The Rubicon is a small stream in northern Italy just south of the city of Ravenna. During the prime of the Roman Republic, roughly the last two centuries B.C., it served as a northern boundary protecting the heartland of Italy and the city of Rome from its own imperial armies. An ancient Roman law made it treason for any general to… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (490)Lamont…dude…don’t blow a fuse…settle down…are you happy? Is your life ok? If your personal life is so meaningless that you are going to have a stroke over an internet chat thread, you need some help buddy. Stand back and smell the flowers…‘k? Now, on to your ramble…
You mean land wasn’t taken from the Natives? They weren’t driven from their homes? They weren’t entirely exterminated? Which of these things did not happen to the Native-Americans on a grand scale?
90% of American Indians were nomadic tribes…so 75% of your argument is mute….and of course…the English brought all kinds of diseases with them when they came to the new world that the indigenous population had no defense against…quit acting like the English did it on purpose…the Indians were given ample opportunity to acclimatize into the new world but refuse to do so…so the tribes that refused and waged war were removed…come on…they were heathens…sort of like the Moos today….
You’ve commented on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict - are you a Palestinian? An Israeli? Perhaps even a Jewish-Settler?
Dood….stay away from that argument…you lost…accept it…even your own allies attacked you on the Jews and Moos….wake up and smell the coffee….
The rest of your diatribe had no coherent thought…so I won’t comment on it…
Posted by JM_64 on Apr 14, 2005 at 6:55 PM JM
When you say something intellegent
pleeese post iti haven’t seen it yet
Sincerly
RB
Posted by R.B. on Apr 14, 2005 at 7:03 PM Hi Lamont (and all),
You correctly note:
“Meanwhile JM_64 here is degenerating into personal insults.”Of course! His modus operand is to provoke, and wait for people to respond emotionally. This gives this “polite gentleman” the justification to respond to people with personal insults. He jumps for joy when he gets to someone.
I highly recommend that you don’t respond to anything this robotic troll writes. He just loves for you to spend loads of time responding to his brief taunts. Lamont, there are a whole bunch of real people here to respond to and discuss with. The argument that trolls are a good thing, (as in honing your debating technique,) although true, is really a massive waste of time and emotional energy. Just let his posts stand unanswered regardless of whatever name he chooses, be it J Craig, the phony J Craig enabler (forget his name for the moment,) or the latest visible incarnation JM_64.
Posted by Merlin on Apr 14, 2005 at 7:13 PM Dear RB,
Then please don’t respond to my post. If I had nothing intelligent to say, then you should have not responded.
Sincerely,
JM
Posted by JM_64 on Apr 14, 2005 at 7:15 PM “90% of American Indians were nomadic tribes…so 75% of your argument is mute….and of course…the English brought all kinds of diseases with them when they came to the new world that the indigenous population had no defense against…quit acting like the English did it on purpose…the Indians were given ample opportunity to acclimatize into the new world but refuse to do so…so the tribes that refused and waged war were removed…come on…they were heathens…sort of like the Moos today….”
My god, you are an ignorant racist bastard.
While it is true that out of all those in what is today the USA & Canada only one tribe had any sort of permanent residence, ALL of the groups and tribes in central & south America and the Caribbean were not “nomadic tribes”, far from it. And even if a group of people are nomadic hunter-gathers I fail to see how that qualifies them for the holocaust that was committed against them.
There is one known recorded instance where the British did indeed infect the Indians in North America on purpose, although the British insist the man responsible was acting on his own. The various other European powers did the same on various too. Particularly the Spanish & Portuguese.
I’m not going to respond to the rest.
Posted by LamontCranston on Apr 14, 2005 at 7:16 PM Merlin,
Is this site a lovefest between liberals and the leftwing agenda or a site for informative and productive ideals? I’ll listen to any argument, and if I find holes in it, I will respond accordingly, without emotion and rhetoric. I will leave and quit posting on this site if it is just a lovefest for liberals and the leftwing agenda.
JM
Posted by JM_64 on Apr 14, 2005 at 7:20 PM What you said about the native population of the Americas was hardly informative or productive. At least not informative about them. Informative about you prehapes though.
Posted by LamontCranston on Apr 14, 2005 at 7:23 PM Hey Lamont,
If you did not believe my last post above, here is undeniable proof of the joy he feels! Feel the gloat; see the smug self righteous smile!The troll said:
“Lamont…dude…don’t blow a fuse…settle down…are you happy? Is your life ok? If your personal life is so meaningless that you are going to have a stroke over an internet chat thread, you need some help buddy.”I see him literally salivating at twisting you up, (even if in reality you aren’t!) The above quote’s meaning is right out of Berne’s book “Games People Play.” The “Game” is called NIGYSOB the acronym for “Now I’ve Got You, Son Of A Bitch,” with the unsaid feeling, “and now I’m going to make you pay (i.e. “hurt”). You can’t win playing this “Game!” Best not respond at all to this insideous person.
Posted by Merlin on Apr 14, 2005 at 7:27 PM Lamont,
My god, you are an ignorant racist bastard.
My god….you are an ignorant racist bastard. Just because I was born a white anglo saxon protestant! I am tired of your racists statements against me because of my race. I will not stand for your racism! If you cannot stop your racist attacks against me than I will no longer talk to you. Have a good life Lamont and good riddance!
Posted by JM_64 on Apr 14, 2005 at 7:32 PM Merlin,
I don’t play games and I refuse to play them with you. Come on, say something smart.
