IT ALL MAKES SINCE NOW !!! 85% of Troops in Iraq think Saddam had a role in 9/11

[Lawman]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='226389' date='Mar 5 2006, 01:45 PM'][quote name='Lawman' post='226276' date='Mar 4 2006, 11:31 PM']
[quote name='steggyD' post='225435' date='Mar 2 2006, 08:31 PM']
[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='224406' date='Feb 28 2006, 09:43 PM']
And the diehards insist on maintaining that these cats are anything more than pawns that can easily be turned against US citizens on a flimsy pretext. No matter what these guys believe and no matter how reluctant they are, they'll pretty much do what they're told, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. It's not that their worse than most other soldiers in most other societies in practically any era of history. It's just that they're no different and no better. Soldiers are always pawns - and they usually have a lot of high-minded smoke blown up their asses to keep them believing in the mission.

Honor the poor grunt and his courage and all that other good shit, 'cause the poor unthinking bastard needs that. But then forget his ass and deal with the right and wrong of those sending him into battle, 'cause again, the soldier is just a pawn.[/quote]
I'm not going to address any other issue than this one here. I was in the USMC, and I know many others, obviously, some from back home too. I call bullshit on your post Coy.
[/quote]

I can only recommend "A Few Good Men", but I don't think Coy has served so he won't get it.
[/quote]

When this president or some other crosses the Rubicon and sets US troops on US civilians, watch how flimsy the pretext is, and watch how many of them fire. That's all I need to get.
[/quote]
We've come a long way since Kent State. If a response to civil unrest is required, yes the governor can use the National Guard.

My contention is that you have no clue as to the make-up of members of our Armed Forces.
They are more educated, technically savy and a higher percentages are coming in married with a family.
They are not some brain-washed lemmings and just do as their told. Civic conciousness is highly promoted
with many volounteering their time, effort and own money to charitable projects. They are great americans with some making the ultimate sacrifice; irrelevant of ones politics.

In the Navy, there is a mid-level management group called Chief. Now, if left unchecked, Officers would use and abuse Junior sailors, this is where we come in and intercede preventing that from happening.

If we were in the mid 70's , I would be concerned and your statements would not sound so absurd. But were not.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote]If we were in the mid 70's , I would be concerned and your statements would not sound so absurd. But were not.[/quote]

Hey! What kind of crack is that???? That's when I served.

At the tail end of Vietnam and in the immediate aftermath, there was a pretty vibrant and literate understanding of our place in the world. Don't forget, kids like me came up through the Johnson/Nixon debacle, we were of age when Kent State happened, and we suffered no illusions about the potential for abusive behavior by the government and/or the military. And while we naturally respected the chain of command (for the most part), I suspect a high proportion of us didn't (metaphorically) smoke Carter's pole, compared to those who might be so inclined to bend over for this admin. And, while this is almost contrary to the military ethos, I think that there are probably more people in the military now who have direct cause and reason, and who ought to become whistleblowers, than in my time.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[center] [img]http://www.liberty-news.com/cartoons/ContainmentWasWorking.gif[/img][/center]

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Lawman' post='226422' date='Mar 5 2006, 04:00 PM'][quote name='Coy Bacon' post='226389' date='Mar 5 2006, 01:45 PM']
[quote name='Lawman' post='226276' date='Mar 4 2006, 11:31 PM']
[quote name='steggyD' post='225435' date='Mar 2 2006, 08:31 PM']
[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='224406' date='Feb 28 2006, 09:43 PM']
And the diehards insist on maintaining that these cats are anything more than pawns that can easily be turned against US citizens on a flimsy pretext. No matter what these guys believe and no matter how reluctant they are, they'll pretty much do what they're told, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. It's not that their worse than most other soldiers in most other societies in practically any era of history. It's just that they're no different and no better. Soldiers are always pawns - and they usually have a lot of high-minded smoke blown up their asses to keep them believing in the mission.

Honor the poor grunt and his courage and all that other good shit, 'cause the poor unthinking bastard needs that. But then forget his ass and deal with the right and wrong of those sending him into battle, 'cause again, the soldier is just a pawn.[/quote]
I'm not going to address any other issue than this one here. I was in the USMC, and I know many others, obviously, some from back home too. I call bullshit on your post Coy.
[/quote]

I can only recommend "A Few Good Men", but I don't think Coy has served so he won't get it.
[/quote]

When this president or some other crosses the Rubicon and sets US troops on US civilians, watch how flimsy the pretext is, and watch how many of them fire. That's all I need to get.
[/quote]
We've come a long way since Kent State. If a response to civil unrest is required, yes the governor can use the National Guard.

My contention is that you have no clue as to the make-up of members of our Armed Forces.
They are more educated, technically savy and a higher percentages are coming in married with a family.
They are not some brain-washed lemmings and just do as their told. Civic conciousness is highly promoted
with many volounteering their time, effort and own money to charitable projects. They are great americans with some making the ultimate sacrifice; irrelevant of ones politics.

In the Navy, there is a mid-level management group called Chief. Now, if left unchecked, Officers would use and abuse Junior sailors, this is where we come in and intercede preventing that from happening.

If we were in the mid 70's , I would be concerned and your statements would not sound so absurd. But were not.
[/quote]


So you're saying that they're about like your average brain-washed lemming in corporate America that just does what he's told. I rest my case.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[center][size=4]70 % the troops want out .... because they get to see the reality of where they are .... [/size]


[img]http://holywar.org/CART219.jpg[/img][/center]

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='226389' date='Mar 5 2006, 01:45 PM'][quote name='Lawman' post='226276' date='Mar 4 2006, 11:31 PM']
[quote name='steggyD' post='225435' date='Mar 2 2006, 08:31 PM']
[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='224406' date='Feb 28 2006, 09:43 PM']
And the diehards insist on maintaining that these cats are anything more than pawns that can easily be turned against US citizens on a flimsy pretext. No matter what these guys believe and no matter how reluctant they are, they'll pretty much do what they're told, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. It's not that their worse than most other soldiers in most other societies in practically any era of history. It's just that they're no different and no better. Soldiers are always pawns - and they usually have a lot of high-minded smoke blown up their asses to keep them believing in the mission.

