'The War Is Not Over'

[who]

This is an interesting development, I wonder if it will have any bearing on the rest of the upcoming "trials".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7398953.s...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7399644.s...

[arbitrageur]

bill smith wrote:

An oldie but a goodie.
'The lawyer Stanley Hilton, ex chief-of-staff to Bob Dole attended the university of Chicago in the 1960's with Paul Wolofowitz, Doug Feith, and possibly Don Rumsfeld. They were all young turks at the time and used to regularly brainstorm revolutionary political ideas,as students do. When the time came for Hilton to write his own thesis, his chosen title was 'how to transform America into a Presidential Dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbour event' Chilling, you say. Hilton later became cynical about the budding neocons and parted ways with them. After 9/11, he took out a class-action suit against the Bush administration on behalf of 400 of the family members and the American Taxpayer, charging Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and several others with essientially the murder of the 9/11 victims. All defendents, including Bush were served with the indictment. Unfortunately after a lot of to and fro a judge was found who would dismiss the case on the grounds that a citizen (the American taxpayer) cannot sue a sitting President. It was called 'Sovereign Immunity' or some such.....But I'm sure you must have read about it.'

On Wolfowitz:

University of Chicago

Following his gradutation from Cornell, Wolfowitz chose to attend the University of Chicago because he wanted to study under Bloom's mentor, Leo Strauss. Wolfowitz enrolled in Strauss' courses, on Plato and Montesquieu. Although he and Strauss did not become especially close, Wolfowitz would later come to be seen as one of the heirs to Strauss's intellectual traditions."[citations needed]

Moreover, in May 2003, when Sam Tanenhaus asked Wolfowitz about "the question of ideas" in their telephone interview for Tanenhaus's article "Bush's Brain Trust" later published in the July 2003 Vanity Fair: "That is, is there anything at all ... to the Straussian Connection?" Wolfowitz replied:

It's a product of fevered minds who seem incapable of understanding that September 11th changed a lot of things and changed the way we need to approach the world. Since they refused to confront that, they looked for some kind of conspiracy theory to explain it.

I mean I took two terrific courses from Leo Strauss as a graduate student. One was on Montesquieu's spirit of the laws, which did help me understand our Constitution better. And one was on Plato's Laws. The idea that this has anything to do with U.S. foreign policy is just laughable.[17][18]

A few years later, in 2006, in a scholarly article published in the academic journal Comparative American Studies, Richard H. King cites and contextualizes the opinion expressed on March 8, 2005 in his weblog Altercation by Eric Alterman ––who had spoken with Wolfowitz informally during a book launch "cocktail party" hosted by Tina Brown and her husband Harold Evans––that "'Wolfowitz does not consider himself to be a Straussian.'"[25][26] In developing his own argument, King also cites the views of Clifford Orwin, who states that "'Wolfowitz is no ideologue, and neither 'Straussian' nor 'conservative' begins to describe him.'"[27] Ultimately, however, King qualifies the emphases of both Alterman and Orwin and also qualifies the emphases of those who exaggerate the "Straussian" influence on Bush administration foreign and defense policy-makers like Wolfowitz.[28]

[Greek fire]

This forum has turned into a private club of Sept. 11, 2001 fanatics. Maybe worse than 9/11 fanatics, "Lizards," indeed! Sadly, the occasional poster unaware of the private, 911-slant of this forum arrives and posts a comment or criticism of "war," which is what this forum is advertised about. Poor dumb schmuck. At best she is ignored, at worst castigated or impugned personally, without her idea or comment being confronted intellectually.

And then those teenage kids get on here and simulate nuclear war between the reds and the west, and everyone gets their panties in a wad. Worse yet, they are engaged by some as if they are serious!

There surely are real, honest-to-God, named 9/11 conspiracy forums that you could go to, rather than ignore or run off serious posters about war.

I thought the richest part of that 'situation' this past weekend was that people on here who believe off-world lizards run the planet are complaining to topix that 'nuts' have taken over their sainted, pure forum.

I wonder who is crazier, the teenage nuke war posters, or the 9/11 fanatics who "believe that lizards run the planet?"

[arbitrageur]

More to lure the anti(s).

http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php...

WASHINGTON POST GETS IT RIGHT: JEWS ACCUSED (FALSELY) OF DUAL LOYALTIES

August 30, 2006
In the August 29 edition of the Washington Post, reporter Dana Milbank wrote a piece about what two noted political scientists had to say on Monday about their criticisms of the Israeli lobby. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard University spoke at the National Press Club in Washington at the invitation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. They are widely known for their controversial article,“The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.”

At the event, the two scholars accepted a button proclaiming “Fight the Israel Lobby,” much to the applause of the Muslim audience. Walt then criticized Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith, two prominent Jews who have helped to shape Bush administration policy in the Middle East, for having “attachments that shape how they think about the Middle East.”

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented as follows:

“After reporting what Stephen Walt said on Monday, Dana Milbank raised an interesting point. He picked up on the word ‘attachments,’ saying it sounds preferable to saying ‘dual loyalties.’ Milbank is correct. That is exactly what Walt was implying: he, and Mearsheimer, are promoting the invidious notion that Jewish neoconservatives are not to be trusted as their real loyalties lie elsewhere.

“As American Catholics, we are all too familiar with the old canard about ‘dual loyalties.’ Indeed, this smear tactic has been hurled at us for over 200 years. Just as we deeply resent accusations that American Catholics cannot think and act independent of the Vatican, we find it abhorrent when it is said or implied that American Jews cannot think and act independent of Israel.

“Bigotry dressed in scholarly veneer is still bigotry. Walt and Mearsheimer have an agenda to sell and what they are hawking is sick stuff.”

[arbitrageur]

Fly fishing on the Snake River, here, with bait.

Rumsfield did not attend the University of Chicago, but did attend seminars.

Rumsfeld, who used to attend seminars at the University of Chicago, early became a staunch supporter of the economist Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics[16] and can be seen in Friedman's PBS series Free to Choose.[17]

[Mountain Lady]

who wrote:

This is an interesting development, I wonder if it will have any bearing on the rest of the upcoming "trials".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7398953.s...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7399644.s...

Hello,(The Who)! I never knew much about this and the charges being dropped. Torture they say? So much information to absorb.

[arbitrageur]

Its all pointed towards Milton (Friedman)

The anti(s) are screaming bloody murder here, from wiki

July 31, 1912 – November 16, 2006) was an American Nobel Laureate economist and public intellectual. He made major contributions to the fields of macroeconomics, microeconomics, economic history, and statistics. In 1976, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.[1] He was an advocate of economic freedom.

According to The Economist, Friedman "was the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it".[2] Alan Greenspan stated "There are very few people over the generations who have ideas that are sufficiently original to materially alter the direction of civilization. Milton is one of those very few people."[3] In his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom. In his 1980 television series Free to Choose, Friedman explained his view of how free markets work, emphasizing his conviction that free markets have been shown to solve social and political problems that other systems have failed to address adequately. His books and columns for Newsweek were widely read, and even circulated underground behind the Iron Curtain.[4]

Earning a Ph.D. in economics from Columbia University in 1946, Friedman originally was a Keynesian supporter of the New Deal and advocate of high taxes. He moved away from the idea of central control in the 1950s, along with his close friend George Stigler. His political philosophy, which Friedman himself considered classically liberal and consequentialist libertarian, stressed the advantages of the marketplace and the disadvantages of government intervention, strongly influencing the outlook of American conservatives and libertarians. He adamantly argued that if capitalism, or economic freedom, is introduced into countries governed by totalitarian regimes, political freedom would tend to result. He lived to see some of his laissez-faire ideas embraced by the mainstream,[5] especially during the 1980s, a watershed decade for the acceptance of Friedman's ideas in many countries. His views of monetary policy, taxation, privatization and deregulation informed the policy of governments around the globe, especially the administrations of Ronald Reagan in the U.S., Brian Mulroney in Canada, Margaret Thatcher in Britain, and Augusto Pinochet in Chile.

[Lee_s Revenge]

Greek fire wrote:

There surely are real, honest-to-God, named 9/11 conspiracy forums that you could go to, rather than ignore or run off serious posters about war.

Here, here! I watch this forum to read insightful, critical comment about primarily the Iraq war, but I suppose future war with Iran or even China is apropos. All I ever seem to see is 9/11 conspiracy crap.
Maybe I should start watching the "911 Was Bush's Fault" forum; perhaps they are all talking about the Iraq war.

