homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Your News!   » Some serious thoughts about the USA's future. (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Author Topic: Some serious thoughts about the USA's future.
magefile
Highlie
Member # 2918

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 04, 2006 15:13      Profile for magefile     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erbo:
I might also point out that many of the least-free societies the Earth has ever known have been those not based on Christian/Enlightenment principles. The obvious examples today are Muslim countries under Shari'a law, but to that we can also add Nazi Germany (which sought to supplant Christianity with Nazi philosophy under a "Reich Church"), Communist countries (officially atheist), Imperial Japan (which, under State Shintoism, worshipped the Emperor as a god figure), and others.

That's a bit ad hoc ergo propter hoc, isn't it? And I would question your statment about Nazi Germany - yes, there is "Nazi mysticism", but various churches provided a lot of support to the Nazis. Ludwig Mueller is a good example of this; he was best known for preaching about 'Christ the Aryan'. The full name of the original Reich Church was actually <i>Protestant</i> Reich Church. It would be a mistake to think that 'Christian' principles and theology were not a factor in Nazi Germany.

And to forestall any complaints that the above wasn't actually very Christian ... the same argument applies to some of your other examples (i.e., Sharia isn't really very Islamic, communism isn't based on atheistic principles, etc).

Posts: 743 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 04, 2006 18:28      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChildeRoland:
I hate when people allege that Bush lied to the UN. Do you have any evidence of that?

Puhleasee!

The moment when Colin Powell stood up in front of the UN to present what was trailed as convincing evidence of WMDs and showed a few blurry photographs and played an ambiguous telephone conversation between two army officers about what they were having for supper , should have been the moment of truth for anyone with two braincells to rub together. From that moment on it was clear that the US knew diddly squat about what was happening in Iraq. So Bush was either lied or is the biggest fool ever to have occupied the Oval office. To my mind however, the real shame belongs to the democrats and the UK government who fell into line behind a war that they knew was without justification and illegal.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Colonel Panic
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 1200

Icon 1 posted April 04, 2006 18:44      Profile for Colonel Panic         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMoMan:
Colonel Panic________________________Much of what you and the article auther I agree with, and I often wonder what the hell were we doing in French Indo-China.

Mo Man,

I don't know about you, but I was trying to stay alive, so I could come home and kick the ass of Little Lord Faunleroy boys like Gee-Dubya for stealing my fiancee while I was fighting for ...

... shit, let me figure that out again, oh, yeah ...

...until a couple of years ago I thought at least what we were fighting for was not doing anything as stupid as that anymore.

You know.

Peace.

CP

--------------------
Free! Free at last!

Posts: 1809 | From: Glacier Melt, USA | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted April 04, 2006 20:13      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Calli, I'm sure you've heard of the Downing Street Memo, but for those that haven't, have a look.

quote:
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action
Smoking gun, ya think?

--------------------
(!) (T) = 8-D

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 1 posted April 04, 2006 21:09      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
April 04, 2006, 18:28
From that moment on it was clear that the US knew diddly squat about what was happening in Iraq. So Bush was either lied or is the biggest fool ever to have occupied the Oval office.

With regard to dictator that had killed 300,000 of his own people, invaded, occupied, and looted a wealthy neighboring country, and financially supported terrorism... which would make you worry more?

    (a) Knowing exactly what he was doing.
        or
    (b) Knowing "diddly squat" about his activities.

Then again...
 -
    ... maybe we knew everything. [Roll Eyes]

Everyone knows Saddam was violating UN resolutions with wild and intense vigor. Anyone with sense would realize that spending $2 billion on palaces while under "severe economic sanctions" is not possible by legitimate means.

The UN handling of punitive actions against Saddam Hussein was actually worse than the typical UN performance. The UN didn't pay Rwanda to kill 800,000 people. The government of Sudan wasn't paid by the UN to murder and rape thousands in Darfur. However, with Saddam the UN said "if you give us the oil, we'll give you unmarked cash to buy FOOD and MEDICINE (*wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say no more*)."

