Shocking excerpts of confidential recordings recently released under the Freedom of Information Act feature former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld talking with top military analysts about how a flagging Neo-Con political agenda could be successfully restored with the aid of another terrorist attack on America.
The tape also includes a conversation where Rumsfeld and the military analysts agree on the possible necessity of installing a brutal dictator in Iraq to oversee U.S. interests.
The tapes were released as part of the investigation into the Pentagon's "message force multipliers" program in which top military analysts were hired to propagandize for the Iraq war in the corporate media.
(Article continues below)
In attendance at the valedictory luncheon Rumsfeld hosted on December 12, 2006 were David L. Grange, Donald W. Sheppard, James Marks, Rick Francona, Wayne Downing, and Robert H. Scales, Jr. among others.
The most extraordinary exchange takes place when Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong bemoans shrinking political support for Neo-Con war plans on Capitol Hill and suggests that sympathy for the Bush administration's agenda will only be achieved after a new terror attack.
Rumsfeld agrees that the psychological impact of 9/11 is wearing off and the "behavior pattern" of citizens in both the U.S. and Europe suggests that they are unconcerned about the threat of terror.
DELONG: Politically, what are the challenges because you're not going to have a lot of sympathetic ears up there until it [a terror attack] happens.
RUMSFELD: That's what I was just going to say. This President's pretty much a victim of success. We haven't had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it's not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing's in Europe, there's a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack. And when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another [inaudible] and it's a shame we don't have the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats...the lethality, the carnage, that can be imposed on our society is so real and so present and so serious that you'd think we'd be able to understand it, but as a society, the longer you get away from 9/11, the less...the less...
Click here for the audio clip.
In another exchange, after assuring that comments are "off the record," Rumsfeld and one of the military analysts agree that Iraq could use a "Syngman Rhee" to take control of Iraq. Syngman Rhee was the ruthless authoritarian dictator of South Korea from after World War II through the Korean War to 1960. If the invasion of Iraq was about liberating the Iraqis from a tyrant in the form of Saddam Hussein why is Rumsfeld talking about installing an even more brutal dictator?
Click here for the audio clip. Newsvine has the recording in full.
Rumsfeld's admission that the correction for dwindling support of the Neo-Con imperial crusade is another terror attack is perhaps the most startling and blatant indication that 9/11 was an inside job.
How much more evidence do we need to confirm that the Neo-Con hierarchy in control of the U.S. government are instigating and exploiting terror in the pursuit of their own domestic and geopolitical agenda?
As Jerry Mazza writes today, "In the seven years since the day, exhaustive and still growing evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the US government, spearheaded by the Bush administration, planned, orchestrated and executed the 9/11 false flag operation. As openly advocated by wide swaths of elites, from the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), of which Rumsfeld has been a member, to the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski (in his The Grand Chessboard), only an attack “on the order of Pearl Harbor” would, in Brzezinski’s words, cause the American people to support an “imperial mobilization,” and a world war."
Placing the new evidence against previously revealed 9/11-related acts on the part of Rumsfeld, his guilt is overt and obvious. Recall that it was Rumsfeld who enthusiastically penned the "Go Massive" memo, gleefully declaring the Bush administration finally had the green light to kill: “Not only UBL (Usama bin Laden). Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”
The longing for a new terror attack to corral the masses back behind the Neo-Con agenda is a shared fetish amongst Neo-Cons, policy wonks and academics alike.
In August last year Philadelphia Daily News columnist Stu Bykofsky openly called for "another 9/11" that "would help America" restore a "community of outrage and national resolve".
Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, told the Toronto Star last July that "The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago."
The same sentiment was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo, which yearned for new attacks that would "validate" the President's war on terror and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."
Also in July 2007, former Republican Senator Rick Santorum suggested that a series of "unfortunate events," namely terrorist attacks, will occur within the next year and change American citizen's perception of the war.
And the month before that, the new chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party Dennis Milligan said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President Bush to regain popular approval.
Comments posted on the left-wing Huffington Post website in response to the Rumsfeld tape indicate that even some of the most hardcore conspiracy debunkers have had their beliefs shaken to the core by the former Defense Secretary's admission.
“I never claimed to be a professor. In fact, I am a PhD candidate; and yes, I teach classes at the University at Buffalo.”
Your statement illustrates your general ignorance on how academia works. In typical American lexicon the term “professor” is commonly used in reference to a speaker, lecturer or teacher that is employed by a university. You stated you teach at University of Buffalo hence the term would be applied to you. Further “PHD Candidates” are not generally a “teacher”; rather “PHD Candidates” usually perform the function of teacher / professor assistant. Such a responsibility is usually required by a University in response to the stipend the university affords the “PHD candidate” in support of their pursuit of their doctorial degree. Further acceptance to a Doctorial program is extremely competitive. One of the general requirements to be accepted into a doctorial program is multiple submittals of academically sophisticated writing. Based on the level of sophistication, or lack thereof illustrated in your posts on this forum you have yet to demonstrate you possess the ability to perform at such a level. Such an observation leads me to question the legitimacy of your claim at being a “PHD candidate”.
I also have to ask how one teaches at University of Buffalo when they insinuate being out of state this weekend? While that fact in and of itself does not preclude you from teaching at the University of Buffalo it comes off as odd. Who knows maybe there is a conference or said comment might have been made in sarcasm, then again due to the consistent disingenuous nature regarding your posts one could hardly fault me for asking the question. In short “Larry” based on your posts and your performance I don’t believe you teach at U.B. I can’t imagine any one else would either.
In any case both your pervious statement along with this one is again representative of the logical fallacy “appeal to authority”. You attempt to legitimize your premise by pointing to your “alleged” academic level. This is especially interesting considering the fact that you continually make very simple mistakes and have illustrated a decided lack of general understanding regarding academia. Such behavior poses questions surrounding the validity regarding your “alleged” academic level.
“Furthermore, NO ONE uses the term academician unless they have a stick up their ass, sorry to disappoint.”
Your reading comprehension must not be that great, my point was quite clear. To reiterate the point I made, I found it interesting that an individual who “criticism” centered on issues like APA/ MLA standards (acronyms that I had to teach you) attempted to pass themselves off as an academic authority did not in fact use proper terminology. I surely hope you don’t make such mistakes in defending your “supposed” doctoral dissertation. If you think the basic questions I have submitted on this forum are tough you have very little chance of successfully defending your supposed doctorial dissertation.
“Thanks for the many emails you sent. One of the more cantankerous and childish of the batch is unintentionally hilarious. (By the way, I responded with a cantankerous and childish email of my own)”
You misconceptions regarding my emails aside, you behavior in response to said email did not surprise me, especially after observing the childish and cantankerous nature of your post on this forum. My emails where sent in response to someone who obviously views my statements so threatening to the biases they hold that they had to make multiple craigslist accounts in attempts to “get the last word”. I understand that craigslist has posting limits and many people use multiple accounts to circumvent said restrictions (such as only being able to post a certain number of times within 48 hours). That said when someone creates multiple accounts to “flame” a specific individual it illustrates that such behavior is more then likely resultant of an unhealthy fixation. Said fixation is centered round some perceived unresolved trauma, a lack of resolution which torments said individual. Such torment demands instant gratification and motivates the individual to behave outside the norm. In short I live in your head and you need to seek help. I say this as the nature of your post / emails illustrates that you are to some degree psychologically unbalanced. Seeing as you are more then likely unstable I will exercise my personal sense of altruism and spare you the public embarrassment of posting your email.
“If this were the case, proper grammar may have been utilized. You are obviously not THAN capable to express yourself. Why don’t you take a minute to familiarize yourself with the not-so-subtle difference between then/than. Trust me, it’s worth it”.
How cute a “PHD Candidate” relegating themselves to performing the unpaid functions of a secretary. Larry if you want that position then you have the leave a resume’ at the front desk.
“A subtle difference, I know, but the address you created implies that you yourself are a socialist. Your neocon buddies would kick you out of their club and invent a new secret handshake if they find that out.”
How does your misconceptions regarding the existence of a supposed “neocon club” or my alleged membership in said club have any thing to do with the substance regarding the arguments I have submitted? I would have expected more from a supposed “PHD candidate” Further based on the paltry manner of your arguments on this forum I doubt you would even know what constitutes a socialist.
“I asked you for a logical and linear response.
Oh I afforded a logical response or as much as any one could give to the emotive caterwauling you have consistently submitted on this forum.
I also made the mistake in an earlier posting of saying that you’re intelligent. Having taken a moment to go through your previous postings, I realize that all of your diatribes contain the same contrite, contrived phrases, the same arguments, the same jeering insults at the faceless liberal enemy.
What a surprise more hyperbole and ad homonym attacks from a threatened lefty. Seeing as you have restated such ill thought out premises multiple times, especially without providing any proof, thank you for proving the point I made surrounding your debate ad nausea. Further I found you redundancy (contrite, contrived phrases) in this statement especially hilarious seeing as in you initial response part of the criticism you attempted to levy towards me centered on “economy of speech.”
“May my previous comments be rescinded from the record. You're not intelligent. You're a parrot. Please accept my response to you, a nonlinear rant with no thesis whatsoever, just a series of rebuttals.”
