Imagine the chagrin of the Bush Administration that that darned uncontrollable liberal media has gone and started calling the civil war in Iraq a civil war. Hilarious was Tony Snow's attempting to define exactly what a civil war was and, in doing so, described exactly what was happening in Iraq...only to try and backpedal moments later and explain why, no, no, that's not it at all.
Ostensibly the administration is concerned that referring to it as a Civil War could further voter discontent and objection to the war. It's hard to believe that discontent could be more profound than approval ratings in the 30s and an election that turned the government back over to the Democrats, so clearly the major worry is that the GOP candidate for president in 2008 is going to suffer from his predecessor's actions having launched a civil war in another country.
Indeed, the only thing we're waiting for now is assassination of the current Iraqi leaders and a military overthrow of the current Iraqi government, which seems to be on the very close horizon. Indeed, the *only* thing that may be preventing that is the presence of our troops, and I suspect even that isn't going to hold matters in check forever.
In any event, with the current battering the Bush Administration is taking, this blog will try to display some sensitivity. We here will NOT be referring to the Iraqi situation as Civil War. Instead we will refer to the overall situation as the CW, and events that transpire there as CW Programming. That sonds a lot friendlier.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at November 29, 2006 07:12 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingOnly appropriate, since the administration seems to be looking for some kind of supernatural way to get through this.
The CW? Isn't that a new teen drama for the fox network?
CW Programming? The Iraq War is going to be part of that TV line up? Will it run alongside 7th Heaven or Smallville?
How much you wanna bet that they'll try to blame those pesky Democrats for this?
"The Democrats won and civil war broke out in Iraq! Just goes to show you what happens when THEY get in charge."
Sadly, the level that Bush is trusted has fallen considerably to the point that it is difficult to believe a single word he says.... especially when there is doubt. I'm not sad for him, but for the office of presidency as a whole.
When Iraq was invaded, anyone could guess that a Civi... I mean CW would happen...Figures.
My favorite episode is when Kalif Kent leaves the farm in Tirkut and goes to Bahgdad to fight the Green Phantom Zone villians.
And Veronica Makdi was great last night.
Isn't a Civil War when Iron Man gets in cahoots with the US Congress to pass some bonehead registration bill that pisses off both Captain America and SpiderMan?
At least the Bush Administration isn't calling it "the Other".
--Captain Naraht
Over the weekend, militant Shiites took over a state-run television station, inciting attacks on Sunni neighborhoods. The Daily Kos points out the same thing happened when Hutu radicals called for the massacre of Tutsis and any Hutu who didn't support the massacre of the Tutsi.
The NYT also cited a government report from June concluding the $200 million that funds a day of the US occupation of Iraq can fund 1-3 years of all other current insurgent activity combined, and that there's enough money floating around from oil smuggling, counterfeiting, and kidnappings "to support other terrorist organizations outside of Iraq."
...but it's a good thing there's no civil war.
And did the militant Shiites decide to rename it the CW network? Sorry, I didn't read it and have not had my coffee, yet it seemed to fit....
Well, this is just another reason to laugh at our 'liberal' media: they haven't had the balls to call a spade a spade for quite awhile now.
They've been criticized for calling terrorists 'insurgents' and whatever other terms are out there.
But now, when they call the fighting in Iraq what it is, they're criticized again.
Damn those liberals...
I was watching CNN and a reporter stationed in Iraq -- whose name escapes me at the moment -- said the level of violence is actually worse than what is being officially reported. He said each night hundreds of bodies have been turning up throughout Iraq that are "unaccounted for" -- in other words, we don't know who attacked and killed them.
This reporter called the Iraqi government an "apparition," and said if Iraq isn't in the midst of a civil war already, he doesn't want to know what a "real" civil war would look like.
I've stated my belief that we need to remain in Iraq to preven things from falling into utter chaos. But we've been unable to prevent things from deteriorating this far, and I question whether there's any more we can do. I'm beginning to fear that pulling out and letting the chips fall where they may could well be our only viable option. God help us.
I would hope we as a nation would learn from this experience. But I tend to doubt it. We didn't learn anything from Vietnam, obviously.
