"It's touching that you trust the man (Rumsfeld) who showed up in Saddam's office with a pair of bronze cowboy boots trying to sell him arms during a bloody war--a war in which Rumsfeld's bosses were also selling arms to the other side--to disinterestedly create "peace" and "democracy" in Iraq. When did Rumsfeld repent? When did he say, I was wrong?
Never. And in fact, it's impossible to read the public record on Abu Graib and not conclude that orders for torture came from the top. In fact, the intellectual author of the torture policy now runs the justice department. No less than when your man Hitchens' bete noir--Kissinger--ran the show, our country is dominated at the top by war criminals. I'd like to see Rumsfeld and Saddam share a dock at the Hague. There'd be much to make small talk about."
Using this logic, let’s throw Bill Clinton in prison for bombing Bosnia and Kosovo (to save Muslims by the way) without Congressional approval, for selling weapons secrets to China, nuclear technology to N. Korea and for boinking Monica while Osama was planning 9-11 and his communist AG, Assistant AG and ACLU attorneys were busy preventing the FBI, CIA and DOD from doing anything about it. We can play this game all day long if you’d like Tom.
"What we're witnessing in Iraq is a power struggle over natural resources. The US always planned to plunk down a permanent military base in Iraq to protect its interests in the Gulf once it streamrolled Iraq. Long before that joke of an election, the US had quietly shut down its base in Saudi Arabia, cravenly conceding one of Bin Laden's major demands. That's what the Iraq War was about--creating a government that would let it run a base in the Gulf. (Bin Laden finds the US presence in Iraq distasteful, to be sure; but letting the infidel's army run free in the heart of Mecca--Saudi Arabia--made his blood boil.) The strategy has so far failed miserably. No matter how you cut it, the occupation has been a disaster. The Iraqi government doesn't even control the roads leading to Bagdad. The Shiites merely hate the U.S.; the Sunnis despise them bitterly. The government, with the great Chalabi himself installed--flagrantly, in full light of day--as oil minister(!), has no credibility."
You’re an excellent, eloquent writer Tom, but in the end this all just a gussied up way stating “No Blood For Oil”. You say the Iraq strategy has so far failed miserably and that the occupation has been a disaster. An argument can be made for that, no doubt, but it sounds to me as though that’s what you’re hoping for and that I find repulsive. Why would you hope for the worst? What kind of hatred drives you to feel that way? You know, I’ve heard a saying quite a bit lately that I think is very accurate and that is that George Bush isn’t hated because of the Iraq War, the Iraq War is hated because of George Bush. If this were Clinton’s war, it wouldn’t be condemned to the degree it is. Granted, there are those such as probably yourself and Nadir who would still be against the war, because guys like you use that clever and easy out of "I'm no fan of Clinton either", but overall it would have had much more support under a President Clinton.
"There may well be a philistine left that supports Saddam or apologizes for Islamic-inspired violence against civilians--although Hitchens' caricature of the anti-war movement, published elsewhere on this page, is about as subtle and accurate as one of McCarthy's sorry rants before the Senate. As I've said before, I see the battle between Bush and Saddam as a conflict between rival motorcycle gangs. One was packing guns, the other tire irons. The guys with the guns won. But now there are guys on the tire-iron side sneaking around taking potshots at the victors. The victors, too stupid to have figured what they were facing before they started the rumble, are utterly flummoxed."
So, there again, using this logic, I guess as your brother stated we should have just left him alone to rape and pillage his country and to continue to create and/or obtain a WMD arsenal. You can piss and moan all you want about no WMD, but you cannot deny that his intention was to have and use them. But I know that doesn’t matter to you.
"I oppose the war because I think it falls right in line with an unhappy history of neo-colonial rot. I'm sick of a world and an economy geared solely toward hoarding and consuming what I consider a ruinous resource: crude oil. So I moved to a small farm and set up shop as an agitator for sustainable agriculture. (Industrial agriculture, among its many sins, is a huge consumer of fossil fuel. It takes at least 3 calories of fossil fuel to create one food calorie in the US food system--a system that's now being written into the Iraqi constitution.)"
Another gussied up claim. “American Imperialism! American Imperialism!” Get off it. This claim doesn’t hold water and you know it.
"If you guys were to follow the logical end of your convictions, you'd end up running night raids in Bagdad. I hope it doesn't come to that."
Another bogus argument. We all know that every major U.S. city needs beat cops too, especially Detroit right now, but I’m going to become police officer any time soon either.
15 comments:
Pete says: "Using this logic, let’s throw Bill Clinton in prison for bombing Bosnia and Kosovo (to save Muslims by the way) without Congressional approval, for selling weapons secrets to China, nuclear technology to N. Korea and for boinking Monica while Osama was planning 9-11 and his communist AG, Assistant AG and ACLU attorneys were busy preventing the FBI, CIA and DOD from doing anything about it. We can play this game all day long if you’d like Tom."