When one uses ad homonym attacks it illustrates that the person who uses such an approach feels their position is threatened to such a degree that their position is not defensible by rational means. I find it funny such behavior comes from a supposed “PHD candidate” especially taking such behavior into account when you have to defend your doctorial dissertation. I can only wonder who your mentor / advisor is as he or she needs to get on their job affording you additional guidance. Such sophomoric behavior will more then likely not be tolerated in a professional setting. That aside what you are doing Larry is called “hiding in plain sight”. You at some level know that your behavior is unacceptable, yet can not stop yourself from acting in such a manner. Your admittance regarding such behavior is done with the idea that such admittance legitimizes said behavior. In reality such admittance is in fact a cry for help. This is such behavior is one example of why I have stated for you to seek such assistance multiple times.
You said: “What in your misconception constitutes “instability in the middle east”. Provide raw data from an unbiased primary information source which corroborates your statements so that can be peer reviewed.”
If you actually worked in academia you would know that my above statement does not constitute an irrational request. Oxford rules regarding collegiate level, rational discourse dictates when someone makes a claim, the claimant is responsible for 100 % of the burden of proof to support said claim. I fail to see how a “PHD candidate” does not understand oxford rules surrounding rational discourse. I would have expected that a “PHD Candidate” would understand such rules. My statement to you was put forward to provide your sloppy thinking with some structure. Based on your posts including this one it is obvious you need such assistance.
“Typical Neocon jingoism. Since I do not have the capacity to teleport through time and collect data, the Neocon position must be correct.”
Your statement is another example of the Straw man argument. I never said that the lack of proof surrounding your point of view in some way substantiates my position. Further the logic of your premise, centered on your not providing any data is indicative of what is referred to as “Argumentum ad ignorantiam” Latin for (argument to / from ignorance). You seem to think that the lack of proof supports your premise. If you tried that while defending you doctorial dissertation you would be laughed out of the room and dismissed from the program. A further interesting observation, with all the effort you have invested, responding to me, you have not once submitted a cogent argument or provided any evidence to substantiate your ill thought out ideas. Usually when people behave in such a manner it is more then likely due to the fact that they have not done the research regarding said topic. Again if you tried such silliness in a freshman logic course they would flunk you.
.
“This, in my opinion, is what constitutes “instability in the middle east.” (Notice how I placed punctuation INSIDE the quotation, as APA(/MLA) style suggests)
I am glad I was able to educate you regarding the proper term for the rules surrounding professional writing. The reason I took the time out to educate you regarding the accurate acronym surrounding said standards is you did not use said correct term in your so called “critique” to my post. More then likely a collegiate level teacher would not have made such a mistake especially when their criticism centers on using proper format. If you tried that in a professional setting they would be laugh you out of the department. If you got away with such sloppy work at the collegiate level that illustrates the poor quality of the department in general. That being said unlike someone who has no argument, I do not care if a post on craigslist does not measure up to APA / MLA standards. Rather my focus, as I have mentioned multiple times is centered on the level of thinking represented within the post itself. I mentioned this multiple times I suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension.
"An increasingly hostile Iraq, the creation of an Al Qaeda cell in Iraq since 2003, and the fact that our belligerent, “shoot first ask questions later asshole of a president” is goading us into another conflict with Iran."
You have not illustrated nor provided proof of how Iraq is increasing hostile nor provided any data that supports the idea that Al-Queada did not exist in Iraq prior to OIF. Further the caliber regarding your statement “shoot first ask questions later asshole of a president” is not indicative of a “PHD candidate”, a fact that again leads me to question the legitimacy of your claim at being one.
“Not to mention the fact that we align ourselves with Israel regardless of what’s in the best interests of this country."
This comment smacks of typical anti Israeli rhetoric, one that is based around the misguided notion that the close relation between the United States and Israel is in fact contradictory to United States goals and or interests. Again I ask what proof you have that substantiates such a premise?
” I love it when a Righty attempts to redefine my position so that they can rebut it.”
Straw man argument, I merely asked you to elaborate on your ill thought out premise, a request that you seem to view as threatening or out of the realms of normalcy. If you are going to quote me please take the time out to separate my quotes from your response as when you do not do so it undermines the point of quoting me in the first place. In any case thank you as your attempts in mimicking my format, as a wise man once said imitation is the hall mark of flattery.
"So you’re saying we invaded Iraq to prevent a terrorist attack from a terrorist organization that didn’t exist in Iraq until we invaded."
Again another straw man argument, my statement which illustrated the reductive trends regarding the stopping power of water or loss of strength gradient, trends mostly due to the advance of transportation technology, where put forward to illustrate the lack of accuracy surround your idea that Iraq was “neutered”. As I illustrated your idea is based upon the misconception that the contemporary security paradigm is solely defined by traditional interstate (read conventional military) security issues. Interesting a “PHD Candidate” failed to understand that.
Also, I don’t know what the FOX news channel says”
This is an unsubstantiated statement considering not once in my posting did I cite FOX news as a source.
“but I’m pretty sure there were no weapons of mass destruction.”
This will be fun. How in fact do you prove a negative? What supporting evidence do you based said premise on? Regardless, your premise that there where “no” weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is in fact incorrect. As illustrated in the national ground intelligence committees report in 2006 over 500 shells containing different types of chemical / biological agents where found in Iraq. While some of the agents where in a state of degradation and said evidence does in and of itself constitute large centralized stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, it does refute your statement that there existed “no” weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to operation Iraq freedom. If your research regarding your doctorial dissertation is as paltry as what you have submitted here you will have a hard time defending it. Further weapons of mass destruction do not constitute the sole reason for our interventionist foreign policy in Iraq as Iraq’s violated aspects of UN resolution 687. I suggest you familiarize your self with the conditions found within said resolution.
“That was a fear tactic deliberately utilized by the crooks and liars you idolize.”
Hyperbole does constitute proof which supports your premise.
“Furthermore, I like how you tug the 9/11 heartstring as if it had anything to do with Iraq. Go ahead, talk about how my previous statement was liberal jingoism couched in misinformation.”
I am surprised that a “PHD candidate” has not yet come to understand that misrepresenting someone’s argument does not constitute a logical or effective rebuttal. Your attempt to dismiss my using September 11th as a form of “appeal to emotion” is not in fact an accurate representation of context surrounding how I submitted said example. Rather my utilization of September 11th was put forward to illustrate to you my point regarding how the loss of strength gradient / stopping power of water do not effectively protect the United States from the additional trans / extra state security elements which comprise the over all security environment.
"You said: Obviously you missed the subtle sarcasm contained in my “Mission Accomplished” statement."
I never said that.
“You no doubt know that the heroes you worship have effectively ruined the U.S. with this war.”
You have yet to prove this premise. Restating your premise does not constitute proof.
We’re in more debt than the rest of the world COMBINED.
This statement is false. Since simple math doesn’t seem to be your strong suit let me help you out. For United States external debt to be greater then the rest of the world combined United States debt would have to constitute greater then 50 % of total global debt. As of 2004 the total global external debt equates to $ 54,310,000,000,000, conversely as of June 2007 the external debt held by the United States equals 12,250,000,000,000 (1). This means that United States external debt equates to 22.5 % of the total global external held debt. Since you don’t seem to understand basic math 22.5 % is less then 50 % hence your statement is false. If you are in fact referring to other forms of debt then you should illustrate what specific form of debt you are referring to such as internal, external, private, corporate debt ecetera as well as provide data which substantiates your premise. I should not have to say this to a supposed “PHD Candidate”. In fact based on your illustrated lack of understanding regarding economics or even simple math I sure hope the supposed “PHD program” you are a alleged “candidate” in is not in either of those fields.
That aside since you did not take the time out to elaborate upon your statement (what a surprise) I can only assume that you are insinuating the increase regarding United States debt is predominantly or solely due to United States interventionist foreign policy in Iraq. Such a notion illustrates you lack of basic understanding regarding economics. While our interventionist foreign policy in Iraq does translate into increased public consumption, said policy does not constitute the lion share of public consumption overall. Rather the increase in United States debt has more to do with the demographic shift caused by the aging of United States population coupled with social entitlement programs such as social security, and health care. Let us do a comparison regarding what the United States has spent upon the Global war on terrorism in total (to include Iraq and Afghanistan) and compare said costs to what was / is spent on social entitlement programs from fiscal years 2001/ 2 – 2009.
Congressional budget office records illustrate that from between fiscal year 2001 - 2007 the global war on terrorism (this included military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan) cost 601 billion dollars (2). The most current report from the Congressional Budget Office shows the total for the United States global war on terrorism 2001 – 2009 to be 875 billion(3). That's estimate includes everything from office of homeland security, air strikes in Iraq, purchasing body armor to upgrading and procurement of new equipment.
Conversely now let us take a comparative look at the amount of money represented within the United States federal budget by social entitlement programs from 2002 – 2009. Total mandatory outlays for Social Security 2002 – 2009: 4,614,338,000,000 dollars or 4.614 Trillion dollars. (4) Total mandatory outlays for Health and Human Services 2002 – 2009: 4,681,650,000,000 dollars or 4.681 Trillion Dollars. (5)
Taking just Social security and “health and human services” – read “health care” into account the United States between 2002 and 2009 spent a total of 9,295,998,000,000 dollars or 9.295 Trillion dollars. In light of said facts I find your attempt to insinuate the sole or primary reason behind the increase of United States debt being the United States interventionist policy in Iraq unsubstantiated.
Things don’t look too bright for the future if your party of choice remains in power…your candidate for President doesn’t know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite (http://youtube.com/watch?v=jkfM7z0-Vdg).
You did not in fact post a “youtube” as substantiating evidence regarding your premise did you? I find such a submittal hypocritical coming from someone who stated: “Also, if you're going to take the time to pretend you're an academic, do not cite Wikipedia, I fail students at the university level for that.”(6) I can only wonder what a “professor” would do if they saw a “student” citing a youtube video.
“Teddy Roosevelt was a good president, but I don’t think you can extrapolate an antiquated quote on immigration to out present situation”
What evidence have you submitted to substantiate your premise the Teddy Roosevelt statement on immigration does not in fact apply to contemporary issue? Further Teddy Roosevelt’s statement is only one of three sources I cited as substantiating evidence regarding contemporary problems surrounding a lack of cultural homogenization on the part of the immigrant / illegal or otherwise. Odd that such a factoid escaped your attention.
“ that is Neocon jingoism couched in absurdity.”
Barring the above statement is hyperbole; my response is “prove it.”
You stated that the Soviets were guilty of gross human rights violations, yet you scoff at the violations conducted by this administration.
You have yet to define what in your ill thought opinion (different then observation) constitutes human rights. I have yet to observe you illustrate how this administration has in fact violated human rights. That said your above statement is an example of the “flawed comparison” fallacy. One can hardly draw a similarity between the treatment of illegal combatants at Guantanamo Bay and the gulags of the Soviet Union. Differences include but are not limited to the fact that the average illegal combatant detained at Guantanamo bay has gained more then 50 pounds conversely millions of people died of starvation in Soviet gulags.
“Sure Guantanamo Bay is legal, in THIS country,”
As far as I know Guantanamo Bay is not in violation of international law. I posted International law (Fourth Geneva Convention) from the United Nations which applies to legal combatants and non combatants. I cited specifically where in said convention which defines what constitutes a legal combatant and non combatant. If you are insinuating that Guantanamo Bay is in fact illegal, cite the specific international law that has been broken, establish how in fact Guantanamo bay violates said law and provide raw data from a primary information source which substantiates such statements.
“but what is the rest of the world's stance on it?
You above statement is an example of the logical fallacy “argumentum ad populem” or appeal to the majority. Aside from that fact, from a geo political a geo political perspective it does not matter what other nations feel about United States national policy. If I thought you understood geo politics I would go into more detail.
“Furthermore, waterboarding is a DIRECT example of human rights violations, as well as ILLEGAL wiretapping and email databases, yet you conveniently left that out of your inclusive rebuttal.”
Please elaborate where / or what in your ill thought out opinion constitutes the definition of human rights, then illustrate how in fact said policies violate them. Please include cited sources that can be peer reviewed. Further if wiretapping is illegal, cite what law it specifically breaks. Again Larry, be sure to provide raw data from primary information sources which can be peer reviewed simply restating the premise does not constitute raw data or proof.
“Lastly, for someone who professes to know so much about social-psychology, you should also know that objectivity is impossible.”
No true Scotsman argument,specifically you seem to think that because every one possesses biases this translates into there not being any difference between a “value-judgment and “empirical knowledge”. While I already stated that totally eliminating ones biases is impossible there are tools that an individual can use to mitigate read minimize the impact of said biases. They teach you such tools in a basic logic class. Empiricism is one such tool. The application of such tools is one aspect that separates "value-judgments" and "empirical knowledge. Further your above statement is your attempt to insinuate that because all human beings possess biases (read at are privy at some level to subjectivity) that some how all conclusions hold equal merit. This is simply not true. You fact that you are having a hard time defending or even defining your partisan motivated, “value judgment” based opinions against a more empirically derived position illustrates this fact.
“There is no such thing as an objective empirical opinion this side of the hard sciences.”
I suggest you look Gottlob Frege in University of Buffalo’s library. That aside you have misused and erroneously equated diametrically opposed terms in your above statement. Such a mistake is often referred to a logical absurdity. Logical absurdity aside the above statement by definition insinuates that “objective empirical opinion” exists with in hard science. While there exists philosophical debate regarding all the specifics which define objectivism there are generally held views regarding it core elements. In general an objective fact is something that exists independent of human thought and feeling. Opinion is based on feeling and by definition subjective. The fact that you attempted to blend those opposed terms leads me to ask if you even know what they mean.
“Every decision you make and every opinion you form is clouded by subjectivity, despite your best attempts to remain objective.”
Again no true Scotts man argument.
Anyway, I’m tired. I look forward to reading your posts in two days after you’ve looked up your arguments online in order to sound intelligent.
Your premise is based on the assumption that it took me two days to research my response or that I needed online assistance to formulate my argument. Further I find it interesting that a “PHD candidate” seems to think that researching a response defines a individual as “unintelligent”.
“The only thing better than having your own opinion is regurgitating someone else’s!”
I will thank you to not project your personal faults onto me.
“Next time you send me a taunting email, use the spellchecker you silly socialist.”
Why should I when I have a “PHD candidate” willing to perform the function of a secretary for free? LMAO
"Maybe we can get together for some coffee"
I have no problem meeting an individual for coffee, I find left wingers very entertaining. Based on how entertaining you are here I can only imagine how funny you must be in person. That said seeing as your posts illustrate a unhealthy fixation upon me coupled with the bizarre solicitation in your email I feel it necessary to add the caveat, after I am done tearing your ill thought out notions to shreds I will thank you to not stalk me afterwards.
“and I can tell you about your misinformed and misguided opinion that privatized healthcare is good for poor people.”
Again aside from the fact that the above assumption is again a example of a straw man argument, I would love to rip apart your notions on “socialized” health care and how is supposedly free or even sustainable for that matter. I suggest you become acquainted with basic economic terms like “indirect costs” or geo political terms such as “overconsumption and decline” before you engage me in such a discussion.
In closing just when I thought your arguments could not possibly get any more sophomoric or vacuous you outdid your self. I would seriously suggest you seek help for your personal issues as well as take some logic course at say ECC and stop attempting to pass your self off as a “teacher”, “professor” or “PDH candidate”. The nature of your post and paltry manner of your argument illustrates such claims to be tenuous at best. On that note considering I have taken the time out to correct the multitudes of mistakes you made, mistake including but not limited too educating you regarding political science, geo politics, basic math skills, proper terminology surrounding collegiate level writing standards, or the general workings of academia I should charge you tuition for all the free education you have received. Say on the order of maybe one credit hour? I will even go so far as to match University of buffalos going rate for graduate level studies LMAO.
2. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8690/10-24-CostOfWar_Testimony.pdf page 1: :Funding Through Fiscal Year 2007 From September 2001 through the end of fiscal year 2007, the Congress appropriated $602 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities associated with the war on terrorism. In addition, although not explicitly appropriated for that purpose, an estimated $2 billion has been spent by VA for war-related benefits."
3. "With enactment of the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161 on December 26, 2007, Congress has approved a total of about $700 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)."On February 4, 2008, the Administration submitted a "placeholder" war request for FY2009 of $70 billion. Details of the new request are not expected until April 2008 when General David Petraeus is slated to make his recommendations about future troop levels. With the pending FY2008 and FY2009 requests, the total for enacted or requested war funding is about $875 billion."
"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf," he said. "I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them."
Again such a statement illustrates the fact that President Bush motive for quitting golf has nothing to do the policy regarding the “War in Iraq”, rather it out of respect to those who have sacrificed in support of said policy. Further I would contend digging up sensationalist yellow journalism from 2003 and submitting it as if it is breaking news does not constitute rational or honest discourse. Do your self a favor and stop engaging in advocacy research as it only leaves you open to playing the fool if or when others fact check your premises based on such spotty research.
You wrote:
“I can more then adequately express myself lol.”
If this were the case, proper grammar may have been utilized. You are obviously not more THAN capable of expressing yourself. Why don’t you take a minute to familiarize yourself with the not-so-subtle difference between then/than. Trust me, it’s worth it.
Furthermore, the email address you undoubtedly created to hide behind is:
“crushingsocialistoncraigslist@yahoo.com”
Yet you obviously MEANT to write:
“crushingsocialistsoncraigslist@yahoo.com”
A subtle difference, I know, but the address you created implies that you yourself are a socialist. Your neocon buddies would kick you out of their club and invent a new secret handshake if they find that out.
I asked you for a logical and linear response. You disappoint me. I also made the mistake in an earlier posting of saying that you’re intelligent. Having taken a moment to go through your previous postings, I realize that all of your diatribes contain the same contrite, contrived phrases, the same arguments, the same jeering insults at the faceless liberal enemy. May my previous comments be rescinded from the record. You're not intelligent. You're a parrot. Please accept my response to you, a nonlinear rant with no thesis whatsoever, just a series of rebuttals.
