On drums...

I'm discouraged how tragedies like 9/11 are so easily politicized. Not only do we need to think outside the box, we need to critically examine the value of the old polarizing arguments and perhaps abandon the box of accusation and blame altogether. The survivors deserve better. Our military families deserve more. The name-calling and vitriol need to end if any real solutions are to be pursued in a united effort. Ideological polarization will be the death of this country.

Roland

Not sure what you are suggesting Roland or if I have offended you, but I'm listening.
Please define the problem that we need real solutions for.

I read back and don't see where anyone was blaming someone. I certaintly don't blame the Clintons, I completely disagree with the theory that administration approached the issue with though. Again, that wasn't the cause of anything.

Edit: And yes, I do not like the Clintons as political figures.

Kelly,



I was not personally offended by this comment, but the current tendency to refer to Clinton or Bush or Obama ad nauseum is too easy to do and deflects any serious discussion of 70 years American foreign policy in the Middle East. My problem with Hillary is that she did not hold her position but vacillated under the weight of all of the saber rattling as a point of political expediency. She was opposed to attacking Iraq, a war which history will no doubt judge harshly. Even Greg's seemingly innocuous generalization about the current administration serves to create a climate of "us and them".

Gotta run and give a lesson. I'll be back later.

Roland

I hold that same view and position. It is no more any of their fault than it is mine.
I believe we have ran the whole process dry, and without a major unthinkable change, we are doomed. Does not matter to me who gets elected. It has made no difference in the 50 years I have been on earth and don't expect it to make a difference anytime soon. My hope is "yes", but not likely. Too many agenda's and too many full pockets.
The Clintons, Bill in particular, I did not like as a President. I'm not a political person but I am a personality person and Bill did whatever was good for Bill at the expense of others. One of the worst traitors a leader can possess. I don't care if you fail, but I do care how you fail.

My comment referring to him and 911 was on this wise: It's an ignorant man, president or not, that thinks they could shake the hand of evil and live happily ever after with it.

As far as Hillary, I realize she did not want to attack Iraq. I didn't then and still don't agree with her.

And I'm really not finding the connection in mine or Gregs comments insulting the survivors or military.

I realize this is all a matter of one's personal opinions, I certaintly hope you have tolerance for mine as I will do the same for you.
I'm still interested to know what you believe the problem is that we need resolution to.

My bad Kelly,

I did not mean to imply that either you or Greg insulted the families in question. I am sorry for that. I think I am referring to the general social climate in which we cast aspersions on the "others", meaning political opponents, and we all participate in a process which "fills pockets" and fuels ideological agendas. We function within a false dichotomy created by a two party system where I don't believe that the majority of Americans are anywhere close to extremes of either party. Dialogue is impossible under the present circumstances.

Greg made a great observation concerning the gulf which exists between the two camps of thought concerning personal vs. social responsibility. The reasoning of both sides entails a matter of convenience and inconsistency in the application of their philosophies. The extreme left has helped to create and perpetuate a social welfare system that was never intended to create a social class of government dependents. Personal motivation and responsibility have been ostensibly discouraged in this population. The result being, those for whom the safety net was created, those who have worked hard all their lives and through no fault of their own are struggling due to hard economic conditions, natural disasters etc. , have trouble getting any assistance because of the funding of institutionalized welfare. Those on the extreme right feather their nests at everyone's expense by protecting oil profits at all costs and supporting any despot who slaughters his own people with impunity as long as the oil keeps flowing. We put Sadaam in power. We supported Reza Pahlavi. We engendered generations of hatred towards our country in the Moslem world. Will those on the right take any responsibility for these actions? Not on your life.

Enough about that stuff. The bottom line regarding solutions begins with baby steps like this site as an example. You and I have differing perspectives on some things and similar perspectives on others. We met on and both left a site that was intolerant of minority views. That environment was and continues to be caustic. This site is a breath of fresh air and is an alternative to the lack of civility which is fanned into flame on that other site. It may be over simplistic, but such alternatives are the beginnings of better ways of thinking and ultimately being.

Roland

I hear ya Roland.

I want to make a comment on the other site you mentioned as I surely appreciate your input on it.
I suggested moderators there, it works on every other forum that I am involved with. Cliff said it best when he made the comment recently about being a administrator, and the only one, and being a participant in the debates. Obviously a problem there leading to censorship as you mentioned.
I would like to bring it down to the nitty gritty for me though. I believe the real problem that began there and why we ended up here is because Cliff's actions there were on this wise: Cliff does not have the ability to accept bullshit. He carries the burden of really wanting to know and understanding what you are saying. These things interest him, he is a thinker. What you put down in words is what he believes you wanted to say and therefore responds to it. The problem began when someone was finally holding people accountable to what they were typing. He didn't intend it to be mean or arrogant or insulting. He just gave a shit about the conversation he was supposed to be having, or why be in it. Of course, Greg, a close friend of Cliffs became guilty by association. It wasn't long before someone's pride cried fowl. "Dear Administrator, this is a public forum and I can say whatever I want". Sure as shit can, and someone else can respond to it.
I hold Scott accountable for not seeing what was really taking place. That is why I left. But Scott was obviously preoccupied with other things. The forum is left as a praise area for Sonor drums and that is it. That's Scotts business, I really have no use for that.

Up first, I don’t think that anyone in this string has done anything that warrants an apology, but it was civil of Roland to offer one up, if he had unintentionally offended. Political debate is certainly not the prime objective of this place, but this particular forum was absolutely intended to be a place for civil discussion of anything, and I am pleased to see it functioning as such.

I would be the first to admit that my knowledge and understanding of middle east history and foreign policy is anything but complete and comprehensive, but it seems to me that there has never been a good option that reconciles both our strategic interests and our human rights ideologies; there has always only been inherently flawed best options available, and this always leaves plenty of room to debate what is ‘the best of the bad options’, particularly in hindsight.

Long before oil put them on center stage, the middle east had always been made up of many tribal factions, and while the sudden discovery of a source of wealth might ideally create a ‘plenty to go around’ attitude for co-existence, it is impractical to think that mindset would suddenly take root. Something of great value was available, and human nature, particularly in the tribal environment, was to build control mechanisms rather than sharing mechanisms, inevitably creating factions of ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’.

Would it have been realistic for the western world to abstain from access to critical resources until/unless all middle eastern constituents were brought into line with ideologies that take a back seat to capitalism even throughout the western world?

I am not sure that the west has ever had any choice but to employ a middle east policy that is the contemporaneously best perceived balance between economics and ideologies, knowing full well that since the middle east is itself highly factionalized, we can only hope to create a balance that tips marginally towards a greater number of ‘friends’, offset by an inevitable number of enemies.

Now let’s take this to a more micro level for a moment. We have all seen and/or heard of circumstances where individuals acquire great and sudden wealth, whether it be by lottery, NFL contract, picking the right stock, inheritance, etc., and some, but not all, but simply do not have the character to handle it well. If you had an asshole before, you have only a more powerful asshole after.

Now take that back to a macro level for some perspective on dealing with our ‘friends’ in the middle east.

_________________
Cliff

River City Trio

What if we did all have the same opinions?

Hey! I thought I was at least as annoying as Cliff apparently was. I think both of us, rightly or wrongly, hoped for some rational and agreed upon guidelines, since the administrator either did not provide amy, or refused to act on them. Next rule: don't waste your time hoping to introduce sanity; they'll repay you with disrespect.

I think that's scriptural.

_________________
Gregory

Oh Cliff,

(meant to be read aloud in your best trucker's voice)

I have a work order here to deliver a truck load of bullshit over to your place, but the word is out that you won't accept delivery. Maybe that myuzeeum place would do nicely.

Roland