the death of etiquette

Wondering the same thing myself. Presumably the hope is that quantity will somehow triumph over quality.

Have to agree with the above, three is ample... but what I saw earlier was way overboard.

I do write to those who post more than three a day and almost none re-offend. To be fair, the rule is hard to spot and those new to the site often are not aware of its existence. As for those writing about their faith, as a devout atheist myself I find it all a bit icky - but we are here to provide an outlet for all and I do not object in the slightest. Each to their own. It's pretty easy to avoid if you care to do so!

Fair enough. I will accept youth, innocence and religious fervour as valid excuses. But I fear those who got their contributions bumped back two pages may be less forgiving. And I seem to be stuck in Moffatspeak.

Sirrah, protest not at being Moffatized! Rather that, than bow down to base prolixity and post at every postillion to others' evident dismay! Seriously, (and Tony, you didn't write to me, but someone else kindly did) I have curbed my enthusiasm (see I'm up on modern-ish culture) and not posted more than the prescribed 3 per day... just like the pills I really ought to start taking! :-)

You're the right kind of atheist though, T.

What is the wrong type of atheist? Maybe this has been my problem all along.

Heartless, intellectually vapid, I suppose, just like the wrong kind of believer, wherever ideology makes an excuse for the dehumanizing effect. Hitler, Stalin, Mao are nice examples of the worst kind of atheists, for example.

Oh, I should have added the Caesars and their various employees, nice boys, those Caesars.

It is a wide-spread fallacy that Hitler was an atheist, Dendrite... in fact Hitler’s hatred of the Jews may well have stemmed from his Roman Catholic up-bringing. Good old Wiki says : “In contrast to other Nazi leaders, Hitler did not adhere to esoteric ideas, occultism, or Nazi mysticism, and even ridiculed such beliefs in private and possibly in public. Drawing on higher criticism and some branches of theologically liberal Protestantism, Hitler advocated Positive Christianity, traditional Christianity purged of everything that he found objectionable. He never directed his attacks at Jesus himself, but viewed traditional Christianity as a corruption of the original ideas of Jesus, whom Hitler regarded as an Aryan opponent of the Jews. In Mein Kampf Hitler writes that Jesus ‘...made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross.’ " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs As an interesting aside – The Holocaust is the only thing I can think of which it is illegal NOT to believe in.” and saying so (that you don't believe it) can get you jailed! A quick search reveals that people have been jailed in France, Switzerland and Austria for Holocaust denial (there may be other countries I just read a single post by a BBC correspondent) and Australian Fredrick Toeben was, jailed in Germany for insulting the memory of the dead. Surprising then that Europe made such a fuss about "Free Speech" when some Muslims over-reacted to the cartoon insult of their prophet!

I don't support jailing people for Holocaust denial but I think it should be pointed out that the most high profile cases do involve people actually publishing provably false evidence about what happened - that's a slightly different matter from just saying you don't believe in something. I agree with Dendrite's general point. Any situation where an ideological belief is the spur or excuse for dehumanization is a very bad thing, whether the utopia being sought is religious or political doesn't really matter.

To be fair and also acknowledge mykle’s researched fine point, we can certainly brand Der Führer as some kind of Christian then move him into the 'worst kind of believers' column with Mr. Bin Laden. Perhaps they can form a circle jerk with Stalin and Mao on the other side. Now that’s a cartoon I'd like to see. I know what you’re thinking, yes, Osama is only an armature wannabe in this esteemed company, but he is disadvantaged with no standing national army. He has shown intention and potential and we are sure when given the chance our client will prove to be a titan of genocide.

"Heartless, intellectually vapid, I suppose, just like the wrong kind of believer, wherever ideology makes an excuse for the dehumanizing effect." It could be argued that you should include early Americans and Australians in your list then Dendrite. Some would argue that they heartlessly dehumanised the native peoples of the countries they invaded, destroyed their culture, stole their dreams and turned them into drunks. I suspect that they all pretended to be Christians while they were doing it :O) Ideology is usually just used an excuse to do what you want and surely we are killing a lot more people than we are losing...

