Quano Abidji-Achibi
The Fly
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2001
- Messages
- 234
why is it unfortunate that most americans care about the economy the most? i know someone in the states who is very educated and qualified for a good job, but cant find one.
Who to "Liberate" Next?
- Thread starter melon
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Klaus
Refugee
Sharky:
To quote the Simpsons: "and because i reached all my goals in the first 4 years i didn't need a second term"
If the US is at war again in a few months media is under governent control, he could count on many patriots who would vote for him - maybe his chances would be far better for the next election campaign?
Klaus
To quote the Simpsons: "and because i reached all my goals in the first 4 years i didn't need a second term"
If the US is at war again in a few months media is under governent control, he could count on many patriots who would vote for him - maybe his chances would be far better for the next election campaign?
Klaus
I don't want to see another war like this....I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to bush on iraq...but not on syria or iran. That would be ludicrous.
I may in fact eat my words if iraq does in fact go on to spearhead reforms in that region but in truth...I dont' want to see syria or iran changed because I don't want to see further destabilization in the mid east
Finish up iraq, sign a non-aggression pact with N korea invest in africa, put some pressure on pakistan, sanctions even. Settle the israel palestine issue and in fact make sure that the US, isreal and the arab world is investing in palestine to make sure that all sides have a stake in peace.
And this is an idea I've been bouncing around. Why doesn't the US government sponsor muslim americans to go back and give talks to people in arab countries about what life is like here etc etc...build some cultural bridges.
As for "liberating" saudi that doesn't require anything all we have to do is pull Us troops out and that regime will change itself.
I may in fact eat my words if iraq does in fact go on to spearhead reforms in that region but in truth...I dont' want to see syria or iran changed because I don't want to see further destabilization in the mid east
Finish up iraq, sign a non-aggression pact with N korea invest in africa, put some pressure on pakistan, sanctions even. Settle the israel palestine issue and in fact make sure that the US, isreal and the arab world is investing in palestine to make sure that all sides have a stake in peace.
And this is an idea I've been bouncing around. Why doesn't the US government sponsor muslim americans to go back and give talks to people in arab countries about what life is like here etc etc...build some cultural bridges.
As for "liberating" saudi that doesn't require anything all we have to do is pull Us troops out and that regime will change itself.
sharky
New Yorker
Quano Abidji-Achibi said:
Unfortunate for Bush.
Remember that Johnson didn't run for a second term because the Vietnam issue would have been a disaster on the campaign trail. If we start attacking any and all Middle Eastern countries, its going to be similar to that. And Bush can either not run or run and get defeated. When the chips are down, Americans like quick wars we win. And they like their jobs. And if we don't win quickly or money isn't coming in or both, Bush is screwed.
Rono
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Why not go for Qatar. They have no elections or a politic party. The minister of internal affairs did give shelter to the man who planed the twin tower attack and donated money to bin laden. This happend in 1996.
Anitram,
Are you saying you would have supported a US invasion to overthrow Saddam in 1988 but not in 2003? Lets not forget the context of what was going in 1988 as well, the Iran/Iraq war. Anyone attempting to overthrow Saddam would certainly have to deal with Iran as well back in 1988. Its easy in hindsite to look at an event 15 or 20 years ago and say this or that should have been done. The reason nothing was done in 1988 has to do with the war between Iran and Iraq. The west and most persian Gulf Countries had just spent 90 Billion dollars helping Iraq save itself from Iran after Saddam had unwisely started the war with Iran in 1980. This was done as to protect the region from Iran as much as it was done to protect Iraq from falling to Iran. What Saddam did was an evil crime in 1988, but more important considerations made it impossible to really do anything about it at the time.
Stalin was far worse a murder than Saddam, but you don't hear anyone suggest that we should not have sent Billions of dollars of aid to him in World War II. In again, we need to look at the broader context in which these events take place to clearly understand them.