Posted by JM_64 on Apr 14, 2005 at 7:36 PM Hey Lamont,
Look, now he is doing it to me!
HA HA HA.The troll said:
I don’t play games and I refuse to play them with you. Come on, say something smart.”Watch me not respond to him!
Posted by Merlin on Apr 14, 2005 at 7:58 PM It’s the JMs JCraigs etc.
of our country which prove the article absolutely
right.The world can’t stand imperialists who can’t see
their own idiocy
RB
Posted by R.B. on Apr 14, 2005 at 8:11 PM The troll doesn’t like being called a racist. The troll says the NA’s could have avoided being exterminated if they had just submitted to his WASP forbear’s obvious superiority. No, the troll couldn’t be a racist, could it? Perhaps it thinks the dahkies jus’ lubb’d bein’ slaves, too?
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 14, 2005 at 8:27 PM It’s not particularily surprising that the public deceptions of the conservative leaders match with amazing precision the self-deceptions of their followers. As my grandmother said; “What a wicked web we weave, when we endeavor to decieve.”
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 14, 2005 at 8:45 PM Hi luminous beauty,
Right on, in your last 2 posts.
You have the main message sent out, and all the rest are “enablers” of many stripes, parroting the neocongame line. From the right wingnut media blabbers like Limbaugh and its ilk, to the AEI and Heritage intellectual geniasses. And of course the sneaky verbal “arsonists” like “it” here, hopping on the bandwagon for its own emotional benefit.
Whatever reality is in the neocon argument is insignificant compared to the main agenda being played out in the background. (Read the PNAC report for starters.)
A good and obvious example is Iraq. The talk on the surface, and their arguments to back it up, (WMDs, mushroom cloud, Al quida connection, Hussein the tyrant, terrorism etc.) is simply distraction for the neocongame of controlling Mid East oil and the lands that hold it. Scott Ritter has an article that puts all the happenings in Iraq into stark relief. From the Puppet Alawi Gov’t, Bremmer’s 100 laws, the incorporation of same into the TAL, phony sovereignty and doctored Jan. 30 election results to deprive the Shi’a of a majority in the national assembly. It all fits, especially in hindsight.
To argue with these neocon enablers about the surface issues that are framed by the neocons, is to play their game and be thrown off ours. This is not about realistic discussion between real people who have this country’s (and the world’s) best interests at heart. It should be about how we can awaken an American public that is hypnotized by emotional issues so they can see an Emperor without clothes.If one is to believe the troll in its statement to go away, I expect we will soon be hearing from it again under a different moniker, and my nightmare noted from an earlier post will resurface as I awake with night sweats.
Posted by Merlin on Apr 14, 2005 at 10:11 PM Oops, forgot the URL for the Ritter article. It is called Hijacking Democracy In Iraq. March 24, 2005. Excellent reading!
www.countercurrents.org/iraq-ritter240305.htm
Posted by Merlin on Apr 14, 2005 at 10:16 PM Lamont,
Please read….
Part I….
Inner City Minister Sues Democratic Party For Reparations: Over 200 Law Professors Review The Brief
Seattle, January 3, 2005 - On December 10th 2004, an inner-city minister, Rev. Wayne Perryman, filed a class action Reparation lawsuit (in the United States District Court in Seattle Case No. CV04-2442), alleging that “because of their racist past practices, the Democratic Party should be required to pay African Americans Reparations.” Perryman said that he “based his case on the research that he gathered during the past five years” while writing the three editions of his latest book: Unfounded Loyalty: An In-depth Look Into The Love Affair Between Blacks &Democrats;.In his 100-page brief, Perryman concludes that the past racist policies and practices that were initiated against African Americans by the Democratic Party were no different than the policies and practices that were initiated by the Nazi Party against the Jews. In both situations millions of lives were destroyed (physically, mentally and economically).
In his brief, Perryman told the court that:
* In an effort to impede and or deny African Americans the same constitutional rights afforded to all American citizens, the Democratic Party established a pattern of practice of promoting, supporting, sponsoring and financing racially bias entertainment, education, legislation, litigations, and terrorist organizations from 1792 to 1962, and continued certain practices up to 2002.
* The Democrat’s 210 years of racist practices and cover ups not only negatively affected the entire black race; but these practices infected our entire nation with the most contagious and debilitating social disease known to mankind, racism. With landmark litigation, racist legislation and profane defamation, Democrats spent substantial amounts of money to produce racist campaign literature and to support racist entertainment, Jim Crow minstrel shows, stage plays (“The Klansman”) and movies, (“The Birth of a Nation”), all in an effort to prove to the world that African Americans were a racially inferior group that should be treated and classified as “property” and not as “citizens.”
* During the past 21 decades the Democrats successfully disguised and concealed their horrific acts against the African Americans by operating and committing these acts under the following aliases: “the Confederacy,” “Jim Crow,” “Black Codes,” the “Dixiecrats” and the “Ku Klux Klan.” Congressional records, historical documents, and the letters and testimonies from several brave black citizens revealed that these groups weren’t separate independent organizations, but were actual auxiliaries, divisions and/or the legislative efforts of the Democratic Party. The debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 further revealed that these auxiliaries were committed to use every means possible to carry out the Democrat’s racist agenda of “White Supremacy,” including: lynchings, murders, intimidation, mutilations, decapitations and racially bias legislation and adjudication.