How well does the UN take to admitting "failure" (*cough* aiding criminals *cough*)?

Answer: It has diplomatic immunity, it doesn't have to.... But it does promise "never again." On the "bright side," they "retired" the "Commission on Human Rights" for its "failures."

The reason the US only brought up WMD charges is because Saddam's violations of resolutions concerning WMD inspections were clear, and only Saddam needed to be charged for "criminal" activity.

Almost every other charge that could be made against Saddam would require implicating UN members of conspiracy with Saddam. Smuggle $9 billion worth of oil? Someone had to buy it. Bribery? Someone had to take Saddam's "money" (oil actually). Ignore repeated violation of UN resolutions? Someone had to look the other way.

"Everyone" wants to "believe" that WMD was the "only threat" posed by Saddam. In reality Saddam had been allowed to "acquire" over $10 billion from oil revenue (illegally), so:

    (a) $1 million (0.01% of $10 billion) would easily finance 9/11-like attacks. (Note: Bartering forged passports, military grade explosives, etc. are as good as, or better than, cash.)

    (b) It would be "impossible" to track such an attack back to Saddam because the actual operation would be carried out by al-Qaida (or whomever).

Maybe "you're right" that the US shouldn't have attacked Saddam: Sending a heavily-armed brigade into the UN building, confiscating all documents, detaining all high level officials, and announcing conspiracy charges for aiding Saddam Hussein's regime -- would have been easier, addressed the reason that Saddam retained and expanded his (non-military) power, and much more fun to watch.

quote:
April 04, 2006, 15:13
Sharia isn't really very Islamic

I can't find references that say "Sharia is not Islamic." [Confused]

Sharia is basically implementing religious jurisprudence, which in turn have been fixed into four schools of jurisprudence (from 699 CE to 855 CE approximately). Apparently, the Koran had seven texts (all produced during the period 736 CE to 804 CE). According to this, Sharia appeared in written form before the Koran.

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
ewomack
Highlie
Member # 3225

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 04, 2006 21:09      Profile for ewomack   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh yes we've been in decline for some time, and it has very little to do with Christianity. It has more to do with the attitude that the state exists for the good of a few rather than the good of everyone. The elite remain isolated from the problems of the middle and lower classes (because they can afford it), and business interests tend to win over the interests of people (the latest eminent domain cases provide only one example). Not that the US ever wasn't this way, mind you (it was founded by businessmen for businessmen with "freedom" and "opportunity" as its propoganda - every state has its propoganda because it needs to control its people). But it seems to go in waves, and we're deep in a cycle now.

Iran also poses an interesting challenge. That one will get much stickier. Ugh. [Frown]

--------------------
Ed Womack
Get Milked

Posts: 735 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted April 04, 2006 22:31      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Funny that eh, ewomack. The US had so much potential then after WWII and leading up to the cold war things went a bit sideways. Empires have come and gone for all of history, but it seems wierd that the world (in the information age) actually has front row seats watching the US unravel.

Given that Canada and the US share a continent, history and have a similar ethnic make up we should really be a lot more alike but it is almost like we live in parallel universes. Canada is far from perfect, but I think the world would be a much happier place if the US was more like Canada....or *gasp* if they were better than Canada.

--------------------
(!) (T) = 8-D

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 05, 2006 01:49      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
"Everyone" wants to "believe" that WMD was the "only threat" posed by Saddam.

No, this is is exactly the sort of strawman stuff that gives me the shits in every one of these discussions. What annoys me is that we were told that the reason that Iraq needed immediate action was WMD. Then later, no WMD were found, and the story gets changed to "liberating the Iraqi people" or some similar line. Either the public were lied to about the real reason for going into Iraq, or the administration changed their minds partway through, there are no other logical possiblities. And no amount of hand waving about how much of a bad man Saddam was is going to change that simple fact.

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 05, 2006 05:21      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
csk: you're old enough to know better !

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Demosthenes
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 530

Icon 1 posted April 05, 2006 05:25      Profile for Demosthenes     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ewomack:
Oh yes we've been in decline for some time, and it has very little to do with Christianity.

It has amazing amounts to do with Christianity. Somebody in the Republican party realized that it's easy to stir the religious Right to fanatacism, simply by loudly writing off everyone else as lesser citizens. ("No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." -- G. W. Bush) The Prez has rallied the South and the Midwest to his side by brushing off what he portrays as "opposing" beliefs, and mongering fear towards that which is seen as different.
Posts: 1349 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted April 05, 2006 08:44      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Demosthenes:
It has amazing amounts to do with Christianity. Somebody in the Republican party realized that it's easy to stir the religious Right to fanatacism, simply by loudly writing off everyone else as lesser citizens.

They used the same method to mobilize the religious right so they could win the election in '04. Tossing around vague words like 'evil-doers etc.

--------------------
(!) (T) = 8-D

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
magefile
Highlie
Member # 2918

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 05, 2006 11:32      Profile for magefile     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Demosthenes, I agree completely, but I think that was actually said by George HW Bush.

--------------------
Let them be stupid - the market will sort it out.

Posts: 743 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sxeptomaniac

Member # 3698

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 05, 2006 13:08      Profile for Sxeptomaniac   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
quote:
Originally posted by Demosthenes:
It has amazing amounts to do with Christianity. Somebody in the Republican party realized that it's easy to stir the religious Right to fanatacism, simply by loudly writing off everyone else as lesser citizens.

They used the same method to mobilize the religious right so they could win the election in '04. Tossing around vague words like 'evil-doers etc.
Wasn't the left tossing around the same words? [Wink]

--------------------
Let's pray that the human race never escapes from Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. - C. S. Lewis

Posts: 1590 | From: Fresno, CA | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 2 posted April 05, 2006 13:34      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
April 05, 2006, 01:49
What annoys me is that we were told that the reason that Iraq needed immediate action was WMD.

The only thing that indicated a lack of WMD was that inspectors couldn't find any. Not finding something doesn't prove "it doesn't exist." India's surprise nuke tests in 1998 proved that nukes can be developed and tested without being detected by the CIA or NSA. Saddam constantly obstructed inspection efforts and refused to "cooperate" with the UN in other matters as well.

Let's consider the threat of WMD from various perspectives:

* Russia: We buy Iraqi oil and sell them weapons; we're friends, so he won't mess with us.
    Conclusion: WMD is "not a threat."

* China: We buy Iraqi oil and sell them weapons; we're friends, so he won't mess with us.
    Conclusion: WMD is "not a threat."

* France: We buy Iraqi oil and sell them weapons; we're friends, so he won't mess with us.
    Conclusion: WMD is "not a threat."

* "The UN": We don't enforce punitive resolutions against Iraq; we're friends, so he won't mess with us.
    Conclusion: WMD is "not a threat."

* US: Saddam provides moral and financial support for terrorism. He obstructs WMD inspections, and did not allow inspectors to witness destruction of materials and equipment. His attitudes and behavior are unchanged after 12 years. The only "change" is that he lacks large numbers of troops and armored vehicles for conventional warfare; therefore, any aggressive action he takes would most likely be non-conventional (WMD, terrorism). Saddam (is insane and) cannot be "contained" by threat (destruction of troops and equipment); evidence: he refused to leave Kuwait despite facing overwhelmingly superior force -- result: he lost over half of his armored assets in just over two days. Saddam is willing to provoke "world war" if he "cannot win"; evidence: SCUD missile attacks against Israel. Large scale multinational "conflict" would have a "major negative impact" on global economics, largely due reduction in oil supplies. At a minimum, economic disruption will continue for the months required to deploy adequate military force, the weeks to secure key ground objectives, and months to restore infrastructure.
    Conclusion: (Saddam and) Unaccounted Iraqi WMD materials and equipment remain a threat.

(If you think "whatever hurts the US doesn't hurt me," I understand because the UN feels that way also.)

quote:
April 05, 2006, 01:49
Either the public were lied to about the real reason for going into Iraq, or ...

There were "many" reasons (RE: strawman) for going into Iraq ("stealing" oil wasn't one). "You" were not told "all the reasons" because:
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
Almost every other charge that could be made against Saddam would require implicating UN members of conspiracy with Saddam.

If you think UN members would willingly face "public humiliation" so Saddam could be punished, you're sadly mistaken. WMD was a real concern, and I'm sure the US expected to find some of it based on Saddam's interference on WMD inspections and effort to obscure other activities.

You still probably believe the US should have revealed all reasons for invading Iraq, so let's imagine the United Nations session:
quote:
US Ambassador: ... In addition to noncompliance with UN resolutions on WMD, UN members and Saddam have conspired to circumvent economic sanctions.

Kofi Annan: That is shocking and outrageous. However, because this is a serious matter, we must investigate the accusation immediately. ... Russia, have you done anything naughty with Mr. Hussein?

Russian Ambassador: No, of course not.

Kofi Annan: China, have you done anything naughty with Mr. Hussein?

Chinese Ambassador: No, of course not.

Kofi Annan: France, have you done anything naughty with Mr. Hussein?

French Ambassador: Sacré bleu! ... No! What kind of savage would accuse any member this distinguished institution of such a thing. Is he in this room?!

Kofi Annan: Please, please, Mr. French person, remain calm.... Ok, now you ask me.

French Ambassador: Kofi, have you done anything naughty with Mr. Hussein?

Kofi Annan: No! Never! I cannot believe you would ask such a thing of me! ... Well, it appears that all UN members and Saddam Hussein have been cleared of any wrong-doing ... EXCEPT for the American. This session is adjourned.

Of course, maybe the UN is a magnificent example of ethics and honorable conduct, like its (recently "retired") Commission on Human Rights. (Thanks Sudan. [shake head] )

If you can't see the inherent problems of charging UN members with conspiracy as a means of showing "reason" to invade Iraq, then you'll never understand why some (true) things remain unspoken.

quote:
April 05, 2006, 05:25
It has amazing amounts to do with Christianity.

#include sarcasm.h
Yup.... and if the Pope and 18 cardinals hijacked a commercial airliner and crashed it into the WTC after declaring all Americans must die, the White House would have sent a sympathy card to the Vatican.
[shake head]

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Flashfire
Assimilated
Member # 2616

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 05, 2006 15:36      Profile for Flashfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hmm...I may get accused of feeding the troll here, but I just have to ask -- if our invasion of Iraq was solely based on the possibility of their having a weapons program, then why haven't we glassed North Korea yet? We know they have special nuclear material, not to mention the capacity to make more, and long-range missiles capable of reaching the continental United States. Yet I don't see Marines on their shores...

--------------------
"No silicon heaven? That's absurd!
Where would all the calculators go?"
--Kryten, Red Dwarf
-------------------------------
My Web Comic: NSTA: Semper Vigilantis

Posts: 368 | From: State of Denial | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 05, 2006 15:40      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Flashfire:
Hmm...I may get accused of feeding the troll here...

You're feeding a troll.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sxeptomaniac

Member # 3698

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 05, 2006 16:05      Profile for Sxeptomaniac   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Flashfire:
Hmm...I may get accused of feeding the troll here, but I just have to ask -- if our invasion of Iraq was solely based on the possibility of their having a weapons program, then why haven't we glassed North Korea yet? We know they have special nuclear material, not to mention the capacity to make more, and long-range missiles capable of reaching the continental United States. Yet I don't see Marines on their shores...

