Before dealing with Thi Chi's response, I would just like to say a big "Thank you" to President Bush, Republican's in general, all those who voted for him and all those who still support him.
Prior to 911, Afghanistan and Iraq, I didn't know that much about American politics, at least nothing beyond the surface.
The policies and action of the American government have not only made me become increasingly political, they have made me become increasingly informed, often through discussions here, but also by research elsewhere.
I can't say I like what I have found out. But I am glad I know it, as ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is not knowing someething.
In the past few months this has accelerated and I've read of and seen for myself the persistant patterns that can be seen. Also, the coverage by the European media is becoming more accute and is focusing beyond the current issues to the pattern of behaviour in US foreign policy, it's justifications and it's supporters, not only today but back decades. Such analysis reveal a widespread and persistant policy of manipulation by a radical fringe; the programme 'The Power of Nightmares' on the BBC last night was a fine example of such journalism (and a great source of one of two additonal piceces of useful information).
Most conspiracy theories are bullshit. I debunk and laugh at them.
But discovering that the US foreign policy (and often the voting of US citizens) IS made on the basis of made-up stories both in the seventies and eighties and today, and that those made-up stories are being made by the same people as then and are based upon an ultra-nationalistic school of thought that actually holds manipulation of the masses by an elite as a good thing. Well, that was a bit of shock, as I thought it was just another conspiracy theory to begin with.
Now, if you don't know this and laugh and don't read further as you think it is rubbish; more fool you. This can be backed to the HILT, often by statements by the people involved. I am as serious as a serious thing wearing a serious hat on a serious day.
But, having given my thanks where due to my politicalisation, let's deal with Thi Chi;
lol. You can't meet the logic test, so lets argue non-issues.
Ah, so ad homs get added to the continual strawmen, and I don't pass the logic test...? Is your full handle Thi Deceit Chi?
And if the World being controlled by a small unelected (by the World) elite is a "non-issue", as I say; your love of democracy is all too clear. But if you are 'down with' Leo Staruss, that is scarsely surprising
You also ignore the examples I gave (which are but a small cross section) of why your statement 'right for the US and the World' is demonstrably false, and then try to make it seem I only bring "non-issues" to the table, when it is you who are ignoring the issues as you can't respond to them.
You also evade answering this;
Do you feel 'the ends justify the means'? If not how do you justify the means?
But then, whilst probably not nearly as clever as you think you are, you're not as stupid as your evasion and logical fallacies can make you seem. If you say the ends justify the means even you can see that puts you in a basket with Facists, Stalanists, radical Muslims, all of those who will suppress personal freedoms or violate human rights if it will acheieve their desired goal.
Fine. Since we are a Republic form of government, not a Democracy, It is our elected leaders who make the decisions for the US.
And don't you neo-cons love it that way?
With power concentrated into an elite, chosen by a quasi-democratic mechanism for a term of office, one can play all sorts of games with the world. Especially if one reduces politics to a game of 'scare the proles', using fear to influence their voting patterns.
Let's do a bit of "dodilly-doo, dodilly-doo" flashback complete with hand movements like in Wayne's World and see just how badly you have been fooled - or how much you are prepared to lie to defend your world-view.
Back in 1976 the neo-conservative attempts at manipulating opinions and thus gaining control of power (by both creating something to fear AND offering to save people from it - like a rat catcher who brings a box of rats to set loose and drum up business) began in earnest.
The results of a analysis of intelligence data by a group of neo-conservatives, set in motion by George Bush Senior, and manned by such people as Paul Wolfowitz, lead the USSR to be indenitified and described as an evil force, a danger to world peace, and desirous of world domination of its philosophies.
Though Team B?s analysis of the Soviet Union as a rising power on the verge of overwhelming the United States is now recognized by intelligence professionals and many historians as a ludicrous fantasy, it helped shape the national security debate in the late 1970s. American conservatives and neo-conservatives wielded the analysis like a club to bludgeon more moderate Republicans and Democrats, who saw a declining Soviet Union desperate for arms control and other negotiations.