You said:
“What in your misconception constitutes “instability in the middle east”. Provide raw data from an unbiased primary information source which corroborates your statements so that can be peer reviewed.”
Typical Neocon jingoism. Since I do not have the capacity to teleport through time and collect data, the Neocon position must be correct. This, in my opinion, is what constitutes “instability in the middle east.” (Notice how I placed punctuation INSIDE the quotation, as APA(/MLA) style suggests) An increasingly hostile Iraq, the creation of an Al Qaeda cell in Iraq since 2003, and the fact that our belligerent, “shoot first ask questions later asshole of a president” is goading us into another conflict with Iran. Not to mention the fact that we align ourselves with Israel regardless of what’s in the best interests of this country. I love it when a Righty attempts to redefine my position so that they can rebut it.
You said:
“Further when one takes into account the advances of transportation technology along with the proliferation / micronization or weapons of mass destruction it becomes readily evident that many of the traditional aspects that protect the United States from state actors no longer apply. Issues such as geographical distance – read the loss of strength gradient or oceans - the stopping power of water, no longer constitutes the effective protection they once did. Due to the above technological trends there exist readily available methods to attack the United States. Methods that do not afford much warming, methods that do not require many resources, nor posses’ large geographic footprints which afford themselves to scrutiny via traditional intelligence gathering methodologies. September 11th conclusively and tragically illustrates this fact.”
So you’re saying we invaded Iraq to prevent a terrorist attack from a terrorist organization that didn’t exist in Iraq until we invaded. Classic. Also, I don’t know what the FOX news channel says, but I’m pretty sure there were no weapons of mass destruction. That was a fear tactic deliberately utilized by the crooks and liars you idolize. Furthermore, I like how you tug the 9/11 heartstring as if it had anything to do with Iraq. Go ahead, talk about how my previous statement was liberal jingoism couched in misinformation.
You said:
Obviously you missed the subtle sarcasm contained in my “Mission Accomplished” statement. You no doubt know that the heroes you worship have effectively ruined the U.S. with this war. We’re in more debt than the rest of the world COMBINED. Things don’t look too bright for the future if your party of choice remains in power…your candidate for President doesn’t know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite (http://youtube.com/watch?v=jkfM7z0-Vdg).
Teddy Roosevelt was a good president, but I don’t think you can extrapolate an antiquated quote on immigration to out present situation, that is Neocon jingoism couched in absurdity.
You stated that the Soviets were guilty of gross human rights violations, yet you scoff at the violations conducted by this administration. Sure Guantanamo Bay is legal, in THIS country, but what is the rest of the world's stance on it? Furthermore, waterboarding is a DIRECT example of human rights violations, as well as ILLEGAL wiretapping and email databases, yet you conveniently left that out of your inclusive rebuttal.
Lastly, for someone who professes to know so much about social-psychology, you should also know that objectivity is impossible. There is no such thing as an objective empirical opinion this side of the hard sciences. Every decision you make and every opinion you form is clouded by subjectivity, despite your best attempts to remain objective.
Anyway, I’m tired. I look forward to reading your posts in two days after you’ve looked up your arguments online in order to sound intelligent. The only thing better than having your own opinion is regurgitating someone else’s!
US President George W Bush has revealed that he quit playing golf in 2003 out of respect for the families of US soldiers killed in the conflict in Iraq, now in its sixth year.
"I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal," he said in an interview for Yahoo and Politico magazine.
"I don't want some mum whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them."
The US president traced his decision to the August 19, 2003 bombing of UN headquarters in Baghdad, which killed the world body's top official in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello.
"I remember when (Mr) de Mello, who was at the UN, got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life," Mr Bush said.
"And I was playing golf, I think I was in central Texas, and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it's just not worth it anymore to do."
Mr Bush's last round of golf as President dates back to October 13, 2003, according to records kept by CBS news.
On the day of the bombing two months earlier, he had cut short his golf game at the 12th hole and returned to his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
I guess a lack of any citation does? Also if you bothered to apply base level reading comprehension you would see that I did not cite one source I cited three. I guess I should have expected you to make such an embarrassing mistake seeing as you admittedly “did not pretend to read the entire post”.
“Immigration is NOT anti-American”
A rebuttal based on a straw man argument as well as debate as nausea. I never stated that all immigration or that immigration in general is anti American. That being said as I have previously stated the motives and goals of ideologies that have co opted said issues are definitely anti American. Again I will not rehash my previously stated argument if you care to read said argument if you care to see where I am coming from.
“this is a recent development founded by sensationalist media outlets (e.g. every company Rupert Murdoch touches) to propagate obedience”
And you said my arguments are ideologically based? Where your evidence that substantiates there exists the specific causal effect relationship you mentioned. Understand that correlation does not equate to causation and as dictated via oxford rules regarding rational discourse submittal of said logical fallacy will not be accepted as evidence.
“or perhaps it's a timely distraction to keep the disillusioned populace's minds off of Iraq, but I digress.”
That would be the logical fallacy of begging the question.
“It is also a SUBSTANTIAL (and unfounded) leap of faith to argue that immigration is anti-western.”
Again a re iteration of a straw man argument, I never stated that immigration in general is anti American. Rather the use of ones immigration status as a means to legitimize their position regarding national policy is. Wow you sure do like to make the same mistake over and over again. You what Einstein and Ben Franklin said about such behavior right “professor”.
“What is true, however, is that immigration is anti-neoconservative.”
Where is the evidence to support this brazen claim?
Which is absolutely not the same as anti-American, please remember that. Neoconservatism espouses conformity, assimilation, and cultural imperialism.”
Oh really, sounds to me like someone has been reading too much Nom Chomsky. You would do well not to quote failed linguists whose hypothesis is based around spotty research if any research at all.
“I find it funny that you reference with pride how neoconservatism developed in response to the cold war.”
Absolutely seeing as neo conservatism took a strong anti soviet stance. A soviet union which violated almost every treaty they signed. Examples include but are not limited too the Soviet violation regarding the 1963 outer space treaty by developing and deploying F.O.B.S. (fractional orbital bombardment system). A Soviet Union that did not adhere to international norms, who’s over all policy defined by Soviet revised Marxist military doctrine was one of world domination. A Soviet Union whose intrastate policies constitute some of the most horrendous human rights violations even documented. Examples again include but are not limited too the individuals murdered during Stalin’s purges or the 16 million people that died in Soviet Gulags. Based on the fact that neo conservatism strongly opposed such a regime I am absolutely proud to subscribe to that ideology.
“Your political identity is rooted in fear.”
More hyperbole and rhetoric akin to what is read on advocacy sites like project pink, move on and answer or conspiracy theory sites like info wars and or prison planet.
“Your political identity utilizes fear appeals to control obedient Americans.”
While I know some of the common argument that are used in attempt to legitimize that notion I have yet to see you submit any evidence to substantiate that claim. I will not mentioned said hypothesizes here as I will not do your work for you. Since you brought up the issue of coercion I again find it interesting the selectively regarding how you apply that so called rubric. Based on your sophomoric argument in this discussion I wonder if you levy the same criticism towards typical talking points from say Obama’s campaign uses appeal to emotion as form of coercion. Specifically the notion that if you are white male and do not vote for Obama you must in fact be a racist. Based on the partisan rant in your post I am guessing no.
“Your political identity takes advantage of the fear it has cultivated to create legislation congruent with gross human rights and privacy violations.”
Sigh cite specific definitions regarding said human rights (provide sources that substantiate that said definitions are in fact correct) you feel are violated. State what specific policies you feel are violating them. Prove there exists a causal effect relationship between the two and provide empirical evidence from primary information sources to substantiate said claim. You being a “professor” must know that oxford rules state that 100 % of the burden of proof lies on the claimant.
“I will not cite these claims, I'm sure we're all familiar with Guantanamo Bay, waterboarding, and the NSA's illegal database of phone and email correspondences. “
You say you will not cite these claims, then go on to make general citations yet fail to establish a causal effect relationship between the two. I can only imagine the low ranking of the “university” that employs you as a “professor”. GITMO is not a violation of any international laws / charters that I know of. Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorist; insurgents as such illegal combatants do not do not operate under the rules of warfare or fufill the requisites that define a combatant under the fourth Geneva convention – that would be the Geneva convention which specifically pertains to the treatment of prisoners of war. Let me help educate you on how the Fourth Geneva convention does in fact define legal irregular combatants (7)
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Notice if you would please item 2 subset a-d, terrorist , insurgents etcetera do not meet said requirement hence are not protected by the Geneva convention. I could go on to address some of the other nonsense you mentioned but there is a limit to the space available.
“I really want to address your claims in detail, but I refuse to do so until you contribute a linear and concise argument.”
You state you will not address my claims after already having attempted to do so. Tragically your attempts centered on logical fallacies and paltry arguments couched via hyperbole, jingoism and one liners.
“I chose one instance of your writing as an example of its absurdity.”
What a misrepresentation of the facts, you chose one “writing sample” in attempts to support your straw man argument. I illustrated as such.