Honor the poor grunt and his courage and all that other good shit, 'cause the poor unthinking bastard needs that. But then forget his ass and deal with the right and wrong of those sending him into battle, 'cause again, the soldier is just a pawn.[/quote]
I'm not going to address any other issue than this one here. I was in the USMC, and I know many others, obviously, some from back home too. I call bullshit on your post Coy.
[/quote]

I can only recommend "A Few Good Men", but I don't think Coy has served so he won't get it.
[/quote]

When this president or some other crosses the Rubicon and sets US troops on US civilians, watch how flimsy the pretext is, and watch how many of them fire. That's all I need to get.
[/quote]
You want that to happen, don't you?

[|Bunghole|]

Coy, BJ, honestly....
You have no idea what in the fuck you are talking about, so you might as well quit posting your internet findings/articles and simply at least accept the fact that if it weren't for this same military complex of a country we have here, we would be disappearing in the night for making comments contrary to the govt, etc...or driving Trans-Ams for that matter...BJ you rail against the SUV culture yet you drive an American muscle car that gets the same or worse mileage....do you like expensive gasoline?

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='226663' date='Mar 5 2006, 11:51 PM']Coy, BJ, honestly....
You have no idea what in the fuck you are talking about, so you might as well quit posting your internet findings/articles and simply at least accept the fact that if it weren't for this same military complex of a country we have here, we would be disappearing in the night for making comments contrary to the govt, etc...or driving Trans-Ams for that matter...BJ you rail against the SUV culture yet you drive an American muscle car that gets the same or worse mileage....do you like expensive gasoline?[/quote]

Well actually, I do know what in the fuck I'm talking about. The disappearing in the night part appears to be approaching with your help. Thank you very much.

[quote name='Bunghole' post='226662' date='Mar 5 2006, 11:48 PM'][quote name='Coy Bacon' post='226389' date='Mar 5 2006, 01:45 PM']
[quote name='Lawman' post='226276' date='Mar 4 2006, 11:31 PM']
[quote name='steggyD' post='225435' date='Mar 2 2006, 08:31 PM']
[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='224406' date='Feb 28 2006, 09:43 PM']
And the diehards insist on maintaining that these cats are anything more than pawns that can easily be turned against US citizens on a flimsy pretext. No matter what these guys believe and no matter how reluctant they are, they'll pretty much do what they're told, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. It's not that their worse than most other soldiers in most other societies in practically any era of history. It's just that they're no different and no better. Soldiers are always pawns - and they usually have a lot of high-minded smoke blown up their asses to keep them believing in the mission.

Honor the poor grunt and his courage and all that other good shit, 'cause the poor unthinking bastard needs that. But then forget his ass and deal with the right and wrong of those sending him into battle, 'cause again, the soldier is just a pawn.[/quote]
I'm not going to address any other issue than this one here. I was in the USMC, and I know many others, obviously, some from back home too. I call bullshit on your post Coy.
[/quote]

I can only recommend "A Few Good Men", but I don't think Coy has served so he won't get it.
[/quote]

When this president or some other crosses the Rubicon and sets US troops on US civilians, watch how flimsy the pretext is, and watch how many of them fire. That's all I need to get.
[/quote]
You want that to happen, don't you?
[/quote]


No, but once they start blowing smoke up your ass, you probably will - unless they turn left and start coming for you.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

The Deadly Delusions
Of America's Troops
Fighting For Their Lies

By Chris Floyd
Empire Burlesque
3-9-6

While much has been made of the recent poll showing that a majority of U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq think we should get out heartening news for all those who oppose Bush's bloodsoaked war crime the poll contained another revelation that should disturb anyone anti-war or pro-war who still believes in American democracy: the fact that some 85 percent of US forces in Iraq believe they are fighting to avenge Saddam Hussein's role in the September 11 attacks. (Alex Sabbeth at Consortiumnews.com has more on this, and on Bush's broader propaganda war, in America Anesthetized.)

Saddam Hussein played no role in the September 11 attacks, of course; even the Warmonger-in-Chief has been forced to admit this indisputable fact, in public. It has also been confirmed by multiple investigations by the intelligence services, and even by the whitewashing, Bush-run, see-no-evil-unless-it-speaks-Arabic 9/11 Commission. Yet American troops have been thoroughly inculcated with this false notion no doubt deliberately.

The dangers of infecting the armed forces with such partisan propaganda are immense. First, think of how this notion has skewed the reaction of American soldiers to the Iraqi people, especially anyone accused or suspected for whatever reason, or none at all of being an insurgent, or a "Baathist diehard," etc. To an American soldier blinded by the deliberate Bush lies, such people would appear to be nothing but evil terrorists complicit in the murder of thousands of innocent Americans. And in fact, all Iraqis would be tarred by this brush: for how could a soldier out on patrol distinguish which of the seething mass of foreigners surrounding him had been a supporter of the man who (supposedly) attacked America?

Putting deluded soldiers in such a position, fed with such lies, is a formula certain to produce atrocities and abuse. No wonder we have seen so many cases of American soldiers being quick on the trigger, quick with the boot and the fist, belligerent and brutal in tumultuous house searches, eager to "soften up" prisoners for CIA interrogators, and so on. Most of them believe they are there to avenge murdered Americans, and that anyone who opposes their presence or even looks at them wrong must be part of the system that (supposedly) produced 9/11.

