BBO Discussion Forums: "We create our own reality..." - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

"We create our own reality..."

#1 User is offline   pbleighton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,153
  • Joined: 2003-February-28

Posted 2006-December-19, 09:27

"In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine...9e162076ei=5090
0

#2 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,662
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2006-December-19, 09:41

ay caramba!

How unbelievably pompous and megalomaniacally dangerous was that!

Because we find such a behaviour unconscionable and inhuman we tend to think that it cannot be so.

We do pay for our mistakes but hopefully we will learn from them.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#3 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 16,442
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2006-December-19, 10:51

The more things change.... Doesn't that statement sound like something Nixon might have said?

But even with the troubles the Nixon administration went through, he still managed to implement an exit strategy from Viet Nam.

#4 User is offline   pbleighton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,153
  • Joined: 2003-February-28

Posted 2006-December-19, 11:03

"But even with the troubles the Nixon administration went through, he still managed to implement an exit strategy from Viet Nam."

True, but the last American soldiers left in 1975, on the same terms (we leave, the North Vietnamese win) he rejected in 1969.

Peter
0

#5 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2006-December-19, 11:16

True and millions and millions were killed in the killing fields and many millions had to leave their home. No one cared and I guess they still do not care!
0

#6 User is offline   pbleighton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,153
  • Joined: 2003-February-28

Posted 2006-December-19, 11:25

"True and millions and millions were killed in the killing fields and many millions had to leave their home. No one cared and I guess they still do not care!"

Many more people were killed in Vietnam and Cambodia than if the U.S. had never gone to war, that's the bottom line. People on the Right didn't care and still don't. Might is Right, Better Red than Dead, etc.....

Why should the U.S. EVER take responsibility for the consequences of its own actions? Even the suggestion is unpatriotic and immoral! We are the world's superpower, and are God's chosen nation to propagate His message by force of arms, to finish what the Crusaders only started. Onward Christian Soldiers!

We have a war criminal as president.

Peter
0

#7 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2006-December-19, 11:33

"We have a war criminal as president."

He was reelected, and no one ran for President on cut and run in 2004. In fact no one votes to cut off funds still. I see even the new Defense Sec. says it would be a disaster for US and Iraq if we just left. Does that make the vast majority of us.......
0

#8 User is offline   pbleighton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,153
  • Joined: 2003-February-28

Posted 2006-December-19, 11:36

"He was reelected, and no one ran for President on cut and run in 2004. In fact no one votes to cut off funds still. I see even the new Defense Sec. says it would be a disaster for US and Iraq if we just left. Does that make the vast majority of us....... "

Yes, Mike, it makes all of us complicit to varying degrees, including me (if you're wondering). What did I do to stop it?

Democracy doesn't provide any cover for war crimes. To the contrary, it makes the collective responsibility heavier.

Peter
0

#9 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,904
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2006-December-19, 17:36

Ignorance cannot be a defense.

"By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Updated: 8:14 a.m. CT May 19, 2004
May 17 - The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue."
If something cannot go on forever, it will stop. - Herb Stein
0

#10 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2006-December-19, 17:42

Sure hope we see more posts on these subjects next year. Maybe even a few that say yes we are in a War and how and why we should win it or why you hope we lose it?

See more posts about lawyers and stuff then winning the darn thing...even though I think it may take 40 years with a lot of ups and downs.
0

#11 User is offline   pbleighton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,153
  • Joined: 2003-February-28

Posted 2006-December-19, 17:58

"Sure hope we see more posts on these subjects next year. Maybe even a few that say yes we are in a War and how and why we should win it or why you hope we lose it?"

Mike, two questions:

1. Can you/will you distinguish between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, or more generally, between nasty secular dictators who pose no immediate threat to us, and radical Islamic terrorists who are trying to kill us?
2. Do you think the invasion of Iraq was a good thing or a mistake?

Peter
0

#12 User is offline   glen 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,601
  • Joined: 2003-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa, Canada
  • Interests:Military history, WW II wargames

Posted 2006-December-19, 18:13

Speaking of creating reality, one has to like the onion:

Fedex

and more on topic:

Thousands More Dead In Continuing Iraq Victory
'All you are is mean / And a liar, and pathetic, and alone in life / And mean, and mean, and mean, and mean ... And all you're ever gonna be is mean / Why you gotta be so mean?' Taylor Swift
0

#13 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,950
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2006-December-19, 18:27

mike777, on Dec 20 2006, 02:42 AM, said:

Sure hope we see more posts on these subjects next year. Maybe even a few that say yes we are in a War and how and why we should win it or why you hope we lose it?

See more posts about lawyers and stuff then winning the darn thing...even though I think it may take 40 years with a lot of ups and downs.

Mike, I don't think anyone here disputes that we're involved in a war.

The United States started a war when we voluntarily invaded Iraq. Many people, including myself believe that we lost this war.

The war in Iraq is separate and distinct from our desire to contain Islamic fundamentalism. I would argue that it is serious mistake to frame this conflict as a "war". We aren't going achieve victory with the muzzle of a rifle.

We tried that in Iraq. It didn't work.

What I find most disgusting about all this talk about "victory" and "winning" is that the far right is already trying to lay the groundwork for a "stabbed in the back myth". They are pretending that we could achieve victory in Iraq, if only someone would allow us to surge 20,000 more troops into Baghdad.

