Here’s your reply Shemthepost (SP), but, as I doubt you’ll ‘get it’. Therefore this post is not really for your benefit, but for the benefit of those who may be uncertain who is (succinctly) ‘right’…..

(BTW I'll presume you are male, jsut for the sake of effeciency in replying, but I really don't care what you are....)
-------------------------------------

>>>You state that Dr Lukin appears to be telling us that Bush "used language carefully designed to signal his unwavering resolve to take out Saddam." A rather novel interpretation of the article - I suggest a re-read.

response

That’s “President Bush”, SP….

OK, I did re-read, because I’m fairminded. What I found is that Dr. Lukin said:

“This statement expresses a degree of uncertainty we didn’t hear from Bush, Blair or Howard on this topic before the war,”

She is clearly implying that the people mentioned were ‘certain’ before the war—as in the period leading up the the commencement of the war.

‘Certain’ is typically a word used to describe those who have ‘resolve’ or are ‘determined’ in their viewpoint.

BTW, Her statement simultaneously intends to let us know that President Bush is ‘not so certain” now.

Give her due, the gal is good with words. To really understand, one has to read between the lies—er, uh....lines. And to really, really understand, then one has to qualified in such areas as hypnosis, the unconscious mind, subliminal messages and…yes….the techniques of subliminal seduction.

Which qualifications I actully do have, SP. What about you?

But no matter your knowledge, you can bet your booty President Bush still is as resolute as ever he was.

In fact, your life and freedom really do depend on him being so.

Or did you not note the comment by Boaz_David about that Roman leader whose troops were slaughtered after the idiot decided to be wishy-washy about his beliefs. Which is exactly what a certain Anglican priest in Australia did. Read and weep at http://www.oz-aware.com/response1.htm

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

>>>Two lions battling for pride supremacy..." If you are seriously equating a few tufts of flying fur to the loss of human life (soldiers/innocents)and the suffering caused by war I suggest an adjustment of your moral compass and the purchase of a good dictionary as quickly as possible.

Response……………..

“War” represents conflict between two opposing organisms, always because one wishes to impose its will over the other—as in a lion wanting to take control of a pride and another lion being unwilling to let that happen. As in a madman (Hitler) wanting to take control of a continent and others (U.K., USA) being unwilling to let that happen.

(Quote) : ‘War’ is “any active hostility, contention, struggle" (Collins--as in that 'dictionary' to which you so sarcastically refer)

Any such “contention”—which typically evolves into some form of physical action commonly known as ‘war’—can take many forms, from north Atlantic stickleback fish who merely bristle at and, with other displays, threaten each other as they establish territorial boundaries (with no bloodshed at all—smart creatures!), to ‘war’ between individuals, such as “The War of the Roses’—a movie title which exemplifies another quite acceptable use of the word to describe severe conflict, even if only between two people— and all the way through a wide range of ‘actions spurred by conflict’ to the ultimate act of ‘war’, in which someone drops a nuclear bomb on someone else’s head.

All these are ‘wars’, my dear SP, and many more besides, including conflict between two ideologies. Since 'war' is not the exclusive domain of humans, that includes “a struggle of active hostility” in which a pack of hunting dogs want to eat a gazelle and the gazelle happens to think that’s not a good idea.

And, let me remind you, you will, if an Islamic fanatic slits your throat as they so inclined to do with any 'Infidel', spurt blood exactly as does that gazelle if the back of dogs catches it. Don't you forget that, SP.

(Sheesh! Is there any point in explaining such fundamental fundamentals to them what obviously doesn’t even know such fundamental fundamentals? And the ‘them what’ is not accidental--I also need light relief!).

I hope you are not a personal friend of our linguistic expert, Annabelle, SP. If you are, she is sure to be embarrassed by your non-comprehension of that word “war”.

As for the ‘moral compass’ comment:

First, you really need to understand that Leftists—real my wortds—*cannot* be moral in the true sense of the word. Read http://www.oz-aware.com/askfor.htm for better comprehension of this complex reality.

In true morality there is no fence-sitting—which is exactly what President Bush was saying when he made the comment that gave George Soros apoplexy.