And, of course, I knew as soon as I clicked submit on that last bit of comedy that some kind of super stretchy argument would be made that flings this way back out of the 20th century and living memory to draw a furtive equivalence between how nations and territories have been created (taken) and settled since time immemorial and well designed, purposeful, mass extermination of entire peoples for the sake of hatred and nothing more. I enjoy hearing the baseless arguments of Jew hating Nazi apologists, it’s validating, and in a strange indefinable way, always refreshing. It makes my cost-free little trips to Europe here all the more exiting, and it’s only because you guys are uniformly such damn good writers that I keep coming back. It must be in the genes.

Speak to me of monsters and I’ll speak to you of oil. Greedy men who rule the world and see it as their spoil. While Big Oil rapes the planet and even angels weep. The wolves control the shepherds so who speaks for the sheep? With many millions set to die as food is turned to gold. We will all say “Such a shame” and believe the lies we’re told. :O) I knew there was something wrong with this rhyme and it struck me on my walk – The word in the last line shouldn’t be ’believe’ but ‘accept’ as I think deep down most of us, who are not beyond hope, sense that we are being lied to but accept it anyway since the alternative might lead to actually having to change rather than merely thinking about it. Mind you, it will be a terible thing when the Food wars start for people can live without oil but not without food! Perhaps then we shall see just how ruthless the wolves are when they start to bomb their own sheep... the question then will be can the Shepherd's control their Army sheep when it comes to slaughtering their own flock?

I'm not being pedantic but I think people do just accept it. The sources of information the majority often use they do believe such things. I know it's a different subject but look at how many view immigrants and housing for instance and another classic is the tales turned out at Xmas about being PC and another attack on our culture. People often choose what's easiest for them to accept and don't look too deeply into it. Craig

It's funny that if people were directly converting large amounts of food into small amounts of gold - while people starved - then they would probably be charged with crimes against humanity... but if they convert the food into an oil substitute first then it's called a solution to Global Warming and a way to keep petrol prices down. Still, I suppose you can't really argue - since the less people the less pollution in the end.

'Heartless, intellectually vapid, I suppose, just like the wrong kind of believer, wherever ideology makes an excuse for the dehumanizing effect.' Phew, I guess I'm not one of those, then. I actually believe in and have a lot of faith in humanity, as niave as this may seem. In response to Mykle's observations on early Australians and Americans, remember a lot of sugjugation was carried out in the name of the British Empire too, as well as the French and Portugese.

Faith in something being the operative word. I know and always have too many people with that description. I’ll try to stay out of these forums because I can be such a bitch just looking for a joke and seem to violate the code of conduct all over the place, but before this broadens to interstellar, let’s just say anyone is free to believe that people who evacuated native populations after fleeing persecution, putative taxes and mad kings have done the same work as Hitler. I am free to believe the records are clear and Hitler belongs in his own special box, three feet square. Again, we simply have to agree to disagree.

I totally agree that Britain and the rest were just as bad, Dynamaso. I also agree with Dendrite when he says "...(that's) how nations and territories have been created (taken) and settled since time immemorial." I was hoping to illustrate my point that in general it's not ideologies but human nature that causes most of our ills. It also occured to me that things have changed little appart from learning to adapt to the media and the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent hell for millions has been nicely 'filed' under 'Best to be on the safeside." or even worse "For their own good." with few seeing the reality that it was part of a plan to hike the oil price. Look at Bush and you'll find that he was an oil man then look at his his team and check who they used to work for! Hitler made the same mistake, almost everyone does, of blaming the sheep for their shepherds. If you are a Christian, Dynamaso, you will see that Christ was not challenging the Romans but the Shepherds of the Jews (can't remember the names or the spellings but it was something like Khiafas and Anas in particular)." Hitler was right on the point that Christ had chased the money-lenders out of the Temple and preached "There is more chance of a camel passing through the eye of a neeedle than a rich man entering the kingdom of Heaven." A thing not often quoted nowadays since there are so many rich Christians and people seem to have forgotten that the Bible says "The LOVE of money is the ROOT of ALL EVIL." If you recollect the Roman's weren't keen on getting mixed up in the whole nasty business and attempted to wash their hands of it. It's worth mentioning that Christ could have saved himself had he chosen to recant... in some ways I think this is part of the reason it is claimed He died for us. Whatever the atheists might claim few would suffer such agony for the sake of their fellow beings (although I'm not arguing that no athesists have since love and compassion belong to no creed). To sum up... my main disagreement with you Dendrite was in your choice of 'villains' not that I argue you were wrong, only that it was one-sided and Bush who I'm personally certain is 'Heartless and intellectually vapid' would never appear in it. Can't remember the news snippet and my 'net connection is very dodgy at the moment but it was something like "record profits for BP... eight thousand, million was it? Many are called but few will answer.

