Not me at all! Aside from me being one of the most outspoken, opinonated, and liberal minded people amongst the crowd I associate, ... this big issue of war is simply not cut and dried. I have conflicting issues on the subject. That doesn't make me a patsy for GW and his lot. I hope you understand my point in this at least, whether or not you agree.
I shall not be overly paranoid but that feeling does come out when sometimes one feels backed into a corner for espousing a different point of view. However, I do also way enjoy a lively debate as long as it doesn't get personal. There is something to the term "agree to disagree".
Speaking of the UN ... I used to be in this group/club in college called "Model United Nations". Was a blast. I remember representing the little nation of Algeria at a mock Arab League Summit in Savannah, Georgia in my junior year and winning an outstanding delegate award for a resolution I presented and got the whole league to co-sign calling for an "Arab University system" in the middle east to foster higher education for men and women. We even got to send our resolutions to the real Arab League! But I digress ... Personally, I am a big proponent of the United Nations. Point blank. I do have some criticisms of it, though. No organization is perfect. My big problem is with sanctions. I do not think they work. Whether people like it or not, organizations like the UN and the EU are fostering global government. And trust me, people in this country would skewer me for saying such a thing. But it's true. Mass communication makes it true. I also think that in respect to the sanctions, I think someone needs to put some sort of muscle behind them. Otherwise, they do risk being a paper tiger. Perhaps that's where my ambiguity comes in relation to the issue of war with Sadaam.
Perhaps Bush is feeling hurt that the nations of France, Germany, and Russia are formulating an alternate plan to outright war. Hey, more power to them. Perhaps had they tried this 2 or 3 years ago, we wouldn't be in this pickle now. The REALLY sad thing is, it took someone like Bush (like him or hate him) to bring the Iraq issue to the table again, get the inspectors back in there at all, and indirectly goad those other nations into drafting ANY sort of alternate plan. Why can't they ever try something BEFORE it gets to this state? I also must restate one last time that though what France, Russia, Germany, and let's not forget Belgium are trying on the diplomatic front is laudible, there are just as many nations in Europe and elsewhere going the other route as well.
Point of note: I criticize this country all the time and think anyone should feel free to do so. I do admit to simply taking issue with seeing and hearing it done from a point of condecension and high noses. That is all.
I am not at all for persistant use of the policy of "regime change". However, it is useful in some very rare instances and under strict guidelines. I believe the bustleling city of Kabul would say they're better off than under the Taliban. So would the Kosovoans. The Serbs. The Croatians. etc. Not perfect ... but better and getting there.
Human rights records are terrible in many, many nations if not all of them at one time or the other. Hell, my only remaining grandparent is Eastern Cherokee and I could easily argue that genocide was committed on Naitive Americans. I don't think we're anywhere near the consistantly horrible level of the Sadaams or the Khmer Rouge or the Qahdafis of the world.
I agree with the point that we need a strong UN. Part of my point actually. The UN must be strong against any rogue nation. It also must ensure it's relevance by attaching teeth to it's own resolutons rather than waiting out despot leaders to die of old age.
'Tis not my goal to get kicked out of here! At least not until McCutcheon sends me my Johnny Cash cd (hint, hint). Was simply feeling a little bit defensive.
We should form our own talk show on the web.
I would smoke dope regularly were it not for those random work drug tests ...
My fingers are cramping ... Later.
myke
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which has two major effects on learning:
if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are not likely to admit that the content of what has been learned is not valuable. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned". >>
Yes ... I obviously have heard of that psychological term though it was several years back in psych 101. Just for the record, Martin, I find that comparison to me to be quite personally insulting. It makes a person sound like more than a pushover. Anyone ever watch the old Star Trek Next Generation show? I've never been a big "trekkie" at all but I do like some sci fi and liked the Borg stuff on that show. Having cognitive dissonance makes one seem like a Borg. Easily assimilated ... unable to espouse truly independent thought away from what's been shoved down your throat. Not me at all! Aside from me being one of the most outspoken, opinonated, and liberal minded people amongst the crowd I associate, ... this big issue of war is simply not cut and dried. I have conflicting issues on the subject. That doesn't make me a patsy for GW and his lot. I hope you understand my point in this at least, whether or not you agree.
