No Discourse for Americans

There is no "Left" and "Right" in the mainstream political scene today. There are nuances of liberal thought in the Obama campaign, but that is terribly overshadowed by the "thought police" in his campaign that don't want to give the McCain people any "talking points" that they can use against him. This particular episode in US history is very unfortunate. The fact that the Democrats must play the role of the quasi-belligerent and bellicose imperialists, in order to thwart the rhetoric of John McCain is a crime in itself. This type of behavior and rhetoric dooms the American people to a campaign that disallows the type of discourse that we so desperately need in this nation.

The articles I've written in the past few weeks have garnered e-mails from people that I never expected to hear from. My series on "American Complicity" have been published on many progressive sites and the response has been overwhelming. The outpouring of sentiment that this writer has received makes it very clear to me that the Mainstream Media has failed to provide the type of dialogue that the American people need to have with each other. Correspondence that I've received has not just come from Americans; I have received heartfelt letters from people in Israel, Mexico and Canada that decry what has happened in America in the last few decades. I wish I could write to all the people that have written me and tell them that the American people are indeed waking up from their long slumber and see what this nation is doing in the name of "The American People", but I can't. The dialogue between not right and left, but right and wrong, just isn't being discussed with the public at large.

There is in this country since 9/11 a disturbing and dangerous perception in this country that it's "us against them". The same incident has spawned fears for some that our own government has been in some way either complicit or actually involved in the attacks. This incident and the feelings that people have about the causes and involvement of whomever was responsible are rarely talked about in public. The War in Iraq is also a subject that many Americans don't speak about in mixed company, not wanting to lay their cards out on the table for their neighbors and co-workers to see. We discuss "polls" and articles we have read to gauge what others think. The only time we hear strong anti-war sentiment is on the internet or from speeches made at rallies and protests. The truths we hear and read stay in our minds and are very rarely brought out in public. The silence is deafening.

We have a chance at discourse and debate about where this nation is heading. Like so many others I have hoped that this Presidential election would bring out the thoughts and aspirations of Americans that want to turn this nation around and bring it back to some type of sanity. We hear phrases about "The wrong War at the wrong time", and in the second breath we hear that "All options are on the table" in regards to Iran. Sometimes I wonder if this nation hasn't developed a nationwide form of schizophrenia. I watch us encircle Russia with a missile defense system. Their protests go unheeded not only by our government, but the American people. I see this nation's currency devalued day by day as the price of everything rises. Gasoline, heating fuel, electricity, commodities rise while paychecks remain stagnant and many are out of work altogether. All of this occurs while no-bid contracts to war contractors and war appropriations take their daily toll from the lives of working American's in our attempt to "Americanize" the Middle-East continues.
There are no real debates on the merits of our foreign policy that tries to enforce a Pax Americana on the rest of the world. There are no real debates on the Mainstream Media about the 35 counts of Impeachment that Rep. Dennis Kucinich valiantly brought to the floor of Congress, unless that is, you are on the e-mail list of progressive organizations that are fighting for true justice that is being ignored by the major media outlets. That this current President has broken the law many times and lied to the American people, is being pushed to the background because it may interfere with the political aspirations of the Democrats. This in itself is a travesty of justice.

Someday the American people will indeed wake up and see what this nation has done in their name. They will see what we have done in the name of this "Global War on Terror" that was invented to keep our Military-Industrial-Complex running. We have replaced the Soviet Union with Muslim fanatics. We have replaced our own national interests with political aspirations of those inside of Washington. We have replaced commonsense with our common fear. This cannot continue forever, I can only hope that we can come to terms with what we have wrought before it is too late to recover, if it isn't too late already.



Display:


Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

Timothy Gatto:  There is in this country since 9/11 a disturbing and dangerous perception in this country that it's "us against them". The same incident has spawned fears for some that our own government has been in some way either complicit or actually involved in the attacks.

Les:  Is there no "us against them?"  There is a  mention of the attack on 9/11, but no mention of the U.S.S. Cole and there is no mention of our embassies in Dar Es Salaam or Nairobi.  And there is no mention of the first attack on the World Trade Center and the other attacks around the world.  There are enough events that have happened to prove that there is a "them."

Just a thought.


by LesGovt on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:00:38 AM EST

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

Yes, but hard to prove "them" attacking "us" before we trained and armed "them" in Afghanistan.

Maybe I missed something.


McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.
by catilinus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:44:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

Unfortunately, the "them" that the neoconservative movement would like to cast as our enemies isn't just Al Qaida, the ones responsible for the attacks you list--it's the entire Muslim world.  That's the danger.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:14:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

The entire Muslim world? Oh God. You just justified everything I wrote.


by Timothy Gatto on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:16:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

...I think you need to reread what I wrote. (none / 0)

I'll rearrange the comment to make it clearer.

"[T]he danger [is] ...  the neoconservative movement would like to cast ... the entire Muslim world ... as our enemies ... [not] just Al Qaida."


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:48:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ...I don't need to reread what you wrote. (none / 0)

BishopRook:  I'll rearrange the comment to make it clearer.

"[T]he danger [is] ...  the neoconservative movement would like to cast ... the entire Muslim world ... as our enemies ... [not] just Al Qaida."

Les:  Now, like the first writing, this is clear.  This just happens to post the opposite of what was previously said and someone else picked up on it too, so it was not just me.

Thank goodness that I am not a "neoconservative," because I knew that al Qaeda was not the only terrorist organization in the world.  Pshaw!


by LesGovt on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:53:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ...I don't need to reread what you wrote. (none / 0)

I'm not really sure what this whole disagreement is about.

The diarist decried the "us versus them" mentality.  You pointed out that there is a "them" and cited several other attacks against us specifically by Al Qaida.

I replied:  Unfortunately, the "them" that the neoconservative movement would like to cast as our enemies isn't just Al Qaida, the ones responsible for the attacks you list--it's the entire Muslim world.  That's the danger.

In other words...


  • The "them" that the neoconservative movement would like to cast as our enemies is not just Al Qaida.

  • Al Qaida is the group responsible for the attacks you listed.

  • The "them" that the neoconservative movement would like to cast as our enemies is the entire Muslim world.

  • That is the danger.

I'll try to write my sentences more clearly next time.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:09:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ...I don't need to reread what you wrote. (none / 0)

Yes, I only made a partial list.  Do you want the full list?  I will take up a lot of space and many terrorist groups and events, but I can post many more non-al Qaeda events.

Since you have now corrected the original comment, I have no beef with how you now say it.  You can blame those nasty "neoconservatives" all you want.  It's no skin off my nose.


by LesGovt on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:14:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ...I don't need to reread what you wrote. (none / 0)

Les--
You don't need to copy/paste what the person you are replying to last said.

If you are concerned they won't know you are talking to them, you may reply using the same method I am demonstrating.  State their name followed by a delimiter such as --, :, ',', or something else.

Thanks,
Mrrar


by mrrara on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:17:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ...I don't need to reread what you wrote. (none / 0)

Apparently, I do have to post the other person's comments in their fullest extent.  Even when I to copy and paste the other person's words, I get accused of distorting things.


by LesGovt on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:20:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bring back Pinche Tejano nt. (none / 0)


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:02:43 AM EST

Thought police (none / 0)

If the "thought police" you speak of are in charge of the "message control" necessary for a younger black guy with a funny name to become President of the United States, then I'm cool with it.

Barack Obama will steer us in the direction of sanity; John McCain will drive us further down the rabbit hole, dropping landmines behind him.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:28:58 AM EST

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

I would happily rec this diary if the 1st 2 paragraphs were scratched. The rest of the diary seems like common sense.


McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.
by catilinus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:47:07 AM EST

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

Congratulations on the most well thought out diary I have read here. There is a total lack of leftist, or even left of center, voices in the American political discussion. I agree with your contention that it makes it difficult to even discuss right vs. wrong. Rec'd.


Bush murders soldiers for profit. McCain wants to wet his beak.
by awobbly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:38:14 AM EST

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

McCainure:  Yes, but hard to prove "them" attacking "us" before we trained and armed "them" in Afghanistan.

Maybe I missed something.

Les:  Would it be your normal policy to attack those who have assisted you?


by LesGovt on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:42:19 AM EST

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

It's normal policy to attack one's enemies; and we probably should have realized that Bin Laden viewed both us and the Soviets as his enemy before we gave him weapons.

