Whats the worst that could happen?

[TimeTraveler]

Paul Wolfowitz running the World Bank.

 

Article: Wolfowitz nomination throws harsh spotlight on World Bank

 

Top 10 reasons why Paul Wolfowitz would make a good World Bank president

 

I know I am going to get yelled at for just posting a link again, without my opinion or discussion points. But, my discussion points and similar opinions are contained within the links.

 

Whats your opinion or thoughts?

[Pangloss]

Just out of idle curiosity, what position could Paul Wolfowitz be nominated for that wouldn't draw a boatload of ire from the left?

 

But looking at it from a centrist position, it does seem to be another deliberately provocative appointment. I don't understand that approach from the President who claimed to be a uniter.

 

The New York Times had some interest points in its editorial about this today:

 

There was a time when Mr. Wolfowitz might have seemed like a reasonable choice. He served three years as the American ambassador to Indonesia during the Reagan administration. And he was the persuasive communicator who once wrote that security and poverty are connected - that the solutions to global conflicts don't necessarily lie in arms control, but in poverty reduction and economic development. And he obviously has the president's trust - which he will need if he is going to make the wealthiest nations fulfill their vow to make 2005 the year for development in the world's poorest regions.

 

But they also said:

 

Even those who supported the goals of the invasion must remember Mr. Wolfowitz's scathing contempt for estimates that the occupation of Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of troops, and his serene conviction that American soldiers would be greeted with flowers. Like the nomination of John Bolton as United Nations ambassador, the choice of Mr. Wolfowitz is a slap at the international community, which widely deplored the invasion and the snubbing of the United Nations that accompanied it.

 

I think that's a fair assessment.

[TimeTraveler]

Just out of idle curiosity, what position could Paul Wolfowitz be nominated for that wouldn't draw a boatload of ire from the left?

 

Inmate.

 

But looking at it from a centrist position, it does seem to be another deliberately provocative appointment. I don't understand that approach from the President who claimed to be a uniter.

 

Wolfowitz wants America to dominate the world with the use of force. This move is just another step towards American empire.

[Pangloss]

Inmate.

 

LOL. I should get paid for set-up lines like that. I'll set 'em up, and you and Phi can knock 'em out of the park.

[TimeTraveler]

LOL. I should get paid for set-up lines like that. I'll set 'em up, and you and Phi can knock 'em out of the park.

 

Haha! I'm serious though.

 

I still can't get over the disbelief that this is happening, it is way past the line of disgusting. And it is past the time for America to pay attention to what is going on, Paul Wolfowitz is an insane man with insane ideologies of American global domination and power. He is not the man to head the world bank.

[Pangloss]

Well you tend to lose me when you speak in such absolutist terms. I think these guys are dangerous, but we must remember the value of opposition in democracy, and not declare them to be evil just because they disagree with us.

 

There have been some interesting points made by left-oriented observers who seem to be fairly intrigued by the appointment. Fareed Zakaria, the Editor of Newsweek, had some interesting points on This Week, which he seems to have summed up pretty nicely in his magazine column:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7244592/site/newsweek/

 

Paul Wolfowitz's appointment might be a very good thing for the World Bank, but for a reason exactly the opposite to the one his supporters believe. The deputy Defense Secretary's champions are certain that he will take over the bank and give it a thorough overhaul. In fact, it might be the bank that will change Mr. Wolfowitz. At least that's the hope.

 

He goes on to outline the standard reasons why it looks like a bad idea to have a conservative at the helm of the Bank (they generally have been extremely critical of where the money has been going). But at the end he does shift the view a little bit:

 

But he has one unusual qualification that could make up for all this. He's a conservative Republican, an icon of the right wing of his party. If he gets this job, he will likely immerse himself in the issues and recognize their urgency and complexities. Inevitably, he will become a voice in the battle against global poverty. And he would be the first powerful voice on the issue from the American right, which is to say from America's ruling class.

 

Like I said, I think he's intrigued by the possibility. And it makes sense -- we're literally telling Paul Wolfowitz to put our money where his mouth is. It could be interesting.

[syntax252]

Haha! I'm serious though.

 

I still can't get over the disbelief that this is happening' date=' it is way past the line of disgusting. And it is past the time for America to pay attention to what is going on,[u'] Paul Wolfowitz is an insane man with insane ideologies of American global domination and power.[/u] He is not the man to head the world bank.

 

And your qualifications for making this judgement is..........?

 

Are you an MD? Or a psychiatrist? Do you have a degree in the field of world finance? Or even local finance?

 

Exactly what are your qualifications to judge whether or not Paul Wolfowitz is fit to head the world bank?

