Topic: Mass Dummy Spit

[Michael]

So Richard Perle has finally spat the dummy. I've been listening to that idiot's drivel for years now, and finally he has the guts to say he was wrong. More than we can hope for the rest like Kenneth Alderman who put the blame on 'the administration' - still there looks to be a dose of sanity going the rounds, with 'perhaps we were wrong'.

the American people not least - three cheers for what's left of democracy, that the American people have finally said 'bullshit!'  It's taken unbelievable suffering, and unbelievable lies and political deception, stupidity and down right evil, for the bulk of people in America to wake up one morning and say 'OY! Stop this madness!'

did I tell you? julie found out that when Ancient Greece became a democracy, the frequency of its wars shot up dramatically. Well if democracy can cause wars (which is stretching things i think meself) at least they can tell their leaders to flower off!  (if they are still alive)

over hear John Howard - never you mind, no worries at all, he has it all sown up.

why are Australians such dickheads? even the Americans have the guts to get fed up with lies ... not the aussies, no way - they'll vote for Howard till he dies, or they die.

and ... saw Al Gore's flick today - god he's doing a good job!

[erik]

Michael, you think much will change in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter?

A softer side of America, but reality is just as hard
World Briefing by Bronwen Maddox

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2446530,00.html   

Is George W. Bush a one-off phenomenon, so different from his likely successors that his presidency will be seen as an aberrant episode in US politics?

For the five years since the September 11 attacks, the event by which Bush chose to define his presidency, that has been the question the rest of the world has wanted to answer.

After these elections, it is tempting to say “Yes”. But although the Democrat revival will take the abrasive edges off the face that the US presents to the world, it would be a mistake to think that the US has taken a big step to the left.

In one sense, it is comic to ask whether Bush is a one-off; he is, after all, the son of another president. In replacing Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defence with Robert Gates, he has brought in yet another of his father’s old advisers to try to resolve his predicament.

But when Bush defined his mission as winning the “War on Terror”, a fight against radical Islam, he fashioned a presidency entirely different from his father’s. He took the US into war in Iraq with little international support; he argued for government in which Congress and the courts would support the executive, not block it. The clearest message on Tuesday was that Americans have rejected Bush’s claim that the extreme new threat justified new powers for the presidency. They have forced him, for the next two years, to work with Congress; that is likely to persist whether his successor is Democratic or Republican.

They have also rejected his handling of the Iraq war, appalled at the damage to America’s reputation. The US is not likely, under Bush or his successor, to rush into another war — including in Iran. The US is also now likely to soften its high-handed tone towards other countries and the United Nations, although Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, was trying that already.

Up to a point, Americans have also turned their backs on Bush’s brand of conservatism. Voters clearly rejected the White House’s tactics of playing to the base of committed conservatives and the religious right. The “centre struck back”, as one commentator put it.

But it would be wrong to portray these elections as the start of a new liberal era. The centre of US politics is still conservative in its reflexes, certainly by European standards. About half of the new Democrats in the House of Representatives call themselves part of the New Democrat Coalition, a centrist group, strong on national security questions. Others have signed up as “Blue Dog” Democrats, more rural and conservative in their instincts on abortion, religion, and same-sex marriage, and more prudent on government finances. Democratic analysts attribute some of Tuesday’s success to their organisation of the “religious left” as a political force.

There will be a distinct change on domestic policy — more talk about raising the minimum wage, and healthcare, and more interest from both parties in curbing deficits. But abroad? Other governments, dreaming that the US will now be conciliatory and co-operative, may be disappointed.

On greenhouse gases, where the US is regularly pilloried as a world villain, no politician is going to recommend a rise in taxes when the cost of petrol was one of voters’ biggest gripes. Common ground between many Republicans and Democrats also includes resistance to immigration and a suspicion of free trade deals.

Even where Democratic leaders would now like a change in policy, they are up against the same problems. They may urge a phased withdrawal from Iraq — but must then swallow the risk of soaring violence.

Elsewhere in the region, should they still try to promote democracy as the answer to militant Islam? The alternative — sticking by unpleasant, autocratic regimes — risks exchanging a strategy shaped too much by ideology for one devoid of it.

