Thank you...

Tony

First of all, let's address the personal insults you're incapable of containing: I'm a middle-class housewife, not a sociology student. I rate Viggo Mortensen as an actor and applaud his decision to speak out, but I'm not a member of any fanclub. People like him do make a difference. Mock Jane Fonda by all means - but remember, one of the reasons Nixon pulled out of Vietnam was the rising tide of anti-war public sentiment, which she played her part in. (By the way, Tony, if you told me 90% of the world's finances were controlled by Jews, I would not feel the need to insult you before addressing the arguments. When I was 18 years old, I would have; it's possible to evolve)

Also, I'm entering the debate here because I'm not sure we should go to war with Iraq at this point, not because I'm a VM-fanatic. But your arguments prompted me to search for a transcript of the Charlie Rose show in question, and referring to it, I'd like to say the following.

1. As for the war being a "distraction" from Afghanistan, VM's quote was: "What the United States has been doing for the past year is bombing innocent civilians without having come anywhere close to catching Osama bin Laden or any presumed enemy, and, as a distraction, we're now - apparently, it's a given - we're hell bent on increasing the bombing that's been going on for the past eleven years in Iraq." It's pretty clear to me that he's saying it's a distraction from the fact we failed to find bin Laden, not a distraction from civilian casualties, as you say.

2.You asked: "Do you really believe that the U.S. military delights in killing civilians, or does little to avoid it when engaging in military operations?" No, I don't believe either of those things. I understand the need for a well-equipped military, and I have every respect for the brave men and women in our armed forces. My argument is with the government, not the army, navy and airforce. But the fact remains, the preferred method of starting a war in this day and age is aerial bombardment, which always results in heavy civilian casualties, smart-bombs or no.

3. Personally, no, I don't believe Bush is such an idiot as to launch a war because of family loyalty, to finish something his dad started. VM said "some kind of vendetta maybe that our President's father has... Who knows what the reasons are?" The operative word there being 'MAYBE'. I see that as him merely voicing what some people are hypothesising. I don't think it counts as a definitive statement of what VM thinks this war is about, period.

4. You wrote: "Even worse was Viggo's equivocation of the United States with Saurumon's dark forces". I take it you meant to say 'equation' here. That said, again, you're taking VM's words out of context. The conversation ran like this:

CR: "The idea... you object to the comparison of this film with respect to American involvement with Iraq or. . .

VM: United States government

CR: . . .with the Afghanistan war or the war against terrorism - in comparison with the film - because of your opposition to American policy.

VM: And the idea is - in that comparison - is that the United States is like the good guys in our movie against the bad guys in our movie and I think the opposite is true, unfortunately."

Look, VM didn't come out against the war the minute the film was released. In response to Charlie Rose's first question, "You're obviously making a political statement with your T-shirt." VM said: "I wouldn't normally, but it's sort of a reaction." He's only been forced to draw that comparison because others have repeatedly been characterising The Two Towers as a pro-war movie. If people want to do that, fine; but you can't lambast VM for interpreting the film differently. (Unless you prefer to live in a totalitarian state.)

5. Who's suggesting the US is trying to take over the world, for gawd's sake? Yes, you could bomb the shit out of the entire planet if you wanted to. And if you did, you'd be welcome to it. Who wants to live in a radiated desert. That's a puerile argument.

To my mind, America's proudest achievement is the democratic system. A system that is founded on the need for coherent debate. Tony, your attempts to steamroller dissenting voices with verbal insults is wholly un-American. Viggo Mortensen is being a true American, as he said on Charlie Rose: "I'm supportive of the United States. I'm an American. And I have nothing against patriotism."

Well, I hope my argument was developed enough for you, Tony. I look forward to your response.

One final thing to dwell upon:

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

(Joseph Goebbels' diary, 1/29/42 - Minister of Propaganda for the Nazy Party)

Yes, I know it's 'Nazi'.

Lou -

I have one bone to pick - VM did equate the US with Sauron's forces; no, he didn't whip out a blackboard and write it for all to see, but the statement,

"VM: And the idea is - in that comparison - is that the United States is like the good guys in our movie against the bad guys in our movie and I think the opposite is true, unfortunately."

explicitly draws that parallel. I mean, if you're the opposite of the good guy, and the good guy is Aragorn/Gandalf/Frodo et. al, then what are you?

Look, he's free to babble coherently or not, but we're also free to call him on it. And it doesn't make anyone a Nazi to do so.

BAW

I'm not calling anyone a Nazi, and I apologize if that was the implication - I see now how it could have been read that way. I thought it was an interesting quote about how propaganda works, coming from someone with a certain amount of expertise in that area. And I would have quoted it had Fidel Castro said it, or any other left-winger.

Erm, bit confused about your other point. I never denied VM made the comparison between America's potential role in a conflict with Iraq and that of Sauron in The Two Towers. I think you may have skipped a sentence or something. I was only giving his opinion some context by explaining why he felt prompted to make such a remark.

If people want to do that, fine; but you can't lambast VM for interpreting the film differently. (Unless you prefer to live in a totalitarian state.)

Seems to me that, this being a non-totalitarian state and all, we can lambaste VM as much as we damned well feel like.

Look, it's quite bad enough when a Bono or an Alec Baldwin exploits his fame to garner unearned attention for his puling political screeds. But at least the fame he's exploiting is legitimately his own. The reason Mortensen was on the Charlie Rose show in the first place was not that the viewing public had suddenly developed a burning interest in this B-list actor for his own sake; it was because he was one of the many people who had a hand in the making of an eagerly awaited movie. If any one person was entitled to hijack that publicity appearance as a political soapbox, it would have been Peter Jackson.

As for the notion that Mortensen was somehow driven to shoot his mouth off by other people's insistence on using the TT film as a political football-- well, he does make his own T-shirts (and it shows); he could simply have made one saying "It's Only a Movie" and that would have been fine. Going the extra league and likening the US to Tolkien's forces of darkness was purely his own idea. If he and his supporters expect to be admired-- which they do-- for their all-American forthrightness in challenging the anti-terrorism consensus, they make themselves look perfect fools by whimpering when the consensus answers back.

Lou,
You've pointed out a grave error in my response. I used the word "equivocation" when I clearly should have written "equation." I am terribly embarrassed.

Now, for the substance of your arguments:

1. You quote Mortensen's assertion: ""What the United States has been doing for the past year is bombing innocent civilians without having come anywhere close to catching Osama bin Laden or any presumed enemy, and, as a distraction, we're now . . . increasing the bombing that's been going on for the past eleven years in Iraq." You conclude that:

"It's pretty clear to me that he's saying it's a distraction from the fact we failed to find bin Laden, not a distraction from civilian casualties, as you say."

Well, no, it's not pretty clear. I think he would agree, if I were to suggest to him at a cocktail party, that part of the diversion is to keep people from understanding how many civilians the government (an indictment which presumably, according to your argument a bit later, excludes the military) has killed. That's why he mentioned it at the beginning of the sentence, and again in the course of his diatribe.

2. You state that you agree with me on the fact that the U.S. military neither delights in nor indiscriminately murders innocent civilians. May I assume you will be snapping off an email to Viggo's site, perhaps attaching a catchy quote from Stalin on the value of misinformation in the hands of useful idiots?

The reason I took issue with Mortensen on this point, recall, was his clear equation (there, got it right) of U.S. forces with Saurumon's forces. The latter, if you haven't seen the movie, are, to quote Mortensen's characterization of our government, "incredibly violent and aggressive and rapacious." This equation begs the question I asked most recently: "Do you really believe that the U.S. military delights in killing civilians, or does little to avoid it when engaging in military operations?" In saying no, you put yourself in disagreement with Mortensen. Does this mean you'll be sending yourself a Goebbels quote too?

3. This was nice. Mortensen didn't actually say with certainty that Bush is waging a vendetta on behalf of his father, he said maybe. Well, I stand corrected. Maybe Viggo is an idiot. Understand how this works. Would you be less offended if someone questioned your mothering by adding a "maybe" to the sentence? "Maybe Lou's child is sick because she hasn't fed him well enough, I don't know." If someone said that in your presence you'd punch him in the nose, and rightly so.

4. Let's get the rest of what Mortensen said out here:

"You know, the people who are terrified at Helms Deep, who are outnumbered in this incredible violence and desire to control—to destroy—the people of Rohan and the rest of the free peoples of Middle-earth, and to control their wills, to control their infrastructure—or destroy it—that's what we're doing in these countries."

It is clear, beyond a doubt, that Mortensen did in fact equate U.S. forces with Saurumon's forces. This leads to your claim in #5, that nobody has suggested that the U.S. wants to take over the world. Mortensen has called the government violent, aggressive, and rapacious, and likened its military to Saurumon's evil horde. The implication is there, don't you think?

My point, childish though it may have seemed to someone not following it closely, is that people who have this view of the U.S. clearly don't understand the damage a truly aggressive and rapacious U.S. could accomplish, if it chose to do so. In reality, it is the "rapacious" charge, and your boy Viggo, who prove puerile.

Now, for my favorite part of your response:

"Tony, your attempts to steamroller dissenting voices with verbal insults is wholly un-American."

Yes, my picking on you and Viggo on my personal website, with its 400 readers a day, in a format that allows for response from those who disagree, is steamrolling dissent. Best call the ACLU.

Tony

I'd say you used the word 'equivocation' by accident, I wanted to make sure I was understanding you correctly. Sarcasm doesn't help your argument any.

1. If it's not pretty clear I doubt your understanding of the rules of grammar. Do we really have to get into how clauses work in a sentence?

2. What misinformation are you talking about?

3. Yes, I've seen the movie. Yes, I agree the American government is "incredibly violent, aggressive and rapacious", but I'm not using that description (and neither did VM) to characterize the men and women in the military. There's a difference. (Also, just because I defend his words does not mean I have to agree with everything VM says.)

4. I am not a mother. If I was and somebody suggested I was underfeeding my kid(s), I'd be angry, sure, but I wouldn't punch them; I'd laugh. Then I'd argue my case while trying to remain cool, calm and collected.

Re: the Helm's Deep quote. Again, I'd draw a distinction between the government and the military forces. I'd be surprised if many in the military have an overriding "desire to. . . control their [people overseas] wills, to control their infrastructure - or destroy it". Rather, it's the nature of governments, not just the American government I might add, to exert their power on weaker nations. For many economic and political reasons.

Just because Mortensen chracterises the US government as violent, aggressive and rapacious does not imply that the US's aim is to take over the world. As mentioned above, there are many economic and political reasons (which we can get into, if you really want to) why the US behaves in this way, and taking over the world is too simplistic and far-fetched.

To say I haven't followed your argument closely is a little off, considering I've tried to address every single point you made.

As for "steamrollering dissenting voices" I was referring to the WAY you argue your points - with insults, snide comments and sarcasm - not the fact that this forum exists at all, for which I applaud your time and effort.

Lou,
Relax -- I really was embarrassed by my wrong choice of word.

As for the sarcasm, I can't help it. It makes the fans happy, and in the end, I'm all about my readers [pause for cheesy grin to audience]. Don't take it personally -- I respect the fact that you keep coming back for more.

Now, you want to differentiate between the U.S. government and its military, but there is no distinction that matters; the latter is an agent of the former. Recall that Mortensen claims:

"You know, the people who are terrified at Helms Deep, who are outnumbered in this incredible violence and desire to control—to destroy—the people of Rohan and the rest of the free peoples of Middle-earth, and to control their wills, to control their infrastructure—or destroy it—that's what we're doing in these countries."

Are we supposed to believe that Colin Powell and Condi Rice are sneaking over all by themselves to control wills and infrastructure? Is it instead the case that our "violent and aggressive and rapacious" government has at its disposal an all-volunteer military full of people that detest its bidding? No -- if there is widescale slaughter and enslavement of innocents in the works, then the military is fully involved. But of course, there is not, and hence it is not.

More to the point, since you and your pals at the Viggo Mortensen fan site are fond of Nazi metaphors, can you really not see a difference between U.S. foreign policy and Nazi militarism? If not, will you please name for me the countries we have seized recently? Let's see, there's Afghanistan, which was the hiding place for people who murdered several thousand of our fellow citizens. There's Kuwait, no, we took that from Iraqi and gave it back. There's Iraq itself -- nope, we left Hussein in power, lest we appear too power-hungry (I know, this was all part of the Master Plan, right?). There's South Korea -- no, our troops are there to protect them from North Korea. Japan -- no, returned that one too. Haiti -- afraid not. The Phillipines -- oops, we're so sensitive to their feelings that we're even removing our naval base.

It seems that for some reason, despite being the world's only superpower, and despite its incredibly rapacious, Sauron-like tendencies, our government feels the need to keep its World Domination Plan a big secret, discernible only to Worker's World Party members and fellow travelers on the Viggo Mortensen fan site.

The reality is that the U.S. has its fingers in lots of pies. Should it? Probably not. Is this equivalent to rapaciousness, control of wills and destruction of infrastructure, etc.? of course not. Doves have an argument to make, though I think they are wrong on many points. To desperately attempt to equate their opponents with an evil empire, or to assume that all motivations on the right boil down to saving a buck on a barrel of oil, is to marginalize themselves to the point of irrelevance.

So in a way, I'm doing Viggo a favor. Will you tell him I'm still looking forward to the third movie?

Tony

It's going to take me a while to make sense of your latest post and I have a few errands to run now. But I will be back to annoy you. Watch this space

In the meantime, a couple of things:

1. Yes, I've posted on a Viggo Mortensen messageboard, a few days ago, for the first time. I was attracted to it by that episode of the Charlie Rose show (which I watched because I am a huge fan of the films), more for political reasons than any VM-fetish. I agreed with a lot of what he said, so I was interested in whether his comments had prompted any political discussion among his fans. And you will note I've posted only in the Political Forum. If you can find any quotes of mine where I'm drooling over VM, rather than discussing the current political climate, go ahead. Also, I don't know any of the other people who contribute to it, so to call them my 'pals' is a bit previous.

2. Could you elaborate on the 'misinformation' you mentioned earlier?

Lou is really Michael Moore.

