the sobering of America - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-30-2005, 01:10 PM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:17 PM
the sobering of America

just thought this was really interesting ...





The sobering of America

US foreign policy is getting better - and that's partly because Iraq has got worse

Timothy Garton Ash
Thursday June 30, 2005
The Guardian

To return to America after an absence of six months is to find a nation sobered by reality. The reality of debt and lost jobs. The reality of rising China. Above all, the reality of Iraq.
This new sobriety was exemplified by President Bush's speech at Fort Bragg on Tuesday night. Beforehand, as the camera panned across row upon row of soldiers in red berets, the television commentator warned us that the speech might last a long time, since it was likely to be interrupted by numerous rounds of heartfelt applause from this loyal military audience. In fact, the audience interrupted him with applause just once. Once! Lines that during last autumn's election rallies drummed up a certain storm ("We will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins") were now met with a deafening silence. Stolidly they sat, the serried soldiers, clean-shaven, square-jawed, looking slightly bored and, in at least one case that I spotted, rhythmically chewing gum.

Bush ploughed on with his sober, rather wooden speech, wearing that curious, rigid half-smile of his, with the mouth turning down rather than up at each end. A demi-rictus. The eerie silence made him look, at moments, like a stand-up comic whose jokes were falling flat; but of course this was no laughing matter. Afterwards, the same television commentators who had warned us to expect rounds of applause speculated, with an equally authoritative air, that the White House had suggested restraint to this audience, so it would not look as if the president was both requesting blanket coverage from the television networks and exploiting the nation's military for the purposes of a party-political rally. But then perhaps soldiers who actually risk their lives for Bush's policies in Iraq, and have lost comrades there, would not have been in a great mood to applaud anyway. Afterwards, as he mingled with the troops in the hall, their faces showed little more than mild curiosity at the prospect of meeting their commander-in-chief.
Bush's Fort Bragg speech once again presented Iraq as part of the global war on terror - the Gwot. He mentioned the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks five times; weapons of mass destruction not once. We have to defeat the terrorists abroad, he said, before they attack us at home. As freedom spreads in the Middle East, the terrorists will lose their support. Then he made this extraordinary statement: "To complete the mission, we will prevent al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban - a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends."

Consider. Three years ago, when the Bush administration started ramping up the case for invading Iraq, Afghanistan had recently been liberated from both the Taliban and the al-Qaida terrorists who had attacked the US. There was still a vast amount to be done to make Afghanistan a safe place. Iraq, meanwhile, was a hideous dictatorship under Saddam Hussein. But, as the United States' own September 11 commission subsequently concluded, Saddam's regime had no connection with the 9/11 attacks. Iraq was not then a recruiting sergeant or training ground for jihadist terrorists. Now it is. The US-led invasion, and Washington's grievous mishandling of the subsequent occupation, have made it so. General Wesley Clark puts it plainly: "We are creating enemies." And the president observes: our great achievement will be to prevent Iraq becoming another Taliban-style, al-Qaida-harbouring Afghanistan! This is like a man who shoots himself in the foot and then says: "We must prevent it turning gangrenous, then you'll understand why I was right to shoot myself in the foot."

In short, whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a crime, it's now clear that - at least in the form in which the invasion and occupation was executed by the Bush administration - it was a massive blunder. And the American people are beginning to see this. Before Bush spoke at Fort Bragg, 53% of those asked in a CNN/Gallup poll said it was a mistake to go into Iraq. Just 40% approved of how he has handled Iraq, down from 50% at the time of the presidential election last November. Contrary to what many Europeans believe, you can fool some of the Americans all of the time, and all of the Americans some of the time, but you can't fool most Americans most of the time - even with the help of Fox News. Reality gets through. Hence the new sobriety.

I don't want to overstate this. One is still gobsmacked by things American Republicans say. Take the glorification of the military, for example. In his speech, Bush insisted "there is no higher calling than service in our armed forces". What? No higher calling! How about being a doctor, a nurse, a teacher, an aid worker? Unimaginable that any European leader could say such a thing.

None the less, here are a few indicators of the new sobriety. First of all, neocons are no longer calling the shots. As a well-informed Washingtonian tells me, the nominations of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank and John Bolton to be ambassador to the UN actually show they have been kicked upstairs. There is little talk now of proud unilateralism and America winning the Gwot on its own. Everyone stresses the importance of allies. Bush quoted with approval Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, on our shared interest in a stable Iraq, and proudly averred that "Iraqi army and police are being trained by personnel from Italy, Germany, Ukraine, Turkey, Poland, Romania, Australia and the United Kingdom".

The state department, under Condoleezza Rice, is setting out to repair old American alliances and to forge new ones. One of America's most dynamically developing alliances is with India, a country in which America is also much loved. If anyone in Foggy Bottom (the wonderfully named neighbourhood of the state department) feels a twinge of schadenfreude at the crisis of the EU, they are not showing it. They want a strong European partner too. On Iran, which even six months ago threatened to become a new Iraq crisis, the US is letting the so-called E3 - Britain, France and Germany - take the diplomatic lead. Even with the election of a hardline Iranian president, military options are not being seriously canvassed. And if the European diplomacy with Iran does not work, what is Washington's plan B? To take the issue to the United Nations! What a difference three years make.

Schröder is right, of course. It would be suicidally dumb for any European to think, in relation to Iraq, "the worse the better". Jihadists now cutting their teeth in Iraq will make no fine distinctions between Washington and London, Berlin or Madrid. Any reader tempted to luxuriate schadenfreudishly in the prospect of a Vietnam-style US evacuation from Baghdad may be woken from that reverie by the blast from a bomb, planted in Charing Cross tube station by an Iraq-hardened terrorist. But it is a fair and justified historical observation that American policy has got better - more sober, more realistic - at least partly because things in Iraq have gone so badly. This is the cunning of history.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...517910,00.html
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 01:12 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 11:17 PM
"there is no higher calling than service in our armed forces"

As I said before, this is particularly sick-making coming from that chickenhawk.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 01:17 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 05:17 PM
thanks for sharing irvine. that's a well written piece.
__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 03:20 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:17 PM
Very good article.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 06:24 PM   #5
Acrobat
 
echo0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WV-USA
Posts: 349
Local Time: 05:17 PM
Quote:
In short, whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a crime, it's now clear that - at least in the form in which the invasion and occupation was executed by the Bush administration - it was a massive blunder.


Good article. Thanks, Irvine.
__________________
echo0001 is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 07:01 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
For Honor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 5,278
Local Time: 05:17 PM
If I go over to China now, do you think they will accept me?

I mean, I know I'll always be an outsider, but I am so here, so it's no different. ..
__________________
For Honor is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 07:50 PM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:17 AM
Wrong on numerous levels, notably the faith in the EU3 initiative which is doing the same dance that is always done for a rising nuclear power, stalling with diplomacy and false concessions until they have weapons they will not surrender.

The lessons have not been learnt from Iraq, does that author genuinely believe that Iran has any interest in disarming? The nuclear program existed well before September 11 and the begining of the GWOT, it was not prompted by Americas exercising of power in the region. The UN would be a total dead end in disarming Iran.

The greatest blunder of this administration is not going to be Iraq, it will be the emergence of a nuclear Iran next door.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 07:55 PM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 11:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The nuclear program existed well before September 11 and the begining of the GWOT,
In my view Sep 11 was probably as a result of Enron's meddling in Afghanistan with regard to the oil pipeline - see Cheney/Lay/Enron/Bushco connections.

Negotiations with the Taliban broke down in August 2001 - hmmm, interesting. That's probably why the intelligence services couldn't stop it - they were told to look the other way.

And the GWOT is a fiction.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 07:57 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 11:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The lessons have not been learnt from Iraq, does that author genuinely believe that Iran has any interest in disarming? The nuclear program existed well before September 11 and the begining of the GWOT, it was not prompted by Americas exercising of power in the region. The UN would be a total dead end in disarming Iran.
You're right, a nuclear Iran is a danger to world stability.

As is a nuclear Israel. Oh sorry, I forgot that's 'anti-semitic'.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 07:58 PM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:17 AM
Good too know where you stand, but this has what to do with the Iranian nuclear aspirations.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 08:00 PM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 11:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Good too know where you stand, but this has what to do with the Iranian nuclear aspirations.
Well to be honest, what is the problem with Iran possessing nukes? I mean the West has them, and that apparently is not a problem to you.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 08:06 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


You're right, a nuclear Iran is a danger to world stability.

As is a nuclear Israel. Oh sorry, I forgot that's 'anti-semitic'.
No, it is not anti-semitic to criticise Israel or blast it's nuclear program, I have rarely seen defenders of Israel stonewall behind the "anti-semitism" defence. it is a strawman argument that you are putting out there.

Israel has had nuclear weapons since the 1960's, after Yom Kippur the strategy of ambiguity has kept the country safe, Israel has never initiated wars in the region and has had to defend itself against the numerically superior Arab armies who sought to wipe it off the map numerous times. It's nuclear weapons which kept the peace.

Iran however has put it's cards on the table with what it intends to do with it's weapons and it will not do anybody any good, not the Israeli people or the Iranian people.

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in its possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world" ~ Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, 2001

""With this election, the Islamic republic of Iran is more capable of confronting challenges, and the Europeans have to take this into consideration," ~ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, June 2005
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 08:13 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 11:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Iran however has put it's cards on the table with what it intends to do with it's weapons and it will not do anybody any good, not the Israeli people or the Iranian people.

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in its possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world" ~ Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, 2001

""With this election, the Islamic republic of Iran is more capable of confronting challenges, and the Europeans have to take this into consideration," ~ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, June 2005
The first quote - bellicose, undoubtedly.

The second - frankly, so what? It is certainly no more bellicose than the rhetoric spewed forth by Bush. Let us not pretend that the Washington administration does not use similar vaguely threatening language when it suits them.

One wonders however who precisely oil discovered in the Middle East belongs to, and how certain Arab governments are likely to react when - as THEY see it - Arab resources are being plundered.

Or to put it another way, what is the root cause of these bellicose noises coming out of Tehran?
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 08:16 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 11:17 PM
I'm with A_Wanderer on this one. Iran can't have nukes. Simple as that. To me, Iran with nukes is worse then North Korea with nukes. It's like facing two different guys outside a bar, both saying their going to beat the sh*t out of you. North Korea are the drunk guy overreacting to a perceived threat ("I sweeearr you were trying to pick up my girl! I saw you staring at her ass all night! I'm sure of it!") and require talking down, calming, distraction. They probably don't really want to hit you and are more likely afraid or threatened by you, and what they really want is something else. Iran are completely calm and sober, and are rationaly staring you down and in their eyes you know they fucking do want to punch you and they fucking will.

Of course I don't believe they'll ever get nukes. We'll know they're really close when Israel bombs them.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 08:18 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:17 AM
I would have thought that the answer lies in a crumbling dictatorship of theocrats still clinging to the old revolution while the people are moving away from it, to reinforce their position they seek immunity from any foreign interference by establishing a nuclear program, thus giving them free reign to act without concequence.

Of course the answer that you want is that the Americans steal the oil and the zionists are pulling the strings, taking out any governments hostile to Israel by stealth.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com