“I am interested in how you justify neoconservatism as an ideal form of government. Please enlighten me, as you are clearly more versed in it than I am. “
You make contradictory declarative statements regarding neo conservative policies then go on to state that I am more versed in the issues that you are attempting to rebut? Interesting are you in the habit of disagreeing with people who you indentify as being more knowledgeable then you on a particular subject? I would suggest that such behavior illustrates you have personal issues perhaps a feeling of inferiority or a problem with authority stemming from some childhood trauma. If that is the case I suggest you seek professional help.
“This is what I got from your previous essay. You attack an individual for aligning herself with certain cultural, social, and political groups as "identity politics."
Yet another straw man argument not to mention projection and interpersonal mirroring. I attacked the author’s argument as she based said argument on identification of certain groups. Groups which where / are defined by identity politics hence the manner of how said author attempted to use them in support of criticism of a policy. Let us recap what she in fact said:
“However, as an immigrant, as a woman, as a UN fan, as an environmentalist, as a poor college student, as a mass media consumer, as a net-neutrality advocate, and as a strong believer in freedom of religion I can not morally stand up for Bush or McCain.” (8)
You seem to think it is ok for the author to base said criticism of this administration on the specific groups she identities with, yet do not think it is ok for someone to criticize that individual approach. A general rule of thumb is if the person submits something as substantiating evidence then if said person is rational and intellectually honest they accept that said evidence if fair game for peer reviews / criticism.
“However, regardless of how identity politics originated, why is it a bad thing that an individual's group memberships inform or influence political opinion?”
I find it interesting that you so readily discard the circumstances that lead to the formation of identity politics, yet in previous statements attempt to erroneously define how the circumstances surrounding the rise of neo conservatism substantiates your misconception of said ideology. . Such selective application shows your intellectual disingenuousness and or sloppy thinking.
In any case in response to your question of why it is a bad thing that an individual allows their membership of a group to influence their judgment; group think, some versions of the associative logical fallacy effecting decision making immediately some to mind. Not to mention that said demographics which identity politics are focused around / based upon are by definition activist groups which have an agenda hence they do not truly “inform”. I highly doubt you would forgo criticizing me if I was to say, submit that I support the policies I do because I am a hereto sexual white male. I could go on to make more structural criticisms framed in contemporary parlance regarding how economic / sociological decline are indicative of psychological shifts etcetera. That said based on the paltry manner of your discussion, the fact that you have expressed a lack of even basic reading comprehension or the fact that you dismiss cited sources as Wikipedia even when said cited sources do not mention Wikipedia I doubt you would understand such references.
“Race, religion, ethnicity, sex, and SES are all important aspects of creating and solidifying identity.”
I never said that they where not important of ones identity. My point was that they should not supplant nor supersede ones national identity nor color ones rational judgment especially when it comes to making decisions regarding national policy. Another example of your logical inconsistency is that you seem to think it is ok to base one position regarding national policy on whether or not they are defined by certain identity politics groups but do not afford the same courtesy towards national identity. I could again go on to reiterate how certain theoretical models such as long cycle theory as defined by Gilpin or Ciapolla for that mater illustrates how such trends undermine a system leader from within again I have a feeling that such explinations are wasted on you.
“If group membership, or identity politics, shouldn't influence political opinion, what should?”
I would submit that objectivism, rational choice theory and empiricism are far better methods to arrive at a conclusion then emotion, subjective opinion or identity politics.
“And how do you separate your identity from your opinion?“
Again Opinion is subjective, meaning based on feeling, as I have stated before rational decisions are best arrived at via objectivism centered on empiricism. Empiricism is one of the key tools a person can use to mitigate the effects that group identity can have regarding their conclusion on a issue. Such a theme is in fact consistent throughout most of my post on craigslist. If you want to understand those concepts I suggest you take a logic course, hell Wikipedia those terms up for all I care. Anything would be better then the idiotic drivel you have submitted.
If you choose to respond to this, please don't use the word jingoism. You use it so often, so flagrantly, and in such a self-aggrandizing manner that it has become jingo.
I found your statement regarding my supposed “self aggrandizing” especially entertaining especially after your attempt to “appeal to authority” in the beginning of your post. Here let me reiterate what you said:
“Also, if you're going to take the time to pretend you're an academic, do not cite Wikipedia, I fail students at the university level for that.”
How typical a lefty trying to define how I can or can not respond to them, does my pointing out left wing jingoism make you feel uncomfortable? Maybe you should rethink your position if said criticism does in fact make you feel uncomfortable. Poor “professor” I know it is hard when others who hold the same ill contrived notions you do are called on their bull ca ca as you take it personal. Its ok, I know, I know you are a “professor” at a university, one who uses logical fallacies and one liners, so this neo con better not disagree with you. Such a notion is beyond hilarious, and I actually sent a copy of your post as well as this response to some of my old colleagues rest assured they laughed their asses off. I cant say I blame them much.
In closing I can not but help and comment that in all my life in academia or otherwise I have never heard / read such a poor argument as the one you submitted. I do not have any faith in your claim that you are in fact a professor or teach at the college level. If you do I would love to view your CV (that stands for curriculum vitae “professor”) as well as would like to talk to your department chair regarding how they justify employing poor staff. I would suggest instead of pretending to be a “professor” in attempts to legitimize your or any one else’s ill thought out arguments you would be better served vesting that time in defining your argument itself.
I am sure you will post more jingoistic diatribe based on hyperbole and one liners, this is where you actually have me at a disadvantage. This medium affords an advantage to those like you who use one liners and jingoism to wage a verbal war of attrition or what is commonly referred to as a “flame war”. The fact your 2 page yammering directed at specifically at me, yammering that held nothing of any substance illustrates this fact. Unlike you I do not base my arguments on a partisan one liner or multitude of them strung together. Unlike you I actually invest some time in my submitting my statement. Unlike you or you left wing buddies I also provide raw data from primary information sources to substantiate my positions. That said I am sure that you will reiterate your pervious statements with more “vigor” in which case I will merely state so, cite where you have stated said nonsense before so other can see the bankruptcy of your argument and move on pointing out the flaws in your fellow ideologues arguments. Rest assured I will continue to point out logical fallacies and historical errors in your left wing buddies post on this forum ;)
In any case I had a ball tearing your post to shreds as it reminded me of my heady days when I used to rip apart PHDS at Georgetown. Feel free to email me via this post if you want to get together “professor” and we can discuss in detail issues surrounding national policy or your misconception thereof. Based on how entertaining you have been here I can only imagine how entertaining you must be in person. On that observation alone I am more then willing to meet publically to discuss said issues.
“In the future, please try to condense your arguments. If you want your audience to understand your posts, use economy of speech”
Interesting that instead of focusing upon the subsitive matter of what I stated you instead chose to tell me how to speak. I was not aware that my posts had to perform up to APA, MLA standards. Since you failed to mention said standards by name I have to question if you even know what the standards that those acronyms stand for. I also have to wonder as to motive regarding the selective application of rubric you have eluded too. It is interesting that of all the post on craigslist you happened to come across mine. I wonder as to why you did not take the time out to perform a similar critique of the person whose post I responded. I find this disparity odd considering the person who post I responded to doesn’t cite any sources, provides no raw data, misapplied / erroneously defined terms and in general whose post when compared to mine doesn’t hold a candle. Such selective application leads me to support one of the following conclusions. You are either the same individual posting under a different address, something very typical for this medium. You are a buddy of the individual who post I responded to. You are someone who shares the same motivational bias said poster illustrated. Finally said poor student finding her position hard to defend herself whined to a professor (one who obviously shares similar viewpoints) to defend her position for her.
Regardless of your identity, none of the above outlined scenarios speaks well for you as a supposed student, professor or person in general. Further the over all paltry nature regarding your arguement (if one could call it that) illustrates sloppy thinking. Your behavior classically illustrates specific elements found within what is commonly referred to as group think. Specifically the selective application of your “critique” is indicative of the “sergeant at arms” function that partially comprises group think. The “sergeant at arms function” is preformed by an individual whose shares a similar threatened motivational bias. When said bias is threatened, even if said threat is not levied at the individual personally, said individual views such a threat as an attack on the very bias they hold and attempts to minimize the threat. It is readily evident that you share bias similar to the supposed “student” whose posts I initially responded. Because my rebuttal challenged the student’s position one that you obviously hold as well you viewed said rebuttal and a threat to your own ill thought out beliefs and responded in the typical sergeant at arms fashion. Such behavior illustrates that you would do well to seek help for what ever internal psychological stressor said adopted motivational bias are held to address. The reason being that said bias is affecting your behavior and or judgment.
“Furthermore, footnotes and references are completely separate entities, use them as such.”
Again your rebuttal centers around my not adhering to APA, MLA standards in a public post on craigslist? Wow you must be really hard pressed to defend your position to resort to such drivel.
“Also, if you're going to take the time to pretend you're an academic, do not cite Wikipedia, I fail students at the university level for that.”