Okay, my cover's blown

Tony, I am a Canadian and as a smaller more peace loving country you Americans piss me off more often than not. I have read your comments and Lou's. I see both sides of the argument ( and had fun doing it with your barbs et all). What I don't like is how the US throws its weight around all the time. Fuck off stay out of our business, if we need help we'll ask and another thing Free Trade? Only if it works in America's favour, America blow me, can we help it if we favour peace over military might, environment over infrastructure melt down? OOOPPPS way off topic, don't care though, my .02 cents

Kristin, American military might guarantees that Canadians with thoughts as worthless as your own are free to express them. If that disturbs you, please ask your (permanently) Liberal government to improve the woeful state of your own military. Oh, by the way, I too am a Canadian, now proudly resident in the United States, and happily free of the bilge, such as your own weighty insights, that passes for political commentary in the benighted country of my birth.

Pardon me, Kristin, but your .02 cents didn't make much sense, per se. You started off by addressing Tony directly, and then your comments degenerated into another anti-American ramble. Please get your own weblog and vent your sentiments there.

"Peace and freedom, do you say? The North would have known them little but for us. Fear would have destroyed them.... And yet less thanks have we than you. Travellers scowl at us, and countrymen give us scornful names. 'Strider' I am to one fat man who lives within a day's march of foes that would freeze his heart, or lay his little town in ruin, if he were not guarded ceaselessly. Yet we would not have it otherwise. If simple folk are free from care and fear, simple they will be, and we must be secret to keep them so."

It's a pity these lines didn't make it into the movies. But I dare say Viggo would have taken them as little to heart as he did any of the other wonderful lines he did get.

Canadian .02 is only worth about .014 in the US (1.00 US = 0.70 Canadian), so while Canadians are entitled to an opinion, it is not worth as much as an American (did I just say that?)

All this for a movie star? Fer cryin out loud!

To quote William Shatner in his legendary SNL performance while at a ST Convention in front of a legion of Trekkies - "It's Just a TV show damnit, it's just a TV Show!!!!"

Now granted it's a movie, and to get technical we're not even discusssing the movie directly but discussing an interview on Charlie Rose, but for goodness sake if Tony want's to call Viggo an idiot it aint that big a deal. Save a war debate for an actuall War Post, not calling Viggo a dumbass.

Personally I think anyone who tries to link LotR to the "war on terrorism" and tries to fit any of the current events into the neat little black and white good vs. evil scenarios that Tolkien drew up is just silly. Is Viggo an idiot? I don't know but I'd have to say that it was not a very intelligent comparrison. But so is anyone who tries to put either Bush or Saddam or Osama into the black and white charecters of Sauron, Saruman, Strider and Gandalf. And really, despite my political tendencies, if someone put a gun to my head I'd have to say that Osama/Saddam has way more in common with Sauron/Saruman than Bush. Not to say I like our President, but I had to compare him to a current movie character I'd say he has more in common with Jar Jar Binks, annoying and stupid. But really, let's save that for another post, shall we?

Its just a movie. Tony's just trying to get more hits on his site by antagonzing those in love with Viggo. Which makes think - Tony: Is it working? Cause I might try it too if it is. None of you guys have shown up at BMA yet to antagonize me yet and I have to say I'm deeply dissappointed.

Really, when are you going to go back to dicussing something more important, as I have finally responded to The Witness debate I had to pull out of a couple of weeks ago. Christ, I nearly wrote a book and got the final word, but cannot be contented because no one tried to take to take me down, not even DEOXY!!!!

PS Kristin - don't let that deter you from giving you .014, my inner arrogant bastard America first side of me is infinitely funnier that the kind and gentle tree hugging liberal side that agrees with some (as in not all) of at least the sentiment in your post.

Admitedly off topic, but, Canadians are stuck with our Liberal government until we can find someone that can find his feet right in front of him. The other government options we have are worse than the Liberals. What I am rambling about so un-eloquently after a bad day is that America flexes its muscles tirelessly (sp). As a "super power" America has a responsibilty to use that power with a great degree of caution and tact. We in Canada don't see a great deal of that. War issue aside, or perhaps not, today in the paper was a US anti-gang coalition that sent out calls for art work by students from across the Americas looking for art work that bespoke an anti-gang message. When one of our local schools responded the reply was, sorry we don't want your students work, you don't support our president ( not our country) in the war against Iraq so keep your art work to yourselves, we recind our offer to Canada. It's just another slap that we see all to fequently. Our government will support your war, but in true Liberal government fashion they have now said we need to see more proof, as several other countries have (do we always folllow, yes I think our government sucks but have you seen what else we have?). As soon as that was said we are the enemy again. Now off war completley has anyone here followed the softwood lumber free trade mess, or the potato mess from our Eatern provinces? If so I would love to hear some American comments about these issues, which to me are wholly Free Trade isues of America deciding it wasn't in there interest, yet they speak out of the other side of their mouths where advertising is concerned among others. The Free Trade agreement works just fine then. Canada is sooo dependent on America, I wish we weren't, then we might have some clout. Unfortunatley we don't and I for one don't ( and many others) like to feel like a poor cousin when Canada has been voted one of the best places in the world to live in, far over the US (for whatever that is worth) for several years in a row. I truly don't think that most Americans understand the vast differnces between our countries, but see us rather like a small pet. I don't believe the US is doing due diligence as the most powerful state on earth to their responsibilty to the rest of the world. If they want to or not it comes part and parcel with power.

I think Kirstin and the other nameless Canadian ought to let off the Labatts before they try to post their anti-American bilge. And Kristin, since you are so into "blowing" stuff, why dont you move to Windsor, plenty of opportunities to blow Americans, and to make a lot of money in the process, too.
All kidding aside, Canada is treated like a retarded cousin, is because in its quest to be a socialist, liberal country, your leaders have managed to turn a country, well endowed with human and natural resources into a inefficiently run country, that is not far removed from a third-world country. If y'all had any sense, you'd be ranting at the politicians in Ottowa who have messed up Canada, instead of expressing your frustrations by hating Americans - who, mind you , are not responsible for the sad state Canada is in.

Hey Mr/Mrs Anonymous

As well as being spineless, you really are a nasty bastard, aren't you?

This seems like an appropriate spot to recite Beowulf's reaction to the king's lamentations upon the slaughter of his friend by Grendel's mother:

"Wise sir, do not grieve. It is always better
to avenge dear ones than to indulge in mourning.
For every one of us, living in this world
means waiting for our end. Let whoever can
win glory before death. When a warrior is gone,
that will be his best and only bulwark."

Now clearly modern, pop culture (as exemplified in a Holllywood actor like Mortensen) values self-indulgence, in mourning and other things, above all, but I think that President Bush is pursuing a different path. When he is done, our enemies will be dead and the world will be a better place.

Oh, Tony, Toni, Tone

I love the idea that your embarrassment was genuine; that would mean you're the type of guy who actually says things like "a 'grave' error" and "I am 'terribly' embarrassed". You are literally stuck in Victorian times. How funny.

And it's not your mean-spirited sarcasm that keeps me 'coming back for more', it's the weakness of your argument, which I find irresistible: it's like shooting fish in a barrel. (Incidentally - sarcasm/wit: two different things.) However, I'm not averse to spicing it up a bit, to keep the readers happy.

Okay, now onto the rest of your muddled missive. Thanks for proving my point on the difference between the government and the military. As you say, 'the latter is an agent of the former'. Yep, they are not the same entity. The military takes orders from the President. The military does not decide to take itself off to Iraq (or wherever) to kill people. And, of course, we'll never see George Bush in the front line. You said:

"Is it instead the case that our. . .government has at its disposal an all-volunteer military full of people that detest its bidding?"

Erm, no. People join the military for numerous reasons, some noble and some not (like any other area of work, some people just fall into it, some couldn't think of anything else to do, etc). But let's get back to the one big noble reason: a desire to serve the country (incidentally, 'country' to me means the people in that country, not the 'State' itself, ie not the few hundred elected officials.) But whatever other reasons play a part in military recruitment, the fact that you get paid is pretty fundamental, I would think. Yes, I'm sure there are is a minority of naive kids and psychopaths who join because they can't wait to blow shit up and shoot guns, but I think the vast majority are professional soldiers who take their responsibilities seriously.

And as in any other job, sometimes you find yourself having to do things you don't necessarily agree with to get on. In the military, the job is to follow orders, not to question them, whatever your personal feelings may be. It just wouldn't work otherwise. There are plenty of examples throughout history of ex-soldiers regretting what they have been forced to play a part in. And it would be interesting to find out how many in the military are for or against this war. Interesting, but impossible to ascertain (you can't really poll the army at a time like this). But the fact that former Desert Storm General, Norman Schwarzkopf, is against the war surely supports what I'm trying to say here. 'The military' is made up of people; people who I have respect for, even if I didn't believe a war was justified. As Viggo Mortensen wrote on another of his T-shirts: 'Respect Our Troops: Bring Them Home'.

The next bit you wrote was:

'If there is widescale slaughter and enslavement of innocents in the works, then the military is fully involved. But of course, there is not, and hence it is not.'

This is where you began to lose me. Your point is. . .?

Moving on, you say:

'Can you really not see a difference between U.S. foreign policy and Nazi militarism?'

Okay, now I don't know what the hell you're talking about, but since you ask, YES, there is a huge difference between modern military tactics and the Nazis.

Thing is, I can't see where I've ever drawn a comparison between the American military and the Nazi military. Oh, wait, you can't still be banging on about that Goebbels quote, can you? I've already explained my reason for using it - ie. as an example of how PROPAGANDA works, nothing to do with the military question we're debating now. Propaganda, again, is the province of the State, not the military. Although, granted, you do still seem to have a problem distinguishing between the two.

Next, you say:

'It seems that for some reason, despite being the world's only superpower, and despite its incredibly rapacious, Sauron-like tendencies, our government feels the need to keep its World Domination Plan a big secret'

Knock, knock. Anybody home? In my earlier post I said 'Who's suggesting the US is trying to take over the world, for gawd's sake?'. ie. I don't for a minute believe the US is trying to take over the world. Never suggested it. Ever. Anywhere. Maybe you don't understand what rapacious means? The dictionary definition is: '1. Greedy and grasping, especially for money, and sometimes willing to use unscrupulous means to obtain what is desired. 2. Engaging in violent pillaging and likely to harm or destroy things'. Nope, nothing about world domination there.

We are also in agreement on your next point:

'The reality is that the U.S. has its fingers in lots of pies. Should it? Probably not.'

Yikes! Watch it, T, you're sounding a bit Pinko here. Viggo would be proud of you, though.

Oh, dear. Then you go and lose it again:

'Is this equivalent to rapaciousness, control of wills and destruction of infrastructure, etc.? of course not.'

Of course it is. Iraq's infrastructure was completely destroyed by Desert Storm, and the economic sanctions that have been in place ever since is a direct attempt to control the will of the people. Is Saddam starving? Don't be stupid, of course he isn't. It's the people who are suffering. And does Saddam care? Of course he doesn't. Sanctions aren't going to bring him to heel, as the US wants. So what's the point of enforcing them, then? They are not achieving anything except stirring up resentment against the US. (Much like the ineffectiveness of the sanctions against Cuba, another example of the US trying to control the will of a people. But let's not get into THAT).

Finally (thank the lord!), you said:
'Doves have an argument to make, though I think they are wrong on many points. To desperately attempt to equate their opponents with an evil empire, or to assume that all motivations on the right boil down to saving a buck on a barrel of oil, is to marginalize themselves to the point of irrelevance.'

1. Tony, you've yet to prove me wrong on ANY point I've made.
2. There's no desperation in my arguments - I'm having a blast here!
3. I've already addressed the 'evil empire' bit - I'm no conspiracy theorist.
4. I don't believe this war is all about oil; oil is just a potential fringe benefit.

Hey, Tony - it must be really frustrating for you, not being able to pigeon-hole me as a crazy left-wing commie, or a celebrity-obsessed airhead. I certainly don't consider you a frightened loser with a limited capacity for critical thought (sarcastic enough for you?)

Yours, in anticipation. . .

I think that President Bush is pursuing a different path. When he is done, our enemies will be dead and the world will be a better place.

Yeah, right.... Just like that fantastic job Bush did with Bin Laden.

I agree with Palmer.

Say...waitaminnit...he's being sarcastic, isn't he?

D'OH!

You bloody liberals and your secret knowledge of the whereabouts and condition of bin Laden!

I hope this doesn't come out wrong.

Is there a use for the comment system other than just arguing endlessly with trolls? I must be missing something, but it seems like it brings out the worse in everyone and nothing is ever resolved.

Hey, Samuel

If you can't stand the heat. . .

Iraq's infrastructure was completely destroyed by Desert Storm, and the economic sanctions that have been in place ever since is a direct attempt to control the will of the people. Is Saddam starving? Don't be stupid, of course he isn't. It's the people who are suffering. And does Saddam care? Of course he doesn't. Sanctions aren't going to bring him to heel, as the US wants. So what's the point of enforcing them, then? They are not achieving anything except stirring up resentment against the US.

Here's where I get a little lost. As I see it you have three options to address Saddam;
a)keep the sactions
b)forceable removal, i.e. war
c)you say tom(aye)to I say tom(ah)to, lets call the whole thing off, sanctions and all.

You know I don't like the idea that sactions are killing innocent people in Iraq, and that we force these sanctions, but criticism without a better solution or a better idea to take it's place isn't such a hot idea. And while lifting the sanctions might be a plus for short term humanitarian reasons, I have to admit I have serious reservations about it.

Lifting those sanctions is one of the things that keeps Saddam in check. It makes it more difficult to aquire many goods, not just WMD. I may not like Bush but I sure as hell don't trust Saddam. The suggestion that Saddam might decide to take revenge on us by using terrorists as a surrogate to strike back is quite realistic.

Plenty of libs like to point out that there is no 9.11 connection between Al Qaeda and therefore it is no justification for war. That's probably true as using 9.11 as justification to obliterating Iraq, but to say that and advocate the lifting of sanctions? So what if it hasn't happened yet, that doesn't mean it won't if we lifted the sanctions and the flow of goods and people resume to pre Gulf War levels. You think its that far fetched to consider a terrorist going to Saddam asking for bio or chemical weapons and him granting their wish?

