War is peace
 

Students for an Orwellian Society

Okay, so maybe likening the actions and words of our government to the Orwellian nightmare of 1984 is a bit extreme.

Then again, maybe not...

I dunno.

Doesn't it say "Rest In Peace" on those tombstones ? ;)

So in order to have peace we must all be dead? Wow, that's a bit... "Revelations"-ey for my taste, lol.

OTOH... it *would* work ;)

Perhaps he meant "piece"

"Fighting for Peace is like f*cking for Virginity."

There are some fun links on that page. And by fun I mean alternately hilarious and horrifying.

On the fun side, check out this guy. Would you have the balls to attempt to fly wearing this?

Rock ON!

I remember Reagan being told he was a war monger and wanted nuclear destruction because he would dare to put Pershing II missiles in Europe or walk out on Gorby because he wouldn't give in on SDI. Peace through strength is not a new concept.

Eisenhower himself said to beware the military industrial complex- he knew where the hell that road led to.

Seldom a day goes by when I am not reminded how prescient Orwell was.

Peace through strength, yes. But peace due to enduring war isn't peace at all. And peace kept through a police state is a distorted type of peace.

And doesn't it unnerve you in the least, Leo, to see Grade-A double speak coming from your leader? Nevermind that that one quote is but an iota of the material that site has.

Well, you must remember what strength means to the terrorists. They don't care (obviously) if we have better weapons than they have. They look at our willingness to engage them as strength. Osama stated he knew he could begins to step up attacks on American targets after watching us in Somalia, where we didn't have the stomach to do what was necessary to achieve the objective.

This is just one example of the fundamental difference of how we see things-

You see fear and double speak-I see the reality of the situation given the enemy we face

I see the reality too. I see Bush using this exact kind of double speak, war is peace, to justify expanding this war well beyond the confines of the enemy we face. It's a clear as it gets to me. We, justifiably, go after Bin Laden, his organization, and the regime that directly supported him. Bush goes around equating war with peace, and voila, suddenly we're justified in attacking Iraq. It frightens me. And then you start reading the stuff Rummy said about purposely inciting terrorist acts to ferret them out, and then using that as justification for attacking the nations that were harboring them. All in the name of peace.

Nephy: as does every dictator who ever existed. (I'm not calling you a dictator, of course, just referring to the history of justifying totalitarianism). The only way to be truly free is to accept that such freedom comes with the realization that sometimes bad things will happen. Bad things don't necessarily stop happening when you take freedoms away.

As Franklin put it: "Any man willing to give up personal liberties in exchange for temporary security deserves neither and will probably lose both."

No matter how many x-ray machines we install, even if we did so in every public place in America, there's nothing we can do to protect ourselves from someone willing to sacrifice their own life in order to harm us (eg: suicide bombers). Every attempt we make to stop them (eg: becoming a totalitarian state in order to create a false sense of "security") only helps them win. It's exactly what they want us to do. That's what terrorism IS.

The only way to win the war against terrorism is to refuse to be bothered by their actions.

Oh, and to hurt their recruitment process by bringing prosperity to the places they normally recruit from. Peace through economic prosperity.

That's a myth that's largely being discredited. Actually, quite the opposite picture is being painted. Extremism seems to be born of time and, believe it or not, education. Highly tainted education, but education none the less. Extremists are readers who know their particular brand of scripture word for word. They are people who have the leisure to come up with their extreme world view. Truly poor and destitute people are too busy trying to survive to have the time for that.

The poor masses may cheer them on, but when it comes to the ones acting, the planners, the trainers, the suicide bombers, they tend to be middle class.

I'm sorry- nowhere in the quote being discussed does it say anything about removing our freedoms- so somewhere this derailed into something bigger than just the reaction to the quote.

I didn't imply they weren't educated. What I'm getting at is really that if their countries weren't in that bad a shape, they wouldn't have reason for resentment to grow.

As far as education, I heard an interesting point from someone at a Mensa gathering that I (of course) had no idea about. Apparently (and feel free to confirm or refute this claim) the mere act of learning another language is enough to make the educated middle easterner become "isolated" and "different" from his peers. The reasoning behind this is that apparently the language (I assume he meant arabic?) has no past tense. Everything that ever happened in the past happened "now" in a sense, in the way it's spoken in the language. (This would also explain why they're mad at *us* for Crusades that happened centuries ago). So when someone learns other languages, they have to learn to separate the past from the present in their minds, which makes them different from others in the culture, identity wise. This isolation can cause unhappiness and identity crises for the educated. So they take up a cause.