"I've stated my belief that we need to remain in Iraq to preven things from falling into utter chaos. But we've been unable to prevent things from deteriorating this far, and I question whether there's any more we can do. I'm beginning to fear that pulling out and letting the chips fall where they may could well be our only viable option. God help us."
Too late for that Bill, altho leaving them and their god to sort it out does have a poetic ring to it
I thought CW was delayed for a few months....
Bladestar, I am generally reluctant beyond all measure to discuss my spiritual beliefs, given how much conflict in this world stems from differences about religion. But I will say this much: the violence we perpetrate against each other is not the work of God. That's all on us.
"God help us" is merely an expression meant to express my perception of how dire the situation is in Iraq.
"Too late for that Bill, altho leaving them and their god to sort it out does have a poetic ring to it"
My concern is that they get to Bush and cap him while he's out in that general neck of the woods for a summit. That puts Cheney in charge, and I can easily see him deciding to wipe the lot of them off the face of the earth and literally let their god sort them out. I mean, the guy shot his best friend, for crying out loud. I doubt he'd hesitate to turn Iraq into a parking lot and be done with it.
PAD
I can easily see him deciding to wipe the lot of them off the face of the earth and literally let their god sort them out.
I dunno, PAD - that seems to Catholic for Cheney.
Saw this, thought you guys would appreciate it. It's pretty bad when we have to resort to things like not letting the "bad guys" have and I-pod to get our way.
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/11/29/530680.html&cvqh=itn_ipods
"That puts Cheney in charge..."
Scare the heck out of me, why don't you? I would almost say the extremists would rather HAVE Bush, than eliminate him, because they can use him as a symbol of THE GREAT EVIL. But, that would be applying Western logic and thinking to a situation that is messed up because of Western "logic" and "thinking."
Peter, I had a dream last night that Bush was killed while travelling to Iraq, leading to the very result you've imagined it might. I believe myself to be neither psychic nor a prophet. When my dreams come true, it's coincidence, not prophecy. Still, it's a bit chilling to read what you've written after having that dream.
Would Cheney go nuts and do what you've speculated he would? I'm not certain. He might want to, but Congress and a large swath of the American public would have his head on a pike for it. And I think he knows that.
I have no respect for Cheney as a leader nor as a man. But I think the remark about having shot his friend is nevertheless an unecessarily low blow. We have no credible evidence that it was any more than a boneheaded hunting accident. Cheney has done enough despicable things that are well-documented and proven -- better to focus on those than to reach for something like the hunting incident. Otherwise, you're just giving his apologists ammunition (no pun intended).
I heard one commentator on MSNBC or CNN, can't remember who or which, refer to the Iraq situation as two attempts at 'ethnic clensing'.
After submitting my last post, it occurred to me that in a scenario such as the one Peter described, national anger over the assassination of our president -- regardless of his unpopularity -- could well drive the majority of us into a rage that would allow Cheney to commit such an unspeakable act.
Let's hope we don't have to find out if Peter's right.
My concern is that they get to Bush and cap him while he's out in that general neck of the woods for a summit. That puts Cheney in charge, and I can easily see him deciding to wipe the lot of them off the face of the earth and literally let their god sort them out.
And now I'm picturing Karl Rove kindly placing his hand on the President's shoulder and remarking grimly as he tightens his grip: "I'm sorry, George; the only way we can get the American people behind this war now is if we make you a casuality of it."
Ah, one last thing for the time being: after my, uhm, "performance" in the "A Smart Move" thread some of you might be wondering how I dare accuse others of committing low blows. Such a question would be valid.
I can only say that I'm sorry for what I did. No excuses, no attempts at giving reasons -- I'm just sorry.
Let me just say that when I called the reference to Cheney's hunting incident a "low blow," I was speaking philosophically and not in any way criticizing your character, Peter. I'd be a fool to cast stones that could be thrown right back at my glass house.
Does this mean you're adding Veronica Mars to Cowboy Pete's Roundup?
refer to the Iraq situation as two attempts at 'ethnic clensing'.
"Ethnic cleansing" is another of those ridiculously sanitized phrases that attempts to shield people from the horrors of what is really going on over there.
I'm sure Mike has a few more words to say about this particular phrase, so I'll leave it up to him, should he so choose.