The evil of this deliberate policy is great in itself; but the broader implications are perhaps even worse. For consider this: if American troops can be propagandized to believe such a transparent lie about Iraq's non-existent connection to 9/11 what can't they be manipulated into believing?

And remember, this mass military delusion has been manufactured in an age when soldiers have far more access to outside information than ever before (despite the Pentagon's strenuous efforts to clamp down on anything Don Rumsfeld doesn't want them to hear). Can they be made to believe that, say, the government of Hugo Chavez is directly tied to al Qaeda and must be overthrown? Can they be made to believe that Saddam's non-existent weapons of mass destruction are actually parked in Damascus and must be seized by force? Can they be made to believe that Iran is sending agents across the Iraqi border to kill them and is about to nuke their loved ones in the Homeland as well? (The latter is in fact the latest propaganda campaign from the Bushists: Rumsfeld rolled out the Iranian infiltration line just yesterday, despite its utter and transparent foolishness: why would the Iranians seek to destabilize an Iraqi regime that, thanks to Bush, is now dominated by Shiite factions that were nurtured, armed, trained and financed by Tehran itself? And of course, this week both Dick Cheney and John "I'm Not Foaming at the Mouth, It's a Moustache" Bolton were pounding the war drums over the Iranian nuclear "threat" at about the same time their boss was rewarding India for its own secret nuclear arms program, with a deal that guarantees the dangerous proliferation of nuclear weapons in one of the world's most volatile regions.)

But why stop with new foreign aggression? If American soldiers can be manipulated into believing the non-existent connection between Saddam and al Qaeda why not a non-existent connection between some domestic faction and terrorism? What if you convinced the troops that, say, some Democratic leader was a traitor in league with terrorists? Or the anti-war movement in general? Or environmentalists? Or Muslims? Or Mexicans? Or Jews? Or any other group that some president down the line armed with the dictatorial powers seized by Bush under the rule of the "unitary executive" decides to eliminate?

We have, once again, crossed a dangerous Rubicon. If American soldiers can now be deliberately manipulated into fighting a war based on a transparent and publicly proven lie, in the service of the political ambitions and personal fortunes of a partisan faction, then we are well and truly through the looking-glass. We have reached the same pitch of civic degradation as the late Roman Republic, where the legions became the tools of ruthless warlords, jockeying for dominance, despoiling whole peoples and slaughtering thousands in the process. Once unlimbered, this weapon will be used again and again. With each passing day, the Bush Factionists and all their many sycophants and enablers, in both parties, throughout the Establishment are sowing a monstrous future for America, and the world.

[url="http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com"]http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com[/url]
_content&task=view&id=527&Itemid=1

[Lawman]

Philadelphia Inquirer
March 10, 2006

[size=4][b]Poll Too Biased To Show Troops' Views[/b][/size]

By Tim Kane

For anyone following the Iraq war, now may be the time to take off those rose-colored glasses. According to a recent Zogby poll, 72 percent of U.S. troops say it's time to withdraw from Iraq. Another stunner is that only three in five soldiers in Iraq have a clear sense of the mission. Ouch!

Despite the wide range of opinions and loud voices about America's role in Iraq, there's a real hunger for authenticity that only the troops on the ground can provide. As a veteran, I have been hoping that a pollster would take the obvious step of asking our troops for their opinions, and I think Zogby International deserves credit for making the effort.

But as an economist, my appreciation eroded sharply when I took a closer look.

The survey contains 24 questions. [u]It was given secretly during late January and early February to an unknown number of American troops serving in Iraq, although we are told that [b][size=3]944[/size][/b] respondents were included. [/u] If all the guidelines for random sampling were met (they weren't), the reported margin of error would be plus or minus 3.3 percent.

The unforgivable flaw in Zogby's survey is the biased phrasing of its questions and answers. Two of the most provocative results are based on questions with [u]no middle ground[/u]. It's like a multiple-choice test with no right answers.

For example, the widespread finding that three in four soldiers think the United States should withdraw from Iraq within a year has only one option for troops who think otherwise: stay indefinitely. This infamous question asks, [b]"How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?" But the first three answers are not phrased in terms of staying, they are phrased "withdraw...," "withdraw..." and "withdraw... ." Where are the options for troops who think the United States should stay for "one to two years" or "two to five years"? Zogby omits such nuance. It's stay or go. Now or never.[/b]

[b]The smart troops who perceived this false choice probably set the clipboard down and walked away at that point.[/b] That leaves us with a biased respondent pool.

[color="#000099"]Another question asks for a description of "your understanding of the U.S. mission in Iraq." Two choices describe the mission as clear, and four choices describe it as unclear.[/color]

[u]More damning, John Zogby himself misrepresented the phrasing of one of the questions in an op-ed. This may seem like nitpicking, but if half a man's family say they want "chicken" for dinner, and he reports those votes as "nonvegetarian," he is not exactly being honest. In just this way, the poll asked the soldiers to rate seven different "reasons for the Iraq invasion." [/u] [b]It is a question about prewar justification, not the postwar occupation. Yet Zogby described their answers as a description of "the U.S. mission." If that's the question he wanted to ask, he should have asked it that way. Polling is a science. Words matter.[/b]

The biggest question we should all be asking Zogby is not about the questions that were included, but about those that weren't. Nowhere in the survey results do we see assessments of the U.S. mission. Has it been a success or a failure? How so? Nowhere do we see questions about morale, about progress in killing terrorists, about the state of the insurgency, about the prospects for democracy and economic growth in Iraq. There are questions aplenty on napalm, interrogation, and (I'm not kidding) doubling the number of bombing missions.

[b]Did Zogby dare to ask anything that might result in good news?[/b]

Keep in mind that the men and women in uniform are limited by law from making political statements. If troops are given a chance to express themselves anonymously and fairly, that's great. They are probably the best barometer of how the mission is going, and how it can be improved. But this Zogby poll isn't a barometer. It is (a) biased, ( dishonest, or © all of the above.