"let’s just say anyone is free to believe that people who evacuated native populations after fleeing persecution, putative taxes and mad kings have done the same work as Hitler." Well, I definitely wouldn't argue that they've done 'the same work' but I don't think the fact that people are fleeing persecution has any bearing on the morality of their actions when they reach their destination. The actions of some European immigrants to North American and Australia, while not being comparable in terms of either scale or intention to the Holocaust or the gulags, are definitely not what we should be seeing a positive to blueprint for the creation of new countries.

While I have to conceed you are probably right regarding your point about Halocaust Denial, Buk, I felt I ought to point out that I used it simply as an the most obvious example of the myth of 'Free Speech' in the West. Anyone who has bothered to keep an eye on Iraq will know that not only has the news from there been heavily censored for a long time now but also Reuter's reporters and camera men have had their recordings seized and many have been arrested or even shot. Since Bush intended to bomb Aljazzera before Blair talked him out of it then it shows exactly how free 'Free Speech' really is... (it's free if you agree :O) in fact it's often extremely expensive. Along similar lines Bush seems to encourage Democracy only so long as the people vote for someone he likes. It's also worth considering that in places which do not claim 'Free Speech' those who do dare to speak are at least lone voices and not drowned out by the constant clamour from a million blogs repeating the same old sheep's fodder in different shades of green. Don't get me wrong, I don't really think Bush is a Shepherd... he's just a front man for the Wolf Corporation who is simply better at reading his lines than Reagan was and much better paid!

Mykle the way you presented you're poem was as if you were talking about everyday life, not oil in Iraq. The majority of the country don't read a broad sheet, it's all tabloid. They don't think about what the war is over, (that includes those who's children are actually dying, not pontificating from an armchair). Maybe it is oil, but the price of metal has gone through the roof ever since the war started, have you looked at that? When the war started you paid someone to pick up a scrap car, within weeks the metal was worth money. And it keeps rising. We don't have free speech here as much as the good old USA, maybe not quite as regulated, but nothing can be said here to upset the wrong people, FACT. The media tows the line. Was it about Oil, who knows, seems concievable, but those involved aren't as stupid as.... to get caught, maybe it was something bigger and it's easier for people to , look at it. Oil looks like a good reason, but are those pople that stupid to make it that obvious for any idiot to work out? Maybe you're one of the sheep Mykle, someone who doesn't see the obvious because you're caught up with anti USA, cause it's easier, fits your agenda, Bahh. Oh hang on, is that a hook round your neck, get back in your flock. The oil prices are a consequence, something bigger is going on, if you don't see that then, well I dunno what to say. It's all about control, dunno if I agree or not, that would depend how things pan out, the oil idea is too old old and naive about the situation to carry weight. Bushes views, you should be able to relate to, after all doesn't he see his enemies in the same light as you do with you're views of those that have caused you grief. Bhudist my arse. Craig

You're absolutely right, Craig, I'm definitely not a Bhudist... not even sure what one is.