[TimeTraveler]

Pangloss,

 

Interesting article, but as usual it doesn't even touch the real basis of concern. Democrat or Republican, in US journalism it doesn't matter, journalists have become a bunch of lazy cowards who are afraid to ask the real tough questions for fear of getting flamed, and too lazy to do any investigating.

 

I have read through the released parts of the Wolfowitz doctrine, I have read all 90 some pages of the rebuilding of America's defenses written by PNAC, I have studied some aspects of Straussian ideology and teachings, and I understand Paul Wolfowitz'es ideals and mentality, I just think its insane. You cannot have infinite war, America does not always need an enemy, everything is not as simple as good and evil, and America does not need to dominate the world, space and cyberspace. And he believes we do, putting him at the head of the world bank gives him alot of power, and trust me this man could give a rats ass about starving children in a third world country.

 

Are you an MD? Or a psychiatrist? Do you have a degree in the field of world finance? Or even local finance?

 

Does Bush? Or better yet does the candidate have a degree in finance? Even local finance? What are his qualifications? Is Bush an MD or a psychiatrist?

 

When asked what qualifications Wolfowitz had Bush responded, "He has managed a large organization, the pentagon is a large organization, the world bank is a large organization."

 

I guess running a similar size organization is qualification enough, even though those positions are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum. Not to mention he has done a piss poor job running the pentagon, maybe he needs to try something smaller like a used car lot.

 

What a joke.

[syntax252]

 

 

Does Bush? Or better yet does the candidate have a degree in finance? Even local finance? What are his qualifications? Is Bush an MD or a psychiatrist?

 

When asked what qualifications Wolfowitz had Bush responded' date=' "Well he has ran the pentagon and the world bank is about the same size as the pentagon, so I think he can handle it."

 

What a joke.[/quote']

 

Well, It was you, was it not who declared that Wolfie was insane? That he was obcessed with world domination?

 

When one declares something like this, don't you think that he should be able to back it up with expert testimony?

 

Now, if on the other hand, you were merely shooting off your mouth, that's different. Hell, we all shoot off our mouths once in a while.

 

 

BYW, here is a bio for Paul Wolfowitz. http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/depsecdef_bio.html

[TimeTraveler]

No I am not a psyciatrist, no I cannot prove he is insane, in my opinions he is insane. Does that clear it up for you?

 

Here is a more accurate and not as biased Bio of Paul Wolfowitz:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz

 

His excellent management and accurate assessment skills:

 

Wolfowitz was critical and dismissive of General Eric K. Shinseki during pre-war testimony before Congress when he called the Army Chief of Staff "wildly off the mark" [2] (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm) when asked for estimates of the size of the post war occupation force. Dr. Wolfowitz estimated that fewer than 10,000 troops would be necessary. He was equally dismissive of estimates that the cost would be between $65-$95 billion dollars, stating "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong" and "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction." As of March 2005 over 170,000 US military personnel are in Iraq with another 20,000+ in Kuwait and Qatar. Additionally it is estimated that as many as 30,000 private security personnel are in use in Iraq. The total cost for the war and reconstruction ranges from $250-$350 billion.

 

Not to mention the conflict of interest:

 

Wolfowitz has three children. He is divorced from Clare Wolfowitz, who works for IRIS at the University of Maryland in the Governance Institutions Group, primarily on its projects in Indonesia and with the Programs and Policy Coordination office of USAID. He is currently involved with Shaha Riza, an Arab feminist born in Tunis and brought up in Saudi Arabia who works as a communications adviser in the World Bank's Middle East and North Africa department.

[syntax252]

No I am not a psyciatrist' date=' no I cannot prove he is insane, in my opinions he is insane. Does that clear it up for you?

 

[/quote']

 

Yes, and rather nicely, I might add.

[TimeTraveler]

Yes, and rather nicely, I might add.

 

[Pangloss]

I have read through the released parts of the Wolfowitz doctrine, I have read all 90 some pages of the rebuilding of America's defenses written by PNAC, I have studied some aspects of Straussian ideology and teachings, and I understand Paul Wolfowitz'es ideals and mentality, I just think its insane. You cannot have infinite war, America does not always need an enemy, everything is not as simple as good and evil, and America does not need to dominate the world, space and cyberspace. And he believes we do, putting him at the head of the world bank gives him alot of power, and trust me this man could give a rats ass about starving children in a third world country.

 

I've read that stuff as well, and it does not lead an objective person to the word "insanity" as a logical conclusion. They also don't propose "infinite war", or that America always "needs an enemy" -- that's an interpretation of their position on your part.

 

This is what I mean when I say that you lose me when you go too far. You're welcome to do that -- I never fault someone for having an opinion -- but I think you should understand that when you do that it tells people something about you, not about the people you're trying to stop. In essence, you're throwing away your ability to convey a rational analysis just so you can demonize, probably because you think it's necessary to stop this evil. But the truth is that it isn't necessary at all. Reason and logic are alive and well in our time.

 

 

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. The position of neo-conservatives goes something like this:

 

- America has achieved a dominant position, and should act to protect it, because the world is not our friend, and other nations act in their best self-interest, so why shouldn't we?

 

- The American system is demonstratively better than other systems. So for it to be dominant in all world affairs is actually better for everyone, not just Americans.

 

- A strong military is necessary for dominance. The Reaganite "peace through strength" concept has a valid place in today's world even after the fall of the Soviet block, and in fact we have no choice but to follow it.

 

- Countries which are hostile with the US should be dealt with directly and forcefully, and not ignored. First through diplomacy, but always with the threat of military invention if they do not comply. Compliance means a democratic system of government and recognition of basic human rights, but more importantly, non-hostility towards the US (i.e. no state-sponsorship of terrorism, for example, but in terms of economics and trade as well as use of force).

 

- The US should not be bound by treaties which reduce its military or economic dominance. That includes things like the ABM treaty as well as the Kyoto accord. (The key thing to remember here is that both the ABM treaty and the Kyoto accord are being rejected for the same fundamental/ideological reason. Note that I'm not saying this is why they were rejected by the Bush administration; I'm saying that's why neo-cons oppose them. It's ALSO probably why the Bush administration rejected them, but I'm trying to keep the subject focused here.)

 

 

All of these points are debatable. All of them are quite clearly flawed if they are not checked with appropriate balances. But they're not "insane". There's nothing in the above to indicate that they would actually prefer "infinite war", or that America "needs enemies". On the contrary, they don't want war or enemies at all, they want everyone to be in happy compliance and buy another toaster and a microwave with "Made in the USA" stamped on the side.

 

Dangerous, yes. Something people need to be more aware of, yes. Evil? No. Evil is what you would get if you allowed something like this to proceed unchecked. But it's not evil for people to want their country to be dominant. It's not evil for people to want their country to be strong. It's not evil for people to want to deal with enemies who they believe are hurting them. The evil lies in not paying attention to the consequences of unilateral actions.

[TimeTraveler]

I've read that stuff as well' date=' and it does not lead an objective person to the word "insanity" as a logical conclusion. They also don't propose "infinite war", or that America always "needs an enemy" -- that's an interpretation of their position on your part.

 

This is what I mean when I say that you lose me when you go too far. You're welcome to do that -- I never fault someone for having an opinion -- but I think you should understand that when you do that it tells people something about you, not about the people you're trying to stop. In essence, you're throwing away your ability to convey a rational analysis just so you can demonize, probably because you think it's necessary to stop this evil. But the truth is that it isn't necessary at all. Reason and logic are alive and well in our time. [/quote']

 

Pangloss,

 

I do admit emotion has gotten the best of me. The reason: I strongly believe there is a very realistic possibility this administration played a role in orchastrating 9/11 to progress these ideals, among other strong motives.

 

I understand how my emotional responses can hinder my credibility, thats fine. I do not have any intention of convincing anyone, rather, just opening some eyes to information it seems no one knows anything about. People will make their own mind up of that information.

 

And btw, reason and logic are barely alive. We have become so dumbed down on the general level it's very rare to see large quantities of reason or logic.

 

Dangerous, yes. Something people need to be more aware of, yes. Evil? No.

 

Evil was not a word I used.

 

The evil lies in not paying attention to the consequences of unilateral actions.

 

You said it, not me.

[Pangloss]

You did actually use the word evil (I quoted it in one of my replies), but maybe I read it out of context. I apologize if that's the case.

 

 

I do not have any intention of convincing anyone, rather, just opening some eyes to information it seems no one knows anything about. People will make their own mind up of that information.

 

But the sources I've seen you post recently are so blatantly biased that they can't be taken seriously. It'd be like trying to convince people that aliens live amongst us by giving them a bunch of hyperlinks not from a reliable, objective sources, but from "www.webelievethataliensliveamongstus.com".

 

So they're going to open their eyes for a moment, see that it's not objective information, and close them again. Is that really what you want?

 

I dunno, it just seems like a waste to me. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

 

 

"A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject."

-- Winston Churchill

[TimeTraveler]

You did actually use the word evil (I quoted it in one of my replies), but maybe I read it out of context. I apologize if that's the case.

 

Must have been in another thread, it's not in this one. But, I do not remember ever stating Paul Wolfowitz was evil.

 

But the sources I've seen you post recently are so blatantly biased that they can't be taken seriously. It'd be like trying to convince people that aliens live amongst us by giving them a bunch of hyperlinks not from a reliable, objective sources, but from "www.webelievethataliensliveamongstus.com".

 

Two things are happening here. I think you are misinterpreting my ability to see through bullcrap. I know when something is biased, I know when something is propagated, and I know how to see through that to look at the content. And I think what is happening is you feel that when I post an article that article is conveying my opinions as well, understand it is not. The material I read rarely comes from websites, most all of it comes from books and documentaries, when I try to find articles that support what I am trying to say I usually do a google but do not spend a huge amount of time finding the perfect article to match my opinions. I just find something that touches on what I am trying to say, that does not mean I frequent these websites or I share similar beliefs with the authors.

 

Second thing is I think you are really taking certain things out of context, try not to focus on me and my opinions so much and try to find the bottom line, or the point I am trying to make. It can be tough sometimes, especially when your trying to understand someones demeanor. I think you may have misunderstood me alot in this thread, or others.

 

So they're going to open their eyes for a moment, see that it's not objective information, and close them again. Is that really what you want?

 

I dunno, it just seems like a waste to me. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

 

No that is not what I want. If that happens I think it would come from a misinterpretation of me, my opinions, and what links I post. However I do not feel I post the so called "non-credible" and "biased" articles to the extent of which you may be assuming. There is one particular website that I do frequent, it is http://www.fromthewilderness.com , I have posted a number of links from there. Would you consider that website "non-credible" or "very biased"? (A little biased I will give you, everyone is to an extent)

 

"A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject."

-- Winston Churchill

 

Fanatic, whoa. Huge misinterpretation. A little frustrated and outraged, yes. Fanatical, far from it.

 

Pangloss, I am not an experienced debater. My experience extends to about 6 months on this and a couple other message boards. I am not really big on debating, but it seems in alot of places a debate gets thrown in your face when just trying to express opinions, conversate, and ask questions. I think alot of people have a natural defense mechanism where they get defensive simply when someone expresses an opinion that doesn't match their own. And I think this effects everyone to an extent, and it reflects alot when interpreting someone else who's opinion's differ. Point is, I am more interested in seeking answers, truth, conversation, reason, and more questions to ask that need to be asked. Sometimes those things are difficult to find. I think you are very intelligent, you know alot of things I do not know, and there is some I know that you do not know. Perhaps both of us are a little guilty of not being open-minded, and a little judgemental. Hopefully we can fix that and answer more of each others questions, exchange opinions, and have discussion.

[syntax252]

Pangloss' date='

 

I do admit emotion has gotten the best of me. The reason: I strongly believe [b']there is a very realistic possibility this administration played a role in orchastrating 9/11 to progress these ideals, among other strong motives[/b].

 

 

And you still insist that you want to be taken seriousely?

 

It ain't gonna happen posting this kinda crap........

[Pangloss]

Must have been in another thread, it's not in this one.

 

Well, at risk of making a mountain out of a molehill, it's still right here on the same page, guy. Specifically what you said was:

 

...I understand Paul Wolfowitz'es ideals and mentality, I just think its insane. You cannot have infinite war, America does not always need an enemy, everything is not as simple as good and evil, and America does not need to dominate the world, space and cyberspace. And he believes we do...

 

I added the bolding just to point it out.

 

 

But, I do not remember ever stating Paul Wolfowitz was evil.

 

I didn't say that you did, and I don't feel that you did. You talked about evil in the abject sense, about the subject itself, and that's how I responded to it in the two sentences you quoted back to me:

 

Dangerous, yes. Something people need to be more aware of, yes. Evil? No.

The evil lies in not paying attention to the consequences of unilateral actions.

 

I don't think that you think Wolfowitz is evil, I think you're concerned about what he's done and what he's going to do, and I share that concern.

 

And I think what is happening is you feel that when I post an article that article is conveying my opinions as well, understand it is not.

 

Great, glad to hear it.

 

 

There is one particular website that I do frequent, it is http://www.fromthewilderness.com , I have posted a number of links from there. Would you consider that website "non-credible" or "very biased"? (A little biased I will give you, everyone is to an extent)

 

It's an agendized, extremist back-patting club exaggerating half-truths to convey conspiracy theories as if they are facts. In answer to your question, it is both non-credible and very biased. Nobody in their right mind would assume that anything they read there was even remotely related to the truth without verification from a reputable source. And taking a shower afterwards. (I need one myself now. Thanks a lot.) (shudder)

[TimeTraveler]

And you still insist that you want to be taken seriousely?

 

It ain't gonna happen posting this kinda crap........

 

And if it is true, and I really hope it is not, they would be allowed to get away with it simply because of the immediate denial and disbelief of Americans that do not even take the time to view the evidence, on top of a gutless congress and senate who are afraid to ask the important questions or demand a real investigation.

[TimeTraveler]

Pangloss,

 

You took what I said about "good vs. evil" out of context. I'm not sure how much you have read of the Straussian teachings or early neocon ideology. The reference of "good vs. evil" is something that is believed in this ideology as necessary in propagating and convincing the masses to support unilateral action in spreading American ideals across the world. It is actually credited to the nazi propaganda machine to convince the masses during the holocaust.

 

In the sentence you quoted "it is not as simple as good vs. evil", I was not meant to affiliate the word evil with anyone or anything. It basically means what it says. But you took it out of context to infer I was labeling something or someone as evil:

 

In essence, you're throwing away your ability to convey a rational analysis just so you can demonize, probably because you think it's necessary to stop this evil...

 

Dangerous, yes. Something people need to be more aware of, yes. Evil? No. Evil is what you would get if you allowed something like this to proceed unchecked. But it's not evil for people to want their country to be dominant. It's not evil for people to want their country to be strong. It's not evil for people to want to deal with enemies who they believe are hurting them. The evil lies in not paying attention to the consequences of unilateral actions.

 

What I said and how you interpreted the meaning are very different. But it's okay, it happens, and it's kind of irrelevant. But I just wanted to clear up that confusion.

 

I don't think that you think Wolfowitz is evil, I think you're concerned about what he's done and what he's going to do, and I share that concern.

 

Glad to hear it.

 

It's an agendized, extremist back-patting club exaggerating half-truths to convey conspiracy theories as if they are facts. In answer to your question, it is both non-credible and very biased. Nobody in their right mind would assume that anything they read there was even remotely related to the truth without verification from a reputable source. And taking a shower afterwards. (I need one myself now. Thanks a lot.) (shudder)

 

Wow, I thought you were more objective than this. In my opinion, this is the best investigative reporting I have seen. It is agenda based, to open up peoples eyes. This guy is so on top of everything and so good at investigative reporting he usually exposes something long before the mainstream media acknowledges it, sometimes even years before. This guy is a former LAPD narcotics investigator, he knows how to find answers and knows where to look. I trust him and have found no reason not to, and believe me I have looked for reasons. Perhaps you could explain in more detail why this source is so non-credible, with more ellaboration and examples.

 

Stay safe.

[Pangloss]

Wow, I thought you were more objective than this. In my opinion, this is the best investigative reporting I have seen.

 

(shrug) Okay, you know the site better than I do, since I've only looked it over casually. So that should be easy enough for you to prove. Simply show me an example of reporting on that site that runs contrary to their agenda.

 

If you can't find such an example, then it's not objective. Period.

[syntax252]

And if it is true, and I really hope it is not, they would be allowed to get away with it simply because of the immediate denial and disbelief of Americans that do not even take the time to view the evidence, on top of a gutless congress and senate who are afraid to ask the important questions or demand a real investigation.

 

The idea that the present administration was somehow complicent in the events of 9/11 speaks volumns about your of lack of understanding of world events as well as your gullibility in swallowing any cock-a-ninny conspiracy theory that finds a spot on the internet.

 

If serious conversation is what you seek, please try to be serious!

[TimeTraveler]

The idea that the present administration was somehow complicent in the events of 9/11 speaks volumns about your of lack of understanding of world events as well as your gullibility in swallowing any cock-a-ninny conspiracy theory that finds a spot on the internet.

 

If serious conversation is what you seek' date=' please try to be serious! [/quote']

 

Okay Syntax, please tell me about PROMIS software, FEMA, and what these things have to do with 9/11. You can just give a brief overview. I want to see what you know that makes you claim that I am so "gullible", because I get the feeling that you probably do not know much about what I am talking about, but yet you can so easily dismiss what I am saying.

[TimeTraveler]

(shrug) Okay' date=' you know the site better than I do, since I've only looked it over casually. So that should be easy enough for you to prove. Simply show me an example of reporting on that site that runs contrary to their agenda.

 

If you can't find such an example, then it's not objective. Period.[/quote']

 

No problem. I would be happy to but you have to be more specific on what your expecting or looking for, as it stands your request seems a bit vague. What is their "agenda" in your point of view?

 

Edit: Try this link:

 

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/ftw.shtml

[Pangloss]

What I mean is an example of something that they inform their viewers about that would lead them *away* from the point they're trying to make.