How come the US haven't found any nukes in Iraq? (some more scrutiny)

Remove all ads!

The iraqis who actually start to target US GIs are a selfmade US-problem. They had no reason before the US invaded Iraq ... and decided to stay. That was what I was referring to.

It's a weird way to fight a war on terror - by producing the enemies to fight against while justifying their production with the ... err ... war against terror.

The US will have to find out how lovely it is to stay in a country where they are neither wanted nor respected but by fear of their firepower.

[ May 31, 2003, 20:06: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Yep, those clashing civilizations.

Well, at least you do not claim moral superiority or benevolent intentions. If your honesty would be found more often, I think things wouldn't get so nasty in discussions.

Ahm, that implies the haven't been reasonble before. What countries are you talking about, Iran, Saudi-Arabia (your closest ally, ironically), Syria ?

Asymmetric warfare is the answer to military superority of the foe. Maybe the same thinking let in the past to mistakes, for which people had to pay for, which had absolutley nothing to do with it.

Fear leads to Anger. Anger leads to Hate. Hate leads to suffering, Yoda said.

Before the assault on Kuweit he was known as stabilizing force in the Middle east. Not that anyone will shed a tear for him. The Americans are usually known as destabilizers.

Well, haven't been following the Korea issue lately, because it's actually rahter boring. My understanding is, NK wanted to hit on the drums (English ??) to get some foreign aid, without having to comply with the demands of SK and Japan for opening. Anyway, there is no relation between Iraq and North-Korea, except in some rhetorical speeches.

What happened to Mccain ? So, Bush is set by the Republicans ? Democrats are the same thing as Republicans, only in "light" form. Democrats may be easier to swallow, but I doubt, that they will radically change policies.

To the Bush policy. A: Brilliant move, having now Iraq allows to get the US-troops out of Saudi-Arabia, which is pretty reasonable, because the US beeing part of Saudi-Arabias domestic issues had some devestating effects in the past.

B: Ooops, rewind, the same old song and dance again, after meddling in Saudi-interna, the US does not want to let go of the geostrategical important middle-east. Planning to put troops on foreign soil in Iraq, without the approval of the people there. I doubt that's a wise move, it's rather jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

C: And then having people saying something like, Iraq is a very rich country, they are able to pay as the war bill of the occupation. No taxation without representation.

[ May 31, 2003, 20:28: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

I see the true colors are beginning to emerge: It doesn't matter if you lie to the rest of the world; it doesn't matter if you murder children and families, if you oppress other nations; it doesn't matter that you lack character, ethics or integrity. But if you have a large enough army and a large media propaganda machine you can say and do what you want. Sound familiar to those in Deutschland, say 60 years ago.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/919535.asp

Fascism: a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.

American Heritage Dictionary

 

I was opposed to the war. I'm oppossed to Bush winning reelection. I loathe John Ashcroft. I'm a die-hard civil libertarian. I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU (well, I used to be, at least). I'm a firm supporter of Amnesty International. I'll protest any "enemy combatant" detentions by the US. I believe in justice and the rule of law. I'm decidedly against "the class system," "ethnic superiority," and whatever else we wish to heap upon the pile. I've marched for peace and liberty, and against US misdeeds when I felt it was appropriate.

But to call the US a "fascist state" is hyperbole-laden nonsense. First, it does a disservice to the United States of America, the freedoms we do enjoy, and the thousands and thousands of men and women who literally gave their lives for those freedoms - including the freedom to call the United States a "fascist state" without having the secret police kick down your door and taking you off to have your testicles electrocuted. Second, and just as important, it trivializes the actual evil of true "fascism" and its victims over the years, and continuing today.

Calling the US a "fascist state" is Godwin's Law in action. Go talk to the families of people who were "disappeared" for belonging to an opposition political party or a trade union in various regimes around the world, or beaten or had their hands cut off for trying to vote, or were simply rounded up and shot for being of the wrong ethnic group - tell them you sympathize, since the US is such a fascist state. See what kind of reaction you get.

 

Of course the US cannot be put on the same level with Pinochet's chile or the other countries where similar stuff happened. There maybe some tendencies among the ultra-rights to implement rules that could allow comparable stuff - just think at the discussion about Patriot Act-II, the planned second part of an already questionable legislation. However, all in all the US still maintain a good standard - for americans. When you're not, your problem.

However, the Bush administration atm clearly has imperialist traits. I mean, it's pretty tough to start a war, killing a few thousand people, only because you need a back-up base in the middle east while telling the US public and the rest of the world that you're fighting the incredible menace originating from Saddam.
The current US gvt is antidemocratic when they hide their goals and execute their plans in secrecy, luring their people in the believe to fight for a just cause. Well, war for basing rights isn't really that just a cause to feel good and to agree to undisputed.

The US have one thing in common with totalitarian regimes: Lies to the people. Unlike in Chile there simply is no need to kill or make disappear critics in the US - the right media took care of them with, let's say, verbal violence. IMO the US are at the moment, like Goebbel's germany and cold war russia and wartime iraq, a pretty much disinformed people. Of course they have the choice where to look, but they prefer the media most appealing to their emotions - and that are not the objective and neutral ones - rather the populist's medias, like shooting star Fox.
With the gvt as a shepard and the media as his dogs the whole issue of control is just as well dealt with - the herd follows. Still the majority in the US finds no wrong in the iraq war. The public climate, a result of an ingenious PR campaign makes it possible for Bush to get through with his swindle.

Democrat critics of Bush do not dare to criticise the war openly because they would probably be accused with (a) lack of patriotism or (b) sympathising with Saddam. That effectively silences them.

 

Someone needs to a grip. I was responding to a particular post and not on the general condition of the US.

 

Darkwolf. I am speaking generally not "at you".

I found your last opinion to be rather saddening. Perhaps it is this kind of "attitude" (I can't think of the correct term) that was and is so frightening to people around the world. The US would truly be such a great nation if this was not the attitude that is emerging. Perhaps it's immaturity?

If on a more personal level we decide to disagree on issues we can leave it at that or we can find a way to co-operate, but to turn everything into blatent hostility when views and opinions don't meet is really scary. Fear vs respect? are these the only options?

Not giving a "RA" about things in the world that one does is disturbing and irresponsible. Imagine if terrorists go around saying that, and some of the people responsible for the Bali bombing have done so. They sound so cold and evil. We all need to take responsibility for our actions and accept the consequences if they are wrong. And rightly accept the credit when it is due.

Maybe we need to accept other views even if they are divergent from our own. (That they exist, not neccessarily agree with them)

 

The idea that's it good as long as you can get away with it seems common in the US. Look at Bill Gates: He's a notorious lawbreaker, constantly violating monopoly laws, maliciously damaging competitors and nobody finds offence in that except a few weird linux-happy netties.
Or have a look at the recent Boeing industrial espionage scandal - the US public and business world is used to rough and maybe even criminal competition - as long as they can get away with it they are good businessmen ...

In response to a previous post: If the US is a fascist state it's the rare breed of one that's primarily extro-agressive. It isn't auto-agressive as the mechanisms like opinion making take away the necessity to do so. It's the golden cage variant, where the people don't notice or don't care that they are guided - eliminating the need to force them into anything.
And still, I seriously doubt that even the current US gvt would consider serious human rights violations to keep in power. A little election cheating - yes (as long as you can get away with it), death squads - big no.

Now one might ask the question if its then still is fascism. In any case it's undesirable and a bad start. It's time to wake up.

 

A first thing that I always found amazing was that the Bush administration managed to convince the average US citizen that Saddam had *something* to do with 9/11 and that he had attacked the US. That merged the dislike for an evildoer like Saddam with the rage about 9/11 - strong emotions. That indeed was a wizard trick worth of the Goebbels award.

As long as that deep belief lurks in the mind of the average US citizen, it is unlikely that they take offence in having been fooled by the Bush administration about the actual reasons for the war.

To destroy that fairytale you'd have to explain them that Saddam in fact did not have anything to do with 9/11 - which would be defending Saddam and not pointing out a fundamental error. And as the people don't want to hear such unpatriotic stuff they won't listen and react angry. That's what happened to about all critics on that point over the last year.

It's like insulted stubbornness, eventually someone had to suffer for 9/11. The afganistan adventure ended kinda eventless but now that Saddam is toppled the feelgood factor is restored.

A nice tale by Daniil Charms

The mob is a stupid, blind and violent fool.

[ June 01, 2003, 16:21: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Or as Nietzsche would have said:

"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

 

Even those in Bushland are not taking the same line as some of the more rabid posts I've read on this and other boards. If you need proof, one only needs to see that Bush is meeting with the "cursed anti-war French," which I, for one, am glad and is attempting to repair the damage done to our relationships with our allies. It is appalling to me that some will attack Bill Clinton for lying about sex, but that it's perfectly OK for this administration to orchestrate a frenzy over supposed WMD - for those who were gullible enough to believe it - and then turnaround and say that it was really not the main reason for attacking another nation.

It is amazing that Bush seems moderate compared to some of the inflammatory rhetoric that I have been reading. It was my intention to point out, mostly, that "belligerent nationalism" was one of the hallmarks of facsim, and I was not attacking anyone in particular, since such attacks only seems to lead to more of the same rhetoric. I'm surprised that some were so slow in figuring this out.

Edit: Although Morgoth and Khazraj quickly picked right up on it.

[ June 02, 2003, 04:06: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

"Clank and clatter" said the pots and the kettles.

 

That's the most intelligent comment you've made in quite sometime. Keep at it.

 

Laches,
when you think this is just a little cook-up you're seriously mistaken. This is our earnest or (with some posters) malicious little way to tell, among others, *you* that something stinks in your country and that it's worth to ponder about it for a while.

Your mocking can't deny the fact that the Bush administration lied at large scale - even to you - but, let me guess, you don't give a rat's ass too? Fine, then you have and get again the gvt you deserve.

You still remember that all this started with 9/11? While all the emotions boiled up about the involvement of Iraq in 9/11 - where is the link between the two incidents? Lemme guess, you don't give a rat's ass - one arab is as good as another and let allah sort them out?

Chandos made a nice point, Clinton caused a scandal by lying about his (isn't that supposed to be private anyway?) sex life (sic) and Bush lies about his reasons to start a war, invades and occupies another country and gets through with it, under applause of the people he lied to. That's one well working democracy. Checks and ballances and all that.
Bush, democratically elected, decided that his people wouldn't accept and understand his true and noble motives (war for basing) and decided to lie to them to lead them into a glorious, better future? Sounds great to me. The president knows best.

Mind to ask him if you want tea or coffee for tomorrow's breakfast. He'll order Rumsfeld to present convincing evidence on that issue. You'll be pleased to see that you actually despise coffee because it's arab bull, and tea, because the indians are dangerous and have nukes like north-korea, and that you actually prefer all-american pepsi anyway.

Amazing. That's america - with the right hired guns you can get through with everything. The land of infinite possibilities. Maybe that's another facette of the american dream - america is the only country where you can spit someone in the face in a spectacular way and get a kiss on the butt as a reward.

 

Wouldn't there be the problem that you cannot proove how you, much less others, feel But what do I say - problem? Rummy sure gives a rat's ass

 

I suppose strawmen fall down easier.

It seems my latest post about pots and kettles has drawn a lot of ire.

I hope the irony of this isn't lost:

[satire]
Today I'd like to discuss how to express our disagreement with the American administration and any who question what we are arguing.

When you don't like an opposing view, attack it personally and draw comparisons which allow you to characterize it as evil. This is rational debate. Therefore, since we disagree with the United States and particularly its current administration we should compare them to the most evil and despicable people and accuse them of the most horrific acts so that others will see how clearly right we are!

So, I propose that we begin on May 9th by drawing tangential comparisons between the current administration and Goebbels. Everyone knows Nazism is bad and therefore if we compare the current administration with the Nazis we are the good guys. We can also go on to discuss the administration in the same post with "child murderers" because everyone likes children and it'll make us look good again. Further, we should make veiled references to "the Deusthchland" and "fascism" and if anyone calls us on it we can refer to them personally as "slow" because everyone knows ad hominems are the most powerful and persuasive form of debate.

We'll refer to those who disagree with us as part of the "herd" implying they are stupid and can't think for themselves. Then, we'll talk about their "inflammatory rhetoric" painting ourselves as fair and reasonable. Finally, if we do want to back off some of our most outrageous links we can do so a bit but we should immediately come back with broad comparisons to less inflammatory comparisons; if we want to back of fascist we should come back and make generalized comparisons to "totalitarian regimes." We should not worry if our comparisons, that the current US administration and "totalitarian regimes [both] lie to people" is so broad that it applies to every government known to man (and perhaps applies more so to democracies who need to worry about public opinion than totalitarian regimes) because what is important is the negative comparisons.

Now, lets discuss how to respond to any dissenting opinion in greater depth. We should first criticize those who speak out against our view in the media as using inflammatory rhetoric and being undemocratic (this is particularly applicable when people disagree with the Dixie Chicks). We should accuse them of being irrational.

Another tactic we should use is that if they ever point out our being hypocritical we should imply they are racist, we'll do so while adopting an air of being being martyred: "Lemme guess, you don't give a rat's ass - one arab is as good as another and let allah sort them out? etc." It doesn't matter if none of the opinions we attribute to anyone we disagree with was actually expressed by them or not, in the end it is only important to portray ourselves as good and them as evil. Everyone wants to be good so portratying our opponents as evil is a good way to garner support for our position. Besides, strawmen are strong argumentative forms.

[/satire]

EDIT - duh, wanted to point out that the comparisons of the current admin and "evil" is particularly ironic since the administrations is attacked for being stupid and naive for saying its opponents are "evil."

I dunno, seemed ironic to me, hence my post. Attack me at will.

I'll apologize in advance for any unfounded misunderstandings etc since I don't see further participation by me in this thread as likely. Still, if I did misunderstand you, I'd at least ask you to reread what I refer to and honestly ask yourself if my interpretation is reasonable even if mistaken.

 

BTA - While I agree with the tenor of your post, that really is one guy (Bin Laden) I could care less about, and as far as he and his group of murders go, they would be the last bunch that I would want to satisfy in this regard. I know that isn't what you meant. But nevertheless, any movement of ours or statements that can be poorly interperted as Americans having been labeled as "infidels," and thereby attacked, should be avoided. It would only be more fuel for "terrorsit fires," in the long run.

 

Hm, I quote myself from the post above:

I usually like to translate the nationalism of those guys in this way, you may agree or disagree. If anyone disagrees, please post something, so I get a little discussion.

Infidels = Foreigners

"Holy land" = Our home country, OUR country

"infidel soldiers" = Soldiers who came from another land and are not here with the consent of the people (but of the goverment, which is a dictatorship).

The problem with troops in another country hasn't been solved, just rearanged.

My memory may not be correct with the years, but hasn't the terroristic movement against American soliders first started 1991 in Saudi-Arabia itself. The targets were US-Soldiers. The troops acutally should have been sent home after the 2. Gulf war, so was the deal, if I remember correctly. 1993 followed the first attack on the WTC. Then more attack on US troops generally in the Middle-East, a man-o-war in Yemen, for example. Then the bombings in 2 african cities, which, 1998, target were the US-embassies there, I guess 400 and more dead. Then 2001. Question: The risk existed, why hasn't been acted ?

[ June 02, 2003, 19:31: Message edited by: Yago ]