Are you saying you would have supported a US invasion to overthrow Saddam in 1988 but not in 2003? Lets not forget the context of what was going in 1988 as well, the Iran/Iraq war. Anyone attempting to overthrow Saddam would certainly have to deal with Iran as well back in 1988. Its easy in hindsite to look at an event 15 or 20 years ago and say this or that should have been done. The reason nothing was done in 1988 has to do with the war between Iran and Iraq. The west and most persian Gulf Countries had just spent 90 Billion dollars helping Iraq save itself from Iran after Saddam had unwisely started the war with Iran in 1980. This was done as to protect the region from Iran as much as it was done to protect Iraq from falling to Iran. What Saddam did was an evil crime in 1988, but more important considerations made it impossible to really do anything about it at the time.
Stalin was far worse a murder than Saddam, but you don't hear anyone suggest that we should not have sent Billions of dollars of aid to him in World War II. In again, we need to look at the broader context in which these events take place to clearly understand them.
Basstrap
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2000
- Messages
- 10,726
now, the US may not have explicitly sold iraq weapons for the iraq/iran war, but they certainly did not discourage it!
what I find interesting is the kind of rhetoric we hear from rumsfield and co. now. It's exactly like what we heard before the iraq war.
Syria has WMD
Syria is training terrorists
They have a dictator
they even added a nice little ditty about Syria occupying Lebanon.
Of course, Isreal occupies a portion of lebanon as well but Rumsfield chooses to ignore that
what I find interesting is the kind of rhetoric we hear from rumsfield and co. now. It's exactly like what we heard before the iraq war.
Syria has WMD
Syria is training terrorists
They have a dictator
they even added a nice little ditty about Syria occupying Lebanon.
Of course, Isreal occupies a portion of lebanon as well but Rumsfield chooses to ignore that
Israel withdrew from Lebanon. Isn't it about time Syria did too?
The "rhetoric" are simply facts. But Syria is in a different class from Saddam's Iraq in terms of prior behavior. Saddam has invaded and attacked 4 counties over the past 20 years. Syria has not invaded any countries in the past 20 years but does continue to keep some troops in Lebanon.
The "rhetoric" are simply facts. But Syria is in a different class from Saddam's Iraq in terms of prior behavior. Saddam has invaded and attacked 4 counties over the past 20 years. Syria has not invaded any countries in the past 20 years but does continue to keep some troops in Lebanon.
What it will come down to is the economy, just like with his father. Dubya was riding on a post-Iraq war stock market explosion, and, for a little bit there, it looked possible. However, with the "liberation" of Baghdad, reality settled back in--corporate America is still in terrible shape. With a president who only knows one phrase when dealing with our economy--"tax cut"--we're going to go nowhere. That will be his downfall.
Ormus
Ormus
STING, I did not say that you should have invaded Iraq in 1988. I am not sure what would have been the best course of action at that time, and as you say, speculating now is pointless since hindsight is 20/20.
What I am saying is that it is hypocritical of people like Rumsfeld to be crying crocodile tears over thousands of gassed Kurds when in fact nothing was done before. To me, that is using these people's terrible tragedy in order to promote his own adventure, and I find that repugnant. Instead of saying "We should have helped out the Kurds in some way when Saddam was killing them en masse, but we let our own interests prevent that, so we are sorry, and we're doing it now" he is beating this dead horse over and over again like it's suddenly a tragedy and an outrage that thousands perished. Sorry, but it's not right, and sounds awfully emotionally manipulative to me. That is what I am saying.
He's only concerned with those people because he needs their deaths to partially validate his war now. That's just sick.
What I am saying is that it is hypocritical of people like Rumsfeld to be crying crocodile tears over thousands of gassed Kurds when in fact nothing was done before. To me, that is using these people's terrible tragedy in order to promote his own adventure, and I find that repugnant. Instead of saying "We should have helped out the Kurds in some way when Saddam was killing them en masse, but we let our own interests prevent that, so we are sorry, and we're doing it now" he is beating this dead horse over and over again like it's suddenly a tragedy and an outrage that thousands perished. Sorry, but it's not right, and sounds awfully emotionally manipulative to me. That is what I am saying.
He's only concerned with those people because he needs their deaths to partially validate his war now. That's just sick.
Last edited:
Anitrim,
The fact is, their deaths do help to validate the war and also to inform those who never even heard of the Iran/Iraq war. The main reason for the war though remains Saddam's refusal to comply with 17 UN resolutions passed during and after the 1991 war and his violations of the ceacefire agreement of the 1991 war. Saddam's past behavior and WMD when put together are to threatening to leave unchecked which is why he was required to disarm after the first Gulf War. This past war is really a completion of the first one. It was thought 12 years ago that Saddam would comply and or be out of power within a few years.