:o)

I suppose I ought to add that my opposition to the Iraq 'war' was greatly strengthened by the fact that I knew exactly how devastating the power of paranoia can be. When you are sat in your house every night trying to ignore the constant bangs of the football against your resononating house wall and the occasionaly hits on your windows or your glass door. When you're waiting for the stone or the bottle through your window it's hard not to sympathise with the other poor, innocents, huddled together in their homes, startled by every bang, waiting for a Cruise missile to drop in! No wonder the idea was conceived as 'Shock and Awe.' No Craig, I'm not anti-Americans but I'm certainly anti-Bush!

Mykle, Bush is an arsehole, but is merely a puppet. I wouldn't have even have swayed it towards inteligence on the part of the US if I felt Bush was something to do with it. You're experience of ASBO oiks must be very similar to those in Iraq suffering. I always thought you ranted about Bhudism and your mate in Thailand, maybe I'm spelling it wrong, dunno, don't care. Anyway. Before I start this i'd like to point out I don't know the reason the US went to war with Iraq, I do not have that amount of knowledge, the only people who know are those that were there when decisions were made. I do feel however, that if the US were run by such short minded people they wouldn't have held onto their position of world power that they have for a long time. And it's probably about that, power. Power doesn't always stay in the same place, there was once a British Empire and before that many more, some lasting hundreds of years. Every cycle has to end, I won't patronise you but I'm sure you've heard of Marx, not saying communism's on the agenda just yet. Now to think that the lack of fuel is something new would mean you are either blind or have a memory shortage. When was the last time you travelled through roads or railway tracks lined with fields of corn, no it's been bio-fuel for a long time, rape seed etc. The shortage has only come as a surprise to the everyday man. I mentioned metal before. Oil has leapt in value, metal has leapt it many times more. Here's an example, at the start of the war iron was £5 a ton, yes £5, about six weeks in...£50, it's now about £140, compare that to the jump in oil. But hey, while eyes are looking one way they can miss a hell of a lot.. Now I'm not saying it's about metal, but when someone looks one way an awful lot can be happening in the other direction. The surprise to 'everyday man' comes with many things, the re-surgance of Russia for instance, you think that came as a shock to the Whitehouse? Come on, give them some credit. How about militant Islam, the general public had never heard of it as a serious threat until Sept 11th, the US and their allies had known for decades. You think they knew nothing of Chinas rise until it happened? Of course not. Look at other events in the world. India's spending power. America's not a country of short term solutions. What are your thoughts on the cause of the Vietnam War by the way? What did they have to plunder? The US already has Saudi in their pocket, hence the ignoring of Human Rights issues. Saddam wasn't going to live forever, so a deal could have been struck if it was just about oil, even with the man himself. Hung quick wasn't he? Do you believe that the US only learnt of Iran's nuclear plans after the invasion of Iraq? Think about it, they see things decades away, like the militant Muslims, or the rise of China, or the oil shortage or the rise of Russian Communism, (Stalinism). The power of the world is shifting to the East, the US has had enormous power for as long as any of us can remember, nobody, from street thug to Nation, lets that power slip from their grasp without a fight. With the view of the American economy as it is, which in turn is affecting us, the idea of Iraq turning to Euros rather than dollars carries more weight than the oil theory. Or do you believe the money people didn't see this coming either? I don't know the causes of the war, but at the same time it may not be about oil. Either way, read your poem back to yourself, it may apply. Or did you come to the conclusion yourself? Craig