Posted by JM_64 on Apr 15, 2005 at 7:21 PM Lamont,
Please read…
Part II
Perryman said, “To conceal the truth of their racist past (and as part of their effort to deceive the public), the Democratic Party made a conscience decision not to mention or disclose their true and complete history. On their official website they failed to disclose that as a party:· Democrats opposed the Abolitionist.
· Democrats supported slavery and fought and gave their lives to expand it.
· Democrats supported and passed the Fugitive Slave Laws of 1793 &1854;.
· Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery.
· Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery.
· Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision.
· Democrats supported and passed Jim Crow Laws.
· Democrats supported and passed Black Codes.
· Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers.
· Democrats opposed the Reconstruction Act of 1867.
· Democrats opposed the Freedman’s Bureau as it pertained to blacks.
· Democrats opposed the Emancipation Proclamation.
· Democrats opposed the 13th , 14th, and 15th Amendments to end slavery, make black citizens and give blacks the right to vote.
· Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
· Democrats opposed the Civil Right Act of 1875 and had it overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
· Various Democrats opposed the 1957 Civil Rights Acts.
· Various Democrats argued against the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts.
· Various Democrats argued against the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Acts.
· Various Democrats voted against the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act.
· Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of “Plessy v Ferguson.”
· Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of “Brown v The Board of Education of Kansas.”
· Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration.
· Democrats started and supported several terrorist organizations including the Ku Klux Klan, an organization dedicated to use any means possible to terrorize African Americans and those who supported African Americans.
Posted by JM_64 on Apr 15, 2005 at 7:24 PM Lamont,
Please read…
Part III
Congressional records reveal that there wouldn’t be a question of Reparations today had Democratic President Andrew Johnson signed Senate Bill 60 (in 1866) which would have given each African American family 40 acres and a mule. Instead, Johnson vetoed the Bill and continued to block other key pieces of legislation that were designed to bring about “equality” for African Americans.Perryman further argues that:
During the past 200 years, our government operated under a two party system which directed, developed and determined the policies of our country. Whatever the government did or did not accomplish (particularly as it pertained to African Americans), was directly related to which political party was in power at the time.
On April 29, 1861, Democratic President Jefferson Davis told his Democratic Confederate Congress that: “Under the supervision of the superior race, their [blacks’] labor had been so directed not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South… [which made the South one of the 16th wealthiest places in the world]; and the productions in the South of cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three-fourth of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to wants of civilized man….”
Seven years later during the 1868 Presidential campaign, the Democratic Party’s campaign poster read: “This is a White Man’s Country - Let the White Men Rule.”
At the turn of the century (1913), Democratic Senator Ben Tillman said, “We reorganized the Democratic Party with one plank, and the only plank, namely, that this is a white man’s country, and white men must govern it.” From 1792 to 2002 (a period of 210 years), the Democratic Party carried out their proud tradition of white man rule by never electing a black man to the United States Senate from their party.
From 1792 to 1962, the Democratic Party was more commonly referred to as the Party of White Supremacy. This was the period when most of the damage was done to African Americans (economically, physically, socially and mentally). It was during this period that the Democrats exhausted every effort that promoted slavery, destroyed Reconstruction and introduced Black Codes, Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan.
The chronicles of history reveals that the Institution of Slavery and Jim Crow Laws weren’t promoted, protected and preserved by prominent individuals or by the federal government. They were preserved by one political party and that party was the Democratic Party. Without their powerful political support, segregation would have ended long before 1865 and 1965. Plessy would have never taken Judge Furgeson to court, and the “Brown v. Board of Education” case would have never materialized.
Posted by JM_64 on Apr 15, 2005 at 7:30 PM Lamont,
Pleas read….
Part IV
The big question they had during the era of slavery was, whether or not a law or a person’s actions violated the Constitution. The goal of the Democrats was to never allow the Constitution to be amended to include blacks as citizens. They wanted the freedom to treat African Americans as property (not as humans), without federal interference (this was their primary reason for fighting for their so-called States Rights). This was also the reason why Democrats were opposed to adding the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution and why they praised and supported the Dred Scott Decision. Republicans rushed to have these Amendments added to the Constitution while the states that were under Democrat control were still separated from the Union. Republicans knew they would have a difficult time getting these Amendments passed if the Democrats from the Southern States came back and joined their congressional (Democrat) counterparts in the North.During era of slavery and Reconstruction, the Democrats were primarily interested in what they could do to blacks, not what they could do for blacks. From 1792 to 1962, the Democrats’ support did not support or pass one law that was designed to give African Americans equality (in 170 years). With the exception of Truman’s efforts to integrate the military, every law that was introduced and passed by Democrats during this period was designed to hurt blacks, none were passed to help blacks. Perryman said, “Had the Democrats attempted to pass these same types of laws in 1864 that they claim credit for in 1964, the laws in 1964 would not have been necessary. Instead, in 1866 they passed Black Codes, in 1875 they passed Jim Crow Laws and in 1894 they passed the Repeal Act to repeal various pieces of previously passed Civil Rights legislation that were designed to give African Americans equality.
Perryman is quick to point out that the Democratic Party of today is not the same party of yesterday. However, as in the case of Michael Skakel (the Kennedy nephew who killed Martha Moxley), the Democrats, as Michael Skakel, must pay for their past actions. Perryman said, “The Skakels and the Moxleys were best friends and neighbors, but when the Moxleys learned that it was Skakel who murdered their daughter in 1975, they did not excuse his action because of the long term friendship. They made him pay, even though it was 25 years later. The same applies to the current relationship between the Blacks and Democrats. The Democrats should not expect Blacks to ignore the Democrat’s past racist practices, simply because of the current friendship.”