Spider-Man was on the Shiite side before he switched to the Sunni side ;)
Someone really needs to make a "Civil War: I'm with al-Sadr" banner.
This just in, Tony Snow has been let go as press secretary. The new press secretary is a guy named Mark Millar.
But if he went to war for oil what would be the sense of blowing it all up?
Ok, here's MY crazed scenario--Bush is killed, Cheney takes over but is prevented from picking a vice president and immediately impeached, leading to Nancy Pelosi as president!
The only problem with this scenario being that it has zero chance of happening but let's not let that stop us.
As to Iraq...Bill Meyers, I'm a firm believer that things can ALWAYS get worse but given the cost of the war and the fact that (whether we admit it or not) 1 American soldier's life is worth more to us than a large number of Iraqi lives, there comes a point where it's worth cutting our losses.
But any pull out or pull back has to provide protection for the Kurds. They have managed to keep their part of the country free from war and demonstrated more ability to govorn than most countries. They've earned the right to be protected from whatever chaos the rest of the country suffers.
which is maybe what we should have done in the first place--go in, break stuff, kill Saddam, leave. Tell the next dictator to shape up or the same thing will happen.
We can no longer plan on long wars. For a variety of reasons it's just not possible. Had the Serbs managed to perform as well as AlQeada has Clinton would have suffered the same problems as Bush. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, it just doesn't work out for us and looking to the future, with ever more deadly eapons available to small, loosely organized forces, the situation will only get worse. This is a reality tha we, and the world, will have to deal with
This is the funniest political commentary yet! CW: we could be talking Stark or Clark.
Just thinking, maybe the problem is that we tried to turn Iraq to a system like ours. Maybe what they need, since they have three groups in the country is a council of three with representatives from each that can try to get things done together. Under the current system over there, no matter who's in charge, two groups feel unrepresented.
Bill Mulligan: Who is this Bill Meyers character you keep addressing? And why is he stealing lines written by me, Bill Myers?
:)
I often wonder if this war really is another vietnam or if that's just the way it's being spin doctored.
Instinct would lead me to think politicians would know not to get into situations like that anymore, and that protestors like to protest. But my faith in humanity and logic is constantly at question lately.
Cheney wouldn't nuke Iraq. He wouldn't want to take the flack for Americans having to fuel thier cars with glowing radioactive gas.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 29, 2006 01:24 PM
Just thinking, maybe the problem is that we tried to turn Iraq to a system like ours. Maybe what they need, since they have three groups in the country is a council of three with representatives from each that can try to get things done together. Under the current system over there, no matter who's in charge, two groups feel unrepresented.
It's a nice thought, but a car can't have three fully-functioning steering wheels operated by three separate people and drive very well. Nor can a government operate effectively, I believe, without a single chief executive.
In the U.S., we settled the dispute over proportionate representation with a bi-cameral legislature. States are represented in the House according to their population, but all states are represented equally in the Senate. There are checks and balances to keep either from gaining too much power over the other.
But the colonies were racially and ethnically homogenous (or at least those with power were -- I'm aware that blacks in this country were primarily slaves in those days), eliminating ethnic hatred as a major factor in the discussions about how to create an independent nation.
Iraq is just chock full of ethnic hatred, however. Not being as schooled in history as I ought to be, I'm unaware of any historical precedent for creating a democracy under those circumstances. If there is one, we'd be well-served to study it for the lessons it might have to teach us as we attempt to salvage Iraq.
If it's not already too late. And it may well be too late.
I still think Jon Stewart had the best name for the situation:
A catastrofuck.
Isn't it fun that we're constantly reduced to playing semantics while our soldiers keep dying? Remember when Cheney said the insurgency was in its "last throes"? Then, when the reality based community had the temerity to point out that the insurgents were actually increasing their attacks rather than falling apart, the administration sent its minions out to get everyone a lesson int he meaning of the word "throes", ignoring the fact that it was the word "last" that really screwed up Cheney.
Ah, fun.
And if Cheney were to somehow find himself in charge (like he isn't already), assuming the shock of Bush's death didn't cause his tiny heart to explode, I suspect the first thing he'd do would be to order the White House removed from Google Earth.
After that, he'd announce the new strategy for victory, which of course is the same as the old strategy for victory, but with a new slogon.
