Back to Armageddon watch
OK, OK.
I agree with the hecklers in the back row -- the Iran problem is orders of magnitude scarier than a hundred dead sexualized six year olds, their alleged killers and their musician-doppelgängers. And I had not read Larry Johnson's take on the likely path of our despair. But I find nothing to dispute in his latest, Why Bush will Choose War Against Iran.
As Anonymous points out, I've been making noise about the dangers of any military action against Iran since last October, and about this very danger since April.
What to do? I wish I knew. One of the no-way-out paradoxes here is that the more likely it becomes that the Republicans will lose control of one or more chambers of Congress, the more likely these criminals will be to decide to pre-emptively roll the dice in Iran.
That is the true genius of Karl Rove -- not that he architects success, but that his mistakes are so complete and severe they are utterly unfixable.
So what do you think we can do to deflect this meteor?
I agree with the hecklers in the back row -- the Iran problem is orders of magnitude scarier than a hundred dead sexualized six year olds, their alleged killers and their musician-doppelgängers. And I had not read Larry Johnson's take on the likely path of our despair. But I find nothing to dispute in his latest, Why Bush will Choose War Against Iran.
As Anonymous points out, I've been making noise about the dangers of any military action against Iran since last October, and about this very danger since April.
What to do? I wish I knew. One of the no-way-out paradoxes here is that the more likely it becomes that the Republicans will lose control of one or more chambers of Congress, the more likely these criminals will be to decide to pre-emptively roll the dice in Iran.
That is the true genius of Karl Rove -- not that he architects success, but that his mistakes are so complete and severe they are utterly unfixable.
So what do you think we can do to deflect this meteor?
posted by bluememe at 8/23/2006
8 Comments:
First we need Bruce Willis, Ben Affleck, and a couple of space shuttles.
Talk about it. Most people agree Iraq was a disaster and I think a plurality agree we were misled in to war. I'm not sure where we stand on whether people still think (or think again) that WMD were found. So point out that the very same people who led us falsely in to a war that they botched and made us less secure are out to start another. Our military is strained to the breaking point and a war with Iran will endanger our troops iin Iraq and make us less safe at home. Hurricane season is here, where is our National Guard? Also, and I hate this one, because it is disingenuous (at least when I say it), but appeal to Righty's sense of importance and point out that 100 of them A-Rabs ain't worth one of our boys. Bring 'em home!
Oh, and of course, write your elected officials from the Congress to the state and local levels. Try to get your local community to pass something. And write the local paper with facts (especially if you live in the sticks where it is easier to get it published and it will be read by the very people who need to read it.
I'm all over the place, but I'm like that. I ned to get everything out and then put it together in a Power Point Presentation, shuffle things around, add stuff. And then delegate.
I second esoder's motion.
Talk about it. Write (letters to the editor, blog postings, letters to the editor) about it. Don't let the discussion stray too far from the sane consensus: There is no good readon to attack Iran, and there are myriad good reasons not to.
Let your representatives in Congress know that they have a job to do: Bring the executive under control, even if it means cutting off its allowance.
And let the military know that you stand behind their right and duty to refuse an illegal order.
And pray that all this works.
Remember the bullets in Matrix? Well, if you cant bend like Keanu, as fast as he does, YOU are directly in the path of these bullets, its just in slow motion.
You and your loyal band of followers keep asking what can we do to avoid ... Wrong question. The ozone hole is real, global warming is real, the muslims understandably hate your guts and aren't gonna change. The sources of all this madness are only accelerating their actions. You can't turn back the clock. The bullets only go in one direction.
The ONLY meaningful question is whether you will perform violence when confronted with the certainty of your own, avoidable, death. If not, stop whining. The outcome is a foregone conclusion. Otherwise, start a "meaningful dialog" using a list of important names as the agenda. If you wait too long to act, the bullets will be too close to you and even Keanu wouldn't be able to dodge them.
TA
TA speaks like a genuine FBI undercover agent. Inciting the nonconformists to rage against the machine, eh?
Don't lose your heads people, make it strong and smart. Make it stick.
TA and I go way back now, and we just disagree about the use of violence.