Don't like those options? Neither do I. But that's all they gave us.

I remain thankful that Zogby made this effort, and I hope they will try again in a manner that is (d) insightful, (e) comprehensive, and maybe even (f) irrefutably profound.

Tim Kane is an economist and Bradley Fellow in the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, and a veteran Air Force officer.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='Lawman' post='229385' date='Mar 11 2006, 09:10 AM']Tim Kane is an economist and Bradley Fellow in the Center for Data Analysis [u]at the Heritage Foundation[/u][/quote]

[b]who would've thought that someone from the Heritage foundation wouldn't like the polling method ....[/b]



[center][i]"Some of the finest conservatives in America today do their work in the Heritage Foundation. For those of you new to all this, The Heritage Foundation is America's leading conservative think-tank."[/i]
[b]--- Rush Limbaugh[/b]

[url="http://www.heritage.org/Support/work.cfm"]Link[/url][/center]

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Lawman' post='229385' date='Mar 11 2006, 09:10 AM']Philadelphia Inquirer
March 10, 2006

[size=4][b]Poll Too Biased To Show Troops' Views[/b][/size]

By Tim Kane

For anyone following the Iraq war, now may be the time to take off those rose-colored glasses. According to a recent Zogby poll, 72 percent of U.S. troops say it's time to withdraw from Iraq. Another stunner is that only three in five soldiers in Iraq have a clear sense of the mission. Ouch!

Despite the wide range of opinions and loud voices about America's role in Iraq, there's a real hunger for authenticity that only the troops on the ground can provide. As a veteran, I have been hoping that a pollster would take the obvious step of asking our troops for their opinions, and I think Zogby International deserves credit for making the effort.

But as an economist, my appreciation eroded sharply when I took a closer look.

The survey contains 24 questions. [u]It was given secretly during late January and early February to an unknown number of American troops serving in Iraq, although we are told that [b][size=3]944[/size][/b] respondents were included. [/u] If all the guidelines for random sampling were met (they weren't), the reported margin of error would be plus or minus 3.3 percent.

The unforgivable flaw in Zogby's survey is the biased phrasing of its questions and answers. Two of the most provocative results are based on questions with [u]no middle ground[/u]. It's like a multiple-choice test with no right answers.

For example, the widespread finding that three in four soldiers think the United States should withdraw from Iraq within a year has only one option for troops who think otherwise: stay indefinitely. This infamous question asks, [b]"How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?" But the first three answers are not phrased in terms of staying, they are phrased "withdraw...," "withdraw..." and "withdraw... ." Where are the options for troops who think the United States should stay for "one to two years" or "two to five years"? Zogby omits such nuance. It's stay or go. Now or never.[/b]

[b]The smart troops who perceived this false choice probably set the clipboard down and walked away at that point.[/b] That leaves us with a biased respondent pool.

[color="#000099"]Another question asks for a description of "your understanding of the U.S. mission in Iraq." Two choices describe the mission as clear, and four choices describe it as unclear.[/color]

[u]More damning, John Zogby himself misrepresented the phrasing of one of the questions in an op-ed. This may seem like nitpicking, but if half a man's family say they want "chicken" for dinner, and he reports those votes as "nonvegetarian," he is not exactly being honest. In just this way, the poll asked the soldiers to rate seven different "reasons for the Iraq invasion." [/u] [b]It is a question about prewar justification, not the postwar occupation. Yet Zogby described their answers as a description of "the U.S. mission." If that's the question he wanted to ask, he should have asked it that way. Polling is a science. Words matter.[/b]

The biggest question we should all be asking Zogby is not about the questions that were included, but about those that weren't. Nowhere in the survey results do we see assessments of the U.S. mission. Has it been a success or a failure? How so? Nowhere do we see questions about morale, about progress in killing terrorists, about the state of the insurgency, about the prospects for democracy and economic growth in Iraq. There are questions aplenty on napalm, interrogation, and (I'm not kidding) doubling the number of bombing missions.

[b]Did Zogby dare to ask anything that might result in good news?[/b]

Keep in mind that the men and women in uniform are limited by law from making political statements. If troops are given a chance to express themselves anonymously and fairly, that's great. They are probably the best barometer of how the mission is going, and how it can be improved. But this Zogby poll isn't a barometer. It is (a) biased, ( dishonest, or © all of the above.

Don't like those options? Neither do I. But that's all they gave us.

I remain thankful that Zogby made this effort, and I hope they will try again in a manner that is (d) insightful, (e) comprehensive, and maybe even (f) irrefutably profound.

Tim Kane is an economist and Bradley Fellow in the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, and a veteran Air Force officer.[/quote]


This just means that the troops are all the more dangerous and fucked up.

[|Bunghole|]

Polls are essentially meaningless. Just like any other "statistic", the poll can be inherently biased in nature or the results can be skewed to represent the views of the pollsters.
Troop morale in Iraq is amazingly high, given the difficulties they encounter. Don't believe otherwise.
I guess when you're a political pawn that's allowed to kill without getting into trouble for it, then you're a terrorist to those that simply hate Bush.
In any other conflict they'd be deemed a hero.
Ah well, freedom of speech, it IS a bitch...but don't you worry, Bush and his admin are working hard day and night to take that and every other right away from you as we speak!
Because let's face it...our lives here at home have changed DRAMATICALLY since 9-11 and the inception of the "Holy War On Terror". We no longer can speak or think freely without fear of retribution, we cannot shop except at government appointed stores (Wal-Mart), we cannot own guns, we cannot be gay or a minority (unless we buy into the jesse Jackson victim mentality, and the only solution down that road is...MORE tax dollars for social programs that don't work!), we can only access government-sanctioned sources of information....it goes on and on....yep, we're a police state with no end in sight.
I even have to be careful when I smoke weed so the smell doesn't get outside where the government-positioned marijuana sensors can detect it....shit's unreal these days...

