Political Agenda of member

[Azania]

Firstly, Iam a political animal. I like debate on political issues and have entered into a few hot topics on this board. So while part of me enjoys topics relating to current affairs and events around the world, I also feel driven to talk about the methods of a particular member of this site.

I have no need nor wish to point out the name because that would be considered a vendetta, which it is not, and regular users will be aware of who I mean.

I feel its the difference between taking a particular event that is in the public eye, and putting it up for the scrutiny and dissection by members of the board, as oppossed to utilizing the board as an ongoing political arena.

It is being used not as the name would imply "talking point", but as a medium by which to constantly cut-and-paste articles , some current some historical, some really really old, some recent, all political and all with the aim of vilifying the US (of which I am not a citizen, for the record). Some are valid and some are simply garbage, but thats not my point.

Might I suggest that this person, who has obviously taken it upon himself to educate the world about these issues (and is sadly incredibly narrow minded and resistant to two sided debate) finds a more suitable medium , maybe even creates his own site, or if he already has one, let us know and we'll go there if its worthy of a visit.

Perhaps he could find a position (if he does not already have one) with an Anti-American magazine or some such medium.

All I'm saying is that it never deviates from the same topic. There are lots of monstrous regimes out there, I know. I was born and raised in and left one as a child, was moved to another and managed to leave that one too.

Perhaps if the person to whom I am referring would occassionally put his efforts into educating the board about somewhere other than his pet project, he may develop more credibility. And a bit less cut-and-paste and a bit more of his own work may help.

Well, Ive got that off my chest, I doubt it will have much effect on him, but I feel a whole lot better.

[Joseph27]

Okay I will bite - I dont mind a debate either.  I only come by this board in the hope that I get some more intelligent responses - unfortunately that rarely happens.  If you disagree and want to argue - do so, if you dont, fine dont open such topics.   At the moment I write several pages and have in the past sometimes pasted articles from others onto this page.  It is an attempt to open up the forum - if you entirely disagree and really want to argue - then do so.  What is stopping you???  You say you like to debate but I have not seen one rebuttal from you for any of my posts???  

Personally I just like to argue - I dont care what it is about - earlier I took to arguing for American foreign policy - now I argue against.  Why ? numerous reasons really not the least of which is the criminal currently running the white house.  You may berate me for using such terms against the US - but if you open your eyes you may see that there is a mountain of literature coming out of the US itself, it is not against people - it is against government.  

I am not attacking people personally - I am attacking a governments policies - you may confuse the two - it seems many people do which is unfortunate.  I previously wrote post against Iraq - I disliked the Iraqi leader however I didnt have a hate for the Iraqi people.

Post an intelligent topic and i will respond - by the way I have post over 1500 post here over the past few years - less than half have been anti US foreign policy.  My real love is Asian politics but I dont include many such post here.

By the way if you are keen to debate - join in one of the topics.  

Back to why I keep posting these articles - well you see in reading the stuff that is going on in Iraq and in seeing non USA news services I cannot help but to feel that our inaction is indirecting supporting US attrocities in Iraq.  The US is engaged in regime change for geo potical advantage.  Ask how many people in Fallujah feel safe with the US occupation.  The fact is that the USA has engaged in a war and killed more than 100,000 CIVILIANS.  This maybe all right to you because you grew up in an oppressive country so you know America is the beacon of light, freedom and hope - - I grew up in a world believing that - now I question everything
 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FL18Ak04.html

Try accessing this link - it isnt to some far left radical site - it is to the Asian Times.  Go and have a look - read different accounts - its worth a few minutes of your time

[This message has been edited by Joseph27 (edited 19-12-2004).]

[Joseph27]

Oh just one note - T2K and Thomaspaine - can often provide decent responses.  I especially like T2K's more reasoned arguments.  Unfortunately the *** main proponents are no longer writing

By the way

"The CIA in the 1950s coined the term
"blowback" to refer to "the unintended and unexpected negative consequences of covert special operations that have been kept secret from the American people and, in most cases, from their elected representatives".