Same old, same old.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 29, 2006 01:08 PM
As to Iraq...Bill Meyers (sic), I'm a firm believer that things can ALWAYS get worse...
Oh, believe me, I know. Things have not yet reached their nadir. That's what really scares me. Not just how bad it is... but how much worse it could get.
I'm beginning to fear that pulling out and letting the chips fall where they may could well be our only viable option. God help us.
Yeah man, and that's not easy to think about because of the level of brutality these two sides are capable of inflicting on one another (BURNING PEOPLE ALIVE!!!! Damn.) But if we're just bailing water out of a sinking ship that's eventually gonna go under no matter what we do, is there any point?
If we do leave, there is one thing I think should be done before it happens: use that idea about divvying up the country into Sunni, Shiite and Kurd areas. Screw what Tony Snow said ("Partition, non-starter"), although he said it back in October before the Dems won the election and got a little leverage to MAKE it a starter (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15334267/ ), it's better than nothing and should at least lessen the amount of death and suffering when we leave.
Michael Moore's thoughts on the subject, if anybody is interested (I think on this he makes a pretty good case):
http://michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=202
Heard on a Buffalo radio station earlier this month: "You'd think 'pullout' would be part of his vocabulary considering how anti-abortion they all are." :p
I mean, the guy shot his best friend, for crying out loud.
That was an accident--but Cheney not going to the hospital with the guy immediately afterwards was his choice and a choice that made me pretty disgusted with him. What the hell was he thinking? If somebody sprays me with buckshot and isn't even considerate enough to show up at the hospital right after I'm treated and apologize and ask me if I'm feeling any better, I denounce that person as a friend that very day. So for that matter, what the was the guy Cheney SHOT thinking? Not to mention that this wasn't a hunting trip, it was "hey, you know what'd be fun? If we got somebody to put cages of domesticated birds all over the place, then had him lead us to the birds, then had him poke the birds until they try to fly away, and then we could shoot them since they've never flown before and would make real easy targets. Or maybe we could buy some kittens and shoot them instead...nah, let's do the bird thing. Just as long as I get to kill something."
I have no respect for Cheney as a leader nor as a man.
I find him pretty despicable too. But read this quote from 1991 when he was Secretary of Defense. It really is amazing...
CHENEY (explaining why the first Gulf War ended with Saddam still in power): "I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we we're going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."
Talk about flip-flopping. Also, the fact that he was able to see all of that coming makes it even more inexcusable for him to have been involved in the invasion 12 years later.
"Let me just say that when I called the reference to Cheney's hunting incident a "low blow," I was speaking philosophically and not in any way criticizing your character, Peter. I'd be a fool to cast stones that could be thrown right back at my glass house."
Don't worry about it, although I didn't think of my comment about Cheney as being a low blow. I was thinking of it more as a cheap shot...
No, wait. Wait, this just in. NBC News has declared that it was, indeed, a low blow. I, however, will continue to maintain that it was a cheap shot, no matter the evidence to the contrary.
"Oh, believe me, I know. Things have not yet reached their nadir."
It's really all his fault, you know. If that damned Nadir hadn't run, Gore would have been elected and we wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place...
PAD
Bill Mulligan -
They have managed to keep their part of the country free from war and demonstrated more ability to govorn than most countries.
Only because they apparently have nothing the Sunnis or Shiites want and don't have many Sunnis or Shiites living among them.
As you can see in the rest of the major cities of Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites live together. And now they're trying to tear each other apart. It's like the Hatfield & McCoys x 100,000.
Unfortunately, after the promises we made during the Gulf War to the Kurds, only to ignore them, they'd be well within their right to also tell us to shove off.
>Would Cheney go nuts and do what you've speculated he would? I'm not certain. He might want to, but Congress and a large swath of the American public would have his head on a pike for it. And I think he knows that.
More to the point, would the generals go along? There's rumours Stalin's aides/generals were responsible for his 'departure from office' because the loon wanted to start a nuclear war. We could well see the same thing with U.S. military telling the president to sod off if he tried the same thing for an unacceptable reason. Which however devastating to the U.S. the assassination of the president would be, certainly doesn't warrant that sort of response.
>It's a nice thought, but a car can't have three fully-functioning steering wheels operated by three separate people and drive very well. Nor can a government operate effectively, I believe, without a single chief executive.