[Guest bengalrick]

[i]It is a) biased, B ) or c) all of the above.

Don't like those options? Neither do I. But that's all they gave us.[/i]



your lack of reasoning on this poll is cracking me up bj... it is a bad poll... just face it...

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='229623' date='Mar 11 2006, 04:28 PM']Polls are essentially meaningless. Just like any other "statistic", the poll can be inherently biased in nature or the results can be skewed to represent the views of the pollsters.
Troop morale in Iraq is amazingly high, given the difficulties they encounter. Don't believe otherwise.
I guess when you're a political pawn that's allowed to kill without getting into trouble for it, then you're a terrorist to those that simply hate Bush.
In any other conflict they'd be deemed a hero.
Ah well, freedom of speech, it IS a bitch...but don't you worry, Bush and his admin are working hard day and night to take that and every other right away from you as we speak!
Because let's face it...our lives here at home have changed DRAMATICALLY since 9-11 and the inception of the "Holy War On Terror". We no longer can speak or think freely without fear of retribution, we cannot shop except at government appointed stores (Wal-Mart), we cannot own guns, we cannot be gay or a minority (unless we buy into the jesse Jackson victim mentality, and the only solution down that road is...MORE tax dollars for social programs that don't work!), we can only access government-sanctioned sources of information....it goes on and on....yep, we're a police state with no end in sight.
I even have to be careful when I smoke weed so the smell doesn't get outside where the government-positioned marijuana sensors can detect it....shit's unreal these days...[/quote]

Most people deem them heroes in this war, even if they don't agree with the war itself. In my mind, individual heroes are heroes; soldiers are just soldiers. A noble soldier is noble; an ignoble soldier is ignoble. Both kinds can be found in practically any army. The soldier's cause is noble if it is a noble cause. If the soldier believes his cause to be noble and it is actually ignoble, he is deceived. If the soldier is relatively easy to deceive, he is a fool. If he is insistent upon being deceived, he is a monster.

Simply hating Bush is a sign of a rational, moral mind, but Bush is almost irrelevant here. The manipulation and violation of Iraq, and the violation of the U.S. Constitution and citizenry using the manipulation of Iraq is a much broader issue than any one, or even two administrations. It serves a much broader agenda. Clinton was more palatable on a day to day basis, but he was no better; he just had a mandate to put a nice face on things for the people. Bush emerged when it was no longer necessary to do that. The people had been softened up enough for Poppy Bush's deranged boy to come in and tear up some shit - and so he did.

By the way, Jesse Jackson is a plant. Nobody with any sense puts a lot of stock in him. Jesse wants people to be weak victims, whining and wallowing - trusting in the operation of a system that is designed to protect the perps. The current pseudo-conservative vogue wants people to be self-blaming victims that dry up and blow away. The correct victim mentality is that of the strong victim that isn't willing to listen to the perp's bullshit and who is intent on putting an end to the abuse through any means necessary - be they the measures that pseudo-conservatives cover in shit so they can cluck their tongues when they are rejected or measures espoused by plants like Jackson that actually work but are discredited by their association with the plants.

Your analysis of the civil liberties environment is of course premature, but hang on, we'll get there soon.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='229643' date='Mar 11 2006, 04:54 PM'][quote name='Bunghole' post='229623' date='Mar 11 2006, 04:28 PM']
Polls are essentially meaningless. Just like any other "statistic", the poll can be inherently biased in nature or the results can be skewed to represent the views of the pollsters.
Troop morale in Iraq is amazingly high, given the difficulties they encounter. Don't believe otherwise.
I guess when you're a political pawn that's allowed to kill without getting into trouble for it, then you're a terrorist to those that simply hate Bush.
In any other conflict they'd be deemed a hero.
Ah well, freedom of speech, it IS a bitch...but don't you worry, Bush and his admin are working hard day and night to take that and every other right away from you as we speak!
Because let's face it...our lives here at home have changed DRAMATICALLY since 9-11 and the inception of the "Holy War On Terror". We no longer can speak or think freely without fear of retribution, we cannot shop except at government appointed stores (Wal-Mart), we cannot own guns, we cannot be gay or a minority (unless we buy into the jesse Jackson victim mentality, and the only solution down that road is...MORE tax dollars for social programs that don't work!), we can only access government-sanctioned sources of information....it goes on and on....yep, we're a police state with no end in sight.
I even have to be careful when I smoke weed so the smell doesn't get outside where the government-positioned marijuana sensors can detect it....shit's unreal these days...[/quote]

Most people deem them heroes in this war, even if they don't agree with the war itself. In my mind, individual heroes are heroes; soldiers are just soldiers. A noble soldier is noble; an ignoble soldier is ignoble. Both kinds can be found in practically any army. The soldier's cause is noble if it is a noble cause. If the soldier believes his cause to be noble and it is actually ignoble, he is deceived. If the soldier is relatively easy to deceive, he is a fool. If he is insistent upon being deceived, he is a monster.

Simply hating Bush is a sign of a rational, moral mind, but Bush is almost irrelevant here. The manipulation and violation of Iraq, and the violation of the U.S. Constitution and citizenry using the manipulation of Iraq is a much broader issue than any one, or even two administrations. It serves a much broader agenda. Clinton was more palatable on a day to day basis, but he was no better; he just had a mandate to put a nice face on things for the people. Bush emerged when it was no longer necessary to do that. The people had been softened up enough for Poppy Bush's deranged boy to come in and tear up some shit - and so he did.