This has a theme I have been writing about all along - but so many people want to live in denial - as then accuse me of being anti American.  That is truly pathetic - actually its something I would expect from a keen Bush supporter and constant viewer of Fox news.  

[This message has been edited by Joseph27 (edited 19-12-2004).]

[Joseph27]

Just in case that link doesnt work - read this.

The failed US face of Fallujah
By Michael Schwartz

The chilling reality of what Fallujah has become is only now seeping out, as the US military continues to block almost all access to the city, whether to reporters, its former residents, or aid groups such as the Red Crescent Society. The date of access keeps being postponed, partly because of ongoing fighting - only this week more air strikes were called in and fighting "in pockets" remains fierce (despite US pronouncements of success weeks ago) - and partly because of the difficulties military commanders have faced in attempting to prettify their ugly handiwork. Residents will now officially be denied entry until at least December 24; and even then, only the heads of households will be allowed in, a few at a time, to assess damage to their residences in the largely destroyed city.

With a few notable exceptions, the media have accepted the recent virtual news blackout in Fallujah. The ongoing fighting in the city, especially in "cleared" neighborhoods, is proving an embarrassment and so, while military spokesmen continue to announce American casualties, they now come not from the city itself but, far more vaguely, from "al-Anbar province", of which the city is a part. Fifty American soldiers died in the taking of the city; 20 more died in the following weeks - before the reports stopped. Iraqi civilian casualties remain unknown and accounts of what's happened in the city, except from the point of view of embedded reporters (and so of US troops) remain scarce. With only a few exceptions (notably Anthony Shadid of the Washington Post), American reporters have neglected to cull news from refugee camps or Baghdad hospitals, where survivors of the siege are now congregating.

Intrepid independent and foreign reporters are doing a better job (most notably Dahr Jamail, whose dispatches are indispensable), but even they have been handicapped by lack of access to the city itself. At least Jamail did the next best thing, interviewing a Red Crescent worker who was among the handful of non-governmental organization personnel allowed briefly into the wreckage that was Fallujah.

A report by Katarina Kratovac of the Associated Press (picked up by the Washington Post) about military plans for managing Fallujah once it is pacified (if it ever is) proved a notable exception to the arid coverage in the major media. Kratovac based her piece on briefings by the military leadership, notably Lieutenant-General John F Sattler, commander of the Marines in Iraq. By combining her evidence with some resourceful reporting by Dahr Jamail (and bits and pieces of information from reports printed up elsewhere), a reasonably sharp vision of the conditions the US is planning for Fallujah's "liberated" residents comes into focus. When they are finally allowed to return, if all goes as the Americans imagine, here's what the city's residents may face:

Entry to and exit from the city will be restricted. According to Sattler, only five roads into the city will remain open. The rest will be blocked by "sand berms" - read mountains of earth that will make them impassible. Checkpoints will be established at each of the five entry points, manned by US troops, and everyone entering will be "photographed, fingerprinted and have iris scans taken before being issued ID cards". Though Sattler reassured American reporters that the process would only take 10 minutes, the implication is that entry to and exit from the city will depend solely on valid identification cards properly proffered, a system akin to the pass-card system used during the apartheid era in South Africa.

Fallujans are to wear their universal identity cards in plain sight at all times. The ID cards will, according to Dahr Jamail's information, be made into badges that contain the individual's home address. This sort of system has no purpose except to allow for the monitoring of everyone in the city, so that ongoing US patrols can quickly determine whether someone is not a registered citizen or is suspiciously far from their home neighborhood.

No private automobiles will be allowed inside the city. This is a "precaution against car bombs", which Sattler called "the deadliest weapons in the insurgent arsenal". As a district is opened to repopulation, the returning residents will be forced to park their cars outside the city and will be bused to their homes. How they will get around afterward has not been announced. How they will transport reconstruction materials to rebuild their devastated property is also a mystery.

