Bush and 1984
 

I know many of the more democratic and liberal individuals see traces of Orwell's 1984 all around us, with the war on terrorism and the Patriot Act mirroring similarities in the book, as well as the consolidation of media stifling their ability to maintain objectivity.

This is to the Repubs and others who don't see the increasing similarities between "1984" and 2004. Why? Honest question, so please respond thoughtfully.

I think most people SEE the similarities, they just choose to ignore them, tell themselves it's not a big deal, or they think the ends justify the means. I'm interested to see what kind of response this question gets...

I would suggest a visit to Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Sudan, China, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Algeria etc etc etc for more pertinent examples of oppressive state-controlled societies. The US has a loooong ways to go to catch up to these types of totalitarian states.

Agreed, Gopher. Ignorance is bliss in this case. The media's objectivity, while the loss more evident in the US, is actually being lost world wide. I've had to stop watching the BBC news (used to be my reliable source). I get my info from German news and grass roots places now, which unfortunatally have far less regulations. It's getting to the point that partisan is the rule...not the exception.
Powerclown, I also agree to a point. Someone has to set an example to the rest of the world that there is a way to exist, as a media, that is non-partisan. I know that we aren't the worst, but we can do a lot better. We are still okay, but we are headed in the wrong direction. Who would like to be sliding towards a totalitarean rule?

I agree those states are more oppressive societies, but that doesn't mean just b/c we are slightly better that all is well. i personally feel we are heading in the wrong direction, moving closer, albeit, we still have a ways to go, to those more oppressed societies versus the other direction with more freedom. I know a lot of people feel this way. I want to get the opinions of those that don't see this or are at least not concerned about it b/c to me, a vote for Bush would partially imply that this is an issue that does not matter to that person, or it is a matter in which they are willing to give up some freedoms to be safe, which is a very scary thought to me.

Anyone who calls a plan to start the deforestation of national forests through logging "Healthy Forests" is using Orwell's 1984 as an instruction manual.

'Nuff said.

Ooh, good idea Shakran.

Healthy Forest: Save the forest by killing the trees
No Child Left Behind: Improve education by forcing extra expenses on the state
Clear Skies and Clean Water Initiative: Improve air quality by allowing NOx, SOx and other noxious emmissions to double, and mercury to triple

Any others?

I would not discount anyone's opinion as to the extent of totalitarianism in the US. The historical phenomenon known as America is so vast, there is something for everyone to be thankful for, as well as upset about. All valid concerns. I like to keep my eye on the rest of the world for a bit of perspectice, if only for myself.

only problem with that, powerclown, is that it might cause you to downplay or overlook patterns specific to the states because you would define what you are looking for in irrelevant terms. the states is becoming a kind of soft totalitarian system at the cultural level. if you are looking at that, and thinking in terms of direct domination, you will write off what is in front of you.

Tralls, maybe I'm confused whether you are referring to individual rights, or something broader, in your reference to Bush & 1984 here.

Im not sure I follow you roachboy. Direct domination in terms of the subjugation of it's own citizens within or foreign countries without? I also don't understand the seeming oxymoron "soft totalitarianism'. This is like 'jumbo shrimp', or 'dry ice' or 'honest crook'.

Like I said, there's a lot wrong with America and there's a lot right with it too. In terms of the 1984 analogy, ie., how the state deals with the individual, its my opinion that America falls more on the 'pro-individual rights' end of the spectrum than the 'anti-individual rights' end.

no, it's more like there are any number of ways to dominate a population--direct, often violent and/or arbitrary use of state force is but one. here you have a different kind of system, one that works through co-ordination of opinion, say, in order to lull folk into giving away basic freedoms wtihout even realizing it. in a way, it is like colonialism, which was ineffecient by 1960--too much money spent on direct control--indirect is more cost-effective.
what better way to get people to submit than to give them to understand they are choosing to do it?

I would argue that Orwell had been discredited by our postmodern sensibilities. He envisioned a top-down repression where the government controls by force and paranoia. It's quite the opposite. The population is beholden to it's pleasures, not controlled by threat of pain.

No reason to fight or die, or read, or believe. Nothing is true, nothing is false... you can do whatever you want to do, but why not just relax on the couch and watch scripted beautiful people do it instead? Just take your soma and let us entertain you till you stop breathing.

For a more insightful picture into where we've been and where we are going, I recommend Alduous Huxley's Brave New World. Orwell put together some great works of fiction, but his vision of the future has given way to something different but no less troubling.

I think people either ignore such similarities or simply lean on the defense that the world could not possibly progress to such a point in 4 years and thus are content to let Bush play his game for another term. I believe Ben Franklin had a fairly famous quote that insinuates that we, in our current state, are not worthy of liberty because we are giving up freedom in favor of safety.

I would argue that right now, we shouldn't be fearing 1984, but the progression toward it.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
-Mr. C-Note

Thirty second sound bites have their place. God knows I've used them myself.

But to use them to explain policies like logging and clean air ignores the fact that there are other issues involved, specifically our economy, renewability, etc.

While I understand the "1984" comparison, right now it strikes me more as paranoia than reality.

Not to say that we don't need to be vigilant, but we definitely aren't even close.