The features that the world has found infuriating about the Bush Administration will no doubt be softened. But that does not imply a huge shift in policy, under Bush or his successor. The centre of gravity of US politics would not support it — nor would the reality in Iraq.

They say 150 000-650 000 Iraqis have been killed since March 2003.
Now all sorts of militias and radicals are rampant there.
Borders don't hold.
Money and weapons flow in.
As one classic has said - once the war is unleashed, it starts to live its own life.
Crisis management is contradiction in terms.
Blood has been spilled - what will it take bottle the Genie up again?

[Michael]

change? oh yes, worse and worse

that is a different subject - i'd say it's out of US hands now, and the one's who most care about the outcome in iraq are Syria, Iran, Turkey and the H of S.  (and Israel of course, never forget them). - death, death and suffering

Afghanistan - Iran, Pak and Ruski

all hell will unfold, but I think the Afghans will go their own way in the end.

but it will all be over run by the hottentots

[erik]

did I tell you? julie found out that when Ancient Greece became a democracy, the frequency of its wars shot up dramatically. Well if democracy can cause wars (which is stretching things i think meself) at least they can tell their leaders to flower off!  (if they are still alive)

I've read many studies on militancy of various social formations and states. The impression I have is that democracy is statistically as militant as any other social order (dictatorship, feudal states, and so on) in relations with non-democracies. Particularly war-prone are states in transition - transiting from one social order to another, including to democracy (hence, there never was any hope or quick solution in Iraq and peace in Middle-East!).

What has been established with relative certainty, is that democracies practically don't fight each other. Out of 38,000 studied conflicts there have been 1-2 occasions that could be considered as armed conflicts between democracies.

Democracy is no more peaceful than any other state if it is not dealing with other democracy.

"Golden billion" of Americans, Europeans, Japanese, Australians, Canadians and a few others lives in democracies that are nothing but voracious consumer societies, stripping Earth of everything and killing themselves in the process

Democracy is just a step on a long arc of humand development, but in its present form I'd say - a step towards dead end.

[erik]

One of my friends - very clever older academic with immense experience in political and defence studies (he has actually met Perle, 'The Black Prince of Pentagon'  ) - gave me interesting food for thought. 

Bits to consider:
1. Terror attacks on trains in Madrid on 11 March 2004 (200 killed and 1,500 wounded - known as 11/3 ) led to change of government in elections, and Spanish withdrawal from Iraq
2. Intensified guerrilla warfare and growing casualties led to change of power balance in the US

Question to ask:
Islamists are winning? Can they get any better encouragement?

[erik]

An example of what has been unleashed (Hottentots):

MI5 head warns of up to 30 terror plots at work in Britain
By Lee Glendinning
Published: 10 November 2006

http://news.independent.co.UK/UK/crime/article1963077.EEC

There are up to 30 alleged "mass casualty" terror plots in operation in Britain, as well as hundreds of young British Muslims on a path to radicalisation, the head of MI5 has said.

In an unprecedented public announcement yesterday, the MI5 director general, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, revealed that the caseload of the Security Services had risen by 80 per cent since January, and that the counter-terrorism agency was fighting to keep the rapidly growing threat under control

Describing the scale of the home-grown terrorist problem, she said MI5 and the police were tackling 200 groups or networks totalling more than 1,600 identified individuals in the UK who were "actively engaged in plotting or facilitating terrorist acts".

Islamic militants linked to al -Qa'ida were recruiting teenagers to carry out attacks using chemicals, bacteriological agents, radioactive materials and even nuclear technology.

Speaking to an audience at the department of contemporary British History at Queen Mary College in London, Dame Manningham-Buller said she was not seeking to be alarmist, and did not wish to stir up fear.

But she added that because of the sheer scale of what MI5 faces, the issue is a daunting one. "We shan't always make the right choices and we recognise that we shall have 'scare sympathy' if we are unable to prevent one of our targets committing an atrocity," she said.

The nature of the threat was increasing because of the radicalisation of British Muslims, she told the audience, including some as young as 16, and it "will be with us for a generation".

The young age of potential terrorists also made it difficult for MI5 to infiltrate the groups. "Young teenagers are being groomed to be suicide bombers," she said. "We are aware of numerous plots to kill people and to damage our economy. What do I mean by numerous? Give 10? No, nearer 30 that we know of."

