Protestantism

» pink101 - Idea Of An Ideologue

In response to Won't Be Easy posted by Migisi:
.
One of the marks of modernism is the existence of the bureaucratic method of administration in government and other large organizations.
.
Max Weber, in his work, Iron Cage, has done a great job of explicating bureaucracy and how it has taken the place of special treatment of notables in society when it comes to justice and decision making. A little information is available at this Wikipedia site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_cage
.
If anyone is not familiar with the workings of bureaucratic form of administration, they owe it to themselves to do some research on the idea. It may not be what you think it is. But, in modern society, it is how things get done in a well thought out democracy or any other form of government. One of the main differences between a bureaucracy and a governmental administration where people are given positions of authority based on their birth or other notable qualifications is that in a bureaucracy the persons carry out responsibilities based on their role rather than their social status--royalty is is no value. And, if the top person in the bureaucracy is removed for any reason, the system continues to operate. Yet, the top person does set the policies by which the bureaucracy carries out its activities.
.
The bureaucracy is necessary for the carrying on of business. If and when the bureaucracy is taken down and removed, chaos is the result. This can give you some good ideas on why Bush's middle east policy is failing in Iraq. Had he kept the bureaucracy in place and had he merely put certain people in place, his act may have been successful. The implications for our American society are greatly impacted by his failing policies.
.
The idea that an ideologue has moved into the position of being the "decider" in the American bureaucratic system helps us understand why America is so divided at present. This dividing of America presents a very serious challenge to our future.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Containment

This is where, I think, President Bush (41) made a wise decision in 1991. Rather than conquer Saddam Hussein, Bush (41) opted to CONTAIN Saddam. For the MOST part, it worked. The U.S. not only freed Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, but we also neutralized the threat that Saddam represented to neighboring Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia.

In 2003, President Bush (43) was CORRECT that Saddam Hussein was pushing beyond his boundaries - that he was violating the terms of his containment. However, he clearly misjudged the postwar commitments America would have to make after defeating Saddam's military machine.

What's more, some serious mistakes were made in that initial, critical year of post-war occupation.

And now, we have a mess on our hands. Truly sad.

But, I completely and utterly reject the ultra-left 'spin' on this situation, namely that the US is engaged in some greedy occupation of a nation that was better off under Saddam Hussein. With all due respect, that view is based on anti-American propaganda and it should be rejected.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - Containment

.
In 2003, President Bush (43) was CORRECT that Saddam Hussein was pushing beyond his boundaries - that he was violating the terms of his containment.
.
WHERE was Saddam pushing beyond Iraq's boundaries in 2003?
.
However, he clearly misjudged the postwar commitments America would have to make after defeating Saddam's military machine.
.
He did not 'misjudge' commitments. Bush had NO commitments to postwar Iraq ... NO postwar strategy whatsoever before he initiated war, per the Downing Street Memo.
.
What's more, some serious mistakes were made in that initial, critical year of post-war occupation.
.
Would you care to share what you think those serious mistakes were?
.
And now, we have a mess on our hands. Truly sad.
.
Indeed, a tragedy.
.
But, I completely and utterly reject the ultra-left 'spin' on this situation, namely that the US is engaged in some greedy occupation of a nation that was better off under Saddam Hussein.
.
Do you think that corporate greed has not been a factor in the continuation of Iraq occupation? If we compare Saddam's Iraq to occupied Iraq today, do you think the Iraqis enjoy a better life today?
.
With all due respect, that view is based on anti-American propaganda and it should be rejected.
.
Respect returned - the reasons behind that POV should be explored before rejecting it outright as merely anti-American propaganda, don't you think? If for no other reason, so we don't repeat the same 'serious mistakes' in the future - like in Iran or another country?
.

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Quick response on Greed

In response to Containment posted by Migisi:

I have to take my son to swim lessons, so only have time for quick response...

I think greed or economic motive (to put it a little more softly) has been a motive in ALL of our wars - from the American Revolution to the Civil War (both sides) to World War II (the so-called "Good War") and now in Iraq.

