Our Brave Soldiers Fight Ignoble Wars for Cowards

[Effendi]

War Pigs

“Generals gathered in their masses
just like witches at black masses
evil minds that plot destruction
sorcerers of death's construction
in the fields the bodies burning as the war machine keeps turning
death and hatred to mankind
poisoning their brainwashed minds... Oh lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
they only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'till their judgment day comes, yeah!

Now in darkness, world stops turning
as the war machine keeps burning
No more war pigs of the power
Hand of god has struck the hour
Day of judgment, god is calling on their knees, the war pigs crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings
ALL RIGHT NOW!

Yeah”

-John (Ozzy) Osbourne

Our Brave Soldiers Fight Ignoble Wars for Cowards

It seems so long ago, somehow embedded in the history of ages long since dismissed, and shrouded by the continuum of news media outlet distortions, that George W Bush declared the major combat operations of Operation Iraqi Liquidation were over. Since this proclamation nearly fifty young American boys and girls have died in the name of the American Empire. Since the beginning of the illegal invasion, nearly two hundred young Coalition Forces boys and girls have died and over 5000 Iraqi civilians have been slaughtered by the invading coalition as they struggle to maintain order as an occupying force in Iraq.

Dead!

Who are they killing and dying for?

Everyone knows the answer: the neo-conservative hawks.

Our dead young American soldiers are fighting for some very wealthy individuals who think they know how to rule the world. These power mongers use their wealth to create policy and their policy to create more wealth. Their policy is brutal. They think nothing of killing 10,000 innocent civilians (almost entirely Muslim) and destroying their lands with the most lethal of weapons of mass destruction so that they can exploit their natural resources and gain a stronghold in the Middle East by establishing a permanent military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan- in the heart of Islam, oil and five of the worlds nuclear nations.



If you want to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq take a Geiger counter and a camera. Measure the increased radioactivity from the use of depleted uranium munitions and photograph the unexploded cluster bombs dropped on Iraq by the US and coalition forces. Witness the destruction of cities, homes, and the civilian infrastructure. Listen to the stories of terror from civilians who have witnessed the atrocities of an attack by the most powerful military force on the face of the earth, ever.



Who stands to gain: Iraqi’s living under American occupation; Dead American soldiers;

Dead Muslims; Paul Wolfowitz; Dick Cheney; Lynne Cheney; George Bush; George W Bush; John Ashcroft; Colin Powel; Condoleezza Rice; Haliburton; Unocal; Bechtel; Lockheed Martin; GE; Westinghouse; You; Me; The US economy; The security of the fragile web of life on earth and the resources upon which all life depends?



Many more young American boys and girls may die in the Iraqi quagmire as the heat soars towards 130 degrees and 250,000 Iraqi soldiers, fired by Paul Bremer, run around with their AK47’s to join against a common enemy with the supposed reclaiming of Iraq by Saddam Hussein and his guerrilla warriors- coming this July 17th to a theater war near you.



The US military’s fighting forces are made up of predominantly lower economic class young boys and girls who enter the military as a way to pay for college or just to get out of a ghetto or some other grim situation. Then they are sent off to kill, destroy and die in this perpetual war on terrorism for the Neoconservative Cowards who line their pockets and flaunt their egos, and never dirty their hands with the blood of their victims and never confront the physical, psychological, and emotional devastation that exists entirely as a result of their policies.

http://www.thefourreasons.org/Bravecowards.htm

www.thefourreasons.org

Scott!!

[Mike S]

Hate-Cynicism-Stereotype-Vilification-Fear-Conjecture-Paranoia.

These are - with very few exceptions - the fundamental elements of Scott's "informational" posts.


What to hate. Who to hate. Why to hate.
Modus Operandi for Scott.


My alternative to these people you hate is someone like you?

Such a deal.

MS

[burnt]

:snicker:

well, now you know how *I* felt when I was told, "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists!"

...some deal, eh? =)

[Mike S]

Nice way to convey perspective!!

Yeah I guess now I do.

