tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post4704385789623077115..comments2023-10-22T06:54:40.529-04:00Comments on Identity Check: Making the Case for War.Anokhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-32525100555459270642008-02-20T12:42:00.000-05:002008-02-20T12:42:00.000-05:00Sonia, your last comment has all but shut me up LO...Sonia, your last comment has all but shut me up LOL. <BR/><BR/>I would love to know what you consider to be "left", "right" dictatorships, totalitarians, and fascists? <BR/><BR/>I certainly see the countries I mentioned to be to the left of the US, although they are certainly to the right of hardline Communist Dictatorships.<BR/><BR/>Hmmm, you've really thrown me for a loop, and it's a nice surprise, at that! I think we probably agree on more than we allow ourselves to admit.Anokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-27166492227739917222008-02-15T09:29:00.000-05:002008-02-15T09:29:00.000-05:00Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland All right, if these ...<I> Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland</I> <BR/><BR/>All right, if these are "leftist" countries according to you, everything is fine. It's just a definition problem.... <BR/><BR/>It's just too bad Chavez and Mugabe aren't trying to imitate Iceland, Denmark or Switzerland. Maybe they aren't "leftist" after all. But in that case, why are the leftists around the world defending and supporting them ?soniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00938174968325568608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-72079002852868140562008-02-14T20:30:00.000-05:002008-02-14T20:30:00.000-05:00And, some of these countries, Anok, are extremely ...And, some of these countries, Anok, are extremely wealthy, such as Norway (because of their oil fund). Yet, this fund is in savings, and there is strict regulation on how and when it can be used. This is to protect from corruption. <BR/><BR/>I will tell you this. After working in the health care system over there, I am much more looking forward to retiring over there, rather than here. I know the system, and it is coordinated and quality. I do not even have to think about insurance problems, and my boys can look forward to their University degree, which is free for them. Every young person that wishes to get their college education, can.Tami Daunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14638285777916374588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-24463709635037599012008-02-14T17:41:00.000-05:002008-02-14T17:41:00.000-05:00Oh, one more thing to add to my reply to Sonia - m...Oh, one more thing to add to my reply to Sonia - many "left" or left leaning countries are wildly successful, happy, healthy places to live. Places that have "socialist" or "socialistic" health care, education, employment practices, social programs etc.... <BR/><BR/>They aren't global finance superpowers, but their overall wealth is spread out among the populace better. Places like Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland and so forth. <BR/><BR/>So really, those who have gone "left" with some modicum of common sense and a lack of madmen for leaders have actually done better than our financial capitalistic superpowers, whose wealth is distributed among the top earners, and the rest barely scrape the poverty limit, millions go sans healthcare, education, or access to any social amenities. <BR/><BR/>Demonizing the poor as being "lazy" people on the left of things is buying into the scam of the caste system. In a capitalistic system, the entire setup creates castes, it cannot survive or exist without there being a poor caste - and it's not because of laziness. It is simply the system. Not everyone can be rich. (But in a socialistic system, everyone can be comfortable, and well taken care of - and still incredibly productive as a society).Anokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-37565448583904724822008-02-14T17:32:00.000-05:002008-02-14T17:32:00.000-05:00Sonia, I'm not sure you understood my questions. T...Sonia, I'm not sure you understood my questions. The top economic countries in the world aren't the ones you mentioned. The US, the UK, China, etc...are the world financial superpowers. Thats what I was asking. We amassed our finances and wealth on the backs of the poor, and by allowing dictators throughout history to maintain their position of total authoritarian and brutal control over their country. <BR/><BR/>You don't think we get our money an dpower by killing all of the dictators, do you? They control their country's natural resources, AKA assets such as oil, diamonds, and weapons purchases. We lend money to brutal governments to train "armies" like we did in Iraq (which, erm, ended up being al-queda) and then make our money by charging high interest fees. We stop short of taking down other violent governments because of financial loss (not of the country per se, but of the top one percent's interests.) <BR/><BR/>As for the madman/sane man analogy, again you've missed the point.<BR/><BR/>When I say madman - I'm talking actually insane. You don't honestly believe brutal dictators have all their marbles, do you? <BR/><BR/>The violence of madmen is a problem, but the indifference of good men allow it to happen. To make your medical analogy work, you would have to equate the madmen to the disease and the symptoms, and the good men (the sane men who allow this behavior) to the doctor who fails, or refuses to eradicate the disease. <BR/><BR/>Those who can do something to stop the ills of the world but refuse to do so are far more dangerous because they are acting by not acting, full well knowing that it is wrong. That is much scarier. <BR/><BR/>And the US does that all the time. <BR/><BR/>With regard to historians, you are right many are terrible liars - the lies of revisionist history we are taught in school is a great example of that. That fact doesn't negate the fact that the truth is out there - you simply have to <I>want</I> to find it. You do have to search, research, and cross reference. But to me, it's worth it. It is my opinion however, that most don't want to know the truth. <BR/><BR/>Dave Dubya - see my explanation above. When I was speaking of madmen, I literally meant mad. I'm just finishing up a post about that very subject, actually. (Not sparked by this debate, it's something I started writing a few days ago. But seeing as I am not at home posting full writings has become more difficult!)Anokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-89106046081688921482008-02-14T13:18:00.000-05:002008-02-14T13:18:00.000-05:00I'm not sure I want to get in the middle of this, ...I'm not sure I want to get in the middle of this, but the madman and sane man scenario is a shaky analogy. <BR/><BR/>What is "mad" about seeking power and advancing your self interests regardless of the butchery? What is "sane" about profiting from death and human suffering caused by the other? They both benefit from the same evil. Neither is necessarily psychotic or sane.<BR/><BR/>It is about right and wrong. The two are partners in evil and both are indefensible.<BR/><BR/>If this issue really is simply about right v. left, then that would force you to defend either Hitler or Stalin, wouldn't it?<BR/><BR/>The world and history will judge Bush to be both the violent “madman” and the cruel “sane” profiteer of war.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-1204704534924214712008-02-14T10:53:00.000-05:002008-02-14T10:53:00.000-05:00which countries have amassed the most wealth in th...<I>which countries have amassed the most wealth in the world?</I><BR/><BR/>That's the countries that did something RIGHT. Those countries should be encouraged. We should celebrate countries like Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Chile, Ireland. They are shining examples for the rest of the world to emulate. <BR/><BR/>Countries that did something LEFT have destroyed their economies all by themselves. Venezuela is a mess because of Chavez, not because of Exxon. Zimbabwe is a mess because of Mugabe, not because of Nike. Iraq was a mess because of Saddam, not because of Coca Cola.<BR/><BR/><I>It really is time that people started looking into these matters with a cool, critical eye.</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly. Cool, critical eye - meaning that instead of feeling sorry for the lazy and the poor, you give them a kick in the ass (and a loan). South Korea was starving in the mid-50's. Today, they are booming. If they can do it, every country can do it.<BR/><BR/><I>History, real history, doesn't lie.</I><BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, there are far too many historians who are horrible liars. They cover up the crimes of the leftist totalitarian dictatorships, they widely exaggerate the crimes of right-wing dictatorships, they ignore the real economic succcesses of right-wing capitalist countries and they falsely assign blame.<BR/><BR/><I>Tell me, who is more evil, a madman, or a sane man who lets a madman run free, so long as it profits him?