Hey the Minbari managed it! Oh, but wait, wait, they were actually intelligent, weren't they? And fictional, let's not forget that.
>As to Iraq...Bill Meyers, I'm a firm believer that things can ALWAYS get worse but given the cost of the war and the fact that (whether we admit it or not) 1 American soldier's life is worth more to us than a large number of Iraqi lives, there comes a point where it's worth cutting our losses.
Maybe it's worth hoping things get worse ... and ironically become better for it?
What If? issue #621 ...
What if things got a lot worse in Iraq, wherefor Iran decided to take advantage of the situation and indulged in some payback for the little fracas Saddam had with them back in the 80s? Hey, that'd give a tailor-made excuse to do something about those nuclear plans of theirs. ;-)
Posted by: Peter David at November 29, 2006 02:32 PM
Don't worry about it, although I didn't think of my comment about Cheney as being a low blow. I was thinking of it more as a cheap shot...
From Cheney's standpoint, there was nothing cheap about it. Those were perfectly good birdshot pellets.
Posted by: Peter David at November 29, 2006 02:32 PM
No, wait. Wait, this just in. NBC News has declared that it was, indeed, a low blow. I, however, will continue to maintain that it was a cheap shot, no matter the evidence to the contrary.
Spare us your snowjob.
Posted by: Peter David at November 29, 2006 02:32 PM
It's really all his fault, you know. If that damned Nadir hadn't run, Gore would have been elected and we wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place...
Hmmm... perhaps the gun Cheney was using failed to come with adequate warnings about what would happen if one shoots one's friend in the face with it. Maybe he should get in touch with Ralph. I'm sure Ralph's got spare time, not being president and all.
Just as a FYI, well known liberal agitator Colin Powell has now said that Iraq is in Civil War and the Bush administration needs to face up to it.
And if Cheney were to somehow find himself in charge (like he isn't already),
If Cheney were in charge Rumsfeldt would still have his job.
Only because they apparently have nothing the Sunnis or Shiites want and don't have many Sunnis or Shiites living among them.
I was under the impression that the Kurds DO have oil reserves. You are correct that they are far more monoethnic, which seems to make it easier to spot the terrorists.
What if things got a lot worse in Iraq, wherefor Iran decided to take advantage of the situation and indulged in some payback for the little fracas Saddam had with them back in the 80s? Hey, that'd give a tailor-made excuse to do something about those nuclear plans of theirs. ;-)
I can't believe they would not first target Israel--and if they use atom bombs on anyone, even fellow Muslims, the Israelis would probably take the opportunity to make sure they weren't the next target.
I wish someone in the press would ask the president one simple question: "Mr President, what is your definition of a civil war?"
All across the blogs and news websites is talk of this civil war. It's a game of semantics at this point.
I'd start measuring out an ounce of faith in this presidency if we they would stop putting a positive or denying spin on things. The irreality of life as they know it is doing nothing to garner trust, faith or support from the rest of the world.
"All across the blogs and news websites is talk of this civil war."
No WONDER the President hasn't heard about it.
"Hmmm... perhaps the gun Cheney was using failed to come with adequate warnings about what would happen if one shoots one's friend in the face with it."
I can see it now. "According to studies by the Surgeon General, discharging this weapon in the direction of someone's face, who is not a bird, will make you the target of jokes for years to come." Engrave that right on the barrel.
If Cheney were in charge Rumsfeldt would still have his job.
Nah. Cheney and Rummy may be friends, but they are also politicians, which means if he needed to tell his friend to fall on his sword for him, he'd do it in an irregular heartbeat.
I was under the impression that the Kurds DO have oil reserves.
They do, it's the Sunnis that are oil-deficient. The Kurds, however, seem to be less interested in payback as the Shi'ites or the Sunnis are. Maybe it's because they've been semi-autonomous for years before Saddam was toppled. They've simply got their act together more.
I can't believe they would not first target Israel--and if they use atom bombs on anyone, even fellow Muslims, the Israelis would probably take the opportunity to make sure they weren't the next target.
Absolutely, keeping in mind that Israel is a nuclear power, Iran would make sure to hit them first if they were to get the bomb. Not only would it eliminate their biggest regional nuclear threat, it would also increase their stature in the Muslim world.
Not only would it eliminate their biggest regional nuclear threat, it would also increase their stature in the Muslim world.
I think the Iranian leaders mat believe that but in reality, if they bomb Israel they will have to change the name of their country to "The steaming pile of radioactive sand formally known as Iran"
>Absolutely, keeping in mind that Israel is a nuclear power, Iran would make sure to hit them first if they were to get the bomb. Not only would it eliminate their biggest regional nuclear threat, it would also increase their stature in the Muslim world.
Oh, no. Because the only way to be SURE of having eliminated any possibility of a nuclear counterstrike from Israel would be to pretty much flatten the country and take out deep bunkers while they're at it. The problem with that is, neighbouring countries would take quite a hit in fallout alone and my theory is, however much they despise Israel, they'd hate that even more.
I think people are forgetting that Israel's intelligence agency, the Mossad, is pretty damn good. I think Israel would launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran before the latter country had a chance to fire off nukes.
Of course, I shudder to think of what such a pre-emptive strike would look like. I hope the world can find a way to untangle the Middle East Mess (or Mess 'O Potamia as "The Daily Show" calls it) long before that happens.
Of course, the way things are going now doesn't exactly lend itself to a lot of hope.
I mean, the guy shot his best friend, for crying out loud.
That was an accident--but Cheney not going to the hospital with the guy immediately afterwards was his choice and a choice that made me pretty disgusted with him. What the hell was he thinking? If somebody sprays me with buckshot and isn't even considerate enough to show up at the hospital right after I'm treated and apologize and ask me if I'm feeling any better, I denounce that person as a friend that very day. So for that matter, what the was the guy Cheney SHOT thinking? Not to mention that this wasn't a hunting trip, it was "hey, you know what'd be fun? If we got somebody to put cages of domesticated birds all over the place, then had him lead us to the birds, then had him poke the birds until they try to fly away, and then we could shoot them since they've never flown before and would make real easy targets. Or maybe we could buy some kittens and shoot them instead...nah, let's do the bird thing. Just as long as I get to kill something."
I have no respect for Cheney as a leader nor as a man.
I find him pretty despicable too. But read this quote from 1991 when he was Secretary of Defense. It really is amazing...
CHENEY (explaining why the first Gulf War ended with Saddam still in power): "I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we we're going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."
Talk about flip-flopping. Also, the fact that he was able to see all of that coming makes it even more inexcusable for him to have been involved in the invasion 12 years later.
But if he went to war for oil what would be the sense of blowing it all up?
It would greatly reduce the supply allowing tremendous price hikes & profits that are currently unimaginable.
So...if we succeed in Iraq it was to grab the oil for ourselves...if we fail in Iraq it was to drive the price up...it's an argument that can't be lost!
Posted by Bill Mulligan at November 29, 2006 08:11 PM
So...if we succeed in Iraq it was to grab the oil for ourselves...if we fail in Iraq it was to drive the price up...it's an argument that can't be lost!
Actually, it can.
I doubt Bush wants to spike up the price of oil. That would put the final nail into the coffin that has become his presidency. Bush is clearly stupid, but I don't think he's that stupid.
We were relying on oil revenues to fund our occupation; that was part of Bush's plan all along. And I find it hard to believe that Bush and his oil-soaked pals weren't interested in getting control of Iraqi oil. Our economy is oil-based, a huge chunk of our oil comes from the Middle East, and political instability in that region therefore threatens our economic stability.
Moreover, people seem to forget that the market for oil is not strictly controlled by market forces. There are cartels, like OPEC, that artificially manipulate the supply depending on their perceived needs. If we could control Iraq's oil, even by proxy, it would mean we could have more control over the supply and price of oil.
I don't think that's a "tinfoil hat conspiracy theory." It may not have been the primary reason for invading Iraq, but I believe it was among the motives.
Well, I think one can make the argument that the only reason we care at all about the middle east is ultimately because our economy depends on oil. Though in that case, some of our actions (supporting the oil poor Israel over the oil rich Saudis, Iranians, etc, makes little sense). It's always a factor but far less of one than critics contend.
It occurs to me...if Iraq is a civil war isn't Afghanistan as well? And hasn't Afghanistan been one from the get go?