Only those Fallujans cleared through US intelligence vettings will be allowed to work on the reconstruction of the city. Since Fallujah is currently devastated and almost all employment will, at least temporarily, derive from whatever reconstruction aid the US provides, this means that the Americans plan to retain a life-and-death grip on the city. Only those deemed by them to be non-insurgents (based on notoriously faulty US intelligence) will be able to support themselves or their families.

Those engaged in reconstruction work - that is, those who are working at all - in the city may be organized into "work brigades". The best information indicates that these will be military-style battalions commanded by the US or Iraqi armed forces. Here, as in other parts of the plan, the motive is clearly to maintain strict surveillance over males of military age, all of whom will be considered potential insurgents.

In case the overarching meaning of all this has eluded you, Major Francis Piccoli, a spokesman for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, which is leading the occupation of Fallujah, spelled it out for Kratovac: "Some may see this as a 'Big Brother is watching over you' experiment, but in reality it's a simply security measure to keep the insurgents from coming back." Actually, it is undoubtedly meant to be both; and since, in the end, it is likely to fail (at least, if the "success" of other US plans in Iraq is taken as precedent), it may prove less revealing of Fallujah's actual future than of the failure of the US counterinsurgency effort in Iraq and of the desperation of American strategists.

In this context, the most revealing element of the plan may be the banning of all cars, the enforcement of which, all by itself, would make the city unlivable; and which therefore demonstrates both the impracticality of the US vision and a callous disregard for the needs and rights of the Fallujans.

These dystopian plans are a direct consequence of the fact that the conquest of Fallujah, despite the destruction of the city, visibly did not accomplish its primary goal - "to wipe out militants and insurgents and break the back of guerrillas in Fallujah". Even taking American kill figures at face value, the battle for the city was hardly a full-scale success. Before the assault on the city began, US intelligence estimated that there were 5,000 insurgents inside. Sattler himself conceded that the final official count was 1,200 fighters killed and no more than 2,000 suspected guerrillas captured. (This assumes, of course, that it was possible in the heat of the battle and its grim aftermath to tell whether any dead man of fighting age was an "insurgent", a "suspected insurgent", or just a dead civilian.) At least a couple of thousand resistance fighters previously residing in Fallujah are, then, still "at large" - not counting the undoubtedly sizable number of displaced residents now angry enough to take up arms. As a consequence, were the US to allow the outraged residents of Fallujah to return unmolested, they would simply face a new struggle in the ruins of the city (as, in fact, continues to be the case anyway). This would leave the extensive devastation of whole neighborhoods as the sole legacy of the invasion.

US desperation is expressed in a willingness to treat all Fallujans as part of the insurgency - the inevitable fate of an occupying army that tries to "root out" a popular resistance. As Sattler explained, speaking of the plan for the "repopulation" of the city, "Once we've cleared each and every house in a sector, then the Iraqi government will make the notification of residents of that particular sector that they are encouraged to return." In other words, each section of the city must be entirely emptied of life, so that the military can be sure not even one suspect insurgent has infiltrated the new order. (As is evident, this is but another US occupation fantasy, since the insurgents still hiding in the city have evidently proven all too adept at "repopulating" emptied neighborhoods themselves.)

The ongoing policy of house-to-house inspections, combined with ultra-tight security regulations aimed at not allowing suspected guerrillas to re-enter the city, is supposed to ensure that everyone inside the Fallujan perimeter will not only be disarmed but obedient to occupation demands and desires. The name tags and the high-tech identity cards are meant to guard against both forgeries and unlawful movement within the city. The military-style work gangs are to ensure that everyone is under close supervision at all times. The restricted entry points are clearly meant to keep all weapons out. Assumedly kept out as well will be most or all reporters (they tend to inflame public opinion), most medical personnel (they tend to "exaggerate" civilian casualties), and most Sunni clerics (they oppose the occupation and support the insurgency). We can also expect close scrutiny of computers (which can be used for nefarious communications), ambulances (which have been used to smuggle weapons and guerrillas), medicines (which can be used to patch up wounded fighters who might still be hiding somewhere), and so on.