The fact is, their deaths do help to validate the war and also to inform those who never even heard of the Iran/Iraq war. The main reason for the war though remains Saddam's refusal to comply with 17 UN resolutions passed during and after the 1991 war and his violations of the ceacefire agreement of the 1991 war. Saddam's past behavior and WMD when put together are to threatening to leave unchecked which is why he was required to disarm after the first Gulf War. This past war is really a completion of the first one. It was thought 12 years ago that Saddam would comply and or be out of power within a few years.
The only way our economy is going to get going again is to stimulate consumer spending. "Tax cuts" are the easy solution, but it isn't adequate enough. The general public already pays fewer taxes, and any more tax cuts are going to barely make a dent. People with any substantial refunds have been using it for debt repayment mostly.
What we're seeing is the end-game of Reagan's deregulatory policy that allowed for substantial wage cuts in blue-collar society. Like them or not (call them lazy, uneducated, and undeserving all you want), they are still the majority of society and their spending is going to make the largest impact on economic recovery. The only way we're going to get any substantial recovery is through re-regulation. The repeal of the windfall profits tax is what has gotten us in this mess. That tax, only levied on businesses with excessive profits, forced business to both reinvest in itself--meaning businesses could better weather recessions, due to less reliance on stock investment and debt--and to pay its labor handsomely to avoid paying the tax. In turn, with a well-paid labor force, they were able to drive the economy.
In the short run, all Reagan's deregulatory policy ensured was short-term fast growth, but you can never have your cake and eat it too. As it stands, we are heading towards 1990s Japan, as their growth has been hampered for a decade now, due to corporate energy being placed on paying down their accumulated debt. Reagan wished to emulate Japan, and he got his wish. We're now paying the consequences.
"Ta-da"
Ormus
What we're seeing is the end-game of Reagan's deregulatory policy that allowed for substantial wage cuts in blue-collar society. Like them or not (call them lazy, uneducated, and undeserving all you want), they are still the majority of society and their spending is going to make the largest impact on economic recovery. The only way we're going to get any substantial recovery is through re-regulation. The repeal of the windfall profits tax is what has gotten us in this mess. That tax, only levied on businesses with excessive profits, forced business to both reinvest in itself--meaning businesses could better weather recessions, due to less reliance on stock investment and debt--and to pay its labor handsomely to avoid paying the tax. In turn, with a well-paid labor force, they were able to drive the economy.
In the short run, all Reagan's deregulatory policy ensured was short-term fast growth, but you can never have your cake and eat it too. As it stands, we are heading towards 1990s Japan, as their growth has been hampered for a decade now, due to corporate energy being placed on paying down their accumulated debt. Reagan wished to emulate Japan, and he got his wish. We're now paying the consequences.
"Ta-da"
Ormus
Basstrap
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2000
- Messages
- 10,726
shhh...don't tell Bush about lybia...hopefully they can keep low under the radar until bush gets out of office
++ Suspected of WMD + Terrorist Activity
+ Fundamentalist dictator
+ Horrible human rights record
+ American hating country
+ a pretty small army
+ Memmories of fun times during the 70s that can be brought back through videotapes!!!
all the necessary ingredients to be invaded
++ Suspected of WMD + Terrorist Activity
+ Fundamentalist dictator
+ Horrible human rights record
+ American hating country
+ a pretty small army
+ Memmories of fun times during the 70s that can be brought back through videotapes!!!
all the necessary ingredients to be invaded
I disagree that deregulation is the cause of what would be considered by most economist to be uncomfortable economic times but not catastrophic.
I certainly don't think the USA has an underpayed labor force. The USA has the 6th highest Standard of living in the world according to the annual UN Development Index. Europe is far more regulated than the USA which is why unemployment and economic problems there are worse. The European Union on average has an unemployment rate 50% higher than the USA. Countries like Italy and France are busy trying to deregulate their economies and adopt the American like models because they have worked better.
