Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Anti - and Syn - Thesis
BrainMeta Forums > Philosophy, Truth, History, & Politics > Philosophy > Nietzsche and PostModernism
Pages: 1, 2
Robert the Bruce
Is there an element of confusion by intention in the sophisticated ways that people talk about history? Hegel felt it was all a dialectic or confusion of political and other purposes I think. Let us look at a definition of terminology to see if there is any light or common sense to be seen.


“Although Hegel never used such a classification himself, Hegel's dialectic is often described as consisting of three stages: a thesis, an antithesis which contradicts or negates the thesis, and a synthesis embodying what is essential to each.


In the Logic, for instance, Hegel describes a dialectic of existence: first, existence must be posited as pure Being (thesis); but pure Being, upon examination, is found to be indistinguishable from Nothing (antithesis); yet both Being and Nothing are united as Becoming (synthesis), when it is realized that what is coming into being is, at the same time, also returning to nothing (consider life: old organisms die as new organisms are created or born).


Like Socratic dialectic, Hegel's dialectic proceeds by making implicit contradictions explicit: each stage of the process is the product of contradictions inherent or implicit in the preceding stage. For Hegel, the whole of western history is one tremendous dialectic, the largest moments of which chart a progression from self-alienation as slavery to self-unification and realization as the rational, constitutional state of free and equal citizens.” (2)


If one fully appreciates Hegel then one is justified in saying that he was trying to assist people in understanding the nature of history and our ‘selves’ but when sophisticated social engineers know most people are not able to wade through the Dialectic of propagandized history; then they are in fact using the ‘baffles brains or boggling effect’ to the advantage of the system. That system or paradigm does not make things patently clear and it allows people to think there are black and white answers or a level of trust they should have in their leaders.
Rick
"People get the government they deserve" is another way of saying it. That "most people are not able to wade through the Dialectic of propagandized history" is one of the facts of life.

I think that those who care too little about history and politics to educate themselves should continue to abstain from the political process. "Please don't vote if you don't care enough to know about the issues" is the advice I have for them.
Robert the Bruce
I don't vote and have not since the age of 17. There is no real choice. But I too have told people things like what you say and I don't know that it is very possible for people to inform themselves and have a family and what could be called a real life either. Thus one is left with the apparency of the 'lesser of evils'.
Rick
At 17, weren't you too young to vote, or are they more liberal in Canada?

This year in the USA the choice is very clear between the idiot-in-chief and someone who has the ability to think about the issues.

Throw the rascal Republicans out! Give John Kerry the support he will need in Congress by voting a straight Democratic ticket.
Robert the Bruce
At 17 I was in the Army for the summer when Pierre Trudeau ran for Prime Minister of Canada. I had lied about my age when I joined - but I think I would have been allowed to vote at 17 too.

NAH. I doubt you know what the issues are in the US and the world - they are two peas from the same pod - Skull & Bones. That is the 'lesser of two evils' argument and I agree with what you say but by voting you are responsible and part of the hegemony - at least Karmically.

Here are some of the REAL issues that are not being addressed.

1. Who will get the life-extending genetic enhancements that will extend life potential to 900 by the year 2070?

2. Who will own space and get the benefit of man's collective and tax based support of space colonization which could make everyone a millionaire?

3. What is SDI really for - see Kucinich's tabled Bill.

4. Why does the Fed and IMF (etc.) get to determine the economic reality for all nations including those listed in the War on Terra that do not belong to the World Bank or have Central Banks?

5. Should corporate and churchly behemoths have more rights than individuals (dare I also say nations) - see Chomsky. What entitles them to seek tax free and other enhanced status offshore while shelving technology that would empower all people in the world to compete.

6. Why do Congressional and Senate people who did not read the WTO not spend time in jail?

7. How can DARPA be headed up by a known criminal?

8. How can Kissinger avoid warrants from the World Court?

9. Who determined the NWO plan spoken about by Woolsey and Bennett (George I too) that makes all nations have to answer to the 900 pound gorilla?

10. Do corporations and religions that own the media have far too much influence - other lobbyist issues that grow worse all the time.
Dan
QUOTE (Rick @ Sep 30, 11:48 AM)


I think that those who care too little about history and politics to educate themselves should continue to abstain from the political process. "Please don't vote if you don't care enough to know about the issues" is the advice I have for them.

I agree to a greater extent. I wish that 'pro-vote' propagandists did not exist (on both sides). Such propagandists cause the vote to be less reflective of self-motivated voters with real interest in the process and more reflective of uneducate people who don't know the difference but are led to believe that voting randomly is better than not voting at all.
Rick
Sure, it's a mess, but the fact that the Bush people will stop at nothing to get the puppet reelected says something about the alternative: if they hate Kerry that much, he must be better than Bush.
Robert the Bruce
Mud-slinging gives the appearance of real conflict where it does not exist except for certain purely emotional issues like abortion - and the war will go on. Remember how Carter ran on the platform of reducing defense spending? Then they cooked up the embargo and Olympic boycott through lies about Russia. Utter SPIN.
Rick
A lot of "conservative"* gung ho type Vietnam veterans hate Kerry because he spoke the truth to Congress during the war. I think Kerry is more devoted to truth than Bush is, who seems to me to be a pathological liar.

*Conservative really means anti-liberal, which means closed minded.
Robert the Bruce
Yes, I was out front before he even announced - I was putting his speech on Vietnam everywhere - but I know it will not matter and that people MUST start to demand real change - at present the only person I would vote for is Nader.


"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?" - Joseph Stalin

“It is not surprising, of course, that there should be a strain of opportunism in those public gentlemen who are in a position to tell the multitude what to think; but that our universities—those institutions which have plumed themselves in their dignified objectivity—should begin now to fling about the gutter-slogans of our newspaper cartoons, seems to be a calamity of the first order.” – Joseph Campbell from ‘Permanent Human Values’ address to his students at Sarah Lawrence University.
Rick
I tell my friends who would vote for Ralph Nader (who also tells the truth) that a vote for Nader is a vote against Bush, but that a vote for Kerry is like two votes against Bush because Kerry can actually win the election!
Dan
a vote for Nader is either an extra vote that neither Bush Nor Kerry would have seen anyway or it is one less vote for Kerry (Republicans do not vote for extreme lefties). The net effect of Nader is less votes for Kerry, just like the net effect of Perot was less votes for Bush Sr. For this reason, Republicans are experiencing glee in getting Nader on state ballots. I think irony is the word that best fits any liberal who votes for Nader this November
Robert the Bruce
Dear Rick

Yes, it is a wasted vote if (!) you think the system does not need a real change and IF you do not care to lie down with dogs and have your integrity sold for a sham. I understand the 'lesser of two evils' argument.
Rick
Irony is the word, indeed. I think enough lazy Democrats are pissed off enough this year that Bush could lose in a landslide. Maybe not. We shall see. It will be interesting whichever way it goes.
Dan
the key to guiding American politics is in capturing the attention of the ignorant masses and motivating them to submit the desired vote. A candidate picking his nose might lose him the election, while a cool line might win it for him. The masses aren't that bright. The 'president' simply reflects the facade that these masses gravitate towards, thus he need not be particularly intelligent. It is not the president who matters anyway, but the interests of the political party represented by him. When we re-elect Bush, we need not worry that a relative retard is running the free world because he is just a front man and only appears to be running it. We might worry, however, whether or not the party represented by him and running the show is in tune or out of tune with what is best for humanity. The real issue of this campaign is how to handle the Islamic world. Repubs say they are aiming at our jugular so we should 'preempt' that in order to survive. Dems say they are nice guys with a few wackos and we should hang on 'peacefully' until the wackos go away. A Repub would say that this war did not start with Bush, he simply actively engaged in it under the assumption that it was inevitable and that waiting would only increase the risk of losing it. A Dem would say that Bush created this war where one did not exist, and disengagement is the only option which will not be realized if a Repub is running the show.
Dan
QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Sep 30, 04:39 PM)
Yes, it is a wasted vote if (!) you think the system does not need a real change and IF you do not care to lie down with dogs and have your integrity sold for a sham. I understand the 'lesser of two evils' argument.