Saddam has a huge cash flow with the oil for food, but his people starve. Is that our fault? Again, I hate to see human suffering, and if there was another way I'd be all for it. But what is that way? Just because Saddam keeps stealing from his own people we should enable him by lifting the sanctions? I'm not being very eloquent on this subject, and I really understand where you're coming from, but still... What does that accomplish? It might in the short term improve the economic situation of his people, but in the long run have far reaching, grave and dire consequences where even more blood is shed. An agreement was made in his surrender after invading Kuwait, and that agreement has not been kept.

I hate using the overused Hitler gauge, but it isn't so preposterious to say Saddam' got Hitler-esque aspirations, no?

I want to say more but it's not coming out right....

Lou,

Erm, when you change wording or substitute other terms as equivalent, you don't help your credibility.

Ex:'Can you really not see a difference between U.S. foreign policy and Nazi militarism?'
Okay, now I don't know what the hell you're talking about, but since you ask, YES, there is a huge difference between modern military tactics and the Nazis.
Tony says US foreign policy which you deftly change to modern military practices from which we should either gather that:
1) you have limited exposure to US foreign policy, or
2) you want readers to equate US foreign policy with modern military tactics,
3) your linguistic skills ain't all there crakked up to be.

In reference to Saddam starving, when you say "Don't be stupid, of course he isn't. " with the subject You (Tony) being understood, is that sarcasm or wit?

You sound like one of those people I've been trapped at parties by who can't make sense of their own ideas and arguments or lay them out straight to read. Tony, don't get trapped into laying it out more plainly...

Hmmm,
Methinks there is a basic level of miscommunication going on here between Lou and Tony.
Tony thinks he is slamming Viggo and everyone who agrees with him.
Lou thinks Tony is slamming Lou...but claims several differences of opinion with Viggo (and then thinks she's tagged Tony for missing the target).
So here's my take: Viggo is still an idiot for what he said. To the extent that you apply an interpretation to his words, Lou, you make some sense...that doesn't make Viggo any less of an idiot, however, because he did not take the opportunity to apply any nuance to his idiocy.
Tony, in taking on Lou, you are engaging a moving target, or trying to vault a moving crossbar. It might be better to let her make her own point clearly and firmly before taking her on, rather than defending your comments on Viggo while she expands on Viggo's comments for him (without his permission or knowledge, I'm sure).

Steve, you're so funny!

If you want to split hairs, go ahead. Gee, I'm really sorry that I didn't use the exact same phrase. I thought it would be repetitive. If it makes you feel any better, you can substitute 'US foreign policy' for 'modern military practices'; it doesn't dilute my point any.

''With the subject You (Tony) being understood'' Is this even English? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way).

I'm not surprised you can't follow my argument, Steve. With such limited mental capacities, it must all be a bit confusing for you. As for your feeble attempt at an insult, how would you know what people at parties are like? You sound like the sort of person who never gets invited.

I'm sure if Tony wants to wimp out on me, he doesn't need any help from you, ya pathetic little worm.

...and when all else fails, turn to ad hominem attacks, eh, Lou? cool!

Nathan

Now where would I get the idea that Tony is trying to belittle me? Maybe it was this comment:

''Now, print this on your Sociology Department's copier, and be sure to explain it to those of your friends in the I Love Viggo Club who aren't so good with long words. And don't come back here until you've developed an argument.''

or this one:

''Do you really think the world works like Wag the Dog? If so, then you are hopelessly lost in an Oliver Stone movie.''

or this:

''May I assume you will be snapping off an email to Viggo's site, perhaps attaching a catchy quote from Stalin on the value of misinformation in the hands of useful idiots?''
(Still waiting to hear about the mysterious 'misinformation' mentioned here, btw)

or this:

"Do you really believe that the U.S. military delights in killing civilians, or does little to avoid it when engaging in military operations?" In saying no, you put yourself in disagreement with Mortensen. Does this mean you'll be sending yourself a Goebbels quote too?'' (Again, still waiting for an explanation of how this means I'm in disagreement with Mortensen)

or this:

''My point, childish though it may have seemed to someone not following it closely''

Yes, I agree with Viggo Mortensen's argument against the war, but I'm not a silly fangirl. Yes, this discussion started off as a defence of VM's Charlie Rose appearance, but it's since morphed into a more wide-ranging debate on the whole war thing.

I agree with you, it is a bit tedious that I spend half my time parrying attacks instead of discussing the real meat of the argument. If that is coming across like a moving target, blame Tony. Since the beginning, my posts have consisted of deconstructing his arguments and addressing every point he's made. He then replies by flying off on another tangent, which I then address. Read back and see for yourself.

Nathan

Touching of you to stand up for Steve, there. All else hasn't failed; I thought you guys liked to play rough? Tony suggested I get a bit more frisky to ''keep the readers happy''.

Hmm, you want accuracy, but accuse me of splitting hairs.

And I wasn't attempting an insult, that's clearly your bailiwick.

Hey, Tony.

I just looked back at my post and I really don't like that last paragraph I wrote. Yeah, I can be nasty, but it just doesn't sit well with me. I apologise.

Psst. Nathan. Tony. She's posting from mac.com. That explains it all. :)

Hey, Steve. You really are pathetic.

Fans.

I posted some remarks on this Viggo Mortensen character and his bizarre vision of the world over at the fan site where Lou hangs out, but the Head Fan couldn't handle the truth, so she deleted my posts and all the responses to them. Now the fans are asking what gives. This is democracy and the love of freedom in action, I suppose.

The fans are hung up on the point that Lou refuses to concede here, which is that actor-boy says the US is more evil than Osama bin Laden. That's a hard argument to make, of course, so you can see why they have to resort to censorship.

Lou, you hang out with some pretty low-class people.

Lou,

I'll agree with your self-assessment of nasty, but your attacks of me don't make you precise or logical. Kind of a "turn out the lights, turn up the heat" approach (like you warned Samuel).

When I started my first post, I wondered what you were made of. You sure weren't hard to provoke into showing your true colors.

I'll leave you the last word.

Richard

The people who administer the site are free to run it however they like. You were thrown off the board because you couldn't argue your point without being offensive, not because they ''couldn't handle the truth''.

And I don't ''hang out'' with them anymore than I hang out with you or any of the other people in THIS forum. In fact, word for word, I've probably contributed more here than I have there.

So answer the question, Lou: did Viggo say that the US is more evil that Osama, or not?

Actually, Steve, my apology was only intended for Tony, as we've built up a fun debate here, and unlike you, I respect his intelligence. So, in retrospect, even though I was trying to get into the more gung-ho spirit of things on this board, it just didn't feel right to insult Tony in that hardcore kind of way.

As for you, thanks for leaving me the last word. Prat.

No he didn't, Richard.

Also, Steve, it's funny how you're happy to dole out the insults and then cry foul and run away when you get a little back.

Another last word for you: coward

OK, let's break it down then - he did say that the US represents evil in the contemporary struggle between the US and the Islamic fundamentalists, or didn't he?

Hey Tony...you want me to...you know..?

Richard

No Viggo Mortensen did not say that the US is more evil than Osama bin Laden.

Yes VM did say, that if you MUST draw the comparison between The Two Towers and the current stand-off between the US and Iraq - which some stupid people have done - then the US would be the 'bad guys'. His actual words were: '' the idea is - in that comparison - is that the United States is like the good guys in our movie against the bad guys in our movie and I think the opposite is true, unfortunately." And I agree with him.

Consider the following:

1. Who launches the first attack in TTT? Sauron. Who wants to launch the first attack in the real world? The US.

2. In TTT, whose forces march into another's land and kill many civilian men, women and children, and make many more into refugees by destroying their homes? Sauron's. Who will be responsible for that in the real world? The US.

Need I go on?

The original, reverse, comparison, made by TIME magazine and others is a clumsy fit; and this comparison is hardly perfect. I don't think for a minute that VM would see his portrayal of Aragorn as comparable to the role of Saddam Hussein in the real world. Film/real life: two different things.

We are not the embattled nation here. There's been one terrorist attack on US soil. And so far, nothing whatsoever to even link Saddam (reprehensible though he is) with Osama.

Lou,

Since you took two last words instead of one...

In my original post, when I said, "you sound like..." you must have taken that to mean "you are..." so you made the leap to an insult by yourself. I realize its subtle, but it was lost on you and you took the bait.

I never ever thought you were apologizing to me here near the end. I was referring to your self assessment of being nasty WAY back in the thread. But then, you have not proven that context is your strength.

Originally I challenged your credibility because of your substitution of modern military tactics for foreign policy. Instead of clarifying, you tossed it off as my problem that wouldn't dilute your point. You said you didn't want to be repetitive - a sly way of saying you can change someone's words when you respond and then claim they are synonymous later when challenged. Its an old trick. In your subconscious perhaps you equate the two or you wouldn't have substituted one for the other. This subconscious substitution permeates your other posts - some variation on the US projecting its foreign policy via military strength with nice soldiers (who are personally not the problem). Foreign policy doesn't fit in that nice neat box of being synonymous with modern military tactics, but as you pointed out that's my problem, not yours - I should just remember to substitute as appropriate.

As to being a coward, puhleeze, what reason have you given to engage? Pick a single point Tony has made that you have "rebutted" and show us your context and logic skills. Otherwise, except for the humor you inject via your clouded reasoning, your "contributions" are of marginal value and your attacks smack of some other frustration.

Lou-
I hope when all is said and done, you at least offer to pay Tony for all the bandwidth you've wasted. Get yer own stinkin' blog.

Hey Steve!

You came back. Sweet. Oh, but I thought you were giving me the last word? Couldn't resist, eh.

As for the rest of your post. Ha Ha Ha. Ho Ho Ho. He He He.
That goes for Joe, too.

And Sekimori - go ahead, do your worst. If Tony's got the chops I credit him with, he doesn't need your help.

sad, little person

Richard - last time I looked (2 seconds ago) the only post deleted on the other site was mine; and that for saying I wanted to hear what you had to say. It's a shame you couldn't respect the rules of anothers forum because this particular discussion is interesting and I want to learn all sides.

I'm pissed you blew it over there, I'm pissed they didn't at least give you a chance to tone it down because now they it seems they'll follow their King as blindly as they accuse others of following their government.

That said; LOU, I want you to win this argument because even if you aren't a huge Viggo fan, I am. But right now Tony has the upper hand here and is making alot of sense. That disappointing because like everyone I'd love for there to be a better way too.

Logan ~

Logan - how does Tony have the upper hand? If you read this board from the beginning, I've negated every one of his points. I'm not trying to diss you, I'm genuinely interested in how you've drawn that conclusion.

Lou

I'm hopeless at articulating and putting my arguments into words. I wouldn't even know where to start in this thing with you and Tony, I'm reading for interest really. : )

I see you've "argued" each of his points but that's not quite the same as negating them...um, well I don't think it is. And as much as I'd rather not (due to girly obsession with Viggo), I've found myself agreeing with Tony's arguments more then I agree with yours. (hence my opinion he has the upper hand here)

I hope thats not discouraging - I'd like someone to convince me otherwise...lol!

Logan ~

Logan, which arguments are you agreeing with Tony on?

(snicker, snicker)

***The reality is that the U.S. has its fingers in lots of pies. Should it? Probably not. Is this equivalent to rapaciousness, control of wills and destruction of infrastructure, etc.? of course not. Doves have an argument to make, though I think they are wrong on many points. To desperately attempt to equate their opponents with an evil empire, or to assume that all motivations on the right boil down to saving a buck on a barrel of oil, is to marginalize themselves to the point of irrelevance.***

This is just one of many of Tony's statements I agree with and mainly the sentiment of it.

I really don't think the US government has evil intentions and I don't believe 'oil ' is their interest. If this were so (and this IS what Viggo is touting, among other things) that would make the US government little more than murdering theives - it's just not so.

Anyways, I told you I couldn't argue worth squat, but about the only thing I don't agree with Tony on is about Viggo being an idiot.

Logan ~

Gee Joe

I hope when all is said and done, you at least offer to pay Tony for all the bandwidth you've wasted. Get yer own interesting blog.

Logan ~

But Logan,

I never said - anywhere - that I think the US is an 'evil empire'. Please read my posts more carefully. I do think the US government, like many other governments, is rapacious, though. See my earlier post where I explain this in more detail.

As for the oil question, yes Mortensen wore a T-shirt on the Charlie Rose show that said: 'No more blood for oil'. But I have never said - anywhere - that I think this is what the war is primarily about. Please find a quote where I said this.

I don't have to agree with every single detail of Mortensen's argument; but on balance, what he has to say makes far more sense to me than anything I have read here from anyone else.

Wow, Tony

This must be one of the most popular discussions you've ever hosted.

Holy cow! I nearly s*** myself when I read the last post on the other board...I didn't scroll down far enough and thought the *man* himself had posted it...LMFAO@me!!!!!

And yes I agree with his sentiments too for the most part. But with him in the position of being able to relay his views to the public, he needs to be more careful and accurate in his presentation so his message isn't lost in ridicule. (as has happened here)

I think it all boils down to, no-one wants war but no-one has a better solution either.

Logan ~

Logan

Solution to what - the terrorist problem?

Sorry to repeat an earlier post here, but bombing Iraq would be helping the terrorists - how better to increase anti-American feeling and recruit the next generation than killing thousands of Iraqi civilians? More terrorists = more terrorist attacks, possibly on this country again.

The only way to tackle terrorism is trying to understand where they're coming from and address their disaffection with the West through education and peace talks. What finished off the IRA? Thirty years of British military occupation and throwing hundreds of them in prison? No. Sitting around a table and negotiating with Sinn Fein did.

As for the 'problem' of Saddam - there is, as yet, no evidence linking him to the World Trade Center attack, nor is there any evidence that he has any usable weapons of mass destruction. We await Colin Powell's presentation to the UN tomorrow. . .

Logan

Re: Mortensen's argument being ''lost in ridicule''. Well, I'm doing my best to ensure it doesn't get lost. The only way to do this is to address every item of ridicule. So far, it's working: those who've ridiculed it seem to have melted away, much like their arguments.