The economic downturn of the past 2 and half years is not nearly as serious as past economic downturns. Many would argue that a recession, two consecutives quarters of negative GDP growth, has not taken place. The economy has continued to move slowly. Unemployment has crept up from 4% to 5.8%. But 5.8% is still less than the level of unemployment during Bill Clintons first two years in office. According to economist in the 1990s, the natural rate of unemployement is 6%, meaning there would always be at least 6% unemployment do to normal transitions in the job market. Bottom line is that 5.8% unemployment can be improved and its nothing to panic about.
I agree though that a continued muddled economy, if not a serious downturn, will not get Bush re-elected in 2004, but the problems with this economy at this point are not as severe as the actual recession that W's father experienced.
A poll out today shows that 62% of people in this country believe the USA is headed in the right direction.
I certainly don't think the USA has an underpayed labor force. The USA has the 6th highest Standard of living in the world according to the annual UN Development Index. Europe is far more regulated than the USA which is why unemployment and economic problems there are worse. The European Union on average has an unemployment rate 50% higher than the USA. Countries like Italy and France are busy trying to deregulate their economies and adopt the American like models because they have worked better.
The economic downturn of the past 2 and half years is not nearly as serious as past economic downturns. Many would argue that a recession, two consecutives quarters of negative GDP growth, has not taken place. The economy has continued to move slowly. Unemployment has crept up from 4% to 5.8%. But 5.8% is still less than the level of unemployment during Bill Clintons first two years in office. According to economist in the 1990s, the natural rate of unemployement is 6%, meaning there would always be at least 6% unemployment do to normal transitions in the job market. Bottom line is that 5.8% unemployment can be improved and its nothing to panic about.
I agree though that a continued muddled economy, if not a serious downturn, will not get Bush re-elected in 2004, but the problems with this economy at this point are not as severe as the actual recession that W's father experienced.
A poll out today shows that 62% of people in this country believe the USA is headed in the right direction.
sulawesigirl4
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I cannot believe the direction Bush is trying to take the US. It makes me physically ill. Apparently might does indeed make right. 
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
I'm horrified by what the Bush administration has been saying about Syria in the last few days. I always knew that war on Iraq wouldn't be the last war Bush wanted to wage, but it's just unbelievable how quickly they've started preparing to attack Syria. The war in Iraq isn't even over, and yet every day we're hearing about how Syria "has weapons of mass destruction" and "is harbouring Iraqi leaders" etc.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
FizzingWhizzbees said:
So am I! They are just next on a long list. I'm seriously ill by the thought of what my gov't may do and the
people that blindly follow along the "party" line.
Klaus
Refugee
From todays NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/15/international/worldspecial/15INTE.html?th
INTELLIGENCE REPORTS
Syria Harbors Iraqis and Grants Transit to Hezbollah, U.S. Asserts
By DON VAN NATTA Jr. and DOUGLAS JEHL
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/15/international/worldspecial/15DIPL.html?th
DIPLOMACY
U.S. Threatens to Impose Penalties Against Syrians
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/15/international/worldspecial/15SYRI.html?th
Syria Fears the Unknown: What's Behind U.S. Threats
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
Sounds like preparation for the next strike to me
Klaus
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/15/international/worldspecial/15INTE.html?th
INTELLIGENCE REPORTS
Syria Harbors Iraqis and Grants Transit to Hezbollah, U.S. Asserts
By DON VAN NATTA Jr. and DOUGLAS JEHL
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/15/international/worldspecial/15DIPL.html?th
DIPLOMACY
U.S. Threatens to Impose Penalties Against Syrians
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/15/international/worldspecial/15SYRI.html?th
Syria Fears the Unknown: What's Behind U.S. Threats
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
Sounds like preparation for the next strike to me
Klaus
sharky
New Yorker
FizzingWhizzbees said:
While I fundamentally agree with this, I don't think Bush is in charge of this. Maybe his administration, but Bush is not in charge of this. Not to sound like some off the rocker conspiracy theorist but has anyone seen Cheney lately?
Last year, Powell said Syria had done a great job helping America with information on suspected terrorists. How did that change?
As for Qatar, there is no way where are going in there. They are friends to us now, have given many more rights to women than any other Middle Eastern country, and are moving toward creating a democracy.