to be fair, it could be argued that a vote for Nader is a vote for further pressuring a defective system to a breaking point. If a liberal feels that the system is running away from his/her interests, then the only recourse is to break the system. The best way to break a system is to force the people to hate it and ultimately reject it outright. If it is clear to a liberal that the Repubs are going to lead us to that point, then this liberal might be best served in the long term by keeping the Repubs in office until this breaking point is reached. At this time, and only at this time, can the desired change have a chance of being introduced and possibly succeeding. It is also possible that the parties are not irreconcilable but do need a shakeup such that, upon confronting such votes, they change their agenda enough to recapture the straying voters.
Robert the Bruce
There is no choice and has not been for a long time. Even Lincoln was a mde man - but he broke ranks and was assasinated - same with JFK.

Nope - there is no real choice and the apparency of one caused by mud-slinging is not in the very least amuzing. How many times in history has war been stopped? When is someone going to actually stop believing war against - the others (whoever those others may be) can be won. We are all 'brothers' and if we started behaving according to co-operative models we would be wealthy brothers and could takle some real opportunites.

It is not just the costs of armies and armaments (and the graft and cronyism associated with the Rothschild Merovingian armaments complex - see Eisenhower's speech) it is the loss of assets and fears that lead to new wars. Going to war to help British-American business interests is not going to end war - look at just the last 50 years - wake up! Read Chomsky and Zinn and many others.

Most importantly we must plan for and have terminologies and princoiples that will ensure PEACE. Skull & Bones is not interested in PEACE - they were pirates at the time of the Trojan War while running Peruvian cocaine and today they use the same tried and true format.
Robert the Bruce
The Presidential Aspirants say the number one issue is nuclear proliferation.

The US pulled out of SALT unilaterally.

The facts are - we have heard this stuff since the Duck and Cover days of my youth. People should watch Atomic Cafe!

The development of ethnically targetted bombs through genetic trackers is underway in Israel - and probably in the US.

Other more advanced weapons systems are being pursued (some called Non-Lethal). Kerry said he would stop the nuclear program that is developing bunker busters and noted it is sending a mixed message to expect others to stop while the US is not.

Biological and Nerve agents including on-going illegal efforts of the US are more troubling but there is a real possibility that all like on earth could be brought to an end through a mere mistake. Seee Bill Joy's Warning in Wired Magazine of Mar/Apr 2001.
Robert the Bruce
OOPS. like is life
Dan
QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Sep 30, 06:19 PM)
How many times in history has war been stopped? When is someone going to actually stop believing war against - the others (whoever those others may be) can be won. We are all 'brothers' and if we started behaving according to co-operative models we would be wealthy brothers and could takle some real opportunites.

it's the classic 'prisoners dilemma', RTB. We cannot lead to the obsolescence of war by unilateral disarmament. There will ALWAYS be somebody out there who takes advantage of total freedom to build up arms and forcefully pursue their own vision of how the world should be. To believe that this world can reach the utopian 'brotherhood' where everybody takes peace as sufficient and nobody takes advantage of the lack of constraint to agression is a naive fantasy that is guaranteed to fail.
Dan
btw, Kerry did a good job tonight. So did Bush. I believe that the sum effect is that Kerry will receive a slight bump, but not enough to gain the poll edge. Two more debates to go, though
Robert the Bruce
It is naive to think that 'more of the same' will lead to change - for sure. That is why we need leaders. Asoka did it and he was highly successful but in the Euro-Centric reality of what now runs the world and has ever since the Trojan War for most of this planet - no there are no examples of anything other than what you say.

So again I say - who is trying to make any real change - neither of these guys - that is certain.

Now, Dan - can you address the many important points I have raised and why there is no discussion about them? I may be naive as you say - but I don't keep my head under some pile of poop like the ostrich that is kept in an enclosed pen and has no other way to judge his reality. We are not going to exist as a species if this continues. I found it almost humorous how they suggeested Putin is doing anything more than the US media moguls (read Rothschild paladins) have already done in terms of media concentration under totalitarian control.