Perryman’s research and 100-page brief include the works of our nation’s top history and law professors including African American Historian, Professor John Hope Franklin, Princeton’s History Professor James McPherson, Professor Hebert Donald of Harvard, Professor Allen Trelease of North Carolina, and Professor Bernard Schwartz of New York University’s School of Law, plus congressional records and documentaries from PBS and the History Channel.
Posted by JM_64 on Apr 15, 2005 at 7:33 PM Lamont,
Please read….
Part V
Perryman said, “Since our experiences are similar to those inflicted on the Jews by the Nazi Party, and since Reparations under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 affords Plaintiffs redress for past injuries; and amends for the wrong inflicted,” he asked the court for the following:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on Plaintiff own behalf and on behalf of the Class, prays for judgment as follows:
1. Declaring this action to be a proper class action and certifying Plaintiff as Class representative under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
2. Awarding compensatory damages and rescission in favor of the Plaintiff and other members of the Class against the Defendant for the damages sustain as a result of wrongdoing of the defendants, together with interest thereon;
3. And as part of the compensatory damages the Plaintiffs recommends the following:
a. That an education fund be set up equivalent to the amount of $25,000 for every African American age 25 and younger that is currently alive as of the date of this lawsuit. The fund will be used solely for private school, college and trade tuitions and related educational costs.
b. That under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which authorizes a public education fund, to educate the public of the wrongs that took place, the Plaintiffs ask for funding to fund a major motion picture and film series depicting all of the events that were highlighted in this lawsuit (and others not mentioned) and that this film and major motion picture be distributed to every public and private school in America to be viewed by students as a regular part of their history curriculum for the next 50 years. We further ask that the Lead Plaintiff and the consultants of his choice be paid a consulting fee including traveling and related expenses to help produce the motion picture and the film series. The consulting fee will be the standard consulting fee for similar types of major motion picture projects.
c. We ask that the Defendant pay each African American citizen ages 26- 35 that is currently alive as of the date of this lawsuit, a total sum of $25,000 in reparations, each adult ages 36-45, $45,000 in reparations, each adult ages 46-55, $50,000 in reparations each and each citizen ages 56 and older $100,000 in reparations.
4. Awarding Plaintiff fees and expenses incurred in this action, including reasonable allowance of fees for attorneys to administer the Class Action claim and appropriate consultant fees.
5. Granting extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law, equity and federal and state statutory provisions sued on hereunder, including attaching, impounding, imposing a constructive trust upon or otherwise restricting the proceeds of the Defendant’s investments, checking, savings or other assets so as to assure that Plaintiff has an effective remedy.
6. Ordering a formal apology to African Americans for the wrong that was committed during the duration of the Defendants’ tenure as an organization or political party.
7. Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Wayne Perryman P.O. Box 256 Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 232-5575 Home Office (206) 860-6880 Church office Internet: www.wayneperryman
Posted by JM_64 on Apr 15, 2005 at 7:34 PM Lamont please read, (ahem)
Part I…
Its like I’ve only had 2 hours sleep for the last 3 days and the damn alarm goes off. Oh, my head. I’ve been dreaming of JM_64 for some ungodly reason. There must be a heaven, I think, because I hear Dante laughing…“Ha Ha…He’s back” I struggle to sit up and there he is…NO! its not JM_64!...Its J Craig, spewing words that sound like someone pounding on an empty drum next to my ear. The words are full of sound and fury yet as empty as the drum, and as jarring as rap music turned up to high volume. I fly from the room to escape…Part II
But escape I could not. Like some magical being, the troll was there, everywhere I turned. I was unaware of the hurricane force of hot air that awaited me outside. It seemed as though it would never stop. Like some dreadfully inane and boring novel that one might read in order to bring on sleep. Part 1, Part 2, Par..zzzzzzzz.Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of “Trollman.” Will it continue to clog up the webways with junkmail and sleep inducing drivel? Stay tuned…
to be continued, I’m sure…
Posted by Merlin on Apr 15, 2005 at 9:14 PM From 1792? Hmm you better look up when the Democrat was founded.
And yes, in the 19th century the Democrats were on the ‘right’ and Republicans were on the ‘left’, with the Democrats being for slavery & all that and the Republicans against slavery & all that - does this organization you speak of plan on doing anything about the what the Republicans have done since their switch to conservatism?
Dixicrats/Southern Democrats/etc were all either forced out or left to join the Republicans on their own accord. I should think that was well known.
And while it is informative to discuss these matters from so long ago I find it is about as useful as debating the USAs invasion of the Philippines at the beginning of the 20th century, aprox. 700,000 people were killed in that. Unless of course you think the native Philippino population are not people.
And you still have yet to explain your racist remarks regarding the Native-American population.“The two principles on which our conduct towards the Indians should be founded, are justice & fear. After the injuries we have done them, they cannot love us….”—Thomas Jefferson, August 13, 1786.
Posted by LamontCranston on Apr 15, 2005 at 9:32 PM Given the Chinese government’s current investments in Iran and in South America, is it possible that their strategy is to use American treasury paper to buy up companies against American interest and in America’s backyard? I ask this because I remember that back in the 70’s the Saudis, displeased with the accumulation of American paper in their vaults proposed to use that paper to buy American companies and the policy established at the time was to treat such a course of action as an act of war. The Chinese strategy could be exploiting a loophole in that policy and America’s fiscal problems might leave America unable to combat it. Mounting debt, owing to ill-advised tax cuts and massive increases in military expenditures; a military spread very wide and very thin; lack of fiscal, political, and moral credibility at home and abroad; current or pending economic engagements with the European Union, the Indian sub-continent, and China; loss of influence in its own backyard… all these factors bode ill for America. I confess that I have no solutions. Most of my ilk from the left seem to think they do but when it consists of simply mocking their rightwing “angrier than thou” counterparts for having the capslock on then it is clear to me that they have no solutions either.