In 593 words, the reasons for the U.S. invasion of Iraq were primarily military hubris by Neo Conservatives (Neocons) along with a Shakespearean plot twist all here will appreciate. The Bush Sr. Administration drove Saddam out of Kuwait (Gulf War I) but stopped short of invading Baghdad proper because of the result we see today and learned from Viet Nam, that you can’t win a guerrilla war, plus that mission was only to preserve the oil trade thereby avoiding a world (not only U.S.) energy crisis. A protected air space (no fly zone) was setup to contain any future expansionist moves by Saddam and this was maintained by the Clinton administration. A splinter of the Republican party (the Neocons) including Bush Jr., but primarily Rumsfeld and Cheney, felt the U.S. should have ‘finished the job’ and invaded Baghdad and taken Saddam out of power. A growing resentment and split formed on this issue, fed by events that occurred during the subsequent eight Clinton years. During the Clinton years, all of the following occurred: Saddam consistently and stupidly violated the no fly zone with war planes, missiles, and other provocations. Increasing U.S. and British intelligence showed Saddam was manufacturing WMD and/or procuring it on the black market. Clinton (correctly) elicited UN assistance to draft (15) resolutions, leverage economic sanctions on Iraq, and send in WMD inspectors. Saddam consistently in report after report disallowed inspections of certain facilities and satellite imagery showed caravans moving in the dark of night from sites scheduled for inspection. One set of company (CIA) reports showed Saddam had planned to send in a hit squad on Bush Sr. now in retirement, and another string of reports showed Islamic militants were planning major actions targeting Arab and Western civilians. Clinton had his hands full behind the scenes and good thing about that internet bubble. We now know the WMDs were a Saddam macho ruse conducted for the most part due to his fear of Iran. The economic sanctions working as any leverage were a pipe dream, Saddam didn’t give a flying fuck on a rolling donut about his people. The Islamic militants were a radical offshoot of the mujahedeen that the U.S. supported in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan (see Charlie Wilson’s War). Bush Jr., Rumsfeld, and Cheney came to office with full intent to build a case for invading Baghdad and removing Saddam, which should be easy, due to all of the above. Then 911 happened. The U.S. removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan within weeks. Bin Laden fled to the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Then a split developed inside the Bush Jr. Administration; Rumsfeld and Cheney on the invade Iraq side, Powel and Rice on the pursue Bin Laden dead or alive side. Bush Jr. had two teams and two options on his desk and a personal vendetta against Saddam because he planned to kill his father, plus Saddam refers to him as “the little bush”. All the above and the rest is the unfortunate and unvarnished bland homework paper history. So far as those innocents huddled in fear of a cruise missile dropping on in them, they more feared Saddam or Al Queda dropping in on them. These strikes are truly surgical and the U.S. and its allies go through extraordinary measures and practice sets to isolate civilians from the theater. Using only one of many example techniques, nearby uninhabited mountains were pounded with expensive ordinance for two days until the Republican Guard surrendered due to sleep deprivation, but they could have easily been wiped out almost immediately.

You make some fair points, Dendrite, and only time will tell which of us turns out to be right. Loved Charlie Wilson's War by the way! A lovely comedy made all the funnier by the fact that most if it is probably true. I take it that Bush rushed the war because he knew that Hans Blix would not find any WMD and he needed something to bomb after 9/11. After all, when someone said " Surely you mean bomb Afghanistan?" Rumesfeld said "There are no good targets in Afghanistan." "So far as those innocents huddled in fear of a cruise missile dropping on in them, they more feared Saddam or Al Queda dropping in on them." I suppose the Americans dropped leaflets did they, Dendrite? Saying "Don't worry, we're going to Shock and Awe you for a bit but we won't hurt you, honest!" I'm sure you're wrong about both your points Dendrite especially since Al Queda was NOT in Iraq at that time! If your town were suddenly to start being bombed and cruise missiles were landing everywhere I wonder how comforted you would be by the fact that it was all being done by mistake. The excuse that it was to remove Saddam came a lot later after no WMD were found. The Republican Guard surrendered due to sleep deprivation after two days did they, Dendrite? Must have been very tough men to last that long. Lucky that only the mountains were hit then. Still, you have to wonder what caused all the damage that they still have not completely repaired and killed and wounded so many people at the start of the war that the hospitals were overflowing. If you see film of life in Iraq before the 'war' you see happy people laughing and joking in the markets and though no doubt they feared Saddam they were far, far, better off then than they are now! Do a bit of googling, Dendrite and check where all the money is going in Iraq... wonder why half the people still have no water and intermittent power. It's because the money is going to building and defending the oil pipelines and those who keep the oil flowing. The Americans kept all the oil to themselves and the UK was forced to go 'cap in Hand' to Libiya and 'forgive' Ghadaffi. The Americans have a large number of special operatives who they term 'body guards' who are above the law in Iraq (despite frequent complaints) and are notorious for their shoot first and don't even bother asking questions later approach to moving convoys or important "oil workers" around. Nearly all the money that has gone into rebuilding Iraq has gone to one company (American of course) and check how many complaints there have been of high level corruption, shoddy workmanship and extremely poor value for money... why no competative bidding? Anyway, my word-processor is kaput and I'm having to use Notepad - so I'll get back to you when I've got 'Word' working again.