I almost peed myself laughing when I read this statement, especially considering the correct term for someone who operates professionally within academia is “academician” and not “academic”. That aside your statement is an example of the logical fallacy “appeal to authority” specifically that you being a supposed “professor” some how lends credence to your weak position. In fact the general nature of your post including your lack of using proper terms in reference to guidelines surrounding citation ,poor professional writing skills, use of logical fallacies and over all sloppy thinking does very little to substantiate your claim of being a “expert” on such matters. I have found that those who rely on such fallacies are usually the furthest from what pretend to be. No problem let me take you to task “professor”. What university do you teach at? What subject do you teach? Since I would never ask any one to give out personal information on a public forum like this feel free to email that to me as I am very interested to know what University is burdened with such a substandard faculty. Maybe I should talk to your department chair as I would be very interested to see what they would think about the whole matter.
That aside I find your generalized statement regarding my supposed citation of Wikipedia odd since in my previous posts I did not cite Wikipedia once. While I can not for the life of me imagine what “citation” you are referring to and since you did not take the time out (what a surprise) to state specifically what citation you are calling into question I will respond in a more general manner that could apply to any of the cited sources I submitted in my previous posts.
Wikipedia is an online open source encyclopedia which follows copy left format. As such there are many different contributions to said source. As one might guess within each “Wikipedia” entry there common sources that are generally cited which pertain to that particular issue or topic. I could for example talk about offensive realism and cite Mearsheimer “Tragedy of Great Power Politics”. If you in fact look up “offensive realism” on Wikipedia you will see Mearsheimer “Tragedy of Great Power Politics” cited at the bottom. This said citing a common source that is found within a Wikipedia is not the same as citing Wikipedia itself. Such a notion is indicative of the associative logical fallacy. The fact that a Wikipedia cites a common source does not undermine the legitimacy of said source nor prove that said source was gained or based upon a Wikipedia. Again that notion would be representative of the logical fallacy “correlation equates to causation”.
I would have expected a “professor” and a so called “academician” to know such things. In fact such realities lead me to a question if you in fact have any formal academic training at all. So much so I would be more then willing to compare CV’s to see which one comes up lacking regarding the issue of geo politics, political science etcetera. To paraphrase your statement please make up your mind if you are going to pretend that you are an academician – read a professor - as there are those you will call you on it.
“You're smart. You want everyone to know it. Congratulations.”
Straw man argument based around assumption, I will thank you to not project your misconceptions surrounding my motives regarding my post on craigslist. I fail to see how you feel such a misconception defends your position or rebuts what I have stated. How poor of a professor you must truly be. Rest assured there is no need for you to congratulate me on being smart, previous psychometric testing and academic accreditation substantiate such notions.
“However verbal aptitude is only one aspect of intelligence, as you have so wonderfully demonstrated.”
The term you are grasping for is called general of “crystallized intelligence” and is represented by the acronym “G”. If you in fact took some psych courses or were a psychologist you would have known that too. Again it is odd that you didn’t know nor use proper terminology yet you think yourself an authority on defining intelligence. That said feel free Google some more as such sophomoric attempts entertain me tremendously.
“You arguments are trite, poorly defended, and based on a political philosophy that is laughably and fundamentally flawed.”
The above is what is commonly referred to as hyperbole. Hyperbole roughly defined is charged language used to afford emphasis. While hyperbole is often used in poetry to add emphasis it is not the basis for rational discussion. The charged language aside your statement come off as vacuous, especially considering that that you have yet to put forward any real rebuttal to my so called “trite” arguments. Further the fact that you again failed to levy a similar rubric to the post in which my response is made smacks of disingenuousness.
That said let us recap your / their argument so far. Your / their posts are full of logical fallacies many of which I have taken the time out to illustrate. Logical fallacies which include but are not limited to ad homonym attacks, appeal to belief, appeal to emotion, begging the question and debate ad nausea. You / they have yet to provide any raw data for any one to peer review. You have not cited any sources academic or other wise to substantiate your statements. You / they have erroneously defined and misapplied terms (such as iterated prisoner dilemma). Finally as far as I can tell you / they have yet to put forward nothing of any substance what so ever.
Conversely I on the other hand have made cogent arguments based around my academic training in political science, geo politics, international relations, security studies and strategic intelligence. I unlike you / they have provided raw data that can be peer reviewed. I have cited numerous academic sources. Finally I have had to correct your / their mistakes. I would contend based upon the above comparison the relative paltry arguments you and or they have consistently put forward, it is in fact your / their arguments that are trite, poorly defended and based on nothing but left wing jingoism and political ideology (read this is different then philosophy). So it seems quite odd that you would attempt to apply the very attributes which define your / their argument to one that you seem hard pressed to rebut. In fact your very attempt to do so smacks of what psychologist would refer to as projection. I would also contend that if you were to perform in such a poor manner in a professional setting (such as academia) you would be laughed out of the room. Now I will move on the jingoistic one liners you couched in a paltry attempt to draw me into a verbal war of attrition.
“Neoconservative politics are the sole reason for the current instability in the Middle East.”
This will be fun. Without regurgitating left wing jingoism, talking points obtained from advocacy sources such as the DNC, Move-On, ANSWER, project pink, common dreams the Brookings institute, left wing senators such as Biden etcetera explain in detail:
What in your misconception constitutes “instability in the middle east”. Provide raw data from an unbiased primary information source which corroborates your statements so that can be peer reviewed.
Elaborate where in your misconception the cause effect relationship exists between this administration’s foreign policy and the instability you defined. Again provide raw data from an unbiased primary information source which corroborates your statements so that can be peer reviewed.
“Bush's “preventive” war has all but assured future conflicts with Iran and North Korea.”
The above statement is based on your misconception that such global trends are directly due to this administrations foreign policy and did not exist prior to said policy being implemented or this administration being elected. Such notions are not substantiated by historical evidence and are in fact representative of the non sequitur logical fallacy. Your misconceptions are not supported when one looks at the empirical evidence derived from historical events. Rather such global trends are defined by the consistent hostile / dishonest behavior on the part of the rogue regimes you mentioned. Opposite to the uninformed apologetic drivel you have couched I point to the fact that said hostile behavior of the rogue regimes you mentioned has existed and been consistently expressed prior to current United States interventionist foreign policy or the election of this administration. Let us take time out to briefly touch upon some of the more poignant aspects of the consistent behavior regarding each of the rogue regimes you mentioned.
Iran
With regard to Iran, said rogue state actor has consistently supported terrorist groups hostile to the United States and its interests at home and abroad. Such terrorist groups include but are not limited too Hezbollah (which Iran helped found in the 1982), Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (1). I want to take the time to again point out that Hezbollah was founded 18 years before this administration was elected and 21 years before United States interventionist foreign policy in Iraq.
Iran has flagrantly violated Article II and Article III of the Non proliferation treaty it signed. (2) Findings by the IAEA concluded that Iran between 1988 and 2003 was in violation of different aspects regarding the non proliferation treaty they signed (3). These findings are also supported by the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iran (4). Notice the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate states that Iran has merely “halted” its nuclear weapons endeavors and not that Iran has “dismantled” said program, a trend that Iran has now since publically reversed via resuming its uranium enrichment. In either case regarding the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation, what is without question is that Iran’s behavior has been consistently dishonest and hostile before this administration was elected.
Dishonest and hostile behavior on the behalf of Iran has occurred regardless of diplomatic (what is referred to in geo political / international relations lexicon as political engagement) approaches by the United States towards Iran. This includes the ill thought out diplomatic approach implemented in 1995 by the Secretary of State Madam Albright under the Clinton administration. During Madam Al Bright visit the United States acquiesced to all 5 of Iran’s terms under the sole condition that Iran not further its pursuits regarding the development of nuclear weapons. What a surprise as forecasted by theoretical models and right along with what many neo conservatives stated at the time. Iraq cheated and failed to abide by the agreements they signed.
Such consistent dishonest / hostile behavior on the behalf of Iran conclusively illustrate what theoretical models such as game theory’s “prisoner dilemma”, or general historical precedent already show regarding the impotence of political engagement towards dishonest and hostile state actor. Impotence defined by the fact that political engagement approaches towards dishonest / hostile state actors do not effect behavioral change. Contrary to your apologetic drivel the historical evidence does not in fact support your ill thought out statement that it was current United States foreign policy that has put Iran and the United States on a approach towards military confrontation. Rather such trends have been set by the defecting behavior of Iran, Iran’s lack of willingness to hold to the agreements they sign, the structural cyclic nature of the world system defined by the law of unequal growth and law of demand, prospect theory and human nature itself. I will not go into detail defining all those terms, as space is limited on this forum, you are a supposed “academician” and a “professor” I am sure you can look them up at your universities library LMAO.
North Korea (5)
While North Korea is not known to directly support any Islamic terrorist group they are involved in several other terrorist related activities. The last direct terrorist incident attributable to North Korea was their connections to the bombing of a Korean Airlines flight in 1987. More contemporary examples which illustrate North Korean disdain for adhering to international norms / law would be North Korea’s kidnapping of several Japanese citizens. While these kidnappings do not in and of themselves do not constitute a direct threat to the United States they do illustrate the rogue nature of the regime which controls North Korea.
That said North Koreas illegal investment in ballistic missile and nuclear weapons technology from 1994 to today constitute another matter entirely. North Korea has consistently reneged on the agreement they signed during the 1994 sunshine plan (6). Examples of said violations include but are not limited to North Korea publically admitted to conducting illegal nuclear weapons research / testing from 1994 till today, to the launching of a No Dong-1 Ballistic missile over Japan in 1998 along with subsequent attempts to black mail the United States for billion of dollars in accepted satellite launch cost and foreign aid. Again the fact these events / activities occurred before this administration was elected rebut your ill thought out statement that the global trend towards war with these rogue regimes is in fact due to the current administration policy of military intervention.
Such hostile / dishonest behavior has continued to this very day. I readily point to North Koreas sale of ballistic missile technology to other rogue regimes which are state sponsors of terrorism. Such rogue regimes include but are not limited Iran and Syria. I could go on to reiterate specific theories, citing academic sources which corroborate the efficiency / legitimacy of preventative warfare such as Gilpin “War and Change in World Politics”. Considering that you have stated multiple times that you will not read my post couple with the fact that you think any cited source is in fact Wikipedia as well as the paltry nature of your argument in general I am guessing that such discussion are in fact above you.
“Additionally, the war in Iraq has engendered so much anti-American sentiment that an effectively neutered nation (Iraq, pre-2003) has become a dangerous breeding ground for al-qaeda (Iraq, currently).”
Your above statement is again nothing other then regurgitation of typical left wing talking points. Talking points you failed to support via providing empirical evidence from primary information sources and raw data which I can peer review. That said the ill thought out notions on which your above comment is based stems from one or combination of a lack of education regarding security studies / geo politics, misconceptions regarding the nature that defines the current proximate security concern / the security environment in general, or the intrastate realities that existed within Iraq prior to operation Iraqi freedom. The three misconception which stand out the most are as follows:
a. Additionally, the war in Iraq has engendered so much anti-American sentiment”
By definition you are stating that there did not exist any anti American sentiment prior to this administration or our interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East? I suggest you take a look the time table surrounding the founding regarding Islamic terrorist group centered in the middle eat, the mission statements of said terrorist groups, statement by the rogue regimes that have existed in the region well before this administration was elected. Taking into account that political engagement approaches by the United States have failed to change said sentiment supports the United States adopt a more firm stance towards said regimes.
b. “an effectively neutered nation (Iraq, pre-2003)”
Again in your jingoism you failed to define what in fact constitutes neutered. This said I can only assume the above statement is in reference to the misconception that traditional interstate security issues solely define the over all security paradigm. This erroneous idea stems from your lack of education regarding security studies. Your argument is based on the outdated idea that conventional military force projection represents the only threat to the United States. Such a notion does not in fact accurately represent the current global security environment. While traditional interstate security concerns still exist and need to be addressed, there has evolved additional intra / trans state security elements in recent times. Not only does the addition of these novel security concerns require their own approach, there also exists a merging / overlap between traditional and contemporary security issues as well.
Further when one takes into account the advances of transportation technology along with the proliferation / micronization or weapons of mass destruction it becomes readily evident that many of the traditional aspects that protect the United States from state actors no longer apply. Issues such as geographical distance – read the loss of strength gradient or oceans - the stopping power of water, no longer constitutes the effective protection they once did. Due to the above technological trends there exist readily available methods to attack the United States. Methods that do not afford much warming, methods that do not require many resources, nor posses’ large geographic footprints which afford themselves to scrutiny via traditional intelligence gathering methodologies. September 11th conclusively and tragically illustrates this fact.
With the above in mind one can not solely take a capabilities approach towards identifying threats to the United States, one has to take into account / rely more upon intent based analysis. To paraphrase what this administration stated we can no longer afford to wait till threat present themselves for us to act upon them. Rather in such an environment preventative approaches above and beyond the theoretical legitimacy they already possess constitute a relatively more efficient method to address current threats facing the United States.
c. “has become a dangerous breeding ground for al-qaeda (Iraq, currently).”
It would take an additional 20 page paper to illustrate all the faults in the above partisan statement, considering this response is already close to 16 pages you are quite simply not worth that much effort.
“Way to go Bush, Mission Accomplished.”
More jingoism yet again, gosh “professor” you sure do seem to have a hard time supporting and or elaborating upon your point of view.
“I won't pretend I read your entire post”
This was an entertaining statement on your part. Specifically due to the fact that by said statement your rebuttal based on not reading my entire post is by definition based on not understanding my position. I can only wonder if you teach your supposed “student” to act in such a silly manner. I also find it odd / hilarious that you would make this statement then ask me to answer a question immediately after it. I can only wonder if you being the supposed “professor” you claim to be, treat students in your class who disagree with your view point in a similar manner, how unlucky any “student” who has you as a “professor” must be.
That aside the above dismissive statement is yet another classic example of behavior indicative of motivational bias and group think. You see “professor” when an individual possess a motivational bias, it means that they see what they want to see. Examples of such behavior include but are not limited to when you attempted to offset the criticism based on the academic sources I cited via stating that said sources where derived from a Wikipedia. Such statement constitutes an attempt at marginalization of a position that is critical to your biases and does not accurately represent the facts. Regarding motivational biases, anything that doesn’t jive with said pre ordained conclusion is summarily discarded. You above statement of “not pretending to read the entire post” is an example of this.
“so maybe the answer to my next question is there, but are you a Bush supporter?”
Whether or not I support this administration has nothing to do with the arguments I have couched on this forum. Funny how such partisan issues and not the subsitive matter of my argument constitute one of your major concerns.
“Your self-identification as a neocon suggests you are.”
Again how does this have any bearing regarding the legitimacy of my arguments? Also your statement is based on the misconception that Bush is a Neo Conservative because he has neo conservatives in his cabinet. While this administration has appointed some neo conservatives to cabinet positions, this does not by definition mean that President Bush is a neo conservative. Such a notion is again indicative of the associative logical fallacy. While one could make the argument that said individuals have impact on the policies that this administration implements this is not the argument you submitted. Try thinking out your statement next time. A interesting factoid regarding that issue, it is obvious to even the layman regarding political science that the trend since late of 2003 surrounding policy this administration has implemented is one that has moved away from neo conservative ideas (offensive maximal realism, hegemonic stability theory) held by those like Wolfowitz and Cheney and more towards centrist policies held by the likes of Dr. Rice.
“Regardless, as a neocon, how do you defend these foreign policy decisions?”
I have illustrated in previous posts why I support the majority of the policies this administration has implemented. I find it interesting that you want me to reiterate said reasons. Either you are a very poor researcher / reader or you are engaged in debate ad nausea in either case my response is the same if you want to understand why I suggest you look at my previous post.
You said: “However, as an immigrant” This comment smacks of the anti American, anti western third wordlist element found within identity politics (5)
Yes I said that. Your attempts to take my statement out of context not withstanding, the point I illustrated, is that if a individual states their being a immigrant has any bearing regarding their position on national policy such a statement supports that said individual by definition posses some form of dual allegiances. Historical examples include but are not limited too German demographic within the United States during the time period just prior to United States intervention in the First World War.
“The footnote for this is confusing... or is it a reference?”
Barring the fact that the non APA or MLA format I used has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the academic sources I cited, my footnotes / cited sources are very clear. I cite specific academic works that illustrate my point regarding the criticisms I mentioned surrounding the idea that someone would state the fact they are an “immigrant” has any bearing regarding their positions surrounding national policy. If the fact that you are an immigrant has any bearing regarding your position regarding United States national policy then by definition you have dual allegiances. Without re hashing my entire argument I would contend that such realities are in fact strongly criticized by the academic sources I cited.
“Are you implying that Samuel Huntington believes that immigrants are anti-American and anti-western?”
I love it when a lefty attempts to redefine my position so that they can then rebut it. If you read my post or even read the works I cited you would see that I nor the authors I mentioned never argued that immigrants in general are anti American. Rather my and the authors criticism center around, among other things, the problems caused by lack of cultural homogenization. The arguments that Samuel p Huntington, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. or Teddy Roosevelt for that matter couches, arguments that I happen to subscribe to is based on the fact that societies need a base level of commonality for them to function, otherwise you end up with a fractured society. In fact I go so far as to post Teddy Roosevelt’s comments regarding immigration to illustrate this point, odd that that fact escaped our attention “professor”. I could go on and cite other trends mentioned in Samuel P Huntington’s book Clash of Civilizations, his book or the subsequent report put out by our intelligence community “Global Trends 2015”. That said seeing as you have illustrated a lack of basic reading comprehension I doubt such advanced concepts are within your capability to understand.
"Jeff, please stop hitting on my girlfriend, she doesn't want to meet you at Panera on Transit and Maple for a cup of coffee."
Oh my god how crazy can a left winger be. Ok "Che" since you wanted to bring up a private email I sent to the author of the post I initially replied to let me take the liberty to post exactly what was said in my email:
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 07:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: xxxxxxxxx@yahoo.com
Subject: LMAO
To: comm-656847820@craigslist.org
I wanted to this time out to thank you as I found your sophomoric comments even your misapplication of terms very entertaining. Rest assured as before I had an absolute ball deconstructing them. Thank you again for bringing laughter to my Sunday morning. On a more serious note I would suggest you rethink your supports of the very jingoism you couched on craigslist, for if you try that in a professional forum you would be laughed out of the room. Seeing as I do not defacto delight in seeing fellow Americans make a fool of themselves or having their youthful exuberance co opted to support a failed ideology (read socialism) I will extend to you this courteously, if you want to have a more personal discussion one where you might actually learn a thing or two feel free to respond to this email. If you want we can go to say Paneras on Transit have some coffee and discuss many of the misconceptions you hold.