Posted by Ian McGarrett on Apr 16, 2005 at 4:31 PM J Craig asks:
“By the way, any ideas from anyone on how to reduce the trade deficit? Nobody ever offers a solution.”It is probably too late, but we should stop rewarding CEOs for shipping jobs rather than products.
For years thay have been cutting employees which immediately raises the bottom line. The stock rises, they collect their options at a fraction of market price and sell (often same day) at a huge gain.
To add to this insult to employees and ordinary shareholders, they go on TV to tout their best-selling book, “Look How Successful I Am!” Examples: Jack Welsh, Harry Stonecipher, etc.
NAFTA was just the beginning — after losing millions of good jobs, our middle class is working multiple part time jobs and has no choice but to buy US — foreign made goods.Our “Representatives” preach the benefits of out increased “exports” to companies such as GE, GM Electro-Motive, Avery Dennison in Mexico. Our increases in productivity they love to talk about are largely due to sub-assemblies made in foreign countries and not counted in the cost.
Posted by Dean Munson on Apr 21, 2005 at 1:53 PM A few thoughts on: WAKE UP!, by Chalmers Johnson,
In These Times, April 18, 2005The economic condition of our country is undoubtedly shaky at best. We have been hemorrhaging jobs and borrowing trillions (Treasury Bonds) for more than a decade. It will come back to haunt us, possibly in a war as with Japan in 1941. However, many of his other comments are questionable and in some cases outright shameful. The author is apparently one who is still sore about Bush being elected in 2000 and again in 2004.
He makes a number of unsubstantiated allegations —
“I have in mind things like the Army’s and the CIA’s secret abduction and torture of people; the trigger-happy conduct of our poorly trained and poorly led troops in places like Iraq and Afghanistan…”
Torture? Abu Ghraib was stupid and irresponsible, but hardly torture. For examples of torture read what the Vietnamese did to our servicemen, or what Saddam did to his prisoners.
“Trigger-happy”? I have a friend whose nephew served in Afghanistan and another whose son is about to go back for a second call-up to Iraq. This comment is an outrage! I would love to have them in a room with him when he says that.
I see he is a professor. No doubt he has little experience in the real world, rather a life of tenure and abstract thought with little chance of being shot on while the job.
Posted by Dean Munson on Apr 22, 2005 at 12:23 PM Dean Munson wrote:
“Trigger-happy”? I have a friend whose nephew served in Afghanistan and another whose son is about to go back for a second call-up to Iraq. This comment is an outrage! I would love to have them in a room with him when he says that.I come to sites like this because some of the commentary provides unintended humour as in the above. “I would love to have them in a room with him when he says that,” no doubt so that you might enjoy watching America’s favourite sons as they go about their business um… non-torturing the offender.
The was the best of Dean Munson’s offerings but ahead of it he implies that economic uncertainty is a just cause for war and cites America’s decision to go to war with with Japan in 1941. I thought the reason America went to war with Japan was because Japan attacked America. He also cites a decade of profligate spending which would imply that the latter years of the Clinton administration was accumulating debt, another statement curiously unsupported by the historical record which claims the Clinton administration was amassing surpluses with which the debt could be paid down.
But there is more juice here.
“Torture? Abu Ghraib was stupid and irresponsible, but hardly torture. For examples of torture read what the Vietnamese did to our servicemen, or what Saddam did to his prisoners.”
So the standard for morally superior behaviour is to look around and see who behaves worse. That rather lowers the bar, don’t you think?
“I see he is a professor. No doubt he has little experience in the real world, rather a life of tenure and abstract thought with little chance of being shot on while the job.”
I don’t know Dean Munson’s military background - he makes mention of the nephew of a friend and the son of another friend, but curiously absents himself from the roll call - however I am familiar with Marge Delahunty’s quote “Hell hath no fury like the deskbound non-combatant.”
Posted by Ian McGarrett on Apr 22, 2005 at 1:14 PM Japan, 1941, etc have nothing to do with this. And they are in no way similar. I suggest you go look up the history surrounding that.
“Torture? Abu Ghraib was stupid and irresponsible, but hardly torture. For examples of torture read what the Vietnamese did to our servicemen, or what Saddam did to his prisoners.”
The other day I read about one man at Abu Ghraib that they killed while integrating him - this was just recently mind-you, maybe 2 or 3 months ago - he was locked inside a sleeping bag and had electrical cord wrapped around his throat on the outside of the sleeping bag. The report listed another man also recently killed during integration, but he was only beaten to death with billy-clubs.
“or what Saddam did to his prisoners” indeed.
I could list more, particularly what they reportedly do to children & teenagers and these reports are pretty trustworthy, but why bother?
“‘Trigger-happy’? I have a friend whose nephew served in Afghanistan and another whose son is about to go back for a second call-up to Iraq. This comment is an outrage! I would love to have them in a room with him when he says that.”