Neo-Conservatism essentially arose from the writings of Leo Strauss, who having escaped Nazi Germany saw the increasing personal freedoms in post-war America as undermining society, and felt that totalitarian givernments using Orwellian propogandic techniques was the best way to have a stable society, run by an elite.
It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical ? divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right ? the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."
This dichotomy requires "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says,"The people are told what they need to know and no more." While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of 'Leo Strauss and the American Right' (St. Martin's 1999).
I encourage people to read all this article; it's illuminating; here's some other quotes about how Strauss felt;
"the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state... "
"Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control... "
"At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were "a pious fraud." As Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers.""
People, if you vote for Bush, this is what you are voting for, as the Bush reigeme is neo-con to the tips of its lying little toes, and they think you are the masses and that they are the elite.
Anyway, the lies and fabrication of Team B lead to the candle of detante being snuffed out on totally fabricated grounds. For example, Team B decided, without evidence, that the Soviet's sub force had a non-acoustic detection system. No evidence, and no system, but they said there was one. Sound familiar in any way to recent events?
The Soviet went from a country willing to enter into a new age of tolerance and interdependence, to a country that wanted to dominate the world, on the basis of made-up stories.
People at the heart of this - the Bush family, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz - are at the heart of the same game being played today. With the Soviets were no longer being a credible threat there's a new threat; Islamic Terrorism!
Just as the Soviet Union was not the threat their lies portrayed it to be, so too Iraq was not the threat that their lies portrayed it to be;
- No WoMD.
- The 'War on Terror' justification was never that good, as the terrorist attack everyone thought of when that's said had nothing to do with Iraq.
- And as the USA has and still supports reigemes that violate human rights as badly as Saddam Hussain's did, the claims of humanitarian reasons are empty.
I guess that massive incompetence seperated by two decades, carried out by the same people, is a more palitable 'coincidence' to believe in than the fact many people have been fooled, and fooled good.
Obviously there IS a terrorist threat from some fundamental Islamists. But the scale and direction of millitary investment is often NOT effective for terrorist warfare.
Speaking of fundamental Islamists (who are also traditionalists and willing to use religion to political ends whilst acting out-of-character with the actual beliefs of their religion under some theological justification peaceful people of the same faith refute) one is speaking not of a nation of millions with an army, but of those hold-outs against modernism that are typically at the margins of their societies.
They might be able to stage audatious attacks, but to arge that they're a major threat to world peace (if the world acts sensibly) is to say 6 billion people can be pursuaded to go to war by a few million (at the most bloated of estimates of potential recruits).
But of course, a war against terror doesn't require big armies and massive budgets. The fact that Afghanistan is still unstable enough to regulary have casualties, and the ongoing battle with counter-insurgants and terrorists in Iraq shows proper armies don't fight dispersed paramilitaries well.
But they are great for taking over strategic prizes and getting away with whatever the country possessing them wants on a 'might is right' basis. These are also parts of Strauss's poltical doctines.
Now, Thi Chi might be ignorant of this. Thi CHi might be a dupe for the neo-con propoganda. Or he might be an apologist for the neo cons. Or Thi Chi might think Thi Chi is one of the elite. It doesn't really matter as Thi Chi is not important.
The fact the most powerful country in the world is being run by what essentially operates as a ultra-nationalist political schism of conservatism is important.
The fact neo-cons fabricated evidence to allow a massive millitary build-up in the '70's, and the same bunch (give or take) are doing the same thing again is important.
Whether one choses to vote based on this fact, or whether one choses to ignore it is important.
But you Thi Chi, are not. Your responses are barely worth replying to, as dishonest and evasive as they are. They just provide intereseting hooks to hang an analysis of neo-conservative policies on.
I doubt very much if you will answer this in any comprehensive or worthwhile fashion, but will simply do what you usually do; I would be delighted if your post is a comprehensive reply, and unevasive, and will do my best to answer it if it is.
However, as your apparent philosophy holds deception to be a useful tool, I don't think you can be trusted to be honest.