THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

So, speculation, not fact.



Your inability to differentiate lies from truth is equally astonishing. again, speculation, NOT fact. You believe they lied. Your belief does not equal fact.



Saddam has posed a threat since before the first gulf war. Of course it would be a goal to dispose of such a vile dictator. Keep in mind that all Saddam had to do was cooperate with the UN and he could have ruined all thoes "neocon" ideas.



So, Clinton, the UN, et. al. were wrond when they all said that Saddam posed a threat? All the information that demonstrated that Saddam was a threat was wrong? C'mon, surely you have read the volumes of information on Saddam, haven't you?

Let's suppose the administration did lie. What's that got to do with whether the US did the right thing or not? Hell, I'll even assume for the sake of argument that if we agree it was the right thing, then the right thing was done inspite of and not because of Bush .




Would you prefer I used the words housed, sponsored, financed , or equiped? Oh, I suppose not.

Many of the al Qaeda not killed in Afghanistan (More than 19 )are alleged by our military intelligence to have fled to Iraq before and after the invasion of Iraq.

On the contrary, your statement that my statement is disingenuous, is itself disingenuous. The evidence of sheltering is compelling as I cited in earlier posts (all available on the internet). That is, it is compelling for all those for whom your view is not absolutely necessary to avoid coming to grips with the reality that the view you advocate is false. Find some other way to demonstrate that Bush is no damn good, because your current way is no damn good.



This argument is absurd! How many times should Bush have mentioned Osama for him to convince you he does give a damn whether or not Osama is caught? But suppose Bush does not give a damn. What's that got to do with whether the US was right to invade Iraq. Bush paranoia is mutating like a virus. It has gone from the mere psychotic/neurotic to the totally stupid.

We don't know any of the things you listed. We merely know that various politicians and media opinion types opined these things.

But even suppose all that stuff were true. What's that got to do with whether or not the US did the right thing in invading Afghanistan and/or Iraq?

Somewhere in the development of too many people, it was infused in them that motive is more important to the human race than the actual results achieved. I claim that is not true. I claim actual actions and their consequences are far more important than the motives which inspired them.

ican711nm

I wont bother getting in the middle of your present circle jerk since truth and reason seems to be something you have difficulty with. However, regarding Bin Ladin although Bush seldom if ever mentions Bin Laden by name every other word out of his mouth is Terrorism or 9/11 or both. Ask Bush a question about a problem we get one of two answers 9/11 or terrorism. And sometimes when he is really erudite he can put the two thoughts together and say terrorism and 9/11 in one sentence. I guess however unless it is written down for him he can't seem to remember Bin Ladin.

Ask Kerry a question and we get

Ask au1929 a question and we get,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3579792.stm

Wow, philosophy yet. Incomprehensible, too.

If this is "the ends justify the means" written in Icanspeak, the phrase was coined by an Italian called Machiavelli. I think however the machinations of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz are beyond machiavellian. I hope that most Americans will agree in November, that they require their government to follow due process of law, in the big things as well as the small.

No, my statement is not "the ends justify the means". My statement means: one's good intentions (good motivations) do not justify one's actions. There is another quote you might consider: "the path to hell is paved with good intentions." The actual consequences -- and not the desired, or theorized, or felt, or imagined, or perceived, or hoped for, or predicted consequences -- of each and every one of one's actions determine the merit of each and every one of one's actions.

In brief: to mean well is not what matters; to do well is what matters.

When you boil that down, it's the same.

"To do well is what matters"- who would disagree with that? Not me, on this fine Friday afternoon.

Pity our definition of "doing well" is so much at variance. But I'll not go off on another rant, not now. A good weekend, all.

McT

He needs to mention OBL EVERY GODDAMN DAY!!!

What is wrong with you, Icann? Are you no patriot? Are you forgetting who really attacked the U.S.? Our #1 priority is to disrupt the Al Qaeda network, NOT to solve the problems in Iraq!!!!

The only reason people supported the Iraq war in the first place is because the Admin made the Iraq gov't out to be terrorists, who DIRECTLY threatened the US IMMEDIATELY, which basically equates them with terrorists in people's minds.

But we've apparently given up finding Bin Laden! Bush never mentions it. He never talks about bringing justice to Bin Laden. He doesn't talk about what we are doing to find him. He doesn't talk about Al Qaeda anymore, really.

Why?

Because the fact that we didn't catch Bin Laden, or even stem the flow of recruits to Al Qaeda at all, is a HUGE embarassment for the Admin, and they don't want to talk about it.

You say, what does giving up the search for Bin Laden have to do with our right to go to Iraq? Everything! We didn't finish the job. Now we are too tied up to committ troops to finish the job. We talk about how worried we are about attacks on the U.S. before the election, but we really aren't going after the people we should be - we're dicking around in Iraq.

Why isn't Bush mentioning him? Because you don't talk about the bait-and-switch after it works.

I gotta tell you, Icann. Your ability to bend logical reasoning, and be assured that your 'facts' are correct while everyone who disagrees with you is obviously wrong, is astounding. Seriously. I'm sure you could find a justification for anything that the U.S. does, for the same reasons that you do now: because you want to. Please think about this.

Cycloptichorn

Just remember that this is a global war on terrorism, NOT simply a man-hunt for OBL.

Iraq plays a role in international terrorism, facts are showing that Iran has played and is continuing to play a role in international terrorism. Catching OBL is not the end-all solution to eliminating international terrorism.

Yes, but he and Al Qaeda certainly represent the best, most well-organized group of terrorists. After all, they have enjoyed far more success than any other group in attacking the U.S. and it's allies in Europe over the last 10 years. So why did we give up going after the big bad guys to pick on the small fish?

Iraq certainly gave money to terrorists at some point. But, so did the U.S. in the past, so can we really condemn them for that? Iraq's terrorism support mostly went to the palestinians. That sucks, but frankly we don't need to be invading countries, spending immense amounts of money, and tying up our military over such silly, thin justifications.

This 'global war' you speak of seems to have been shelved while we shore up our position in the middle east. I think it is a disservice to every man and woman who died in Iraq to claim that we are there fighting terrorism, because we're not.

Cycloptichorn

You are spot on, Cyclops.

That statement is open to question, too. It has certainly been presented to the American public as "a global war on terrorism", by those who wish to control you. But is it really? Did you see Fahrenheit 9-11? Have you read 1984, George Orwell? The clues are there; in fact the script is there. The state needs a permanent enemy, preferably in an endless war that cannot be won. It's Gaddafi. It's Ho Chi Minh. It's Noriega. It's Bin Laden. It's Afghanistan. It's al Quaida. It's North Korea. It's somewhere out there. That's where the enemy is. They're coming to get us. We must build more warplanes, tanks, bombs.

I just want you to realise that most of the rest of the world sees America as a reckless warmongering state, ill-led and out of control. Scornful of international laws and treaties, selfish, wasteful and stupid. Pursuing a current course that cannot result in the world becoming a better place.

Ah, that's better. I can rant much better when I've had my tea.

Is that why almost every country in the world has been working on elimination terrorism? You're equating today's events to fictional books in no more relevent today than when they were written except to the bitter few who need something to protest against and spew their hate towards.

I think you need to re-read 1984 if you think it has no relevance to today's events, McG.

And it's not about hate. It's about sorrow. Completely different.

Cycloptichorn

WAR IS PEACE (The War on Terror)

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY (Patriot Act II)

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH (Anti-Science Rhetoric)

I'm more than that, I know I am...at least ....I think I must be........


October 12, 2002
The Politics of Fear

by CAROL NORRIS

The first time I heard the now-famous, over-used slogan "either you're with us or against us," I thought it was one of the most inane, xenophobic lines I'd ever heard. Frankly, as an American, I was embarrassed. I had an incredible urge to write a blanket apology to the people the world over.

This oversimplification utterly dismisses the complexities of people, societies and their relationships. Of course I can be 'with' my country and still not agree with many of its policies just as I can remain completely loyal to my friends, family and clients even when I think they make incredibly foolish choices, as they do for me.

But as I thought more about it, I realized it was an absolutely brilliant line exactly because it was meant to encourage people to overlook the complexities of life and think in oversimplified terms, tapping into deep-seated fears. Someone paid attention in psychology class and I'm thinking it wasn't C-Student Bush.

It is no coincidence that Ted Geisel, aka Dr. Seuss, the hugely successful children's author, was once a writer of war propaganda. Both genres of writing get in touch with the same concrete, childlike [not to be confused with childish] thought processes like 'you bad, me good.' Young children think like this because of where they are in their cognitive development.

Adults whose lives have been seriously threatened--or perceive that their lives are seriously threatened--sometimes think similarly. They move from a healthy balance of operating from all areas of the brain [including the rational neocortex] to operating primarily from the limbic system [the primitive brain and the intermediate brain], which, among other things, is responsible for self-preservation.

The limbic system is where fear and its physiological responses are born and they function to help us mobilize and defend ourselves against the woolly mammoth or the saber-toothed tiger. This is also where the mechanisms of aggression are developed. And the neocortex is responsible, among other things, for rational thought, abstract thinking and the ability to consider complexities

And during such fearful times, as the ole' neocortex is overridden by the limbic system, we find ourselves with the fear-based, reactive, jingoistic, and seemingly intractable pro-war reactions in much of the American people. It's about self-preservation. [As this isn't a neuropsychology class this is an over simplification and certainly a spotty explanation, but you get the drift.]

Coupled with this fact, I've come to realize that many Americans have parentified our government--not in the literal sense, but in the psychological one. I do not say this in a condescending or judgmental way, but in a factual one. We've all done it in one arena of our life or another.

The government is, in theory, supposed to be for the people. [I know, I know.] Like a parent, it is supposed to be there to protect us, to look after our best interests. And when something as huge as 9.11 happens, seeming to threaten our very survival, many of us who take the government at its word and who are programmed by the Americentric media [another trusted parental figure] look to our government to defend us from the scary "other" out there.

Even if you are of the "bomb all the son-of-a-bitches to smithereens" school, forgetting that some of those son-of-a-bitches are blameless children and their parents, you are still operating from fear. In fact, that is a great example of the inability to think in complex terms. You can't see the intricacies of the issue and tease out who is dangerous and who isn't because you are afraid, even if you don't realize you are afraid. You've gone into survival mode. Anger doesn't fool me. It is oftentimes a thinly veiled mask of fear. However, sometimes it is an appropriate response to injustice [but that's another story] or shame [yet another story].

And so when you and I question or disagree with governmental policy, many people can't hear it, absolutely won't hear it. It's too threatening: please don't tell us about the complex realities of our world, say their unconscious minds, because we are scared shitless and we have little access to our rational brain right now. We need our government, our metaphorical 'parents' to survive. We must see them as good and split off the bad. Letting ourselves entertain the notion of anything different than our construct of reality threatens our tenuous illusion of safety. DON'T YOU KNOW OUR VERY SURVIVAL IS AT STAKE HERE??

This does not mean that people are immature or need to grow up [to say so is as oversimplified as saying 'either you're with us or against us']. People often need to defend their defenders--in this case our government--because in doing so they are trying to preserve their very lives. Self-preservation is primal, instinctual, often times not in our awareness and is hardwired into our brain to perpetuate the species. This is part of the seemingly inexplicable phenomenon of kids who defend their horrible parent-abusers.

I believe this phenomenon also explains to a certain extent the so-called approval rating of many of the American people to rush off to war. [The phenomenon of the Congress' rush to war is yet again another story.] That rating is really by and large a fear rating. But, researchers know polls are skewed by response bias. People who choose to answer polls are by definition a self-selected group. And pretend as pollsters and those that cite them for their gain might, respondents aren't necessarily a truly representative sample of the whole. So, unless you poll 100% of the people, always question polling results, even if they say what you want them to. Polls are often used [by the Left and the Right] to influence opinion, not actually to quantify it.

A restrictive reaction to fear is what Bush's handlers and speechwriters [and previous administrations and administrations in other countries] are banking on, hoping that people will cling to this fear and rally 'round the flag, buy whatever is said to them no matter how implausible, devoid of facts or contradictory it may be because their restrictive response has made it difficult for them to access the more rational part of their brain to say, "WHAT?? You want to bomb where???, or "Cheney is connected with what???"

This fearmongering is the stuff of color-coded alerts, speeches rife with promises of big turban-covered, germ-carrying boogiemen looming on every corner and contradictory phrases like, "anticipatory self-defense." This is not to minimize the very real threats out there; as we know they are there for sure. It is to point out that our fear is being exploited--very effectively in the psyches of a lot of people.

This is also not an apologia for those who "don't get it," who don't know of the complexities and the issues involved. I'm a big proponent of people taking responsibility for and educating themselves about the issues. But the ever-conglomerating, tow-the-line corporate media certainly doesn't make it any easier. I simply think those of us who work for social, political and environmental change [and anybody, for that matter] would do well to keep the politics and mechanisms of fear in mind.

It's one thing to preach to the converted choir, but it's another to get the message across to Aunt Matilda who is scared shitless in Conservativetown, USA. Preaching to the choir is quite important in its own right and should continue full steam ahead. It keeps people energized and informed. And I find it great fun.

The choir understands my references, already knows the songs and will chime right in. But unless my agenda is just to be 'right,' and only talk to people 'who get it'--certainly a person's prerogative and I have to admit I've been guilty of that myself more times than I care to count--to see far-reaching change, it is important for at least some of us to find a way to talk to the 'apolitical' [fill in the category] in a way they can hear, whether I like it or not; to also at times strike a chord so that others who have never heard the song will begin humming a bar here and a bar there, until they are singing it loud and clear.

I'm not even remotely suggesting everything be all touchy-feely. I'm saying that from years of experience as a therapist working with some of the most hardened folks in the very toughest, scariest, and drug-infested neighborhoods in San Francisco, I know that if you want people to hear difficult, ugly realities that they haven't yet faced, it is crucial to think about the role fear plays in a person's life. And from there it is vital to think about how you present what you say or people will simply shut down or dig their heels in deeper, go into restrictive self-preservation mode, as harmful or maladaptive as it may be.

You don't yell at or preach to a scared child to get her to stop being scared, even if she is yelling at you in response to her fear. At least you don't if you want to help stop being afraid and realize she can do something about her fear other than yell and react impulsively.

There are many ways to do it. And, often the biggest skill is to sit and listen. Listen to what underlies the jingoism and the warmongering. Don't get caught up in the content, listen to the underlying message. This is a skill creatives in advertising know well. Once you hear the message, you can address it and begin to engage in an intelligent dialogue [a skill advertisers know less well].

I often write absolutely irreverent, edgy satire that touches on ugly issues. And I always get a hugely positive response because it includes a lot of impactful information in a few words and the realities presented are couched in humor and absurdity, making it an easier pill to swallow for those who have never taken pills before as well as for those who have.

But there are many ways to speak so that a broader audience can also hear. The task is to explore and use some of those. And when people begin to listen, they may very well still have some of their fears, but hopefully they will have a different relationship to those fears. Consequently they'll be able to find a balance and use some of that neocortical critical thinking to begin questioning and wondering.

This is when they'll begin to let themselves see some difficult realities. And when that happens its important to give people ways to do something about these realities; give them tools and avenues for change that will instill a modicum of hope and a sense of self-agency. And if they ultimately come up with different conclusions than yours, so be it. At least they know what's going on out there. But I believe if people are able to loosen the clutches of fear and let themselves take a critical look at the world around them, slowly but surely change will happen. And one day perhaps Republican grandfathers will march for justice and Aunt Matilda will start sending donations to Global Exchange.

I do not want this war, this sham.

I do not want it. Scared? I am.

I do not want it in Iraq.

I do not want it in a sock.

I do not want it on TV.

I do not want it haunting me.

I do not want my Congress to fail me.

I do not want John Ashcroft to jail me.

I do not want this war, this sham.

Unpatriotic? Oh please, what a scam.

Carol Norris is a psychotherapist and freelance writer. She can be contacted at [email protected]

There are those who question why USA expenditure on military hardware is, what, twenty times more that the next largest spender? I forget the figures- it might be twenty times more than the next five countries added together. Something super-colossal. So why all the paranoia and fear, in the mightiest and most secure nation in the history of the planet? You the people are being worked on, and it seems to be surprisingly effective.

"The bitter few who need something to protest against" Well, a few are bitter and they do have a lot to protest against, like being illegally attacked. But they're more likely to "need" basic human requirements like food, clean water, and a stable and convivial society.

"...and spew their hate towards". Well, some find it hateful to be bombed, and vilified, and occupied, and disposessed. That certainly can generate some hatred at times.

The chicken-and-egg argument will apply here, but to MOST of Islam, the fact that the West has been encamped in Arabia since the 1920s, controlling puppet rulers and slicing up the spoils, is the key factor. They feel themselves to be colonised. They want to throw off the yoke. You know, like Paul Revere and the Minutemen, but with religious outrage added.

I am not offering a solution, but if hate is seen to be spewed, it is as well to try to realise the causes. The usual claptrap of "they hate our freedoms", "they hate democracy" "they hate us for our success" is patronising and risible.

Why? To accomplish what?



I can not understand why or how mentioning Osama bin Laden's name each day will help us destroy the al Qaeda network within Afghanistan and Iraq, much less throughout the world.



The reason I support both the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions is because I believe them necessary, but admittedly not sufficient, to destroy the al Qaeda network throughout the world.



I said no such thing. I asked what does daily mentioning of Osama's name accomplish? I want us to finish the destruction of al Qaeda in both Afghanistan and Iraq, since many of the Afghanistani al Qaeda fled to Iraq both before and after the invasion of Iraq. Daily mentioning of Osama's name doesn't deal with that. Invasion of Iraq does deal with that.



I gotta tell you, Cycloptichorn, your willingness to set aside logical reasoning, substitute your own invented reasons for Bush's actions, and reason from both those inventioned reasons and from hearsay with apparently complete self-assurance, just because there are many folks doing the same thing, is sad.



I cannot find justification for everything the US does. I have noted several times in this forum and in its predecessor several things I think the US has done wrong. For example, I do not like the process the US is attempting to follow to eliminate al Qaeda in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I do not like the process the US is attempting to follow to democratize the people of both countries. Progress toward that goal cannot be meaningfully achieved until those attempting to sabotage the governments in both countries are killed or incarcerated.