You wish to play the relative game do you? I think I can trump you: my father was a Vietnam War conscript [the choice was conscription, Pentridge Prison or hiding out up north in the out-back and praying to god an amnesty would be one day provided], during his time there he received extensive exposure to the defoliation chemical known as Agent Orange; he died as a result rather painfully in the late 1980s. My mothers father was an American marine who saw extensive action in the Pacific, met my mothers mother while stationed here in Australia & was eventually apart of the American Occupation force in Japan; he committed suicide in the early 1950s as a result of what he went through and saw. My mothers mother accompanied her husband to Japan, they were in among other places, Nagasaki & Hiroshima; as a result she is now wasting away in a hospital bed, her body riddled with cancer also my mother & her sister, both conceived and born there, have unusually high levels of heavy metals in their bodies that is consistent with people exposed to atomic fallout.
I won’t even go into the experiences of my grandmothers’ father & uncles in WW1 or the experiences of her brothers in WW2, especially in the Japanese POW camps.
My point with this short summary of my family history? Well it has as much of a point as your short summary.
Posted by LamontCranston on Apr 23, 2005 at 2:10 PM Stop your nonsense !
The entire Iraq - Afghanistan gulag system was taken
from the book of Stalin. The same methods, including torture. Prisoners jailed without representation, POWs treated in abominable ways.Have you forgotten that WE INVADED THEM? FOR NO GOOD REASON? Forgotten the Taliban offer BEFORE 9/11 to surrender Bin Laden?
Have you forgotten that the US air defense system was TURNED OFF just prior to the attack?
Wake up !
9/11 was orchestrated - if not very convenient - for BUSH. It gave him is reason de guerre and all of you bought it! Timid and weak, grasping for yet another trip to the mall, afraid of your own shadow, you weak excuse for American Citizenry, bought it!
Who was it said “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself” but Franklin Roosevelt.
Who gave you a new deal - Pensions, parks, jobs, 40 hour work week, BUSH?
You are now prisoners of a lie known to the entire world, except seemingly to you. OR are you aware of the Smoking Gun Memo? Which details in 518 official British Government pages, exactly how you were to be used and duped.
And don’t speculate about my past, I served, and wasted years of my life for the Vietnam Lie.
But what are you to do about Peak Oil?
Posted by Dr. George Oprisko on Jun 8, 2005 at 9:52 PM Never trust a post by someone who uses a lot of capital letters and exclamation points.
Dr. Geo. Oprisko: Please…“The entire Iraq - Afghanistan gulag system”: The sloppy use of language that usually reflects sloppy thinking. Gulags were for political dissidents, not terrorists (or if you prefer, insurgents and freedom fighters); Solzenitzen had not taken up arms against Stalin and his successors, merely spoken against them. Now, Castro, he runs gulags.
“9/11 was orchestrated”: And “The Protocols of Zion” are actual historical documents. Wake up.
“Timid and weak, grasping for yet another trip to the mall, afraid of your own shadow, you weak excuse for American Citizenry, bought it!”: Your contempt for your fellow citizens, a contempt pandemic on the left, is why the left is out of power for the foreseeable future. The elitism, snobbery, and paranoia you evince makes you all easy to ignore. Wake up.
“But what are you to do about Peak Oil?”: If you really served in Viet Nam then you should remember that in the early ‘80s the same band of oil economists were telling us we were going to run out of oil by 2000. In fact there are now more known oil reserves now than in 1975. Predictions about energy are notoriously unreliable, and your blind faith in them is touchingly naive, or naively touched. Wake up.
Posted by Mitch on Jun 9, 2005 at 4:20 AM Ah, mitch:
Solzenitchen took up arms? Castro runs Gulags? Is it legal here in the US to recieve money from a foriegn country to overthrow the government? The innocent cab driver murdered by American interrogators in Afghanistan was a terrorist?
Peak oil is here. If you look at Hibberts’ projections from the 70’s, the point where increasing demand outstrips increases in supply is right about now, not 2000. Global warming is here. The facts are in; measurement of energy absorbtion/radiation from space agrees with climate model predictions. The wars on abstract nouns (drugs, terrorism) are just making a bad situation worse. US dominance over Latin American democracies is waning. The occupation of Iraq is a costly, bloody mess. Freedom is not on the march.
You really need to get a clue. Dismissing reasonable criticism as ‘elitism, snobbery, and paranoia’ is ‘weak’ and cowardly. If it is so easy to ignore, why do you feel compelled to respond? Maybe some diversity training would help.
By, the way TPOTEOZ is actually an historical document, just not of Jewish origin. Because the contents are lies doesn’t make it ahistorical or not a document.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jun 9, 2005 at 12:54 PM Come on, Luminous one,
I’m not sure what you meant by your series of opening questions. Rhetorically, they suggest you are challneging statements I made. But Solzenitchen (I’m sure I spelled that incorrectly) did not take up arms against his government; Castro does run prisons for dissidents (not to mention journalists and homosexuals) within his own country; it is probably not legal to receive funds to overthrouw a government, but I have no idea what in my post you are referring to; and the death of an innocent man does not make a prison a gulag (if the prisoners are largely political ones who have not taken up arms, you have a case). Get your own clue. Life is messy; mistakes and tragedies happen; I do not justify the death of an innocent man, but I know we don’t live in Oz.
Why you bring the global warming argument into a comment about predictions of energy production escapes me, although I suppose it may be because you assume if I don’t buy one argument from the left, I reject them all, which is not unreasonable. And Hibberts may be right; I just suspect it is too soon to make definitive and outraged declarations about it, as Dr. O did.