And maybe that is as it should be - because man has shown over and over again that he is not really interested in making the world a better place for himself or his women and children much less the other beautiful lifeforms we share this planet with.
Dan
much of your 'important points' look to me like paranoid fictions, so I ignore them. Your implicit axiom of 'true peace' that you wish humanity would embrace I am calling nothing more than wishful thinking. No such 'peace' has ever existed because if it had it would never have stopped. Additionally, there is no conclusive evidence that it can exist while there is plenty of evidence that suggests it cannot. To drop one's defenses in such a state of wishing and act as if the wish might just spontaneously happen out of the goodness of all hearts is tantamount to suicide.
Robert the Bruce
Dear Dan

Ignorance is bliss. None of the points is unsubstantiated and you are simply unaware.

Paranoia includes 'projection' and you are a master of that as well as an admitted sufferer of depression which also is part of the complex - so maybe you know that aspect of what you are talking about.

I gave you an example of one peaceful leader and you take it to an extreme when you say if it ever existed it would still exist. This simplistic and largely untrue premise behind Hobbes, Fukayama and other social engineers is the propaganda you and most idiots who do not study history are caught up in.

Your kind are the reason that we can have good leaders who might want change and yet they cannot succeed or are burned at the stake - do you want a list of those kinds of leaders or visionaries? Have you ever reached outside your thoroughly negative walls of hatred and pubescent ego to try - probably you did - and were stomped into the state you call life. Sorry - I am not up for such fearful paranoia - and yes, FEAR is what motivates most of those who will think that the US foreign policy has any factual basis at all. Fear of losing the two cars in the garage because they do not know what technology could do and how great a potential there is to make the world a better place - if only people would stop killing and start planning for something real rather than all that paranoia that Bushco and Bonesmen are promoting.
Dan
blahblahblah
Rick
QUOTE (Dan @ Sep 30, 09:26 PM)
...Your implicit axiom of 'true peace' that you wish humanity would embrace I am calling nothing more than wishful thinking. No such 'peace' has ever existed because if it had it would never have stopped. Additionally, there is no conclusive evidence that it can exist while there is plenty of evidence that suggests it cannot. To drop one's defenses in such a state of wishing and act as if the wish might just spontaneously happen out of the goodness of all hearts is tantamount to suicide.

"Imagine all the people
living life in peace.
You may say I'm a dreamer
but I'm not the only one."

--John Lennon

The future is a long time. With the right imagination, peace is possible for humanity.
Robert the Bruce
In addition to which Dan interpreted 'true peace' as some state a very long way away from what I was referring to. I was using the word 'true' to differentiate from the words used by those on pulpits and in political debates.
Rick
QUOTE (Dan @ Sep 30, 07:50 PM)
btw, Kerry did a good job tonight. So did Bush. I believe that the sum effect is that Kerry will receive a slight bump, but not enough to gain the poll edge. Two more debates to go, though

Kerry hit a home run. Bush did his usual. I think most people are now beginning to realize that Kerry is real and with Bush, there's nothing there.
Robert the Bruce
Here is the response of a Professor of Poly Sci.

These responses are largely true and yet the world trembles as the future beckons.


What answers are being denied you? None. You just don't like the answers and don't want to face the real world.

1. Who will get the life-extending genetic enhancements that will extend life potential to 900 by the year 2070?

Powerful people mostly in the advanced countries. Partly good (we certainly don't need 900 yr lifespans in starvations zones) and partly bad (more of us non-powerfuls deserve it than they do)

2. Who will own space and get the benefit of man's collective and tax based support of space colonization which could make everyone a millionaire?

Two different questions. The first: the USA, more or less. That's good. Second, there is no "man's collective tax base". Anyway, if everyone was a millionaire, being a millionaire wouldn't mean anything. What a dunce-like statememt.

3. What is SDI really for?

USA etc. domination of the world system-- SHs and NKs could ideally be nipped the bud long before they fester. That's good.

4. Why does the Fed and IMF (etc.) get to determine the economic reality for all nations including those listed in the War on Terra that do not belong to the World Bank or have Central Banks?

Because they have all the money. Money is pretty important in economic reality. Here's a heart-breaking revelation for you: Banks control your economic reality, too.

