quote:

Instead, I suspect we will get more rum-soaked fortune cookies.

I wish.

quote:

Bush is just the manifestation of a zeitgeist of poor skills coping with he end of empire and jingoism.

Those poor coing skills don't of themselves mandate an absolutely pathetic asshat taking the helm of ship of state.

Gore's no brilliant leader nor paragon of virtue, but he came *this* close to winning the election (or not having it stolen from him, depending on one's perspective).

And I am throughly confident he would not have invaded Iraq. That was a neocon thing. Clinton et al *talked* about taking 'sterner measures' w/ Saddam, but that was in the vacuum of the late 90s.

remember: 911 changed everything. THE meme of the decade. But it didn't change everything in the same way, because everything is not the same.

I suspect Gore would have gone into Afghanistan. From there, he might have pursued bin Laden as the original plan required. From there, he might have gotten us bogged down in Pakistan, or he might have pulled us out like a condom with a 6-month timer, tossed it in the trash, and gottenon (say that w/ a German accent) with his global warming thing, which thing would have provided a groovy little paradigm for dealing with what soon transpired: Katrina and humongous energy prices.

The zeitgeist is a hydra. Which head you cut off makes a difference.

Profiteering estimate in the billions.

quote:

Missing billions

The search for the missing billions also led the programme to a house in Acton in West London where Hazem Shalaan lived until he was appointed to the new Iraqi government as minister of defence in 2004.

Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi
Judge Radhi al Radhi: "I believe these people are criminals."
He and his associates siphoned an estimated $1.2 billion out of the ministry.

They bought old military equipment from Poland but claimed for top class weapons.

Meanwhile they diverted money into their own accounts.

Judge Radhi al-Radhi of Iraq's Commission for Public Integrity investigated.

He said: "I believe these people are criminals.

That gag order will likely stay in effect for the next 20 years, at least.

quote:

Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
Gore's no brilliant leader nor paragon of virtue, but he came *this* close to winning the election (or not having it stolen from him, depending on one's perspective).

But he didn't win, there isn't any alternate history in which we look at a four-color world where Al is prez. It's just Bush. There is not the multiplicity of realities that the Garden of Forking Paths suggests. There is only one and we experience it.

Free will argues that you could have done X, Y and Z but you never did, we always did the other course, which got us wherever we are.

quote:

The zeitgeist is a hydra. Which head you cut off makes a difference.

I think it's more an amoeba and there isn't any "head' to cut off.

quote:

Originally posted by oddmanrush:
I'm saying Napoleon's decision to march into Russia in the middle of the winter led to his defeat. I'm saying Lincoln's decisions (among many) to replace generals led to the North's victory. You plug in other people into these positions you get different decisions and different results. You don't get the same results. Are you saying no matter who was president we'd have exactly the same results as we have under Bush? Bush did it his freakin way. Nobody's going to do anything exactly like him.

Thank God.

We didn't get into Iraq because the American public pointed the way and demanded it. We got into Iraq because Bush as commander in chief led us there. There's no way a different president would've done it the exact same way, with the exact same incompetence and ignorance. Maybe worse, maybe better, but not the same.

I'm saying that potentiality has nothing to do with actuality.

I'm saying that "what might of been" was, in fact, not.

So it doesn't matter what Gore might have done or Napoleon. We only see that from the rear view, and it is still an illusion.

We think history and space-time hinge on these fragile moments wqhere someone makes a decision but I am saying, in a larger view, on a bigger map, they don't. They're like... decisions are like net packets finding a way around nuked cities.

The paths not taken aren't really the issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Justy:



Your example here still presupposes a group of individuals making a plan (GOP leadership). Arguably, we've seen similar episodes: Kennedy (and later LBJ) saddled with Vietnam by inheriting it from Eisenhower (who inherited it from the French and adopted it in the name of anti-Communism). I don't think the GOP plan for Iraq would have been postponed unless you had a GOP leader who had more of a backbone (arguably McCain in 2000, if that's our past ideal GOP leader).

I know it presupposes a plan.

That's what I'm saying. They had this plan, they had this meme, they were going to do it as soon as they could.

But I myself make the point without buying that they were acting only out of free will.

My main point is that we don't change history, it changes us. It's not merely bigger than man, it's encompassing to the point of invisible ubiquity.

I'm saying that if you pull back, we look a lot like heated molecules under pressure: there are variants, but the mean wins out and give an accurate reading.

We only want to believe otherwise.

quote:

The paths not taken aren't really the issue.

There's where our worlds divirge Uberdog. C'est la vie.

I think paths are the issue. You follow your own Uberdog. Don't you? Of course you do. Everybody does. You know, consider the inevitable forks in life's road, make intelligent decisions. Then point yourself hopefully, in directions of basic self-preservation and success.

Some do better with this whole thing then others. History and one's own life is littered with examples of successes and failures.

Hey, if you think it's all a illusion. That's fine with me. Whatever floats your boat.

