"Supporting the President" is a matter of taste


Let’s, in effect, throw good lives after bad. To admit that it was bad strategy would hurt. We will continue to maintain the same talking points: We were attacked, war on terror, fighting the terrorists on their own ground. And somehow it will all work out.

This is Bush’s product. He sells it for political power and personal glory. Also, to advance a certain way of being. There is a market for this product, and we are naive to think that the market = “Red States.” If you look at the district map of last year’s election results, you see red areas in every blue state, and blue in every red.

I like bitter foods and drinks: Dark chocolate, Chinese bitter melon, coffee, tea, IPA, and whisky of all types. Some people like bitter politics: a struggle, a war, the left vs. the right. And both the soi-disant liberals and conservatives partake.

Currently, however, the product of the right is so deleterious to the political and social order of the world that it is impossible to laugh off its cravings as a harmless predeliciton or victimless crime. To wit:

The asinine “I Support W” and “Support Our Troops” red-white-and-blue ribbons and bows and gewgaws. The worse things get, the deeper and richer the chocolate is: the heads of the true right are going to explode once 100% Venezuelean (different topic) corillo cacao is reached. I’ll cover my van with patriotic mobius strips celebrating unending devotion to the President. Why? Because he’s shoving it to those people who are complaining about the body bags and suicide bombers and how we’re in a quagmire and they’re not my side. And the more they complain the more they’re not my side and the conflict feels good and we have a cause, finally.

Human nature has a fundamental conflict. It’s wants release from all burdens, yet it also wants a conflict, a cause, a purpose. Per Godel, the system cannot be complete and consistent at once. Conflict feels good. We tell ourselves that the Reich is going, after a short and glorious struggle, to free us of all burdens and last for a 1,000 years. We just need to win this war on terror. No, Bush is not at Hitler’s level, but the principle is the same: an enemy, a cause, a struggle, a catharsis.

The Buddha taught us that the conflict cannot be won and catharsis cannot be achieved except through attaining nibbana. Which, in effect, is annihilation of the individual psyche. He may have been correct, but I think rather than returning to the origin we ought to channel the desire for conflict into catharses of love and construction, rather than hate and destruction, as we are doing now. And, most fundamentally, we must recognize our nature: the desire for a struggle and the negative ways entropy can use this desire against us.

Yes, we were attacked. We were attacked because the culture of the Middle East has devolved from the heights of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes), the great poets and saits, into a two-year-old’s tantrum. But we were also attacked because we did not have the wisdom to control and contain the two-year-old. Shame on them; shame on us.

Then we went and started beating up on the wrong two-year-old. Double shame on us. And now a large number of us still say, “It’s all OK.” Triple shame on us.

Triple shame, or three large scoops of ooey-gooey vanilla ice cream in a big ol’ unsophisticated banana split. At Dubya’s Ice Cream Parlor. Yum, yum, we’ve jumped the shark as an empire, yum.

Errm…interesting rant. I have no idea what the debate is supposed to be.

The fundamental point is that we are in this ME conflict as a kind of adventure to give meaning and mission to our empire, both in an us-vs-world manner and an us (the right)-vs-them (the left) manner.

Or do you disagree?

It’s not a rant, thanks.

I guess I tend to disagree.

I think we’ve got a President who initially professed an aversion to such adventurism. A goodly portion of the US electorate said this was good. Ironically, it was the Left who decried what they felt was Bush’s isolationist tendencies.

9/11, of course, changed everything, and gave the NeoCons what they needed to pursue a broader agenda than TWAT.

The electorate was afraid and vengeful. I don’t think it was so much a quest for meaning as one to put a slug in a few terrorists and show them, whoever them is, that you can’t kick the US of A around and get away with it. Don’t fuck with us. That’s the “meaning”.

Don’t you mean TGSAVE (The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism)? Terrorism is so 2001.

Umm, irony is like chocolate syrup on the sudae here. Once 9/11 occurred Bush made great speeches and did the right thing in Afganistan. People predicted quagmire a la the Soviets’ experience there, and it wasn’t. The bad guys were on the run, the people of Afganistan benefited, and we were right.

Recall, if you will, what MacBeth did after winning that first battle. Al Quaeda put the gun in Bush’s had, he used it well, but then the gun was still there. In the wrong hand.

The Neocons are into twat?
The electorate was afraid and vengeful. I don’t think it was so much a quest for meaning as one to put a slug in a few terrorists and show them, whoever them is, that you can’t kick the US of A around and get away with it. Don’t fuck with us. That’s the “meaning”.
Yes, that IS! We don’t disagree. It’s fun to have an enemy and a cause. We don’t disagree.

Didn’t some guy write some book or something about some situation kinda like what yer describing, Aeschines?

I remember reading it in high school or something… I remember it was really good, too. Doubleplusgood, actually. :wink:

Dr. Bronner?

We don’t?? Awesome!

::Wanders off, scratching head in confusion::

Have you been reading the news lately. Maybe Afghanistan was the right thing but it’s a long road that doesn’t turn. And there have been some disturbing turns in the Afhanistan road lately.

I think the basic difficulty is that we have an incompetent leader whose record is that he is unable to carry through an operation. He seems to lack the ability to conceive an objective, identify the steps required to get it, provide the resources to carry out those steps, follow up to ensure that the plan was in fact correct and to modify the plan as needed when new data are available.

One of the serious defects of the Iraq adventure is that it took away from the Afghanistan effort the resources and attention needed to complete it and make it successful. I think we might now be starting to pay the price for that.

Just think of the goals that were announced and have been forgotten starting with “Bin Laden dead or alive.” The latest seems to be going from “Full democracy for Iraq” to “We’ll take what we can get.” The latter, by the way, is the closer to correct than the first one I think. After all, if Iraq is going to be an independent country then they should make it whatever they want. I think they would do that anyway regardless of what temporary constraints we put on them while we are occupying them with our military force.

GW is bubbling over with enthusiasm at the beginning of all of these projects. Then he seems to wander away and leave it to others to oversee while he pursues his latest pie-in-the-sky fancy.

No, but thank you so much for playing.

What high school did you go to that Dr. Bronner was required reading?

Oh yes, Bush has managed to botch everything by spreading our resources too thin. So even what he originally did right he’s now doing wrong.

I guess he’s never read Clauwitz, Sunzi, 36ji, Machiavelli, or any other author that could have given him the proverbial clue. Imagine if we’d nailed Afganistan, gotten bin Laden–we’d have a right, tight little base of operations in Afganistan now, most likely in combination with a fair amount of the region’s respect. Iraq has trashed everything.

Yeah, it’s a very basic problem. Incompetence in combination with a desire for the wrong things is quite nasty.

Crumbling like a sand castle in the tide.

I guess we’ll just have to take “implosion” followed by “partition.” The really dumb thing about choosing Iraq as the object of our great experiment in “democracy” is that it’s a country that ought not to exist in the first place. Hey, maybe we can force Yugoslavia back together while we’re at it, or maybe even the Kingdom of Austria-Hungary.

Once you give the suicidal prisoner back his belt and shoelaces…

And co-opts otherwise politically useful people like Powell and Rice so that they are ruined for good. Whaddaguy.

Heh heh, this OP looks eerily familiar. As I recall, I didn’t include any culinary references because I was fit to puke.

The U.S. was certainly right to attack al-Qaida if Afghanistan, but if you don’t think it’s a quagmire, come back in ten years. Nobody notices because it’s just the second worst quagmire right now, but at present the situation ain’t good.

Post #16, still no debate…

I gotta agree.

This isn’t much of a Pit rant, either. Maybe you guys can share your humble opinions elsewhere.

Moving from GD to IMHO.

[ /Moderator Mode ]