I'd been wondering if/when I'd see a conservative backlash aginst Bush.

[Jwb52z]

I would be curious as to how many Americans are directly involved in this one thread. I would be surprised if it were more than half. I may get roasted for what I am about to say and ask, but I just feel the need to do it. Am I the only person around here specifically who would rather that America run the world? I asked about people from other countries because I wanted to ask that question. I would understand people from other countries not liking that idea, and I'm sorry if it does offend poeple, but I just honestly think that the world would be better off if the US ran the world. I also don't like the whole, "The US should listen to the UN and international law" stuff because the US isn't a member of the UN really. I understand common decency in action with other countries and such, but I think the US does alot of what it should and should continue regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. I have always thought that if everyone likes you, there's gotta be something you have missed. It's just not normal for everyone to like everything about everyone else. This is not a perfect world and won't ever be so because it's impossible. I know that what I have said here about the US won't happen, but I still would rather it be so. It bothers me when I believe the US knows what is right, but sometimes it is made to feel bad as a whole because some other countries don't like it. I want to scream when that happens.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by M29

Could you please provide more details?

The EOs have been on archives.gov since at least 2001: http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...sposition.html

Ah, yes.

Just before the Steelers-Broncos game, it occurred to me that I should've double-checked this. In fact, my subconscious says it tried to remind me at the time I composed my statement.

What happened is that immediately after Bush took office, a bunch of handy reference stuff on the White House site (including a handier format for EOs than the National Archive site had at that time) that I'd been accustomed to checking disappeared. I personally saw this happen -- that the EO link from whitehouse.gov disappeared. Also, for a while, the National Archive site was not updated with EOs; that is, no Bush EOs appeared there for a while.

So I stopped checking. And my attention turned elsewhere.

I regret not having doublechecked the current status before writing as though I knew it was unchanged.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

I agree that the only person you named was Bush. That was the entire issue I took with your statement. You were comparing Clinton's affair (which was totally a personal issue--which you've pointed out, and I agree) with the war. And you attached ONLY Bush's name to the war, as if it was all Bush's responsibility for it happening (just like the affair was all Clinton's fault for happening).

Well, let's see -- Congress didn't declare war on Iraq. The UN refused to invade. Bush was Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military. Are you claiming that some rogue generals did it without Bush's orders? Was there an insurrection a la "Seven Days in May"?

I brought up Kerry to support the argument that the war wasn't entirely on Bush. That OTHERS supported it, and brought it about.

OTHERS brought it about???? So, you ARE claiming that rogue generals started it, or that military officers obeyed the orders of some civilian OTHER than the U.S. Commander-In-Chief???

Or is it simply that you are scared of admitting that Bush was responsible for ordering the U.S. military to invade Iraq? C'mon. Suck it up. Admit it. :-)

So, when you said: you misunderstood my argument. I *understood* that you were comparing Clinton and Bush. I felt that the specific examples you gave were a false comparison (as explained above) and I only brought up Kerry to support the idea that it was a false comparison.

False comparison?

You're really reluctant to admit that anything Bush did was wrong, aren't you? (Go ahead ... give us a counterexample ... Tell us what you think are one or two or three of the worst mistakes G. W. Bush has made in office!) Do you think Bush should never be held accountable for his actions?

Okay, so I hope that my logic is clear

No, it's not clear yet. I still see multiple holes in it.

First, I don't trust the news that much. Which is why I've asked for a specific quotation concerning Bush's (supposed) duplicity.

Bush's "lie" was more complicated than Clinton's perjury. That's why it's taking me a while to finish the follow-on posting I've promised.

I know what those who aren't pleased with Bush say, but I haven't seen evidence (yet!) that all their claims are valid.

Have you seen evidence that any of their claims are valid? If so, list one or two.

For example, I have yet to see strong evidence that Bush started the war only because of what happened to his father.

There's a rhetorical device called the "straw man". I expounded at length on it in an earlier thread in this forum. Look it up (search on "straw" or "strawman").

What you've done is to seemingly restate an argument I made, but you insert words like "only" to make them seem more absolute than they actually were, so they become easier to (supposedly) refute. You write "I know what those who aren't pleased with Bush say, but I haven't seen evidence (yet!) that all their claims are valid" with all their claims so that it becomes easier to pretend that a refutation of any of the claims justifies disbelieving all such claims.

One way to avoid doing that is the classic advice that each party to a disgreement that wants to restate another party's argument or statement has to restate the other party's argument until the other party agrees that it is a valid restatement before proceeding to refute or deny it.

You're not alone, though. Many folks use the "straw man" tactic in this subforum (and in other fora I've visited). I myself have used it when I wasn't being careful -- when an example is called to my attention, I'll be glad to promptly admit it and issue a non-"strawmanned" replacement.