Basstrap said:
Actually, Libya's dictator is not an Islamic fundamentalist--quite the opposite. A notable event was when his Parliament (why do dictators always have puppet Parliaments?) overwhelmingly voted to marginalize women, according to Islamic tradition, and Qadhafi (sp?) literally ripped the bill into pieces.
He is a secular, Marxist-leaning dictator in the tradition of Egypt's Nasser. That certainly doesn't mean I'm defending him; we just have to stop stereotyping all Middle East leaders as Koran-thumping Islamic fanatics.
Ormus
"5.8% unemployment" is a misleading figure, courtesy of the Reagan administration. "5.8% unemployment" refers to jobless claims; those who fall off the system are no longer categorized as "unemployed," and, statistically-speaking, assumes that they have been employed. That is clearly not the case, nor does it measure the quality of the jobs out there. "Employed" could mean working for a temp agency, down from a full-time position that paid more than twice as much.
We ridicule nations like France and Germany with their unemployment, but I question whether they fiddle with their statistics as much as we do. If these nations have such terrible unemployment compared to us, then why are there five nations ahead of us in the quality-of-life scale? It is my view that our unemployment and inflation statistics are grossly miscalculated, due to some crafty redefining during the 1980s.
As for that "62% approval," who really cares what the public perceives? The public may be settling for less than they could have.
Ormus
We ridicule nations like France and Germany with their unemployment, but I question whether they fiddle with their statistics as much as we do. If these nations have such terrible unemployment compared to us, then why are there five nations ahead of us in the quality-of-life scale? It is my view that our unemployment and inflation statistics are grossly miscalculated, due to some crafty redefining during the 1980s.
As for that "62% approval," who really cares what the public perceives? The public may be settling for less than they could have.
Ormus
Last edited:
Scarletwine
New Yorker
This article was printed before the Syria chant began. But it's erie in its parellels. (not in it's entirety). That is here:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html
In their view, invasion of Iraq was not merely, or even primarily, about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Nor was it really about weapons of mass destruction, though their elimination was an important benefit. Rather, the administration sees the invasion as only the first move in a wider effort to reorder the power structure of the entire Middle East. Prior to the war, the president himself never quite said this openly. But hawkish neoconservatives within his administration gave strong hints. In February, Undersecretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq, the United States would "deal with" Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Meanwhile, neoconservative journalists have been channeling the administration's thinking. Late last month, The Weekly Standard's Jeffrey Bell reported that the administration has in mind a "world war between the United States and a political wing of Islamic fundamentalism ... a war of such reach and magnitude [that] the invasion of Iraq, or the capture of top al Qaeda commanders, should be seen as tactical events in a series of moves and countermoves stretching well into the future."
In short, the administration is trying to roll the table--to use U.S. military force, or the threat of it, to reform or topple virtually every regime in the region, from foes like Syria to friends like Egypt, on the theory that it is the undemocratic nature of these regimes that ultimately breeds terrorism. So events that may seem negative--Hezbollah for the first time targeting American civilians; U.S. soldiers preparing for war with Syria--while unfortunate in themselves, are actually part of the hawks' broader agenda. Each crisis will draw U.S. forces further into the region and each countermove in turn will create problems that can only be fixed by still further American involvement, until democratic governments--or, failing that, U.S. troops--rule the entire Middle East.
There is a startling amount of deception in all this--of hawks deceiving the American people, and perhaps in some cases even themselves. While it's conceivable that bold American action could democratize the Middle East, so broad and radical an initiative could also bring chaos and bloodshed on a massive scale. That all too real possibility leads most establishment foreign policy hands, including many in the State Department, to view the Bush plan with alarm. Indeed, the hawks' record so far does not inspire confidence. Prior to the invasion, for instance, they predicted that if the United States simply announced its intention to act against Saddam regardless of how the United Nations voted, most of our allies, eager to be on our good side, would support us. Almost none did. Yet despite such grave miscalculations, the hawks push on with their sweeping new agenda.
Like any group of permanent Washington revolutionaries fueled by visions of a righteous cause, the neocons long ago decided that criticism from the establishment isn't a reason for self-doubt but the surest sign that they're on the right track. But their confidence also comes from the curious fact that much of what could go awry with their plan will also serve to advance it. A full-scale confrontation between the United States and political Islam, they believe, is inevitable, so why not have it now, on our terms, rather than later, on theirs? Actually, there are plenty of good reasons not to purposely provoke a series of crises in the Middle East. But that's what the hawks are setting in motion, partly on the theory that the worse things get, the more their approach becomes the only plausible solution.
Moral Cloudiness
Ever since the neocons burst upon the public policy scene 30 years ago, their movement has been a marriage of moral idealism, military assertiveness, and deception. Back in the early 1970s, this group of then-young and still mostly Democratic political intellectuals grew alarmed by the post-Vietnam Democrats' seeming indifference to the Soviet threat. They were equally appalled, however, by the amoral worldview espoused by establishment Republicans like Henry Kissinger, who sought co-existence with the Soviet Union. As is often the case with ex-socialists, the neocons were too familiar with communist tactics to ignore or romanticize communism's evils. The fact that many neocons were Jewish, and outraged by Moscow's increasingly visible persecution of Jews, also caused them to reject both the McGovernite and Kissingerian tendencies to ignore such abuses.
In Ronald Reagan, the neocons found a politician they could embrace. Like them, Reagan spoke openly about the evils of communism and, at least on the peripheries of the Cold War, preferred rollback to coexistence. Neocons filled the Reagan administration, and men like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney, and others provided the intellectual ballast and moral fervor for the sharp turn toward confrontation that the United States adopted in 1981.
But achieving moral clarity often requires hiding certain realities. From the beginning, the neocons took a much more alarmist view of Soviet capacities and intentions than most experts. As late as 1980, the ur-neocon Norman Podhoretz warned of the imminent "Finlandization of America, the political and economic subordination of the United States to superior Soviet power," even raising the possibility that America's only options might be "surrender or war." We now know, of course, that U.S. intelligence estimates, which many neocons thought underestimated the magnitude and durability of Soviet power, in fact wildly overestimated them.
This willingness to deceive--both themselves and others--expanded as neocons grew more comfortable with power. Many spent the Reagan years orchestrating bloody wars against Soviet proxies in the Third World, portraying thugs like the Nicaraguan Contras and plain murderers like Jonas Savimbi of Angola as "freedom fighters." The nadir of this deceit was the Iran-Contra scandal, for which Podhoretz's son-in-law, Elliot Abrams, pled guilty to perjury. Abrams was later pardoned by Bush's father, and today, he runs Middle East policy in the Bush White House.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html
In their view, invasion of Iraq was not merely, or even primarily, about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Nor was it really about weapons of mass destruction, though their elimination was an important benefit. Rather, the administration sees the invasion as only the first move in a wider effort to reorder the power structure of the entire Middle East. Prior to the war, the president himself never quite said this openly. But hawkish neoconservatives within his administration gave strong hints. In February, Undersecretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq, the United States would "deal with" Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Meanwhile, neoconservative journalists have been channeling the administration's thinking. Late last month, The Weekly Standard's Jeffrey Bell reported that the administration has in mind a "world war between the United States and a political wing of Islamic fundamentalism ... a war of such reach and magnitude [that] the invasion of Iraq, or the capture of top al Qaeda commanders, should be seen as tactical events in a series of moves and countermoves stretching well into the future."
In short, the administration is trying to roll the table--to use U.S. military force, or the threat of it, to reform or topple virtually every regime in the region, from foes like Syria to friends like Egypt, on the theory that it is the undemocratic nature of these regimes that ultimately breeds terrorism. So events that may seem negative--Hezbollah for the first time targeting American civilians; U.S. soldiers preparing for war with Syria--while unfortunate in themselves, are actually part of the hawks' broader agenda. Each crisis will draw U.S. forces further into the region and each countermove in turn will create problems that can only be fixed by still further American involvement, until democratic governments--or, failing that, U.S. troops--rule the entire Middle East.
There is a startling amount of deception in all this--of hawks deceiving the American people, and perhaps in some cases even themselves. While it's conceivable that bold American action could democratize the Middle East, so broad and radical an initiative could also bring chaos and bloodshed on a massive scale. That all too real possibility leads most establishment foreign policy hands, including many in the State Department, to view the Bush plan with alarm. Indeed, the hawks' record so far does not inspire confidence. Prior to the invasion, for instance, they predicted that if the United States simply announced its intention to act against Saddam regardless of how the United Nations voted, most of our allies, eager to be on our good side, would support us. Almost none did. Yet despite such grave miscalculations, the hawks push on with their sweeping new agenda.
Like any group of permanent Washington revolutionaries fueled by visions of a righteous cause, the neocons long ago decided that criticism from the establishment isn't a reason for self-doubt but the surest sign that they're on the right track. But their confidence also comes from the curious fact that much of what could go awry with their plan will also serve to advance it. A full-scale confrontation between the United States and political Islam, they believe, is inevitable, so why not have it now, on our terms, rather than later, on theirs? Actually, there are plenty of good reasons not to purposely provoke a series of crises in the Middle East. But that's what the hawks are setting in motion, partly on the theory that the worse things get, the more their approach becomes the only plausible solution.
Moral Cloudiness
Ever since the neocons burst upon the public policy scene 30 years ago, their movement has been a marriage of moral idealism, military assertiveness, and deception. Back in the early 1970s, this group of then-young and still mostly Democratic political intellectuals grew alarmed by the post-Vietnam Democrats' seeming indifference to the Soviet threat. They were equally appalled, however, by the amoral worldview espoused by establishment Republicans like Henry Kissinger, who sought co-existence with the Soviet Union. As is often the case with ex-socialists, the neocons were too familiar with communist tactics to ignore or romanticize communism's evils. The fact that many neocons were Jewish, and outraged by Moscow's increasingly visible persecution of Jews, also caused them to reject both the McGovernite and Kissingerian tendencies to ignore such abuses.
In Ronald Reagan, the neocons found a politician they could embrace. Like them, Reagan spoke openly about the evils of communism and, at least on the peripheries of the Cold War, preferred rollback to coexistence. Neocons filled the Reagan administration, and men like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney, and others provided the intellectual ballast and moral fervor for the sharp turn toward confrontation that the United States adopted in 1981.
But achieving moral clarity often requires hiding certain realities. From the beginning, the neocons took a much more alarmist view of Soviet capacities and intentions than most experts. As late as 1980, the ur-neocon Norman Podhoretz warned of the imminent "Finlandization of America, the political and economic subordination of the United States to superior Soviet power," even raising the possibility that America's only options might be "surrender or war." We now know, of course, that U.S. intelligence estimates, which many neocons thought underestimated the magnitude and durability of Soviet power, in fact wildly overestimated them.
This willingness to deceive--both themselves and others--expanded as neocons grew more comfortable with power. Many spent the Reagan years orchestrating bloody wars against Soviet proxies in the Third World, portraying thugs like the Nicaraguan Contras and plain murderers like Jonas Savimbi of Angola as "freedom fighters." The nadir of this deceit was the Iran-Contra scandal, for which Podhoretz's son-in-law, Elliot Abrams, pled guilty to perjury. Abrams was later pardoned by Bush's father, and today, he runs Middle East policy in the Bush White House.
Electric Blue
Babyface
Completely agree with you. The last thing we need now is another conflict in the Middle East.sulawesigirl4 said:I cannot believe the direction Bush is trying to take the US. It makes me physically ill. Apparently might does indeed make right.
***
Btw, Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 after 18 years of occupation, but it still occupies the Golan Heights, which it captured from Syria in the 1967 war, and Israel still refuses to give the land back, in spite of several UN resolutions ordering the withdrawal of Israel from the Golan Heights. In fact, the UN Human Rights Commission today passed four resolutions strongly condemning Israel's human rights record and its occupation of the Golan Heights. Guess which country voted against all four resolutions.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Well, now Colin Powell is telling the press that the U.S. government doesn't plan to attack either Syria or Iran. They're just screaming bloody murder at them for whatever reason. Gah, I don't want to have to stop the war in Syria or Iran or wherever.
The Wanderer
Kid A
Electric Blue said:
must not have been Libya, maybe Texas?
Ormus,
There are only 3 nations in Europe that have a higher standard of living than the USA, Switzerland, Norway, and Sweden. Canada and Australia are the other two nations ahead of the USA in standard of living. The big countries in Europe, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom are all behind the USA in standard of living.
Well one could debate for a long time whether your idea's about Reagan's fudging statistics are true are not. Its definitely a tactic of those who can't easily refute such statistics. But it really does not matter here since what ever the system is, we have been using it longer than the time frame in which I made the comparison. I was not comparing Unemployment an inflation today to the pre-Reagan era of the 70s. I was comparing it to conditions in this country 10 years ago. Most economist still use these statistics and if they do, thats because they think its an accurate measure of the economy. Those that have a political agenda to push will of course dispute them. But the non-aligned objective economist continues to use them and thats good enough for me.
There are only 3 nations in Europe that have a higher standard of living than the USA, Switzerland, Norway, and Sweden. Canada and Australia are the other two nations ahead of the USA in standard of living. The big countries in Europe, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom are all behind the USA in standard of living.
Well one could debate for a long time whether your idea's about Reagan's fudging statistics are true are not. Its definitely a tactic of those who can't easily refute such statistics. But it really does not matter here since what ever the system is, we have been using it longer than the time frame in which I made the comparison. I was not comparing Unemployment an inflation today to the pre-Reagan era of the 70s. I was comparing it to conditions in this country 10 years ago. Most economist still use these statistics and if they do, thats because they think its an accurate measure of the economy. Those that have a political agenda to push will of course dispute them. But the non-aligned objective economist continues to use them and thats good enough for me.
RELAX
The United States is not going to be attacking Iran or Syria. A simple look at military deployments will tell you what is really going on. Two Aircraft Carriers are on their way home. Other ships and aircraft are heading home. The US 1st infantry division that was supposed to deploy to Iraq as a follow on force has had those orders canceled. There will be a force of 75,000 to 100,000 US troops that will stay in the region to keep Iraq secure as it rebuilds and begins the tough road of creating a democracy.
The United States is not going to be attacking Iran or Syria. A simple look at military deployments will tell you what is really going on. Two Aircraft Carriers are on their way home. Other ships and aircraft are heading home. The US 1st infantry division that was supposed to deploy to Iraq as a follow on force has had those orders canceled. There will be a force of 75,000 to 100,000 US troops that will stay in the region to keep Iraq secure as it rebuilds and begins the tough road of creating a democracy.
Electric Blue,
"Btw, Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 after 18 years of occupation, but it still occupies the Golan Heights, which it captured from Syria in the 1967 war, and Israel still refuses to give the land back, in spite of several UN resolutions ordering the withdrawal of Israel from the Golan Heights. In fact, the UN Human Rights Commission today passed four resolutions strongly condemning Israel's human rights record and its occupation of the Golan Heights. Guess which country voted against all four resolutions."
Guess who offered to give Syria 99% of the Golan Heights back despite Syria's invasions, terrorism and refusal to recognize it as a state? Israel. How many of you know how many Israely civilians were killed by Syrian artillery every year when they owned the Golan Heights? Syria supports Hezebolah and Humas, two terrorist organizations! Where is the Human Rights Commissions outcry over that?
Its sad that Israel has to put up with this shit after everything they have been through over the past 50 years, not to mention what many of them went through while they were still in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s. We know some of the strongest opposition to Israel comes from the continent where 6 million Jews were slaughtered.
"Btw, Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 after 18 years of occupation, but it still occupies the Golan Heights, which it captured from Syria in the 1967 war, and Israel still refuses to give the land back, in spite of several UN resolutions ordering the withdrawal of Israel from the Golan Heights. In fact, the UN Human Rights Commission today passed four resolutions strongly condemning Israel's human rights record and its occupation of the Golan Heights. Guess which country voted against all four resolutions."
Guess who offered to give Syria 99% of the Golan Heights back despite Syria's invasions, terrorism and refusal to recognize it as a state? Israel. How many of you know how many Israely civilians were killed by Syrian artillery every year when they owned the Golan Heights? Syria supports Hezebolah and Humas, two terrorist organizations! Where is the Human Rights Commissions outcry over that?
Its sad that Israel has to put up with this shit after everything they have been through over the past 50 years, not to mention what many of them went through while they were still in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s. We know some of the strongest opposition to Israel comes from the continent where 6 million Jews were slaughtered.
Similar threads