My guess would be because our last invasion of North Korea didn't go nearly as well as our last invasion of Iraq. [ohwell]

--------------------
Let's pray that the human race never escapes from Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. - C. S. Lewis

Posts: 1590 | From: Fresno, CA | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 05, 2006 17:59      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Flashfire:
Hmm...I may get accused of feeding the troll here, but I just have to ask -- if our invasion of Iraq was solely based on the possibility of their having a weapons program, then why haven't we glassed North Korea yet? We know they have special nuclear material, not to mention the capacity to make more, and long-range missiles capable of reaching the continental United States. Yet I don't see Marines on their shores...

Y'know, I've completely lost track of why we went to war with Iraq. The excuses change with the seasons it seems.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted April 05, 2006 20:33      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
Y'know, I've completely lost track of why we went to war with Iraq. The excuses change with the seasons it seems.

Um, because Saddam flew planes into the WTC.

--------------------
(!) (T) = 8-D

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 05, 2006 22:42      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
Y'know, I've completely lost track of why we went to war with Iraq. The excuses change with the seasons it seems.

Um, because Saddam flew planes into the WTC.
And even if he didn't, you just _know_ he's the kinda guy who would...

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 1 posted April 06, 2006 01:23      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
April 05, 2006 15:36
I just have to ask -- if our invasion of Iraq was solely based on the possibility of their having a weapons program, then why haven't we glassed North Korea yet?

The "only thing" North Korea can do is lob a couple of nukes. (There are things that "scare" the US more than getting hit with two or three nukes. The "Cold War" resulted in a lot of thinking about the cost of nuclear war, and they were thinking 100's of nukes.)

1. Waging war requires wealth, and North Korea is impoverished (thanks to its leadership): They're starving already, so starting a war would almost be suicide.

2. North Korea is physically and politically contained: Their army can't march any farther than South Korea, and China would gladly "annex" them by force if pissed.

3. "The world doesn't need North Korea" (market/resources): This allows a broad range of retribution tactics. We could starve them to death over months, or destroy everything in a week. The choice would probably be made based on cost of the war.

4. Kim Jong Il may be crazy, but he hasn't forced us to blow up his stuff: There's enough of a chance that he fears US (and Chinese) retribution that he may be extremely annoying, but still not worth the (monetary and political) costs of an airstrike.

The Reasons the US Wouldn't Wait for Disaster in Iraq:

1. Global Economics: Global supply of oil does not "exceed" global demand anymore. The US may not buy Iraqi oil, but when an oil supply disappears, somebody's economy will feel a chill. The next question is: "Will there be a recession, and will it affect trading partners?" (Iraq's oil is sacrificed on the short-term, but "protected" long-term.)

2. Iraq is Wealthy (even if the people are starving): When Saddam was able to spend $2 billion on palaces, you could be certain that he had plenty of cash.
quote:
Mo: French Indo-China was a proxy war, you're old enough to know that.
Having "plenty of cash" allows you to do things like "fight proxy wars." In this case, letting al-Qaida attack the US, and helping them with money from black-market oil would have been the "perfect" proxy war. Since black-market money is "never in the legal banking system," it can't be traced to its source.

3. War in the Mideast is Difficult to Contain: Saddam made it clear in the first Gulf War that he would gladly "lead" the entire region into (religious) war. A repeat of the collapse of Yugoslavia into civil war would be very bad, especially if oil production in Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia "dropped" at the same time.
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
At a minimum, economic disruption will continue for the months required to deploy adequate military force, the weeks to secure key ground objectives, and months to restore infrastructure.

Preemptive strike eliminates having to watch everything burn for a couple of months while you wait for "adequate military force." In strategic terms, it's better to have "war" sucked into a region than it is to have it spill out. In the first Gulf War if Saddam had pushed his units into Saudi Arabia, he could have (nearly?) eliminated US ability to deploy heavy armor in the region, shut down "half" the world oil reserves, and caused "extreme" damage to major industrial economies."