Anyway, I don't know if it's true or not, but if it IS true, then it's a fascinating insight into the culture. And as I said before... that little language quirk (if it exists) explains why they act like the crusades happened just yesterday.

The link I posted in the OP, as I mentioned a few posts back, goes far beyond the one simple quote. I quoted it as a potent example, but it's just the tip of the iceberg.

Nephy: my bad, I realize you were only talking about what Bush is saying... but understand that what he's saying is part of the bigger picture. He's claiming to be defending freedom on one hand, while taking away our freedoms with the other.

A quick google search shows that, if your Mensa acquaintance was inded talking about Arabic, they were mistaken.

What am I less free to do?

Hmm... where to even BEGIN with this one...

For example, you are not free to go from DL's picnic area to the bathroom a mere 20 feet away without subjecting yourself and packages to a search. (I know that's not based in stuff done by the gov't, but it IS a reduction in freedom)

You are not free to go from your car to an airplane without removing your shoes.

You are not free to do your nails on an airplane as that equipment (tweezers, for crying out loud!) will be taken away from you.

You are not free to hand-carry your expensive golf clubs on the plane, but must instead subject them to all the rough treatment of such checked baggage. (there was a time when you could bring up to 3 clubs hand-carried, but I'm almost positive you can't even do that anymore)

You are not allowed to carry anything with you that MIGHT POSSIBLY be used as a weapon, regardless of your actual intent for the object.

These are small freedoms, but they're freedoms.

You do not have full freedom of speech in public places (for example, the freedom to crack a joke), if such speech might be misconstrued as a threat

Boy scouts are not free to carry their penknives, as they had previously been free to do (this technically is more due to zero-tolerance policies on school violence, but it does equate to a loss of freedoms)

We have shared economic prosperity with China, it still is an Uneasy Peace.
True peace comes from understanding. Lets say there is a person I dont get along with. I start to buy them Lunch everyday. Well, this will create an uneasy truce, but it wont buy me respect or freindship.

Only when we UNDERSTAND eachother's differences and they us, will we have true Peace. When i was in the middle east in '83, I learned real fast they were very different in how they see things. Money means very little to them. That is why we haven't had any offers on that 50 million bounty on Osama. We have a different value system. Where most Americans would sell gramdma down the river for a million, other cultures value loyalty far more than any price. When we UNDERSTAND how to win the trust of other cultures we will have true peace.

When dealing with someone who is reasonable and wants a peaceful coexistance, this is a great strategy, Pan. When dealing with Islamofascist terrorists, there can be no peaceful coexistance, because they are not interested in one. They are interested in their brand of Islam being imposed on everyone, and until this is accomplished, there is no other option for them than to continue in terrorist activities.

They will not be satisfied until the State of Isreal and everyone of Jewish decent is dead. They are not interested in negotiations for occupied territories.

When dealing with someone who is reasonable, one can be reasonable. When dealing with someone who has no interest in any sort of compromise and has the death of the Jews and of western culture as their uncompromising goal, there is no way to deal with them other than by eliminating them first.

There is a difference between buying someone lunch, (which is easy for anyone of money to do and creates a question of ulterior motives), and praising them in front of their boss, helping them to get a promotion, enabling them to better afford their own lunch.

Reminds me of a metaphor my dad once shared about the difference between Democrat and Republican approaches....

Ok- here is understanding-
They have said they want peace- but only peace under the law of Islam
Islamic law considers us infidels unless we are Muslim- and if we do not convert we are to be killed rather than tolerated.

Do you plan to convert for them?

Moorigoon, I agree. I have said on another post even though I am a democrat the "Welfare society" created by the Dems is an outright failure and creates more dependancy. This however is not the basis od the Deomcratic party, just their Biggest Failure. I have a far greater problem with the GOP's corporate welfare, but that is another thread.

SCAeagales- I also agree the best way to handle any sort of terrorist is with a quick shot to the head. I do not believe all in the Middle east are terrorists though. What is solving the Problem for instance in Ireland, is the people aren't putting up with it anymore and dont want to be represnted by IRA terrorists. This has happened by letting the people understand there are better ways to acheive political goals, and becoming more tolerant of eachother in general.

And that has to do with Iraq, a secularly ruled Middle Eastern country because...

And on the "Welfare Society" Wasn't it Clintons Back to Work programs that drastically changed it?