[Mountain Lady]

Greek fire wrote:

This forum has turned into a private club of Sept. 11, 2001 fanatics. Maybe worse than 9/11 fanatics, "Lizards," indeed! Sadly, the occasional poster unaware of the private, 911-slant of this forum arrives and posts a comment or criticism of "war," which is what this forum is advertised about. Poor dumb schmuck. At best she is ignored, at worst castigated or impugned personally, without her idea or comment being confronted intellectually.
And then those teenage kids get on here and simulate nuclear war between the reds and the west, and everyone gets their panties in a wad. Worse yet, they are engaged by some as if they are serious!
There surely are real, honest-to-God, named 9/11 conspiracy forums that you could go to, rather than ignore or run off serious posters about war.
I thought the richest part of that 'situation' this past weekend was that people on here who believe off-world lizards run the planet are complaining to topix that 'nuts' have taken over their sainted, pure forum.
I wonder who is crazier, the teenage nuke war posters, or the 9/11 fanatics who "believe that lizards run the planet?"

If grabbed by the tail, it will fall off..this helps us to escape our predators..That's how we prevail.

[arbitrageur]

Your conscience wrote:

Has everyone read the great dystopic novels:Orwell's "1984",Huxley's "Brave New World",
Zamyatin's "We" and Koestler's "Darkness at Noon" ?Absolutley essential for anyone trying to get an idea of how society is run.

Yes, yes. Required reading before 10th grade, except for "We".

How about you? After college?

[arbitrageur]

Mountain Lady wrote:

<quoted text>It's defined as-Fitna (the film) a 2008 short film Geert Wilders. Fitna (word) arabic word. The first Fitna (656-661 CE) The Islamic "Civil War". The Second Fitma (C.680/663-CD 685/692/CE), The Second Islamic "Civil War" Guess I don't know what I am talking about.I Better read more.

Looks like you are doing just fine. Keep it up.

[JohnQP]

arbitrageur wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, yes. Required reading before 10th grade, except for "We".
How about you? After college?

What a nasty, snide, hateful, disparaging, rude comment to make to a serious poster, arbitrageur. If you really are in the finance business, it is most apparent.

I, too, am sick and tired of hatefulness on topix. I thoroughly enjoyed (but was deathly afraid to interfere in) that spectacle this past weekend.

I think I have seen one of those kids post on another war forum, maybe we can get him and his friends back for an encore. You talk about mean and hateful, you deserve as good as you give, arbitrageur.

[arbitrageur]

Lee_s Revenge wrote:

<quoted text>
Here, here! I watch this forum to read insightful, critical comment about primarily the Iraq war, but I suppose future war with Iran or even China is apropos. All I ever seem to see is 9/11 conspiracy crap.
Maybe I should start watching the "911 Was Bush's Fault" forum; perhaps they are all talking about the Iraq war.

Yes, there is a mix. You're welcome to comment about the war, or whatever is on your mind. Freedom of speech here. Some of us are still up.

[Mountain Lady]

arbitrageur wrote:

<quoted text>
Looks like you are doing just fine. Keep it up.

Thanks for the "pat" Arbi. I'm only in 1st grade. Maybe, pre-1st by the looks of things.(Pierre 101) He has a tough job ahead of him. lol

[Greek fire]

There will always be jerks online, just like there will always be children (of all ages). What there should be is some kind of order, at least I see people complain all the time about the lack of order on their favorite forum (bill smith anyone?). These are sometimes people who believe in the most outlandish, virtually certifiable nonsense. Yet they demand order.

Bollocks!

[Mountain Lady]

JohnQP wrote:

<quoted text>
What a nasty, snide, hateful, disparaging, rude comment to make to a serious poster, arbitrageur. If you really are in the finance business, it is most apparent.
I, too, am sick and tired of hatefulness on topix. I thoroughly enjoyed (but was deathly afraid to interfere in) that spectacle this past weekend.
I think I have seen one of those kids post on another war forum, maybe we can get him and his friends back for an encore. You talk about mean and hateful, you deserve as good as you give, arbitrageur.

