[Peace-discuss] Bush-Obama terrorism in AfPak

[John W.]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Neil Parthun <lennybrucefan at gmail.com>wrote:

Allow me to wade through the ad hominem attacks and address the issue.
>

By all means.  :-)



> Your analogy misrepresents the situation.  The analogy would be more clear
> if the 2nd man helped get the gun, get the ammunition, the new address of
> the ex-wife and paid for a taxi to bring the 1st man to the home to
> facilitate the murder.
>

No one ever likes anyone else's analogies.  I certainly admit that my
analogy is imperfect.  It's just the first thing that popped into my head.
I tried, in my inept way, to illustrate the difference between actually
committing an atrocity, and merely saying that you've been giving the
atrocity some thought.  (And of course, just as all of our putative national
leaders think that their atrocities are not atrocities at all because
they're justified by the "terrorism" of our "enemies", so the two men in my
analogy think that their contemplated crime is perfectly justified because
of the wrongdoing of their ex-wives).

I keep thinking of Jimmy Carter, too, whose biography I just watched on
PBS.  He arguably had as much personal integrity as any President in our
history.  He was convinced that international conflicts could be resolved
through diplomacy and self-restraint.  When our hostages were taken in Iran,
he didn't want to engage in military operations because he feared (rightly)
the loss of innocent lives.  But consequently he was essentially helpless.
Our hostages remained in captivity for over a year, Carter was perceived as
"weak", and America's reputation in the world was compromised.



> Obama's votes to fund the war and continued death, destruction and
> genocidal imperial policies are in this similar vein.  He has given his
> acquiescence and open approval to such hawkish policies that clearly
> facilitated the death and destruction that you so openly want to attribute
> to only Bush.
>
> Obama has voted for every last Iraq and Afghan war funding bill.  It is all
> the glory of saying the war is wrong and immoral while continuing to
> bankroll the occupation that he supposedly dislikes so much.  These have
> caused the deaths of untold thousands of soldiers and civilians.
>

Can't argue with any of this, except to say that it would be an extreme
political liability to vote against the military funding bills because the
average American is intolerant of ANY vote that could even remotely be
perceived or construed as "not supporting the troops".


And as for the rhetoric, this is one severe double standard.  We're supposed
> to believe that McCain wants to bomb Iran because he once crooned "Bomb
> Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys
>

Well, that and his statements about being in Iraq for 100 years.  And a few
other things.  I've never heard a word from him on foreign policy that
didn't involve some sort of military "solution".



> yet believe that Obama may 'see the light' and focus on a more benign
> policy.  If we must hold our nose and put our hopes keep "wishing and hoping
> and praying" (to steal another great oldies hit lyrics) for Obama to change
> and institute a more benign foreign policy, then the same can be stated
> about McCain.
>

Not really, for the reasons I just stated.  Obama, in general, is thoughtful
and nuanced.  McCain is a bull in a china shop.



> If we're not going to take Obama at his words that he's stated in speeches,
> debates, et al. then why must we assume the worst about McCain's positions
> that he has also stated in speeches, debates et al.?  Your argument is a
> slippery slope here and the Obama apologists seem to really be grasping at
> straws here to justify a vote for another imperial presidency.
>

Perhaps so, but straws are all we have.  I'm perfectly willing for you to
"win" this particular argument or discussion, since it doesn't really matter
in the real world.  But at the end of the day, the only thing we can be sure
of is that either McCain or Obama is going to be elected President.  I lean
toward Obama simply because I think his background  has surely given him a
more international perspective, and because I think he can be reasoned with
and educated.  Maybe my "thinking" is just "hoping", but it's all I have.
Only time will tell.

I close by mentioning Ronald Reagan.  In general I despised Reagan, and I
still reject most of what he stood for.  But I do remember that, while his
Cold War rhetoric was decidedly hawkish, it proved to be mostly bluff and
bluster.  He turned out to be a surprisingly skilled negotiator who "spoke
softly" while at least pretending to carry a big stick.  So appearances and
campaign rhetoric can be deceiving, and occasionally in a GOOD way.

Another example:  Who would have ever predicted that Arnold Schwarzeneggar
would have turned out to be as progressive a governor of California as he
has turned out to be?

John again




>
> Its not the act of seeing with our own eyes alone; its correctly
> comprehending what we see,
>
>      Neil
>
>  We absolutely have to refuse to attribute any kind of permanency to that
> which is simply because it is.
> [angela v. davis, 1944-]
>
> Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you could. Some
> blunders and absurdities have crept in; forget them as soon as you can.
> Tomorrow is a new day. You shall begin it serenely and with too high a
> spirit to be encumbered with your old nonsense.
> [ralph waldo emerson, 1803-1882]
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081013/c118c576/attachment-0001.htm