Let me repeat this fundamental lesson so that everybody—yes, you too Annabelle— can get this really clear: In (ahem) **fundamental** terms of “Good” and “Bad”, no matter the moral relativist’s vociferous dissent, there is NO fence sitting. One is either squarely and unequivocally on the side of ‘Good’ or one is—even if by default, ignorance or simple neglect—on the side of ‘evil’.

This is how it works: (repeat after me slowly, now…..) Good is that which is beneficial for the wellbeing of a society and evil is that which opposes Good.

(Now slowly Repeat after me also this) It is ‘Good’ to defend oneself [even if by pre-emptive attack] against an enemy who has declared his intention to kill you, enslave you or make you unconditionally think his way (see links previously provided). It is ‘evil’ to support that enemy, whether actively (as in fighting within his forces) or covertly, as in giving him implied or propagandistic support.

I dunno about you, SP, but I suspect that all others readers are well aware that I am supporting Pres. Bush’s efforts and that you and mollyduke are supporting Annabel in her subtle attempt to undermine his effort. Therefore, succintly, you three—and a whole bunch of other likeminded ideologically lost souls—seek with propaganda and disingenuous dissent to weaken his chance of success (see previous links re the example of the humvee) and thereby (even if unwittingly or unintentionally) increase the chance of ‘the other side’ (discussed later) winning.

Clearly, therefore, you are propagandists for evil. But remember, it is not I who say so--but YOU, with your words and action in opposing the efforts of those who seek "Good".

So don’t even think about talking to me about moral compasses. You have nowhere to go with this one except to ever more cover your face with egg, SP!

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

>>>>>(Annabelle Lukin says) that to wage war, one must define an enemy and justify the human and economic costs of going to war. (Ozaware asks her) Shall we completely ignore that the enemy most often first defines himself—Hitler invading France...". You have completely missed the point here - this is not a refutation. In your example Hitler has defined the enemy - France. If the French government was led by Ghandi or Christ, they might turn the other cheek and not even name an enemy. Some Iraqis considered the coalition forces liberators, some considered them as enemy forces. Language is important.

response…

And what do YOU, SP, “consider” to be those who have gone in to rid an oppressed nation of a tyrant who killed hundreds of thousands of people, SP?

What do YOU, SP, “consider” of those who determinedly seek to help an oppressed people attain democracy and who know that if they don’t instill democracy then that country will inevitably again be ab-used by those who are enemies of the West.

As for the fundamental basis of your proposition, you have the cat by the tail, SP.

France was never an ‘enemy’ of Hitler’s, but merely a spineless "No to War" nation, control of which was coveted by Hitler---exactly because he knew it would be easy pickings.

If Hitler were to have ‘defined’ France as anything then it would have been along the lines of him seeing France as a ‘sitting duck’, gutlessly—and idiotically—waiting to become enslaved as it waved banners proclaiming......"No To War!"

Yeah, like Hitler was going to pay attention. Like bin Ladin and Iran are going to pay attention! Grow up people.....

Maybe I’m really dumb with an i.q. of only 135 and only in the top 2% of the population with regard to what the experts call ‘verbal intelligence’, but I think your point is pointless, borders on the unintelligble and certainly is irrational.

Sorry SP. By now you know I call it like I see it…..
---------------------------

>>>The bulk of Dr Lukin's essay you characterize as a "...subtle, linguistic war against President Bush.." and then blithely ignore most of the discussion of rhetoric,modality,grammatical analysis and linguistics and busy yourself with the construction of some lovely straw men...nice work if you can get it.

response………

SP, people have motives for what they say and do. Nobody, except the odd academic, is really too concerned with Lukin’s ‘technical analysis’ of the rhetoric etc. Actually most who who would respond along the lines I have almost certainly couldn’t give a zig about her ‘technicalities’. We literally have more important things to think about.

One of those critically important things is the question of WHAT is Lukin REALLY trying to achieve with her “discussion” and WHY? She isn’t just writing to tell us how linguistically talented she is—which I am sure she is, and I don’t care.

We, the people who understand the dimensions of the ‘war’ that is being waged, and unblinded by mindless ideologies, realise that Annabelle is cunningly trying to erode respect for President Bush by ‘academically’ painting him as a ‘schemer’ who is ‘deviously’ (unstated but certainly implied) using language to (quote) “Talk up a War”.

In other words, she is saying that she can show that, in effect, there was no need for the War in Iraq and that it came about because President Bush “talked it up”, thereby subtly implying that HE is the ‘cause’ of the war.

Perhaps you haven’t appreciated the extent of the woman’s intelligence, SP.

Intelligence, as in cunning….

But no matter how ‘scientifically’ she presents it, her piece is pure propaganda against President Bush and against the war in Iraq.

And THAT is why I, and others have responded so determinedly.

As for “straw men”, what the hell are you talking about? Be specific or I cannot answer you.

And “nice work”? Spare us the mindlessly parroted cliches, SP.

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

>>>>>>>18 or so mentions of Islam for example and some associated "Why is..." questions to Dr Lukin, even though the word Islam is not mentioned once in her essay.

response

Which is again testimony to her cunning.

SP, in how many ways do I need to explain to you that this is a ‘multi-fronted’ war with a huge and mostly invisible enemy—Islamic fanaticism—lurking everywhere and increasingly causing great grief everywhere—from murdered filmmakers in Holland, to (in the current news) the Brits arguing about when house arrest and detention for “suspected terrorists” would be appropriate, to ‘insurgents’ threatening the safety of tsunami rescuers, this fanatic cancer has spread around the world. And if you think Australia is immune—and have forgotten the Bali bombing—well, you’ll probably yet be getting a helluva shock.

And if you don’t know that “suspected terrorists” in the UK are politically incorrectly aka “Islamic Fundamentalists”, then there’s no hope for you SP.

This is so basic that I feel idiotic having to even write this explanation.

What we have here is a war between Islam and Western civilisation. If you don’t know that, well, to put it simply, you are way out of your league….

Let me say that again, because you obviously did not read any of the links I provided.

What we have here is a world-wide war by ISLAM against the social management system (aka Judeo Christianity) that brought to the world virtually all of the many benefits that YOU, SP, enjoy, perhaps as often as every second of your day.

This actually is a third WAR, launched by Islamic fundamentalists against you and me and all of the West.

It's something that I think you don't yet properly appreciate, SP.

Either that or you must be truly evil, barracking for someone who has barracked against President Bush's efforts to stop the Islamist fundamentalists from advancing,

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

>>>>>>>A few cheap shots about ideologies, leftists and "people like yourself" - information which you have miraculously gleaned by methods no doubt privy only to you.

response….

“Cheap shots” is a cliché in the mind of the beholder. Meaningless and too generalised to warrant response from me.

“information which you have miraculously gleaned by methods no doubt privy only to you.”

No ‘miracle’ at all, just a lot of reading of material OTHER than the popular press, forget watching telly news. Many others do the same thing, so the ‘methods’ are not “privy” to only me. Go read—for example—the book mentioned at http://www.oz-aware.com/wmd1.htm and you too can begin the journey of becoming qualified to join the informed circle of people who are “miraculously privy” to information that the great majority of people do not know exists, let alone know.”


Oh, btw, notice that the overview of the oz-aware project explains that there is too much public comment on our most important social matters---such as this one---by people woefully lacking in the knowledge they need in order to rationally, intelligently and WISELY comment.

Present company included, SP......
---------------------------

>>>>>>And finally, as much fun as this is, as for the "‘nonexistent’ WMD’s you imply (but I note cannot quite bring yourself to state directly - funny about that) that they were whisked out of Iraq on "hundreds or road trains" and caught on satellite cameras that don't lie.
Once again I see you have information not available to the US or other governments.

Response

First SP, that ‘funny about that” attempt at sarcasm didn’t quite make it into the history books.

Second, I am not in the habit of jumping to conclusions or making unfounded assertions, nor are most moral people. Those on this side of the ideological divide are fundamentally honest.

Since the satellite cameras could not peek under the tarps or in the containers of those trucks, there is— “funny about that”—no way we can know FOR CERTAIN.