Jeff
“ U.S. Hegemony Without End …. Amen”
I have not a clue as to how you could possibly think the above comment equates to "hitting on your girlfriend". Wow you left wingers are so crazy it boggles the mind. Barring the fact that I am married to a beautiful and exotic woman whose IQ and academic accreditation puts your poor college student girlfriend to shame, I would never be able to stomach dating a radical second generation pop marxist feminist as a significant other. My motive was / and is as it is clearly defined in my email, to deprogram a misguided young American who has been brainwashed into subscribing to hijack American cultural norms.
Further if your gal pal does not want a private response then she should select that option via her craiglist account when she posts her nonsence. In closing please refrain from posting such trollish drivel in attempt to defend your misguided gal pal and stick to the topic as defined by the nature of the forum.
“Oh Honey, hope you had fun writing a 10-page harangue. Too bad I have too much of a life to bother reading it.”
Ah appeal to ridicule and Ad Hom the calling card of the defeated lefty. You see your comment above illustrates that you feel the position you misguidedly choose to support is threatened. Further based on the jingoism that you have used to support said ill thought out position you more then likely have not done any real research regarding those issues. This observation leads me to conclude that the bankrupt positions you have chosen to support are resultant of a motivation bias – read a bias that is held because said bias address some internal psychological stressor. Motivational biases like all biases affect ones judgment, in the case of motivated biases you see what you want to see. When reality does not jive with your pre ordained conclusion the individual that possesses said motivational biases attempt to marginalize said threat. Much like in your response this defense is not supported by performing any real analysis of the rebuttal you find so threatening, rather in a classical example of motivational bias you attempted to marginalize said rebuttal via lashing out at the messenger.
In your case this lashing out presented itself in the above comment via insinuating that because I took the time out responding in detail to your jingoism, criticisms that you seem to have a hard time defending against this some how constitutes that I do not have a life. Also I find it odd that you state you do not have the time out to read such a rebuttal then in the next sentence make a sophomoric response to a quote from the middle of my posting. By definition you had to have read that far. This shows to me that you feel your motivational biases so threatened that they cause you to blatantly misrepresent the facts in your attempts to marginalize the source of said rebuttal. I suggest you seek help for that problem.
“I did notice, though, your attempt at using conflict theory as an analysis for countries' predicted behavior.”
If you actually understood political science, geo politics or international relations you would have not made the above mistake of confusing conflict theory with game theory. I suggest you re read my response to your initial bit of jingoism, in doing so you will see that I specifically mentioned “Game theory”. That you could confuse game theory with conflict theory makes me have some very deep suspicions regarding your education surrounding political science, geo politics or international relations. Being the helping neo conservative I am I will help illustrate some of the difference between game theory and conflict theory so you don’t make a fool of your self again.
Game theory is a form of applied mathematics used in social sciences and was originally coined by Oskar Morgenstern and John Neumann in their book “Theory of Games and Economic Behavior”. To put it simply Game theory attempts to mathematically express behavior in strategic situations, in which an actor’s success in making choices depends on the choices of others.
Conflict theory on the other hand was coined by Karl Marx in attempts to, in part put a theoretical framework around his misperception surrounding class warfare. This is why “stratification” is interregnal to Conflict theory. In his attempt to justify “class conflict” Karl Marx attempted to define typical means which the “ruling elite” uses to maintain the status quo which was supposedly in the ruling elites favor. Conflict theory argues that societies’ (specifically capitalist societies) laws, traditions / cultural mores and or major institutions to include churches are created to support those who have traditionally been in power. This is one of the underpinnings of Marx military doctrine which viewed “political warfare” and “subversion” as an interregnal part of as his successors put it “rotting the armies of capitalism”.
In short while game theory and conflict theory in some ways focus on what at the surface may seem to be similar issues (decisions making and conflict / competition) they are not in fact exactly the same, odd that you failed to notice / grasp that. I also find it odd when lefties who subscribe to Marxist ideology (an ideology which by definition puts primacy on the base of human nature – read Hobbsian) in the same breath advocate methods that do not operate within that very realization. This leads me to conclude that either:
1. Those who are spewing such nonsense have no clue about what they are talking about.
And or
2. Are dishonest and put forward mechanics they do not think will work with the hopes of undermining the United States.
Further it does not surprise me that you use a term (conflict theory) coined by Karl Marx as it seems that is the general slant of where your ideology comes from. Since you like him so much maybe you can tell me how you would address the criticism that Neo Marxists (or Marx himself for that matter) levy against the sustainability of a socialist economic system specifically the issue regarding the “crisis of advanced industrialism”. Ever read Karl Marx’s Magnum Opus “Das Capital”? Based on your confusing conflict theory coined by Karl Marx and “Game Theory” I am guessing no.
“Ever read about the iterated prisoner's dilemma, the one more likely to occur in UN discussions?”
Oh Dear oh dear, again if you actually understood geo politics or international relations you would see that the very example of prisoner dilemma that I included in my response to you was in fact the classic case of “iterated prisoner's dilemma”. You see “iterated prisoner dilemma” is an example that is most commonly used due to the fact it is relatively simple for people to understand (a fact that doesn’t speak highly of your understand regarding this issue seeing as you failed to grasp said concept). In any case due to the fact that you again chose to be overly (purposefully?) obtuse in your response I can only assume in your paltry attempt to submit a rebuttal you where mistakenly referring to what is called “continuous iterated prisoner's dilemma”, an adaptation of the previous theoretical model “iterated prisoner dilemma”. The difference between continuous iterated prisoner dilemma and the more streamlined form it is adapted from is that continuous iterated prisoner dilemma argues that there exists many variable levels of both co-operation and defection (1)
If you had actually bothered to read up on continuous iterated prisoner's dilemma you would have noticed that such version of prisoner dilemma further supports my criticism of collaborative approaches towards providing the public good of system stability or security. Again if you actually understood continuous iterated prisoner’s dilemma you would know that it concludes true / honest corporation is much harder to evolve than in even discrete iterated prisoner's dilemma. In your rush to rebut you actually submitted a theory that substantiates my statements and not your rebuttal
After reading your paltry, sophomoric and if you have any intellectually honesty embarrassing display regarding your lack of understanding of even the basic definition of the terms you so readily misapplied I am not confident that you even grasp one iota of the subsitive matter regarding the issues you claim to care so much about. Considering that you failed to identify the classic example of “iterated prisoner dilemma” in my posting as well as confused “iterated prisoner dilemma” with “continuous iterated prisoner dilemma “it doesn’t surprise me that you did not / could not illustrate specifically where in your misguided notion the cause and effect relationship exists between the decision making in the United Nations and your misquoted theory. This is why you used overly obtuse jingoism and fail to elaborate upon how in your misperception continuous integral prisoner dilemma rebuts my criticism of collaborative approaches towards obtaining a common goal. More then likely this is why you could not elaborate in detail how said theory applies to the decision making in the United Nations in general.
“Theory and research find that defecting in such a case actually hurts more than it helps... (for instance - the US defecting and going to war in Iraq)”
Seeing as you misapplied as well as erroneously defined continuous iterated prisoner dilemma it doesn’t shock me that you also failed to cite said supposed research for me to peer review. I am of the mind that this is due to the fact that more then likely you have not read said “research” and that your paltry definition of said research is defined by goggling up left wing advocacy websites.
“It's been fun, but this is as much time and effort that I'm willing to waste. Have a nice life. And remember: "Piss off a liberal, buy gas for your SUV with your tax refund."
The last bastion of the defeated lefty feign disinterest based on unsustainable opportunity cost and disengage, one that is full of straw man arguments to boot. Thank you I will take that as a win. In closing I would suggest that as you protest in your Che Guvera shirt regurgitating left wing jingoism that you pray you never bump into me or have this discussion in a public forum as after observing your poor performance here and to paraphrase “Col. Mandrake” statement to Major “Bat Guano” from Dr. Strangelove, you would be lucky to be allowed to buy a Karl Marx for dummies book.
You're smart. You want everyone to know it. Congratulations. However verbal aptitude is only one aspect of intelligence, as you have so wonderfully demonstrated. Your arguments are trite, poorly defended, and based on a political philosophy that is laughably and fundamentally flawed.
Neoconservative politics are the sole reason for the current instability in the Middle East. Bush's “preventive” war has all but assured future conflicts with Iran and North Korea. Additionally, the war in Iraq has engendered so much anti-American sentiment that an effectively neutered nation (Iraq, pre-2003) has become a dangerous breeding ground for al-qaeda (Iraq, currently). Way to go Bush, Mission Accomplished. I won't pretend I read your entire post, so maybe the answer to my next question is there, but are you a Bush supporter? Your self-identification as a neocon suggests you are. Regardless, as a neocon, how do you defend these foreign policy decisions?
You said:
“However, as an immigrant”
This comment smacks of the anti American, anti western third wordlist element found within identity politics (5)