By the way, Jesse Jackson is a plant. Nobody with any sense puts a lot of stock in him. Jesse wants people to be weak victims, whining and wallowing - trusting in the operation of a system that is designed to protect the perps. The current pseudo-conservative vogue wants people to be self-blaming victims that dry up and blow away. The correct victim mentality is that of the strong victim that isn't willing to listen to the perp's bullshit and who is intent on putting an end to the abuse through any means necessary - be they the measures that pseudo-conservatives cover in shit so they can cluck their tongues when they are rejected or measures espoused by plants like Jackson that actually work but are discredited by their association with the plants.

Your analysis of the civil liberties environment is of course premature, but hang on, we'll get there soon.
[/quote]
Good post!
Do you also lump Farrakhan into that category, then? I do, but I think he is even worse because he espouses racial hatred, particularly towards Jews ( I am not Jewish) and somehow comes off as more dangerous due to his loose-cannon approach to public speaking.
I confess as a white, Irish 30-something male I know less about heroes of peace like MLK than I should, but from everything I've heard of him (including the "America is Too Arrogant" speech, which was quite moving) he ranks up there right alongside any other American icon of any walk of life or race that has been before or since.
Why isn't there a MLK-type today to help rectify racial division and the economic downslide of black urban and white rural peoples across America?
Was he that uber-rare combination of leader, peacemaker, speaker, motivator, activist, etc that cannot be duplicated today?

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='229647' date='Mar 11 2006, 05:06 PM'][quote name='Coy Bacon' post='229643' date='Mar 11 2006, 04:54 PM']
[quote name='Bunghole' post='229623' date='Mar 11 2006, 04:28 PM']
Polls are essentially meaningless. Just like any other "statistic", the poll can be inherently biased in nature or the results can be skewed to represent the views of the pollsters.
Troop morale in Iraq is amazingly high, given the difficulties they encounter. Don't believe otherwise.
I guess when you're a political pawn that's allowed to kill without getting into trouble for it, then you're a terrorist to those that simply hate Bush.
In any other conflict they'd be deemed a hero.
Ah well, freedom of speech, it IS a bitch...but don't you worry, Bush and his admin are working hard day and night to take that and every other right away from you as we speak!
Because let's face it...our lives here at home have changed DRAMATICALLY since 9-11 and the inception of the "Holy War On Terror". We no longer can speak or think freely without fear of retribution, we cannot shop except at government appointed stores (Wal-Mart), we cannot own guns, we cannot be gay or a minority (unless we buy into the jesse Jackson victim mentality, and the only solution down that road is...MORE tax dollars for social programs that don't work!), we can only access government-sanctioned sources of information....it goes on and on....yep, we're a police state with no end in sight.
I even have to be careful when I smoke weed so the smell doesn't get outside where the government-positioned marijuana sensors can detect it....shit's unreal these days...[/quote]

Most people deem them heroes in this war, even if they don't agree with the war itself. In my mind, individual heroes are heroes; soldiers are just soldiers. A noble soldier is noble; an ignoble soldier is ignoble. Both kinds can be found in practically any army. The soldier's cause is noble if it is a noble cause. If the soldier believes his cause to be noble and it is actually ignoble, he is deceived. If the soldier is relatively easy to deceive, he is a fool. If he is insistent upon being deceived, he is a monster.

Simply hating Bush is a sign of a rational, moral mind, but Bush is almost irrelevant here. The manipulation and violation of Iraq, and the violation of the U.S. Constitution and citizenry using the manipulation of Iraq is a much broader issue than any one, or even two administrations. It serves a much broader agenda. Clinton was more palatable on a day to day basis, but he was no better; he just had a mandate to put a nice face on things for the people. Bush emerged when it was no longer necessary to do that. The people had been softened up enough for Poppy Bush's deranged boy to come in and tear up some shit - and so he did.

By the way, Jesse Jackson is a plant. Nobody with any sense puts a lot of stock in him. Jesse wants people to be weak victims, whining and wallowing - trusting in the operation of a system that is designed to protect the perps. The current pseudo-conservative vogue wants people to be self-blaming victims that dry up and blow away. The correct victim mentality is that of the strong victim that isn't willing to listen to the perp's bullshit and who is intent on putting an end to the abuse through any means necessary - be they the measures that pseudo-conservatives cover in shit so they can cluck their tongues when they are rejected or measures espoused by plants like Jackson that actually work but are discredited by their association with the plants.

Your analysis of the civil liberties environment is of course premature, but hang on, we'll get there soon.
[/quote]
Good post!
Do you also lump Farrakhan into that category, then? I do, but I think he is even worse because he espouses racial hatred, particularly towards Jews ( I am not Jewish) and somehow comes off as more dangerous due to his loose-cannon approach to public speaking.
I confess as a white, Irish 30-something male I know less about heroes of peace like MLK than I should, but from everything I've heard of him (including the "America is Too Arrogant" speech, which was quite moving) he ranks up there right alongside any other American icon of any walk of life or race that has been before or since.
Why isn't there a MLK-type today to help rectify racial division and the economic downslide of black urban and white rural peoples across America?
Was he that uber-rare combination of leader, peacemaker, speaker, motivator, activist, etc that cannot be duplicated today?
[/quote]

Lump Farrakhan into what category? Do I think Farrakhan is a plant? Yes. I get a lot of argument about that, but I'm practically certain that he's a plant. Farrakhan is free to say whatever he wants as long as he doesn't actually cause anybody to do anything.

I'm not going to say that Farrakhan doesn't espouse "racial hatred," because I don't listen to everything he says, but a lot of what you call "racial hatred" probably isn't. "Racial hatred" to you seems to be the refusal of the untermensch to completely capitulate to your assessment of the world and tell you how fine and noble you are.

If MLK had not been killed, you wouldn't be feeling all warm and fuzzy about him, which has to do with why he was killed a year to the day from his Riverside Church Speech analyzing and decrying the Vietnam War. MLK would have been espousing "strong victim" response to oppression on a class basis as well as an ethnic basis. MLK would have, should he have lived that long, been absolutely revulsed by the Iraq War and the machinations of the Bush administration.