(There -- now you can't pretend that I said that only you use the "straw man"! But I shouldn't have to be required to explicity make that disclaimer after everything I say just in order for you not to "strawman" it by inserting "only". You, and everyone else reading this, should refrain from using that tactic.)

I have yet to see strong evidence that Bush did not believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, when we went to war.

"strong"? So you've seen weak evidence?

You are right that I missed your disclaimer. I'm sorry about that.

So you shouldn't have perpetuated, in your Bush-Clinton-Kerry explanation a few paragraphs earlier, the idea that my list of identifiers was validly challengable because it omitted some details. If you're really sorry, stop doing what you're sorry for having done.

However, since you admit that the examples you gave are not nearly that cut and dry,

And there you go again, just one sentence later! I never claimed my list of identifiers (whose nature you apparently just got through acknowledging! -- Did you or did you not actually read and understand my disclaimer?) was cut-and-dried examples!

please provide a comparison that is straightforward. If there isn't one, then I'm surprised you think people should be comparing/contrasting Clinton and Bush.

Zeta-Flux, do you really think that hardly anyone compares/contrasts Clinton and Bush? Or is it instead that you feel uncomfortable discussing it and wish we'd just stop?

Clinton's duplicity was obvious. Bush's (if you are correct, and he started the war from a grudge) isn't,

Yes. Now you're closer to being on the right track.

Except that the obviousness of Bush's duplicity isn't dependent on whether or not he started the war from a grudge. There's more to it. (Once again, that's why it's taking a while for me to .... Not to mention that I spent time composing this posting when I could have been ...)

and very few Americans really believe that's why he started the war. ;)

Do you think the reality of that motive, one way or another, depends on public beliefs or opinion?

If not, why bring that up?

--- To Be Continued ---

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

I would be curious as to how many Americans are directly involved in this one thread. I would be surprised if it were more than half.

I presume you mean: How many of those directly involved in this thread are American? :-)

I may get roasted for what I am about to say and ask, but I just feel the need to do it. Am I the only person around here specifically who would rather that America run the world?

As an American and proud of it (when appropriate -- but it's just happenstance that I was born here), I want to make a public service announcement:

PLEASE DO NOT LET AMERICA RUN THE WORLD!!

It may often be a good idea to give American opinion thoughtful consideration, but please, please don't let us (alone) run the world!

I asked about people from other countries because I wanted to ask that question.

What country are you from, again (I missed it)?

I would understand people from other countries not liking that idea, and I'm sorry if it does offend poeple, but I just honestly think that the world would be better off if the US ran the world.

No, diversity in world-running is at least as worthy as diversification in stock market investments!

Apparently you aren't American. May I politely recommend that you acquaint yourself with some of the multitudes of wackos we have here?

Seriously, many of the fundamentalist Christians in the "Religious Right" would happily turn the entire world into a Christian-only theocracy (using the Strict Father moral system, as described in George Lakoff's book "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think") if they could do so. Reinstituting punishments like stoning women for adultery, that sort of thing ... Really. I kid you not. Look up a guy named Gary North. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_No...tructionist%29 (Not Oliver North of the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal)

This is not a perfect world and won't ever be so because it's impossible.

... and similarly the United States is not a perfect country!

I know that what I have said here about the US won't happen, but I still would rather it be so. It bothers me when I believe the US knows what is right, but sometimes it is made to feel bad as a whole because some other countries don't like it. I want to scream when that happens.

How often do you believe the US is wrong? Give examples.

[M29]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

What happened is that immediately after Bush took office, a bunch of handy reference stuff on the White House site (including a handier format for EOs than the National Archive site had at that time) that I'd been accustomed to checking disappeared. I personally saw this happen -- that the EO link from whitehouse.gov disappeared. Also, for a while, the National Archive site was not updated with EOs; that is, no Bush EOs appeared there for a while.

Handy links. That's right on top of any administration's priority list. It is a poorly kept secret that Bush and Rove discussed handy links when they were formulating their Grand Plan back in 1998.

This is really one for the tin foil hat brigade. There was a change of management at the White House and a change in the IT Department. And people are shocked that a couple of web pages changed, too?

One shouldn't be surprised recalling how, in 2001, the outgoing Clinton staff vandalized and sabotaged White House offices and office equipment. Bush acted quite magnanimously by having that ugly incident hushed up.

Just for the hell of it, I'll accuse the outgoing Clinton IT Department of sabotaging the WhiteHouse.Gov pages by deleting the links! Nothing like missing links to raise suspicions!

You're blaming Bush but it was really Clinton's fault. Or maybe it was Hillary? Yeah, that's the ticket! It was the Wicked Witch of the West Wing! She did it! It is the scenario that makes the most sense.