It's true I'm a little slow, but I'm not making the connection between Bush and 1984-style subjugation of the individual: his wants, needs, emotions. Maybe I need to re-read the book, but I thought it was about the domination of the individual in particular, and not other aspects of society such as commercial forestry or, say, the extinction of the passenger pigeon. Attributing all the evils of society (and it seems we are concentrating on EVERY one of them here...), perceived and real, to George W. Bush is giving the guy waaaay too much credit in my opinion. It does seem like borderline paranoia in this respect.

I guess one could argue the de-merits of such things as the Patriot Act, et al., but I agree with irate that its pretty much open season as far as what you want to do with your time in America. RB, I'm curious as to what basic freedoms individuals in America are being forced to unwittingly give up?

Lebell, do you realize that the title's of Bush's policies are quick soundbites themselves?
Clear Skies and Clean Water Initiatives very clearly are not meant to assist the environment. If Bush was honest about them he would call them Helping Pre-Clean Air Act Coal Furnaces Thrive Initiative and Harvesting Americas Forests for Profit Initiative. That's why it's so fucked up and Orwellian.

I think my descriptions are perfectly applicable. Current policy is too shortsighted. What we should be following is the Great Law of the Iroquois nation. It states: "In our every deliberation we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations." Too often we put very short term economic needs of some people above long term environmental health and sustainability for our nation. It is a disservice to the seven generations of Americans that will follow us.

almost every modern media and gov. includes bits of 1984
"collateral damage" is newspeak for "maimed and killed civllians"

would the support for war still be the same if the headlines were
"US Bomb mauled 5 children"
i dont think so, "collateral damage" sonds much nicer.
just like the examples by Superbelt...

The "Healthy Forest" analogy is akin to the Orwellian concept of
"doublethink"; "war is peace", "ignorance is strength", "freedom is slavery",
and the purpose of doublethink is "reality control".
<a href="http://www.cod.edu/1984/doublethink.htm">College of Dupage - Orwell Symposium</a>
It is not Bush specifically who deserves the "credit". What we are experiencing is the tip of the iceberg of a much larger agenda choreographed by this man (who, just like Bush, is a cog in a larger wheel):

host, with due respect, Bush's agenda might seem evil to some on a geo-political scale; you might think the guy is bent on world domination, but what has this got to do with personal freedoms experienced by the individual in America? If you are referring to the War, ok, Rove & Co. do their best to sell the war to the public, that's their job, and people either buy it or they don't, but what has this to do with individual freedoms? For example, do you know how difficult it is in Russia to travel from Moscow to Siberia, as a unescorted private citizen? You need a extensive portfolio of documents and bureaucratic clearances that takes weeks if not months to clear. You need to plan ahead. The same goes for China and Iran. In America, you get in your car (or plane) and go wherever the hell you want. This is only one example. Whats all the fuss about individual freedoms being trod upon in America? Are we talking about racial inequality??

Where else in the world is a society more open or free?? :confused:

Ask me, an Arab individual, born in America, when he tries to get on a plane these days. 90% of the time I have my ID called into the police department and once even had the police talk to me personally there to verify I wasn't a terrorist! I understand your point powerclown, but you are looking at it on a relative basis and it should be looked at on a fundemental basis. You can't compare freedom, it is an absolute. There aren't degrees of freedom. You either are or aren't. We are slowly losing our personal freedoms and the end result could be similar to the world like "1984" where the people didn't even realize the outcome until it was too late. You can't stop an avalanche once it has gained full steam and this avalanche is starting to gather some speed.

It's not just a republican thing....Kerry's unofficial motto seems to be "Treason is Patriotic". Doublespeak GOOD.

When has Kerry ever, EVER endorsed any form of treason?

I wont deny that Democrats need to take a look in the mirror and quit acting so Republican, but again, comparisons keep being made on a relative basis. Bush talks in "doublespeak", but so does Kerry. America is stifling freedom but China does it worse. this type of behavior should not be occuring at all. As one of the moderators sigs say "The lesser of two evils is still evil."

Isn't bush the fellow afraid of "protect civil liberties" shirts?

Endorsed? Never. Committed? Paris, by meeting with the NVA and conducting "talks" with them, then returning to the US and advocating their terms for a US surrender in Vietnam.

Except that he was never charged for treason even though he was in the sights of the Nixon White House. Simply stating something is true doesn't make it so.

I doubt Bush saw the shirts, and I doubt fear was the motivation to keep the people in question out. It was a "meeting of the faithful", and "heathen disruptors" were not welocme. The women should have known that when they lied to obtain tickets (theft by deception).

We don't know WHAT he was charged with, since he has refused to release the pertinent military documents from 1972. And the fact that somebody was not charged with something doesn't mean that they didn't do it.

If the "traitor" argument is so reasonable then why haven't we heard these charges outside of far right circles? Why wasn't anything done 30 years ago? If Kerry had been convicted of treason then, you can goddamn guarantee that it would be common knowledge.

Probably for the same reason they didn't make a big deal out of it when the Senior senator from Massachucetts killed that girl, and his family helped him destroy the evidence of the crime, or why nobody made a big deal out of it when the senator from West Virginia admitted that not only was he a member of the KKK, but he was a RECRUITER for it, or why Jane Fonda isn't still in prison.

Wow....that about says it all. I won't lower myself by responding.

right media is a distortion box, daswig--best to extract yourself from it while there is still hope that your sense of perspective might not be permanently damaged. it seems that the "lesson" you wish to impart is that opposing a war, on any grounds, is necessarily treason--no better example of the kind of thing this thread addresses could be found.
why rely on a state to dominate when you can get proxies to do the enforcement for it?
its cheaper, its easier, its more effective.
particularly if you couple that with endlessly repeated, absolutely empty phrases about how free you are.

Nope. But giving propaganda aid to the enemy IS treason. See Lord Haw-Haw and Tokyo Rose for examples. That's what Kerry did. He met with the NVA leadership when he had no authority to do so, and while he was still a member of hte US military. He made statements before the Fulbright Commission which were not only fraudulent, but were used by the enemy as psychological torture material against POWs who belonged to the same military he did. He took the NVA's "talking points", and brought them back to the US, and then pushed for their adoption. That, my friend, is a TEXTBOOK case of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

As I said not that many posts ago, just because you say it's true doesn't make it so. I'm glad that most American conservatives are not the sort who see every political opponent as some Stalinesque or traitorous bogeyman. Obviously, neither party is going to endorse someone who parroted NVA "talking points." We need to temper the passions of this fiery election season with a little common sense.

Noted liberal John McCain condemned the attacks on John Kerry's war record. That should speak for itself. Can't we leave the most vicious political rhetoric off of this board?

Forgive me if I am wrong but wasn't 1984 about control people through language and thought control? I if remember right the people were controlled mostly by the news that they were allowed to get from the state.

Now I won't deny that we have a lot of thought control going on today like undocumented not illegal and so forth. But as I recall a lot of this "newspeak" was started by the people most of you are advocating that us poor brain washed conservatives listen to.

It was the liberals in the media and politics that decided that someone is differently-abled not handicapped.

It seems to me that it all depends on your point of view. If you go for Bush then Kerry = 1984. If you go for Kerry then Bush = 1984.

This is one of reasons I am a big advocate of the 2nd amendment to the constitution. As long as the people have the right to keep an bear arms 1984 will never happen in the country.

I support Bush but I don't agree with everything he has done. The Patriot Act for on scares me some. However I know that I have a better chance with Bush of being able to stand up and have to tools available to do so than I do with Kerry.

So why haven't the hundreds of returning servicemen and women from Iraq, who have expressed lack of support for the war, been charged with treason?

Why were the thousands of returning veterans from Vietnam who opposed the war not charged with treason?

Why does the White House / AG not charge Michael Moore with treason?

Why does the White House / AG not charge the editors of the New York Times with treason?


I think you're just a little bit biased here. [/sarcasm]


Mr Mephisto

Violent coercion isn't the only means for controlling a populace. Propaganda and selective rewards can go a long way. The 2nd amendment won't help anyone if they don't think that they have anything to protect themselves against. Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia...why should I get upset about that?

Because not supporting the war itself isn't enough. Now take that National Guardsman who tried to pass information that was largely in the public domain (and available at most libraries) to Al Queda. He WAS charged, and IIRC those charges are currently pending trial. Kerry did more than just "oppose the war". He met with the enemy, exchanged views on how the war could be ended with a NVA victory, and then came home and actively worked to spread NVA propaganda to destroy morale on the home front. Are you familiar with a long-dead Congressman named Vallandigham? How about what Abraham Lincoln said about people like Vallandigham and Kerry? In case you don't remember the quote, here it is: "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." Google it. He actually said that, and carried through on it.

Probably because Moore didn't actually meet with the enemy. Now, Sean Penn may well be another matter. I DO think that Moore is walking VERY close to the line on what is and isn't protected by the First Amendment. Is he over it? I don't know, but given what happened to Eugene Debs, he may well be.

Well, Tralls, I think we've solved the mystery of this thread. As an Arab American, you are indeed under closer scrutiny these days. It is both unfortunate as well as understandable, after the occurence of 9/11 - which was perpetrated by radical fundamentalist arabs, who are to ordinary arabs what the nazis were to ordinary germans. One way to look at it would be that such scrutiny has become imperative, as a matter of national security and for the protection of the American people, whatever nationality they may be. This is the price to be paid for such an open society as America. For reference, you might contrast America's reaction to terrorism with Russia's, where Putin has effectively consolidated every aspect of the country's autonomy under his authority.

so you support locking up those only guilty of supporting unpopular political views? Should we reinstate the Sedition Acts? How can any American wish for a return to those days?

Another way of putting it was that he attended the Paris Peace Talks.

He didn't spy for the NVA. He didn't commit acts of sabotage. Opposing the war and working towards its end is not treason in my opinion.

If he is honestly guilty of treason, don't you think he would have been charged?

I'm not familiar with Vallandigham, but am very interested in the history of the American Civil War. If you think the current environment is divisive, it pales into comparison with what happened during the Civil War. I don't believe the analogy fits today's circumstances.

The Rosenbergs were tried and executed. I don't think that was right, but it happened.

If you honestly believe Moore and Penn are guilty, or deserve to be charged with, treason then there's not much I can do to change your mind. We simply disagree.

By these same lines, Oliver North and many of his cohorts in the Reagan Administration (up to and including the President) should have been charged with treason and taken out and hanged.

Silly when you think about it, no?


Mr Mephisto

There's a difference between supporting unpopular views, and working actively to give a propaganda victory to the enemy. Where the line is crossed is a matter of debate, but there's no doubt that at some point the line can indeed be crossed.

And you accused Michael Moore of coming close to this "line." That doesn't exhibit much tolerance for the other side(s), IMHO. One of the greatest aspects of the US is our fierce protection of free speech. Any times in the past where our government and society have failed the "free speech" test are black eyes on this nations history.

He had no authority to attend the peace talks, and military regs prohibited him from meeting with the enemy. We don't know if he was charged, but certain discrepancies in his military records that HAVE been released suggest that he may have in fact received a discharge under less than honorable circumstances in 1972.



Vallandigham was a congressman from Ohio who was one of the leaders of the "Copperhead" movement that favored coming to an arrangement with the Confederacy. Basically, he said "Wrong time, wrong place, wrong enemy." He was arrested, tried by a military tribunal, convicted, stripped of his citizenship, and deported. I'm curious why you think the execution of the Rosenbergs was wrong. They were in fact guilty of the crimes that they were charged with. There's more than just the trial record to support this, records obtained after the fall of the Soviet Union verified that in fact they were in the employment of the USSR, and did what they were accused and convicted of.

Moore is a close call. I'm not sure how that would go down. But Penn and Jane Fonda are, IMHO, guilty of treason beyond a reasonable doubt.

I disagree. they were acting in accordance with the NCA. Reagan WAS the NCA. Now, if Kerry had gone and talked with the NVA as part of a sanctioned move by the State Department or other government agency implementing properly formulated foreign policy, that would NOT be treason. But that's not what happened.

So illegaly funding a congressionaly prohibited war is okay, but speaking out against a war is not? We are through the looking glass here, people.

Congress can't prohibit a war per se, their power is based upon the pursestrings. On top of that, the line between "war" and "police action" has blurred to the point that it's not really meaningful any more. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq I, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq II, were all never declared to be wars by Congress. Indeed, the last time the US Congress declared war, IIRC, was on December 8, 1941. We've bombed a LOT of people since then.

Swift Vets put it best- and Im not implying they are non-partisan despite the fact that some are Democrats- simply saying they put it best


It is a matter of public record that John Kerry lied before Congress when he falsely portrayed his fellow service personnel in Vietnam as rapists and baby killers. John Kerry claimed that American troops were guilty of “crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command,” and that we “personally raped” and otherwise brutalized innocent civilians. Kerry specifically accused Swift boat personnel of “showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks” and “butchering a lot of innocent people.” None of that is true




That said - I wanted to ask kerry about why he has the flag upside down on his book....

Kerry never said that all of the troops were willing "rapists" or "baby killers" (I defy you to show me a Kerry quote that actually uses the term "baby killer"). He said that some of the military policies of the US were themselves war crimes (free fire zones, burning villages, etc) and that the horror of the war drove many good men to do terrible things. You can gloss over the nightmare of the Vietnam war if you like but it will take more then this campaign to remove the stain of that conflict from our national mind. I like to think that most folks don't confuse anti-war thought with anti-soldier thougth. In fact, the oldest trick in the book is to equate one with the other.

That is bullshit. If NCA tells you to go rape a 6 year old, you are still guilty of a crime if you do it. Reagan's wishes were illegal and treasonous, and anyone who helped him with it was guilty of treason as well.

Sometimes, they are the same.

<img src="http://www.code7r.org/Bintoons/images/protest_photo02.gif" img>

I'm quite familiar with the case. I think it's wrong because I don't support the death penalty. Another argument, another time. :)

Well, all I can say is that I'm happy the vast majority of America, and the American Administration and Attorney General don't agree with your extremist point of view. You're certainly entitled to it, but I doubt many (more than 10%) agree with it.

As far as I remember, Iran was (and still is) "the enemy". North was selling them arms, illegally, even after they attacked the United States.

THAT is much more treasonous than meeting with foreign representatives in an attempt to support peace talks.


Mr Mephisto

So you're saying that supporting the Contras against a communist dictatorship is the moral equivalent of raping a 6 year old?

Whatever you say, Comrade...

And that's just stupid. The people in this photograph are not guilty of treason. They're just stupid. And wrong.

Mr Mephisto

That's patently not what he said. And the Contras were democratically elected and recognized by the UN.

Get your facts right.


Mr Mephisto

Would it change your mind if you were told that the organization that held the "protest" that the picture was taken at was actually a thinly veiled front group with direct ties to Saddam Hussein? Ever hear of Ramsey Clarke? He's the head of the group that put on that "protest". He's also Saddam's Attorney of record in the US, and has taken millions of dollars from Saddam for various "causes", ALL of which have one central purpose...to oppose any action against Saddam.

Actually, once again, you're wrong.

some of it is patently, verifiably and proven to be true.