4. The UN Cure Becoming Worse Than the Disease: "More than 2,000 companies paid about $1.8 billion in illicit kickbacks and surcharges to Saddam Hussein's government through extensive manipulation of the U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq, according to key findings of a U.N.-backed investigation." (Oct 27, 2005)

    (a) Sucks to Be US: Imagine the following, US gives money to UN.... UN gives money to dictator.... Dictator decides to prove he's "#1".... UN declares humanitarian disaster.... US troops have to provide "peace-keeping" (or other aid) at US taxpayer expense.

    (b) "Payback" for Helping Saddam (you might even call it economic warfare): Anyone who made plans for outstanding economic growth on cheap Iraqi oil was in for a rude awakening, and no one buying Saddam's oil had any (real) recourse against the US because first they'd have to admit violating UN trade sanctions.

5. "Espionage" (minor issue): We're a "little disappointed" with our intelligence gathering lately. Getting a spy into Saddam's regime is impossible. It would be really nice if we could walk up to a safe from one of Saddam's Top Secret agencies and look at everything in it.... Maybe someone got an idea: A safe is really tough. It's nearly impossible to crush, and if you did "crush" it, you'd just have crumpled paper inside. First you bomb the building, then occupy the area, and when time permits, you "dig for treasure." With original documents, you might figure out where the "wrong" information came from, who was right, and find "more justification" for the war.

Sometimes I think #4 is the "real" reason for the war.

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 06, 2006 03:29      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Slightly off topic this, but it always surprises me that anyone would expect GWB to have much interest in anything so mundane as bald factual truth. His faith based politics places much more emphasis on guidance from prayer and the Bible than dull old history or ascertainable factual evidence.

Then there is the man himself. Underneath the folksy country boy Texan persona, which bizarrely nobody seems to question despite it being entirely his own creation, there is a very complex man. He has reinvented himself so many times, first as a Texan which he isn't, and as a hard drinking oil man at which he failed, then performed another somersault to become the born again Christian politician. Look into those strange blinking eyes and much less confident man seems to appear, ill at ease with himself, but a highly accomplished fantasist, who has fooled most of the US, partly because he has also fooled himself. It may be that he believes sincerely in just about everything he says, but I also think his grip on reality is tenuous at best.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
drunkennewfiemidget
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2814

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 06, 2006 07:41      Profile for drunkennewfiemidget     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
Slightly off topic this, but it always surprises me that anyone would expect GWB to have much interest in anything so mundane as bald factual truth. His faith based politics places much more emphasis on guidance from prayer and the Bible than dull old history or ascertainable factual evidence.

He's just making this shit up as he goes along.
Posts: 4897 | From: Cambridge, ON, Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sxeptomaniac

Member # 3698

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 06, 2006 08:44      Profile for Sxeptomaniac   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:

Then there is the man himself. Underneath the folksy country boy Texan persona, which bizarrely nobody seems to question despite it being entirely his own creation, there is a very complex man. He has reinvented himself so many times, first as a Texan which he isn't, and as a hard drinking oil man at which he failed, then performed another somersault to become the born again Christian politician. Look into those strange blinking eyes and much less confident man seems to appear, ill at ease with himself, but a highly accomplished fantasist, who has fooled most of the US, partly because he has also fooled himself. It may be that he believes sincerely in just about everything he says, but I also think his grip on reality is tenuous at best.

I don't kid myself into thinking I know him at all. All we get is a 2-dimensional picture painted by the media.

--------------------
Let's pray that the human race never escapes from Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. - C. S. Lewis

Posts: 1590 | From: Fresno, CA | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 06, 2006 09:19      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree Sxepto that he is a mystery, and while I am only giving my opinion, he is obviously much more complex than the image he presents, and his personal history indicates a character that is a mass of contradictions.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam