The Farce Forum

[Thomas H. Purvis]

A prediction: just as Reagan won the Cold War, George Bush will win the war in Iraq and he will end his presidency with his reputation greatly enhanced.

Not Likely!

For the Bush administration or whoever inherits the "war".

Warring factions of the Muslim Religion have been killing each other for a lot longer than the US has even been in business.

Not likely that a few years will change the ideology of a populace.

And when one considers their regard for "infidels" of the Christian Religion, then any government placed in power by such a group will have it's hands full just as did the Shaw of Iran.

[Charles Drago]

A prediction: just as Reagan won the Cold War, George Bush will win the war in Iraq and he will end his presidency with his reputation greatly enhanced.

The Cold War, like all wars, was a racket.

There was never a conflict to "win" or "lose." Just a brilliantly stage-managed con to play until, for a complex amalgam of reasons, it became unsustainable and had to be replaced.

The War on Terror, like all wars, is a racket.

There is no conflict to "win" or "lose." Just a brilliantly stage-managed con to play until, for a complex amalgam of reasons, it becomes unsustainable and will be replaced after the next Pearl Harbor.

Ronald Reagan and George Bush were/are the sock puppets of their respective moments, cheap pitchmen selling lies, taking lives, fronting the brainwashings of the likes of Tom Purvis and Tim Gratz (lots of suds left over, I'd venture) to promote the great lie.

The likes of Purvis and Gratz -- poor souls who have been sufficiently twisted to believe that they and their families will be protected by a ruling class whose very existence is predicated upon the expendability of their first victims: patriots.

Small solace: They shall get precisely what they deserve.

Charles Drago

[Charles Drago]

Charles, despite our political differences those terrorists want to kill you as much as they want to kill me.

We may be in agreement after all. If, that is, by "those terrorists" you are referring to Bush and his masters.

Charles Drago

[Mark Knight]

And yet again, Tim makes Ashton's point...that this forum constantly degenerates to discussions a world away from its avowed topic, the assassination of JFK and the truth thereof.

While I take exception to much of what Gratz alleges, I SHOULD refrain from becoming a more involved party to this than I already am. But this is more and more like a train wreck...it's hard to NOT watch it happen.

Having flesh of my flesh--my only son--currently serving in Iraq, I believe I might be a bit more qualified to comment on the situation there than Mr. Gratz, who has nothing of a personal nature--such as the life of a loved one--on the line there. As with the old joke about the chicken and the pig and their respective contributions to breakfast...the chicken may be INVOLVED, but the pig is COMMITTED. And so it it with the ADVOCATES of the Iraq war [chickens] vs. the families of those who actually have to FIGHT [pigs]...some have more on the line than others.

Soviet communism collapsed under the weight of its own excesses--military spending, vs. its lack of corresponding economic productivity. That didn't begin on Reagan's watch; it only concluded then. Just because I'm standing near a train when it derails, it does NOT necessarily mean that I CAUSED the derailment, any more than Reagan CAUSED the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The US economy, on the other hand, is in the beginning stages of its collapse, again caused primarily by its own excesses, and combining the ever-weakening dollar combined with the increasing price of oil [fueled primarily by increasing Chinese demand, and affected very little by US conservation efforts]...compounded by the fact that the lending/investing community is still trying to conceal the depth and breadth of the collapse of the subprime mortgage-backed securities market [and its effects on the health of the entire banking industry]. And as someone much wiser than I said, slightly over 2,000 years ago: when this "house built upon the sand" collapses, the devastation will be great, indeed.

[John Simkin]

Of course I think John himself rejects the idea he put forth of a totally isolationist America because he has stipulated to the wisdom of the Marshall Plan.

As I explained, the Marshall Plan was a great idea and it did not involve sending troops to occupy other countries. The problem was that the CIA deployed some of this money to manipulate the democratic process in order to get pro-American governments installed in Europe.

Tim, an honest right-winger can make the case that our invasion of Iraq was a well-intentioned mistake. But I doubt you'd find one soul who's been to Iraq who would actually make the claim that the people of Iraq, 15% of whom are now homeless, are currently better off than they were with Saddam.

Your claims about St. Reagan are also off the mark. Read any book by ANYONE who really knows about the cold war--I don't mean some right-wing revisionist hack, but a real scholar or witness--and they will say that it was the combined efforts of every president from Truman to Bush that helped the fall, and that the efforts and attitudes some guy named Gorbachev had a lot to with it as well. Read Robert Gates' book. He gives Jimmy Carter--who right-wingers like to paint as a weakling because YIKES he thought that morality should play a part in foreign policy--major props.

The right-wing move to sanctify Reagan--whose first term was a decisive failure and whose second term was a haze due to his Alzheimer's--is truly horrific. It's as if to say the economy doesn't matter (Clinton did a far better job), and foreign policy doesn't matter (both Bush I and Clinton did a better job)...all that matters is that we FEELS GOODS about ourselves, by golly. Reagan appealed to the ugliness in America, the stupidity of America. In his world, poor people were lazy, and Aids patients deserved it for putting the square peg in the round hole. He led by smiling and telling people everything is gonna be alright. He, as GWB, was notoriously lazy, and had a notorious distaste for actually knowing what he was talking about. He believed the world was black and white and surrounded himself with lackeys who let him keep on believing it. The father of the current president once reflected that Reagan never could understand that he traded arms for hostages. The implication was that in Reagan's child-like mind, trading arms for hostages sounded bad, and he thought himself incapable of doing anything that was bad. He probably never grasped the evil that he did at other times in his life as well, such as when he sold out the members of his union, and cut a sweet-heart deal with mob-affiliated MCA, which just so happened to be his own agency. He probably never thought about the mentally ill people he put out on the street as Governor, or the students whose heads he helped bust during the sixties. I saw him speak once in 1980. He was warm and friendly, and talked glowingly of the good old days when blacks got lynched and young girls died with coat-hangers in their wombs.

At one point he was walking through the crowd, maybe 15 feet from me. Sometimes I think there was something I could have done that would have prevented what came after, and the incredible decline he helped hasten would have been averted.

And yet again, Tim makes Ashton's point...that this forum constantly degenerates to discussions a world away from its avowed topic, the assassination of JFK and the truth thereof.

While I take exception to much of what Gratz alleges, I SHOULD refrain from becoming a more involved party to this than I already am. But this is more and more like a train wreck...it's hard to NOT watch it happen.

Having flesh of my flesh--my only son--currently serving in Iraq, I believe I might be a bit more qualified to comment on the situation there than Mr. Gratz, who has nothing of a personal nature--such as the life of a loved one--on the line there. As with the old joke about the chicken and the pig and their respective contributions to breakfast...the chicken may be INVOLVED, but the pig is COMMITTED. And so it it with the ADVOCATES of the Iraq war [chickens] vs. the families of those who actually have to FIGHT [pigs]...some have more on the line than others.

Soviet communism collapsed under the weight of its own excesses--military spending, vs. its lack of corresponding economic productivity. That didn't begin on Reagan's watch; it only concluded then. Just because I'm standing near a train when it derails, it does NOT necessarily mean that I CAUSED the derailment, any more than Reagan CAUSED the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The US economy, on the other hand, is in the beginning stages of its collapse, again caused primarily by its own excesses, and combining the ever-weakening dollar combined with the increasing price of oil [fueled primarily by increasing Chinese demand, and affected very little by US conservation efforts]...compounded by the fact that the lending/investing community is still trying to conceal the depth and breadth of the collapse of the subprime mortgage-backed securities market [and its effects on the health of the entire banking industry]. And as someone much wiser than I said, slightly over 2,000 years ago: when this "house built upon the sand" collapses, the devastation will be great, indeed.

Pat and Mark have done a great job in explaining to Tim how Reagan cannot take the credit for "winning the Cold War" against communism. Not that it will help Tim understand the situation. He clearly cannot understand this point. Nor can he explain how Reagan won the Cold War when China remains a communist state.

The idea that Reagan's objectives was the achievement of democracy. Try telling that to the people of South and Latin America that had to endure right-wing military dictatorships because it suited Reagan's financial backers.

The Americans are not unique in its claims to bring democracy to the world. The European governments said similiar things when they built up their empires in the 19th century. Of course, it was the last thing that they wanted and spent much of the 20th century trying to prevent democracy coming to the countries under their control.

To be fair, it was a British politician, Winston Churchill, who got the US to fight the Cold War with his "Iron Curtain" speech in 1947. He had tried this approach during the 1945 General Election and his views were rejected as those of a "war monger". As a result the Labour Party enjoyed a landside victory. One of their policies was to break-up the British Empire. Churchill was forced to go to America and unfortunately he joined forces with the far-right to create the Cold War.

The US economy, on the other hand, is in the beginning stages of its collapse, again caused primarily by its own excesses, and combining the ever-weakening dollar combined with the increasing price of oil [fueled primarily by increasing Chinese demand, and affected very little by US conservation efforts]...compounded by the fact that the lending/investing community is still trying to conceal the depth and breadth of the collapse of the subprime mortgage-backed securities market [and its effects on the health of the entire banking industry]. And as someone much wiser than I said, slightly over 2,000 years ago: when this "house built upon the sand" collapses, the devastation will be great, indeed.

This is big news in the UK. We expect the economic problems of the US to spread to the rest of the Western World next year. Today the BBC carried a report on the economic plight of Michigan. Apparently, one in ten of the adult population in the state are applying for free food. As a European, this figure is mind-blowing.

[Cliff Varnell]

Today I'm feeling bold and burgundy.

Cliff, your view that the Cold War never existed is beyond belief.

Your inability to process the English language is beyond belief.

I noted that the white race wasn't going to annihilate itself, and the "Cold War"

was used as a rationale for both the Americans and Soviets to exert their influence

in the 3rd World.

But you have no rebuttal to that point, which explains your inability to

quote me directly or accurately characterize my argument.

I suggest you try to peddle that to the millions who were enslaved in the Soviet Union

and the millions whose parents and grandparents were ruthlessly slaughtered by the

Communist butchers.

The slaughter to which you refer occured prior to the Cold War,

while Americans like W. Averell Harriman were financing the Soviets.

But then, you'd have to be familiar with the history of the 20th century to know that.

Perhaps you would also deny the Communist holocaust as some deny the Nazi Holocaust.

But scholars have concluded there were as many innocents killed under Communism as there

were under Hitler and just as in Germany many were Jewish.

I'm sure there were far more killed under Stalin. But don't let me

impede your hysterics. It's too fun to watch!

You complain about civilian casualties in Guatemala (isn't "collateral damage" the modern euphemism for such non-combatant deaths).

Hitler invaded France and slaughtered hundreds of thousands.

The CIA overthrew a democratically elected government in Guatemala and installed

a series of right-wing thugs who, aided by the CIA, slaughtered hundreds of thousands.

In your moral vacuum, Tim, the former was "evil" but the latter was "collateral damage."

Clearly collateral damage is regrettable but it happened in WWII to an even greater extent

than it happened in the Cold War. Perhaps the Allies should never have bombed Dresden but

even if that is the case that does not mean that we were not justified in fighting the horrors

and evil of Naziism.

Does that mean the the United States gov't is justified in behaving like

the Nazis, invading other countries that pose no threat to us, slaughtering their people and

exploiting their resources?

Why was it "evil" for the Nazis but "justified" for the Americans?

And if you're going to denounce the evils of Naziism, how do you give

a pass to the American/British/Dutch banks and industrialists who

built the Nazi war machine? Your moral relativism is staggering.

To cite Guatamela as proof the United States should have never intervened

in any foreign countries is irrational. There is an old legal adage that says that

terrible cases make bad law. In other words, it is error to draw broad

generalizations from isolated cases.

Guatemala is not an isolated case.

"Regime change" became a disasterous foreign policy that led to the deaths of

millions, including tens of thousands of Americans. Needlessly.

This discussion started with John's argument that the US should have pursued an

isolationist foreign policy after WWII. He now, however, agrees that the Marshall Plan

was advantageous both for the rebuilding of Europe and for the interest of the United

States in containing Communism. It is a complete non sequitur to argue that because

of what happened in Guatemala the US should never have initiated the Marshall Plan

nor brought democracy to Japan.

I argued against "regime change" as American foreign policy

after WW2. I made no comment on the Marshall Plan.

Is it too much to expect a sliver of intellectual honesty wherein you accurately quote

my actual argument?

Perhaps you have an innate disability that prevents such. As such, I find too

much discussion with you tiresome.

[John Simkin]

We have had the usual political illiterate postings from Tim Gratz and Tom Purvis. We have also had some perceptive comments from Mark Knight, Pat Speer, Cliff Varnell and Charles Drago. This is very encouraging as we rarely see this American point of view in the UK media. What percentage of the American population share your views? How does it compare with the percentage that share the views of people like Tim Gratz? I know it is an impossible question but I am interested in your impression of current political views in the US.

[Michael Hogan]

We have had the usual political illiterate postings from Tim Gratz and Tom Purvis. We have also had some perceptive comments from Mark Knight, Pat Speer, Cliff Varnell and Charles Drago. This is very encouraging as we rarely see this American point of view in the UK media. What percentage of the American population share your views? How does it compare with the percentage that share the views of people like Tim Gratz? I know it is an impossible question but I am interested in your impression of current political views in the US.

Study Finds ‘Crisis’ In U.S. Leadership

Media, executive branch, and Congress receive lowest marks in survey

November 15, 2007

By NINI S. MOORHEAD

Contributing Writer

Americans think their leaders are failing in almost every arena, according to a new Harvard study.

The third annual National Leadership Index, released this week, also revealed that 77 percent of Americans believe there is a “crisis” in leadership today—up from 65 percent in 2005.

The survey of more than 1,000 Americans, conducted jointly by the Kennedy School of Government’s Center for Public Leadership and U.S. News & World Report, suggests Americans were especially critical of the media, the executive branch, and Congress. Of the 12 sectors respondents rated, those three received the lowest marks.

Even the institutions that fared best—the military and medicine—received barely passing grades, with respondents expressing only “moderate” confidence.

David R. Gergen, the Center for Public Leadership’s director, said he found the results disturbing....

Full story: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=520811

[Charles Drago]

We have had the usual political illiterate postings from Tim Gratz and Tom Purvis. We have also had some perceptive comments from Mark Knight, Pat Speer, Cliff Varnell and Charles Drago. This is very encouraging as we rarely see this American point of view in the UK media. What percentage of the American population share your views? How does it compare with the percentage that share the views of people like Tim Gratz? I know it is an impossible question but I am interested in your impression of current political views in the US.

Thank you, John.

I'm afraid that I can't offer more than anecdotal evidence -- well-informed, but not quite "scientific" -- in response to your apt query.

If I may rephrase and likely narrow the question: What percentage of the American population understand the Cold War to have been a con?

My math may be wrong, but I'd venture the answer of fewer than one-one thousandeth of one percent. Or, fewer than 3,000 out of a population of 300,000,000.

Howard Zinn, George Michael Evica, Peter Dale Scott, Gore Vidal, and non-Americans Harold Pinter And David Cornwell (John Le Carre) get it. Amy Goodman, Norman Mailer, and Noam Chomsky probably don't.

Dick Russell came close to acknowledgment in The Man Who Knew Too Much. Evica stated it for the record in A Certain Arrogance.

Smedley Butler led us all.

If any of this helps, I'd be surprised.

Charles

[Tim Gratz]

How does one rationally argue whether RR was one of the principal causes of the defeat of Communism when you have people arguing that the Cold Was was a "con job"?

John S, is this what YOU believe as well?

Another question for you, John S: What books if any have you read that discuss RR's role in the defeat of communism? Any?

[Guest Gary Loughran]

We have had the usual political illiterate postings from ...Tom Purvis.

Hi John,

I disagree. Being the Orwell fan you are, you must at least realise that Tom's post 101 (you really couldn't make this stuff up) was chillingly literate. I even went to the attic to retrieve and parse 1984 with Tom's post, the 50's and 60's line was nearly a direct steal.

I have been fascinated with the content and clarity in the post (#101) more than any other I can recall of late.

I am still unclear as to the intention of the post (true beliefs, mimicry etc.)...but to my mind it is the party view in crystal clarity and not politically illiterate .

Gary

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, first of all (of course) God speed to your son in Iraq. I am sure you love your son as much as I love my daughter and I know how concerned you must be.

Now, for everyone, Mark wrote:

Soviet communism collapsed under the weight of its own excesses--military spending, vs. its lack of corresponding economic productivity. That didn't begin on Reagan's watch; it only concluded then. Just because I'm standing near a train when it derails, it does NOT necessarily mean that I CAUSED the derailment, any more than Reagan CAUSED the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Mark's first sentence is a good summary of why Communism collapsed. It was not able to keep up with its military spending. But when Mark questions whether RR was responsible or just happened to be standing there when it happened, he misses the facts.

Consider his analogy of the train derailment. If several witnesses saw and reported that Mark sabotaged the tracks, why then it was not mere happenstance that the train derailed while he was standing next to it.

RR knew that the Soviet economy could not continue to support a continued build up of its military spending. He was in fact prescient about that. He therefore made a deliberate decision to accelerate US defense spending so the Soviets would increase their own spending and wreck their economy. That this was his deliberate strategy is historical fact.

Here are the figures (in constant 1987 dollars) of defense spending under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagen:

1980 188

1981 199

1982 215

1983 230

1984 242

1985 262

1986 277

1987 283

The 1980 budget was clearly Carter's and it is possible the 1981 was also.

Consider the 1987 defense spending (close to the collapse of Communism) versus 1980. It is almost a 50 per cent increase, is it not?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, Mark's analysis of the fundamental reason for the collapse of communism is correct. The figures often dramatic proof why the collapse occurred in the late 1980s. History records that Reagan predicted that would happen and that it was his strategy.