MS

[burnt]

werd! glad I was able to make a point you and I can agree on, in this forum! =)

so I propose a 3rd alternative. the "other" category, its an open-ended box where truly smart people who wish to manifest and implement other choices, articulate the choice they wish for.

me? well, I hate hippies. and also my president. I hate the Kurds, and terrorists, and Wall Street types...and the soldiers I'm supposed to support, because they used to give me swirlies in high school. I hate em all, and don't wanna support any "teams", I'd rather support agendas.

*sips his haterade*
*hates on the war*
*hates on the economy*
*hates on the shitty Democrats pulling some selfish, half-assed attempt at fighting back against a well-organized Republican party*
*hates on the Republicans for being so fucking well organized, when this isn't a fucking football game, its debate and politics and human being's well-being fer crissakes, and one would expect a group of politicians to be a little more fucking *diverse* fer crissakes...*

*takes another sip*

=)

[Effendi]

.
It used to be that it cost $1,000.00 to have dinner with the president, but the Repuks changed all that...

Now it costs you $2,000.00 and they don't actually feed you.....lol

I say ANY idiot that spends $2,000.00 just to be in the same room as the president DESERVES too loose their money!!

It is unfortunate but there are many people like mike in America. They are currently running this country but it won't last too long. There may be 43 million asshole mike stevens running around, but there are 100 million Effendi's running around that do not take lightly to our freedoms being removed in the name of God, and are American Civil Liberties being stolen in the name of some rich assholes war on "Terror".

There is No threat but from within!!

Scott!!

[Effendi]

.

President Bush and virtually the entire American power structure lied to the whole world when they said Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that were an imminent threat to the safety of the so-called free world.

Now beyond any doubt, these assertions have since been exposed as falsehoods. Still, few Americans really give a damn, and business goes on, in the foreshadow of a massive worldwide economic collapse, as usual.

President Bush and virtually the entire American power structure lied when they said we needed to invade Afghanistan to bring to justice the alleged perpetrators of the 9/11 horror. Shortly after the invasion began, Gen. Tommy Franks announced it wasn't important to capture the so-called ringleader, Osama bin Laden, even as the Afghanis' Taliban government offered to furnish him for trial in a neutral country. The real objective, Franks said during the attack, was to subdue the whole country...............

http://www.rense.com/general38/honest.htm

[Mike S]

Well Scott have you considered the alternative?

Maybe... just maybe your perspective is way off.. I mean like other side of the solar system off.

Do they not give a damn about Bush lying?
Or is it that they don't give a damn about your line of reasoning which leads you to conclude Bush is lying?

MS

[burnt]

and to think you represent a majority in one aspect or another....be it 55% of total Americans, a large percentage of whom are cattle-like prime-time watchers from Ohio....or be it 40%, a large percentage of whom are west-coast-based engineers...

I mean, seriously...these.....fucking.......debates....... .here, and elsewhere, this "conspiracy", this problem, it goes all the way up to Faux news, it goes all the way up to the top..........
...

awright. check it out. *how come* kamakaze fighter pilots destroyed pearl harbor? now....let's not talk about the politics, the current movie stars or politicians of the time, let's talk about the actual fucking un-named *schleps*...the fucking *footnotes*....who flew the planes into Pearl Harbor...*how come* they did that atrocity?

cuz they got played...their principles got played, they lived their life focused on one cause, one goal, one truth. they became "orthodox".

such is the problem with terrorism today. and, indeed, America.

what would cause such a problem within a person's mindset, that they would think its a good fucking idea to fly two planes into two buildings, witnessing while piloting the whole thing? thats..............weird...........

that's, orthodoxy. its fucked up. and the thing is - in *my* country? in America? I'm seeing debate, devolve into a lot of orthodoxy...

"well, you're just warmongering!"
"well, you're just bedwetting, and you have control issues!"
"no, YOU have control issues!"
"nu uh...you're HITLER!"
"no, YOU'RE Hitler!"
......

America's political debates have lost sight of the original goal of intelligent debate. debate, is not meant to find out who "argues" better, who "drops the most knowledge".....debate is not a slam dunk contest, debate is supposed to be two differing opinions, trying to find a common goal................the Truth. =) right?

but instead, American political debate, from the Senatorial statements, to Corporate reportings, to CNN/NYTimes deliberate slantedness, even as low as these blogs, has devolved into something far more, um.......orthodox.