Hi John. I am just a girl, but these guys took me in and I thought I had 0 to say. They can be tough, but the world is rough. Stick with it and keep on commenting. They will listen. This aint no sissy forum, that's for sure. Don't get offended. I love it here and I'm just a softy..ask the guys. LOL

[Your conscience]

Greek fire wrote:

This forum has turned into a private club of Sept. 11, 2001 fanatics. Maybe worse than 9/11 fanatics, "Lizards," indeed! Sadly, the occasional poster unaware of the private, 911-slant of this forum arrives and posts a comment or criticism of "war," which is what this forum is advertised about. Poor dumb schmuck. At best she is ignored, at worst castigated or impugned personally, without her idea or comment being confronted intellectually.
And then those teenage kids get on here and simulate nuclear war between the reds and the west, and everyone gets their panties in a wad. Worse yet, they are engaged by some as if they are serious!
There surely are real, honest-to-God, named 9/11 conspiracy forums that you could go to, rather than ignore or run off serious posters about war.
I thought the richest part of that 'situation' this past weekend was that people on here who believe off-world lizards run the planet are complaining to topix that 'nuts' have taken over their sainted, pure forum.
I wonder who is crazier, the teenage nuke war posters, or the 9/11 fanatics who "believe that lizards run the planet?"

911 was an inside job.That is fact.You swallowed the Murdoch/Turner/Cheyney conspiracy theory.You should find a suitable conspiracy forum if you are averse to the truth.

[JohnQP]

I just get tired of the spitefulness in conversation. I understand frat brothers giving each other the gas, but not mature adults. I am assuming waaaay toooo much, I suppose. We don't know the ages of anyone on here. It is obvious teenagers or pre-teen children occasionally post here, maybe I should consider there may be a lot more kids and a lot fewer adults. Kids seems to have a lot more on the ball with computers anyway, why not wile away their time playing with each other over inane nonsense like 911 conspiracies.

I suppose, in the final analysis, that anything and everything posted on topix could and very likely is false, meant to demean or be pugilistic, meant to "pull someone's leg," or otherwise fraudulent and not well-meant. There are no guarantees of civility, genuineness, or even age as regards these posts.

To answer your query directly, Mountain Lady, I think you are treated differently because you claim to be a woman, and we know that virtually no women are really ever on the internet for any reason. Terrabytes of data tell us so. Maybe if we all pretended to be a woman (I am not sure of anyone on here), we would all be civil and polite to each other.

Novel, intriguing idea, Mountain Lady.

[Greek fire]

Your conscience wrote:

<quoted text>
911 was an inside job.That is fact.You swallowed the Murdoch/Turner/Cheyney conspiracy theory.You should find a suitable conspiracy forum if you are averse to the truth.

If 911 was an inside job, you are accusing President Bush of direct, premeditated, legally-unauthorized murder (unlike the legally authorized [sorta, check the UN resolution], premeditated killing of Iraqi "insurgents"). That would make President Bush one of the greatest traitors in American history since Benedict Arnold.

Your conscience, how many powerful people dislike, nay, hate President Bush? Do you not think they would move heaven and earth to prove it if it were even conceivably true? Recall President Clinton and his best friend, Vince Foster? Remember how powerful opponents did all they could to try to put Clinton in that park, with his finger on the trigger OF A GUN THAT NO ONE EVEN KNEW FOSTER HAD POSSESSION OF, IT WAS AN HEIRLOOM FROM HIS FAMILY?

Think about it. If 911 was inside, how many people are 'in' on it? In reality, they would all be dead by now or institutionalized as schizophrenics. If you hate President Bush, say so, and argue about things he has done that are publicly known and horrible, or even plausible things he has done that are not publicly known. But a far-ranging conspiracy to kill 3000 Americans (maybe you argue no one died on Sept. 11, 2001 in downtown Manhattan) with an untold number of co-conspirators who could blackmail Bush, no way.

[who]

Mountain Lady wrote:

<quoted text>Hello,(The Who)! I never knew much about this and the charges being dropped. Torture they say? So much information to absorb.

Well if you watch this short clip of an interview with one of the British nationals who were released a couple of years ago, you'll get the picture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
You can't build a case on information obtained under torture, so we'll see where this takes things with regards to other pending "trials".