The reason is human nature. We are always pursuing our lusts. Read the book of James - a great book, one of the most direct, no-holds-barred books in the Bible.

However, to go from saying "greed is a factor" to "greed is the ONLY factor" or "greed is the greatest factor" is a jump I'm not willing to make. I don't think the evidence supports it.

If greed were the only factor in Iraq, Bush should've limited the US military occupation to JUST the oil fields AND should've taken ALL the oil for the US (leaving none for the Iraqis). Clearly, there were other motives at play, or this is what the US would've done.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Containment

In response to Containment posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I completely and utterly reject the ultra-left 'spin' on this situation, namely that the US is engaged in some greedy occupation of a nation that was better off under Saddam Hussein. With all due respect, that view is based on anti-American propaganda and it should be rejected.
.
That's an example of the "Straw Man" argument you talk about from time to time, right?
.
What is goind on in Iraq at the moment is that the United States is involved in an occupation of a sovereign nation. More than that, our government is establishing a precedent for using mercenary forces, so-called contract security forces. I well recall the magazines and newspapers dedicated to private military forces that were being developed on the East Coast here in the United States. I knew some men that got interested in that and two of them joined up as I recall. I don't know that the name of the organization was Blackwater; there was more than one such group. It was a White Power group and I think most of the work they were getting was on the African continent.
.
Go figure! If you have a built a very large business with hundreds of millions of dollars invested in it and you're getting contracts and making money on some present needs, what happens when there is no further need? Anyone that doesn't recognize the fact that Blackwater and the other "War Contractors" have great investments in continuing this occupation is, pretty much, out of their mind.
.
Simple logic.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - Containment

In response to Containment posted by pink101:
.
Anyone that doesn't recognize the fact that Blackwater and the other "War Contractors" have great investments in continuing this occupation is, pretty much, out of their mind.
.
Thank you, Pink, for recognizing that this was the kind of 'corporate greed' I was referring to in my previous post. You hit the nail squarely.
.
The outsourced 'security', 'reconstruction', 'support', 'communications', etc. corporations making billions of dollars (our tax money) in Iraq. At what trough will they feed when the troops are pulled out? Not to worry. It's just a hop, skip, and jump over to Iran. The war machine is always looking for and planning its next meal.

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Containment

In response to Containment posted by Migisi:

.
In Nazi Germany, it was called the Wehrmacht..
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - Corruption - family style

In response to Containment posted by pink101:
.
Check out this little corrupt family ...Congressman Curt Weldon (R-Pa) and his kids and friends - making millions off military contracts.
.
The Corrupting Power of Military-Industrial Complex
http://www.alternet.org/story/43780/?pag...
.
(last paragraph)
(quote) "Early drafts of President Eisenhower's famous Farewell Address warned that in the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by "the military-congressional-industrial complex." He dropped the word "congressional" because he didn't want his parting words to be seen as partisan, Congress being controlled by the Democrats at the time. But Ike got it right from the start." (end)

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Corruption - family style

In response to Corruption - family style posted by Migisi:

.
Isn't that something?
.
I think we've come to be so used to hearing about corruption and other shortcomings of government representatives and workers that we almost think of it as business as usual.
.
The Larry Craig thing is an example. Here's a guy who pleads guilty to being a toilet pervert and he's getting off the hook as though it's your fault.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - Corruption - family style

In response to Corruption - family style posted by pink101:
.
...we almost think of it as business as usual.
.
The number and types of scandals is ~overwhelming~ - now more than ever. And we wonder why our kids are so cynical about government? And why good and honest people don't run (or win)?
.
Here's a guy who pleads guilty to being a toilet pervert and he's getting off the hook as though it's your fault.
.
Makes me wonder why he chose to seek his pleasure in a public toilet. I'm sure someone in the White House knew a gay prostitute he could've called. Someone like that White House reporter Jeff Gannon (real name: James Dale Guckert)? Maybe Craig just didn't want to pay for his pleasure?

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds