So if it wasn't about WMD

[Chris Alger]

The latest in the WMD follies is that the same CIA officials that vetted SOU speech tried to get British intelligence to withdraw their allegation of an Iraqi-Africa connection because they knew all along it was bullshit, months before Bush's claim of reliance on "British intelligence." (Today's W. Post).

It should be obvious to all but the most craven state-worshipping apparatchiks that the US officials lied about an Iraqi WMD threat that they didn't believe in. It follows that things other than Iraqi WMD were the prime movers behind their desire for invasion. Although pundits have speculated that there were "good reasons" other than those officially provided that justified the war, what really motivated the White House liars? Was it

(a) Human rights. Bush is a closet nation-builder. Alone among the tyrannies and torture chambers that dot the planet, the White House selected Iraq to be the beneficiary of democracy via war and occupation, for only $4 billion per month indefinitely.

(b) The credibility of the UN and the Security Council. Despite the inability to convince the Security Council itself and dozens of unenforced (thanks to the US veto threat) resolutions against Israel, Turkey and Morocco, the US decided to take a stand to prevent Iraq's flagrant "tissue of lies" (Krauthammer) that threated to turn the UN into a "debating society" (Bush).

(c) Oil conspiracy. The White House is run by interest conflicted former oil excutives and directors, or the toadies of same, whose pockets will be lined with petrodollars once the fields are privatized.

(d) 9/11 "changed things." As Rumsfeld tried to explain the other day, US officials previously had no idea that someone, even the FBI's most wanted (bin Laden), would ever consider commandeering an airplane and driving it into a building. This heretofore unimaginable circumstance means that the US officials could no longer tolerate dicators who might have WMD if they live in Iraq. Rumsfeld pointed out that 9/11 created a new "prism" through which Iraq had to be viewed. Or al Queda told us that we should look at Iraq through a prism. Something about prisms.

(e) Imperialism/hegemony. International power, like water and bureaucracy, seeks its own level, and with a military force greater than the rest of the world combined, there is no logical reason why US power should tolerate strident opposition.from a nearly defenseless country run by a complete [censored]. Further, a pro-US government strategically priceless Iraq would be a gem in a regional crown that includes Israel, Turkey and used to include Iran. Resorting to the age-lold tactic of masking aggression as defense is vital because most Americans think imperialism is wrong and unAmerican and wouldn't want to foot the bill in any event. Hence, the need to manufacture consent by conjuring up a non-existent threat, and an ability to do so courtesy of al Qaeda.

[MMMMMM]

If the WMD threat wasn't immediate (and I think the administration did not say it was, but rather that it was "emerging"--and more rapidly than had been expected)--then it was just a matter of time anyway.

Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. must not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons which could threaten the United States. And as long as Bush is in there, I think we have a good chance to keep them from so doing. If these countries remain potential threats even after Bush's second term, then hopefully Rummy might be elected the next President.

"Never allow your sworn enemies the means to destroy you"

--Klingon benediction

[Cyrus]

"If the WMD threat wasn't immediate then it was just a matter of time anyway."

(sigh) We have embarked for good into an era where policy is formed from hypotheticals rather than facts. Moreover, those hypotheticals are formulated according to no rules, no precedent and no consistency. Simply according to what Washington today thinks is best.

A better recipe for stability and peace I have not heard.

"Hopefully Rummy might be elected the next President."

I didn't know Rummy had a brother governor somewhere!

"Klingon benediction"

Yes. Star treks and star wars. This is the stuff that makes Reaganite eyes glow in the dark. Keep up God's work, golks.

[Jimbo]

"sigh) We have embarked for good into an era where policy is formed from hypotheticals rather than facts. Moreover, those hypotheticals are formulated according to no rules, no precedent and no consistency. Simply according to what Washington today thinks is best."

Poor Cyrus, haven't you realized yet just how some facts are tardy predicters of future events? 911 should have shown you that waiting for the act to occur is not in our best interest.

[ripdog]

I know that the conservatives will bring this thing full circle and blame Clinton for the mess that we're in, but enough already! Does "not waiting for an act to occur" mean that lying your "Christian" ass off to instigate a war that kills thousands of innocent people becomes acceptable? The current administration is so pathetically transparent in their lies, it makes me sick. How can anybody actually buy into this [censored]? Perhaps if you find yourself aligning with the majority, it's time to re-think your position--a line stolen from Twain, but quite appropriate here.

[Men the Master]

MMMMMM:

I couldn't have said it better my self. Anyone who disagrees with you on this is clearly Anti-American and Pro-terrorist. We have to take it to the enemy. Another 9/11 is the last thing this great country of ours needs. N.Korea and Iran should be punished for even intending to create nuclear weapons. The sooner the better.

[MMMMMM]

This is one reason why we need a Missile Defense Shield ASAP, along with complete control of space-based weapons systems, and Hellfire missiles capable of targeting any enemy leaders. If we had those now we wouldn't have to go to war and kill thousands of innocent people in order to prevent evil leaders from gaining, or using, WMD.

As things stand I think we could afford to share such technology with the U.K. but not with France or Turkey.

[andyfox]

911 should have shown you that an empire reaps what it sows. Now we're warring against terror. Terror is not an enemy, it is a strategy. Nobody seems to get this in the adminstration, which of course is not surprising given that they use language not to communicate but to cajole. By saying our enemy is terrorism, it avoids any rational discussion of the cause of that terrorism and they can resort to nonsense such as "they hate our freedom."

I would add one more reason for the war to Chris's list: many in the administration had already made up their mind that Saddam must go, long before 9/11. They had been calling for it for years.

[Jimbo]

Ripdog since we are using famous quotes to make a point here is my choice: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Yes if Clinton had acted properly and premptively we might have avoided 911 and heck you might even have the founder of the internet as our commander in chief today rather than our action president.

[andyfox]

There is only one reason Gore is not president today. The Republicans on the Supreme Court decided he would not be president. Ms. O'Connor gave her opinion when she heard Gore would win the election if he carried Florida; she said, "Oh,no!" And oh, no indeed, he did not carry Florida. He lost Florida 5-4.

[Jimbo]

"911 should have shown you that an empire reaps what it sows. Andy it is a thought like this whaich makes me shudder whenever a liberal becomes a serious contender for our Presidency. Blaming the USA for 911 is ghastly. I bet the schoolyard bully was not at fault either since the scrawny little kid on the schoolyard chose to dress in nice clothes rather than cutoffs and tennis shoes.

"many in the administration had already made up their mind that Saddam must go, long before 9/11. They had been calling for it for years."

Andy you act like this is a bad thing. Saddam should have been terminated with or without 911. How can you argue otherwise?

[Jimbo]

"There is only one reason Gore is not president today.

Oh I believe there is more than one reason. All the Supreme Court did was equalize the bias being shown by the liberal Florida State Supreme Court. I rarely see mention of their meddling when the election subject arises. At any rate, Get over it Gore lost, rightfully so and our country is much better off with him on the sidelines.

[HDPM]

I think the situation is a complex one that the people at the top cannot fully comprehend. Not because they are necessarily stupid, but because they have been thust in a difficult situation that requires a new foreign policy. I don't know exactly what that policy ought to be BTW. But in formulating the new policy we must first define what the US should be and then what it wants out of it's relations with the rest of the world. Most people have inconsistent political philosophies, and Bush and his top people are no exception. This lack of clarity filters through everything else. But in the most general terms, what the US should be is a liberal republic that assures the freedom of its citizens. The creation of wealth flows from this. From the rest of the world we seek to be left alone on the security front (primary need) and want partners in trade. For the most part, the existence of other liberal democracies and republics help us. The existence of totalitarian regimes, communist regimes, etc... hurts us. 9/11 changed things because it became obvious that the US had non-state enemies who could and would hurt us if they got the chance. For years the threat had been hypothetical, but it became all too real after the attacks. So the question became how to keep the US safe in such a world. It is not at all clear how to do that. Sure killing off the Al Qaeda boys is good, but it won't go as far as we need to go. There will always be another threat. here will always be tension in policy decisions between trying to win friends and kicking the crap out of countries or groups that would hurt us. Afghanistan and Iraq are the first two experiments in such a foreign policy. It is not clear they will work. Maybe they will do some good. From a moral standpoint we have to ask ourselves if such experiments are moral. Because I do not think Saddam's regime had any right to exist in the first place, there is no moral blame in toppling it per se. But there are other consequences that must be considered. And lying about the reasons are not right. Perhaps it is unpalatable to say 'Kicking the crap out of Iraq will help us. We have the power to do it, so we're going to." And perhaps admitting such a policy would hurt us in the long run. I don't know. But I htink the next 100 or so years will require a mix of nation building, imperialism, and diplomacy to keep liberal democracies safe. One catch-22 is that the reasons to protect liberal democracies depend on the government being truthful about its actions. Being truthful isn't always easy and could actually prevent some of the steps that MIGHT be beneficial. The whole thing is a complex question and nobody knows all the answers. I would like to see us do something about Saudi Arabia. They are a major threat to the world given their backwards policies and funding of terrorists, and we have not done anything about them. Because they are our "friends." But inconsistency in our philosophy will lead to inconsistency in our approach. Nothing new.

Not sure this post makes sense. But a lot of what is going on doesn't make a lot of sense either. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Dr Wogga]

....100%


“…..a chessmaster should be a combination of a beast of prey and a monk”


The late former chess world champion, Alexander Alexanderovich Alekhine

Although my favorite quote from Alekhine is:

“The Germans have scientifically ransacked my apartment”

[MMMMMM]

andy, you are ignoring the fact that terrorism is not a recent strategy (it is just becoming more popular) and that the USA is not entirely "reaping what we sow" regarding terror attacks. How about we reap what we sow since we have also given more aid and largesse to the world than any other nation, by far, as well as saving the world from domination by NBazis, Fascists and Communists?

Also you may not realize it, but Islam has had a long tradition, extending back to its inception, of using force and terror to expand its model of theocracy. Why do you think Mohammed participated in scores of military campaigns, leading many of them personally? As long as there is fundamentalist-style Islam, there will be terror, and attempts to impose Islam by force on others. This is, sadly, the long history of Islam. The religion explicitly calls for worldwide theocracy according to the Koran, and by force if necessary. It is also no coincidence that of the current and recent wars in the world almost all of them involve(d) Muslim countries.

Intolerance is bad indeed, and terrorism springs from absolute intolerance and disregard for the rights of others, not from desperation. Supporting this is the fact that throughout history, a great many oppressed, desperate peoples did not resort to terrorism. Desperation may be a contributing factor in terrorism but it is far from the principal factor.

[Dr Wogga]

.....the founder of the internet couldn't carry his home state! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. I could die laughing!!!

[andyfox]

I've gotten over it. I didn't vote for Gore. I thought he was a poor candidate and ran an even worse campaign. After all, if he could have carried his home state, Florida wouldn't have made any difference.

Your interpretation of the Florida Supreme Court decision is flawed, but we've been over this territroy many times, no need to go into it yet again. My belief is that a Gore presidency would not be substantially different than the Bush presidency and the Democrats would have conducted foreign policy especially in essentially the same manner as Bush has.

[andyfox]

Many people don't realize this. Gore carries Tennessee and Florida is irrelevant. They blame Nader for draining votes from Gore. But certainly Nader did not make the difference in Tennessee.

Gore ran a terrible campaign. It wasn't easy to lose to Dubya, but he managed to do it.

[MMMMMM]

^

[Vehn]

Here's a summation of a conversation I had with my girlfriend a while ago:

Her: "We should invade north korea next and stop them from making nukes"

Me: "What gives us the right to decide what nations can or can't have nukes?"

Her: "Well they have human rights violations and aren't a democracy"

Me: "OK, so we should invade China next instead of having them as one of our most favored nation trade partners and regular visits from our presidents, right? I mean, Tianamen Square and all?"

Her: "..."

[andyfox]

Gore never claimed that he "invented" the Internet, which implies that he engineered the technology. The invention occurred in the seventies and allowed scientists in the Defense Department to communicate with each other. In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Taken in context, the sentence, despite some initial ambiguity, means that as a congressman Gore promoted the system we enjoy today, not that he could patent the science, though that's how the quotation has been manipulated. Hence the disingenuous substitution of "inventing" for the actual language.

What, if anything, did Gore actually do to create the modern Internet? According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom who's been called the Father of the Internet, "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."

The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's High Performance Computing Act. The University of Pennsylvania's Dave Ferber says that without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is today."

Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University, claims that Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the importance of networking the country. Could we perhaps see an end to cheap shots from politicians and pundits about inventing the Internet?"

[andyfox]

The bully usually is at fault.

Every action a country takes in its relations with other countries has a reaction. Blaming "terror" is a convenient way of denying this. Bin Laden was created by the U.S. When he came back to bite us in the ass, are we completely blameless? To always assume that everything we do if good and beneficial and benificent by definition simply because we do it, it the essence of bad foreign policy.

I didn't say whether deciding Saddam must go was good or bad. I added it to the list of possible reasons for the decision to go to war. Certainly if Perle and Cheney and Rumsfeld and others had been calling for his removal for many years, that must be considered as one possible reason for the fact that they did remove him.

[MMMMMM]

China hasn't threatened us with nukes...but North Korea has said it would "set our cities afire." Given North Korea's bellicosity and the fact that the bastards running that country have starved to death close to two million of their own people while stockpiling two years' worth of food and fuel for their military, I'd say it's getting close to time to get rid of them. The people are eating insects in the steets, for heaven's sake. On humanitarian grounds if there is any way to get rid of those leaders without corresponding horrific loss of life, I'd say it would be the moral thing to do. And getting rid of them would reduce the nuclear threat to us.

You have to understand something too, vehn_...it doesn't have to be 100% morally right to make it the right thing to do. If a guy says he will kill you and truly means it, and the police won't help you, would it be immoral to kill him first? Think about it. The fact that they are aggressively threatening us with these weapons is all the justification we need to take pre-emptive action. If you disagree with that, and would allow your sworn and belligerent enemies to go from a relatively harmless postion (to you) to a position where they could easily destroy you, then you would be a fool, regardles of any moral implications. Also, rest assured that the world "moral" has no more meaning to the Stalinist butchers in Pyongyang than the word "jtdxuytxfgfkfjv" does to you.

[andyfox]

You are ignoring the fact that imposing our empire on other peoples, and they're not liking it, is not a recent phenomenon. The Russians bore the brunt of the war against the Nazis and we created many more Communists than there should have been because of the way we fought the Cold War.

Also you may not realize it, but Christianity has a long tradition, extending back to its inception, of using force and terror to expand its model of theocracy. Why do you think there were the crusades and the enslavement of Africans and other natives by the expanding empire of Christianity? Our current president tells us daily that God is on our side.

As long as there are people who believe they know what's best, that others who are different are "backward" and that they have the right to determine who has what weapons, there will be terror, and attempts to impose ways of life by force. This is, sadly, the long history of western imperialism. While there is no explicit call for worldwide domination, history has shown that empires will protect their hegemony, by force if necessary. It is also no coincidence that of the current and recent wars in the world almost all of them involve(d) Muslim countries, since this is where the domination by the United States is being most seriously challenged at the current time.

Intolerance is bad indeed, and terrorism springs from absolute intolerance and disregard for the rights of others, not only from desperation. Supporting this is the fact that throughout history, a great many oppressed, desperate peoples did not resort to terrorism. Desperation may be a contributing factor in terrorism but it may not be the principal factor.

[andyfox]

A few things I could quarrel with, but lots of things to think about.

A little bit a paragraphization would have helped though.

/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

andy, your attempt to use mirror images fails because the images are not truly corresponding images. And you are extremely wrong to suggest that most recent wars involve(d) Muslim countries because of the involvement of the U.S. About two years ago there was a report of some 30 wars worldwide and I think about 28 of them involved Muslim countries. Obviously the U.S. was not involved in most of these. Many of them in fact were internal wars. Let's not forget, too, such things as the current Muslim governments in Africa which are slaughtering, enslaving and forcibly converting the non-Muslim populations in their own countries on a massive scale.

Until you admit that some ideologies and systems are more backwards than others, you will fall into the trap of false comparisons. And as regards Christianity and the West, as mentioned before, the West underwent the Reformation and Enlightenment periods--while Islam is still in the Dark Ages.

Do you truly think that enforced theocratic government is not more backwards than secularism, or does it just offend your sensibilities to hear something so baldly stated?

Also, it is also a false comparison to call the USA imperialistic, because when measured against truly imperialistic countries, the comparison fails. Also we did not absorb Japan and Germany after we defeated them as a truly imperialistic nation would have done.

[MMMMMM]

To expand on intolerance: I don't care what anyone believes, as long as they aren't trying to force their beliefs on others. And today Islam is far, far more guilty of that than Christianity or any other religion--which also truly is no surprise since such behavior is explicity enjoined in numerous places in the Koran.

[Dr Wogga]

...an excellent and balanced post.

One mild point of contention is that the situation was not originally complex. A logical (IMO) decision was made that Iraq was an enemy of the free world, was in violation of UN resolutions, and needed to be dealt with. A logical (IMO) decision was made to deal with this by the use of force. Period.

However, the variety of potential outcomes as a result of the use of force have indeed become very complex and here we agree completely. The aftermath of "hostilities" demonstrates that the people of these countries do not want a western model of democracy. But then, if it is logical to declare that an enemy must be dealt with forcibly and then "do the "deed" - should we just kick somebody's ass and leave? Apparently, the sad answer is 'YES'- as the death toll mounts for our troops in the region.

[Half-joking] Maybe our new policy should be that we kick their eff-ing brains in and leave behind a few sacks of money? But logically, that won't work either. So what should the end game be?

Also, be careful when we speak of being "truthful." While noble and righteous in its intent, is really just a one-way street to hell for our country. Being an open society has its drawbacks. Way too much information is available on just about every facet of our country - for friend and foe alike. Would Microsoft announce truthfully: "Dear world, we have a serious flaw in our firewall designs. And so 'Scout's Honor,' no one is allowed to hack away until the problem is fixed?" It has been reported by Fox News, among others, that the Bush administration is "the most secretive" administration since WWII. If so, I say good. We cannot let our enemies know every damn thing we are planning - how stupid is that?

[andyfox]

The United States runs an empire. It was always its stated goal, from the Founding Fathers forward, to do so.

There is good and bad in everything. The denial of the dark side of our relations with other peoples comes from the view that we are inherently better, that we must either take care of or change the backward peoples of the world. Our imperialistic spasms have always been accompanied by this thinking. Perhaps Henry Kissinger said it best when he said that he could not understand why we should allow a country to go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. Clearly he knew bettter what they needed than they did.

Of course Christianity is not an important driving force behind our policies now. A secular faith animates us. Japan and Germany were absorbed into the international economic system. An empire can be created and maintained with tweentieth (and twenty-first) century methods.

It is wrong to attribute all of our ills to our opponents. Just as it is wrong to attribute all to ourselves.

[Dr Wogga]

....I thought that perhaps I was re-reading Brad's self-annointed "Post of the Year" (which I am must sadly admit I read every word of /forums/images/icons/blush.gif ) - or maybe this was the boring part of his conversation that he left off his post? /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Chris Alger]

"But in formulating the new policy we must first define what the US should be and then what it wants out of it's relations with the rest of the world."

"We" don't formulate policy, officials do. They have to decide which of the various competing demands for policy (yours, mine, Wall Street's') should be given the greatest weight. The role of rank-and-file voters is virtually eclipsed given the absence of choices at the ballot box regarding foreign policy. You can't find, for example, any substantive difference between the GOP or the Democrats or Bush and Gore or Clinton and Bush (either Bush) concerning foreign policy. One minor difference, Bush's alleged aversion to alleged "nation-building," has been made into a joke by Bush's easy decision to spend unlimited amounts to rebuild Iraq.

"But in the most general terms, what the US should be is a liberal republic that assures the freedom of its citizens. The creation of wealth flows from this. From the rest of the world we seek to be left alone on the security front (primary need) and want partners in trade. For the most part, the existence of other liberal democracies and republics help us. The existence of totalitarian regimes, communist regimes, etc... hurts us."

You don't need individual freedom to create wealth, just markets, and not many of those. If you hold one of your many guns ot my head and force me to build something useful, I will have created wealth, my freedom not being relevant. Stalin created unprecedented wealth for Russia; the Chinese economy has been growing at a rapid pace -- much faster than any western democracy -- despite the lack of significant political liberalization.

US policy makers have always understood this. After all, US support for some of the most brutal dictatorships (Mobutu, Duvalier, Marcos, South Africa, etc.) was never criticized as support for regimes that "might hurt us" by spreading tyranny. What little criticsim of these policies existed before Vietnam was always pragmatic: pro-US dictatorships regimes might become unstable, a problem typically remedied with more lethal aid. In all such countries, the time came when more guns wouldn't save these regimes, at which point the US sometimes championed "reform." But in all cases our policies toward these countries were guided and limited by the interests of international business rather than abstract concerns about citizen freedom and democracy. Critically, this simple (and I thinnk indisputable) analysis is largely contrary to the way policy is explained to the public and, as a result, the way the public views the underlying bases of US foreign policy.

"9/11 changed things because it became obvious that the US had non-state enemies who could and would hurt us if they got the chance. For years the threat had been hypothetical, but it became all too real after the attacks."

9/11 hardly revealed a new threat. The threat of "terrorism" has been in the media and discussed by officials and academcis for years. Various technocrats have been urging for just as long that the US needded to be better prepared for just such an an attack. On 9/11/01, the head of the FBI's Most Wanted list was Osama bin Laden, a terrorist who had already killed more Americans than all previous Middle Eastern terrorists combined (not "hypothetically"). And we now know that US officials ignored express warnings of the attack. So while 9/11 didn't give policy makers new information about the nature of external threats, it created mcuh fear among the populace. This in turn created new demands on policy makers for greater protection, and gave them expoitable opportunities to garner consent for policies that the public previously wouldn't support.

"One catch-22 is that the reasons to protect liberal democracies depend on the government being truthful about its actions."

Exactly. If the policies of alleged liberal democracies are based on copnsiderable deception, then their connection with the goverened is no different that that of the policies of totalitarian regimes, meaning that there is no connection at all. This just leads back to my question: if the US lied about the real reasons for the war, what were the real reasons and how did they come to shape policy?

[Jimbo]

Andy thanks for the clarification that Al Gore created the internet but never claimed responsibility for the initial invention. By the way I am not sure who invented poker but I bet if you ask Phil Helmuth he might say he created it. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Here is my favorite justification of giving Mr. Gore his creationist credit: Quote Al Gore "Why don't we take these supercomputers and these optical fiber networks and put them together. Would that do anything?" That is akin to when I first shot a bottle rocket in the 1950's, I might have asked my father "Hey Dad, if we made a real big rocket and got a giant bottle could it reach that big moon thingy up in the sky?" /forums/images/icons/smile.gif So if Al Gore gets credit for creating the internet I suppose I should be credited for creating NASA!!

[Lucifer]

M,

The fundamentalism of Islam as we're seeing it today has nothing to do with Islam at its inception. (I realize this may sound like something of a contradiction.) Mohammad did not use "force and terror to expand [his] model of theocracy." (Actually it could be argued that neither is al-Queda using force and terror to expand Islam's model of theocracy. I would say it has nothing to do with religion--of any sort--at all.) The "scores of military campaigns" came about as the result of Mohammad's persecution by the ruling...family? clan? tribe? in Mecca. The Quraysh, I believe. They saw his teachings as a threat to their power and to their own gods. Mohammad, and his religion, were invited to what is now Medina, where Islam began to grow--and not by way of force or terror--threatening the Quraysh even more to the point where they tried to have Mohammad assasinated. Yes, there were military campaigns led by Mohammad, himself, and, yes, Mohammad returned to Mecca as a conqueror, but this has as much to do with expanding Islam's model of theocracy as our toppling of Saddam Hussein has do to with expanding Christianity's model of theocracy, which is to say nothing at all.

Regards,

Lucifer

[andyfox]

As I've posted here numerous times, all governments are run by liars and nothing they say should be believed. When a politician says something, we ought to take it with a hundred grains of salt until the facts are checked against the statement. But Gore apparently did do a lot to facilitate the creation of the internet. Quite naturally, a politician, especially one running for reelection or trying to move up, would exaggerate his accomplishments and downplay his failures.

And too often, unfortunately, the media gets it wrong. I remember after Dubya's speech on Iraq the L.A. Times headline said that Bush said the danger from Iraq was imminent. I heard the speech. He said exactly the opposite: that is wasn't imminent. (But that we needed to head him off before it got imminent.)

So it's been repeated that Gore claimed he invented the internet. He didn't say it.

A minor issue, anyway. I think I saw Gore himself making fun of this on Saturday Night Live.

[andyfox]

A post that ends "Regards, Lucifier" should be taken SERIOUSLY!

/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Lucifer]

[HDPM]

You don't need individual freedom to create wealth, just markets, and not many of those. If you hold one
of your many guns ot my head and force me to build something useful, I will have created wealth, my
freedom not being relevant. Stalin created unprecedented wealth for Russia; the Chinese economy has
been growing at a rapid pace -- much faster than any western democracy -- despite the lack of significant
political liberalization.

I disagree with this. All wealth springs from individual innovation. Where there is more freedom of action, there is more wealth. Period. Stalin may have increased the wealth of his country in some ways, but what they dis was borrow the innovations of free countries and try to catch up. So they built trucks. Where were trucs developed? So they improved farm technology. Who developed it? What was done to really create wealth in the regime? All the innovation relied upon was western. The same thing is happening in China. What has China developed that the world wants? They can manufacture some products cheaply when they buy or steal western technology. Big deal. I'll take the guys who develop the computer over the guys who buy them to run factories with forced labor any day. So I suppose some measure of wealth can be created when a communist regime takes over a peasant population. But it is nothing like what happens when an educated, free people is left to create whatever they want.

9/11 hardly revealed a new threat. The threat of "terrorism" has been in the media and discussed by
officials and academcis for years. Various technocrats have been urging for just as long that the US
needded to be better prepared for just such an an attack. On 9/11/01, the head of the FBI's Most Wanted
list was Osama bin Laden, a terrorist who had already killed more Americans than all previous Middle
Eastern terrorists combined (not "hypothetically"). And we now know that US officials ignored express
warnings of the attack. So while 9/11 didn't give policy makers new information about the nature of
external threats, it created mcuh fear among the populace. This in turn created new demands on policy
makers for greater protection, and gave them expoitable opportunities to garner consent for policies that
the public previously wouldn't support.


I agree. What I meant by "hypothetical" was perhaps better expressed some other way. In any event, despite everything known about terrorists, the problem was not really brought home until 9/11. Or wasn't seen as pressing enough until then.


I think the end of the Cold War has changed the rules in terms of supporting dictatorships. I agree that the US has often supported thugs. Whether this was right has been a long debate. But in the context of the Cold War there was at least a potential justification. Much better a puppet dictatorship with abuses we could theoretically limit a little maybe than a communist puppet state. How accurate this idea was is subject to some debate, but there is no question that the Soviet Empire was the world's most dangerous empire ever. Totally brutal, totally immoral, and it had the means to end all human life. Soviet apologists disagree I guess, but there has never been a greater danger to humanity than the Soviet Union. That excuse no longer exists, and I do not think the US has any reason nor right to prop up rancid regimes. This is one reason I think we should take a harder line against Saudi Arabia. Clearly though, our need for oil affects our policy in this region. That doesn't mean I think our policy is totally driven by the leaders' direct financial interests. Oil matters tho.

Citizens will have an effect on our foreign policy in the future. It is an indirect connection to be sure, but there will be an effect. Foreign policy issues will again affect various political races, as they did in the Cold War.

[HDPM]

I was late to court and the preview post feature wasn't working. So you'll have to live w/ the typos, bad grammar, and lack of paragraphization.

Hey, it's a better excuse than the Administration's.

[Chris Alger]

" A logical (IMO) decision was made that Iraq was an enemy of the free world, was in violation of UN resolutions, and needed to be dealt with."

This argument is utterly destroyed, inter alia, by the US decision to arm Turkey, which also fits your definition of a deserving target.

[jokerswild]

There is no longer any serious doubt that Bush administration officials deceived us into war. The key question now is why so many influential people are in denial, unwilling to admit the obvious...But even people who aren't partisan Republicans shy away from confronting the administration's dishonest case for war, because they don't want to face the implications...

After all, suppose a politician - or a journalist - admits to himself that Mr. Bush bamboozled the nation into war. Well, launching a war on false pretenses is, to say the least a breach of trust. So if you admit to yourself that such a thing happened, you have a moral obligation to demand accountability - and to do so in the face not only of a powerful, ruthless political machine but in the face of a country not yet ready to believe that its leaders have exploited 9/11 for political gain. It's a scary prospect.

Yet, if we can't find people willing to take the risk - to face the truth and act on it - what will happen to our democracy?

Paul Krugman, The New York Times, June 24, 2003

He used the same bad intelligence to lie to Congress in 11-02 in order to win the vote for military aggression. The man who proved the intelligence was forged was hired by none other than Dick Cheney 10 months prior. The war was, and remains, "The war to give Iraq to Halliburton."

[Chris Alger]

"All wealth springs from individual innovation. Where there is more freedom of action, there is more wealth. Period."

I disagree. The logical corollary to this arugment is that we would expect anarchies and similar societies with few rules to be the richest, which is obviously untrue. It isn't across-the-board "freedom" that encourages the creation of wealth, but certain types of freedom (the right to create, buy and sell) combined with certain kinds of rules enforced by the state (private property protection, contract enforcement) augmented by certain kinds of direct state subsidies to owners and investors (a regressive tax system, the Fed, direct investment in private firms through the military system, regulation of unions) and poltical and economic concessions to make the whole thing palatable to the majority that benefits very little from having, say, the country's natural resources or infrastructure in private hands (public education, pensions, environmental regulation, tax exemptions for homeowners).

Further, when we consider some of the great technological innovations of the last two centuries, we see the hand of the state, either through subsidies or protection from competition, at nearly every turn: railroads, the highway infrastructure, civil aviation, the semiconductor, telecommunications, the internet, microwaves, lasers, etc. The enormous growth in the Western economies since WWII occurred only after massive state intervention in the economy to "tame the business cycle" by lending a greater degree of stability and predictability to the system.

Finally, all sorts of innovation and wealth creation can occur in countries that we would consider totalitarian by comparison to ours. One party can rule, guns can be confiscated, criticism of the state can be punished, and all but the business press can be curtailed (or profitably replaced by "infotainment"). None of these restrictions on freedom would have much effect on technical innovation or economic growth.

[jokerswild]

Bush knew about 9-11-01 on 9-6-01 (if not before). The memo was real.

Why didn't he order the hijacked planes be tailed by US fighters immediately? (It is standard procedure, by the way). He continued to listen to little kids read books while the 3rd plane killed hundreds at the Pentagon.

Just the usual parting bit of advice to you, Jimbo. The IRS knows about your internet poker.

[Chris Alger]

No, they rarely qualified it as "emerging" but constantly emphasized it as known, severe, obvious, indisputable, etc. As a result a majority of Americans acutally thought that Iraq had nuclear weapons. You yourself often claimed that the chance of Iraq having WMD was virtually guaranteed, based on what your government and its supporters told you, to the point where you have been compelled to regurgitate fantasies about the existent Iraqi WMD being secretly buried in Lebanon.

"Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. must not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons which could threaten the United States."

Which means they can't be allowed to gain nuclear weapons to deter the US, because the US officials are the rightful dictator of the "free" world. Make that the whole world.

Rummy for President? That's good. "Vote for me. I promise not to lie to you in order to get your kids killed as often as I did when I was Secretary of Defense. Honest."

[Jimbo]

"Just the usual parting bit of advice to you, Jimbo. The IRS knows about your internet poker.

Of course they do my favorite troll! Who do you think tells them? All they need do is take a gander at my taxes. You are such a funny little goofball. What have I done to deserve you? /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Of course why I pay attention to anyone who believes that Bush knew about 9/11 on 9/06 is anyones guess.

[MMMMMM]

There are ills and flaws on both sides, truly. That fact shouldn't, however, stop us from making critical comparisons, and yes--even making judgments.

[MMMMMM]

Sorry I can't give the devil his full due on this, but:

Just how can it be argued that al-Qaeda is "not using force and terror to expand Islam's model of theocracy," when within the last 12 months al-Qaeda demanded publicly that the USA and UK do the following three things or face further attacks:

1) Withdraw from Afghanistan

2) Stop supporting Israel

3) Convert To Islam

?????

I think Islamic fundamentalism has a great deal to do with the inception of Islam, since today's radical Islamists are taking the Koran far more literally than their m,ore "moderate" counterparts. As Ibn Warraq says, "there may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." Indeed it can be supported that the fundamentalist Islamist positions of today are, in fact, more in keeping with "pure" Islam than the watered-down "moderate" Islam. Technically speaking, the radical Islamists and the Wahhabis are following scripture much more closely than their counterparts. An analogy to this might be that certain fundamentalist Christian faiths do, in fact, interpret and follow the Bible far more closely than does Catholicism.

[adios]

[MMMMMM]

If Middle Easterners insist on rejecting democracy in favor of having a dictator, then it might as well be us;-)

If they decide to come into the free world and the 20th century, then welcome;-)

[MMMMMM]

Turkey may well be a deserving target, and their treachery on the eve of the Iraq war should not be taken lightly.

France may be well on the road to becoming a deserving target;-)

[MMMMMM]

CA: "Finally, all sorts of innovation and wealth creation can occur in countries that we would consider totalitarian by comparison to ours. One party can rule, guns can be confiscated, criticism of the state can be punished, and all but the business press can be curtailed (or profitably replaced by "infotainment"). None of these restrictions on freedom would have much effect on technical innovation or economic growth."

I suppose that's why Cuba, China and North Korea have invented so much, and why the Middle Eastern Arab states are such enormous producers of innovative, useful gadgets that the rest of the world is tripping all over itself to buy;-)

Just look at results: the inventions and discoveries of the free world DWARF those of the unfree world. How much more evidence do people need in order to cast aside their communistic sympathies and embrace reality.

[adios]

"It isn't across-the-board "freedom" that encourages the creation of wealth, but certain types of freedom (the right to create, buy and sell) combined with certain kinds of rules enforced by the state (private property protection, contract enforcement) augmented by certain kinds of direct state subsidies to owners and investors (a regressive tax system, the Fed, direct investment in private firms through the military system, regulation of unions) and poltical and economic concessions to make the whole thing palatable to the majority that benefits very little from having, say, the country's natural resources or infrastructure in private hands (public education, pensions, environmental regulation, tax exemptions for homeowners). "

Now that's what I call a long and involved sentence /forums/images/icons/smile.gif /forums/images/icons/grin.gif.

[Clarkmeister]

Wooga, according to HDPM, the post of the year was the one I wrote which referenced the www.mikolee.com (http://www.mikolee.com) website.

/forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[Lucifer]

Okay, I wasn't aware of that proclamation issued by al-Qaeda, so I can't argue with you there. Seems like B.S. on their part to me, though. They have to know that that would never happen, and are therefore just using our "non-conversion" as a convenient excuse to continue attacks. In any event, based on what I've read of Islam and Muhammad, the fundamental Islam being promoted by al-Qaeda and other...er, fundamentalists, doesn't seem to jibe with the Islam preached by Muhammad, literal interpretation or no. I have a feeling the man's rolling over in his grave at the acts being carried out in his name. JMHO.

L

[ACPlayer]

[HDPM]

Yes, it is the post of the year. Bill Murphy made a valiant run at it with a link to the porn star who streaked at the US Open. Miko post is the leader in the clubhouse tho. And the periodic linking of the site in newer posts helps the cause.

[Dr Wogga]

...."blocked" by corporate 'Sex Filter'.........???????
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Cyrus]

Gore was the rightful victor of the 2000 Presidential election. All the huffing and the indignant puffing you're getting from the conservative corner is nothing but that : huff and puff.

With lotsa feathers sticking outta their mouths too.

The Republicans have absolutely nothing to hang on to. Legally or otherwise. The Supreme Court decision was the worst decision in Supreme Court history. And the GOP machine in Florida saw to it that matters would not be resolbved as they should. If the GOP addicts on this page hang a 6X4 flag in all their posts, them facts don't change.

...Anyone cares to debate this legally, I'm game. Bring it on (but be forwarned, s'gonna get nasty. I'm armed.)

[Cyrus]

"9/11 changed things because it became obvious that the US had non-state enemies who could and would hurt us if they got the chance."

Very well put, "non-state enemies" they are indeed.

Now tell me, for the love of God, the All-Knowing and the All-Mericful, how can rational people, such as supposedly those directing U.S. foreign policy go after states when the enemy is non-state??

Ah, the detractors will say, but we will get all those countries that shelter them and harboring them, one by one, until the terrorists have nowhere else to go!

Well, doesn't that strike you as somewhat of a simpleton's thinking? As something that is extremely destabilizing for the world's nations and something that, theoretically, can take the U.S. leapfrogging all over the planet until the terrorists run out of shelters (and we run out of nations)??

What if, instead, we were to meet the enemy on his ground instead of ours? What if, unlike (ya know..) Vietnam, the U.S. was NOT to send an organised, fully-fledged army, with 3:1 logistics support and the fluidity and the manoeverability of a supertanker?

...Uh, yes, I know. Then we wouldn't have the simpleton Dubya at the helm.

[Cyrus]

"China hasn't threatened us with nukes...but North Korea has said it would set our cities afire."

Surely, you are jesting! Or you're fumbling. China has insulted and threatened the United States far, far more than the Koreans ever did. (And they have recently held the crew of an American airplane hostage for some weeks, lest you forgot.)

You's gotta find other excuses for the Dubya Flim Flam.

--Cyrus

PS : Why don't you choose the Jimbo Reasoning and be done with it? Basically it goes, "Hey, We are the strongest and we do as we please, so we gonna kick yer ass!" ...Try it, it'll save you tons of typing.

[HDPM]

How to fight terrorism you ask? Well that's a hard one. I don't think going after state sponsors is so irrational necessarily, but the practicalities of it are extraordinarily complex. As you say, many countries might help out these terrorists one way or another. Were I the President, I would do as you say and fight terrorists on their turf. I would treat terrorists as international law does - non-citizens, non-soldiers, just rabid dogs to be shot at will. I would go after them wherever they could be found. I would not respect borders. You're camped in a Paris hotel, we kick the door and massacre you, etc... I would not allow terrorists to retire. Oh, this one has been a humble street vendor in Damascus for 15 years, he's not a terr. anymore-- no luck, we found you and we will kill you. The long term effect of that might provide a slight deterrence to all but the most committed. The most committed won't care.

One big problem is that terrorism relies on a weak populace and a lot of publicity. Censorship is a good weapon against terrorism, but I don't think it is either practical or moral, or legal. But how citizens respond to the threat is important. We must never give a victory to terrorists by giving up our freedoms or doing what they want. But we still have to do something about the problem and in some cases actions against states may be appropriate.

[MMMMMM]

OK so China is a menace too. However I somehow feel they are more likely to act rationally than Kim Jong-il and his bunch.