It is not much of a reach to see that, at least in their fantasies, US planners would like to set up what sociologists call a "total institution". Like a mental hospital or a prison, Fallujah, at least as reimagined by the Americans, will be a place where constant surveillance equals daily life and the capacity to interdict "suspicious" behavior (however defined) is the norm. But "total institution" might be too sanitized a term to describe activities that so clearly violate international law as well as fundamental morality. Those looking for a descriptor with more emotional bite might consider one of those used by correspondent Pepe Escobar of Asia Times Online: either "American gulag" for those who enjoy Stalinist imagery or "concentration camp" for those who prefer the Nazi version of the same. But maybe we should just call it a plain old police (city-)state.

Where will such plans lead? Well, for one thing, we can confidently predict that nothing we might recognize as an election will take place in Fallujah at the end of January. (Remember, it was to liberate Fallujans from the grip of "terrorists" and to pave the way for electoral free choice that the administration of US President George W Bush claimed it was taking the city in the first place.) With the current date for allowing the first residents to return set for December 24 - heads of household only to assess property damage - and the process of repopulation supposedly moving step by step, from north to south, across neighborhoods and over time, it's almost inconceivable that a majority of Fallujans will have returned by late January (if they are even willing to return under the conditions set by the Americans). Latest reports are that it will take six months to a year simply to restore electricity to the city. So organizing elections seems unlikely indeed.

The magnitude of the devastation and the brutality of the US plan are what's likely to occupy the full attention of Fallujans for the foreseeable future - and their reactions to these dual disasters represent the biggest question mark of the moment. However, the history of the Iraq war thus far, and the history of guerrilla wars in general, suggest that there will simply be a new round of struggle, and that carefully laid military plans will begin to disintegrate with the very first arrivals. There is no predicting what form the new struggle will take, but the US military is going to have a great deal of difficulty controlling a large number of rebellious, angry people inside the gates of America's new mini-police state. This is why the military command has kept almost all of the original attack force in the city, in anticipation of the need for tight patrols by a multitude of US troops. And it also explains why so many other locations around the country have suddenly found themselves without a US troop presence.

The Fallujah police-state strategy represents a sign of weakness, not strength. The new Fallujah imagined by American planners is a desperate, ad hoc response to the failure of the battle to "break the back of the guerrillas". Like the initial attack on the city, it, too, is doomed to failure, though it has the perverse "promise" of deepening the suffering of the Iraqis.

Michael Schwartz, professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, has written extensively on popular protest and insurgency, and on US business and government dynamics. His work on Iraq has appeared at TomDispatch, Asia Times Online and ZNet and in Contexts and Z Magazine. His books include Radical Politics and Social Structure, The Power Structure of American Business (with Beth Mintz), and Social Policy and the Conservative Agenda (edited, with Clarence Lo) .

[Azania]

So, Joseph, where do I start – How about here.

“What is stopping you??? You say you like to debate but I have not seen one rebuttal from you for any of my posts???”

I have replied on a number of your posts. The most recent being in answer to your one titled :

Question for you on 9/11…

Apart from my reply and your eventual cop out, the only other reply was  this:

“Thank you, Azania. Now that's a post that actually makes sense unlike the increasingly insane drivel coming from J27.”

Your rather stunning response to my post was :

“Azania - Just having fun. There are so many things written on this and frankly I dont believe it either - though the concept that underlines the belief that their is something more sinister behind 9/11 is worth discussing.
I am interested to get some feedback. Engineering wise I accept that the WTC collapsed for reasons shown.
This post was for fun - if you are interested in a more focused thread see the other one. “ What other thread, Joseph. What fun. So that some poor bugger (whose loved one may have burned to death or been forced to toss themselves to a certain death from 90 floors up to escape 2500 degree heat.) could read your garbage and have old wounds opened up horribly in the knowledge that some people out there thought it was about money.

Coupling  that with the statement in this thread of :

“Personally I just like to argue - I dont care what it is about - earlier I took to arguing for American foreign policy - now I argue against…”  (I would like to see examples of the former )

and it makes me think that maybe that’s it, you just like to argue.