:o
"I believe wholly in this Team, and this Truth, and won't believe anything else, and will attack those who promote differing beliefs..."
:o



its bullshit................fuck...........its like, settle down..........or else the Terrorists win, yanno? cuz, like we divide the Geeks in Berkeley from the Laborers in Ohio, well............then...........the Terrorists have thus divided and enacted the potential to conquer.

its great to raise your flags, you Repukes...
its great to question leaders, you bedwetting hippies....

remember to seek Truth, before Pride, I guess..don't be so fucking Orthodox.

It used to be that it cost $1,000.00 to have dinner with the president, but the Repuks changed all that...

Now it costs you $2,000.00 and they don't actually feed you.....lol
sweet.................so fer 2 G's, I can get a warmongering ally for life, as long as I have a nice Mission Statement and a fancy tie??? 2 G's, no plates, and its that easy?????

heeeeeel yea!!!!!!!! =)

Do they not give a damn about Bush lying?
Or is it that they don't give a damn about your line of reasoning which leads you to conclude Bush is lying?

and in the words of Marshall Mathers, would you say they "just don't give a fuck" ?

such is the "undecided vote" . . . its sad we're so low in numbers, we used to be stronger in the 70's, or so I've heard.......

[burnt]

lemme just say, these fucking pleas for me to think about the poor Iraqis getting liberated that were under Saddam's rule, and these fucking pleas for me to consider the poor Iraqis who died by American hands during this conflict...........yo..........meanwhile, back at the ranch, we had an economic crisis and corporate malfeance going on.......just........um........another "footnote" type thing going on, thought I'd mention it.

and in fact, more than that was going on, here, stateside....lemme direct your attention to one of CNN's favorite "non-Iraqi" topics

http://www.modbee.com/images/sections/rememberinglaci.html

[Ishkur]

I sometimes wonder if it's at all possible to kind of pull the plug on Democracy and start all over. Fresh Democracy, rebooted, without all this residual memory shit and bipartisan bickering clogging the drive.

The vision--in a perfect world--would be that debate, discourse, argument and consensus would move society forward, continuously evolving with societal accepted norms and practice. That people would vote not with their conscience or with their emotions, but with the most just and honourable issue at hand. Of course people can't do that. And no one expects them to. People vote selfishly, which is an inherent human trait (but not the only one, so fuck you, Ayn Rand).

It seems to me that lately society--as a function of social and political discourse--has actually stunted due to the fact that bipartisanship gets in the way. Instead of voting FOR what's right for yourself and for society, people instead vote AGAINST those thoughts and ideas they find deplorable. A system that feeds on negativity. Attacking your opponents being more important than actually putting forth a plan that will bring about positive change.

No one is innocent in this. Both sides are to blame for committing, rather crudely, the same acts of sabotage and subterfuge against each other, and then pointing the blame when things don't go so well. Every defeated politician (and his supporters) goes down a sore loser, adopting a mandate of "I may lose, but I sure as hell am not going to let the other guy win", using every ounce of political power he has left to make the other guy's term of office as miserable and decrepit as he possibly can.

The problem is no one is seeking any constructive answers. Every political position has too much competition and too many conniving opponents to do anything worthwhile (see: Jesse Ventura). What's the point of building a sandcastle when everyone else on the beach is just going to tear it down? Shouldn't they be focusing on building their own castles? THAT is how a beautiful beach is made.

[Ram]

I will say again that the issue has to do with categorisation: "us" vs. "them", "left" vs. "right", etc. It's a very primitive thing to do, in my view. While I hold out some hope, I don't think humans are capable of transcending this without some sort of genetic engineering that'll let them go beyond their basic survival instincts.

This is related to the issue of top-down order (which leads to stagnation, which is why all forms of government created by humans eventually fail) vs. bottom-up order (the way life works).

--Ram

[Mirko]

Originally posted by Ram
I will say again that the issue has to do with categorisation: "us" vs. "them", "left" vs. "right", etc. It's a very primitive thing to do, in my view.
Totally. That is, though, the framework in which a lot of 'political' discourse takes place. The "right" shamelessly attacks the "left", and the "left" attacks the "right" with slightly less vigor. Their viewpoints are sometimes quite different, which is why I suppose the animosity arises. Look at this "War" forum as if it were a microcosm. People attack each other all the time; it seems 'natural' to get worked up about something one feels passionate about.

This is related to the issue of top-down order (which leads to stagnation, which is why all forms of government created by government eventually fail) vs. bottom-up order (the way life works).
Say more stuff about that. If you would.

[Ishkur]

It's not even that the problem is "left vs. right", because there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but the fact that left and right spend more time attacking each other than actually putting forth a sane, suitable apparatus for just policy.

It's like a 100 metre race, only both sides spend more time tripping each other up and throwing obstacles in the way rather than trying to run the fastest. I mean, who cares who crosses the finish line first, so long as the other side doesn't, right?

That's the thinking that currently infects politics, and it's getting us nowhere fast. Certainly not in 9.8 seconds.

[seattle science]

Quick point:

You know those guy(s) who went in search of Israelis yesterday to murder them, found two kids (ages 7 & one in their teens I believe), and then proceeded to line them up in the iron sights of an assault rifle and gun them down... Effendi calls those cold blooded killers 'brave fighters'. Now, does he have any authority left to mention the word "coward"? Not in my book.

[Ram]

When you have a system of interacting entities (it can be anything: quanta, atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, etc.), given sufficient complexity in the interactions, the system can become "emergent". The system can then be viewed as a single entity that interacts with other (like and unlike) entities to create levels of emergence, though I don't want to suggest a hierarchy -- it all gets messy in the end and I'm only using these categories to illustrate a point (one needs to take a very Zen-like view with all this).

Molecules in our bodies are examples of such systems. As are cells. As are organs. As are organisms. As is the human. Note that an organism (such as a bacterium) can not only interact with other bacteria to create emergent colonies, but also interact with atoms and molecules, other colonies, and even humans.

This is how what we call life works.

There's a lot written about emergence and complexity, and I'd recommend reading about it to gain a clearer understanding of what I mean.

Emergence arises from bottom-up "rules" that apply to all entities in the system. Usually these are things like the laws of physics. There's nothing in a protein molecule that decides a certain atom should be the "president" or "king"; nothing in cell that decides that certain molecules should form a "government", and nothing in an emergent system of neurons that says "this neuron is what everyone should listen to."

It's a complex dynamic system. The roles and interactions are constantly changing but there is an equilibrium of sorts.

Drawing a line around a collection of cells that we call humans: Humans are unique (I think) in that they're not only an emergent entity (composed of cells, molecules, etc.) but have the capacity to be aware of it, and more importantly, manipulate their own emergent properties. Arguably the first such emergent entities to arise from billions of years of evolution.

Now, given this choice, humans have chosen to take a route that to me is very surprising. They've chosen to go down the route of stagnation, i.e., non-emergence. That is, most of everything they create follow rigid rules that is set from the top going downward. It's been shown (through simulation) that such systems always stagnate (i.e., reach a single state where no change occurs) whereas the bottom-up systems (sometimes, not always) appear to go on constantly evolving. All our governmental systems are top-down creations, some more so than others.

Eric Raymond in his article The Cathedral and the Bazaar talks about in relation to the development of software like Linux:

http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_3/raymond/

To use his analogy, humans like to build cathedrals, and live in them. But the bazaar is what's favoured by evolution in the long term (humans themselves are the equivalent of bazaars). Our governments are cathedrals that we have built. When we should all interact together in a bazaar fashion (this assumes we don't want to stagnate), we have gone about building cathedrals.

But we are not the final say in evolution (and in reality, aren't exempt from being part of other emergent systems). Obviously humans can be a template for another emergent entity that is more capable of working in an emergent fashion (this is why I keep bringing up genetic engineering which I see as inevitable given people's desire to be treated/cured of disease), or the human lineage, as it were, will stagnate in which case another lineage will arise (I don't mean to imply a chain of events here, but I'm too lazy to choose words carefully now).

So the reason I brought his up was because Iskhur commented that we need to start all over again in terms of government. But starting all over again and creating another top-down system of government will lead to the same outcome. It is not only that we have a two-party system that's a problem, but that the two-parties are pretty much the same -- not in terms of viewpoints, but where they will us all (i.e., stagnation, but we're not there yet).

It's not that humans aren't capable of creating bottom-up systems. The Internet is a great example of a human creation that is "designed" to work in a bottom-up fashion, but that they don't want to. This is perhaps understandable: by imposing rigid rules on systems, they move towards stagnation, but by relaxing the rules, they may end up with a chaotic system as it happens in simulations. This is why complex systems are sometimes to referred to as being on the "edge of chaos".

And to revisit Iskhur's post again, to continually progress, the system needs to be on the edge of chaos. Humans, as we are now, I think mostly shun away from this. It'll resolve itself out in the ways I've mentioned above (either we'll adapt or we'll be replaced).

As you can see, the human dualistic way of thinking has its impact in my writing and communication. There are ways to think about thiswithout reductionism, but it's hard to communicate that.

--Ram

[Ram]

Originally posted by Ishkur
It's not even that the problem is "left vs. right", because there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but the fact that left and right spend more time attacking each other than actually putting forth a sane, suitable apparatus for just policy.


I'd argue that's a function of the categorisation. In other words, if "just policy" were the goal of all parties, then the concept of "left" and "right" becomes irrelevant. Everyone will agree "just policy" is where it's at and every individual in the system can have an input as to what "just policy" is.

We didn't have political parties or governments to decide that we should use the QWERTY keyboards--how did that happen?

--Ram

[Ishkur]

Because the keys on the world's first typewriters would often stick together if typed in succession, so common groupings in the english alphabet (ie: "st", "th", "ing") were separated so that wouldn't happen.

But fascinating ideas, Ram. I can almost see the evolution of rave culture the same way....ie: the original raves, the DIY spirit, everyone contributing and putting into it, and getting out of it what they can, Spiral Tribe, the Temporary Autonomous Zone, pirate utopias, and poetic terrorism. Again: an emergent society.

Contrast that with the big, explosive dance-parties today, that are rigid, confining affairs, handled by promoters who "hire" all aspects of the party ethic to help you have your fun. Parties created hierarchically, from the top down.

Another example: community sports, organized, laid out and controlled by parents for the leisure of their children, versus a spontaneous gathering of kids on a playground for a game of pickup ball. Organization, order, and government versus personal responsibility, chaos, and free will. So to speak.

Ever read up on the Metaphysics of Quality? Kind of explains how those systems that behave a certain way do so not by accident, but because they PREFER to. That the properties and behaviors of atoms, molecules, and the universe itself are not random events or occurrances but actual, chosen paths.

In this sense, then, life itself is not an accident, and we are not here because of some cosmic fluke. We are here because we, at the subatomic level, WANT to be here. That it is the empirical reality of the universe that we decide to be here. No one can really explain why this is so, but Robert Pirsig talks about it a lot and he's branded this unknown agent of preference and desire "Quality".

Go one further, and think about memes, and how they proliferate......randomly, or because of universal desire?

hmmm.

[Mirko]

That is a "classic" article by ESR, and I agree with both you (Ram) and him about the proper way to organize systems. Thanks for elaborating-- I was curious about some of your previous wording. I'll add "emergence" to my list of things to read about.

Why humanity has seemingly chosen to go the wrong direction, there are many plausible explanations for this. Some that come immediately to mind... We (human beings) like being bossed around (by kings, gods, managers, presidents, law enforcement)-- bowing to authority means you don't have to think for yourself. We think (or rather, we know without thinking) that it's humanity's destiny to wreck itself (see "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn). Plus all the stuff intrinsic in our society that tells us there's no other way to be. Too busy worrying about finding a job or getting health care or paying the rent to ponder the cathedral vs. the bazaar.

P.S., Ram, you're a Free software geek? We should talk.

[Ram]

Ish: I agree a lot of human endeavours start off in a bottom-up manner, but for some reason, as it gets sufficiently complex, top-down order starts being imposed. It's a fear of sorts I think. It's also the issue of the relative importance of one's immediate survival vs. humanity's long term future.

I think Pirsig goes a little too far, since I actually do think everything is random (and out of random interactions, you can have order arise), but I think he does have it right when he talks about considering things in a wholistic, as opposed to only reductionist, fashion (which he talks about in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanence).

For memes, Dawkins' The Selfish Gene is a good read though that propounds a reductionist view.

Mirko: Not only limitedto software. I'll send you a PM in a bit.

--Ram