WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

First off let me say that this thread has been exhilarating. The attempt to keep up with you guys has required a great deal of concentration and caused me to adjust and cast off a few not-so-sound ideas and arguments. (I will henceforth deny that any such process has occurred.)

My God ! Lola called me 'Honey', Blatham said I am a nice guy, Tartarin has been civil, and Craven came to my aid on one point ! However I notice that this has not caused any of you to modify your disagreements. (I also notice that in subsequent posts each of you appears to have gotten over those brief afflictions.)

I do recognize that in the grip of argument, I occasionally come on a bit too strong. Please don't read into it anything more than that. I have come to respect each of you for the consistency and content of your opinions, and for the obvious good intent behind your interpretations of events. I have been both pleased and enhanced by this dialogue with you all.

I have several hours of money grubbing stuff to attend to now and will get back as soon as I can.

craven

That's really quite a brilliant post.

george

Likewise...well, except for any expressions of respect or affinity.

How familiar are you with Socrates and his project? Just a quick response when you're finished grubbing around miserly for dollars.

In spite of Craven's excellent post above (which I hadn't read before deciding to post the following), I suspect we've strayed from Blatham's expectations when he started this discussion -- tell me if I'm wrong, B.

Blatham carefully excepted (in two specific points)those who just don't see the beast slouching, making his intentions quite clear. I'm sure he didn't (and I don't) mean to exclude altogether those who want to argue the existence of the beast but it seems to me we're spending too much time countering interesting but often inaccurate or irrelevant posts from the nay-sayers.

I hope they will let the conversation go forward. Otherwise we'll wind up saying, once again, Well, we disagree... without much illumination on either side apart from an idiosyncratic short course in modern European history.

I note that in particular because the beast which is up for analysis isn't growling at us from another shore but growing inside us. And perhaps that's the rub. The dissenters in this thread don't want to look inside. They think the enemy lies outside.

If those who want to point out what harm Clinton, France, Germany, Saddam and others have done to us would just let up for a bit, it would be very good to have some time to examine what we are doing to ourselves.

Craven,

Whether we set a pecedent or not, I posit that if China sees it their best interest to pre-empt Taiwan or us etc., they would and no one would stop them, yet other countries would be against it like some feel about us an Iraq. At the same, time the same complaining countries would turn around and do the very same thing.

We and even countries who don't like us, hold us to a higher standard to a point of being naive ie. 9/11. Sovereignties can be valued as equal, and should be, this doesn't mean one would not take drastic action to change a long term movement that is deemed detrimental to them. This has been done many times in history, it sometimes can be ugly and threatening to policies which are espoused, and history will be repeated.

Those drastic measures come about through fears and philosophies inherent in those in control, so the types of action will be variable as such. We all know the Iraq invasion is about more than toppling Saddam, it is more likely an instance of stopping a movement that would eventually result in the EU gaining advantage. I don't believe our plan is to hijack Iraq. It will be left better than before we hope to our, and Iraq's advantage, though we will pay a huge price for a strategic piece of the economic puzzle, only history will tell if the gamble paid off.

Couple of random thoughts, I just realized that I haven't read the origina; topic of this thread so dunno ifit looks like I'm agreeing or disagreeing with any premise. I see beast in the title and realize that someone has done worse than the frequent anthropomorphizing of political machinery and done brought beastiality into the mix.

Anywho I just wanna add a few afterthoughts.

While I seized on the fact that Germany and France had not been loud advocates of "complete" cessation of sanctions I did fail to note that there was discord nonetheless over that very issue and that the other main opponent of the war, Russia, had threatened to veto the "Smart sanctions" the US was hoping to pass (to counter the perception of an "anti lil'guy" sanction) and self-interest is attributable. Iraq halted oil exports and threatened a hissy fit and I think Russia's interest in seeing their money became a concern.

Anywho, these cyclic "breaks" be way funny, when reading these discussion between Lola, Blatham and George I note that you guys discuss politics in spurts and take breathers to just be friendly. George is a damn good sport.

george wrote:



I don't have time right now to do this completely, so I'll just point out for now, george, that you seem to have this idea, as Blatham has been saying, that it's either one of the other of the governing self interests you mention above.....Or that one dominates and the other is therefore unimportant or not influencial. It seems more likely to me that there are multiple self interests and that they play off each other rather than one dominating the other.

Maybe it's because I agree with France, Germany, the UN, and most of the rest of the world that the pre-emptive strike against Iraq was not only unnecessary, but also blatantly dismissive of the best interest of so many other nations, but it seems to me that these two self interests (of France and Germany for instance) coincide rather than one cancelling out the other. It certainly can't help that Bush has been grossly insensitive to the needs and opinions of other nations. And it's more and more clear everyday, exactly how unnecessary the strike was and how ill conceived.

That's all for now.

I do also, btw agree that it's self interest that motivates both nations and individuals. Freud agrees too.

Craven......it has multiple meanings....yes, "beast" as in "mark of the beast?" But I don't know if it's an intended meaning......just my association.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. Almost every time we meet up with the Chinese we mutter somethin' about respecting the "one china" policy but it's more relevant that China is always bringing it up.

In every visit between American and Chinese diplomats the Chinese seek affirmation of this policy because our actions clearly indicate that we are keeping our options open as to whether we will actually support the "one China" policy when push comes to shove.

There are reasons we sell weapons to Taiwan and run warships through there all the time, one is so that we can stop them if we want to. I predict that we maintain this stalemate but if China were to "pre-empt" Taiwanese independence in a way that makes them look like the agressor we would interfere. And I submit that our military's relationship with Taiwan is maintained with precisely that in mind (among with other random concerns you have to have when hindsight is not a luxury).

So yeah, there's no way to stop a nation from trying somethign stupid but they'd probably get treated the same way, they'll be denied the privilidge of having the sanction of the international community. The nations that opposed the war achieved only this: they managed to avoid being coerced into signing off on an invasion they disagreed with yet are demonized by many war supporters for their opinion.




I don't hold America to a higher standard when invading nations is concerned. I am equally opposed to similar actions by anyone else.



To me, whether they should depends on the quality of the deeming. The stated position of the US was that Iraq was a threat to the region and to world peace. Yet in the region only two countries agreed.

Due to the mere possibility of getting the 'deeming' part ass-backwards I don't accept as axiomatic that a nation should take drastic action to change a long term movement that is deemed detrimental. I'd like them to need a bit more validation of that theory and a bit less of the mere reliance on heightened fears in the immediate shadow of 9/11. This is crucial to me. I especially don't think it should have been rushed solely for the reason of launching it in 9/11's shadow. the sense of urgency was that Americans weren't going to buy the sense of urgency for much longer.

You are portraying it as a calculated strategic risk but it's hardly a coup, it was just the easiest war to sell in the window of post 9/11 fear.

This is a war that couldn't have been pulled off without capitalizing of the fear that this country had after 9/11. This isn't even about the utter inability to convince the global community of this global threat we alleged, this is what I believe would be a failure to convince America itself if it had been delayed a little longer.

The ad nauseum tactics saying that "the sky is falling" and implying dire threat to a credulous community would not have worked for too long and more substance to the theory would eventually have been demanded of the administration by the American people. Within said community there are a substantial amount of people who disagree quite strongly with said 'deeming'. It's not just us against the world here. It's one political party of ours with both strong internal and external opposition. And this is one of the reasons this is such a rug burn on the asses of all of us who did not think the case to go to war had merit. This is a rather bold (read extreme, as is fair to characterize an invasion) move that only had a shot at being considered by Americans because of the post-9/11 paranoia. It's extreme enough that it needed to capitalize of one of the most sensational tragedies America has suffered to give it life.

Most Americans seem to have made a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. There's a reason for that, it was sold that way. This is a much more militaristic course of action than Americans would have swallowed if honestly presented to them. I don't really think History will tell. I think this war will make little significant difference in history and I hope this satisfies some of the more aggressive people in the administration because America won't be falling for a "long term strategic gamble" dressed in a "short term, this-or-a-mushroom-cloud act of 'defense'" again in the very near future.

I agree with you, the 'deeming' put forth was to deter threat, which had merit, and was an opportune time to sell the war. The far larger purposes are a much harder sell. Do you disagree that economic positioning was the major reason for our actions? If you try to sell it based on that to your own people, then you have to sell it that way to the world, it isn't going to fly either way. No country puts out the real intensions of what they do, it's all masked in a political wrapper.

Whether we like it or not, or feel dupped or not is sort of the collateral damage of higher political decisions. Not discounting of course that these higher decisions are being made based on personal views of those in charge, and of course they all know what's best for us. :wink:

"We and even countries who don't like us, hold us to a higher standard to a point of being naive ie. 9/11."

BrandX -- "Naive" means simple, unknowing. On the contrary, the admin had the information that attacks were at hand, should have been ready to prevent them, and should have respected the Constitution and relationships with other countries to counter an element of risk with increased cooperation -- in the service of freedom for ourselves AND for others. But no. The administration chose for whatever reason not to prevent attack but to allow it to happen (no? then why didn't they stop it when the alarms went off during their time in office?), to restrict freedoms at home, and then throw their weight around here and overseas. That's not naivete. That's unintelligent, dangerous bullying -- and real cynicism.

The Second Coming

Turning and turning
Within the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer
Things fall apart
The center cannot hold
And a blood dimmed tide
Is loosed upon the world

Nothing is sacred
The ceremony sinks
Innocence is drowned
In anarchy
The best lack conviction
Given some time to think
And the worst are full of passion
Without mercy

Surely some revelation is at hand
Surely it's the second coming
And wrath has finally taken form
For what is this rough beast
Its hour come at last
Slouching towards Bethlehem to be born
Slouching towards Bethlehem to be born

Hoping and hoping
As if by my weak faith
The spirit of this world
Would heal and rise
Vast are the shadows
That straddle and strafe
And struggle in the darkness
Troubling my eyes

Shaped like a lion
It has the head of a man
With a gaze as blank
And pitiless as the sun
And it's moving its slow thighs
Across the desert sands
Through dark indignant
Reeling falcons

Surely some revelation is at hand
Surely it's the second coming
And the wrath has finally taken form
For what is this rough beast
Its hour come at last
Slouching towards Bethlehem to be born
Slouching towards Bethlehem to be born

Raging and raging
It rises from the deep
Opening its eyes
After twenty centuries
Vexed to a nightmare
Out of a stormy sleep
By a rocking cradle
By the Sea of Galilee

Surely some revelation is at hand
Surely it's the second coming
And the wrath has finally taken form
For what is this rough beast
Its hour come at last
Slouching towards Bethlehem to be born
Slouching towards Bethlehem to be born

Yes, but it's all speculation so it's no biggie for me.



Hmm, no country is immune to falsehoods but your statement isn't completely true either. Nations sometimes do and sometimes don't. And sometimes the times they mask their intentions are times when others justifiably call this into the spotlight.

For example, the USA frequently suspected Saddam of masking his intentions. The USA would not have accepted "No country puts out the real intensions of what they do, it's all masked in a political wrapper" as explanation any more than I do now. It's a bit of that "all have sinned" approach to it that I accused George of. To anyone with a fundamental qualm with the way the war was prosecuted, it's not merely pointing out a quotidian sin. So the binary approach deftly dodges the charges as they relate to scope and magnitude.



Oh, I don't feel duped. they were quite transparent since the beginning. I'm just kinda peeved that so many Americans were, in fact, duped and believed innuendo such as Saddam having a direct hand in 9/11.

I rue that the stars aligned and an administration with agressive intent won a tight election and then reaped gobs of political capital in a terrorist attack and then used said capital to pull off a stunt that only works on an already infamous tyrant who has a mustache and.... :wink:

Well, what can I say, for too long we watched foxes run into the hen house while the lazy hillbilly sat on the porch with his gun. If we knew about the 9/11 attacks before hand and diddled around with the UN, ending up pre-emptively going into Afghanistan would have been viewed as bullying anyway. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The time to take action is when the WTC was bombed the first time, when the USS Cole was bombed and when the 9/11 attacks occured, which was a five year plan that went through changes along the way. Those are all cases where you can react with an unquestionable response.

Hesitation is a noble action because war is a serious thing, but you can get your ass burned jumping through political hoops, eventually action must be taken. You can call it bullying and cynism if you like. Other countries are secondary to us defending our Constitution, and within it our freedom.

Perfect hindsight is a poor excuse for blindly firing foresight.

Missed opportunities in the past don't mean that this is an opportunity.

There is no evidence that invading Iraq will increase American security at all.

To continue the lazy hillbilly metaphor, he's now blindfolded and running around the neighborhood shooting up houses while looking for foxes.

You are using the singular most devastating attack the US has suffered as justification for a war that has no connection to the attacks and that does not target our enemy. There is no evidence that it has improved anyone's security and we have killed many many more times the number of civilians (not soldiers) as we lost on 9/11.

It's no wonder the world viewed the war as a threat.

Thus far the justifications seem to be:

A) WMDs, the only legal leg to stand on but that you cede was not the real motives.

B) Economics, you mentioned this but did not elaborate. My first thought was that a theif might say that he murdered someone for "economic" reasons.

C) A showdown with the EU. I don't really know how to explain this one without making it sound silly.

D) Long term strategy. I have yet to see a single argument about what this 'strategy' is supposed to accomplish that could not have been done in a plethora of other ways.

E) Because hindsight is 20/20. A period in which we did not start unprovoked wars was followed by a large terrorist attack, therefore we should start unprovoked wars.

To be honest I think calling the hindsight 20/20 was a bit of a stretch as well.

F) Self defense. It's supposed to be a defense of our constitution and our freedom. I missed that part of our constitution. ;-)

I think the war was simply about using a military that certain people consider wasted if not used.

Damn ! Tart is a Yeats fan. I like best the last lines of "Song of the Wandering Aengus"

...
And pluck till time and times are done
The silver apples of the moon
The golden apples of the sun

Yikes!




On the contrary, I don't think 9/11 was 100% justification, it was a selling tool. The rest about long term global competition is just speculation on my part, and if I'm right, you probably won't hear or read about it, it'll be disguised in a plain brown pilotical wrapper. :wink:

So in other words it's justified on the basis of sound strategy?

Sound? Only time knows, but I do think it's economic positioning that's driving this.

Is positioning a euphemism for bullying?