[Pat Speer]

Tim, I don't think there's anything wrong with giving Reagan credit for helping to end the cold war. He may have been more responsible than any other American. But one should not forget that he was also MORE responsible for building up cold war tension than any other leader. He, in effect, called them evil and then shook their hand, and America sat back and applauded his courage for shaking the hands of evil people (when they really weren't evil at all). It's quite possible, even probable, that the Soviet bloc would have fallen under its own weight. Intelligence estimates in the Carter era said as much, but the Reagan people refused to believe them and subsequently blew a few hundred BILLION of our tax dollars on unnecessary bombs. IMO, Gorbachev clearly deserves more credit than Reagan for ending the cold war. He could have destroyed his country--better dead than not-red--but CHOSE not to.

What I resent is this attempt by Republicans to deify Reagan. It's ludicrous. It's like Southerners harking back to the good old days before the carpet-baggers came and ruined everything. I suspect it is in part a reaction to Democrats deifying Kennedy. And there are similarities. Both were charming and well-liked. Both got off an occasional quip. The difference is that many of Kennedy's policies were designed to help the middle class and the poor. And few of Reagan's policies were designed to do anything but make his backers rich off abstract ideas. Reagan idea...let's build a shield in space! One trillion dollars and counting later...the shield still doesn't work and even if it did what's the point when nukes can easily be smuggled into the country. Reagan's idea...cut taxes on the rich and everyone will benefit. He passed the ramifications of this policy onto Bush I, who finally gave in and raised a few taxes, which made him look foolish. Ironically, it took a Democrat to (temporarily) save us from Reagan's mess. Unfortunately the new regime cynically saw how promising tax cuts to the middle class and delivering tax cuts to the rich rich could get you elected, and have subsequently dug us a hole half-way (metaphorically) to China. Brilliant. What a way to lose Cold War II!

I think we can agree that one of Reagan's personal objectives in ending the cold war with Russia and building the shield was to eradicate nuclear weapons. I think we also understand that he was unable to do this because those around him, like Bush and Baker and Weinberger, wouldn't stand for it. They wanted an empire, more so than Reagan. One can not push that Reagan won the cold war and was an efficient leader without noting that he deferred to others on almost every major point, the most notable exception being HIS decision to trade arms for hostages. I am 100% confident that history will conclude that, while a likable figurehead, Reagan was not a great leader of this country.

P.S. On a personal level, I liked Reagan. But I thought he was lousy for the country. If my analysis of his record seems mean-spirited, perhaps it's because you are unable to separate yourself from your admiration of the Republican idea of Reagan, from the reality of Reagan's accomplishments.

[Michael Hogan]

It was decided that only the goalkeeper should handle the ball. Rugby School was not very happy with this decision and started their own game. Understandably, the game became known as rugby.

With that logic, Naismith could have called it Springfield or YMCA instead of basketball.

[Dawn Meredith]

I saw through the Cold War con long ago, and have watched as this nation has been driven further and further to the very far right. I attribute this in part to the rise of the Moral Majority and its political strength in the 80's, with Reagan as its nominal mouthpiece. Then in the 90's the advent of talk radio and cable tv, where HATE- in the name of Christianity- is the norm. People have just gotten more and more dummed down. It has been absolutely terrifying for me to see this. Of course the right wing media referring to the media as "left " all the time is simply inanne. The word "liberal" has been so slurred. And "conservative" means zilch. Gratz is not a conservative, but a neo conservative. (inho). Just tune into Bill O"Reilly or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity and watch as "American Opinion" is being formed before our eyes.

The total dismantling of the US Constitution under fascists Bush and Cheney- (really, all the folks who brought us Project For a New American Century)- has been, next to the Kennedy assassination, the single most chilling event I have ever witnessed. But it's all been leading up to where we are today. It happened in increments. When they can kill a president in broad daylight, then serve up, with the help of the hapless- (controlled)- the media the most idiotic scenerio, whatever pretext of a democracy we thought we had is a bad joke.

The economy is beyond a disaster. The s*** will not really hit the fan until this corrupt buch is out of office- if they don't suspend the election. Of course the fix is in.

As to the percentage of the population with an awareness of what is really going on, I agree with Charles Drago. Very, very small. People at their core suspect things are bad, but don't want to know. This "illness", ("public denial"), is very well described by Dr. Marty Schotz in "History Will Not Absolve Us:Orwellian control, public denial and the murder of President Kennedy."

Dawn