Palmer

Forgive me, I only just read your post re: sanctions. I have to confess you make some very good points, there. Yes, sanctions have prevented Saddam from building up his arsenal of weapons, I agree with you. I wonder if it's possible to let food and medical supplies through, but keep up the sanctions on anything with potential military applications? Perhaps this, together with continued pressure from the UN re: weapons inspections is the way forward. What do you think?

Logan, they deleted four of my messages on that fan board, so don't believe yours was the only one - they even deleted the one you responded to; go check. I'm not taking the blame for the sensitivity of Viggo fans to criticism of their mentally defective god; that's their problem, not mine.

Viggo and his acolyte here, Lou, seem to think that all the people of the Middle East, especially those in Iraq and Afgahnistan were doing fine until the US came along, when in fact Saddam as already killed a million of his people, and the Taliban were killing 100,000 a year. The casualties of the war in Afghanistan - which clearly wasn't fought for oil, BTW - are mild in comparison.

They also appear to think that the US military intervention solely consists of some sort of carpet-bombing, which is so remote from the truth it's laughable. Some of our forces in Afgahnistan fought with rifles from horseback, alongside Northern Alliance rebels. The bombing campaigns we do nowadays use laser targeted missiles, extremely accurate and aimed at non-civilian targets.

Lou says that the US is an evil empire compared to Iraq on the basis of her beliefs about invasions and what not. Lou, we've been attacked several times on US soil, twice on 9/11, and even the WTC was bombed before that in 1993. Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991, and he sent assassins after the former president Bush. His artillery daily attack US and UK jets legally patrolling the UN-created "no-fly zones", a clear act of war, and the CIA has evidence of over 100 contacts between Iraq and terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, which presently has camps in Northern Iraq.

You and actor-boy can hide your heads in the sand and pretend none of this is happening, but the adults have to deal with reality in order for you to have your movie tickets, so sit back and enjoy the ride.

Nobody is going to negotiate with Saddam, any more than anyone could successfully negotiate with Hitler, until there's a gun to his head.

If you'll just scroll up, Lou, you'll find that every single one of my arguments is still there-- and still unrebutted.

Lou,

"I wonder if it's possible to let food and medical supplies through, but keep up the sanctions on anything with potential military applications?"

It has ALWAYS been possible to "let" food and medical supplies through. Iraq has ALWAYS been permitted to sell limited amounts of oil in order to get food and medical supplies. If you are still ignorant of this, how much effort can you have been putting into thinking about any of the topics under discussion?

"I hope my argument was developed enough for you..."

"Maybe you don't understand what rapacious means?"

"I'm not surprised you can't follow my argument, Steve. With such limited mental capacities, it must all be a bit confusing for you."

"Since the beginning, my posts have consisted of deconstructing his arguments and addressing every point he's made."

"If you read this board from the beginning, I've negated every one of his points."

Hahahahahaha. I'd say someone has an earth-sized ego! I've yet to see anything "negated".

Here's a pointer: Oprah (and most TV) doesn't impart logical wisdom. She imparts a false wisdom based on emotion to viewers. She leads them to conclusions based on what they feel, not know...Much like Viggo.

Logan-
Sweety, since it appears you need to have things explained to you, that thingy that says "Posted by" is a link to my own stinkin' blog. And Lou, I hope you can appreciate the irony that was apparent in your having to spell out your ironclad argument's to Logan.

Lou,

One of the costs of having a job is that my attendance here is sporadic. I don't have the time for an eloquent essay, so I'll try to address a number of points, large and small:

1. I said that the fans love my sarcasm.

2. There is a difference between sarcasm, pointed questions, and humorous insults derived from the argument (e.g., "You are all lost in an Oliver Stone movie"), and name-calling (e.g., "pathetic little worm," "coward," etc.). You would do well to learn this distinction.

3. You've asked a couple of times for what I meant by Viggo's misinformation:
a) "I would not have continually bombed innocent civilians from 30,000 feet with no possibility of being accurate and maiming and killing and destroying the lives of many more people than died at the World Trade Center." In reality, satellite-guided munitions are now accurate to within 2.8 meters of their targets. U.S. fighters pulled out of a significant number of bombing runs in Afghanistan because they weren't sure of their targets. Credible estimates of the number of civilian casualties number between 1,000 and 1,500.
b) "We want to control those regions." Somehow this slipped through your devastating array of counters to my earlier points ("I've negated every one of his points"), but recall I noted that the U.S. has not, despite ample opportunity, exerted anything like the control that Mortensen posits.
c) "Was it necessary to kill so many civilians in Dresden . . . we've been doing it for eleven years in Iraq . . ." The truth is that we have allowed sales of oil in order to pay for food, medicine, etc. People are dying in Iraq because it is ruled by a socialist dictator who allows neither markets nor liberty to thrive within his borders, and who appropriates an enormous amount of national wealth toward building weaponry.
d) We are focused on Iraq in order to distract from our "failure" in Afghanistan, in order to get cheaper oil, and in order to fulfill a Bush family vendetta. First, lots of Taliban and Al Qaeda supporters are dead, and we rule the skies and strategic points in Afghanistan. This is not failure. Second, people with little understanding of oil economics believe that a war in Iraq enriches U.S. oil interests. The reality is that oil refining and trading companies make their money no matter who owns the oilfields. If anything, they oppose such disruptions. The vendetta claim, finally, is so silly that even you have tried to distance Mortensen from it ("he said 'maybe').
e) The U.S. is bad, the forces in Afghanistan and Iraq are good. Rebutting this occupies some of my reply below.

4. I think we need to distinguish between your views and Mortensen's views. I have shown, conclusively I believe, that Mortensen equates the U.S. with Saurumon's forces, and our opponents with the good and noble people of his movie. In so doing, he proved himself a fool. No amount of debate about whether the U.S. military is or is not a willing accomplice of its government should distract us from this reality.

Somehow we've gotten sidetracked into debating whether the U.S. military is "violent, aggressive, and rapacious" in the same sense that you and Mortensen believe is true of the U.S. government. This is unproductive. Suffice to say that as long as the U.S. government controls its military, we have an ample testing ground for your hypothesis: if it is true that our government is violent, aggressive, and rapacious, why hasn't it already laid waste to Iraq, and Iran, and North Korea, and Pakistan, and Cuba? Why hasn't it seized territories that would benefit it, like the Philippines, and Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, and Turkey? Instead of wasting time building a coalition to allow the insertion of ground forces in Iraq, why didn't it use tactical nuclear weapons in Afghanistan? Why haven't we launched nuclear weapons against Iraq? We are, far and away, the pre-eminent superpower. We can destroy opposing populations in the blink of an eye. Given that the U.S. government is aggressive, violent, and rapacious, and given that it controls the military and nuclear weaponry, why hasn't it used even a fraction of the firepower at its disposal? Why hasn't it seized land and treasure?

In short, why isn't there powerful proof of its violence, aggression, and rapaciousness? Do you really think it would fall to Viggo Mortensen to point it out, sans evidence, on the Charlie Rose show, if it in fact were true?

5. Nazi militarism. Here I have been arguing with Mortensen and, I thought, you. There is a clear parallel in Tolkien's work between the armies of Sauron and fascist armies in Europe. Mortensen said quite clearly that he equates the U.S. with these forces. If you believe he was wrong to draw this parallel, then I see no need to argue this point further.

6. Rapacious + Saurumon parallel = world domination. This is a logical conclusion from Mortensen's words. Again, I was arguing with Mortensen, but apparently not with you, for you define rapaciousness as having some limit.

7. You wrote: "Iraq's infrastructure was completely destroyed by Desert Storm . . ." This is demonstrably false, unless you are employing a peculiar definition of "infrastructure" that excludes roads, bridges, military supplies, arms manufacturing facilities, oil extraction and transport facilities, radar and communications networks, airfields, hospitals, energy plants, chemical production plants, television and radio transmitters, and subterranean military bunkers.

8. ". . .the economic sanctions that have been in place ever since is a direct attempt to control the will of the people . . ." To what "will of the people" do you refer? Their will to engage in the free exchange of ideas and goods, to better their standard of living, to watch their children grow in peace and security? None of these things are possible under Hussein. Were we truly interested in controlling the will of the people, we would leave Hussein in power, abandon Israel to its fate, and bribe him with trade and military support not to use chemical or nuclear weapons against us.

9. "Sanctions aren't going to bring him to heel, as the US wants. So what's the point of enforcing them, then? They are not achieving anything except stirring up resentment against the US." Exactly. Finally, we agree. We should either leave the region alone, or kill Hussein and anyone who dares to stand between the bullet and his head.

10. Re: my point about doves marginalizing themselves. Not everything I say is about you. A quick way to distinguish is this: when I'm talking about you, I'll use the word "you." When I'm talking about doves in general, I'll use the word "doves." When I'm talking about Viggo, I'll use the word "Viggo," or "Mortensen," or "idiot."

Tony,

You're right - I did get a little carried away with the insults. It's not usually in my nature. I apologise. I, too, have to work, so I will get back to you on the rest of your piece as soon as I can.

In the meantime, as Colin Powell addresses the UN, I thought this may be of interest to everybody here:

No casus belli? Invent one!

Editor's Note: I have replaced the full text of this article with a hyperlink. I should get around to providing some instructions in the comments section on how to do this, but to link to an article, you use the following code:

<A HREF="URL of article">name of article</a>

TW

Personally, I think Mortenson is a fine actor, and rather naive when it comes to world politics. And I am implementing MT's comment-closing ability on my blog, which they promise will be available in their next version.

Lou-
I appreciate what you're trying to say, really. 2 things: is hyperlinking not an option? (ex. Maggie O'Kane Article> And some would argue that the Guardian is not the most objective of papers (although their gossip section rocks).

Lou

I don't generally join these things becuase I tend to get my brains bashed in, as eloquence is not my strong point. But in my mind the whole LOR trilogy is a stunning commentary on our times and Viggo has it exactly backwards. Evil is alive and well in our times, and while we wish this was not the case (as all do who live in such times) we can not simply punt the ball forward any longer. Isamic Fascism of the Saudi, Osama, etc has declared war on us. Secular fascists like Saddam, would like to do see our rule destroyed so they will be free to continue to rape murder and torture. Think Soviet gulag w/o the cold. North Korea sells arms to anyone and everyone for cash so it can continue to build arms and pay the soldiers and the guards. That is evil. They wish to destroy the US and Israel. That is evil. They might not be able to accomplish this today or tomorrow, but left unchecked they can give it a hell of a try. I am not willing to allow them that chance. They torture, they maim. That we sit on our hands and do nothing while all this occurs is not a position, it is an absence of a position. Its immoral. No blood for oil. What kind of idiotic blather is this. There is no substitute for oil, it is a very efficient energy source with millions of applications (think Plastic, Thinl celluloid viggo) To allow 1/2 the worlds oil supply to fall into the hands of people would like nothing less then to see the US to fall into the sea is not an option. It seems to me blood for oil is a sensible policy of self preservation. So the main point - evil is alive and well in the world and its not residing in America. We have brought liberty to many of the places in the world. Think Japan, Germany, France, Poland, Czech Republic, Russia, Afghanistan, etc. That it is not perfect, or that we have not always done things with sweetness and light, well that is not a reason to shirk from our duty now. We have the right to defang and destroy people wo wish us ill is a given, that we have the power to do so is a gift of our freedom and liberty. So the choice is to leave and contain Saddam, and hope that he does not get his ring of power (ie nuclear weapons) or to take the fight to him. This is not even a debate. Send in the Marines and get this over with, then we can start truly destroying the rest of the Islamo Fascists and allow people to enjoy the Liberty and freedom bestowed upon us by our founding fathers. Viggo is an idiot

Wow - lots of reading to catch up on...go you lot!

Joe you're right, I do need (more-like 'want') this explained to me.

Logan ~

oops, ps, Joe...'posted by' link doesn't work.

Kevin: You said eloquence is not your strong point, but I disagree. I think you summed things up rather nicely.

If anyone hasn't been to the aforementioned fangirl site yet, they're starting to discuss their preferred alternatives to war (which is more than Viggo's ever done). They're about what you'd expect.

Something lost in these posts is that we are all underestimating Veggio's military expertise, as seen, for instance, in his role as the drill instructor in GI Jane, and that one fight scene in A Perfect Murder. Folks, let's not forget the intense dedication and training it take to mouth a T.S. Elliot poem and feign a greasy haired ex-felon artist type. PDS

Tony, just came back to referr to Lou's "missing troops" article and it's been deleted and the links not working. Can you post the address to that again?

Logan ~

scrub that - working now.

Logan ~

Damn, reading this took up most of my lunch. And what did I take away from it all???

Viggo is still an idiot. Tony Rules!

Lou

Could you email me: reganmonique@xtra.co.nz

Please : )

Kevin,

I don't have the time to go thru each and every argument you make. I do believe that Saddam and Osama are evil, and that we have to make motions to take care of them, and if that means killing them outright so be it. Leaving them unchecked is a huge mistake which is what I tried to bring up earlier on in this very long and now seemingly off the subject debate.

But the whole idea that the US, or more so our current President, his staff and his idealogical predecessors are qualified for the role of the righteous who should be pointing the finger and delivering justice is such a colossal joke of epic proportions that I can't help but watch with sheer madness and utter contempt. The fact that so many conservatives have decided to turn a blind eye to the fact that more than half of these murderous bastards were either helped or trained by the CIA is an utter travesty showing just how much conservatives in general have compromised their own core values in pursuit of the almighty dollar. And even more dissappointing is we continue to do this, meaning one of these guys will eventually turn against us, starting the cycle all over again. It's time to start paying attention!

Osama and Saddam are two of many murderous maniacal bastards that have been produced by what is practically a minor league farm team for evil, courtesy of Reagan, Bush, etc. Our President lays claim to defending freedom and democracy, but that's a joke. Our Government has two standards for dealing with undemocratic nations - one standard is for undemocratic/theocratic human rights abusing nations, the other is for undemocratic/theocratic human rights abusing nations that do our bidding, espcially ones that have oil. The fact that our bozo President, VP and so many others that I can't count them all, have business ties to the very same nations that so many in the GOP are foaming at the mouth to lay waste to and yet no one bats an eye? The ones that have spoken up have been pushed out (Arriana Huffington for one). Psycologists call dissassociate disorder, look it up.