“Post an intelligent topic and i will respond - by the way I have post over 1500 post here over the past few years - less than half have been anti US foreign policy. “

I have posted, both under Azania and under names made up on the spur of the moment and more relevant to the discussion many many times. Sometimes serious, sometimes silly, sometimes totally inane. Some on politics, religion , sport, movies, good burgers, bad neighbours .etc etc

This is partly the point I made in this thread. You say you have posted 1500 posts and say “less than half have been anti US foreign policy. “ That means you admit to nearly 750 being anti US policy. Factor in the supposed number you say were pro US policy (still looking for those) and you have kind of proved my point. You ARE using this website as a forum for a political agenda. I however use it for a variety of posts and joining in a variety of topics, all of which are part of the proverbial tapestry of a full and varied life.

Next you say  -

“ My real love is Asian politics but I dont include many such post here. “ – Why the hell not. We are in Asia are we not? They might be considered to be far more relevant. The fact that you have an Anti American agenda would make it far more logical to post your type of thread on mainly American read websites and bulletin ***.

Maybe your words would carry more kudos and have more chance for effective change. Posting on a website such as this, where the majority of people are NOT from the US would imply that you are preaching manily to the converted. By which I mean that US policy is not well received by Europe and Asia and the majority of the world.

It doesn’t take a genius to work out, therefore, that you would do better to find a predominantly American site and post there. Maybe your words could be more effective.

“By the way if you are keen to debate - join in one of the topics.. “ I repeat, I have.

Then you write:

"The CIA in the 1950s coined the term

"blowback" to refer to "the unintended and unexpected negative consequences of covert special operations that have been kept secret from the American people and, in most cases, from their elected representatives".

Well in a intelligence capacity, that’s where it is used, yes.   "Blowback" is a CIA term first used in March 1954 in a recently declassified report on the 1953 operation to overthrow the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. Chalmers Johnson , used the title for his recent book, no doubt where you got the term for your post.

Where did he get the term?

Well, I was a professional soldier for many years. Since then I have worked in the field of private consultation in intelligence and security, for any number of organisations with a leaning towards small arms training.

“Blowback” can also refer to the combination of gasses, dirt, and debris (unburnt powder, metal shavings) that most firearms produce upon firing.  You can see the link between the two terms. Fire off something dangerous and you may get hurt by what is left over.

And that is the basis of one of my major problems with a person such as yourself, Joseph. I may be entirely wrong, but you don’t seem to have any idea of what could be referred to as the real world.

The facts that the average person base their opinions on are generally gleaned from a very narrow spectrum of writings or media. The reaity of the world is far more brutal, and far less subject to pontification or eulogizing about something you understand little about. It is a whole other topic, but until you have been at “the blunt end” as it were , you cannot watch a conflict like Iraq happening in the media and suppose for one minute that you speak on behalf of the Iraqi people when you give your opnion on the rights or wrongs of that war.

Ask the person whose family were killed brutally by the former regime and you will get one opinion. Ask someone who derived benefit from the regime, and they will tell you Saddam was a great man. Joseph Stalin killed over 30 million of his own people, and yet there are people who lovingly call him Uncle Joe and celebrate his birthday.

Until you have directly affected by that war, or any war you have no idea what you are on about. If you have, I apologise.

Lastly, as this could go on forever, you strike me as a very disjointed character. By your own admission, you like to argue.

You also tend to back away if the argument looks like one you may lose. It is said that the best way to truly see yourself if through the eyes of others, so in that vein, I searched by your title for your views on life. Leaving aside your problem  with the US, which as you say, extends to almost 750 posts, this is a random sample of how Joseph27 views the world.

To  your credit, I will say that you are certainly not shy and post on a variety of topics, and all using your title, to which you are to be commended. At least you are “to thine own self, true” :

MAIDS

“Just common sense stuff helped me once. Some of these maids are so damn stupid that things a 5 year would take for granted would be overlooked”

“The concept however is the same - you are an employee - they are an employee. Does your boss let you eat with their family - are you considered the child they never had - or slightly retarded child that got dropped at birth? No - you have a job to do and you are expected to do it.”

THE INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGED

“One is a total Christian fanatic, one is registered as being mentally deficient and so gets govt benefits and then there is him.
Where is this going I hear you say? Well he met a girl recently (on none other than a phone chat site for the lonely) and she is his intellectual equal but nonetheless has a nastier personality than he does. Now they live together and want a family. I say he should be sterilized – he does not deserve the right to have children for no other reason that the children will be ugly stupid and end up as a burden on the state. I understand that rose grows in sh*t but for the most part this child will be nothing but a stain on the face of humanity – so why condone its existence. “

“The couple in my original post will frankly have children who will be born to be shelf stackers at the best, mentally challenged at the worst. Why should a society knowingly open their arms to this?”

“Haileysmom - I honestly hope you didnt take any offense to me writing that because I am sure you know that I was writing purely tongue in cheek ya”  Tongue-in-cheek, Joseph. About this. Yuk!

HITTING KIDS

“Hint to any parents with kids with Attention deficient disorder - it is a figment of your imagination - buy yourselfs a good wooden spoon - when the kid demands too much - refuse - if they go mental - smack them around the a*s - if they continue - do it again but this time make sure it breaks. They will be better next time and you will save a heap on useless drugs”

PETS

“In referencing the info from another thread entitled Pussy - throw one of the bloody things from the eighth floor window - problem solved - no angry cats. “

ABORTIONS

“With abortions we have the chance to address unwanted pregnancies and deformed children - this is a gift to society even though it greatly pisses off right to lifers”

The world is a yucky place, Joseph. The Real Politik is that all countries act out of self interest in the end. As do most people. Even the wonderful people who dedicate their lives to helping others will admit that generally they are filling a void or a need in themselves which their humanitarianism achieves. That is not to diminish their work, but it is the truth. If you feel so strongly about the terrible things happening around the world, there are lots of ways you can fill your void.

I'm not saying that you need to jet of to Fallujah, join a NGO and work 18 hours a day helping the homeless and needy, which is what most of those types of people do.

You need only give of your time, contribute skills that will benefit the people you espouse to help and it will pay off.

But sitting around mouthing off in the way you do, on a website entirly unsuited to the purpose is a tiresome and fruitless task, to which you are more than entitled, although ostensibly its not really the aim of the site, which was, and remains, the point of my thread.

[Joseph27]

A great deal of my post have been purely for fun or for provoking a fight.  I think I even used the name angry Indian once and got a good discussion and some perspectives from a Pakistani writer.  I have no qualms in admitting that I am wrong sometimes – I like to learn and in several places that I post I do get that chance.  This board used to provide some useful dialogue from the likes of PhilM and that kept me coming back. Now I generally just post some odds and sods here and there – some from me but most from others.  Interested to see if I get some feedback – perhaps even provide the basis of an expanded argument.  

I have only seen one response to any of my stuff and that was the one on 9/11.  I read all this material on how there is a grand conspiracy – rather than take it in I actually researched the arguments made and found that I disagreed with what was written.  I initially posted on this site because I wanted to see if there was at least one factual rebuttal rather than a turn of the head and a slight smirk.  

That’s all I got – by the time you posted it anyway I was quite happy with my own research.  No harm really.  9/11 was a serious attack in the heart of America, an attack I am afraid gave reason to some of the most dangerous men in history to engage in unjustified preemptive wars.  You may or may not agree with Iraq, but I seriously see it as a major violation of both international law and human rights.  

I do like to argue but generally it is with an end in mind, I don’t spend my day’s dilly dallying in Monty Python like dialogue.  Actually looking through my post way less then half have been anti American FOREIGN POLICY.  As for Asian politics, well I guess you weren’t around when I post more of them.  The majority of posts are written for other forums and dropped here as an after thought only.  I haven’t seen a rebuttal from you in post such as Iran is next or other such post – they are the ones I am interested in discussing.  