Why wasn't it Reagan or Bush41?... (and dont blame the Dem Congress of the time, R & B's proposals were not workable proposals)

Iraq was not the only topic, and by no means the only place we are at war. Outside the bubble of Iraq is a much bigger issue. Radical Islam who would put many people you love up against the wall first because they are the worst of the infidels.

Have you read the Iraqi Costitution? (Proposal) The One Bush and Co. are touting as a 'success'? Read Article 7 if nothing else. They WANT an Islamic State in Iraq. This is why our soldiers are dying? to create an Islamic State?

I would have LOVED to have seen Bush and Co.'s faces when they read article 7. Must have turned a shade of greenish blue.

But, as PTM just highlighted, the war in Iraq now runs completely contrary to your supposed goal of eliminating Islamic rule. It's taken a huge step backwards and has created a haven for terrorists and introduced MORE Islamic rule to the region than there was before. And yet, it was justified using the terrorism excuse. How? Well, we're back to the original point. War is peace. Once the American public latched onto that concept, justifying war was easy. And building of the same concept, that we must fight for peace, the administration actually enacted policies to covertly incite terrorism to give them an excuse to counter attack (look, murder plans in handy Power Point format!). This preemptive stuff is total crap. It runs counter to everything that we're supposedly protecting. The ends do not justify the means.

If that's what the Iraqis choose for self-government, and it doesn't affect us, who are we to dictate in what manner they should SELF-govern? Or are you suggesting we take away their freedom to choose the manner in which they're governed?

GD- Justifying War uses the same concepts often as justifying Racism. If you somehow make them "Less human", you will have far greater support.

No, at this point, the ball is in their court, but look at the faulty logic here. If we're in Iraq because of terrorism, and the way to stop terrorism is to rid the world of Islamic rule, then what exactly have we accomplished here?

Sorry- I don't know what PtM highlighted- but I will continue the discussion with you- though I admit to being woefully unable to participate fully.

The concept of peace through strength and therefore by war does make sense to me-as for more Islamic rule, I have to ask, is it radical rule? Is it rule that demands our conversion or death, or it is simply what they chose to base their freedoms on?

Haven? You have foreign insurgents coming in to cause trouble in Iraq- like honey to a bee. Yes, I know you have heard that before.

Again- sorry, not fully engaged today.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan13.html

...
I wish I could find it, but I read an article a couple days ago that said that a significantly larger portion of the "insurgents" than previously thought are not insurgents at all, but are coming from within Iraq.

Well, it's entirely possible that my acquaintance was mistaken. However, it's equally possible he was talking about a language other than Arabic. I wish I knew...

It was really the best explanation I'd heard as to why it was the educated ones trying to harm us. Damn, now I have to find a new theory.

Most likely, it's like I said. Education enough to read the material; money, and therefore time, enough to spend time on it. The poor and uneducated just don't have the resources to commit.

Ah, I see what you're saying about the leisure time, that's an excellent point.

Klingon has no past tense. Maybe it was Klingon.

The article though also points out what I said- it is a magnet for terrorists from other countries.

Look- I have never said war is a good thing- and I have no way to know how history will treat Iraq- I do know however, that if they want to come there, and we are there- that if we kill or capture them- that is a good thing.

Look- terrorists are going to do what they do- they are going to be drawn to places of conflict. They are going to sow discord, violence and strife.....but the fact, in my view remains, that we have to do the fighting- we can not buy peace by negotiation, nor by retreat.

Let's say we pull out of Iraq- hell, let's just remove ourselves from the Middle East altogether. Some people think that will bring peace- but it won't.

Example- Gaza.

Israel pulls out- and Hamas celebrates the successful results of their violence.

Same principle- if terrorists and insurgents drive us away- if we leave the area, the message is clear. That we will retreat in the face of violence- and that will empower them to believe (because these people are hardly known for rational thought) they their actions drove us out, and they will want to continue.

One just has to understand the goal of radical islam- and that is world domination under their law and beliefs.

I'm not advocating pulling out of Iraq. I'm advocating accountability on the part of the Bush administration for their mistakes and lies (already missed opportunity #1 when he was reelected) and an end to the rhetoric and lies that got us into this mess to begin with. I'm advocating not electing another megalomaniac bent on sugar-coated imperialism. Yes, we're stuck in Iraq. I just wish people would stop denying the undeniable lessons that we should be learning from it, lest we end up rushing into Syria under the same false pretenses.

And I'm not even saying there aren't good reasons to go into Syria. There may very well be, but with the web of mistakes, distortions, outright lies, and double-speak that's been woven, how the hell am I supposed to believe any of what I'm hearing, especially when Bush would rather die than ever admit to a mistake.

That is exactly how I feel. We do take a risk by having an open society, but I'm not willing to have a cop on every streetcorner in order to feel a pretend sense of "safe".

LOL

I'm just sayin'. It WAS a MENSA meeting, afterall.

And what, may I ask, is wrong with "retreating" to our own borders and defending those? Are we somehow pretending that we are going to kill every terrorist on earth? If not, then they will always be somewhere. Let them be where they will be. Try to kill them clandestinely or economically, but not via warfare. Ahem, especially warfare that has been completely inept (see, e.g., this week's Time magazine for a history of the missteps that are quickly making Iraq this generation's hate-to-say-we-told-you-so Vietnam).


I hate to say it, but it appears that the only way to kill terrorists conducting a guerilla campaign is to also kill tons of civilizians that they put themselves in the midst of. This is true whether we attack them preemptively in other countries or attack them in actual retribution in other countries. The terrorists are never going to be hanging out in their own TerrorTown. They take over actual towns and cities, and we must either bomb that city into complete oblivion or let the terrorists escape with the civilians.

It's quite interesing that we have fought in Iraq these last couple years to remove a secular government, and then have a islamic government instated. Sounds really familiar to me, like something from the 70's or 80's in Iran. Except I think that was the removal of a secular democratic government, to be replaced by a more dictatorial Islamic Government. Whatever the case, it seems we are batting 0.00 in the middle east with regime change.

We're batting O-fer world wide in that regard. Haiti, Colombia, Panama, and others. Every attempt at this kind of regime change necessitating the rebuilding of police and military forces, has ended in failure. There's not a single example of success. I'm not holding my breath on this one.

seems I have learnt somewhere that those that fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it......


Not to mention the Einstein(I think) definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over with the expectation of a different result.

Hrmm, how many more times are we going to repeat this obviously futile attempt to change the governments of other countries.

I'm all for protecting our borders (case in point- border and immigration issues being one of the things I think Bush is a total failure on)- but retreating, bad idea. If you think they will not then bring it here- empowered by our "retreat" from where they are, I submit that you are wrong on every point. Or are you advocating a reinstatement of the ability to assassinate?


Yeah- that sucks. Have to find ways to cut down on that- but you know what- a type of person who will kill a child, and then leave their body somewhere with a bomb to kill the parents when they come for the body is going to find a way to drag in the innocent.

The Biggest problem with "Another Country" bringing regime change is that there will always be many who believe that other country will somehow be suspect in installing a puppet government.

UNLESS The People of THAT country rise up, and demand change, Why should we do it for them? It is them who will be the ones being governed in the end, and the only way a person can be governed is by allowing themselves to be governed.

As for Iraq becoming a "Magnet" for terrorists all over the world, Rumsfeld has now had to change that story, admitting 95% of the insurgency are IRAQI Nationals. To many there we are seen as OCCUPIERS, not SAVIORS.

Wow...so much to respond to I don't know where to begin.

1) re: Loss of little freedoms to be more secure. How about loss of little freedoms to save ourselves from a loss of big freedoms. Here is what I mean. Lets say Someone like Dean(not Clinton or Gore because I honestly believe they would have reacted similar to Bush) was President when 9-11 occured. Lets say not a single inconveince was inacted upon the American public. Lets say this emboldened Osama or one of his fans to act again. Lets say this time tens of thousands were killed..........would it be a stretch to say that the new measures put in place after something 10 times bigger then 9-11 would be much, much more invonvenient and our loss of freedoms would not be just faintly noticed(or imagined) but in our faces real?

2)re: Cops on every street corner. Tokyo has em on every corner and I don't hear anybody complaining about the lack of freedom there(except maybe would be criminals)

3)re: Fighting Iraq to remove a secular government only to replace it with a Islamic one. We fought Iraq to remove a dictator who signed a cease fire agreement with us then broke it repeatedly.......we even did the Parental equivalent of counting by fractions....ok Sadaam you have 3 seconds 1, 2, 2.5, 2.75, 2.81, 2.9, 2.95, 2.99, 2.995.....I mean c'mon. We would have never been taken seriously again by any world leader if we didn't go in.

4)re: Retreating. Isn't that what the French do?

I kinda like the cameras everywhere(public) idea, but not monitored by the police, but monitored by the people(read it somewhere). I, for one, would like the ability to take my personal security in my own hands in such a way.

That's not a bad idea...........

My shop is next to a place that rents Hot Tubs(open air) by the hour......he has cameras everywhere. Not to spy on the hot tubbers but to make sure no one is spying or filming them. Cameras defending against cameras :eek:

This assumes that Osama and his fans are scared by our lame-ass tactics. It's been proven over and over that these systems suck. There have been tons of reports of people sneaking things into places on purpose to test the systems, and getting through.

The terrorists are not frightened of our pointless bag checks.

Retreating is what America did when they lost the Vietnam War after countless pointless deaths.

heh, and I have yet to hear of too many terrorist attacks occuring in France.

Interesting

Very good point....there really is no proof that any of these systems have stopped anything.

I would not go as far as to call them lame though. The pathetic bag checks, the taking off of the shoes, etc are not really designed to really stop some one from sneaking something past.......they are designed to slow the flow of people and create an obstacle for a potential terroist. The bag checker will not be the one who catches the bad guy...it will be someone invisible watching from a ways away the behavior of those approaching the obstacle(bag check or what have you) We only see the hand that the security wants us(and the terrorist) to see....we don't see everything :)

I just adore the French. :)

http://www.armenians.com/asala/events.htm

On average about 2 a year.....over 60 in the last 32 years.

The country that runs and hides gets hit quite a bit more then the country that fights back.

Why, thank you.:blush:


Oh, you meant the France-French. What are we French-Americans, chopped goose liver?

Well, interesting, this is the first I have heard of them, just may mean one thing, I don't pay much attention to news all the time, and don't really research my smart a$$ remarks. Because where would the fun be in that.

Pate dahling. Pate.

Ummm.....Germany and Japan and Italy? Granted the start was a bit different, but everything had to be redone - military and police forces included. They seem pretty stable to me now, though they certainly weren't for quite a while.

(I know, but I Americanised it).;):p

Well, in all fairness most of those were small incidents nothing on the scale of the Madrid Train bombing let alone 9-11.

I would also like to back pedal a little here about the French. I was participating in the popular stereotyping of this country as a run away and hide society and history proves this to be a falsehood. They have spilled more blood then Americans throughout their history so to call them chickens and such really is not very respectfull. I will try to refrain from doing this in the future(but I am still gonna call my roast beef on a hoagy roll an American Dip ;) )

Would you like a side of Freedom Fries with that, Sleepy?

...always :D

That's spiffy-

Did you know that they are just outright kicking Islamo-radicals out of the country? (not that I mind that)

Link

So, shall we go on about how horrible our inability to take tweezers on airplanes? Or shall we go ahead and model ourselves more like the French?

On second thought- maybe we should!

The French actualy have a fairly bloody history- their national anthem is full of violent imagery and their willingness to die for their country and people-

I don't dislike the French- and plan to go to Paris as soon as I can.....but in the name of reasonable discourse- let's face facts, that they are doing the same things or even more- than we are here.....that so many people complain about.

Get Satan a sweater, because....I agree with Nephy!

'Course I don't agree with modeling ourselves after the authoritarian aspect of French law she cites, but thanks for the excellent link!

:snap: :snap:

Anytime- and feel free to keep that sweater. You might need it again- ;)

(no, I know you are not satan LOL)

Oh, I don't agree with everything the French do any more than I agree with everything we do. But, I do admire their independent spirit and somewhat roguish decision-making. Plus, they do it wish such style!

Maybe if we had more style I'd admire us more too.

Ah, the sins that style masks so fabulously!

ah, so one can be a complete wanker as long as you do it with joie de vie

If one's going to be a complete wanker anyways, one may as well do it with style.

Heh, methinks this may be a bit of what "swank" is all about ;)

so, it is less a matter of true principles than the value of being "swank"?

mmmkay then......

But of course - at the end of the day all of it is meaningless, so you might as well look good doing it n'est pas?

Value is what we create ourselves;)

If only they picked up their dog poo.
:D

Merd. Merd de chien.


See, even dog poo sounds swanky!

Oh yeah- a whole load of swank- wrapped up in a romance language- as if that makes any difference at all-

Apparently it does make a difference. I still adore the French.

Have you ever heard Porteguese? You could swear at me all day long in that language and I would smile blissfully. Packaging is king.

Stylish wanker = swanker, got it. :D