More than 1/4 of my posts dwells on this. As for oil, you can read this:

Every time the alternative energy issue comes up the whole right wing goes into automatic pilot and start blathering about FREE MARKETS. Here's an interesting question - When does the Oil industry finally get cut off and forced to start trying to make their profits without Governement handouts?

I might favor FREE MARKETS if they really existed, but they're more of a myth. As long as other fuel sources have to compete against the federally subsidized Oil Industry, alternative fuels may never be able to compete. All I ask is for a level playing field, either cut off the oil industry or give alternative fuels at least as much funding as the oil indutry if not more. It's in our national interests, it affects our international policy, it affects our immigration poicy, it affects the environment, our military. Oil manages to alter just about everything in this country, and directs too much of our resources, our time, our efforts, etc.

Unfortunately no one in Washington tells the oil industry to "pick themselves up by their own bootstraps". Instead they hold their hands out and the FREE MARKET Republicans dole out billions of your tax dollars to support corporate welfare. It's even more repulsing considering how much mileage the right wing has gotten out of 9.11 and calling out lefties/liberals/Democrats for immigration policies and not being tough enough for whatever their reasoning is, and yet Bush Co. gets away with stuff like this.

See for yourself on this article VITAL STATISTICS: 15 Largest US Government Subsidies to the Oil Industry

Even the Cato Institute knows dude!!!! We've all been sold out by your own party for oil profits, and brainwashed into thinking that oil is the only way, when in reality it is available because of what is the bane of every supposed Free Market conservative - it is FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED! Chomsky and Sontag didn't help provide funds for plane ticket and training and do business with murderers, theives and religious fanatics. Our President and his cronies did! It's time to Wake the f&%*$ up man! When the hell are you gonna get it?!?!?!?!?!?

Hey, Palmer

Thank god, the voice of reason. I couldn't have put it better myself. Will you marry me?

I have a fun quote to add from Hunter S. Thompson. On George Bush: ''In two years, this dunce, this yo-yo from Texas, has taken us from a prosperous nation at peace to a broke nation at war.''

(T - I'll get back to you when I've got the energy. I have to go out now and party)

Lou -

Are you a girl? I don't swing that way if you aren't, although there is nothing wrong with that if you do.

Even if you of the female gender, my girlfriend would be very dissappointed, and she's been trying to get me to cough up the ring for some time now......

Ah, Hunter, ya gotta love him. He's like the original Jackass, doing ridicluous things to himself for the sake of his own entertainment, but with no camera around.

Ya know I can't even say I'm anti war, I just don't trust our President or this administration to do anything it's promising to do in Iraq. I've seen the same things multiple times - its this administration's credibility gap. My friend said it best about Bush and Hypocrisy:

Old conservative mantra (like for Gov. funded programs they don't like) - "We don't trust the Government to do it."

New conservative mantra (like bombing Iraq with insufficient evidense) - "We're the Government, trust us."

Yeah, I'm a girl, but I don't think my husband would be into it, either - we're not swingers.

I'm not anti-war, either - I'm anti-war at this time, though. It should be a LAST resort, and I don't think we're there yet.

Glad you liked Hunter, gotta dash.

Palmer-
You're absolutely right, we should do nothing because that will make us hypocrites. Shouldn't we have more of a responsibility for taking those guys out, since we put them there in the first place? And although you get points for the length of your diatribe,(I think I get how you feel about the current administration) would you care to share what you think we should do?
I looked at the links you provided and was wondering, could you please explain to me how much of a difference the $418M in subsidies to Fossil Energy R&D actually makes to the multi-billion dollar petroleum industry? Come to think of it, if we were to invade Iraq, we may be able to reduce a big chunk of the $23B that we currently spend on oil defense.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is Viggo can wear whatever he wants. Its a free country.

Lou and Palmer,
Out of curiosity, what evidence do you have of falsehood from our current administration. It seems to me that up to this point, Pres. Bush has achieved or attempted everything he had promised to attempt (although some have not been essayed yet, there are still 2 years left in his first term).
He's already done more for both education, AIDS, alternative fuels, and the environment in less than 2 years than his predecessor did in 8. Stop looking at rhetoric and look at (and present) facts.
If your only basis for opinion is a vague sense of forboding, or simply not trusting this administration, you will not convince anyone. If you have facts (not just assertions), feel free to start sharing them at anytime.

I can't and won't defend everything Bush's predecessor did. While there are things that he did that I liked he had many faults. On that note there are even a couple of things that this Pres has done that I like - the list is very short mind you. I decided a long time ago it was best to divorce myself from individuals and endorse ideas and actions. Bush slapping sense into the UN to stop acting like a legion of Neville Chamberlains is a good thing.

Oil subsidies - It's way, way more than $418 Million, it's in the tens, even hundreds of billions. Check those links I posted, all of them.

All those things that you mentioned, education, alternate fuels. None of them have been done yet. They are merely on the table. No Child Left Behind? My girlfriend's Brother-in-law, a school administrator, says there are actually good things in that education bill. Not all of it but some, but we'll give credit where it's due to be fair.

The environment? There are so many things that Bush has done to violate laws on the books that I don't have the time to list them all. Nader used to say about the Pres. candidates that Gore would get a D+ and Bush would get a D-. That's dead wrong, Gore would get a C+ a Bush would be sent back at least two grades if not kicked out of school completely. The Clear Sky initiatives? It's not even window dressing, it actually sets back Clean Air and Clean Water acts, the same acts that Reagan tried to do away with and he actually got over ridden. You need Republicans to pull that off, and they did override his veto.

Oh, I so don't have time for this. I'm becoming a political junkie, ala Hunter, Politics is better than Sex. Well, not really but... I'll address the rest of this later.

And I never said anywhere that we shouldn't do anything against Iraq....... I'm a little tired of the pacifists myself, the ones who throw out the grab bag of excuses that are contradictory. I just don't know if its appropriate just yet.

I just want some of you conservatives to wake up and see just how much at cross purposes the President's actions are. We making the people that hate us filthy rich, so much that they are able to fund terrorism. Instead of trashing the prerequisite of liberals how bout doing something about the people that lobby gov for Fed Subsisides.

McDonalds posted it's first lost ever, and one for the reasons for that is nations in the Middle East are boycotting American companies. How bout you guys start participating in boycotting the business that buy oil from those very same nations? How bout demanding our Government start taking measures to become more energy indepenedet, so we can tell those same nations off. I'd love to see a Conservative say to our allies like Saudi, Egypt and the rest of them "You think you hate us now, wait till we're gone. Your theocratic ass backwards nations flush with US Dollars will be glorified sandboxes when we finally leave" That's what I want. That's what I'd like to see you guys do. I want to see you get your priorities straight and stop wasting your time with lesbian anti war commies who's greatest offense is slowing traffic and annoying your nostrils and start taking aim at the people that put money in the hands of the terrorists, ie Gulf Texaco, Shell, Exxon etc. etc. etc.

It can't be done overnight, but it needs to start now and it needs to be pushed very very hard. And it'll never happen with this President, not unless you start demanding it. Instead your so busy with Dems and liberals that you're enabling these people.

Palmer: Quite a hoot - your vision of conservatives as so obsessed with liberals that we can't see clearly enough to criticize our own.

Ex. Michelle Malkin's most recent is a perfect example.

Through 8 years of Clinton I heard almost nothing from the left in way of criticism. Every evening newscast was a virtual apology and cover-up for one of the most corrupt politicians of all time. NOW remained silent through rape accusations, fondlings, etc... because he shared their ideology.

Yet, amazingly, most of the valid criticisms of Bush have been from the right.

Ex. Signed the joke of an education bill with Kennedy - which you allow has "some" good things in it. Which things? The part where an incompetent, corrupt bureaucracy fights the usually beloved idea of "choice" (vouchers) with a vengence? (Why we mustn't even try that!)

We have seen the never-ending, and might I add, oh..so..intelligent criticisms of Bush from the Left. They ALWAYS either start like this: "...this dunce, this yo-yo from Texas..." or like this: "Oil interests..." Heavy on the name-calling. Light on facts. Yeah. That's what happened. Bush took a soaring economy (built on a bubble) and popped it himself (nothing to do with 9/11). And still...so many miss the fact that said economy was headed down before Clinton packed the silverware.

I don't know if you've been reading Tony's posts for a while, but I believe he and most every other conservative writer I can think of have, in fact, been very critical of our relationship with the Saudi's. That includes me. They have blood on their hands from 9/11 and we all know it. But instead of just wishing for happy things ("How bout demanding our Government start taking measures to become more energy indepenedet, so we can tell those same nations off.") (I agree with you here, by the way.) We actually make suggestions - such as drilling more, gasp, in Alaska. Instead of Actually Doing Something - democrats spend all their time running ads with pictures of caribou and touting imaginary "wildlife destruction" instead of showing actual pictures of that desolate area. (Whitman showed actual pictures and the democrats actually said it was illegal for her to do that). All they can do is criticize - but never offer any real solutions.

Intersting reading you linked too, by the way. I especially enjoyed the Gregory Palast site. If anyone wants a laugh - head on over and click the "Theft of Presidency" section. There you can read juicy articles about how a racist Jeb Bush suppressed the black vote. Yet somehow, even though our own media was salivating for just such a story - it didn't get much play here. Only in Britian. I wonder if that could have been because of a lack of actual facts??? Hmmmmm.

I'm not trying to be a prick, but you are very misguided if you think all conservatives are happy about: the Saudi's, dependence of foreign energy, corporate welfare, etc... And you seem to ignore the left's lack of solutions to ANY problem (Well...besides "throw more tax money at it").

Er, Davey

Since most of your rant was taken up with liberal-bashing, I think you just proved Palmer's point. Way to go.

PS. Didn't you used to be in The Monkees?

Lou I agree re: the liberal bashing

This conversation is starting to even out [though it seems Viggo's still an idiot : ( ].

What I have noticed and find disappointing are the views and arguments aired here are the only intelligent arguments I've found (input from yours truly excluded of course).

Now admitedly I hang out mainly on divorcenet with a bunch of everyday folk (nearly all American, one Kiwi...me), but what's disappointing is with the volume of people in that place, not one of them seems to be able to form a reasonable argument on this topic because none of them (well us actually) seem to know this stuff you're talking about here.

It's really sad AND scary considering their country is on the verge of a war that will take out thousands of innocent lives. With what's at stake people have a RESPONSIBILITY to make themselves aware of everything going on around them and to know WHY things are happening the way they are.

But they don't. Any insights on why this is?

Logan ~

Perky bits on Arwen: good.
Perky bits on Aragorn: bad.

Lee

There's loads of information out there, although NONE of it is unbiased. For example, watching CNN yesterday, I couldn't help noticing that the Iraqi Ambassador's response to Colin Powell's powerful presentation was described as a ''diatribe'' by the presenter, despite the fact he was calm and polite throughout his speech. What I'm trying to say here is: read all the serious newspapers you can, watch a decent news show like CNN, or Jim Lehrer's on PBS (forget about network 'news'); but, QUESTION EVERYTHING you're being told.

Journalists are as prone to make mistakes (and are as personally biased) as the rest of us; not only that, they always have to package the facts a certain way to 'sell' the story or edit it to fit the template: ie headlines, column-length, etc in papers; time restrictions, choice of 'experts' and so on in TV. There is no conspiracy out there - either left- or right-wing - it's just the simple mechanics of journalism. It's essential to keep this front-of-mind at all times.

Wow, kind of got sidetracked there. Here's some suggested online reading:

The New York Times
Washington Post
CNN.com

The Financial Times
The Guardian
The Daily Telegraph
BBC online news

The French, UN, Etc...

Well then. We've explored the depths of Viggo's idiocy, exposed the hypocrisy of the Left and the Right, called each other names, kissed and made up, called each other more names, and very nearly witnessed an affair in the making.

My work here is done.

Palmer and Lou

I have to run into a meeting - so I did not read your whole post. But the one point that jumped out at me was the whole evil CIA and Saddam and Osama is some kind of US minor league. I think you can believe that little idea if you wish but I think it has been demonstrated that Saddam is his own man, most of the material we destroyed in the gulf war was Russian (so how did we supply that) and the French and Russians are still selling him shit to this day. Osama - yes the US supplied him to combat the evil of communism which at that time was the greater of the two evils. Sorry that the US does not have some kind of magic ball and can see into the future. At worst the US guilty of allowing a vacuum of power to develop that allowed Osama to grow his organization. BUt if the US had taken steps in the late 80's and early 90's to eliminate the threat we would be villified for that. So for that point you are full of shit.

Secondly should the US be the ones determining good and evil in the world. I agree that this is an uneasy crown to wear. But if not the US, then who. France, please when not kowtowing to dictators, they are unilaterally invading small countries and lets not forget their herding French Jews into trains with some joy. Germany. Yea thats a good one, Oh the UN. A collection of thugs (libya chairing human rights commission - thats funny) pretending to be concerned about the fate of the world. Only the US has had the balls to stand up to and beat fascists and communists spreading wealth and liberty wherever it goes. Have we been perfect no, have we made really bad miscalculations - you bet. Have we done evil in the world - hey we have in a battle against a greater evil. So based on the fact that no one else is capable of being the cop in the world, it falls to us, and you know what better us than france, China russia. Meet the new boss, you'll find us less imperialistic than the convential wisdom dictates.

Lou-
Something from the today's Telegraph:"Why Washington's hawks see further than Europe's doves" link courtesy Instapundit

Finally read your posts

So America engages in corp welfare - and the earth is round. This is news to people. I sure has hell would like it to stop but the congress of the US (you know the people actually control the legislation not the evil president) have doled out largesse from the Tit of gov't far and wide, not just the evil oil companies.

And the Presidents enviromental record is a joke. Please explain. He did not support Kyoto - an incredibly flawed treaty that will do nothing for "global warming" or is it the big freeze this decade. Those enviromental scientists really can predict the weather and effects so well. Clean water, kept in force the Clinton midnight regulation to lower allowable arsenic levels. If this was such an impt goal, why did it take Clinton 8 years to enact. Changes to clean air act, even the New Republic (that rightest rag) supports the common sense changes. Drilling in the artic - this is a debatable issue, I say drain the Saudis first but I am cynical. Logging. Again it looks like common sense to clear some of the overgrowth in federal lands to avoid some of the catastrophic fires of recent years. It may not work but it has been proven that the old policies did not work.