Calling 9/11 prearranged, as the good doctor did, is not reasonable criticism; it is unreasonable distrust and paranoia. And describing fellow citizens as “Timid and weak, grasping for yet another trip to the mall, afraid of your own shadow, you weak excuse for American Citizenry…” is not reasonable criticism, it is elitism and snobbery: Get another clue. I don’t feel “compelled to respond”; I occasionally give in to the need to vent my frustration about self-righteous snobs. I am so tired of left-wingers dissing of the “people” they claim to be looking out for that I get sucked into the pont/counterpoint yelling that passes for political discourse these days.
You’re right of course about “The Protocols”; you got me on a technicality of sloppy venting. What I should have sarcastically said, and what I suspect some people recogized I meant to say, is “And the conspiracies and motivations described by ‘The Protocols’ are true.”
Posted by Mitch on Jun 9, 2005 at 1:35 PM mitch;
70 ‘dissidents’ who are in prison for being foriegn agents do not a gulag make. I don’t wish to carry water for Castro, but I don’t think a poor country of 6 million under economic siege and periodic terrorism for 45 years by the most powerful country in the world sitting 90 miles off their coast is very likely to have the best civil liberties.
No analogy is ever going to be perfect. However, finding disjunctions of an analogy outside of the intended comparison is intellectually dishonest, at a minimum.
There is believable evidence that the Bush NSA intentionally failed to act on reliable reports of terrorist activity in the US prior to 9/11. It is in their own words that we know the administration was seeking an excuse to invade Iraq. There is now the confirming Downing Street Memo from the head of MI6. Am I unreasonable for ‘connecting the dots’?
That the American populace is in general overweight and underinformed is hardly controversial. Should I ignore the actual conditions of life in the US to avoid being called ‘elitist snob’ by a wingnut? That seems to be the thrust of your ‘argument’. What we’re trying to do here is discern what is genuine from what is BS, not compete in a popularity contest. Can you contribute, or are you just another right-wing obstructionist, trying to divert the conversation away from the subject?
Global warming is not essentially a leftist issue but a scientific one that should concern everyone. Anti-global warming, however, is an exclusively rightist stance. It does relate to Peak Oil in that overcoming our dependence on fossil fuels is a necessary condition for dealing with both problems as well as the underlying causes of terrorism. Something the current administration is unwilling to address with anything but distracting rhetoric.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jun 9, 2005 at 3:37 PM O, Luminous beauty (great name),
“70 ‘dissidents’ who are in prison for being foreign agents do not a gulag make.” Even Nat Hentoff, hardly a right-wing obstructionist, has written a couple of columns about Castro’s practice of jailing opposition Cuban journalists and librarians, It is my impression that we are talking about substantially more than 70 here, although I don’t know that for a fact.
” ...I don’t think a poor country of 6 million under economic siege and periodic terrorism for 45 years by the most powerful country in the world sitting 90 miles off their coast is very likely to have the best civil liberties.” I would agree. But Castro has been jailing homosexuals qua homosexuals (surely not all of whom are on the CIA payroll) since at least the time Marietta boat flotilla, in the ‘80s. If Amnesty wants to complain about “gulags” and retain a little credibility, how about a mention of Cuba? And the “foreign agent” label is exactly the fiction under which Stalin populated the Soviet gulag; is there any credible proof of such connections or we just taking Castro’s word for it?
“Should I ignore the actual conditions of life in the US to avoid being called ‘elitist snob’ by a wingnut?” - First of all my comments were directed at Dr. O’s statements, not anything you said. And I really don’t see the relation between the objective facts of the American’s being “overweight and underinformed” and the strikingly contemptuous description of Americans as “Timid and weak, grasping for yet another trip to the mall, afraid of your own shadow,..”; Dr. O didnt’t say “fat and stupid,” after all. What he did say is not a reasonable criticism; its a spit in the face and inescapably an expression of contempt. You surely can’t miss the disdain. The thrust of my argument is that if the progressive left ever hopes to be empowered in this country, it will have to stop being condescending to those it claims to speak for and start showing some sympathy for the mass of people is “claims” to be speaking for. My contribution is to suggest that a little less snobbery and a little more understanding (which you are willing to show Castro) might be in order. You can dismiss democratic elections as “a popularity contest” if you want to, but then you are playing into what your opposition suspects is your real nature. One can discuss what is genuine without going out of the way to be condescending.
“Global warming is not essentially a leftist issue but a scientific one that should concern everyone. Anti-global warming, however, is an exclusively rightist stance. It does relate to Peak Oil in that overcoming our dependence on fossil fuels is a necessary condition for dealing with both problems as well as the underlying causes of terrorism.” - Granted that relationship, the right’s stance on global warming and the left’s argument about how to address it do not relate to the truth or falsity of the Peak Oil debate. Either we have passed peak oil production or we haven’t and that is true or false regardless of the contribution of human activity to global warming. If both problems are true, then, yes, they share a common solution. But neither establishes the truth of the other, which what was under discussion.
Posted by Mitch on Jun 11, 2005 at 11:59 PM P.S. to Luminous beauty,
“There is believable evidence that the Bush NSA intentionally failed to act on reliable reports of terrorist activity in the US prior to 9/11.” - It is easy in hindsight to decide that such-and-such is a “reliable report”; the Clinton administration also intentionally failed to act (as opposed to accidentally failed to act?) on “reliable reports” that, were they not ignored, would have prevented 9/11, at least in part because it is hard to separate signal from noise when you are receiving thousands of reports a day. I’m not aware of anything that suggests the failure to prevent 9/11 in the 8 months Bush was in office prior to the event was because the administration wanted it to happen. Can you point me to something that does? After all, one person’s connecting of dots is another’s prejudiced reading into unrelated events; connecting of dot’s that weren’t really there was some of the motive force for impeaching Clinton.