I shall not be overly paranoid but that feeling does come out when sometimes one feels backed into a corner for espousing a different point of view. However, I do also way enjoy a lively debate as long as it doesn't get personal. There is something to the term "agree to disagree".
Speaking of the UN ... I used to be in this group/club in college called "Model United Nations". Was a blast. I remember representing the little nation of Algeria at a mock Arab League Summit in Savannah, Georgia in my junior year and winning an outstanding delegate award for a resolution I presented and got the whole league to co-sign calling for an "Arab University system" in the middle east to foster higher education for men and women. We even got to send our resolutions to the real Arab League! But I digress ... Personally, I am a big proponent of the United Nations. Point blank. I do have some criticisms of it, though. No organization is perfect. My big problem is with sanctions. I do not think they work. Whether people like it or not, organizations like the UN and the EU are fostering global government. And trust me, people in this country would skewer me for saying such a thing. But it's true. Mass communication makes it true. I also think that in respect to the sanctions, I think someone needs to put some sort of muscle behind them. Otherwise, they do risk being a paper tiger. Perhaps that's where my ambiguity comes in relation to the issue of war with Sadaam.
Perhaps Bush is feeling hurt that the nations of France, Germany, and Russia are formulating an alternate plan to outright war. Hey, more power to them. Perhaps had they tried this 2 or 3 years ago, we wouldn't be in this pickle now. The REALLY sad thing is, it took someone like Bush (like him or hate him) to bring the Iraq issue to the table again, get the inspectors back in there at all, and indirectly goad those other nations into drafting ANY sort of alternate plan. Why can't they ever try something BEFORE it gets to this state? I also must restate one last time that though what France, Russia, Germany, and let's not forget Belgium are trying on the diplomatic front is laudible, there are just as many nations in Europe and elsewhere going the other route as well.
Point of note: I criticize this country all the time and think anyone should feel free to do so. I do admit to simply taking issue with seeing and hearing it done from a point of condecension and high noses. That is all.
I am not at all for persistant use of the policy of "regime change". However, it is useful in some very rare instances and under strict guidelines. I believe the bustleling city of Kabul would say they're better off than under the Taliban. So would the Kosovoans. The Serbs. The Croatians. etc. Not perfect ... but better and getting there.
Human rights records are terrible in many, many nations if not all of them at one time or the other. Hell, my only remaining grandparent is Eastern Cherokee and I could easily argue that genocide was committed on Naitive Americans. I don't think we're anywhere near the consistantly horrible level of the Sadaams or the Khmer Rouge or the Qahdafis of the world.
I agree with the point that we need a strong UN. Part of my point actually. The UN must be strong against any rogue nation. It also must ensure it's relevance by attaching teeth to it's own resolutons rather than waiting out despot leaders to die of old age.
'Tis not my goal to get kicked out of here! At least not until McCutcheon sends me my Johnny Cash cd (hint, hint). Was simply feeling a little bit defensive.
We should form our own talk show on the web.
I would smoke dope regularly were it not for those random work drug tests ...
My fingers are cramping ... Later.
myke
-
mccutcheon
- New York Scribbler
- Posts: 4996
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:01 am
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
fucking with gw bush
I have to get your address again. And don't leave, I know Mav is on your side, but he is off in Italy (Mav is actually a CIA spy, but shhh, don't tell anyone) anyway all I THINK is Bush is pissed off and acts like a baby but it isn't good to get this guy mad. When he was the governor of Texas he personally signed the death certificate of over 150 convicts on death row. All were executed. And when one guy made a last minute plea for his life Bush made light of it and joked. He also thinks Saddam tried to assassinate his father.
And Pax doesn’t stand for one thing or the other. These are just opinions. Ya know, assholes. But isn’t all this interesting?
And Pax doesn’t stand for one thing or the other. These are just opinions. Ya know, assholes. But isn’t all this interesting?