As many people have already noted, many of Bushes sharpest critics are on his right flank. But the question remains - from the original screed - Viggo - idiot or friend of the oppressed everywhere. Since his stance seems to be in support of actual oppressors - lets call him an idiot, a useful tool of dictators worldwide. I am sure that as the Iraqi prisoners are transfered to thier special cells where they get to under go free "medical experiments" they are so glad that Viggo has gotten his moral courage and called evil by its true name. GWB, republicans, oil companies. The US armed forces. Yea thats the ticket. He is a maroon, he can say what he wants, and we can call a spade a spade. This liberty to be stupid was payed for in blood by American soldiers throughout the past 200 years. This blood has extended these rights to Europe, Japan, etc. So spare me the America is so evil crap. I look at the concentration camps that dotted Europe 60 years ago and the gulags of Russia, Cuba, China, N Korea and I feel confident in Americas moral superiority.

Kevin

Your fuzzy logic displays such a close-minded attitude and lack of intelligence, I can see it's useless even TRYING to open your eyes. For example, your argument that excess logging is a good thing, because it prevents forest fires; how stupid can you get? You obviously have NO idea of how the environment works. To refute your opinions point by point would be futile, though, not to mention boring for everybody to read.

Yes, this whole debate was kicked off by Viggo Mortensen. The fact that his wise words have caused so many of you here to get your knickers in a twist only proves that what he said has had an impact.

And Joe, thanks for the link to the Telegraph piece - I've already read it, though. It's one of the papers I suggested the uninformed Lee read. (Also, I used to work there.) I like to get all sides of the argument (when it's intelligent). It's called being OPEN-minded.

Palmer & Lou,
What good does it do to say, "I don't have the time to refute point by point", or "How stupid can you get", or "I don't have time to list them all" and then give zero evidence?
If you say 2+2=5, telling me that the proof would be beyond my comprehension isn't convincing, it's annoying.
I'm not saying you are wrong at all. I merely want to see your evidence.
Palmer, I wasn't trying to get you to defend Clinton, I just wanted to point out that Clinton's environmental policies, in general, gave industry the option of upgrading equipment to be less polluting; but if they upgraded, the standards were inhibitively high and expensive. Whereas Bush got criticized for lowering standards into affordable ranges and made them mandatory. Result: more industries are actually taking steps to reduce pollution under Bush than under Clinton.
Can you provide any of the same evidence (not assertion) of your points? I haven't seen any yet. I'm not assuming you don't have the evidence, but I really want to see it. You can email me, if you feel it is too long/boring to post here.
Logan,
Lou provides a nice list of places to start reading, but unfortunately only includes publications on the more liberal side. Don't forget to check out
www.nationalreview.com http://www.weeklystandard.com/daily/daily.asp
www.townhall.com
www.denbeste.nu/
and the underestimated but highly entertaining:
www.brainfertilizer.blogspot.com (starting up again on Monday)

Lou-
I think what got everyone's knickers in a twist wasn't so much Viggo's statements but rather your interesting arguments in his defense. I think that since you are OPEN-minded, and like getting all sides of an argument you might look at how the first paragraph of your last post could just as easily be applied to you. And from your tone, I suspect you think I was attacking you somehow with that last post. Please forgive me, I was only pointing out the article (I had noticed you'd suggested the Telegraph to Lee).

I'd still be interested in hearing you and Palmer's response to my question of what should we do? Please, read the question. I'm not asking what you think of the Administration, or any of its other policies.

Thanks for making that point Nathan. I had meant to mention that earlier. Palmer, the reason I had brought up the $418M was because I went to the trouble of checking the sources you provided. When I actually tried to discuss them with you, your response was less than precise. I appreciate you providing the info but if you are going to use it to support your argument, please, be prepared to do so.

Is being "close-minded" a bad thing? I'd say it depends on what your mind is close to.

I think we can all agree that being closed-minded is bad.

(I'd have let it pass if Lou hadn't started out by waxing pedantic about Tony's "equivocation".)

Exactly what have you said that would open my eyes. have you have tried. Let me see - no logging in forests, we have had forest fires consume thousands upon thousands acres of trees. Now if you log out a few acres here and there - maybe you create natural fire breaks, allow forest to replenish self and provide benefit of wood for people. Maybe that is a stupid idea, but it seems sensible to me. The clean air regulations propososed by the Bush admin seem to me common sense ways around the problem that we have all these old plants grand fathered in by the EPA legislation from the 70's. The thinking was that these plants would close and be replaced so no use allowing them to get lower standards to upgrade becuase they will soon be replaced. As we know this did not happen because a growing US economy demanded more energy, new power plants were hard to build (NIMBY and regulations) and the plants were still efficient if not clean. So proposing ways to recognize the REALITY of the situation, these plants are not going anywhere and some pollution control is better then none, they have ammended the regulations. Again that seems sensible, living in the real world and all that.

So what fuzzy headed logic that you can't bear to print for it will take to long. The environment? That I think the Litany expressed by greens is a fundraising tactic and has no basis in the real world. I think the shrill attempts to silence Bjorn Lomborg by the greens gives credence to the fact that his central premise (We ain't that bad off, money could be more wisely spent on clean water and cleaner fuels - natural gas and oil powerplants to replace wood burning in India) hits close to home. I guess I have a different attitute to open minded, if there are ywo sides to an issue - budget priorities of the US government, etc - lets have a debate. When one thinks a clever little t-shirt - no blood for oil - is a reasonable argument - you've lost me. Becuase the premise is wrong. Its not a war for oil, though cheaper oil may be a benefit. It is a war of Freedom versus Tyranny and oppression. The first battelfield was Afghanistan. The next is Iraq. After that it may be Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Palestine, N. Korea. You may choose to ignore it and say American Imperialism is the root cause and if we would just mind our beeswax then this would all go away. And my answer is that we are NOT an Imperial power, that if it was not for us then the World would have very little freedom. Would Eastern Europe be free today, would the USSR be broken up and free markets growing? Would Taiwan? Hong Kong? Japan? Where is the illogic in that. We have freed them and/or maintained thier freedom with our economic and military power. Again, have we made deals that in retrospect are ugly? Have we not always lived up to our ideals? I will grant that we have not always been sweetness and light but we have been better than the others and we are better than the little powers of Europe (ie France and Germany). So the whole idea that yea they are bad but America is worse becuase or America doesn't deserve to lead the world becuase (insert favorite left wing harangue) is just a load of crap.

"I feel confident in Americas moral superiority"

I just can't agree with that statement. I suppose this thread started because some actor dared to compare the U.S. with ultimate evil. I don't agree with the comparison but I don’t think the U.S. should be seen as the white knight either. Conservatives, Liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Right Wing, Left Wing. I could care less.

"Mr. Bush shouldn't reach for strained rationales. We're going to war against Saddam because we can. (If we go after Kim Jong Il, he could destroy Seoul.) We're going to war because conservatives will be happy only when they have a John Wayne ending to Desert Storm and make U.S. foreign policy less about realpolitik and more about muscularity and morality. We're going to war because we're a nation with a short attention span; we want to strike back at some enemy, and it is too hard to find Osama. (The Brits now say they and the U.S. knew Al Qaeda was working on a dirty bomb even before 9/11.)

No one will miss Saddam. But as the administration inflates Iraq, it should not deflate other threats: North Korea, Al Qaeda, the deficit, the freaked economy and the woeful failure to secure the ports, skies and borders of America from attack.

After Mr. Bush defenestrates Saddam and detangles Iraq's tribal chaos, Kim Jong Il and his six-pack of nukes will still be craving the American president's attention."

TRUTHOUT

"the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all." There are two things wrong with this. First, it ignores the fact that the US has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants. The US had moral options available to them, but did not take them.

Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: "Which American interests?" The CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country’s cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight the wars that stem from US actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama. The second begged question is: "Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples’ human rights?"

A Timeline of US/CIA Atrocities

Lou & Nathan - thanks for the reading material, be assured it wasn't posted in vain, it's all copied and bookmarked : )

Lou that word "ill-informed" wasn't taken kindly be me at all. But considering much of what I've learned has been garnered from this thread, these people here including you...ummmmmmmm???? But personally I wish more people would make such an effort to get informed.

So anyway, I see Tony is finished with this discussion, does that mean he'd like us to move on or...??? I've never found the likes of a site like this before, checked a few of the other 'blogs' out from here too and not sure what protocols apply. A heads up would be appreciated.

Logan ~

Joe

Sorry if my tone implied I was attacking you - I thought your email was a kind of 'Ha ha, she's recommended a paper that doesn't support her argument. Ha ha', based on your previous 'snicker snicker' post. But maybe that one wasn't aimed at me, per se. I apologise.

And Nathan, you're only displaying your ignorance, again, if you think the news sources I suggested are organs of the Left. The Telegraph? Please.

Lee

I didn't intend the 'ill-informed' as an insult at all. It was a bad choice of word, though, as it is often used as an insult, rather than in it's purest sense. I was alluding to the fact that your post had asked for ways to become well-informed, ie. get information.

This quote and related link sum up how I fell about our impending war.

"It is of vast importance that our people reach some general understanding of what the complications really are, rather than react from a passion or a prejudice or an emotion of the moment ... It is virtually impossible at this distance merely by reading, or listening or even seeing photographs or motion pictures to grasp at all the real significance of the situation. And yet the whole world of the future hangs on a proper judgment."

-General George C. Marshall

The War on Terrorism Needs a Marshall Plan

Miranda

You are so right.

. . .in both your posts

Kevin - ''excess'' logging.

Miranda

Just started reading the piece you suggested: A Timeline of US/CIA Atrocities.

Depressing stuff. And even more chilling when you consider the author died under mysterious circumstances.

Wow Lou! It took you less than an hour to read Miranda's link and suck it up hook, line and sinker.

Good thing OPEN-minded people who like to see all sides of an issue don't fall for such pap...waitaminute! unless they already have preconceived notions and beliefs in their head. Doyathink?

Not sure what you're saying to Kevin(I know I know - I'm stupid), but he didn't say "excess" logging - you did.

I'm on pins and needles waiting for you to tell us all how the environment "works".

Miranda-
You hit a soft spot with me when you quoted Marshall. However, I think it is worth noting that the quote came after the unconditional surrender of Germany, as did the Marshall Plan.

The disclaimer (post is in two parts, it's too long)

Davey, and anyone else who cares,

This post started as "Viggo is an idiot" into an Anti-war dissent, which is logical. Quite frankly I started off being funny and entertaining and interjecting my opinion (did you see my post questioning Lou and the whole no war/lift the sanctions post?) and along the way I really lost my temper later on. I want to do my best to stay on point, mainly war criticism and dissent, and I HAVE GOTTEN OFF SUBJECT. I admit I am indeed part of the problem.

I never said that conservatives can't be critical of their own idealogical brethren, or that's not what I meant if you took it that way. The Lott article criticizing his "research" is a valid example. The impression you got is not my view of conservatives. Half the reason I'm here is I respect some conservative ideas, even agree with some of the criticism leveled by the right against the left. I'm not here to be a prick, and if I coming off as one then I'm sorry, that's not my intention. I also don't want to see debate devolve into something stupid. If I wanted that I could go to the Netscape homepage or The Fray on Slate and lefties and righties can trade barbs like "Bill/Dubya is the antichrist". That's not what I want. I come here because I know at least some of you will have intelligent dialog. I like SitG cuz there is some thought put into it - w/o tooting my own horn without me and the other liberals that wind up here it kinda sounds like a conservative echo chamber, and I don't know if that's healthy for anyone.

When that happens people start to hear what they want to hear, see what they want to see and ultimately believe what they want to believe. That isn't healthy for us as a nation, for any of us lib's or con's. No one gets challenged to think, no one is confronted with evidense that condraticts our beliefs and we are free to hold them without actually looking at them carefully. There is no intelligent dialog, and what winds up happening is everybody just nods in accordance. That's not healthy either.

It reminds me a bit of that post Tony put up after Christmas. Quite frankly Tony maybe you should have said something. You didn't have to be mean, it would not have been that hard to poke a hole in some of the hot air ballon-like liberal arguments discussed at dinner that night.

Here's what my beef is...... (continues on next post)

Hey Davey,

Umm I'm not sure what you meant to convey when you stated Lou took my link and “sucked it up hook, line and sinker” By that I assume you mean I somehow pulled this information out of thin air, that in fact this information is false. When in fact this is information that can be substantiated by any history book or thorough research into U.S. history with foreign governments. I provided this specific link because it seemed to be a through listing of the CIA's actions pertaining to foreign policy. I am not a conspiracy theorist I like to deal with facts. I try to post correct information to the best of my knowledge. If there is a mistake in any of the information listed on this site I apologize.

It seems one of the common threads here, is that there is no alternative to the way America conducts itself in the world. The article Miranda highlighted offers an alternative; one that would save the United States billions of dollars as well as make the world a safer place to live in. The Marshall Plan is worth a read, at least.

Miranda-
I don't think you need to apologize just realize that Steven Kangas' creds are somewhat questionable.

I never thought that it was a debatable point that the US has done some quite nasty things in the past 50 years. That it was in defense of the bigger evil of communism doesn't make it right. But here were are now, and I still think even with the lovely list of evil committed in the name of freedom that America is a more moral/Just country then France, Germany, Russia, China, N.Korea. That freedom has blossomed not by some cosmic accident but by the work of the US gov't. So in my book we get some leeway. And Viggo is still an idiot.

Miranda - what you have there are some facts mixed with some opinions. And those opinions are decidedly anti-CIA. Now...I'm not nieve enough to think that the CIA hasn't done some bad things. I'm SURE they have! But I'm also not really a conspiracy theorist. ("I am not a conspiracy theorist I like to deal with facts.") I just have a problem with blending some facts with certain agendas. Sometimes they then cease to be wholly "factual".

And Palmer - thanks for trying to bring some sanity back to this post. It's long enough and far enough off track. So I think I'll hop out.

