[the hog]

pbleighton, on Dec 11 2006, 08:11 AM, said:

"On a more general basis, I think that the US owes a massive debt to the people of Iraq. We destroyed their country in a fit of pique. Its going to take a long time for things to settle down, but if and when it does the US should start providing large amounts of economic aid for reconstruction."

I agree 100%.

Peter

Not just the US guys. The Brits and the Aussies are also involved and are just as guilty for following the Bush fiasco. We have seen three of the worst Governments in my memory involved here.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Are you saying that the electorate or America should be punished some more or pay more of a price since it is America's fault?

No, Mike, what I am saying is the perpertrators of the crime, i.e., Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, should be punished. On the other hand, as an American and part of the electorate, I have to share in the blame for this fiasco, but it is more Iraq and the Iraqi people who have suffered the punishment.

Quote

We(America/and others) are at war and seem to have no definition of not only victory but even of defeat

If you are speaking of Bush's "War on Terror", to chase boogeymen around the globe has more in keeping with McCarthyism than war, and to have intolerance for any other ideology has more in keeping with Stalinism than democracy. But we have surely been invaded, invaded by a bombardment of fear-mongering rhetoric about the "terrorist" threats, mushroom clouds as smoking guns, and killer chemical attacks. We are at war, all right - at war with the truth.

[mike777]

"......We are at war, all right - at war with the truth....."

We do keep coming back to this theme.....

Are we truly at war, some....full blown win or lose and die full blown war?

or...some war where we lose lose less to terroists than fall out of bed and die worldwide?

Ok then die from auto accidents worldwide or the 'flu' worldwide?
how many millions from that?

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Dec 11 2006, 10:02 AM, said:

"......We are at war, all right - at war with the truth....."

We do keep coming back to this theme.....

Are we truly at war, some....full blown win or lose and die full blown war?

I really think that you might want to tread carefully when throwing arround this entire clash of civilizations / war metaphore. You might find the battle lines don't fall quite where you expect.

As I have noted in the past, I think that there is some validity to the whole "clash of civilizations" argument. However, I don't see this as a battle of the Judeo-Christian West versus Islam. Rather, I think that there is an increasingly ugly conflict between the Humanist values that came out of the Enlightenment and religious fundamentalism. I consider fundementalists Christianity every every bit as alien as fundementalist Islam, Hinduism what have. A pox on all your houses...

In general, I don't think that this is something that I need to worry much about. I have "faith" that my world view will emerge victorious in the open market of ideas. I believe that the decadent values of the secular West will inevitably erode the strongholds of religious fundamentalism. Organized religion is collapsing across Europe. Catholicism is dying in countries like Italy, Ireland, and Spain. I think that its far more likely that this model will spread to North/South America, the Middle East, and eventually Africa than that the teeming Islamic hordes will reclaim Andalusia... It will take some time for these areas to develop more mature political/economic infrastructure, but it will happen.

More over, I believe that fundamentalist religions thrive on persecution. They are at their strongest when they are mobilizing against a tangible external threat that can be used to sidestep the failures of their world view. Conversely, religion is weakest when it gets contrasted with the simple pleasures of living one's life. The best way to fight the fundamentalists is deny them the dramatic battles that they so desperately crave. As I noted before, time is on my side. Case in point: Lets look at one of the most divisive culture issues here in the United States: Granting equal rights to homosexuals. The single best predictor regarding people's position on this topic isn't religious affiliation, its age. This fight is already over. Its just going to take a few more years for the US to catch up to Western Europe, Canada, and the like...

In any case, its entirely possible that I might change my mind on this one. I might someday decide that fundamentalism has become an existential threat to values and life that I hold dear. However, if and when that day comes I very much suspect that the fight that I worry about is going to involve the Christian right and take place here in the US.

[Gerben42]

To start with the original questions: Do I see anything involving Iraq turning into something bad for me personally? No. Can't see that happening.

Although if I would be living in the USA the answer would very likely be yes, since the government is flushing money down the drain at an unimaginable rate. Also it might be yes because a family member might have been killed in Iraq.

Second, I think Iraq is already a killing field. And third, I think this will result into ZERO extra attacks on the western world. Terrorist organizations have their own schedule, they already know the western world is evil, they don't need wars to prove that. So they are going to use terrorism regardless of what we do. The solution is to find out about the plot before it happens, not attack countries afterwards.

[cherdano]

Gerben42, on Dec 11 2006, 10:51 PM, said:

And third, I think this will result into ZERO extra attacks on the western world. Terrorist organizations have their own schedule, they already know the western world is evil, they don't need wars to prove that. So they are going to use terrorism regardless of what we do. The solution is to find out about the plot before it happens, not attack countries afterwards.

But wars helps them to be a lot more popular, and helps them to recruit more members.

My perception (based on my limited knowledge of IRA, ETA, RAF, Hamas) is that prosecution is never enough to extinct a terrorist movement. Only when they lose sympathy of their followers (either because more people can see what the terrorists are doing is wrong, or because everybody can see that the political aims are better achieved without terrorism) they will eventually drain out.

Of course, the comparison is problematic. I admit I can see some politically motivated rationale behind the actions of IRA, ETA or Hamas, but none at all for Al-Qaeda.

[pbleighton]

"But wars helps them to be a lot more popular, and helps them to recruit more members."

Exactly. These groups don't exist in a vacuum

"I admit I can see some politically motivated rationale behind the actions of IRA, ETA or Hamas, but none at all for Al-Qaeda."

I can. They want to establish a theocracy across the Muslim world, and are willing to kill as many Muslims and non-Muslims as it takes to accomplish this.

Peter

[Winstonm]

Quote

I consider fundementalists Christianity every every bit as alien as fundementalist Islam, Hinduism what have. A pox on all your houses...

Extremism and intolerance become the religion, no matter what name it has as its mask.

[Winstonm]

Quote

We do keep coming back to this theme.....

Are we truly at war, some....full blown win or lose and die full blown war?

Mike, I can only give you my opinion, not facts. Personally, I do not accept the President's claim that we are at war, unless he is talking about a war of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan begun by the U.S.

The only thing we should be, imo, is on a heightened state of alert for the possibility of terrorism. If a bank is robbed, the bank doesn't go to war against bank robbers - the bank increases its security to prevent a recurrence.

And by the way, there is now hard science on the towers destruction - a paper is being prepared by Dr. Steven Jones and his colleagues for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that shows that the collapse speed of the three buildings violates the physics concept of conservation of momentum, which rules out any type of pancake collapse, while tests done by Dr. Jones and confirmed by an independent laboratory on dust and slag from the sites shows a zinc anamoly, which is consistent with the hypothesis of the use of military-style thermite and its derivatives.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Dec 11 2006, 09:02 AM, said:

We do keep coming back to this theme.....

Are we truly at war, some....full blown win or lose and die full blown war?

It probably depends on your definition of the term "War". You could also call it a Py-Party or a Strawberry Poridge or whatever. Nixon had his "war on cancer" so maybe the term "war" applies to any obcession of a U.S. president. Semantics, seschmantics.

I'm not sure what purpose it serves to call the campaign against terror a "war". Does it make some of the US government's dirty tricks easier to swallow?

[mike777]

"I'm not sure what purpose it serves to call the campaign against terror a "war..."

Excellent question Helene. Assuming it does serve some purpose can you think of any that are legitimate?

If not than it is obvious you do not thing we are at war hence my comment.

[pbleighton]

"If not than it is obvious you do not thing we are at war hence my comment."

Speaking for myself, not Helene:

Our invasion of Iraq (which is a war) IS NOT PART of our effort against anti-Western radical Islamic terrorism, which is primarily against Al Quaeda. In fact, it has been counterproductive to that effort. This effort is often called a war. While not absolutely wrong, it is inaccurate, since wars are between countries or groups of countries.

Saddam Hussein was a secular tyrant with regional ambitions. He and Bin Laden hate each other. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Calling what we do against terrorism a "war" is a bad idea because sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking, such as conflating Iraq and Al Quaeda, and sloppy thinking leads to stupid, self-destructive actions, such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

If W cited Nostradamus and said that Saddam was the antithetical "Mabus" and we had to cleanse Iraq and the world of his influence "before" he rained down fire upon the "canyons" of the "new city"...he would have been rode out of Washington on a rail.

The whole mess is typical and completely understandable. Look to the reasons and you will understand the causes. The US is in its death throes as far as being a world power goes. The eventual confrontation between China and the "rest" of the world (those states that won't align themselves against the inevitable Chinese expansion into Korea, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan et al) only remains to be determined in terms of time and place. Get ready, for a world of trouble is a-comin'.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Dec 13 2006, 02:57 PM, said:

"I'm not sure what purpose it serves to call the campaign against terror a "war..."

Excellent question Helene.  Assuming it does serve some purpose can you think of any that are legitimate?

If not than it is obvious you do not thing we are at war hence my comment. 

The "War on Terror" is more than just euphanism - it was used to create the Militatay Commissions Act and John Warner Act as well as domestic wiretapping.

There must be a "war" to justify wartime presidential powers.

It is again interesting to find that the BBC reports that the ringleader in the infamous "liquid bomb" scare that had us all dumping our drinks before boarding a plan has been found to have absolutely zero ties to any terrorist organization and the "bomb" material cited was hydrogen peroxide. Of course, this won't be reported on Pravda....er....Fox News.....not enough scare value.