But let me share with you a metaphor, SP. Imagine you are walking along a dark and deserted street one night and a fella comes walking straight towards you carrying a duffel bag. You cannot see what is inside that bag. If, as he gets near you, he suddenly for no discernable reason starts unzipping that bag and you don’t immediately either pre-emptively attack him or start running like hell, then you are one delusional idiot who is headed for extinction either then or some time soon.

Third, may I ask you to SAY WHAT!? about “information not available to the US government” when it is that government’s OWN satellites that are taking the pictures and relaying them directly to the THAT government?

Unless you are implying that somehow I have the satellites and am supplying the US gov. with the pictures? Stop being plain silly and read the links provided in my rebuttal.

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

>>>>>>>Perhaps you could have passed it on to the White House so that when Barbara Walters asked the question, instead of saying "I felt like we'd find weapons of mass destruction — like many here in the United States, many around the world. The United Nations thought he had weapons of mass destruction" Bush could have replied "There were WMD's. The US intelligence services have these photographs showing..etc etc". Alas, a missed opportunity.

response…

Apparently you are unable to comprehend that, actually, governments do keep certain things ‘secret’ as evidenced by the fact that when Pres Putin made the ‘public’ statement about warning the USA, Pres Bush ‘downplayed’ the matter. It is not irratiohnal to presume that his government clearly does not want the world knowing how ‘close’ the USA and Russia cooperate on ‘sensitive intelligence’.

Or were you—and al Qaeda, Syria and Iran—not hugely surprised to hear that the USA and Russia are working rather more closely on these issues than one would have thought?

And you don’t think that al Qaeda, Syria and Iran have made some changes as a consequence of that little piece of ‘intelligence’ becoming public?

OF COURSE THE US GOVERNMENT IS NOT LAYING ALL ITS CARDS FACE UP ON THE TABLE, SP. Especially not on public television.

Hello?!

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

Good luck with your reading in the future.

Au contrair, SP, good luck with YOURS. I’ll leave other readers to decide who needs to do the more reading.

In the not unsurprising event that they vote you as number one, SP, may I suggest that you start with the hyperlinks I provided in the original rebuttal and a follow-up.

That way you won’t be wasting any more of our time.

Incidentally, in the unlikely event that you (and Dr. Lukin and mollyduke) actually do “get it”, feel free to apologize, convert and stand side-by-side with us as we battle the single most dangerous phenomenom that Australia and Western Civilisation have ever faced, to wit a psychological war (ahem…there are many kinds of ‘war’….remember?) , waged from within by educated, intelligent ‘anti-Christs**’, against our historical culture and future well-being and freedom of this nation as well.

Even if it is a freedom abused by the likes of you and Annabel as you support “the other side” by arguing against “this side”.

And you know what, you do exactly what the fanatics want you to do. They absolutely love seeing people like you abusing our freedom of speech to chip away at the US’s resolve.

Why? Because the fanatics know all about an ancient principle:

“United they stand, divided they fall”

YOU, SP, and YOU Annabel and ALL those who think the way you do could easily have our blood on your hands as a consequence of fostering dissent and division among us…...

(**And please. SP, don’t tell me I have to also explain to what the metaphor *anti-Christs* means….!)

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

ps re your latest post: OK "Gird" it is- my mistake.

Sorry!

as for your side of the political fence: well, that is actually addressed, quite by coincidence, in the above. Hope you 'get it'.

As for my 'secret methods' of divination, well, no secret at all. By your very own words, sir, shall I---and everyone else---'divine'** you.... (as in "we've got your number, bud"!)

**Hmmm, why does 'divinate' sound better?

As for black hats and white hats and complex worlds, well re-read 'fence-sitting' above and replace the words 'fence-sitting' with the words 'grey areas'. By your words, again SP, do I divine the depths of your misapprehensions, methinks perhaps more clearly than you yourself...

As for the website being just dandy and advertising handy, wow- am I the only one impressed by your perceptions?

FYI that website is a very damned expensive, completely non profit process of getting the ignorant---present company included---to take a long look in the mirror.

For your info the fellow who posts as Boaz-David---who took the time to actually read some of the linked material---was able to find my private e-mail address and privately took issue with some of my assertions. After some e-mails back-and-forth, which was not reflected in these posts, Boaz_David, having read even more of the MOUNTAIN of relative material available for FREE on the oz-aware.com website, had the grace and morality to essentially say, yep, the stuff presented by ozaware is pretty much right. Therefore, SP, instead of 'dandying' that website, read, read and read. It'll take you a few months probably---and I am NOT being sarcastic because there's a bunch of material---and you too may find, as the top of its page says, "enlightenment from ancient knowledge".

Only if you hate the Australian way of life, SP, should you keep harassing me with your snipes.....

And, finally, this last piece was posted, as was the piece with the woman's 'girdle', in much haste and without second thought and certainly without doublechecking, so please forgive ahem...OBVIOUS errors, unless you are a nit-picker in which case there's no hope for my sanity.

Oh, and btw, seeing as how Annabelle--such a sweetly defenceless name---is a damsel apparently now in such distress that she cannot respond to these posts, I must ask you this:

did you happen have a great, great grandfather whose great, great grandfather was named "George" and who had the habit of riding white horses and chasing down what he would describe to faint-hearted and feeble-minded gals as mean and fire-breathing nasties, all of which old George would do with the ultimate, but carefully unstated, objective of finding out the colour of their knickers?

I did tell you that I have just a little knowledge of things subliminal, didn't I?

Ozaware, you have forgotten to take your pills, you naughty boy.

Good on you ozaware! Some of these wackers wouldn't wake up if a country toilet fell on them. Even the sight of those millions of brave Iraqi's risking suicide bombers to vote in an election[ which would never been possible without the courage and determination of George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard] is probably not enough to wake them up. So far as grace pettigrew and all her stupid leftie comrades are concerned, America can do nothing right. In their eyes, no Western country is as good as any ot the others. They always take an anti-Western view.

As to those WMD's virtually everyone on the planet was convinced that Iraq had them, including John Kerry in 2002, and the leaders of the A.L.P. The delay in the U.N. ["Useless Nongs"] gave Saddam plenty of time to send them to Syria, which he undoubtedly did. If he had none, why frustrate and harrass the UN Inspectors until they quit?

We know for certain that Saddam had nerve gas which he used in the Kurds. A Sarin gas shell was found only in the last couple of months. He had them all right. So far as these lefties deploring the loss of life, where were their protests when Saddam and his crazy sadistic sons were raping and slaughtering and torturing their people? If they had their way, those hideous tyrants would still be there filling their mass graves. Now the Iraqi's can have a say in how they are governed.

Let's remember that Saddam had defied 12 UN Resoutions for disarmament, a condition of the ceasefire in the First Gulf War. One of Saddam's sons-in-law, Kamal Hussein, who was in charge of Iraq's weapons program defected in 1995. He testified that the Inspectors had missed the stockpile.There were also strong links between Osama bin-laden and Iraq Intelligence leaders al-Tikriti and exploives expert Salim el-Ahmed.

One day when these Islamic fanatics are defeated, President George W. Bush will be revered as Washington, Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan are today. Thank God for George W. Bush, his vsion, his courage and his determination to see this through to ultimate victory.

Grace, I am so embarrassed! HOW did you guess that I take Viagr...er...'pills'.

Now my secret is out there for the whole world to know. Rats! And I'll bet you even know that I typically take a larger dose than normal, just 'cause I like the results/effects.

I have to tell you, Grace, I am hugely impressed by your amazing insight, sparkling wit and informed wisdom.

er...uh....you doing anything Friday night?...

Big Al,

An accurate summation.
Remember the old saying, "If your not a Marxist by the age of 30 then you haven't got a heart. If you are one & are over 30, then you haven't got a head"

Thanks SAYARET. A lot of well-meaning people were hoodwinked by Marx, Engels and Lenin. Many of them woke up, particularly when migrants from the Baltic countries arrived, but some remained what the cynical Communist leaders described as "useful idiots". There is no excuse for ignorance of the real nature of totalitarian Communism today.

However, I'm getting off the main topic. PS Don't let yourself be sidetracked OZAWARE.