[M29]

I just honestly think that the world would be better off if the US ran the world.

I'm speechless.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by M29

One shouldn't be surprised recalling how, in 2001, the outgoing Clinton staff vandalized and sabotaged White House offices and office equipment.

I remember that they took all the "W" keycaps off keyboards, but simply put them in desk drawers. (Memory Fallibility Warning: I have not doublechecked reliable sources about my recollection of this allegation or seeming minimization of an allegation by another party or parties. Professional researchers should not assign high reliability ratings to this posting. Absolutely, positively, DO NOT DEPEND ON THE ACCURACY OF THIS RECOLLECTION IF A LIFE-AND-DEATH (OR EVEN MERE POSSIBLY SERIOUS INJURY) SITUATION IS INVOLVED. Members of the United States Electoral College should not even be reading this posting (applies only during Gregorian calendar years divisible by 4 -- if y'all are still deadlocked in some other year, maybe you DO need to read this, after all).)

What else was there? :-)

[Zeta-Flux]

cheesehead,

Or is it simply that you are scared of admitting that Bush was responsible for ordering the U.S. military to invade Iraq? C'mon. Suck it up. Admit it. :-)

To disabuse you of a few notions concerning me, I clearly admit

1) Bush ordered the U.S. military to invade Iraq.

You're really reluctant to admit that anything Bush did was wrong, aren't you? (Go ahead ... give us a counterexample ... Tell us what you think are one or two or three of the worst mistakes G. W. Bush has made in office!) Do you think Bush should never be held accountable for his actions?

(As I said earlier in this thread.)

2) In my opinion, Bush should not have authorized torture of "non-combatives" (in his terminology).

(Other things I haven't said, but also believe:)

3) They shouldn't be held without due legal process and representation. Nor should there be secret prisons, or non-oversighted spying of Americans.

There's a rhetorical device called the "straw man". I expounded at length on it in an earlier thread in this forum. Look it up (search on "straw" or "strawman").

4) I am very familiar with the strawman fallacy. That may not prevent me from falling into it, but I know what it means.

What you've done is to seemingly restate an argument I made, but you insert words like "only" to make them seem more absolute than they actually were, so they become easier to (supposedly) refute.

5) I apologize for mischaracterizing your take on Bush's reasons for starting the war, if in fact I have done so. I went back through my post, and the only time I used the word "only" in reference to a position against Bush (that I could find) was not in reference to your arguments, but rather in response to my take on the media, and some of those displeased with Bush (such as some of my fellow Berkleyites), and ONE of the arguments they make.

Whenever I referred to your position, I used sentences like: "Bush's (if you are correct, and he started the war from a grudge) isn't, and very few Americans really believe that's why he started the war." This doesn't have the word "only" in it. Or try the sentence: "Very few people I talk to take the idea seriously that he started the war because of pre-election grudges." Again, no "only" in that sentence.

So your claim that I was mischaracterizing your argument may still be true, but I can't find any time where I did what you accuse me of. (Namely, attributing to you a position, using the word "only.")

You write "I know what those who aren't pleased with Bush say, but I haven't seen evidence (yet!) that all their claims are valid" with all their claims so that it becomes easier to pretend that a refutation of any of the claims justifies disbelieving all such claims.

6) Now you are the one who is twisting the argument. I included the word ALL here because (as I pointed out above in points 2 and 3, and in earlier posts) there are some of their claims that I believe ARE valid. Is it wrong to agree with people on SOME points?? Come on! Now you are criticizing me for only partially agreeing with people??

"strong"? So you've seen weak evidence?

7) Of course. Hearsay, for one.

So you shouldn't have perpetuated, in your Bush-Clinton-Kerry explanation a few paragraphs earlier, the idea that my list of identifiers was validly challengable because it omitted some details. If you're really sorry, stop doing what you're sorry for having done.

8) I'm sorry you took my continued explanation as a continued "challenge." Rather, I was explaining my reasoning at the time. (At least the first part of it. The last few sentences dealt with a different topic which I will get to in a minute.)

Zeta-Flux, do you really think that hardly anyone compares/contrasts Clinton and Bush? Or is it instead that you feel uncomfortable discussing it and wish we'd just stop?[/

9) No, I think people compare them all the time. What I meant was that I am surprised you think most conservatives should "backlash" against Bush, in a manner similar to their bash against Clinton, when the "crimes" of the two Presidents are so different and not as clear cut.

Do you think the reality of that motive, one way or another, depends on public beliefs or opinion?

10) No. And the public has been wrong before, and will be wrong again. However, public belief and opinion can show how many rational people interpret the evidence at hand. So, for example, public opinion doesn't affect whether or not evolution is true, but it does represent the position of a LOT of rational people after weighing the evidence. And that opinion will change over time as more evidence comes about.

I brought it up to point out that there are many rational people who do not believe as you do (in fact, a majority of Americans) concerning why Bush started the war. I was hoping you'd take this as a sign that there are intelligent people out there who interpret the data differently than you do, and that you could admit that your interpretation of Bush's reasons for going to war are more unclear than you paint them.

[philmoore]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

Maybe it's just me, but you sound just as paranoid as you think the Government is about you.

You are free to think what you want, but the government has already admitted to keeping tabs on these groups.

[S00113]

Originally Posted by M29

I served in the military, also. I found it to be dangerous.

There are probably some differences by country.

Originally Posted by M29

Maybe, just maybe, some percentage of them weren't civilians as reported?

Just like most other wars it is very difficult to separate civilians from armed insurgents. That is why you never attack a civilian target unless you are absoulutely sure that everyone there are fighting enemies. This rule has been broken many times. Sometimes by accident, sometimes because of bad intelligence, and too often because of carelessnes.

American soldiers have an old reputation for shooting at everything which moves, and ask questions later. In WWII the allied saying was: "When the Tommies fire the Jerries duck, when the Jerries fire the Tommies duck, and when the Yanks fire everybody ducks."

Originally Posted by M29

The point is the military are accused of being baby killers.

I don't believe anyone in the military would kill babies on purpose, but the numbers show they don't do enough to prevent it from happening.

Originally Posted by M29

Another wrong guess, false assumption, or wishful thought:
between 1980 and 1993, active-military duty personnel died of nonhostile causes at the rate of about 93 per 100,000 troops per year.http://archive.salon.com/politics/wa...2/09/rumsfeld/
93 * 3 * 150K/100K = 418

The period includes the first war in the Persian Gulf, and the study says just what I'm claiming:

Troops deployed in the Persian Gulf died from natural causes at about the same rate that other troops did, but they died from unintentional, noncombat injuries -- vehicle accidents, for example -- at a substantially higher rate than nondeployed troops did.

Antother pattern from the long term study is that the death rate has fallen steadily from about 100 per 100,000 in 1983 to less than 50 in 1993, with the exception of 1991. Visualized here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/dod2.html Commented in the executive summary here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/exesum.html

If the trend holds, we should be down to about 25 natural deaths per 100,000 by now. If we use 1992-1993 as reference, there shuld be about 50 deaths per 100,000. Even during the first Gulf War the nubers were well below 80 per 100,000.

Originally Posted by M29

445 - 418 = 27 bodies for your total
1777 + 123 + 27 = 1927

50 * 3 * 150/100 = 225 (using 1992-1993 numbers)
445 - 225 = 220
1777 + 123 + 220 = 2120
Don't forget Afghanistan: 2120 + 259 = 2379.

Then note that the list of contractors at http://www.icasualties.org isn't complete, and that they also have a list of journalists at http://icasualties.org/oif/journalist.aspx. Most of the names are without nationality. Some, like Steven Vincent, sound American, and he was according to this article: http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/...0508030843.asp. Then add humanitarian aid workers. There is an incomplete list at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks...tarian_workers, which adds four for sure. Three americans died in the Canal Hotel bombing. Some single deaths not on the contractor list or the journalist list. Another US aid worker here:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/18/marla/

My total by now is 2388, but I'm sure it is not complete.

Originally Posted by M29

Dead Americans Scorecard, revision 3.0: 2369 @ WTC vs 1927 @ Iraq

If you can dig up another 443 dead American corpses, you can win this game. But I'll need to see URLs.

I've dug up URLs which add the total up to at least 2388. While doing this http://icasualties.org/ has added seven more casualties pending DoD confirmation, which would make my total 2395. The number increases by more than two every day.

[Mystwalker]

Originally Posted by clowns789

Replying to the "ounce of thought:" It takes a lot of time, money, and intelligence to spy on a person.

You have to consider "economies of scale". Spying on big groups takes a lot less effort then spying on each member of the group.

In my opinion, it's also spying when e.g. my communication behavior* gets automatically rated, in order to determine whether I could be a potential threat and need further investigation.


*Examples:
Communication structure in IRC channels - there's already funded development for the corresponding analysis tools (it would take some time for me to find a URL for this, though)

Keywords in mails I send - I don't have detailed information about Echelon, but from what I've heard, it fits in here nicely. Incidently, "laden" in german typically means "shop", thus it can be dangerous to write about "money for laden".

Who do I talk with (over "normal"/mobile phone, VoIP, ...)? - Maybe one could create a model which gives you more "suspect points" when you often talk with persons that also have a lot of suspect points. To my knowledge, this is not done at the moment, but I see no big problems (except juridical reasons) implementing this.