Is Ahmadinejad kidding? Ask yourself?

There are ideas and then there are ideas over the ideas. The ideas over the ideas, are the meta-concept. It connects the ideas and rhetoric of a philosophy, into a coherent and consistent whole. So if you listen to the Arabs speak to the West and then listen to them speaking to their jihad folks, you hear different ideas, styles of oration, and rhetoric. It does not mean it is a different philosophy, but the same meta-concept simply expressed through various tentacles of thought and words.

The reason why the US doesn’t say to Israel what Israel needs to hear, is because the US doesn’t understand how to manipulate paradox into crafting reality. The most glib and bureacratic of our government, knows only how to speak in tongues for their own self-aggrandizement and power. When they encounter an ideology that doesn’t believe in personal power so much as a doomsday Final Judgement with a Final Reward in Heaven, their doublespeak is infinitely easier to counter than the jihad’s doublespeak.

The dialectic is used by many people for many different reasons, regardless of what they call it. In point of fact, the dialectic is no longer even the dialectic, because it isn’t a bunch of words written by a philosopher. But the actual mechanical and physical blueprint that human beings have crafted and built. It is what it is because humans are what we are. The principles by which the dialectic work are the same as the principles that humans obey.

VDH called it back biting or was it bite back effect. Where you say and act in one way, when in fact the opposite is true and everyone knows it. Venezuella and gestapo police Fox talking about America and our Berlin walls for example.

So what are they trying to do, are they trying to make America into mirror images of themselves? Or are they trying to make themselves into mirror images of America? Rather, it seems the dialectic process of dialogue becomes simply a method to achieve a goal, that goal independent of spectrums or labels.

The dynamic, that being dictators being the underdogs and America being the top dog, is the meta concept that these dictators using dialogue and the State Depos using dialogue, are trying to overturn. If they apply enough force, then they can overthrow the top dog and make themselves into the leaders and power players. The Shah was said to be more brutal and anti-freedom, compared to the pro-freedom Mullahs. Well. That dialectic came out all right, I think. They succeded in the goal that the dialectic sought.

Another practical application of the oratory dialectic, rather than the philosophical theory, is that of Israel. The meta concept is that Israel and Palestine keeps fighting and that they need to stop. The dialectic for the Palis is that Israelis are the terroists and when Israelis kill, more terroists are born. They want the US to stop supporting Israel.

Well, an opposite dialectic that you could use to counter the dynamic paraxism of the Palis is this. Demand that Israel committ themselves to Total War, a war to the knife and finish, or the US will cut off all military, financial, and diplomatic aid to the state of Israel and begin funding the Palestinian territories with US weapons and money. It’s like Amanie saying he wants nuclear power, it is a smoke screen, a bite back effect. By saying the opposite of what he wants, he thinks he can affect a realistic change towards what he really wants. All these dictators talk about the anti-freedom and weakness of the US, in the attempt to say the opposite of the real in order to change the reality. After all, they don’t criticize us because they really want us to be more free or what not. They criticize us because they want us to be less free and powerful. How do they do this by saying we should be more free and/or powerful? Well, about the same we help the Israelis by threatening to support Palestinian terroists against them and cutting

My problem with it is that it’s typically been used as mere obfuscation, the equivalent, in its heyday, of post-modernism, in its. Both have by now been sufficiently abused that even the herds of naive lefties are no longer much impressed. As for Rangel, I doubt he has the capacity even to understand obfuscation as a tactic, much less “heightening the contradictions” — I just see him as trying to spook up an anti-war stampede by flapping the old red flag of the draft.

Fake is accurate, Synova. Not just less is more.

Wars increase recruiting for the Marine Corps and the infantry branches of the army. Warriors like wars, they don’t actually like joining in peace time if they don’t have to.

Maybe they weren’t active duty to begin with… a whole heck of a lot of those in Iraq are National Guard. I believe that our first female silver star recipient went home with her unit and stayed there.

JFKerry took the free-out after three bandaids.

And this article actually claims that deaths *now* have more impact than those from Vietnam? Why? Well, according to this guy, because there were more in Vietnam. Way more deaths and way more soldiers.

See, fewer deaths and injuries means greater impact because, ya know, less is more.

And this impacts recruiting? Shouldn’t it impact *retention*? But retention rates are good. Very good.

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org/uk

“Not surprisingly, this remains a non-issue in this country. How could Americans react, when there’s no news to react to, when there’s next to no information to be had — which doesn’t mean that information on our ongoing air campaigns is unavailable. In fact, the Air Force is proud as punch of the job it’s doing; so any reporter, not to speak of any citizen, can go to the Air Force website and look at daily reports of air missions over both Iraq and Afghanistan. The report of November 15th, for instance, offers the following:

“In Iraq, U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18s conducted a strike against anti-Iraqi forces near Ramadi. The F/A-18s expended guided bomb unit-31s on enemy targets. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons provided close-air support to troops in contact with anti-Iraqi forces near Forward Operating Base McHenry and Baqubah. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles provided close-air support to troops in contact with anti-Iraqi forces near Baghdad.

“In total, coalition aircraft flew 32 close air support missions for Operation Iraqi Freedom. These missions included support to coalition troops, infrastructure protection, reconstruction activities and operations to deter and disrupt terrorist activities.”

This was a pretty typical day’s work in recent months; there were 34 strikes on November 14th, 32 on the 13th, and 35 on the 12th — and note that each of the strikes mentioned was “near” a major city. These reports can be hard to parse, but they certainly give a sense, day by day, that the air war in Iraq is no less ongoing for being unreported.

om Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute’s Tomdispatch.com (“a regular antidote to the mainstream media”), where this article first appeared, is the co-founder of the American Empire Project and, most recently, the author of Mission Unaccomplished: Tomdispatch Interviews with American Iconoclasts and Dissenters (Nation Books), the first collection of Tomdispatch interviews.

“Rangel is not trying to carry on a dialectic in a meaningful way. He posed a very specific challenge: “If people are for the war, then they must be for Americans to share the burden via the draft.” He’s right, with only one exception: if one believes our armed forces are sufficient to meet all of our current challenges. I don’t think they are.”

I’m sure there are those who would ‘support’ the draft(those who generally wouldn’t be considered for service, lol) – but I’m absolutley certain that it will never wash. Considering how unpopular the war is amongst Americans it’s unbelievably crazy to even consider it – even more so, immedietely after an election dominated by the war.

Nor do I think more troops will make a difference either – intially perhaps, but I’m quite sure it would become even more of a bloodbath than it is now.

Ultimately the U.S will probably use air power(like in Vietnam)to ‘placate’ the Iraqis and protect it’s embassy, bases etc. In fact they have been doing that quite a bit more lately.

Sure more Iraqi civilians will die and world opinion will be even more against the U.S – but then we can ‘win’.

Which is what it’s all about – take it in the endzone!