Innocent civilians WERE butchered. On both sides, of course, but don't go fooling yourself that US forces never committed crimes in Vietnam.

Ever hear of My Lai? Ever read any personal memoirs where US personnel recount how some people were shot illegally, or villages burned, or innocents killed? Or do you believe the vast majority of published material recounting such events are false?

I respected your opinion earlier, but now you seem to be going even more extreme. By denying simple facts and adopting double-standards you are undermining your point of view.

Mr Mephisto

My, what delicious irony...

No it wouldn't.


Mr Mephisto

Opps... I got my factions mixed up.

It was the Sandanistas that were democratically elected and the Contras who were illegally funded by Reagan.

Mea culpa.


Mr Mephisto

Actually, your pic shows anti-officer, not foot soldier, hostility. Regardless, the idiots that made that banner are like the fools that picket the funerals of gay men that died from AIDS...they don't represent anyone but themselves.

Regardless of this latest obfuscation, I'm still waiting for the Kerry "baby killer" quote.

Speaking of baby killers, did someone bring up the contras? They were certainly a bloody gang of rapists, killers and thugs.Of course, if one is trying to redeem the Vietnam war then support for the contras is hardly surprising.

where Kerry went wrong was when he claimed that the atrocities were NOT limited aberrations, but were SOP approved by the chain of command. There were atrocities committeed. The VAST majority were committed by the NVA/VC. There were some atrocites committed by US troops, but they were rare. I've never, EVER heard of a documented case of US troops beheading people, as he claimed. The ROK troops did, but not the US troops.

It's interesting to note that Kerry admitted in his testimony to PERSONALLY committing war crimes. Why on earth would we want to elect a war criminal, much less a serial murderer? Please remember, if he was committing war crimes like he claimed, it was murder, and he claimed to do it repeatedly.

I didn't think it would....Appeasers refuse to rid themselves of their delusions until it is far too late...

So was Stalin and Pol Pot. Your point?

I agree that they were not the fule and were probably so uncommon as to warrant the descirption "rare", but above you simply stated that it never happened.

Well, you bring up a valid point (rather than the skewed political spin shwon heretofore). I suspect he meant "war crimes" in the context of his engagement in an unjust war. I'm not sure he personally admitted to murder.

Mr Mephoisto

Stalin and Pol Pot were NOT democratically elected.

You show an alarming lack of undestanding of European politics and history if you think Stalin was elected. LOL

Additionally, Pol Pot came to power after a coup. Since when is a coup an election?


Mr Mephisto

Can you find a SINGLE case of even anecdotal evidence that US troops beheaded Vietnamese people as Kerry claimed? Kerry's "Ghengis Khan" speech was a direct insult to every American over there. He based his statements upon the Winter Soldier "investigation", which was completely discredited, since a large percentage of the people involved in it could NOT have committed the acts that they described, due to silly things like never having BEEN in Vietnam in the first place (it's hard to behead Vietnamese people when you're stationed in Germany).

And those with extreme views tend to degenerate into personal attacks when their hypocracy and inconsistency is shown.

I respect you, and have stated so publically. I have also shown where you got your facts wrong. And you "label" me as an appeaser and imply I'm deluded.

That speaks volumes.


Mr Meph

Can I find a single documented case of US forces beheading Vietnamese troops? No.

But I can find a case where US troops murdered innocent civilians and were prosecuted for it. And I can find innumerable anecdotal cases where US forces admitted to or described other crimes.

Both of which you denied ever happening.

Again, you make a statement and when that is proven wrong you retort with some counter-point that is not relevant to the disproval of your original claim.


Mr Mephisto

So the Soviet Union didn't hold "elections"? Really? Are you SURE you want to say that? How about Iraq? They periodically held elections. Last election, I heard Saddam got 103% of the vote.

OK, if you wanna play that way, our electoral system is a sham too. Keep in mind our current president was appointed by a Council of Judicial Ministers (aka the supreme court), not the people. The point here being that you can have elections, or you can have "elections" in which the result is rigged or ignored, and therefore they do not really count as elections. I would lump the USSR in the latter category.

And no, I am not saying that supporting the Contras is the moral equivalent of raping a six year old. You seem to be having difficulty making rational interpretations of statements. Let me help you along with that. I am saying that breaking the law of our land is breaking the law of our land, whether or not the president tells you to do it. No one may use the president's illegal actions as a shield to protect themselves from the prosecution of their illegal actions.

I personally don't see the similarties, I think it's more prevelant in the private sector.

Yes I am sure. And no, the Soviet Union did not hold democratic elections.

In 1919 Stalin was appointmented a full member of the Politburo. The same year he was nominated people's commissar for state control and then in 1920 served as people's commissar for workers' and peasants' inspection. In 1922 he was appointed as the party secretariat in the capacity of General Secretary. Initially he allied himself with Bukharin and Zinoviev these were sidelined and eventually executed during the great purges of the 1930's

Trotsky, his other great rival, was also murdered.

Elections paid no part in it.

If you want to quote historical precendents from Russia and Cambodia (or Kampuchea) at least get your facts straight.