The text you quote is actually from someone else – I never pretended it was mine.  The term blow back however I feel is an important word for people to think about before they started cursing the world for not liking America.  9/11 was very much a case of blow back and whilst the people who died didn’t deserve such a violent fate, America as a country did.   Of course that is where I got it – as I said the term has significance when you take into account America’s foreign policy choices.

I haven’t had a military back ground and I sure as hell would never consider being a member of the military now, the real world you speak of is a nasty place and I am aware of that.  I understand that the serene images we see in the media are only representative of life for a very small percentage of people on this planet. One of my major dislikes is having the American media tell us how the US helps keep it so nice and yet you look around you see a very different situation.  Oh and I would never dare to think I speak for the Iraqi people, however I have a right as a human being to question the motives of a country that illegally invades another and engages in regime change.

The reason behind the war can only be the subject of conjecture but when 100,000 civilians more people should speak up.  Then again if I believe the rosy reports on Fox news I know that Afghanistan is a peaceful democracy and Iraq is well on the way with elections next month….

Suddam Hussein was an evil bastard, as was Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and a host of other contenders for nastiest guy in history.  Maybe George Bush is way down the list but he is on there.  Any experience I have had with war has been from an outsiders perspective and I pray that that remains the case though with things the way they are and with the US behaving as irresponsibly as it does, then it may become a future reality.  

I don’t back away from arguments and the post you have included convey a number of areas most which were written either in jest or because I want to provoke a response.  

By the way I am killing myself laughing rereading those posts, especially the one about my friend Michael.  (Sorry Michael).  I am happy to say that they broke up without having children though.  Maids – well I fired my maid this morning and I refuse to have another – my wife and I treated her with the utmost respect and paid her well, unfortunately she got greedy and asked for twice her wage, so be it but no more maid.  ADD – well I concede that was written after a certain South Park episode

Cats – mmm – sorry to cat lovers.  Abortions – as a father one changes ones perspective.  

The world is a yucky place – and countries do act out of self interest but when the biggest country acts out of self interest and so undermines international law and in the process kills so many people, whilst simultaneously saying that they are defending democracy and human rights then I need to question that.  To hear friends defending US action in places like Iraq makes me sick because I feel that they are buying a lie – believing the same stuff the Nazi’s would have fed the Germans all those decades ago.  

[Azania]

Joseph - A far more conciliatory reply than I expected or deserved. You have gone up in my estimations.

I doubt I would have been big enough to accept a blatant attack on my very nature with as much aplomb as you, and understanding as I do know that you are like my brother back home, a stirrer who will take which ever side of the argument results in a good old verbal joust, I look forward to our next meeting in virtual combat.

And to set the ball rolling, I am going to throw you by agreeing with you on the Iran post. If Rumsfeld, Rice and , more worryingly Wolfowitz had their way, they would be the next target.

But that is due not to a general trend towards warmongering and the capture of oil reserves in this administration, but in my opinion, down to a far more worrying trend.

As I said in my last reply, most countries act in the best perceived economic interests of their nation. The reality is in the old adage "There are no politics , only economics"

While I still believe that in the long run, the US is more of a force for good than evil, and that the morals, ethics and intentions of the majority of Americans are of good intent, the most worrying trend for me in this administration and American politics in general is the rise of an evangelical base for decision making.

People who believed that Iraq was all about oil were not looking at the reality of the situation.

Had the US wanted to capture rights to Iraqi oil, they could simply have accepted saddam back into the fold, influenced the secyrity council of the UN to stop sanctions and bought as much oil as they wanted for the next 100 years , until Saddam and his descendants hold on power proved untenable.

Just as they have patted Gaddafi on the back, hugs all round, and secured huge contracts for the next few decades.

No, what worries me more is that this is rapidly moving towards a far greater fight between cultures. Look back in history and you will see that the clash betwen the Christian and Muslim world is cyclical and repetitive. I am a devout atheist, yet I can feel an undercurrent under the surface that is far more worrying than who has oil and who wants it.