I much prefer throwing Clinton in jail for bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. I don't think Clinton can be blamed for the intelligence agencies ineptness.
At any rate, Tom is right, and you have offered no evidence that he isn't. You're not debating. You're changing the subject. In fact, you are the one playing games.
Pete says: "You say the Iraq strategy has so far failed miserably and that the occupation has been a disaster. An argument can be made for that, no doubt, but it sounds to me as though that’s what you’re hoping for and that I find repulsive. Why would you hope for the worst? What kind of hatred drives you to feel that way?"
I can't speak for Tom, but I agree with him that the Iraq strategy has failed miserably because it was a flawed strategy from the beginning. It was an imperialist exercise, and the Bush Administration didn't even follow the advice of its top generals. If you're going to put the lives of young Americans (not to mention Iraqis) in danger, you should at least do what the professionals tell you to. None of the Bush Administration has been to war. They are a bunch of corporate knuckleheads with no military knowledge (and questionable business sense). YOU should be upset with the handling of the war, even though you agree with it.
Again, I can't speak for Tom, but I'd bet, like me, he hopes for the best: that American troops return home ALIVE and that Iraq is left with as little damage as possible now that YOUR WAR has proven to be a failure, and your president's rationale for war has proven to be a LIE.
Pete says: "Another gussied up claim. “American Imperialism! American Imperialism!” Get off it. This claim doesn’t hold water and you know it."
I disagree. I think that is the only claim that does hold water. Nothing else makes sense.
If it doesn't hold water, Pete, prove it. What evidence can you offer that shows this was not "neo-colonial rot"? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we certainly can't call it a gopher, can we?
Pete says: "Another bogus argument. We all know that every major U.S. city needs beat cops too, especially Detroit right now, but I’m going to become police officer any time soon either."
And we all saw that New Orleans needed National Guard troops a few weeks ago, but they were over in Iraq fighting for YOUR cause. Meanwhile, how many people died because of the slow response time?
You're not debating, Pete. You're changing the subject, using the common right-wing tactic of bait and switch, because you have no logical argument that refutes any of Tom's statements.
Argue your points using facts and evidence. You can't because the Bush Administration hasn't provided any either.
Tell the truth: You don't know why we are at war in Iraq, but you are towing the company line because you somehow believe your leaders wouldn't lie to you. Meanwhile, the energy and weapons industries are posting record profits and the U.S. is trying to establish permanent bases in Iraq after hightailing it from Saudi Arabia.
These are the facts. Nothing you say can dispute these facts. Yet, every statement that you and your president have made to justify this war can be dismissed as fantasy or lies.
It's okay to admit that you are wrong and that this war is wrong and that we made a mistake by allowing these madmen to run our country. You're an intelligent person. Don't hold on to these baseless opinions for emotional or prideful reasons.
The war is a failure and Bush is a failure. It's time to admit it, so we can start cleaning up his messes.
Sixslinger, I'll respond to you when you address my points. By the way, how many on Clinton's cabinet were closet commies? Do you "have a list"?
"Sixslinger, I'll respond to you when you address my points. By the way, how many on Clinton's cabinet were closet commies? Do you "have a list"?"
Nope, no more so than someone walking the streets with a "Bushitler" sign adorned with swastikas, or one with Bush wearing Hitler moustache can.
"I don't think Clinton can be blamed for the intelligence agencies ineptness."
Why not? You seem justified in blaming Bush FEMA's failures and for 9-11 and for just about everything else for that matter. What the hell's the difference.
I'm not changing the subject, it's all relative. If you're going to throw around the term "war criminal" loosely like you do, at least be consistent.
Besides, you cannot hold George W. Bush accountable for what's happening without acknowledging the colossal failures and mistakes of the Clinton adminstration.
"Meanwhile, how many people died because of the slow response time?"
I don't know, ask the media. I'm sure they'll you give a straight, accurate answer.
"but they were over in Iraq fighting for YOUR cause."
I wonder how many Iraqi's (not Syrians in Iraq and not Iranians in Iraq, not leftover Baathists, but Iraqi's) who have a chance at self-determination for the first time EVER, think it's MY cause. Maybe you should ask THEM if it's a failure before making that claim.
We are not an imperialist nation.
Imperialists/colonialists take others land and resources without compensation, which we do not do. The United States hasn't annexed anyone's soil since the Spanish-American War.
Middle-eastern oil wealth would not even exist without U.S. technology. It would still be in the ground underneath their feet. The autocracies in those countries are the ones who have chosen not to share their wealth with the common man. That's their doing, not ours.