</I> <BR/><BR/>The madman is more evil. He is the source of the problem. The sane man is only a consequence of that original problem. At least the actions of the sane man, while cynical and mean, profit somebody (his family, his friends). The actions of the madmen profit nobody. You need to kill the madman. Killing the sane man is pointless. Half a dozen of sane men will rise in his place, because it's so profitable. It's an unavoidable evil. But the madman is avoidable. <BR/><BR/>To use a medical analogy, the madman is the cause and the sane profiteeer is a symptom. Only stupid doctors treat symptoms. Smart doctors treat the causes of the disese.soniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00938174968325568608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-4730004448702342712008-02-14T00:05:00.000-05:002008-02-14T00:05:00.000-05:00I think our disagreement lies not in the what is "...I think our disagreement lies not in the what is "right and left" but rather what is "right and wrong". <BR/><BR/>If the "right" was nearly as righteous as some make it out to be (including you) than all of these evils that happen supposedly at the hands of the left would never have happened, or at the very lest wouldn't have gotten very far. <BR/><BR/>Yet, the greed and indifference that fuels politics always seem to get in the way of morals and social responsibility. <BR/><BR/>Tell me, Sonia - which countries have amassed the most wealth in the world? In these countries tell me Sonia, who owns the majority of the wealth? In these countries Sonia, tell me how they amassed that wealth? Where do they get their money? Which devil have they slept with for the sake of a greasy buck? Which brutal dictator have they let go unchecked and unchallenged because that dictator happens to control or own a great deal of some asset they will benefit from?<BR/><BR/>Tell me, who is more evil, a madman, or a sane man who lets a madman run free, so long as it profits him? <BR/><BR/>It really is time that people started looking into these matters with a cool, critical eye. History, real history, doesn't lie. <BR/><BR/>Our government has always kept demons on a leash. And if we couldn't, we just didn't get involved unless we absolutely had to. We didn't get involved unless we got hurt, financially, physically...the well being of others didn't mean a damn thing.Anokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-34144254517558066892008-02-13T22:40:00.000-05:002008-02-13T22:40:00.000-05:00You're wrong, and you're missing the forest for a ...<I>You're wrong, and you're missing the forest for a few, dead trees. You want so badly to blame the left for the world ills, when some of the most brutal violence in this world has happened at the hands of the right.</I> <BR/><BR/>You don't even realize how wrong you are. Unless what you call "right", I call "left". If, for example, Kabila (the butcher of Congo and former Che's student) is "right" according to you, then our disagreement is just about definitions.soniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00938174968325568608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-78361093616256695512008-02-13T21:25:00.000-05:002008-02-13T21:25:00.000-05:00Sonia, I'm talking about the right and left in Ame...Sonia, I'm talking about the right and left in America - not the US and the Soviet Union - although you're wrong, I did mention Russia's involvement briefly. And no, the communist party had no part in Hussein's rise - because the US was funding his regime to fight against communism. I'm not sure where you are getting your facts, Sonia. (He did, however turn and work with communists at a later date - that however has little to do with his "rise" to power.)<BR/><BR/>I'm talking about republicans and democrats. I'm talking about the US's involvement in creating the monster we so "heroically" took down when he was weak, and cooperating with sanctions. I'm talking about how overthrowing a dictator was never mentioned - not once - to the UN as a reason to invade. It was never our intention to overthrow him because he is a dictator. The invasion has much larger reasons than that - Sonia I thought you were keen enough to understand that. <BR/><BR/>Rumsfeld, and all the other cronies weren't "correcting" any mistakes Sonia. They were playing the political game. If we cared about dictators we would be invading a lot of countries whose dictators are doing a lot worse than Hussein was doing when we invaded. <BR/><BR/>The US isn't that altruistic. <BR/><BR/>For the record, the MAJORITY of the world opposed this invasion. Only four (out of ALL of the countries) countries including the US voted in support of invasion, and one of them Mexico, only supported an invasion with UN approval. <BR/><BR/>France, Sonia, did not support the invasion. (keep that in mind). It was the UK, the US, and Spain. So no it wasn't just the left that opposed this war. There were protests around the globe against this war. <BR/><BR/>It was the whole damn world, Sonia. You're wrong, and you're missing the forest for a few, dead trees. You want so badly to blame the left for the world ills, when some of the most brutal violence in this world has happened at the hands of the right, or at least occurred under their watchful eye while they turn the other cheek for a profit or out of sheer indifference the suffering of humans in the world. <BR/><BR/>My points were not irrelevant either, they are history. History is important. Thats the entire point of this post. To remind people to look at current events with a keen eye on what has happened before it.Anokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-44558680627817438962008-02-13T18:22:00.000-05:002008-02-13T18:22:00.000-05:00I seriously, seriously disagree with your opinions...<I>I seriously, seriously disagree with your opinions on this Sonia, because the facts you are using to assert your point are not only false, but way too biased.</I><BR/><BR/>Which fact that I have stated is false ?<BR/><BR/>You are biased, not me. You continue to deny Soviet involvement in Saddam's rise to power, not me. You are denying left's attempt to stop Saddam's overthrow in 2003, not me. <BR/><BR/>Instead, you throw a smokescreens of true, but irrelevant (and incomplete - the whole Soviet involvement is absent from your account) facts that have nothing to do with my assertion, which is THIS: <B>Right and Left (US and Soviets) created Saddam TOGETHER. Only the Right realized its mistake and overthrew him. The Left tried everything to prevent the Right of setting the things right.</B><BR/><BR/>And you were against the overthrow of Saddam in 2003. So you have no right to criticize Rumsfeld for supporting Saddam in 1984. Rumsfeld corrected his mistake in 2003. You never did.soniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00938174968325568608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-1525242618792323622008-02-13T17:47:00.000-05:002008-02-13T17:47:00.000-05:00Originally Hussein has been linked to an assassina...Originally Hussein has been linked to an assassination attempt on Iraq's Qasim in 1959, (under Eisenhower, a republican) after joining the Baath party and his assassination was successful in 1963, although Hussein was not implicated. (It has been attributed as a coup from the Baath party). His ties with the CIA were known, as well as the funding of the assassination of Qasim. Hussein had been brought back from Cairo, and put into a position of power (and interrogator, then head of intelligence no less) when they systematically killed of communists, whose names were supplied by none other than...the US. His party then suffered a small coup, and came back from it in 1968. Hussein's cousin and mentor Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr had come to power, with his cousin close behind. At this point, the Baath party tried to create good relations with the communists, which irritated Nixon to no end, and he tried to stir up trouble using Shah's Iran to cause trouble with the Iraqi Kurds. This became expensive, and the Shah backed out, leaving Iraqi Kurdistan open for invasion by the Baath party. (Ordered by Hussein). The Us had to back out, trying to blame the whole thing on the Shah and the Shah alone, and at that point solidified Hussein's reign.<BR/><BR/>Later on Reagan and Rumsfeld (Again, republicans!) began giving Hussein diplomatic encouragement through a close relationship with the US. <BR/><BR/>At this point the common enemy was no longer communist Russia, but Iran and Syria. After a while it gets hard to keep straight. And although we condemned Hussein's use and creation of chemical weapons, we only did so on paper. We continued to look the other way with Hussein, which [the ingredients] were now being supplied to him by US pharmaceutical companies. <BR/><BR/>After that, during the Iran Iraq war, we supplied the Iraqis with money, arms, military intelligence<BR/>etc...which is how the monster Bin Laden and his Jihadists were created and funded. At least, for the most part. We also kept Iran from having Iraq condemned at the UN for use of chemical weapons. <BR/><BR/>But we didn't support him. <BR/><BR/>After the Gulf war, (1991) we again looked the other way as he decimated the Shiites and Kurds who tried to overthrow Hussein. (This is Bush seniors legacy!)<BR/><BR/>We only supported this entire regime to get rid of Qasim, whom we were afraid would stop exporting oil to us, and go back on the Baghdad pact of 1955. Then to throw off communism, and then to control Iran, and back to oil and development etc etc etc....<BR/><BR/>We looked the other way for a long time. Until, of course, we couldn't any longer.<BR/><BR/>We created this monster, and I'm not talking about Bin Laden. We only went in to take control because we had lost it through foreign relations. <BR/><BR/>Foreign relations that we should never had in the first place.<BR/><BR/>It doesn't really take much time to look this stuff up Sonia. The republicans had been his BIGGEST cheerleaders, kept him in power, sent him money - and although he wasn't a dictator, technically in the 50's, we was in power. His cousin was running the show, and he was behind the scenes as head of intelligence. <BR/><BR/>That may be splitting hairs, Sonia - but the truth of the matter is that we supported him, we supported torture, we supported dictatorship. We put him in power, we kept him there, and it was the right, the republicans who allowed the worst offenses, during their terms! And then when we decided to overthrow him - he was already cooperating with the UN, and was little more than a defunct dictator. <BR/><BR/>I seriously, seriously disagree with your opinions on this Sonia, because the facts you are using to assert your point are not only false, but way too biased.<BR/><BR/>I know you don't like "the left" but you have to realize and admit that they messed up, and our most current mistake, the Iraq war - does not, in any way shape or form have anything to do with overthrowing a dictator. Even hard right wingers admit that.Anokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-59465323192308648372008-02-13T16:57:00.000-05:002008-02-13T16:57:00.000-05:00You want facts, I will give you facts:Saddam Husse...You want facts, I will give you facts:<BR/><BR/>Saddam Hussein only came to power in 1979, so your statement "the US has supported Hussein since the 50's." is a incorrect.<BR/><BR/><I>We have been involved in Iraq politics for over 50 years. We supported the coup that eventually put Hussein in power. We supported Hussein after he was in power - in fact, WE are the reason Hussein was able to wreak such havoc in Iran by allowing him (Via vetoing UN sanctions against Hussein) to use biological weapons..</I><BR/><BR/>If by "we", you mean "leftists and rightists", you are absolutely correct. Soviet Union has sent as many weapons to Saddam as USA. Soviet Union vetoed those same sanctions.<BR/><BR/>But there is a difference. The rightists finally realized the criminal nature of Saddam's regime and decided to remove him from power in 2003.<BR/><BR/>What did leftists do ? They protested around the world, trying everything to prevent the removal of Saddam from power.<BR/><BR/>That's why I hate leftists. Rightists are bad enough, but leftists are far worse.soniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00938174968325568608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-41745560212763621822008-02-13T14:54:00.000-05:002008-02-13T14:54:00.000-05:00Sonia, the US has supported Hussein since the 50's...Sonia, the US has supported Hussein since the 50's, both republican and democrat. We have been involved in Iraq politics for over 50 years - so please, do your homework before claiming it's all "lefties" or that US involvement has only been since the 80's.<BR/><BR/>We supported the coup that eventually put Hussein in power, we supported Hussein after he was in power - in fact, WE are the reason Hussein was able to wreak such havoc in Iran by allowing him (Via vetoing UN sanctions against Hussein) to use biological weapons. <BR/><BR/>Come one Sonia, you know if you comment on my blog - you have to know the facts!Anokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-39718671690357657322008-02-13T10:12:00.000-05:002008-02-13T10:12:00.000-05:00If you are an Iraqi born after 1991, you have neve...<I>If you are an Iraqi born after 1991, you have never had peace one day in your life.</I>, <BR/><BR/>Completely false bullshit.<BR/><BR/>If you are an Iraqi born after 1979, you have never had peace one day in your life. Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1979. US was a Johnny-Come-Lately in a cycle of violence that started much earlier.<BR/><BR/>A definition of an idiot is somebody performing the same action and expecting a different result. The leftists have been performing the same action (supporting bloodthirsty Third World madmen) since 1917 (from Lenin to Stalin to Castro to Lumumba to Allende to Pol Pot to Saddam to Chavez) and expected that the latest incarnation will finally save humanity from Yankee imperialism.<BR/><BR/>If you really want to make life better for everyone - kill your "heros". They are the source of all evil, not Bush.soniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00938174968325568608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-9122462561329205762008-02-12T19:09:00.000-05:002008-02-12T19:09:00.000-05:00If you are an Iraqi born after 1991, you have neve...If you are an Iraqi born after 1991, you have never had peace one day in your life.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-32984767140506663652008-02-11T20:48:00.000-05:002008-02-11T20:48:00.000-05:00Dave Dubya, Jim, as always - I agree, but you guys...Dave Dubya, Jim, as always - I agree, but you guys knew that! <BR/><BR/>PhilBC, thanks for stopping in, it's nice to see you. Yes, we should be vigilant! It's also nice to hear opinions from the other side of the pond, so to speak. <BR/><BR/>By the way, thanks again for turning me on to statcounter, it is a BIG difference from my other stat tracker.Anokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-78883430109494140932008-02-11T18:38:00.000-05:002008-02-11T18:38:00.000-05:00Anok Very good! Our Patriotism and love for Amer...Anok<BR/> Very good! Our Patriotism and love for America has been used against us for years and years. Never by someone who did not care how we felt or how obvious his lies are. World War is Bush's goal. I mapped it yesterday and it is getting close now.<BR/> The middle east is the key. That is why he attacked Iraq to get in the middle east. You can't just threaten Muslims. You have to fight them to the end and he knew it.<BR/> Everything Bush has done was to set up his new world order world war and Russsia sees the set up. I started with that yesterday but what the hell is wrong with most American's? Why can't they see the obvious? They are all going to drag us and the world down with them.jmsjoinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17631105639275375922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-1866672152373645442008-02-11T18:32:00.000-05:002008-02-11T18:32:00.000-05:00Good stuff, Anok, The ruling class and its friends...Good stuff, Anok, The ruling class and its friends will always try and revise history for their own purposes. Just an example, here in Britain we used to often here the government claim the attacks of 9/11 were "unprovoked" and the result of hate filled bigots disgusted at the "decadence" (ie freedom) of the west. Quite conveniently and at a stroke it writes out US meddling in the Middle East. It lies completely outside of mainstream political thinking, so anyone bringing them up are derided as providing succour to our enemies, or as conspiraloons.<BR/><BR/>The truth is always a weapon. That's why we must be ever vigilant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-62544777106080039242008-02-11T16:55:00.000-05:002008-02-11T16:55:00.000-05:00Excellent post, Anok.Of course, the rationale for ...Excellent post, Anok.<BR/><BR/>Of course, the rationale for war in Iraq was based on lies and deception. In fact, the deception was so complete that the November 2004 election was decided when HALF the people of the US STILL BELIEVED Iraq had the WMD's. <BR/><BR/>This was after Hans Blix proclaimed his near certain doubts about the WMD's. This was after the Iraq Survey Group released the Duelfer Report in October. Remember when the headlines deceptively told us, "We were all wrong"? <BR/><BR/>That's how effective the propaganda was. <BR/><BR/>Besides the neocon influence to dominate and militarily occupy the Middle East, and the outright self-interests of crony war-profiteers, the other obvious reason for the invasion was to assure the re-election of George "The War President" Bush.<BR/><BR/>His intentions were quite clearly illustrated in an interview before he became president.<BR/><BR/> “One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.” – George W. Bush 1999<BR/><BR/>It was his idea all along to be a "War President".Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-66789454209660997812008-02-11T12:43:00.000-05:002008-02-11T12:43:00.000-05:00Edit, that should say "had biological weapons" not...Edit, that should say "had biological weapons" not has.Anokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-83826311956912191312008-02-11T12:41:00.000-05:002008-02-11T12:41:00.000-05:00Thanks SDM (Yes, I know who you are...thanks for s...Thanks SDM (Yes, I know who you are...thanks for stopping in!)<BR/><BR/>I do write with a predetermined purpose! (Don't we all?) Although it's probably not as biased as you may believe. As I said above, I have made sure to acknowledge the multitude of factors during, and before the invasion. <BR/><BR/>I also agree with you to some extent - I think where we disagree is in the intent behind the political and military strategies. To say its to gain control of a volatile Middle East is only telling a half-truth. The US has never been that altruistic. <BR/><BR/>I would day that we have been offered deception on a sliding scale, half truths and distorted facts are a form of deception. In fact it is a very powerful form of deception, and thus far more dangerous than an outright lie. <BR/><BR/>For example: Stating that Iraq housed terrorists as a way to get UN approval.<BR/><BR/>What actually was fact was:<BR/><BR/>Hussein has long allowed some, mild groups or cells of extremists to live in Iraq, but he never allowed them to engage in activities in Iraq, nor were they tied to Al-Qeada.<BR/><BR/>Muslim extremists sought to take down (or punish) the US. <BR/><BR/>Hussein <I>has</I> biological weapons, at one point.<BR/><BR/>What the citizens heard was: Hussein allows terrorists to live in Iraq, Hussein is a dictator, the Middle East hates westerners and wants us all dead, and Hussein used biological weapons, and may have WMD's. <BR/><BR/>How it worked - <BR/><BR/>Citizens took what they heard, as twisted information - the government and the media made sure to outline certain facts - and yes they were facts - but frame them in such a manner that people automatically assumed that "terrorist" meant "Bin Laden", that "Muslim/Middle East" meant "terrorism and hatred" and that "biological weapons from a decade prior" meant "WMD's right now" . <BR/><BR/>I also wrote about this in my "Xenophobia" post - the misuse of facts to render a wanted outcome. <BR/><BR/>It is really, really dangerous, in my opinion because there is enough fact that people tend to believe it with our reasoning out those pesky details. <BR/><BR/>Or, in my lingo, it's bedazzled with bullshit.Anokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-83313284882233833392008-02-11T11:08:00.000-05:002008-02-11T11:08:00.000-05:00Amazing prose though I disagree with most of it as...Amazing prose though I disagree with most of it as you clearly write with a predetermined purpose. I always thought Iraq was more about strategy and positioning (a staging grounds towards controlling the volatile middle east) then it was about Iraq being an actual threat. Obviously politicians and generals need reasons other than that for war. I imagine most were surprised that the stock piles of mustard gas were not there. Other reasons –absolutely – but to say complete deception is just as suggestive of propaganda as to what you purportedly resent.Kevin Goodmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12554353873309461758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-17060998581378060602008-02-11T10:38:00.000-05:002008-02-11T10:38:00.000-05:00Tamera, thank you for your reply! I really got int...<B>Tamera,</B> thank you for your reply! I really got into investigating the timeline - and to be fair I also wanted to point out to folks that it's not all Bush and cronies who are responsible. <BR/><BR/><B>Kdawg,</B> Wow! you and I both, very long writers LOL. Thank you for the kind words, and I'm glad I could inspire such memories of arguing with Burns (I wish I could have been a fly on the wall for that one!).<BR/><BR/>One note about OPEC, because I didn't get into in depth (I'm sure I will) - the idea is that the US wants to have a larger say in OPEC decisions, and while Iraq isn't the first place one would think of to accomplish this, you have to remember, it is only the <I>entry</I> point. In some ways Iraq was an easy target. As its now plain to see, we have other plans to move into other areas...as well as using Iraq (the easiest target by far) as a show of military force. Its a combo of economic and military coercion, in my opinion. <BR/><BR/>Besides, our country is in bed with Saudi Arabia, and i doubt we are that dumb, to launch an attack there LOL.<BR/><BR/>As for the civil war...yeah I so did a short bit unearthing the glorified revisionist history - although not from a military standpoint. It gets under my skin to no end!<BR/><BR/><B>Stone man,</B> I should clarify that the entire reason I started researching, and writing about this was spawned from a conversation I had with a 17 year old kid. The extent to which the revisionist history is working flabbergasts me. There is a nitpicking and pigeonholing of facts combined with falsifications, and half truths has set into motion an entire generation (well, maybe not <I>entire</I>) to support future actions, based on past biased. <BR/><BR/>So while I think I am somewhat preaching to the choir - I really, strongly feel that making educated decisions about what to do now (which I agree is of the utmost importance) has to be done so with full recognition of why we went in in the first place. <BR/><BR/>So, yeah, it is a little redundant, six years after the fact and all....but the opinions of the youth based on misinformation scares the crap out of me. So, I write! Hopefully, they will read.Anokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05675278947623136467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4342220819301909377.post-28226931682218943852008-02-11T09:38:00.000-05:002008-02-11T09:38:00.000-05:00I don't think anyone disputes the fact, that we en...I don't think anyone disputes the fact, that we entered the war under false pretenses. I think the only possible area of disagreement is the extent to which the Bush administration deliberately deceived the public. Even there, it is plausible that Bush & Co. actually believed there was a security threat, even as they perceived other advantages to going to war. The deception was then a cynical means to ensuring that the public went along with the war.<BR/><BR/>We do need to look at this stuff, but I also feel that it is important to think about the situation now in Iraq, the US, and international politics. My own interest has been in the disconnect between our administration's ambitions and the small price it's been asking those of us not in the military to pay. <BR/><BR/>Of course, this ties into its whole move to war in the first place. It thought it could do things fast and on the cheap, and now it's going to have to pay the piper, unless people decide to blame everything on the next administration.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com