5. Should corporate and churchly behemoths have more rights than individuals (dare I also say nations) Ceteris paribis, no. What entitles them to seek tax free and other enhanced status offshore while shelving technology that would empower all people in the world to compete. Economic clout and property rights (if it's their tech, it's their tech.)

Why would they want to empower the competition?

6. Why do Congressional and Senate people who did not read the WTO not spend time in jail?

Not reading is a crime? Not "reading" the WTO? That doesn't make sense.

7. How can DARPA be headed up by a known criminal?

Who's the criminal? DARPA can be headed by anyone who's appt.

8. How can Kissinger avoid warrants from the World Court?

Same way that you avoid warrants from the Goose Neck Vigilante Club. He is a US citizen/former official and the US doesn't recognize the "World Court" as a legitimate body. Kidnapping is a crime the US recognizes, tho.

9. Who determined the NWO plan spoken about by Woolsey and Bennett (George I too) that makes all nations have to answer to the 900 pound gorilla?

A bunch of concerned Anglo-Saxons who still figure they've repeatedly won the right to basically govern the world-- 1815, 1919, 1945, 1991, etc. And we're the better off for it, by all apparent measures.

10. Do corporations and religions that own the media have far too much influence - other lobbyist issues that grow worse all the time.

Yes. But the fact that they have more influence that nutcases is a good thing.
Dan
QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 01, 11:49 AM)

Kerry hit a home run. Bush did his usual. I think most people are now beginning to realize that Kerry is real and with Bush, there's nothing there.

I think that Kerry didn't so much hit a home run as he just showed up and did reasonably well. Given that this is a move in the positive direction, Dems are overinterpreting it and feeling extra tingly because they are no longer on the knive's edge of failure. Bush didn't do any worse than anybody expected, and he stated the things that were expected. His inability to deliver the knockout blow has the Repubs a little depressed. I do think that people are seeing more in Kerry, but I don't think they see Bush as anything significantly less. The net result is that Kerry moved significantly in the positive direction while Bush remained steady. Still, if the election were held today, I would bet on Bush. Given the gains that Kerry made, though, I would consider a bet on Kerry in November.

btw, I like to dream of peace too. I just try to dream realistically instead of entertaining useless fantasies.
Robert the Bruce
There are those who have not examined the facts and they call anyone who does - 'useless'.

Then there are those who support what is going on as the Professor of Poly Sci does.

Which is worse?
Rick
Foreign policy was supposed to be Bush's strong suit (uncontrollable laughter). Looks like it's all down hill from here for the GOP, if Kerry can deliver again and again like he did last night. The VP debate should be interesting. Cheney is formidable, but people don't vote for VPs.
Dan
QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 01, 12:28 PM)
Foreign policy was supposed to be Bush's strong suit (uncontrollable laughter). Looks like it's all down hill from here for the GOP, if Kerry can deliver again and again like he did last night. The VP debate should be interesting. Cheney is formidable, but people don't vote for VPs.

Kerry has to recapture the middle, and he will do this by becoming more 'militant'. The middle is interested in whether or not he will tough out Iraq and the war against Islamic extremism (er,.. terrism). I would say that he reversed some of the myths floating around that he would pussy-foot around the world by saying he would hunt down and kill 'terrorists' and buildup the military in Iraq. I also think he dispelled some of the myths about his flip-flopping although he still has work to do there. Maybe you are right in your conclusion that he turned the corner last night, but there is lots of time left so we will see.
Robert the Bruce
Cheney will lose too. But that doesn't mean Kerry will win.

Joseph Biden brought up Chalabi to Bush's feeble talk about Iraq having a leader - and Biden did better than Kerry in a brief time. The two candidates repeated bzz wods over and over as they know the people are not educated enough to think about complex issues.
Dan
I don't know if Cheney will lose. My impression of John Edwards is of a young slick hillbilly lawyer who slings soundbites and tries to be your down-home-country friend. Cheney will just come across as a grumpy but tough grandpa who appears more trustworth when it comes to security (which is the prime issue)
Robert the Bruce
Security will not be the prime issue and the electorate is all for the sound bytes - which is all there really was last night too. NO real questions were addressed - like what did the US do to Afghanistan and why would Iraq be any different.

Tell me your opinion of what happened in Afghanistan - starting with the so-called Russian Invasion and I will show you why this gambit continues to be nothing but smoke and mirrors. Or perhaps you would like to address the Hmung and Vietnam - which both of them seemed to agree had some modicum of real value when it was perpetrated (For whose benefit?).

IN fact tell me what war of the 20th C. was anything like what the political and media hypesters tell us and I will give chapter and verse on how it was something totally different and wwell-planned to boot.

Do you (for example) believe Russia was Communist?
Dan
QUOTE
Security will not be the prime issue and the electorate is all for the sound bytes - which is all there really was last night too. NO real questions were addressed - like what did the US do to Afghanistan and why would Iraq be any different.

security is the prime issue, and Kerry did well because he looked more 'militant' in threatening to hunt down and kill terrists and buildup the military in Iraq.

QUOTE
Tell me your opinion of what happened in Afghanistan - starting with the so-called Russian Invasion and I will show you why this gambit continues to be nothing but smoke and mirrors.

honestly I don't care. What I do care about is whether or not Afghanistan is a haven for 'terrists' to gather and launch their jihad.


QUOTE
Do you (for example) believe Russia was Communist?

I believe that Russia was strictly controlled by a central government whose power depended not on 'voting' but on killing those who would dissent. I don't really care what label you slap on that
Rick
Russia was Stalinist. Maybe this discussion should move over to the political board?
Robert the Bruce
Russia was what it was before Stalin (the seminarian).

Anti and Syn - Thesis is the appropriate place for any Hegelian Dialectical discussion of what is real even if it is called realpolitik.
Robert the Bruce
Dear Dan

(Love YA!)

So security is the issue - Not economy eh?

Hmm. We'll see. Most Americans only care about that extra car in the garage - but maybe things will be different this time. (Talk about fantasy issues!)

Security doesn't include the War on Terra? I thought that was what they talked about last night - I must have been somewhere else.


Afghanistan is a wonderful example of seeing how America 'Wind the Peace' - and I know that they mentioned that buss phrase - or was that only in my hallucinatoiry dreams which you are always projecting my way.

And finally we have the Russia issue - which is what Hegelian Dialectics is ALL about - but I doubt you even know what a Hegelian Dialectic is - do you?
Dan
QUOTE
So security is the issue - Not economy eh?

Of course economy is an issue, it is just not numero uno on the priority list - security is. Any dimwit who has been half awake the last few months should know that.


QUOTE
Security doesn't include the War on Terra? I thought that was what they talked about last night - I must have been somewhere else.

are you smoking crack or something? where did I say that the 'war on terra' was not part of security?
Robert the Bruce
Dear Dan

I follow the news (Superficial though it is) and I believe the issue of security is not an issue because Kerry and Bush are both militarists. Did that little fact escape your attention in all the mud-slinging about Bush's disappearance during the Vietnam War? Besides people do what makes monetary sense and I know how votes are bought and the dead get to vote - I doubt you do.


You seem to have forgotten that Afghanistan was part of the War on Terra and many others that don't have central banks as part of their national sovereignty. I am sure you do not know about the Bush/Russell Drug program either. Vietnam and Afghanistan can both thank that little factor for what happened to them.

You seem to have bought the whole kaboodle - thank god you are so well informed about the issues - eh? Weren't you saying the people who are not informed should not vote?
Dan
QUOTE
I follow the news (Superficial though it is) and I believe the issue of security is not an issue because Kerry and Bush are both militarists.

That's stupid, RTB. Your implicit assumption that the voters see Bush and Kerry as equivalent on the security issue because they are both 'militarists' is plain nonsense.


QUOTE
You seem to have forgotten that Afghanistan was part of the War on Terra

nonsense. Not only did I say no such thing, I said that I have interest in Afghanistan not become a haven for radical anti-US jihadists. Maybe you should do your homework better before you open your nutty pie hole


QUOTE
You seem to have bought the whole kaboodle - thank god you are so well informed about the issues - eh? Weren't you saying the people who are not informed should not vote?

no, I said that people who are not self-motivated to vote should not be coerced into doing so by 'you must vote' propagandists
ppbbtbtbbtbttbtbtbtbbtbt
nya cool.gif
Robert the Bruce
QUOTE
I follow the news (Superficial though it is) and I believe the issue of security is not an issue because Kerry and Bush are both militarists.

That's stupid, RTB. Your implicit assumption that the voters see Bush and Kerry as equivalent on the security issue because they are both 'militarists' is plain nonsense.

{Did I say 'equivalent'? No. I said they are both militarists. They work for and are fronts for the same people. And yes, informed voters know this.}

QUOTE
You seem to have forgotten that Afghanistan was part of the War on Terra

nonsense. Not only did I say no such thing, I said that I have interest in Afghanistan not become a haven for radical anti-US jihadists. Maybe you should do your homework better before you open your nutty pie hole

Yes, you just repeated it again. You are truly unaware of the stupidity of your superficial position or what Afghanistan meant to people like Zbignieuw and the drug cartel that saw a 400% icrease after it was invaded - and might I point out Russia was not an invader as your media told you.


QUOTE
You seem to have bought the whole kaboodle - thank god you are so well informed about the issues - eh? Weren't you saying the people who are not informed should not vote?

no, I said that people who are not self-motivated to vote should not be coerced into doing so by 'you must vote' propagandists

Again - same thing except for a minor detail - you are saying that the uninformed should not vote - true you might think you are 'self-motivated' but your motivations are highly uninformed and questionable. Thus I would suggest you should go out and vote for one of your 'buddies' in the Pirate complex called Skull & Bones.
Dan
QUOTE
Did I say 'equivalent'? No. I said they are both militarists. They work for and are fronts for the same people. And yes, informed voters know this

you said that because both are 'militarists' security is not an issue. This implies not that security is not important but that both candidates will yield the same security result due to their equivalence under 'militarism'. Thus my conclusion that you imply them as 'equivalent' on the security issue is logical


QUOTE
Yes, you just repeated it again.

where in here did I indicate that I "... seem to have forgotten that Afghanistan was part of the War on Terra "

nonsense. Not only did I say no such thing, I said that I have interest in Afghanistan not become a haven for radical anti-US jihadists

If you can actually point it out instead of just claiming that it is there, you win the prize
(btw, if this confusion is due to you having a novel interpretation of what is the 'war on terra', I am calling radical Islamic jihadists 'terrists' and thus the 'war on terra' is the war that such jihadists have declared against the U.S. and that W is reciprocating)


QUOTE
Again - same thing except for a minor detail - you are saying that the uninformed should not vote -

how many times will I have to say this is nonsense for it to get through your thick skull? (no pun intended)
I spoke of being SELF-MOTIVATED to vote. Whether or not one is 'well informed' is not equivalent to whether or not one wishes to vote. I see that the argument can be made as to the nature of motivation, thus I would like to clarify what I was intending: the 'you must vote' proganda is not a legitimate motivation to vote. Regardless, motoviation to vote is not equivalent to competence on the issues.


you're going to have to do better than put words in my mouth, RTB
Robert the Bruce
You say

you said that because both are 'militarists' security is not an issue. This implies not that security is not important but that both candidates will yield the same security result due to their equivalence under 'militarism'. Thus my conclusion that you imply them as 'equivalent' on the security issue is logical


It does not imply security is not important it states that they both will take the same approach - other than nit-picking over details.

How many are dead or would be as near dead as any if it weren't for modern medical and protective devices - for example - I will go get you a report on that.


But they are both 'fronts' and you could say the word equivalent - if you want - but that would be mistaken if you were trying to understand the meaning of fronts and what some people are cluing in to. Have you read Eisenhower's exit speech?
Dan
QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Oct 01, 07:29 PM)
It does not imply security is not important it states that they both will take the same approach - other than nit-picking over details.

take a closer look at what I wrote:

This implies not that security is not important but that both candidates will yield the same security result due to their equivalence under 'militarism'.
Robert the Bruce
Huge US casualties: Draft vital to restore losses



Mark Benjamin – UPI September 15, 2004
NEW YORK - Nearly 17,000 service members medically evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan are absent from public Pentagon casualty reports commonly cited by newspapers, according to military data reviewed by United Press International. Most don't fit the definition of casualties, according to the Pentagon, but a veterans' advocate said they should all be counted.

