timberlandko wrote:... I look at Iraq, and Afghanistan, as episodes in The War on Terrorism...I think that The Clinton Era saw great harm done by contradictory and irresolute US Policy... I really think "The Actual Goal" is a more peaceful, prosperous World...
Timber, Timber, Timber.
Get ahold of yourself.
Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the war on terrorism -- and a decent argument could be made that it was a form of terrorism in itself.
In any case, I would stake lots of bucks that the end result of the war in Iraq will be an increase, not a decrease in the incidents of terrorism.
We'll see! I might be wrong. But we will see.
I cannot think of another administration that has done more harm in the geopolitical arena than this present one. Bill Clinton was positively a saint compared with this band of desperados.
If the goal of a more peaceful, more prosperous world is ever acheived, Timber, I doubt it will be the result of this administration which has contributed negatively -- make that NEGATIVELY -- in both areas.
Frank, yours is a valid view ... and you articulate it well. We may see indeed which of us is right and which wrong. Pragmaticly, however, I'm forced to admit I suspect both of us will meet with both satisfaction and disappointment in varying measure. Please don't get me wrong here, but I hope that in this regard specificly and alone, I suffer less disappointment than do you. Apart from that, please be assured I wish you no disappointment whatsoever.
The incubation for terrorism has been long in the making, especially in the middle east. in the modern sense it began with the end of WW I. Neither political view has been astute in its comprehension of the complexities and, if fact, have been horrifically negligent. The Brits mangled the entire region at a time when the Empire was collapsing. Bandaid after bandaid actually exacerbated the cancers by supporting whatever regime was the least obnoxious in delivering the goods necessary to fuel western economies. I believe the Bush administration and in particular Rumsfeld has a very myopic understanding the socio/theological underpinnings of the middle east culture equating terrorists to common and petty criminals to be eradicated by force. Containment may be viable but i believe it will only work with economics not guns. i would think, and i do believe Timberland will agree, the first necessity in conflict is to understand the enemy. Neither Bush nor Rumsfeld has indicted any such understanding.
I don't know, dys.
Seems to me that the Middle East nations understand and can appreciate great force.
I believe that we have their attention now.
What an erudite response!
It is hard to believe that there are people who honestly think you can work on these problems by trying to beat people into submission.
But most of the folk who feel that way are conservatives -- and everyone knows that brains are not an especially important component of conservatism.
max
The protest here is against the 'they only understand force' cliche. It is often repeated, but how is it possible to verify that it is in any way true? More immediately, how can YOU claim to know this to be so?
I should add, it also contains the slipshod generalization of 'they', meaning perhaps Muslims or Arabs or something. What can we say about any cultural or national group that isn't fallacious and so generalized as to be meaningless? What can I say about Americans, for example?
How about that we have an inordinately high tolerance for Canada and her people?
I did not say, "they only understand force", but one need only look at the stunned Arab world when Saddam's army, long revered and feared, was defeated.
The middle east has been put on notice that it is the policy of the present administration that those countries that have supported terrorism against us and our allies in the past and who may consider it in the future, will do so at their own peril.
Pretty straightforward, actually.
'stunned arab world'...Max, that's just another uncareful phrase you repeat on top of the first, suggesting some picture of reality you have no way of ascertaining is true. What's going on in the towns of Syria and Pakistan, Max?
I wouldn't ever support a war as an object lesson, but the war has provided that fringe benefit.
That Jiffy Pop hairdo in NK has started singing quite a different tune since hostilities started in Iraq.
And I don't think he's been the only one paying attention.
I was going to post this as it's own topic but it's applicable here:
Why The Anti-War Movement Was Right
By Arianna Huffington
The Bible tells us that pride goeth before the fall. In Iraq, it cameth
right after it.
From the moment that statue of Saddam hit the ground, the mood around the
Rumsfeld campfire has been all high-fives, I-told-you-sos, and endless
smug prattling about how the speedy fall of Baghdad is proof positive that
those who opposed the invasion of Iraq were dead wrong.
What utter nonsense. In fact, the speedy fall of Baghdad proves the
anti-war movement was dead right.
The whole pretext for our unilateral charge into Iraq was that the
American people were in imminent danger from Saddam and his mighty war
machine. The threat was so clear and present that we couldn't even give
inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction -- hey, remember
those? -- another 30 days, as France had wanted.
Well, it turns out that, far from being on the verge of destroying Western
civilization, Saddam and his 21st century Gestapo couldn't even muster a
half-hearted defense of their own capital. The hawks' cakewalk disproves
their own dire warnings. They can't have it both ways. The invasion has
proved wildly successful in one other regard: It has unified most of the
world -- especially the Arab world -- against us.
Back in 1991, more than half-a-dozen Arab nations were part of our Desert
Storm coalition. Operation Iraqi Freedom's "coalition of the willing" had
zero. Not even the polygamous potentates of Kuwait -- whose butts we saved
last time out and who were most threatened by whatever threat Iraq still
presented -- would join us. And, I'm sorry, but substituting Bulgaria and
the island of Tonga for Egypt and Oman is just not going to cut it when it
comes to winning hearts and minds on the Arab street.
In fact, almost everything about the invasion -- from the go-it-alone
build-up to the mayhem the fall of Saddam has unleashed -- has played
right into the hands of those intent on demonizing our country. Islamic
extremists must be having a field day signing up recruits for the holy war
they're preparing to wage against us. Instead of Uncle Sam wants you,
their recruiting posters feature a different kind of patriotic image: an
American soldier ill-advisedly draping the American flag over Saddam's
face.
The anti-war movement did not oppose the war out of fear that America was
going to lose. It was the Bush administration's pathological and frantic
obsession with an immediate, damn-the-consequences invasion that fueled
the protests.
And please don't point to jubilant Iraqis dancing in the streets to
validate the case for "pre-emptive liberation." You'd be doing the Baghdad
Bugaloo too if the murderous tyrant who'd been eating off golden plates
while your family starved finally got what was coming to him. It in no way
proves that running roughshod over international law and pouring Iraqi oil
-- now brought to you by the good folks at Halliburton -- onto the flames
of anti-American hatred was a good idea. It wasn't before the war, and it
still isn't now. The unintended consequences have barely begun to unfold.
And the idea that our slamdunk of Saddam actually proves the White House
was right is particularly dangerous because it encourages the Wolfowitzes
and the Perles and the Cheneys to argue that we should be invading Syria
or Iran or North Korea or Cuba as soon as we catch our breath. They've
tasted blood.
It's important to remember that the Arab world has seen a very different
war than we have. They are seeing babies with limbs blown off, children
wailing beside their dead mothers, Arab journalists killed by American
tanks and bombers, holy men hacked to death and dragged through the
streets. They are seeing American forces leaving behind a wake of
destruction, looting, hunger, humiliation, and chaos.
Who's been handling our war PR, Osama bin Laden? The language and imagery
are all wrong. Having Tom DeLay gush about our "army of virtue" at the
same time we're blowing up mosques is definitely not sending the right
message to a Muslim world already suspicious that we're waging a war on
Islam.
Neither is Ari Fleischer's claim that the administration can't do anything
to keep Christian missionaries -- including those who have described the
Islamic prophet Muhammad as a "demon-possessed pedophile" and a
"terrorist" -- from going on a holy crusade to Baghdad. You think the Arab
world might take that the wrong way? If there is one thing that could
bring Sunnis and Shiites together, it's the common hatred of evangelical
zealots who denigrate their prophet.
And it doesn't help to have the American media referring to Jay Garner,
the retired general Don Rumsfeld picked to oversee the rebuilding of Iraq,
as "viceroy." It reeks of colonial imperialism. Why not just call him
"Head Bwana?" Or "Garner of Arabia?" I didn't realize the Supreme Court
had handed Bush a scepter to go along with the Florida recount.
The powerful role that shame and humiliation have played in shaping world
history is considerable, but something the Bush team seems utterly
clueless about. Which is why the anti-war movement must be stalwart in its
refusal to be silenced or browbeaten by the gloating "I told you so"
chorus on the right. On the contrary, it needs to make sure that the
doctrine of preemptive invasion is forever buried in the sands of Iraq.
Especially as the administration, high on the heady fumes of Saddam's
ouster, turns its covetous eyes on Syria. I give it less than a week
before someone starts making the case that President Assad is the next,
next Hitler
The image of the boy with lost arms and the over 100 Americans and British who have lost their lives still gives me a nagging feeling it is so those who have SUV's can now drive them on cheaper gas.
Thanks, Lightwizard. Arianna Huffington is always a good read.
Thank you, LightWizard.
Adrianna sure has a way of saying what many of us are thinking -- and she says it so well.
Like Violet Lake said -- she is a good read.
Excuse me Max if I'm wrong, but reading through your most recent posts I have the impression (from both the style and the content) that you are virtually quoting Fox News. Is that your main source? I certainly don't perceive a "stunned Arab world". Some are appalled, some are cynical, some who are pro-American are deeply disappointed, some express great doubts about our morality as a nation, but "stunned"? No.
It's kinda funny that Fox has some of the most "Liberal" (most of it trash) programs on TV.