Mr Mephisto

First off, I'm a registered Republican. (As Arnold so eloquently put it: If you think that you can spend your money better than your government: you are a Republican). I also like to think of Orwell's masterpiece as my second Bible. I have read it over five times, and have done many reports on it. I also see the similarities between the PATRIOT Act and the book's Thought Police, and I don't support it. However, saying that President Bush, and the Republican Party is at fault for the passage of the PATRIOT Act is totally false and unfounded. As the Democrats' beloved Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 stated, the PATRIOT Act had been something on the bi-partisan FBI/CIA's agenda for a long time. The incident on 9/11/2001 just pushed the envelope far enough for Congress, a mostly bi-partisan group, to pass it.

Policies such as "free fire zones" were standard Pentagon tactics and constituted war crimes. "Shoot anything that moves" sounds pretty bad to me.

Stories of ear necklaces and other such atrocities were common in Vietnam. This is the consequence of placing men in awful, dehumanizing conditions.

Kerry admitted that tactics such as the aforementioned "free fire zones," amounted to war crimes, nothing else. If you are accusing him of criminality then you must indict the Pentagon's Vietnam policy as well. Unless you blame the soldier and absolve the generals, of course.

actually, I don't accuse him of anything for his conduct in Vietnam, I'm merely pointing out that he confessed, in effect, to being both a war criminal and a serial murderer. Now his conduct AFTER Vietnam is another matter...

And many have pointed out that interpretations of Kerry's service such as your's is a blatant distortion of the truth.

cthulu, I obviously don't see it that way.

daswig, re: your post #34 in this thread. You made some serious accusations.
Care to defend them with evidence.....here's some references to refute what
you are saying. Please refrain from undocumented attacks.

Your accusations that Kerry "made statements before the Fulbright Commission which were not only fraudulent" in his 1971 testimony, directly contradicts the research and conclusions of the experts at <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=244">FACTCHECK.org</a> Here is the information from their website, complete with links:
<table width="758" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
I find this article about Colin Powell and his link to My Lai interesting.
You can click anywhere on the quote below to read the whole salon.com source.
<a href="http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:9NvjdxRqv7sJ:www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/03/06/kerry/+%22my+lai+was+an+isolated+incident%22&hl=en">
" Kerry's critics argue that My Lai was an isolated incident, but at least one celebrated general doesn't agree.

Secretary of State Colin Powell held a command position in the Army's Americal Division, which had included Calley's unit, and he was asked to investigate the earliest allegations about My Lai. He failed to uncover the massacre and was later accused of facilitating the coverup. Whether that accusation is fair or not, Powell knows what happened in Vietnam.

"My Lai was an appalling example of much that had gone wrong in Vietnam," he wrote in his bestselling autobiography, "My American Journey." "The involvement of so many unprepared officers and noncoms led to breakdowns in morale, discipline and professional judgment -- and to horrors like My Lai -- as the troops became numb to what appeared to be endless and mindless slaughter." </a>

Host, you're quoting a Conason article as being credible? What's next, a Jason Blair or Bellesiles article?

Actually, I think he was quoting Colin Powell's autobiography. It was just cited in the Conason piece.

Don't tell me you think Powell is a liar and guilty of treason too now, do you? :)


Mr Mephisto

I'm pretty sure that every time Powell met with the enemy, he did so with the blessings of the government. So I've seen nothing to make me think he was a traitor.

daswig, here are some references to the atrocities committed by U.S. troops
in Viet Nam. These are the references and links at <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=244#">http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=244#</a>
If they are reliable enough for factcheck.org to cite, that's good enough
for me, and apparently, for Dick Cheney, too. It was not treasonous to
testify about this in 1971; it was about saving lives....on both sides. I've
already documented on another thread, the fact that Jane Fonda was
responsible for exposing the Nixon and Kissinger <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=+bombing+the+dikes+in+Vietnam%2C+&btnG=Search">plan to bomb the dikes in North Viet Nam</a> that could have resulted in intentional flooding that would have killed several hundred thousand civilians and severely diminished the rice crop. I also documented that George HW Bush as U.N. Ambassador, denied to the world that Nixon had approved the dike destruction plan, when historic evidence now proves that Jane Fonda was correct and that she put pressure on Nixon to suspend his plan, simply by exposing it to public scrutiny. Our current president, shortly after his inauguration, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20731-2001Oct31">signed a serious of executive orders</a> to keep Presidential papers of the past three administrations, and, presumably, his own, from reaching the eyes of the public for a much longer period than the previous restriction of ten years. George W Bush; the people's president!

Either Daswig has never read 1984 or (s)he has no concept of what irony is.

So we can trust Colin Powell's assessment that My Lai wasn't an isolated incident? Maybe we shouldn't dismiss stories based on their authors rather then their ideas.

Once again, host, you've failed to cite a single example where GIs cut of heads or limbs.

Some bad things happened there. Yes, GIs poisoned enemy food supplies. They even snuck into enemy ammo dumps and replaced some of their munitions with "doctored" ammunition filled with PETN, designed to blow the weapons up when used. Corpses WERE dismembered during AIR STRIKES, just as corpses were dismembered in EVERY war where air power was used. But cut the heads off of living people? Your very, very, VERY long cut and paste didn't provide a SINGLE example of anything REMOTELY similar to that. Civilians were indeed shot, mostly in "free fire" areas, where the enemy controlled the countryside. Why? Because the enemy didn't wear uniforms (as required by international law) and all of the friendly civilians had already been evacuated.

Remember this picture? <img src="http://www.msu.edu/~daggy/cop/images/00000008.gif" img>

Did you know that what happened in that picture was NOT a war crime? That the individual executed was actually an enemy officer caught in civilian clothes after murdering the family of the shooter's subordinate, and that his summary execution was in fact LEGAL under the international protocols? Yeah, it sucked to be him, but then again, maybe, JUST maybe, he shouldn't have been doing what he was doing that led to his execution.

You talk about Jane Fonda's efforts to stop the US destruction of the North Vietnamese rice crop by destroying the dikes. Do you likewise decry the Allies destroying dams in Germany to flood industrial areas (lots of people drowned), or the program to destroy Germany's ability to grow food (lots of people starved)? How about the carpetbombing of the Ruhr? Lots of civilians died there. How about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the firebombings of Tokyo, which killed more civilians than the A-bombs did?

How exactly are you supposed to fight a war against very bad people without killing their supporters? Even Lenin said (paraphrasing) you can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs.

Go and read the reports about the Tiger Force
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...y=SRTIGERFORCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_F...28commandos%29


During the rampage, the soldiers committed some of their most brutal atrocities, Army records show.

A 13-year-old girl's throat was slashed after she was sexually assaulted, and a young mother was shot to death after soldiers torched her hut.

An unarmed teenager was shot in the back after a platoon sergeant ordered the youth to leave a village, and a baby was decapitated so that a soldier could remove a necklace.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...ORCE/110190168

Once again, no one here said they did.

WRONG. Executing prisoners, and that is what he was, IS most definitely, categorically, abosolutely a war crime. Feel free to check the Geneva Conventions, especially the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. [Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of
International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949. Entry into force 21 October 1950]

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Let me also quote from the US Military book Law at War - Vietnam 1964 to 1973

"As indigenous offenders, the Viet Cong did not technically merit prisoner of war status, although they were entitled to humane treatment under Article 3, Geneva Prisoner of War Conventions. Under Article 12, the United States retained responsibility for treatment of its captives in accordance with the Geneva Conventions even after transfer of the captives to the South Vietnamese. At the same time, the United States was concerned that Americans held captive in North and South Vietnam receive humane treatment and be accorded the full benefits and protection of prisoners of war.


Again WRONG.

He was purportedly a Viet Cong officer. They didn't wear uniforms.

The picture was actually taken on the morning of January 31, the first full day of the Tet attack. Associated Press photographer Eddie Adams and a Vietnamese TV cameraman employed by NBC were wandering around Saigon getting photos and footage of the battle damage when they noticed a small contingent of South Vietnamese troops with a captive dressed in a checked shirt. From the other direction came Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan, chief of South Vietnam’s national police. As Adams and the NBC cameraman aimed their cameras, Loan calmly raised his sidearm and shot the prisoner—a Viet Cong officer—in the head. Loan walked over to Adams and said in English: "They killed many Americans and many of my men." [REF:http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/dia...ward-tet.html]. It is reported that he did claim POW status before he was shot.

Either way, the fact that he was a PRISONER means it was a crime.


That's like saying "maybe, just maybe, those poor GI's who are being blown to pieces by suicide bombers in Iraq shouldn't be doing what they're doing". In otherwords, it's meaningless.


And finally, on pages 76, 77 and 77 of the same book (did I mention it was published by the US Military and is on their web page), there is the following section.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/Vie...War/law-01.htm
Emphasis added.


So, what's my point? Only that you are, once again, making statements that are patently and verifiably false to bolster your argument.

You have a valid point of view (that you think Bush would make a better President than Kerry), but making sweeping generalizations, false statements, obfuscating the facts, abandoning arguments shown to be wrong and generally avoiding the issues at hand do not make you right. Indeed, they show a knee-jerk reactionism that is only devaluing your position.

Mr Mephisto

Kerry did.

Who said he was a prisoner of war? What exactly did he do to remove himself from the status of unlawful combatant/spy (who can be summarily executed) and put him into the status of POW? Was he wearing insignia recognizable at a distance? If not, what moved him into POW status?


Objection, relevance. Are you suggesting that the shooter was American, or in American custody? It's interesting to note, however, that the first the manual does indeed say that they were not POWs, and he was humanely treated, he was humanely shot in the head, causing almost instantaneous death. While not as humane as a lethal injection, execution by musketry is still legal in parts of the US (namely Utah), and it hasn't been ruled to be cruel or unusual punishment.

PURPORTEDLY?!??!? his widow admits he was VC. And not wearing uniforms is why they were not classified as POWS but rather as unlawful combatants.

I can claim to be the Queen of the MayDay, that doesn't make it so. I'm sure he also claimed to be innocent, like most convicts do.

No, it doesn't. People in his situation can indeed be executed, just like spies can be executed.