MLK would not have been loved by the Democratic Party either. He would have easilly seen through the false opposition presented by the DNC, the manipulation of the party's lower-echelon constituency and collusion with GOP leadership. If he wasn't killed later, he would have probably faded into obscurity, derided as a communist radical, irresponsible rabble-rouser, and "conspiracy theorist." He probably would have even been labeled a "terrorist" for organizing economic boycotts and such.

You would not have liked MLK if he had lived, and you'd be accusing him of espousing racial hatred and class warfare, because as he gained in understanding of the structure of American society and the implaccable nature of its power structure, he began to change his tactics - and effectively so. By 1968 he had already become too disruptive for the power structure to tolerate as their plants were unsuccessful in disuading him from his pushing beyond the limits prescribed for him when he was being unwittingly manipulated as a pawn himself. He outgrew his role, as did Malcom X, and they wacked him.

What happened to leadership after MLK was simple - COINTELPRO. Promotion of the idea that people needed high-profile "leaders" rather than effective organizers operating in the background to aid in the masses exercising their own will and initiative also played a factor. Leaders are way easier to neutralize than organized masses.

Don't falsely attribute your level of awareness to your being white, male, 30-something and Irish. I know a number of whites that are hipper about the goings on in the world than you appear to be. The same is true of males and 30-somethings. As for Irish, the one white, male, 30-something Irishman I know, replete with thick brogue, isn't a flaming radical of any sort, but he's way to savvy to cavalierly dismiss some of the thing you do. I'm doubt that IRA types have much regard for black people or anything like that, but I know, whether you agree with their tactics or not, that they know full well how full of shit the ostensiblly legit system is - and I mean how REALLY full of shit it is. You don't seem to know that, or you wouldn't be authoritatively denouncing some of the stuff you do - even if you continued to disagree. Don't stereotype white, male, 30-something Irish cats.

[Lawman]

[quote]Why isn't there a MLK-type today to help rectify racial division and the economic downslide of black urban and white rural peoples across America?[/quote]

Bung,
They are out there, but seldom heard. Why? because the message they speak is not what some want to hear.

Let's look at some of MLK's words from his famous "I have a Dream" speech:

[b]In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.[/b]

[b]We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. we must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with [u]soul force[/u]. [/b]

[b]The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of [u]all white people[/u], for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.[/b]

[b]I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the [u]sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood[/u]. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where [u]they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.[/u] I have a dream today.[/b]

[b]I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where [u]little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers[/u].[/b]

[b]When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" [/b]

Where is this being preached today?

Last Sunday, I was watching a sermon on TV by Evangilist Perry Stone. In his final summary he said:

"[color="#000066"]The white man/woman is an envisionist and he can build a nice church; not much happens inside other than some complimentary hand-clapping; the black man/woman (MLK didn't use the phrase African-American) want to hear/feel the Gospel; the Hispanics man/woman focus's on Family; the Asians work-ethics, the Jews are good in business and the Muslim's offer hospitality" "Collectively if all got together, Society would greatly benefit" he said "Satan is what keeps us all apart/seperate and against each other".[/color]

Anyone else come to mind?

George Bush is taken, call out someone else BJ/Coy

[|Bunghole|]

I think the Vietnam War was ideological in nature, and therefore flawed to not succeed.
I think the Iraq War(s) share some of those components, but defy comparison in many respects.
I am hurt that you would imply that you think I am some sort of "authoritatively spewing fountain" of closed-minded fear mongering.
The divergence between you and I is the culpability of the govt in the 9/11 attacks, and the response since.
I believe that the "War On Terror" is real, albeit overblown, and I also believe in using our military to position ourself strategically to defeat current and future threats to our way of life (which means something to me, and nothing to you. I am speaking of the "American Dream" whereby you work hard, pay your taxes, buy a home and raise a family...sounds so sinister, no?)
I don't necessarily like Bush, or any of the govt for that matter, but I can attest to the overall integrity, honor and dignity put forth by the majority of our American soldiers that devote their lives to protecting our country, your post regarding soldiers notwithstanding.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Lawman' post='229706' date='Mar 11 2006, 06:20 PM'][quote]Why isn't there a MLK-type today to help rectify racial division and the economic downslide of black urban and white rural peoples across America?[/quote]

Bung,
They are out there, but seldom heard. Why? because the message they speak is not what some want to hear.

Let's look at some of MLK's words from his famous "I have a Dream" speech:

[b]In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.[/b]

[b]We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. we must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with [u]soul force[/u]. [/b]

[b]The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of [u]all white people[/u], for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.[/b]

[b]I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the [u]sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood[/u]. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where [u]they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.[/u] I have a dream today.[/b]

[b]I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where [u]little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers[/u].[/b]

[b]When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" [/b]

Where is this being preached today?

Last Sunday, I was watching a sermon on TV by Evangilist Perry Stone. In his final summary he said:

"[color="#000066"]The white man/woman is an envisionist and he can build a nice church; not much happens inside other than some complimentary hand-clapping; the black man/woman (MLK didn't use the phrase African-American) want to hear/feel the Gospel; the Hispanics man/woman focus's on Family; the Asians work-ethics, the Jews are good in business and the Muslim's offer hospitality" "Collectively if all got together, Society would greatly benefit" he said "Satan is what keeps us all apart/seperate and against each other".[/color]

Anyone else come to mind?

George Bush is taken, call out someone else BJ/Coy
[/quote]

Well, I sit down with some white folk, but the last person I'm going to sit down with, or have my kids sit down with is some arrogant, paternalistic fuck that has the temerity to try to lecture me on which black "leaders" I should listen to and what I should think.