The text book argument carries very little weight, not least because the truth of such matters and what lead up to them always takes years to out. In the UK decisions as the why's and what's of the matter remain classified for many years. People can speculate, but nobody ever knows the reasons. Islamic militants were on the radar long before the Russia Afghanistan war, it just suited the US's needs at the time. As for the reasons for not wanting to finish the job after the first Gulf War, that doesn't wash as it was still very much the same people in influential positions, so their decision would have been the same. Bush doing it revenge over his dad is giving the man too much credit, the 'President' hasn't called the shots for generations, George Dubya more obviously than most. The main lessons learnt through the Vietnam war was don't let journalists report uncensored from the front-line, no good for moral back home. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Saddam was a nice bloke, but Iraq was more laid back than many regimes in the Middle East. The US were sharing a bed right up till the invasion of Kuwait. I don't believe either that Iraqis feel safer since the 'intervention'. As Mykle pointed out, there's private security firms unaccountable to the law, not to mention sectarian violence and army convoys doing whatever they have to do to get from A to B. The US, I believe, did underestimate Iraq and the situation that would follow. I just doubt it was over oil, too simple. Ten, twenty or maybe thirty years we'll maybe get to the truth of it, but not just yet. Craig

I believe all you George Doubleyaa haters are incorrect; he ain't stupid. I mean, what's that based on, his mispronunciations during speeches? His invasion of the middle-east? The U.S. invasion of the middle-east has been inevitable for decades. Did you expect the most powerful country in the world to NOT maintain this stature they have? Bush is smart and anyway, the course of history over the passed decade or so would have been no different if some liberal-minded person like Obama had been in charge. I'm not a conservative but I'm not a democrat either, I'm nothing most of the time and I'll take whatever stance I believe in given any situation. Oh and also, to do with the religion/atheist thing; if you don't believe in God then you acknowledge that there is a possiblity "something" of that nature could exist. Personally, I believe in God but IT isn't catholic or islamic or jewish. End of ramble.

"Bush is smart and anyway, the course of history over the passed decade or so would have been no different if some liberal-minded person like Obama had been in charge." Well, the war in Iraq wouldn't have happened if George Bush hadn't gone into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. Obama wouldn't have done this. Liberal-mindedness isn't the issue. George Bush Senior wouldn't have done this, either. While I can agree that the Iraq war may not have significantly altered the fundamental balances of power in the world it has had two main effects: 1. it's made the situation in Iraq and the surrounding area a lot more unstable. 2. it's made the US significantly more unpopular with a lot of other countries around the world - this probably isn't a good thing either for the US or the rest of the world. I agree that's it's inevitable that the US would take action to maintain their stature in the Middle East. I don't agree that it's inevitable that this would involve removing the government of a large country.

"Obama wouldn't have done this." If he had been president in the wake of 9/11 he would have done the same things. The U.S. have been looking for a reason to re-invade Iraq ever since the first gulf war, when they stopped short of actually removing Saddam. I agree that the situation is more unstable now, but not much, it's just focused on with an intense spotlight by the media nowadays. Their claims of WMD's were pitiful and that shouldn't be forgotten. Hopefully Obama can calm Iran down before they go all nuclear on us. That's if he can hold off the advances of McCain, a man more out of touch with the world than Reagan was.