A common theme from you guys is that Bush won't admit mistakes, when he has done just that. He has admitted that propping up dictators was a mistake our gov't has made for far too long and it's time to break the cycle.
The vast majority of Iraqi nationals, while not exactly happy our forces are there, do not want them to leave until they are able to handle the situation themselves. They are already doing just that right now for the most part. U.S. forces mainly only oversee operations currently. Iraqi's are doing most of the fighting and defending of their country at this time.
Just imagine if this really works. What will you say then? What would world have been like if we'd have left Germany and Japan to rot after WWII? I'm sure there were those who sounded just like you at the time who called for just that.
Look, I'm not sure anymore that the Iraq invasion going wasn't a mistake. I supported it whole-heartedly initially, but obviously miscalculations were made, but I do not by the WMD lie routine. If Bush lied about that, then so did just about every other leader of the free world. WMD probably shouldn't have been the made the centerpiece as the reason to invade, but it was the one reason that EVERYONE agreed upon. Read UN Res 1441 and H.J. res 114 and if you have read them, read them again. You'll see that WMD was NOT the only reason given for taking out Saddam.
Cutting and running is not an option, as much as that's what you guys would like to see. As bad as things appear to be in Iraq (you guys should really try and seek out the good news from Iraq, because there's alot more of it than you think, or wish to acknowledge), there's still an opportunity to do some historic good for the people of that region of the world through this.
We have to give them a chance to make it work. But that's why I say that you don't seem to care about that. You just seem to want it to fail miserably so you can scream "Told you so, told you so!" "Liar, liar, pants a-fire".
I feel sorry for you. I really do.
And I find your sympathy as touching as your naivete.
So be it then.
Slinger says: "Why not? You seem justified in blaming Bush FEMA's failures and for 9-11 and for just about everything else for that matter. What the hell's the difference."
Well, Bush appointed a failed horse association CEO as FEMA head. He hired a manager who had no experience in emergency management. Ummm, that's not like putting an accountant in charge of an automotive project. We're talking about the lives of thousands of people. That is only one example of Bush's own poor management skills.
Honestly, Pete, I don't like Bill Clinton at all. I think he has done some really horrible things, and I think he is given credit for some things that he didn't really affect.
Bush (or someone close to him), however, is the anti-christ. Okay, he's not the anti-christ. I would expect the anti-christ to have better management skills.
Slinger says: " We are not an imperialist nation.
Imperialists/colonialists take others land and resources without compensation, which we do not do."
Dictionary.com defines neo-colonialism as "A policy whereby a major power uses economic and political means to perpetuate or extend its influence over underdeveloped nations or areas."
It defines imperialism as "The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations."
The U.S. control of the puppet Iraqi government is definitely neo-colonialism, but I argue that the invasion and occupation should also be viewed as imperialism in the classic sense because the U.S. led "coalition" determined the scope and shape of the new puppet government. The U.S. also controls Iraqi oil and the Iraqi military. The new Iraqi government could be viewed in much the way that a colonial governor is viewed. The real ruler of Iraq is in Washington. You can't deny that.
Slinger says: "Cutting and running is not an option, as much as that's what you guys would like to see."
Unfortunately, I think you are right here. You shouldn't just go into a country, start a civil war and walk away. The country is in chaos and without some form of stabilization, it will only get worse.
However, do not misconstrue this as support for the U.S. staying in Iraq. There is no easy solution now. The best option would have been to never invade in the first place. So what do we do now?
Tom: How do you know that Bush doesn't really want a democracy in Iraq? Even if he is merely a greedy bastard, surely you're read enough economics -- and the right-winged economic commentators -- to know that the US will benefit the most from an Iraq where the people there purchase iPods, Dells, and Budwieser. Surely you know that massive poverty, economic stagnation, and despotism abroad hinders rather than helps the US economcy.
Sixslinger: You are forgetting that Tom, Nadir, and the other lefties hate everything about the US, even democratic presidents. Sure, they hate the democratic presidents less, but they consider them to all be sell-outs.
This includes using mis-using the word "imperialist" to label every action the US government takes against a foriegn despot. I would think Tom has read enough economics books to have learned first of all that that the US actions of late do not qualify as "imperialism", and that imperialism does not provide as many economic benefits for the mother country as does the modern free, open, international market.
Since we're still talking about the New Orleans flood:
1) Bush hasn't been president long enough to have pushed for an implimented upgrade to the levee system that would have saved NO. Furthermore, he acted excactly the same with regard to the levess as did all presidents before him.
2) The local and state officials in that area did not push for new levess, and they mis-spent the federal money that they did get for levee reconstruction.