At the extreme end, there were resilient networks directed by al-Qa'ida in Pakistan or some more loosely inspired by it, who were planning the attacks, she said. And while the training and the guidance comes from al -Qa'ida, it was "largely British foot soldiers here on an extensive and growing scale".

Given the scale of radicalisation, this indoctrination was happening to some while still at school, she said, adding: "If the opinion polls conducted in the UK since July are only broadly accurate, over 100,000 of our citizens consider that the July [2005] bomb attacks in London [subway] were justified."

7 July 2005: 56 killed, around 700 wounded in London subway.

[niamhspark]

and ... saw Al Gore's flick today - god he's doing a good job!

Yeah, I haven't got to see it because none of the theatres had it out here. But it's coming on DVD on Nov 21 so I'm going to get the DVD then.

[niamhspark]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucgg/20061110/cm_ucgg/cannewcongressandbushfulfillelectionshopes

CAN NEW CONGRESS, AND BUSH, FULFILL ELECTION'S HOPES?
Thu Nov 9, 8:04 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- So the emotional and crucial American elections of 2006 are over. At this writing, the Democrats have won big.


If you look back at the errant stupidity of these last six years -- the arrogance, hubris and wastefulness of leaders who haven't yet figured out that they have destroyed an entire country in the Middle East -- you come out thinking that these elections must mean a lot. Out of
Iraq, with some fig leaf of military dignity! A united Congress striking out at real policies! A country where citizens sit down and talk to one another again!

But will they mean anything? Unfortunately, the questions still trump the answers.

Will the Democrats coming into power, given their incompetence since the spirit of the party was virtually destroyed by "their" Vietnam War, be capable of addressing this related war that they almost all supported? Will the White House and the
Pentagon be able to comprehend that something has gone terribly wrong, even while their loyalty-challenged rats, the war-happy neocons, desert a sinking ship? Finally, will the American citizenry continue to care, as apparently we did Tuesday -- or will we just go back to private lives of professional ambition and public lassitude?

Today, much more than after the elections six years ago and two years ago, we KNOW where we are. Iraq is a morass, a fiasco, probably a historical sin. More than 2,800 Americans have died, and over 20,000 are maimed. Another 50,000 suffer life-long results of concussions, and about 40,000 or more have serious psychiatric problems. (Nobel economics winner Joseph Stiglitz estimates it will take $2 trillion or more in our lifetimes just to care for the victims.) The war itself will cost in congressional outlays alone about $500 billion, and, in the impact on our country, between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. All for nothing.

In truth, we didn't know a thing about Iraq. We destroyed it on one of our heavy-handed stomps around the world to save people from themselves. Anywhere between 100,000 and 600,000 were killed there, because of us. But don't get all emotional: It's just an updated Vietnam War version of "We had to destroy the village to save it."

So the new Congress cannot pretend that it doesn't know. Some particularly apt Americans are saying it is America that is near to becoming a failed state. As Professor Harlan Ullman, a perceptive columnist with The Washington Times, wrote just before the elections, his own "pessimism stems from a political system crippled by the worst excesses of partisanship, ideology and animosity, and overwhelmed by an array of problems as numerous, complex and unyielding to solution as at any time in our history. Government is badly broken. And, worse, too many issues ... have no obvious or viable solutions, irrespective of which party is in command."

"Broken" is a perfectly good word, but I prefer "disconnected" to talk about America today. This is why 30 men, mostly those now-retreating neocons, could get us into a war that the American people barely noticed.

Still, there is hope. The report of the Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker III and Lee Hamilton should be released soon. With the sober intelligence and superb strategic and tactical -- and human -- judgment of these two great Americans and their team, we can expect the best -- if George W., with that ego that overflows the White House and still, despite everything, embraces Baghdad, Ramadi and Fallujah as if they were part of the Texas Republic, will listen to them. But then again, why should the president listen to his poor minions -- unless this new Congress tells him he has to?

Our American King George already faces his era's equivalent of the Boston Tea Party. Watch the neocons run -- away from the war they got us into out of hubris, misplaced support for
Israel and sheer desire for power. Watch them go. These nice guys are not even hesitating to blame everything on the president and tell the world what a fool he is -- gratitude, anyone?

In the upcoming edition of Vanity Fair, Richard Perle says primly how he "underestimated the depravity. An American withdrawal that leaves Iraq as an anarchic 'failed state' is not yet inevitable but is becoming more likely." The guilty cause? "Devastating dysfunction within the administration of
President George W. Bush"! A real pearl, indeed.

And now -- would you believe it? -- just as I am writing this, I am hearing what I have expected for the last several weeks: Donald Rumsfeld -- a man of futile wars, of cruel wars, a man who has demeaned all the institutional rules that kept this country and the world reasonably civilized -- has finally resigned. That makes the future more hopeful.

But it's just the beginning of a change that will come only with more suffering, more struggling, and then a long period of making up for all the mistakes. That is why I'm hopeful, but cautious. Or as President Reagan always said, "Trust, but verify!"

[Michael]

Yeah, I haven't got to see it because none of the theatres had it out here. But it's coming on DVD on Nov 21 so I'm going to get the DVD then.

there were 5 of us in the whole theatre. 3 in the session before us.

[niamhspark]

there were 5 of us in the whole theatre. 3 in the session before us.

Only cause it's been out for awhile, and coming on DVD very soon. It's been a very popular documentary, so don't let the numbers fool you. People are concerned, and that movie has scared the crap out of folks globally.

[Michael]

maybe, but i think he's preaching to the converted - hope it is more, i admire his effort, and a very good ending.

but as for change, i think the Stern report has had a greater impact - it's not until you talk economics these days that anyone in power sits up and listens. over here the Stern report hit at the same time as the biggest drought in 1000 years, just after Al Gore had visited. so opinion has shifted, but for how long? till the next disaster I suppose.

[niamhspark]

maybe, but i think he's preaching to the converted - hope it is more, i admire his effort, and a very good ending.

but as for change, i think the Stern report has had a greater impact - it's not until you talk economics these days that anyone in power sits up and listens. over here the Stern report hit at the same time as the biggest drought in 1000 years, just after Al Gore had visited. so opinion has shifted, but for how long? till the next disaster I suppose.

I know out here Hurricaine Katrina was a huge, and frightening event for many people, and still is. That, occuring with the movie coming out with its message - the combo has more than the converted listening. People are beginning to see that it's not a few scientists saying "global warming is reality" but many, many more. It was just a haze put over people's eyes so they wouldn't believe that it existed. People are now waking up. Course, naturally people don't wish to believe in such disasters as the earth turning on us so badly, though. That too requires change, and change can mean giving up resources, which can be very expensive - and to greedy corporations - that's worse than anything to them. It's sad really.

[Michael]

as for the neo-cons, you notice some are actually blaming the women in the white house!
my god! it those mushy females at the the bottom of the whole disaster.
as for Briton talking about learning lessons - fat chance

[erik]

as for the neo-cons, you notice some are actually blaming the women in the white house!
my god! it those mushy females at the the bottom of the whole disaster.
as for Briton talking about learning lessons - fat chance

Oh, these women! They wouldn't let neo-cons win the wars! Christ!!! 
Have I heard weird things, but, I think, this one supersedes them all!
They must be dreaming about Margaret Thatcher! 

Britons and lessons...well...they are for the fourth time in Afghanistan, aren't they?  In previous wars they pretty much won all battles, but lost the wars eventually. Now they are are happy again about their latest victorious battles there.

They might have to look deeper into the faces of Afghani fighting men:

[Jahn]

there were 5 of us in the whole theatre. 3 in the session before us.

We were also 5 but we went early. Next week some local politicians went and saw it and commented the movie in the local newspaper, so it got a lot of PR.

Now one of the national newspaper have a "sign up" campaign where one promises to do something that benefit nature that can reduce the global warming (of the selected items I've done it all already so I signed, kind of, in retrospect    ) Now 270 000 people have signed and in this campaign they interview prominent people with the aim to "fuel" the topic even more. Latest person that, in this case, sent his best wishes, was Kofi Annan that stated that he whole heartedly support the initiative.