Yup, you sure did. You just didn't mention why a US government policy would apply to a Lt. Col of the ARVN, which was part of a sovereign nation OTHER than the US, and which was NOT under US command or the UCMJ. He was captured, interrogated, passed up the chain of command to somebody who had the legal authority to judge him (in effect, a summary courts martial) and then execute him.

BTW, mephisto, read Article 4, (A)(2)(b), (c), and (d) from http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm . The NVA didn't wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, did not carry arms openly, and did not follow the rules of war. Therefore, they were NOT eligible to become POWs.

Thank you, Pacifier, I can't keep up with the ever growing challenge of
refuting daswigs frequently unsubstantiated statements without some help.
Will the beheading of one baby be enough for him? Will the source of your
information have enough integrity to pass muster with him ? I embrace no
hope of influencing his opinion, let alone changing it, on any misconception
which I perceive him to have. All I hope for is to influence those who Rove
has so far only toyed with, but not hypnotized. Even Rove is not responsible
for daswig; I respect him now as Rove's equal! ;)

Pacifier and Host, I'd remind you of "Operation Tailwind", where CNN (a far more "reputable" source than the Toledo Blade) reported with a straight face that the US nerve-gassed American defectors in Cambodia. Turns out it wasn't true, it was the result of a "liberal" producer (who was on a first-name basis with Jane Fonda) who had an axe to grind, to the point that she misled and misquoted sources, and failed to check even BASIC facts, like the ability of standard army fatigues/BDUs to deflect Sarin, and the fact that none of the survivors of the operation who supposedly were gassed with sarin showed ANY signs of nerve damage. So yeah, an uncorroborated report of something like that does peg my skeptical meter.

A far more reputable?! the Blade got the Pulitzer Prize for that report.
the source for that reports are, like I said above, Army records what else do you need?

Do you think those army records and the testimonies of those soldiers (under oath) are false and a lie?

Sheesh...

By DEFINITION he was a prisoner. He has his hands tied behind his back. You can read the eye-witness accounts if you wish.


If I thought you were being sarcastic here, I woudl ignore this. The sad thing is I think you are being serious and I have nothing but contempt for such an opinion as that stated above.

Whoa... hold on there Tiger. I said purportedly in case you spouted some nonesense about him being a spy in civilivan clothes. The fact that he was a VC means your original comment about him wearing civilian clothes is entirely irrelevant. And you've just proved it by your knee-jerk reaction to my attempt at a non-confrotational description of him as a "purported" VC.

Huh? He was taken prisoner. That's a fact. What are you arguing about?


Yes it does. NO prisoners can be summarily executed. If you believe so, then you don't understand the Geneva Conventions (of which the US is a signatory).

And spies can be executed after a trial (if only in a military court).

I refer you to the Nuremberg Trials when the US charged, convicted and executed German military and political leaders. One of the charges was that they illegally executed prisoners, and murdered civilians.

In other words, if you don't believe he was a prisoner of war, by definition he was therefore a civilian. Either way, his summary execution was a crime.

The second reference (to which you once again make a knee-jerk reaction) quote was not refering to this specific occurrance at all, but your repeated bleating that the US did not commit war crimes in Vietnam. You may not believe me, but I (apparently rashly) assumed you would believe the US military itself.

I wonder what it must be like to live in a world where everyone else is always wrong and you are always right...


Mr Mephisto

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean the VC (Viet Cong) and not the NVA (North Vietnamese Army).

The NVA certainly did wear a uniform.


Mr Mephisto

going back for a second the to 1984 analogy, remember what has been raised in passing above--that domination in orwell's text was a function of discourse.

it was a function of domination of discourse by television and of a population more than willing to submit to the logic of the medium. a population willing to adopt a short collective memory, a population willing to get their information from a single source, and to adjust their interpretive framework as the media required them.
it was a vision of a population willing to dominate itself, control itself, censor itself. that most interpretations of orwell try to align this with stalinism is only partially true--it is as much about the type of domination--or rather the modality of submission--that you see being extended in america as we sit here typing. you might remember as well that the population in 1984 was also quite sure that it was free--more than that--the population understood itself as all the more free through the total mobilization of war.

conservative discourse in power is an authoritarian discourse.
think about it.

I personally believe a world similar Robert Heinlein's book Starship Troopers (Originally published in 1987, long before the movie tore it up) is what we are headed towards. A world where a consolidated media is used to basically push all administration policies fervently, and the people just eat it up. A world of hyper-patriotic propaganda.

it's very fashionable to be anti-establishment, listen to some faux-anarchy band, and wear a shirt from hot-topic...

but aren't you able to access any media from any source? aren't there more voices than there have ever been? can more people not vote on more issues than ever before? is the anti-establishment voice not given its proper hearing?

the feeling of disempowerment that pervades society isn't because of some external repression, it's much too easy to think of it like that... and it's a copout. there is no big brother.

as a true conservative who believes in less government and less oversight than either political party seems to want... few are more wary of a controlling government than i. it just isn't there. we've gone from fear of tyranny from the state to an actual tyranny of the individual. each person his own warden.

how many fingers do you see?

Well said.

But what if the voice are all telling BS and lies? What if the "choice" is realy a choice beween two evil? Are you pleased by that kind of lullaby?