The Pentagon has reported 1,019 dead and 7,245 wounded from Iraq.

The military has evacuated 16,765 individual service members from Iraq and Afghanistan for injuries and ailments not directly related to combat, according to the U.S. Transportation Command, which is responsible for the medical evacuations. Most are from Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The Pentagon's public casualty reports, available at www.defenselink.mil, list only service members who died or were wounded in action. The Pentagon's own definition of a war casualty provided to UPI in December describes a casualty as, "Any person who is lost to the organization by having been declared dead, duty status/whereabouts unknown, missing, ill, or injured."

The casualty reports do list soldiers who died in non-combat-related incidents or died from illness. But service members injured or ailing from the same non-combat causes (the majority that appear to be "lost to the organization")are not reflected in those Pentagon reports.

In a statement Wednesday, the Pentagon gave a different definition that included casualty descriptions by severity and type and said most medical evacuations did not count. "The great majority of service members medically evacuated from Operation Iraqi Freedom are not casualties, by either Department of Defense definitions or the common understanding of the average newspaper reader."

It cited such ailments as "muscle strain, back pain, kidney stones, diarrhea and persistent fever" as non-casualty evacuations. "Casualty reports released to the public are generally confined to fatalities and those wounded in action," the statement said.

A veterans' advocate said the Pentagon should make a full reporting of the casualties, including non-combat ailments and injuries. "They are still casualties of war," said Mike Schlee, director of the National Security and Foreign Relations Division at the American Legion. "I think we have to have an honest disclosure of what the short- and long-term casualties of any conflict are."

A spokesman for the transportation command said that without orders from U.S. Central Command, his unit would not separate the medical evacuation data to show how many came from Iraq and Afghanistan. "We stay in our lane," said Lt. Col. Scott Ross. But most are clearly from Operation Iraqi Freedom where several times as many troops are deployed as in Afghanistan.

Among veterans from Iraq seeking help from the VA, 5,375 have been diagnosed with a mental problem, making it the third-leading diagnosis after bone problems and digestive problems. Among the mental problems were 800 soldiers who became psychotic.

A military study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in July showed that 16 percent of soldiers returning from Iraq might suffer major depression, generalized anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder. Around 11 percent of soldiers returning from Afghanistan may have the same problems, according to that study.


Cassiopaea Staff Comment: The 'Operation Truth' website is claiming that part of the reason the Bush administration can get away with "cooking" the body count is due to the fact that more than 31,000 members of the U.S. armed forces are not even American citizens:

"More than 31,000 members of the U.S. armed forces are not American citizens. After returning from honorably serving in the United States armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, non-U.S. citizen Servicemembers are put through a lengthy process to obtain U.S. citizenship – often, it is only after their death that they are given immediate citizenship.

It affects more than 31,000 members of the U.S. armed forces who are not American citizens. Following President Bush’s declaration of an expedited naturalization process for Service Members who fight in the war on terror (link), 8,000 green card holders soon thereafter joined the military. US military advertisements in English & Spanish highlight military service as a shortcut to citizenship. In places like Los Angeles, recruiters say that 50% of their recruits are “green card troops”. Upon enlisting, Marine recruiters tell recruits concerned about citizenship that 'the Marines will take care of that.'"

Hence, when troops are killed or wounded in combat, the authorities are not required to register them as KIA or wounded. The following article makes the case that such casualties of war are not even due a proper burial...

Robert the Bruce
Yes, Dan - they are both 'fronts'.
Dan
I wasn't implying that I agree with your assertion of the non-importance of security in this years vote, I was just pointing out your apparent oversight of the 'not' since you effectively repeated my statement.

What I am trying to say is that the issue of security is the most important issue to U.S. voters this election, and that the voters do not see the candidates as equivalent on this issue; far from it. However, Kerry appeared to move to the right on the issue during the debate thus likely gaining some ground in terms of swing voter (shouldn't that be 'flip-flop' voter?) perception.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am