“However, finding disjunctions of an analogy outside of the intended comparison is intellectually dishonest, at a minimum.” - I do not understand what you are referring to here. A mental lapse on my part, no doubt.
Posted by Mitch on Jun 12, 2005 at 6:49 AM Mitch;
Where did you get the idea that AI is ignoring Cuba?
From Amnesty International 2005 report:“By the end of 2004 there were at least 70 prisoners of conscience, most of them held since the 2003 crackdown on the dissident movement. However, 18 prisoners of conscience were released and many were moved to prisons nearer their homes.
Dissidents and their relatives continued to be threatened and harassed. The US embargo and related measures continued to have a negative effect on the enjoyment of the full range of human rights in Cuba.”The dissidents were recieving USAID money, which according to US law, would define them as ‘foriegn agents’. No need to take Castro’s word.
The article we are presumably discussing is about the perception in the world of the US and US policy. In that context, Dr. Oprisko’s characterizations are pertinent. That you find them insulting, not so much. That Republicans will ascribe nefarious motives to Democrats, not at all.
There is considerable difference between Clinton failing to take out bin Laden because of uncertainty, when he was actively trying to do so, and Richard Clarke’s report that the Bush administration intentionally failed to continue that effort in spite of unambiguous intelligence for the need for it. Intentional indifference that led to 9/11. That the Bush administration was seeking a causus belli against Iraq is public record. That they were manipulating intelligence to that end is also public record. It doesn’t matter whether the administration can be shown to have wanted 9/11 to happen. Their actions insured that something like 9/11 would occur. That they used it, falsely, as a pretext for war against Iraq is public record. Their incompetence is as damning as their cupidity.
If unwarranted suspicions could lead to Clinton’s impeachment on a trivial matter, how can arguably true suspicions of Bush on the matter of lying to Congress, the public and the world about the cause of war, not? If the dots don’t connect it is the onus of a legitimate judicial enquiry to decide, not a matter of opinion, don’t you think?
You really don’t understand the legitimate use of analogy, do you? I apologize for trying to make you think. In simple language:
given the analogy; “my shirt is blue like the sky.”
To say that is a false analogy because the sky has no buttons is intellectually dishonest. Do you understand, now?
Can you make the connection to the ‘gulag’ analogy, or must I lead you by the hand like a blind man?
Posted by luminous beauty on Jun 12, 2005 at 4:13 PM LB,
Please get over yourself and stop being insulting under the impression that it is clever and in some way persuasive. I understand the legitmate use of analogy; apparently, neither you nor Dr. O do, annd in fact the tendency make analogies that are so far of the mark as to make language meaningless is a hallmark of left-wing political analysis. I notice that, in the material you quoted, AI did not use the gulag analogy in reference to Cuba, but did in reference to Gitmo, which Sullivan virtually admitted was done just for the shock value, rather than because it was a pertinent analogy. Dr. O was just,as you seem increasingly determined to be, ranting: my criticism of his use of gulag, as you apparently are too convinced of your own righteousness to see, was precisely that it it was not pertinent, if “gulag” is to mean anything more than “prison.”
Stop assuming everyone who disagrees with you is simple-minded and you may in fact some day be luminous. As it is, you are just aggravating. I suspect you and I don’t disagree on as much as you are reflexively inclined to assume, to which perhaps your lack of response to my penultimate posting attests.
Posted by Mitch on Jun 12, 2005 at 5:56 PM Mitch:
If you were to actually read the AI report, you’d realize that there is no ‘gulag’ reference in the report, whatsoever. Sullivan’s does affirm his use of the reference in a press interview was both intentionally provocative and apt. He hasn’t backed down a whit. He wasn’t just refering to Gitmo, but also Abu Graib and a chain of secret prisons and interrogation centers throughout Central Asia, 50,000 plus prisoners without minimal due process protections, and reports of mistreatment, torture and ‘extraordinary rendition’, hence the analogy (as in prison complex with lack of due process, mistreatment and torture). Hence your tortured analogy to Cuba is not apt. But don’t believe me, read the report:
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng
Dr O. was ranting about what he percieves as a genuine problem with our national character. You are ranting about being insulted. Who has to get over himself?
When you present fewer simple-minded arguments (more fact and logic, less opinion and partisan interpretation) I’ll treat you accordingly. Sorry if you find that aggravating.
No, I’m not sorry. Get over yourself.
Perhaps your ‘penultimate posting’ (whatever that was) was so unremarkable it didn’t warrant a response.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jun 12, 2005 at 9:18 PM LO,
If I get the chance, I will indeed read the AI report. I’m not sure what AI thought it accomplished by being deliberately provocative, and I guess we won’t know for several years if I am right when I suspect it will turn out to be counterproductive to any effort to elevate progressive values into public policy. Maybe we’ll see.
I’m not ranting about being insulted. I am pointing out how condescending Dr. O’s post was to the mass of people the Democrats and progressive left claim to champion, the specifics of which point you never did respond to. But don’t bother now. You made a couple of good points among the snide that will lead me to do a little more research and perhaps learn some things. That will have to suffice.
Posted by Mitch on Jun 13, 2005 at 12:05 AM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Chalmers Johnson
- Wake Up!
Washington's alarming foreign policy - Where will America stand in the world?
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