My belief, this whole surge plan is a desperate attempt by Bush to pass the buck.

If the surge happens, its going to take 3-6 months to build up troop levels. Then we're going to fritter away another two to three months trying to decide if the surge is working. By this is going to be close enough to the 2008 elections that we can't talk about anything because that would be politicizing the discussion.

If the surge doesn't happen, Bush (or more properly McCain) gets to argue that it would have worked if only we had held firm.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#14 User is offline   pbleighton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,153
  • Joined: 2003-February-28

Posted 2006-December-19, 18:31

"Speaking of creating reality, one has to like the onion:

Fedex

and more on topic:

Thousands More Dead In Continuing Iraq Victory"

which brings us to the question of the day:

Has Dick Cheney stopped wearing panties?

Peter
0

#15 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,904
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2006-December-19, 20:00

Quote

Maybe even a few that say yes we are in a War and how and why we should win it or why you hope we lose it?


Exactly to which war do you refer? At the moment we have troops still in Afghanistan, which was our initial war. The we invaded Iraq, which was our second war. Then there is Bush's War on Terror.

The tone (maybe my poor interpretation and not your intent) I get from your posts is that you believe the first two wars are part of the third, the War on Terror, and that what you espouse is that we acknowledge that we are in a War on Terror and whether or not we should win or lose that war.

I would like clarification - about which of these wars are you soliciting further comment? Are you speaking about the War on Terror or about Iraq or about Afghanistan?
If something cannot go on forever, it will stop. - Herb Stein
0

#16 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2006-December-19, 20:21

"Exactly to which war do you refer?"

The war with radical Islam. Of course if you do not know about the war, nevermind.

It does look more and more like the cold war that was not really that cold. Even in that war millions and millions died. Korea, Vietnam, etc etc were just parts of it.
0

#17 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,904
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2006-December-19, 21:01

Quote

The war with radical Islam.


In my opinion, if you believe there is a war with radical Islam then you buy into the entire concept of the War on Terror. I find it disquieting that supporters of this idea ignore the words and history of what led us to war.

Case in point #1, Afghanistan:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Huh???

Case in point #2, Iraq:
Oct. 7, 2002 George W. Bush
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."


By Scott Lindlaw
ASSOCIATED PRESS

October 8, 2004

WASHINGTON – President Bush and his vice president conceded yesterday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, trying to shift the Iraq war debate to a new issue – whether the invasion was justified because Hussein was abusing a U.N. oil-for-food program.

WTF?????

And now this same man claims that we have to save world from the evils of Radical Islam.....

And I've got some swamp land down in the Keys I'd like to talk to you about....

Here is what I believe about this so-called War on Terror:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany.

That is understood.

But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.

It works the same way in any country."

This is a confirmed quote from Hermann Goering as he was interviewed in his jail cell by a German speaking U.S. Army intelligence officer, Gustave Gilbert, during the Nuremberg trials.
If something cannot go on forever, it will stop. - Herb Stein
0

#18 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2006-December-19, 22:50

You make an excellent point but you seem to hate it.

In war the enemy adapts..assuming there is an enemy....


That means your priorities and tactics change...hopefully for the better sometimes for the worse.

Of course if there is no war, this is all nuts.....
0

#19 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,213
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hamilton, New Zealand

Posted 2006-December-20, 04:04

Mike, it's not very productive to discuss the semantics of the term "war". Unless, of course, this is an exercise in semantics. But to some of us this is about real issues like killing fields, oil, airport securtity, religious (in)tollerance etc. Mixing it up with a discussion of semantics makes things muddy.

You talk about the war with "Radical Islam". This term seems to suggest (but I might interpret you incorrectly) that there is a single conflict between the U.S. on one side and the radical islamists on the other side. I have a number of problems with this:
- One of the most loyal U.S. allies in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, is probably also the most radical islamist regime in the World.
- It's hard to see any connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
- By invading Iraq, U.S. overturned a secular government, paving the way for a parlament dominated by religious parties.
- Syria is a secular regime.
- Most of killings in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East is, I suppose, radical sunnis killing ordinary shiits and radical shiits killing ordinary sunnis (correct me if I'm wrong).
Friends don't let friends post while drunk. --- Vampyr
0

#20 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2006-December-20, 04:19

helene_t, on Dec 20 2006, 05:04 AM, said:

Mike, it's not very productive to discuss the semantics of the term "war". Unless, of course, this is an exercise in semantics. But to some of us this is about real issues like killing fields, oil, airport securtity, religious (in)tollerance etc. Mixing it up with a discussion of semantics makes things muddy.

You talk about the war with "Radical Islam". This term seems to suggest (but I might interpret you incorrectly) that there is a single conflict between the U.S. on one side and the radical islamists on the other side. I have a number of problems with this:
- One of the most loyal U.S. allies in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, is probably also the most radical islamist regime in the World.
- It's hard to see any connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
- By invading Iraq, U.S. overturned a secular government, paving the way for a parlament dominated by religious parties.
- Syria is a secular regime.
- Most of killings in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East is, I suppose, radical sunnis killing ordinary shiits and radical shiits killing ordinary sunnis (correct me if I'm wrong).

ok, if you do not think there is a war..a real war with radical islam....what the usa does must seem insane......i think this a repeat post?



btw as a side note do you think the cold war was a real war where millions died and tens of millions..no 100M were in slavery?
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users