3) If Bush had responded to Katrina the way that Nadir, Tom, and Randal "The Black Folks Are Eating the Dead After Three Days Without Food" Robinson, he would have set a precident. Instead, his govt responded as it always has, and as all fed govts before have, to all previous hurricanes. What was different was that a major city turned into a cesspool. That had never happened before, and the usual response revealed itself to be inadequate, especially given that the locals did not "hold up their end of the couch." If the lefties have their way with this, disaster prep and response will become a federal responsibility, which I think is crazy.
Do I think that Bush should have acted differently here? Yes. But I can only hold the feds responsible for about 20% of the problem. Only by the locals not permforming their job was there even an urgent catastrophe in the first place. Did the local leaders investigate and find out that it *ALWAYS* takes 5 days for the feds to arrive? Didn't they figure that into their "plans"? Oops. Actually, their "plans" called for THEM to have implimented an evacuation. But they didn't impliment that plan, did they?
Should the feds now start driving into every pre-hurricane city and use federal resources to evacuate and house everyone? Or should they wait until after the hurricane and and guarnatee a 24-hour post-hurricane evacuation. That seems to be what the local leaders expected: In case of Cat 4 hurricane, order everybody into the Superdome with no secrurity or provisions, then after the levees break, the feds will come airlift everyone within 24 hours.
I wonder if Randall Robinson thinks that black folks can at least wait 24 hours without food before they break the final taboo?
Slinger says: "This includes using mis-using the word "imperialist" to label every action the US government takes against a foriegn despot."
The last time the U.S. government took action against a foreign despot that wasn't an act of imperialism was World War II. All U.S. military and covert actions since World War II have been acts of neo-colonialism as in Chile, Iran, the Congo, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Haiti, Grenada, and Cuba. They were specific, aggressive actions designed to further U.S. political and economic influence in those countries.
The actions in Iraq are imperialist in nature. The U.S. now controls the state of Iraq. Will it become the 51st state? No. But until the puppet Iraqi government can stand on its own two feet (and perhaps before) U.S. taxpayers are paying U.S. firms to rebuild a country that was destroyed by U.S. bombs. Iraqi oil income was supposed to pay for this rebuilding (meaning the colonial power would extract the new colony's natural resources to compensate/enrich the "mother country".
Slinger, you are obviously not a student of 20th century history. Otherwise you would recognize this as a phenomenon called "neo-colonialism". It is imperialism with a twist.
Slinger says: "I would think Tom has read enough economics books to have learned first of all that that the US actions of late do not qualify as "imperialism", and that imperialism does not provide as many economic benefits for the mother country as does the modern free, open, international market."
I won't speak for Tom, but I will say for myself that you are correct. Imperialism does not provide as many economic benefits for the mother country or the colony as does a free, open and FAIR market. This is why U.S. acts of imperialism are completely misguided. The U.S. treasury is being gutted to pay for the Bush Administration's imperialist exercises when that money could be better utilized to provide temporary housing for the residents of New Orleans or to bail out the inept U.S. airline industry.
Why do you support policies that send all of your tax dollars to Iraq in an effort to expand the U.S. economic empire, when that money is needed at home? Your failure to grasp the concept of neo-colonialism does not prove that it doesn't exist.
Nadir: Do you understand what "imperialism" is? One condition of imperialism is that money flows from the colony to the central imperial power. In Iraq, the opposite is happening. Another condition of imperialism is that the government of the colongy answers to and serves the needs of the colonial power. You and I have different conclusions about this.
Yet we agree that "imperialism/colonialism" isn't even as beneficial to the presumed imperial power would be the alternative where the presumed colony constitutes a free market composed of free people. The same is true of slave labor vs free labor. Even greedy evil bastards make more money when the labor market consists of people who own homes and propser, versus slaves.
The people running the Bush administration are aware of these economic facts. There is no way that they want a colonial situation. Such a situation could only cause a short term benefit to a select few corporations, at the long term detriment to many more corporations, who would oppose such an action. This is one of the self-correcting appeals of capitalism, which guarantees against something that you assume occurs: price collusion among the US oil companies. If this were happening, many other US businesses would oppose this, as they would be hurt by artificially elevated petro prices.
It is impossible for Bush or any president to plunder the national treasury without upsetting many more economic interests than he could possibly fatten, at least in the long run. Thus we are in the long run protected from the corporate curruption that accounted for a third or so of "Clinton's" economic boom. For every Enron that got rich in this way, many other businesses where hurt. The agreggate economic powers check each other from one player's abuse, because that abuse always harms another player.
Nadir wrote: "And we all saw that New Orleans needed National Guard troops a few weeks ago, but they were over in Iraq fighting for YOUR cause. Meanwhile, how many people died because of the slow response time?"
So, you would have stopped FDR from waging WWII and Lincoln from waging the Civil War in order to have troops available to rescue people whose city and state governments had failed to protect them?
Post a Comment