It doesn't make much difference. We're probably all full of s@#t anyways. I know I 'm pretty packed.

quote:

Originally posted by UberDog:
Free will argues that you could have done X, Y and Z but you never did, we always did the other course, which got us wherever we are.

Free will argues only that we might do X, Y or Z.

It says nothing about the past which while set in stone can, and should, be reinterpreted with the discovery of new information.

That doesn't imply it that it had to happen the way it happen, and only acknowledges that it did.

History is a great mass of decisions that millions or billions of people have made in relation to situations as they've interpreted them at the time. It doesn't diminish individual responsibility, and doesn't mean that someone in a relevant position of authority can't influence the greater movements.

The handy thing about denying that free will actually exists is that one can accept all of what you just argued, Witness, and *still* argue that free will doesn't actually exist.

I'm just nutty enough to posit that just because you can't see how atoms and molecules will their own paths doesn't mean they don't. But then I've never been a fan of strict certainties when it comes to cosmologies.

Even Bush thinks he's an asshole!

quote:

Originally posted by UberDog:

quote:

Originally posted by Justy:



Your example here still presupposes a group of individuals making a plan (GOP leadership). Arguably, we've seen similar episodes: Kennedy (and later LBJ) saddled with Vietnam by inheriting it from Eisenhower (who inherited it from the French and adopted it in the name of anti-Communism). I don't think the GOP plan for Iraq would have been postponed unless you had a GOP leader who had more of a backbone (arguably McCain in 2000, if that's our past ideal GOP leader).

I know it presupposes a plan.

That's what I'm saying. They had this plan, they had this meme, they were going to do it as soon as they could.

But I myself make the point without buying that they were acting only out of free will.

My main point is that we don't change history, it changes us. It's not merely bigger than man, it's encompassing to the point of invisible ubiquity.

I'm saying that if you pull back, we look a lot like heated molecules under pressure: there are variants, but the mean wins out and give an accurate reading.

We only want to believe otherwise.

There's no actual shared skin or shared organs between the GOP and the Military Industrial Complex. They presently have more MIC robots in the GOP than the Democratic Party and this is probably the first time they've actually had one of their sort in the executive branch (Cheney), but they'll happily use either party as hosts.

But if you want to talk about free will as it applies to governments, especially the government of the USA, sooner or later you gotta ask WHO'S will?

Why do Northrup and Lockheed advertise fighter bombers on CNN? Is it to sell product or control the news? Do CNN viewers buy that many fighter bombers?

Did we really just have a fellow go directly from CEO of Halliburton and Brown & Root, the biggest American entities now IN Iraq, to the vice presidency, where he was the prime mover in getting us to invade Iraq? Did that really happen? Doesn't seem possible.

I'm not saying there's a secret, regimented, organized conspiracy controlling our actions as a world power.

The non-secret, non-regimented, unorganized conspiracies seem to be doing a fine enough job of that.

Eisenhower warned us. Very explicitly, as he left office. But we didn't listen. And we forgot. Things that happen daily this decade would have stuck out like a sore thumb in the 50s and 60s, before war was such a pervasive business model.

We forgot. Now, we've nearly completely forgotten.

My kids (who are actually quite involved and aware compared with their peers): "Eisenwhozits? Eisenflubberhowzits? Military Industrial Complex... is that a mall?"

$23 billions.
That's a lot of containers...

It's not that we took Saddam out. It's when and how we finally took Saddam out. Couldn't Bush or even Clinton or the Bush before that have just, you know, taken him out? Not Iraq. Saddam. Regime change. Not just as good. Better.

Sure they could have. Maybe not on any given day or at any given hour, but certainly within any given month. Granted, I don't think we could take bin Laden out as regularly, but Saddam isn't bin Laden and wasn't for all those years. Saddam was comparatively a sitting duck.

But that's not how you sell Humvees or Fighter Bombers or Aircraft Carriers or Missle Cruisers or logistical support for a 150,000 troop occupation and the largest embassy on the planet.

And they got that handy dandy little law against the assasination of foreign leaders to fall back on... like it actually means something.

Bin Laden's worth more to this admin alive. Gotta have that boogeyman to scare everyone with.

No tellin' how pissed they'll all be when they learn he never existed...

Saddam, he just got old, and probably knew too much.

Still had all those damn receipts from Bayer.

quote:

Free will argues that you could have done X, Y and Z but you never did, we always did the other course, which got us wherever we are.

Free will doesn't negate the hard cast fact of the present any more than it determines the future. Causality isn't erased by option.

Iraq tells Bush, thanks, but no thanks.

Iraq PM: Security deal talks at 'dead end'

quote:

AMMAN, Jordan (AP) — Iraq's prime minister said Friday that talks with the U.S. on a long-term security agreement between the two nations have reached a dead end, saying the U.S. proposals "violate Iraqi sovereignty."

Sorry George, looks like your Iraqi pals are telling you to stick that colonization plan of yours where the sun don't shine.

Another "dead end" reached in this misadventure, imagine that?

Next, they'll be telling us to start packing up and getting out.

HOw long before Worst.President.Ever. becomes an acronym?

WPE.