But that would be funny if the other anonymous' theory were correct. Like I could just say, "Yep, let's do it, TA - I got an AK on eBay and a bunch of fertilizer." And then Mister BM said, "We can do it at my house." And Dr. B said, "I'll bring the chips and salsa."
Then the next day we get rounded up and arrested and become that day's Fox News terror alert. Although I don't know whether my home owner's association security force has inter agency cooperation with Homeland Security, so they might have trouble getting in.
Sigh....
Once again, for the benefit of the thick and the Big Brotherish (at least in part redundant, to be sure), the management of this humble establishment does not advocate the use of violence, and does not endorse the views of every unhinged rant from a commenter. While I'm at it, I hereby disclaim every unhinged remark Dr. Bloor and I may have made, and further disclaim this disclaimer, and so on, recursively ever after.
Something tells me that this administration would still try to circumvent your disclaimer if it gave them an opportunity attain authority. There has got to be a loophole in there somewhere...
Triple sigh...
Responding in approximate order of comebacks:
You (the commenter) and the FBI each wish you had someone on your side who can think like me. At least there would be someone thinking some of the time. Reread what I said. It wasn't what you think. Praying, coming up with clever phrases and pointing out the mistakes the politicians from the "other" side made won't delay the inevitable end at all (inevitable unless you THINK through the true nature of what's been going on).
Next, esoder, is it violence if, in my death throes because someone has their hand around my neck and my body is jerking around a lot, I happen to accidentally strike them in the temple and kill them? You probably agree it's not. Where you think we disagree (I'm not so sure we do) is at what point in a response to an attack before that, that you feel justified in CALLING it violence, which by your previous statements should never be engaged in. You have a logical problem resolving the conflict between wanting to stay alive and wanting in NO CIRCUMSTANCES to engage in violence. You haven't really made it clear if you know the real world resolution to that dilemma (-- c.f. your statements about your home owner's association security force. They are NON violent when confronted???)
Most of you, even Mr. Blue I suspect, are too young to remember the 60's clearly, or at all. While most of us took drugs, not all of us were stoners. That is, it wasn't just about drugs and free love. There were real questions raised about the meaning of life, not just how to get on with it with the least discomfort. There was a real, non-declared war then too. Blue, why do you go for the cheap shot of combining "unhinged" with "violent" in the same image? Why not throw in drug-crazed and sex starved? How about "communists"? You know better. That's their tactics. You don't need disclaimers for things that were not said in these postings, at least not for anything said by me.
Some of us hippies took non-violent positions, others used or advocated violence. Do you know what came of those actions? Have you looked into how ALL of those movements got ground into hamburger? Violence is what the prosecutor calls the actions of the losing side. Otherwise it's simply justifiable force. We all know the winners write the history. Dig a little. After all, now there's Google! You may learn something interesting about the not too distant past.
This is the only blog I comment on. The reason is that most of the readers, and certainly the two bloggers themselves, are smart enough to figure this stuff out. So why don't you? I urge all of you again to reread what I wrote. There are no actionable (in a legal sense) ideas there. Blue, you may think you need to disclaim or disdain violence, but I didn't advocate it. It is THE FACT THAT YOU ALL ARE SMART that leads you to think I said things that I didn't. That was my intent: to provide a prod to get you thinking. REALLY thinking. You know how, you do it well. But, you need to do it a lot better if you want to survive.
For the record, I'm not joining anybody in any group action. It would be stupid to do so. I'm not actually advocating anything specific enough to be prosecuted for, or even sued for. Likewise stupid. The reason that the FBI doesn't have people who can think like me working for them is because we can think! Therefore, we're at much less risk than the rest of you. The obstacles to clear vision now are the same as they have been throughout conscious human history: internal, personal and difficult to get your head around – but worth doing. Eh, Dr. Bloor? The obstacle in your way is not Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Rove/Libby… or Garfield the cat. It's you, your ability to be dead honest with yourself. There are questions that need to be asked, I've asked them and I have found some of the answers. That's all. When you need to know the answer to 9 x 11, you won't be given time to get out your calculator.
TA
Post a Comment
<< Home