And Lou - sorry if I've attacked you or your posts in some personal way. I don't like doing that. You are welcome to say what you like - I just don't agree.

Hi Joe,

Yes I did realize this quote from Marshall occurred after the unconditional surrender of Germany. But in this quote and the Marshall Plan, I can see seeds and ideas I would like applied to our situation in the Middle East.

Thanks.

Davey, no harm done. I've hardly been the model of decorum, myself.

Palmer, love what you're saying, please keep saying it.

Miranda, nicely done.

Lou,
I have a concern, and I hope that rather than reacting to it quickly, you'll really consider its validity. It is prompted in part by your responses (and non-responses) to my arguments here, but is crystallized in your response to Kevin, to wit:

"Your fuzzy logic displays such a close-minded attitude and lack of intelligence, I can see it's useless even TRYING to open your eyes. For example, your argument that excess logging is a good thing, because it prevents forest fires; how stupid can you get? You obviously have NO idea of how the environment works."

I do know a bit about logging in old-growth forests, and I can tell you that a growing number of scientists, left, right, and apolitical, recognize the critical importance of either burning or culling wood. You apparently don't know this, which is fine. What is troubling is the ease with which you dismiss it: "You obviously have NO idea of how the environment works."

This has been a theme in your responses to me ("I've negated every one of his points..."). The reality is that there are a number of points made in these past few days that you have not adequately addressed. That's fine, it doesn't mean they are necessarily right, or that you need even address all of them; this isn't a dissertation exam, after all.

What concerns me is that, despite this reality, you continue to operate under the impression that you have defeated all arguments thrown at you. Now, I don't claim to know everything, or to be right about everything. I expect that some of the beliefs I hold today will change with greater wisdom and experience. But one thing I am certain of is this: someone who cannot admit when she is wrong, or when she doesn't know something, is someone who has stopped learning.

It would be a shame if you fell into that trap. Just a thought to consider.

And Miranda, thanks for introducing me to The Marshall Plan article. It's the most inspirational and readable piece I've yet seen on the subject.

Much of Kangas' earlier writing was at least reasonable, if thinly sourced. The CIA piece, unfortunately, dates from the time of his final descent into madness, and it shows.

Why anyone thinks the Marshall Plan is at all applicable to never-industrialized nations which are ruled by kleptocracies, I cannot imagine. What's doubly puzzling is that we so often hear such idea from people (not necessarily inclusing anyone here) who also believe that whatever happens in the Middle East is our fault because of all the money we've given those same kleptocracies in the past (viz., the "$45 million to the Taliban" canard). What makes the Marshall Plan buffs think the bastards will stay bought THIS time?

Davey,

"what you have there are some facts mixed with some opinions. And those opinions are decidedly anti-CIA"

No I agree with that. Interlaced with the timeline are the author’s opinions. I was just trying to highlight that the U.S. doesn't hold the Moral High ground. I believe and yes it is my own opinion that our actions in foreign countries are not always carried out for the greater good. That while we have helped in the name of humanitarianism we have also quite frequently acted for our own national interests to the detriment of other countries and the people inhabiting them.

LOL I’m having a good time anyone else. Well I do have a cold and am on Sudafed home sick from work one day and I’m discussing American Foreign Policy.

Lou,
I have no experience with the Telegraph or the Financial Times, so I have no opinionon them.
Whereas my experience with BBC, CNN, WaPo, the Guardian, and the NYTimes convinces me that they report issues with a liberal slant. I still use them as they also contain real facts, the liberal slant is sometimes as correct as the conservative slant, and even when the liberal slant obscures facts by editorializing, an intelligent person can still read between the lines. But in any case, not only is it better to get a balanced dose of editorials (I often find myself nodding in agreement with one side, until I read the opposite view that makes a stronger case), but also couldn't resist putting in a plug for my own blog. :)
Palmer, Well Said! Bravo!
I've noticed that people seem to have forgotten how to debate: You must clearly state your assumptions, provide relevant evidence, clearly explain your logical steps, then present a coherent conclusion.
I admit I often forget to follow all those steps, and I apologize for the times I have failed. However, too often I see people concealing their initial assumptions, or only presenting their conclusions and pretending they have proven something. Look, the automatic gainsaying of whatever I say does not constitute an argument.
Logan, you might also want to check out:
http://seething.blogmosis.com/
Jo is a liberal with an open mind who encourages open debate on her site. Refreshing!
She also often links to Andy at:
www.worldwiderant.com
I don't agree with many of his views, but he really knows how to skewer lazy thinking and sloppy logic.

I guess my point about the timing of the Marshall Plan really relates to the fact that in order for us to bring peace/stability, etc to those regions we must first do something about the people who want to kill us. I think you are putting the cart before the horse otherwise.

Tony

When you put it like that, I can see that I have a tendency to come accross as arrogant. You're right, I have to watch out for it. I need more practice at getting the right nuance into what I'm trying to write, I guess. I'm nicer in real life - at least I hope I am.

I don't think I have a problem with admitting I'm wrong, though, as this and various other of my 'apology' posts have demonstrated. God, I'd hate to think I'll ever stop learning; I can honestly say, it's my lifelong goal to always be learning, even when I'm 102 (if I live that long). But you're right to draw my attention to it. Thanks.

Perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick (pardon the pun), with the logging question. I thought I was arguing against over-deforestation due to economic forces, not against necessary plant husbandry. It seems like we may agree on a lot more than either of us initially thought, which is nice.

As to the whole rest of the debate going on on this board, I think I may have to bow out gracefully at this point. I don't have the energy or time to keep up this tit-for-tat approach (which, YES, I've participated in up to this point - christ I'm getting a crick in my neck from watching my back, here!). Also, I think I've made all the points I've wanted to make and I'm not sure I have any new stuff to contribute at this point. Palmer and Miranda seem to be doing a better job of it than I did, anyway. Doesn't mean I won't be watching, though. And I may just lob the occasional post over your wall, so keep those helmets on, boys.

It's been fun. Really. And thanks again to Tony for hosting this whole thang.

Miranda,
Someone made the point that most of the worst excesses by the CIA were during the Cold War fight against communism.
A very accurate assessment, because most of the right-wing dictators we propped up in the 70s and 80s are now democracies we currently support and/or aid.
But since your point is that we don't always hold the moral high ground, I think most people would agree.
(to everyone) One difference is that we currently have an administration headed by someone who is apparently moral, and of the highest integrity. He has done (or proposed) everything he promised. He has spent political capital pursuing promises his own advisors told him to abandon (and won!). It's one thing to disagree with what Pres. Bush promised. It's quite another to assume he's lying when he has given every evidence of being a President who says what he means and means what he says. Perhaps more so than any President in recent history (was Truman as plain-speaking? I wasn't born yet).
So I do trust the morality of THIS administration. Up until the point of being proven wrong. But no one yet has even provided any evidence of dishonesty on Pres. Bush's part.
Have Nixon and Clinton made us all so jaded...?

Lou,
We ALL are nicer than we seem in posting. I read somewhere that only 40% of communication is in the words, the rest is in body language, inflection, facial expression, etc. The same sentence with a glare means something entirely different (and more acceptable) with a wry grin or self-deprecating gesture.
You have taken alot of rough handling here, and weathered it well, which says great things about your character. But while trolls are just ignored, rough handling always comes to those who challenge, so take all the previous as a back-handed compliment.

Hi Paul,

I agree with this.

"who also believe that whatever happens in the Middle East is our fault because of all the money we've given those same kleptocracies in the past (viz., the "$45 million to the Taliban" canard). What makes the Marshall Plan buffs think the bastards will stay bought THIS time?"

I guess that is the crux of the problem. We do fund the kleptocracies i.e.: Taliban, Saddam, Shah of Iran etc. but the money goes to arms and military armament. Or to some Sheik from Saudi Arabia who spends 2 months in Disney World with his 10 wives.

I would want to utilize The Marshall plan as it was intended here are some examples:

Funds building of a new wharf in North Borneo to help that British colony export vitally needed rubber.

Assists building railroads and water systems in French North Africa

$50 million for medicine to combat tuberculosis.

Technical assistance program: over 3,000 Europeans make six-month visits to various U.S. industries to learn new techniques; there was a similar program in agriculture.

The Ford Motor Co. in Britain receives funds to replace machine tools needed to produce cars, trucks, and tractors for export, thereby earning valuable foreign exchange credits.

The Otis Elevator Company (U.S.) helps to modernize British factories, and its investment is guaranteed by ECA insurance.

Maybe my outlook is naive.

kleptocracies: politicians and political parties bent on looting the state and suppressing the opposition, sometimes fatally

Nathan,
Oh, stop it (shy smile, accompanied by dismissive hand gesture), you're making me blush. I do feel a bit battered & bruised.

...or should that be bloodied but unbowed?

Davey, and anyone else who cares, (con't)

Here's what my beef is and what I've been trying to say: The biggest culprit in the War on Terror and what now seems all but inevitable Gulf II is Oil. I'm not saying the war is all about oil, but it his a huge component and the main fundraising cabability that our enemies have. We have compromised ourselves ethically, politically, and financially over and over in pursuit of a commodity, a commodity I remind you that is heavily subsidized. Heavily meaning as in hundreds of billions of dollars, something conservatives are supposed to hate. Here's one of the articles I linked -

VITAL STATISTICS: 15 Largest US Government Subsidies to the Oil Industry The following list details the millions of dollars of US taxpayer money that the US government gives to oil industry in subsidies. Subsidies are sums of money given by the government specifically to support and/or stabilize industry. They are given without any obligation to pay them back. All dollar amounts are in MILLIONS.

1. Oil Defense: Defense operations to protect and secure Persian Gulf oil shipments and infrastructure.
US$10,459 - US$23,333

2. Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Storage of crude oil to be used during price shocks and supply disruptions to stabilize domestic supply.
US$41,560 - US$5,427

3. Foreign Tax Credit: Allows a portion of foreign tax payments to be credited against, rather than deducted from, US taxes due.
US$486 - US$1,057

4. Accelerated depreciation of machinery and equipment: Allows machinery and equipment within the oil industry to be depreciated more quickly than their actual service lives.
US$720 - US$976

5. Excess of percentage over cost depletion: Allows firms to deduct more than their investment in oil properties from their taxes.
US$335 - US$746

6. Public liability for plugging, abandoning, and remediation of onshore wells: Annualized shortfall in bonding (insurance) levels needed to cover existing liabilities in on-going operations.
US$119 - US$451

For more just go back to the link I posted, there's more.

$418 million is just ONE PROGRAM, for ONE YEAR'S BUDGET.

Oil is why we totally bend over not just backwards but forwards (if you know what I mean) to accomodate the Saudis and other nations that hate us and fund terrorism (I can reference that with evidense, it just takes more time). A real solution does mean becoming energy independent. I'm glad we can agree on something.

And I am sorry to say Davey than ANWAR is a very small spit in the bucket solution. There was an article disputing the amount of oil in ANWAR, how both the oil industry and the environmental lobby got it wrong. The article cites info straight from the Dept of Energy, so if you disagree with those stats take it up with them. The article discusses that it's only worth drilling for if oil is at a certain price per barrel, meaning economically recoverable oil. From the article -

At $15 per barrel in 1996 dollars, if you take the mean estimate, there's actually no economically recoverable oil there. If you look at the $20 per barrel case, it's 3.2 billion barrels. If you look at the $25 case, it's actually 5.6 billion barrels.

The United States consumed an average of 19.5 million barrels of oil per day in 2000, according to the Department of Energy. At the BEST CASE SCENARIO, when oil is more expensive, $25 a barrel, the 5.6 billion barrels in ANWAR would solve our problem for 288 days. Two Hundred Eighty Eight DAYS!!!! (5.6 billion barrels of gas in ANWAR / 19.5 million barrels a day = 287.18). And what happens after that, anybody?

Currently we produce only about 25% of the fuel we need domestically (I could be off, please correct me if I'm wrong). Drilling ANWAR only adds at the most another 5% for an extended period of time. That is not a solution. For every gallon of gas you purchase approxiamatetly 10 cents goes to the house of Saud, the same nation that helps fund terrorism, the same nation that so many conservatives accuse of having blood on their hands but are totally unwilling to do anything about it except displace Caribou in Alaska. This is not to mention all the money that goes to Iraq, and all other oil producing nations that hate our guts and then turn around and give OUR MONEY that we pay to them and give it to terrorists. Drilling ANWAR means that Saudis will wind up with only about 9.5 cents per gallon. Does that half a penny make you feel better now? Instead of the terrosits flying first class they'll have to take coach.

Drilling ANWAR is not a solution, and if you can't see that after all the yelling and screaming and bloggin I've done, if you can't conceed this one little indisputable fact because I'm a liberal or any other number of reasons, then I have no idea what to tell you. If this is you solution then God help us we are totally f$%!@ed!

On the other hand higher CAFE standards are at least a much bigger step in the right direction. Democrat Kerry and Republican (or RINO if it suits you better) McCain have proposed higher standards and it won't go thru, thank you President Bush. Democrats (excpet maybe the ones from Michigan) support this idea. This is part of the solution, so yes Dems have ideas other than throw money at it. Bush's counter proposal is raise the standard 1.2 Gallons. F$%#ing fantastic strategy.

I know what you're thinking. "Thats more than Clinton" You're right, it is more. But 3000+ Americans weren't killed while Clinton was President. Huffington woke to our national dirty little secret (oil funds terrorism), when are you? Before you go ape, let me clarify this that I am NOT ASKING YOU TO EXONERATE CLINTON. Just please hear me out and focus on the present.

If Bush said tomorrow "We need to do everything within our power to get rid our our out of control oil habit", at least admitted we have a problem with Saudi Arabia that he has overlooked until now(which he and many of his cronies / supporters / contributers are HUGE benficiary), and actually made good on those words, you have no idea how impressed I would be. I can forgive. I can't say it would change my vote but I'd call me Senators, my Rep and say this is the way to go, heap praise in the President, as long as it was half way decent plan. But that's probably not going to happen. The hydrogen mention in the SotU address is nice, if it happens and I'm betting it most probably won't. A reminder - he has already backed out of his campaign promise about passing legislation about lowering emmisions. I had no idea that promise was made but I would have bet a hefty chunk in vegas if they gave odds on presidential campaign promises. Anyone who would think that after all those campaign contributions from Big Oil that Bush would do anything of the sort is smoking something. And to think that now he'll really push the hydrogren thing? It's most probably a delaying tactic for a real solution like higher CAFE standards, but thats just my not so humble opinion.