MLK also said some stuff that I'm sure would send the reactionaries that now try to hide behind his memory around the bend. Maybe the warm and fuzzy stuff that they like to regurgitate without understanding is something that they should study to turn themselves into respectable human beings. As for the rest of us, we tried that shit and found that it doesn't work as long as duplicitous, murderous ass-holes like the regurgitators are afoot.

I'll tell you how you can discern the white folk worth sitting down with from those that aren't. The ones worth being bothered with don't quote Martin Luther King to you in condescending tones.

[Lawman]

[quote]Well, I sit down with some white folk, but the last person I'm going to sit down with, or have my kids sit down with is some arrogant, paternalistic fuck that has the temerity to try to lecture me on which black "leaders" I should listen to and what I should think.[/quote]

good on ya, we each possess personal values that should never be compromised
I would add though that we [u]all[/u] can learn fom each other through open-minded dialog.

[quote]MLK also said some stuff that I'm sure would send the reactionaries that now try to hide behind his memory around the bend. Maybe the warm and fuzzy stuff that they like to regurgitate without understanding is something that they should study to turn themselves into respectable human beings.[u] As for the rest of us, we tried that shit and found that it doesn't work as long as duplicitous, murderous ass-holes like the regurgitators are afoot.[/quote] [/u]

so MLK was an Idealist who's message should be dismissed as erroneous and fool-hearty to say the least?

[quote]The ones worth being bothered with don't quote Martin Luther King to you in condescending tones.[/quote]

The quote was directed to Bung,everyone for exploritory purposes.

I added the last line in jest to stop any reference to Bush.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Lawman' post='230200' date='Mar 12 2006, 01:57 PM'][quote]Well, I sit down with some white folk, but the last person I'm going to sit down with, or have my kids sit down with is some arrogant, paternalistic fuck that has the temerity to try to lecture me on which black "leaders" I should listen to and what I should think.[/quote]

good on ya, we each possess personal values that should never be compromised
I would add though that we [u]all[/u] can learn fom each other through open-minded dialog.

[quote]MLK also said some stuff that I'm sure would send the reactionaries that now try to hide behind his memory around the bend. Maybe the warm and fuzzy stuff that they like to regurgitate without understanding is something that they should study to turn themselves into respectable human beings.[u] As for the rest of us, we tried that shit and found that it doesn't work as long as duplicitous, murderous ass-holes like the regurgitators are afoot.[/quote] [/u]

so MLK was an Idealist who's message should be dismissed as erroneous and fool-hearty to say the least?

[quote]The ones worth being bothered with don't quote Martin Luther King to you in condescending tones.[/quote]

The quote was directed to Bung,everyone for exploritory purposes.

I added the last line in jest to stop any reference to Bush.
[/quote]

King was actually beginning to find out that some of his idealism was misplaced. He had been mislead by his experiences in the South. When he marched in Chicago, he got a taste of the real heart and soul of America and it was a sobering experience for him. King was changing his focus in a number of ways when he was wacked. He began to outgrow the box that the establishment wanted to keep him in. King would have continued to reject armed confrontation because, as he said himself, it was not strategically feasible, but he was beginning to learn that there are times when you can't appeal to a sense of humanity that doesn't exist.

In that vein, it's an interesting exercise to play catch with the darts of hardened enemies in a forum like this, but dialogue with such enemies is only a vehicle for presenting ideas to third parties and gaining practice in handling sophisms. Dialogue between various parties in the U.S. has become nothing more than a battle for control of the nomenclature with a complete absence of good will. For that reason, this country is dying a slow death. We all have our ideas about who is most responsible for poisoning the well. Que sera sera.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote]King was changing his focus in a number of ways when he was wacked. He began to outgrow the box that the establishment wanted to keep him in.[/quote]

Wisdom!

This is an invariant principle in power politics. Look for the leaders who show an inclination to change in lawfully more powerful ways. Those are the ones you kill, if they won't play by establishment rules.

1) Malcolm
2) MLK

Take these two out and you've decapitated both the urban/Garveyite/DuBois orientation as well as the rural/Black Church/non-violent orientation. Pretty much covers all the bases and the second stringers are not as adept, those who are virtuous and those who are not so virtuous: Abernathy, Lewis, Young, Bevel, Farakhan, Jackson, Innis et al...

I've left out the Black Power/Panthers/Baraka/Davis/Toure types as they generally were programmed to self-destruct, or to make themselves impotent.

[Nati Ice]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='231270' date='Mar 13 2006, 08:53 PM'][quote]King was changing his focus in a number of ways when he was wacked. He began to outgrow the box that the establishment wanted to keep him in.[/quote]

Wisdom!

This is an invariant principle in power politics. Look for the leaders who show an inclination to change in lawfully more powerful ways. Those are the ones you kill, if they won't play by establishment rules.

1) Malcolm
2) MLK

Take these two out and you've decapitated both the urban/Garveyite/DuBois orientation as well as the rural/Black Church/non-violent orientation. Pretty much covers all the bases and the second stringers are not as adept, those who are virtuous and those who are not so virtuous: Abernathy, Lewis, Young, Bevel, Farakhan, Jackson, Innis et al...

I've left out the Black Power/Panthers/Baraka/Davis/Toure types as they generally were programmed to self-destruct, or to make themselves impotent.
[/quote]all the name dropping and no mention of farrakhan, consider me thouroughly disappointed...

[|Bunghole|]

Nobody's trying to be condescending here, at least, not me.
I'm trying to delve into opinions and beliefs that I find equal parts interesting, horrifying, unbelieveable and probably partly true.
I want the meat, not the pandering response because I come off as a right wing, whitebread irish motherfucker that has no clue as to anything.
I am 36, open-minded and experienced in all things military, since I have lived it from my inception from my family, myself and about all my relatives, as well as many friends and acquantinces.