When the current administration gets advice which it values and takes seriously from a man like Pat Robertson, we must be concerned.

Because when the advice is being given as religion based, with scant regard for the consequences other than what a mystical mythical God might want, we are in trouble.

Recent history has shown how fundamentalists, regardless of which religion they follow, will carry out atrocities in the name of their faith, and believe it justified.

So if the trend continues, and the Democrats don't achieve victory in the next election, and the world becomes the scary place it could be in a decade or so, with the Christian Coalition on one side and a well developed Fundamentalist Islamic power base on the other (aided by a perceived notion that this is all about oil), then I am off to my little part of paradise in the south island of New Zealand.

There I will live off the land, connect to the world by homing pigeon and shortwave radio, grow a beard, eat grubs and start to grow old disgracefully, slowly lose my mind and die at around 100 having not bathed for a decade or two. The smell alone will keep away the nutters who will be running the world by then.

Who knows, by then you may be my neighbour and we can continue this conversation over the garden fence.

[God himself]

Get a room!

Oh, you have ...

[Azania]

God Himself - I wondered when you might pop your head above the parapet and put your 2 pennyworth in. I have read enough of your posts to have you sussed .

As for "get a room" if you are referring to my place in the the heavenly south island of New Zealand, its 1500 acres of woodland, farmland, and rocks. It'll be bitterly cold most of the time but if you can swing an axe, mate, when the time comes to wave fond farewell to the nuthouse, you're welcome to a bit in the very far end paddock, but only a bit , mind you, and don't come visiting on Sundays.

[PhilM]

Joseph your email is not functioning please drop me a line.

[God himself]

 

quote:
I have read enough of your posts to have you sussed .

I have an agenda? Wow! Wish I knew what it was.

Your farm sounds nice -- but with a name like "Azania", you'll probably need a bolt hole.

[Azania]

God Himself - Your agenda . None. You're a bit like Joseph27 , I reckon. Like a good old fiery debate , don't really mind who wins, just that everyone involved is forced to think about some aspect of themselves and the topic at hand.

As for a bolt-hole, with a name like Azania, I think Ill need a bolt-action !!

Although most of the nationalists who have adapted and adopted the name around the world forget that the initial usuage, that of a proposed alternative to the name South Africa, was intended to portray the paradise that would be a united apartheid-free South Africa.

Still a long way off, Im afraid!

[Joseph27]

While I still believe that in the long run, the US is more of a force for good than evil, and that the morals, ethics and intentions of the majority of Americans are of good intent, the most worrying trend for me in this administration and American politics in general is the rise of an evangelical base for decision making
************************

It’s taken a while to get back to this thread.  Azania I find the comment you made above worth discussing further.  

'More a force of good than evil' - I am not certain of that - though I would say that whilst only a few people are truly evil, the majority of a country can be tarnished with the ilwill of a few corrupt leaders.  Take for example the Japanese in WWII, the people were not intrinsically evil - they thought they were fighting a holy war and so supported their country but unfortunately they were lead into chaos by a brutal government who entirely misjudged their enemy.  In the end however it was generally innocent people who paid for the mistakes of their leaders with their lives.  

Similarly the vast majority of American people are not evil, yet their government is embarking on what I strongly believe is an immoral war with such devastating consequences for innocent people.  More than 100,000 civilians are likely dead so regardless of the alleged intent – the results are devastating.

I am unsure of how much American politics really looks towards its evangelical base except at election time when it becomes essential to the political viability of the Republican Party.  I would have thought that most Republicans know that they can rely on that voter block without doing too much though in the last election this base was extremely important and got Bush over the line.  (Just scream Roe V Wade and you will get a million Christians into the street).

How much say in the agenda Bush now gives to that base is uncertain though given Bush’s past I believe he is lead more by his hawks than the moral proclivities of ultraist Christians.  I do agree however that the rise in this evangelical base is worrying – because no country, especially one with the military ability of the US should be lead by a religiously skewed elite – be it Christian or Muslim.  

I like the sound of your place in New Zealand – I am looking for such a place myself later.