All this factual info comes to this - I read plenty 'o criticism coming from the right about Saudi Arabia. WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT? The only thing I've heard is "Let's invade SA and take back their nationalized oil fields." thank you Anne Coulter. God help us if this ever happens.... but at the very least you will have finally done something instead of blowing hot air and posting on the net, as profoundly stupid as that idea is. At least you can finally say you've overcome your Dissassociation Disorder. Coulter still rips into Dems / Libs but says nothing to the President. What a pathetic loser.

By the way, just to clarify things, I really don't want to see the US do anything like that. Even if Saudi Arabia deserves it.

What I have said is conservatives have kept mum on this one issue and don't criticize the President on something so glaringly obvious, and it's profoundly disturbing. Dissociative Disorder is a condition diagnosed by Psycologists, here's an oversimplified textbook definition -

What Is Dissociation? - Dissociation is a mental process which produces a lack of connection in a person's thoughts, memories, feelings, actions, or sense of identity.

I'm hearing everything you're saying. Are you hearing me out? Did you read my post about telling off the Saudis. And I am well aware measures have to be taken (become more energy independent) before we can tell them off.

I'm saying it's a lot easier to tell the Saudis and the Arab world how you feel thru your dollars instead of blood and bullets. Instead you have managed in your heads to separate our totally ridiculous totally enabling totally ass backwards foreign policy and our incredibly compromised President and his entire administration in regards to oil and your hatred for Saudi Arabia. It's time to wake up out of your petroleum induced slumber. You hate those bastards but you keep giving them more money and you're unwilling or unable to do anything to curb our national addiction to oil. You keep enabling the American companies (some of which are owned by an awful lot of people in this administration) that give these theocratic ass backwards American hate fommenting nations their money. You don't even say anything to the President when it comes to how we altered our immigration policy.

I know that every heartfelt GOPer loves to blame our immigrant problem on the Democrats. Please do me a favor and answer this very simple question - After 9.11 the President changed the US immigration policy for a slew of Muslim nations that were considered a threat. Saudi Arabia wasn't on that list. Why not? OR more importantly why do you think so?

I know why, but if you're going to be so foolish as to ignore this and many other clear as day tell tale signs and continue to pull this ridiculous charade by sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Clinton and Liberals and Chomsky, oh my!", well then the only thing I can say is what I've said before. In light of the overwhelming and damning evidense I've cited and the common sense I know you have, if you're gonna spend your time berating a bunch of pacifist hippies while the real criminals do their dirty work inside the White House because of your dissassociative disorder, all I can say is WE ARE TRULY F$#@ed!!!! Can you hear that loud and clear WE ARE TRULY F$#@ed!!!! WAKE UP ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for the Enviro thing Joe, I've posted a slew of links/evidense before. I don't have all the evidense in front of me. And for that reason let's leave the logging out of this. I brought it up, Bush's enviro record, and you responded. Let's save it for anther post, really, my bad. That's my impresson of the situation based on what I've read for admittedly green/left leaning sources. Same goes for Bjorn and the other issues. I'm not telling anyone what to do, so if you'd rather not take my advice, no offense taken.

By the way I'd love to discuss Clinton, or the Education Bill, or other of these subjects. I just don't want this to turn into a mudslinging battle where its all things liberal vs. all things conservative. That's pointless and silly. And like I said in a previous post I do my best to divorce myself from individuals, political parties and even trains of thought. I prefer to deal in hard fact and discuss the details. I've always agreed with the idea that devil really is in the details. But let's save this for another time.

BUT I'm gonna post this entry on BMA plus a couple of extra paragraphs just for you Davey (it's not up yet) about Palast, and other stuff. Please stop by.

Joe,

"I think you are putting the cart before the horse otherwise."

Yeah I agree with that statement. I just disagree on how to get the horse before the cart. Do I need to drop 3,000 bombs on innocent people to get him there? Maybe, Maybe not. LOL does that even make sense. Sorry I think it's my cold medication.

Ohh Nathan I was right with you up until your comment about our administration being "headed by someone who is apparently moral, and of the highest integrity" Now I don't like to make a judgment on a human being but those are not the first adjectives that spring to mind when describing Bush. I mean I don’t think the man is ready for sainthood or anything. But I do like his drawl. LOL Sorry off to take more Sudafed.

Palmer-
I could have forgiven everything, but I never brought up logging. Please keep your fascists straight.

Additionally, now that you've hit on some of the fact's you've presented.
1. Oil Defense - well, who else could do it. Should it be privatized?
2. see #1
3-6. Do these subsidies directly effect the oil companies or provide any other benefit or end up paying another industry or entity (country)?

and the other figure $418M correct me if I'm wrong but that was the only program in that report that I saw that directly effected the oil industry. Additionally, that particular fund also supports research for alternative fuel sources and fuel cells.

Actually, I am in agreement with you on the fact that we need to get off our fourth point of contact WRT petro. I just happen to feel that we don't have the luxury of time at this point. My feeling is that Iraq is only one facet of a larger strategy and, for lack of a better term, is low hanging fruit.

Oh yeah, visit my blog, too. It contains much lighter fare.

Palmer,
Again, Bravo! That's the kind of stuff I was hoping to see, at least the first half. I'll have to think about it.
To a certain extent, you're preaching to the choir. I buy the highest gas mileage cars in their class when I purchase. I purchase the cars with the lowest emissions, as well (go Honda!). But anyone who drinks water (bottles and filters), goes to a hospital (sterilized and disposeable implements), owns DVDs/CDs, wears clothes (any synthetic material), etc, is contributing to our dependence on petroleum. Plastics have revolutionized our society, and guess where they come from...? We could not do
So eliminating our dependence on petroleum is currently a non-starter.
Andwe get more of our petroleum from South America than the Middle East...so the war is not about oil (or we'd be marching into Venezuela first).
Miranda,
I'm not saying W is a saint. Just that he has given no evidence (that I've heard, even from his opponents) in his political life to doubt his integrity or veracity.
I think part of that is his relatively meteoric rise through the political system. The longer you're in it, the more crap sticks to you, I think. Both Clinton and Nixon has nothing other than a political life, and it showed in their (lack of) integrity. But that's another story.

Viggo is still an idiot. To the extent that anyone has a better justification for their views, they are to that same extent less of an idiot. And that's my final word.

Okay - one last bit. Palmer: I'll check out your blog later...and...gulp...this may be a...surprise...

I love Ann Coulter!

That's it? That's all you guys got? Are you conceeding anything or are you just waiting for my post on BMA to give me the skinny? I set up this grand parade and you can't bring the lead horse down....

Blowtorch Monkey Armada is working on a new proposal on how to address all those questions. They are indeed fair and deserve answering, Joe, Nathan and whoever else. Davey, the rest will be up later today, I hope. After two days of heavy posting / blogging was due to a slow work schedule, but now things are finally picking up again. Also my apologies for the confusing of the logging / fascist thing.

Ann.....(shakes head in disgust)....What a surprise......

She was on CNN's Crossfire last week with, of all people, Jerry Springer. She should be embarresed because America's #1 Circus freak show carnival barker and entertainment's lowest common denominator made her look like a First Class Fool. I couldn't figure out whether Jerry was really that good or Anne was really that bad. I'm gonna go with a little of both.

Actually I'm really embarressed to admit this -Jerry was really that good. Can't say I'd vote for the guy, Barak Obama is who I'm leaning towards... unless Jerry wins the Democrat Primary. Part of says I should be ashamed of myself (you can rag me, I deserve it), but it's the truth. Sen. Fitzgerald (R-IL) has got to go. Well, at least Congress would be a whole lot more intersting though, wouldn't it?

From Viggo to Springer, what a weird trip this has been.

I think if you're going to make any statements regarding the civilian fatality rates due to use of smart bombs, I think you'd better come armed with a few facts. Otherwise, you know, we might think it's just unfounded opinion.

Okay - now this is the last time. Didn't see that one Palmer, but did see her on Donahue and with Katie Couric. And she made both of them look like they were retarded (and out to get her on a personal level). Katie drew her into an attack/bickering match, and I actually felt sorry for Donahue. IMHO. I know she's inflamatory and sarcatic, but that's why I love her so - much like Tony. Ahem...I don't really "love" you Tony, but you know what I'm sayin'.

Would love to have seen her with Springer...but I betchya...Springer regurgitated your own thoughts on the matter - hence she looked dumb. I doubt it's much more complicated than that. The same could be said in my direction. :)

Not conceding anything - it's more of a time issue. For example, I have to drive to another site right now. Also - I thought we were all gonna stop it - here on Tony's post anyway.

We are not the embattled nation here. There's been one terrorist attack on US soil.

Well, except for that other attempt to destroy the World Trade Center, on Feb. 26, 1993, which killed six people and injured more than 1,000.

Oh, and there's that Oct. 12, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole (which is sure as shit American property, if not American territory) which killed 17 and injured 39.

And I seem to recall that on Aug. 7, 1998, American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked by bombers, killing 224 people and injuring more than 5,000. While they may be on foreign soil, our embassies are, again, American property.

Let's see . . . U.S. enjoy Laurence Foley was killed in Jordan last Oct. 28, American nurse Bonnie Whiterall was killed by an Islamist in Lebanon on Nov. 21, two American soldiers were shot in Kuwait the same day . . .

So please, spare us all the "We've only been attacked once" baloney. It's clear that terrorists are targeting Americans both in our country and around the world.

Katie is a talking head, and liberal or not, she's probably not the best authority for picking an argument. I would not be surprised if Anne did make them look like fools, she's arguably more well informed than say Katie Couric. She can be manipulative with her facts too. On the other hand Katie is (from what I've seen) an all-heart not neccessarily much cold hard fact kinda liberal.

Springer, well even his arguments on CNN had flaws, for example his anti-war argument, while admirable, had a chink in the armor (well, at least a chink that I would have brought to his attention if I were there to debate), but I really liked what he had to say. I also had to cheer a bit on the inside when he said what he said about certain things like Health Care, etc. He was even keeled, straight forward and (gasp!) intelligent. He even knows that his show is a huge farce, but if you take a really good look at the Springer Show, it's a perfect example of true free market Republican economic policy. People like strippers, love triangles, pimps, dominatrixes, make overs, druggies, violence and all that other crap. Supply and demand my friend. People want crap and he gives it to them.

Anne on the other hand goes for the jugular, which is probably why you like her. Sometimes it works (not that I agree with anything she has to say), but other times sounds like a fool.

AND she is the virtual epitome, the exact type of person I was trying to speak to when I put up all those posts. Calling Democrats traitors for not supporting the President? I can tell you who she should really spill her bile on about being traitors, and it aint Libs, Dems or Lesbian commies who look like they got buckwheat in a headlock. She's a perfect candidate for a head shrink for the dissassociation disorder.

Phil Dennison --

I would like to add the plots to bomb LAX, NY bridges, . . . plus the smaller scale incidents that authorities refuse to label terrorism, like the LAX shooting, the NY shooting of Jews in a van called "road rage."

Sweet Moses, a lot of people feel strongly about this.

I'm not even sure who Viggo Mortensen is. ^-^

Some second-rate actor, apparently, but I never heard of him before all this either.

Most likely, he's trying to enhance his visibility (and hence his career) by making dumb comments about things he knows nothing about.

He should start a blog.

Richard

Whatever you think of Viggo Mortensen's political views, he has every right to voice them. And why is an actor any less qualified to do so than say, a plumber or a computer programmer? You elected one as president, if you remember.

I don't think his career needs any enhancement, being as he's just starred in two of the most successful movies of all time. And he certainly has no need of a blog, considering he can make his opinions heard by millions more people than will ever visit your webpage. Good thing, too.

Well Tony and Co, thanks for this it's been swell : )

And thanks to the efforts of Lou, Palmer and Miranda I'm comfortable in supporting an "America has a lot to answer for" stance.

Lou, Palmer and Miranda; If you'd like to share your views on a more public site: Divorcenet, General Issues Board
Your input would be welcome and appreciated. (well it would by me...lol)

This is a public site so of course all are welcome, my reason for singling only 3 out is because they views of the others held here are already most staunchly held on this other board.

To finish my time on this thread 'on topic'. Viggo is NOT a second rate actor (duh), he does NOT court visibility or career enhancement (doesn't need to)....and despite some unfortunate comments....HE IS NOT AN IDIOT!!!!

Lol!

Logan ~

Logan

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'll check out the messageboard you mentioned, but to be honest, I'm not sure I have the time to get involved in another heated debate like this! (You never know, though. Plus I owe you one.)

Lou sweet : ) You don't owe me anything, got enough for all you guys already over the last few days and I appreciate it.

Logan ~

And he certainly has no need of a blog, considering he can make his opinions heard by millions more people than will ever visit your webpage.

If Viggo had a blog, what would he say? Maybe something like this:

Like, hey, dude, Bush is real BAD, man. Just got some killer weed, man. It's righteous. Hey, no more blood for oil, man, blood for POT! Don't Bogart that bong dude...

Heavy.

Hey, all

We have to forgive Richard; he's just lonely.

Lou's never lonely as long as she has her D cells.

Actually, there were more than 3000 violent acts perpetrated by terrorist groups in the US just between 1992 and 1997.
(source: "Target USA" by Louis R. Mizell, Jr)
I was going to stop by the sites Logan mentioned, but since I was specifically NOT invited...well, I know where I'm not welcome ;)

You people better forget about talking any sense into some of these peoples thick skulls. In fact I don't think I'll visit this site again. What is the point of coming up with good solid thoughts just to have them thrown in your face with swear words and off base theories.

I love Viggo as an actor but why does anyone care what his opinion is? His isnt any more importantthan mine or yours. I don't agree with his politics but I respect his right to freedom of speech. It seems that he is uninformed about his issues which is a bit surprising because he is well educated.