It's one of the ultimate failures of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" doctrine.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:15:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

BishopRook:  It's normal policy to attack one's enemies; and we probably should have realized that Bin Laden viewed both us and the Soviets as his enemy before we gave him weapons.

It's one of the ultimate failures of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" doctrine.

Les:  Hmmm.  We helped them.  We should know that our allies are not our friend?  I guess that means that no one is a friend of anyone; therefore, the enemy of my enemy is my enemy.

And all of this justifies the murdering of 3,000 innocent Americans?  Good grief!


by LesGovt on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:07:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

That's.. not at all what BishopRook said.  Are you purposefully contorting his statements?


by mrrara on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:14:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

mrrara:  That's.. not at all what BishopRook said.  Are you purposefully contorting his statements?

Les:  I copied the full text from the time and date that I also posted.  Check out the message at that time and see if I did not post all of it.  If I neglected part of it, I will apologize most humbly to BishopRook.  If I did, I would also humbly accept your apology.  Thanks.


by LesGovt on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:18:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

Les:  Hmmm.  We helped them.  We should know that our allies are not our friend?  I guess that means that no one is a friend of anyone; therefore, the enemy of my enemy is my enemy.

Bin Laden was never our ally.  He was a tool that we used to defeat the Soviets in a proxy war.  We hoped to use him and his group, and then discard them; unfortunately, we underestimated his resolve and failed to predict that once the Soviets were out of the picture, he would turn on us as well.

The point is, we can never assume anything about the "enemy of my enemy."  We've propped up many dictators that came back to bite us in the ass simply because they were anti-Communist during the Cold War.

And all of this justifies the murdering of 3,000 innocent Americans?  Good grief!

I'm sorry what?

I'm gonna go ahead and leave now and resist the temptation to hide-rate that.  You might want to go back and try to figure out what the hell could possibly have given you the idea that I was calling the 9/11 attacks "justified."


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:18:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

BishopRook:  The point is, we can never assume anything about the "enemy of my enemy."  We've propped up many dictators that came back to bite us in the ass simply because they were anti-Communist during the Cold War.

Les:  Possibly true.  It's a good thing it worked.

Les earlier:  And all of this justifies the murdering of 3,000 innocent Americans?  Good grief!

BishopRook:  I'm sorry what?

I'm gonna go ahead and leave now and resist the temptation to hide-rate that.  You might want to go back and try to figure out what the hell could possibly have given you the idea that I was calling the 9/11 attacks "justified."

Les:  "hide-rate?"  Sorry, I cannot say that I have previously read this phrase.  Is there a reason why I should have a concern?

Okay, so you are sayiing that the attack was not justified.  Cool?  Were you saying that the U.S. was responsible for the attack of 9/11 and the slaughter of 3,000 innocent Americans?


by LesGovt on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:32:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

Okay, but this is the last one you get for free.

The point is, we can never assume anything about the "enemy of my enemy."  We've propped up many dictators that came back to bite us in the ass simply because they were anti-Communist during the Cold War.

Les:  Possibly true.  It's a good thing it worked.

I guess it worked for some definition of "worked."  Considering it trained and equipped an army of militant religious fanatics that soon turned their attention to destroying us, launching numerous successful attacks against our interests at home and abroad, I'm not sure I'd call that "working."

We've had very bad results, overall, making any relationship with fundamentalist radicals or dictators "work."  It didn't work with Saddam Hussein; it didn't work with Mohammed Reza Pahlavi; it didn't work with Pervez Musharraf; it didn't work with Fulgencio Batista, then it didn't work with Fidel Castro; it didn't work with Augusto Pinochet; it didn't work with Jean-Bertrande Aristide; in fact I'm having a hard time thinking of any time it's been in our long-term interests to be involved with these people.

Les:  "hide-rate?"  Sorry, I cannot say that I have previously read this phrase.  Is there a reason why I should have a concern?

Posts can be rated as a "1" (troll) if they attack another poster or are inflammatory; "0" (hide) if they violate site rules or are outright abusive.  Posts that are rated by other members as being abusive through hide-rating are hidden from view and flagged for the moderators to look at.

Okay, so you are sayiing that the attack was not justified.  Cool?  Were you saying that the U.S. was responsible for the attack of 9/11 and the slaughter of 3,000 innocent Americans?

Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants and the 19 hijackers who carried out the plot are responsible for the attack on 9/11.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't examine things we could have done differently to prevent it from happening.

For instance, we could have put more resources into tracking the movement of Al Qaida resources in the United States.  Or we could have, you know, not trained and supplied them in the 80s then simply lost them when the dust cleared.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:57:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

What did I say that was abusive?  Please quote the words back to me?  Thanks.

Last one I get for free?  Good grief!


by LesGovt on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:11:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

And all of this justifies the murdering of 3,000 innocent Americans?  Good grief!

Okay, so you are sayiing that the attack was not justified.  Cool?  Were you saying that the U.S. was responsible for the attack of 9/11 and the slaughter of 3,000 innocent Americans?

You even have to ask?  Good grief!

So long, Charlie Brown.  I predict a short tenure here.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:14:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

Sorry, I was just trying to understand your point.  I will try not to bother you again.  Please state things correctly and I am sure that I won't find any need to respond to you.  My tenure here may be short, but we'll see. Have a great day!  America!  What a country!


by LesGovt on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:22:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

I guess it worked for some definition of "worked."  Considering it trained and equipped an army of militant religious fanatics that soon turned their attention to destroying us, launching numerous successful attacks against our interests at home and abroad, I'm not sure I'd call that "working."

Les:  I believe the Soviet Union is no more nor is their a Berlin Wall.  You seem to see the glass empty and I see it as half-full.

We've had very bad results, overall, making any relationship with fundamentalist radicals or dictators "work."  It didn't work with Saddam Hussein; it didn't work with Mohammed Reza Pahlavi; it didn't work with Pervez Musharraf; it didn't work with Fulgencio Batista, then it didn't work with Fidel Castro; it didn't work with Augusto Pinochet; it didn't work with Jean-Bertrande Aristide; in fact I'm having a hard time thinking of any time it's been in our long-term interests to be involved with these people.

Les:  It worked with the Shah until President Carter came along.  I agree that it probably would not have worked for all time.  Musharraf story has not ended so I am not sure that you have been proven correctly there.  I will agree that this is a nasty world with many nasty characters.  Do you believe that we should not assist our friends in the world and let them sink or swim on their own?  And, if you believe we have no friends, are you saying that we should assist no one?  Where would you draw the line on helping?  If these questions are abusive or attacking, I will certainly allow you to reword them so that they are not.  I'm just seeking your thoughts on things.


by LesGovt on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:34:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

BishopRook:  Unfortunately, the "them" that the neoconservative movement would like to cast as our enemies isn't just Al Qaida, the ones responsible for the attacks you list--it's the entire Muslim world.  That's the danger.

Les:  I agree that al Qaida is not the only party, but I totally disagree that it is the entire Muslim world.


by LesGovt on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:44:51 AM EST

Two things (none / 0)

One, you should use the "Reply To This" link beneath the specific comment you're replying to, that helps keep things arranged in logical order.

And B, was it really that easy to misunderstand what I wrote?


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:50:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two things (none / 0)

Unfortunately, the "them" that the neoconservative movement would like to cast as our enemies isn't just Al Qaida, the ones responsible for the attacks you list--it's the entire Muslim world.  That's the danger.

by BishopRook on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:50:55 PM CDT

Les:  I copied what I read.  I replied to what I copied.  Where did I misunderstand what you wrote?


by LesGovt on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:45:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two things (none / 0)

One, you should use the "Reply To This" link beneath the specific comment you're replying to, that helps keep things arranged in logical order.

Les:  First day here.  I think I now have it.  Thanks for the assist.  Since you assisted me, should I now be your enemy and kill you?  :-)  Just teasin'.


by LesGovt on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:09:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

Les--

BishopRook said:
..the "them" that the neoconservative movement would like to cast as our enemies isn't just Al Qaida (...), it's the entire Muslim world [that they cast as our enemies].  That[ they incorrectly blame all of Islam as our enemies is] the danger.

Not that the Muslim world is inherently a danger to us.


by mrrara on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:04:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Discourse for Americans (none / 0)

Bush murders soldiers for profit. McCain wants to wet his beak.

Les:  Wow!


by LesGovt on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:47:49 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.