09-17-2006, 09:44 AM | #42 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
mojo:
because this administration has chosen to use the discourse of morality to justify its actions, how it is perceived internationally as a viable "moral agent" if you like is fundamental. the legitimacy not only of the administration's action, but of the administration itself rests on it. this was a choice the bush people made in the period immediately after 9/11/2001--and they have been consistent in their obsessive use of this language. so the problems that their actions create for them are fundamentally their own fault for choosing a strategy for marketing their ideology that is, quite simply, extremely vulnerable. the illusion of strength of purpose it provides is a very thin and tenous one. while the discourse of morality may appeal to the far right christian set, in the real world, it is a very risky tack to adopt. oddly enough, this lesson was also learned by the carter administration, but in a very different context with a very different (and to my mind far more sane) agenda behind it. maybe that is an underlying reason why the far right seems to be having fun the past couple days in excoriating carter--he threatens the illusion of monopoly on morality that the bush people like to claim for themselves. i think colin powell is right about the implications of the practices associated with the bushwar in its most general sense for the legitmacy of the united states as an international actor. i think mcain and warner are right as well. the bush administration is the worst enemy the discourses of democracy and morality have had for some time. the arguments that you have been making, which are all based on raison d'etat, overlook what machiavelli was very clear about: if you are going to wrap your actions in claims to morality, you cannot in fact be moral---but you MUST maintain the appearance of consistency, otherwise you will be reviled. and even you would have to admit that, at this juncture, the bush administration is reviled. everywhere. you might not like it, but you can't deny it. this points to a significant political problem that you cannot simply wish away. there is little to be done after a loss of legitimacy.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-17-2006 at 09:47 AM.. |
09-17-2006, 01:18 PM | #43 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
The US can never win the global war on terrorism alone, and not understanding the value of having support of foreign governments AND the citizens of those countries is short-sighted and jingoistic. Mojo, would you agree that terrorist cells are likely in place throughout Europe and the Mid East. Do you not see the downside of having citizens in those countries more sympathetic to terrorists than to the US?
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 09-17-2006 at 01:54 PM.. |
|
09-17-2006, 02:57 PM | #44 (permalink) |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
DC, I think it is a stretch to suggest that citizens in those countries would be more sympathetic to the terrorists than to the US.
I more relevant point, as far as Europe is concerned anyway, is that they are democracies and a democratically elected goevernment can lose its support base by making decisions to support a war that is not popular at home. European nations recognize that their people do not support adding their arms to the folly of Iraq. To do so, would be political suicide.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
09-17-2006, 03:46 PM | #45 (permalink) | |
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
Quote:
|
|
09-17-2006, 04:50 PM | #46 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
I do see a downside to people becoming sympathetic to terrorism. Terrorism as a political device is extreemly dangerous and even as a last resort cannot be condoned. I certianally understand their thought process, though. It's easy to interpret the US actions in the past 20-30 years as being that of an empire (and I don't mean empire like the apple, I have nothing against apples and I support them), and empires have no place in a world that claims to be more and more democratic. As we can see throuhout history, the most succesful tool against an empire is terrorism. To make my point clear: with an empire comes terrorist resistence, always. Whether you believe the US to be an empire or not, our actions clearly draw the connection in many people's minds. |
|
09-17-2006, 05:41 PM | #47 (permalink) | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108616 and here: Quote:
Quote:
HAL quadrupled in price, from the level where it traded on the NYSE in early 2003, on the eve of the Iraqi invasion, and it's peak, ealier this year...... Would it be too much of a "mind fuck" to consider that Carter met the US growing dependence on foreign oil, "head on", drafting a 3 legged plan of conservation and price deregulation, strategic reserve stockpiling, and research, public funding,and tax credits to promote new and alternative energy resources, that was prescient enough to avoid the negative effects on progress that swings in free market pricing. and the natural tendency of wealthy competitors of alternative energy to buy up the fledgling industry and stifle it's growth? Is it possible, at all, for you to consider that <b>the opposite</b> of what you believe, what you stand behind politically, is most likely more accurate......that Carter put our country on the correct path, towards balanced trade, foreign energy independence, national security that doesn't depend on cronyism from the money and influence of the oil and defense industries, and the "politics of fear" that is required to attract votes and to blind the electorate as they are made less safe and less prosperous, mired in astronomical debt? Can you not even suspect that this is the legacy of Reagan and the two Bush's? The proof is in what happened to alternative energy and the program of tax credits and government funded research that Carter persuaded the congress to pass and to fund. The treasury debt numbers show which administrations cut the taxes on the rich and domestic spending, while they continued to grow the government and accumulate the debt, and which presidential administrations reversed the growth of debt, slowed military spending, enjoyed better foreign relations with other nations, operated in a more open and accountable manner with the electorate, and stifled oil industry profits, while protecting the environment and public land, lessened the poverty rate, and the number of Americans without health insurance. Does it puzzle you at all, that Reagan could destroy Carter's energy reform initiatives, end the tax credits that were vital and offered pay back in so many ways....from new employment in the alternative energy industry, to savings in military spending for a nation relieved of the dependence on foreign oil, and the cost, that we've experience, avoidably for 20 years? Does the initiation of a period of tax cutting and military spending, all to insure that the "fear" message would enrich the defense industry and attract the votes, that caused a 12 year federal borrowing "spree", that increased the treasury debt, by a factor of 4-1/2 times, the existing debt as Carter's single term ended, give you pause? Hasn't the last six years, going from reduced oil industry profits, elimination of deficit spending, reduced military spending, to the opposite.....and a new, six year deficit of $2750 billion, cause you any doubt? Can you consider that former oil industry executives, as US president and Vice president, and the cronyism and influence of multi national oil corps. that they've brought into our government with them, are a cancer on the fiscal health or our nation, on our security, and on our legacy to our children....a pox on all of our houses, that we just got through enduring, as recently as in 1993, and here it is again? If the newly minted treasury debt, the oil and defense industry profits, the message of fear, are not all a repeat of the post Carter period in America, than what are they? How stupid do you think we are? We've opposed the influence, money, and the agenda of "big oil", and of the defense industry, on our governance, and on the quality of our lives, since high school, et tu? |
|||
09-17-2006, 06:31 PM | #48 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
Bush is the face of America and among the citizens of much of the world, he is the bullying Ugly American - perceived as an arrogant cowboy who tells the world "do it my way or fuck off." That does not generate sympathy or support for America. More and more, opinion among foreigners is reaching the point of "they (the US) deserve what they get."
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
|
09-17-2006, 07:15 PM | #49 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Now, there is an ominous new report that our "oil industry run" government, may be planning a "double or nothing" military move in the M.E., timed with the eve of the midtern, november election in the US:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
09-17-2006, 10:35 PM | #50 (permalink) |
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
If Time.com knows this... oh, fuck me...
I was about to ask the obvious question as to who can stop the president. Bush believes he has been given carte blanc by congress to make any military move he deems necessary in the "war on terror" without any further consultation. Rumsfeld will obey/welcome the order. Seconded by Cheney, of course. If the neocon administration is intent on an attack of Iran, there will be only the military chiefs of staff to block that move. They are pledged to obey the CIC, but first of all to defend the Constitution. I suspect we are about to learn what "Americans" are made of. |
09-18-2006, 12:25 PM | #51 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
Ustwo...I am still trying to understand your original premise....that " Jimmy Carter is working to weakening the USA." Perhaps you can explain further.
Is he weakening the US because of how his remarks will be perceived in the UK. The people of the UK were already overwhelming against the war and the Labour Party lost seats in the last Parliamentary election, partially as a mandate against Blair's support of the US policy in Iraq. Is he weakening the US with other allies? Of the major members of the original coalition in Iraq, only Australia continues to support the policy. The other two major coaltion members, Italy and Spain, have elected new governments, both in part, as opposition to supporting the US policy. Is he weaking the US at home? I would suggesst that most Americans are not even aware of Carter's remarks (the same applies to most people among our allied countries) and have already formed an opinion about the war, with most now opposing. Is he weakening the moral of the troops, as Mojo seems to imply? Would you say the same about Colin Powell's recent remarks about Bush's bill to redefine prisoner interrogation policy: “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 (of the Geneva Convention) would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”I fail to see how Carter's remarks have done any of the above. In fact, both Carter's and Powell's remarks demonstrate that there are voices in government, past and present, who have different moral standards than Bush. Why are such remarks bad and how does it weaken the US? Any clarification would certainly help me and others understand your premise.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
09-24-2006, 11:43 AM | #52 (permalink) | ||
Banned
Location: You're kidding, right?
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now you have Mr. "Astroturf-in-the-bed-of-my-pickup" lecturing us. Lined up right behind him is Mr. "I've lusted in my heart" who was pretty much raised and educated in his young years by a sharecropper on his parents' farm. Who nominated himself for a Nobel prize. Reagan wouldn't even take his coat off in the oval office, because he thought it was disrespectful. I'm not holding my breath waiting for a classy act from someone who couldn't keep his pants ON in the oval office. Last edited by _God_; 09-24-2006 at 11:52 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
09-24-2006, 12:47 PM | #53 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
I am not impressed that Reagan kept his effing "coat on" as he sold out almost all of our interests to corporate financed interests that simply bought up and "slowed down" the progress of Solar energy, and permitted "big oil" to "price out" fledging alternative energy.....exactly what the plans that Carter put in place, were designed to prevent from happening. Shouldn't your post "measure up" to the work that some of us did here to present the "other side" of this thread's OP argument? You only get one chance to make a first impression, and I did not learn anything from what you've posted. IMO, it isn't supported by what we know has happened. Is there any extreme policy or decision.......below the degree of something as farfetched and obvious as a current president doing something totally "off the wall".....like launching an unprovoked "aggressive war" of preemption.....similar to what Justice Robert Jackson condemned at the Nuremberg trials, where you could support a former president's public questioning of the official performance and integrity of the sitting president, or for you, is silence always the "rule"? Last edited by host; 09-24-2006 at 12:49 PM.. |
|
09-24-2006, 02:26 PM | #54 (permalink) | |
spudly
Location: Ellay
|
Quote:
While your posting style is unique, it is not the standard that we require for admission. This is a discussion forum.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam |
|
Tags |
carter, jimmy, usa, weakening, working |
|
|