The big problem with the War On Terrorism/Islamofacism is that this is not an enemy we can defeat once and then go home (like Nazi Germany).
We pull out and stop fighting Al Qaida in Iraq, especially prior to Iraq's three year old government being established firmly enough to fight off the insurging terrorists, this enemy will follow us back home and continue more attempts at a 9-11 attack.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 29, 2006 09:23 PM
Well, I think one can make the argument that the only reason we care at all about the middle east is ultimately because our economy depends on oil. Though in that case, some of our actions (supporting the oil poor Israel over the oil rich Saudis, Iranians, etc, makes little sense). It's always a factor but far less of one than critics contend.
But, we do support the Saudis. Or at least the Saudi royal family. We stationed troops to fend off an attack from Iraq and left them there, which is part of what got us involved in 9/11. Then we found a way to let a bunch of Saudis fly back home while there was ostensibly a ban on all flights in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 29, 2006 09:23 PM
It occurs to me...if Iraq is a civil war isn't Afghanistan as well? And hasn't Afghanistan been one from the get go?
Afghanistan wasn't a civil war from the get-go, unless you believe the U.S. was part of Afghanistan. Afghanistan began with a U.S. invasion that toppled a hostile government and attempted to install a friendlier one. It was afterwards that the warlords began vying for control of the country. Now we're seeing a resurgence of the Taliban.
Our invasion of Iraq is almost a mirror image, except for one small but pesky detail: Iraq was never a significant threat to us.
Posted by: Darin at November 29, 2006 09:36 PM
The big problem with the War On Terrorism/Islamofacism is that this is not an enemy we can defeat once and then go home (like Nazi Germany).
Using the term "Islamofascism" may be popular, but I'm not sure it's accurate. The basis of radical Islam is religion (or a perversion of it). Some of the fascist movements of the early 20th century may have co-opted some religious beliefs, but the core of their ideologies were not necessarily religious.
I'm not saying radical Islam is good. In fact, I consider it to be a cancer on the civilized world. But two things aren't the same unless they are.
So one cannot see that "Islamofacism" is a form of radical Islam? If one does not believe that Islam in its uncorrupted form is facist, then they shouldn't have a problem with "Islamofacism" as a viable term.
Iraq was a growing threat the United States. The evidence (confirmed by multiple global inteligence agencies and verified by even Bill Clinton) supports that. His inability to abide by double-digit UN inspection requirements and resolutions in a post 9-11 world also lead to his being overthrown and his eventual death sentence. I have no pity for Saddam.
DW
I think the Iranian leaders mat believe that but in reality, if they bomb Israel they will have to change the name of their country to "The steaming pile of radioactive sand formally known as Iran"
Well, yeah. But they'll still call it a victory.
Afghanistan wasn't a civil war from the get-go, unless you believe the U.S. was part of Afghanistan.
Actually, the Northern Alliance was already fighting against the Taliban, so technically, Afghanistan was in a civil war before we toppled the Taliban.
The difference is, Iraq is now in a civil war of our creation.
But, we do support the Saudis.
yeah but does anyone seriously argue that we are even handed in the Middle East, in terms of who we support? We are overwhelmingly on Israel's side. Wich is a good thing, in my opinion, but not something that the Muslim states are happy about. My point is, if people believe that oil is our main objective, there seems to be a major disconnect with our policies.
Afghanistan wasn't a civil war from the get-go, unless you believe the U.S. was part of Afghanistan. Afghanistan began with a U.S. invasion that toppled a hostile government and attempted to install a friendlier one.
Using, in large part, the existing anti-taliban forces. I'd say that Afghanistan has been in a state of civil war since the 80s.
My Dad noticed something and made comment to me, they are not blowing up the oil fields. Both sides so far have not really attacked the main things that could truly cripple the country. We think some money and payola is being doled out by the companies running the show.
Both sides so far have not really attacked the main things that could truly cripple the country.
Interesting point, though at least one of the sides would have no reason to do that.
I think there have been some attacks on pipelines and such--there were few incidents I recall that effectively shut down the oil producing capacity for a while.
Protecting an oil field or refinery is much easier than protecting every possible place where civilians gather.
So one cannot see that "Islamofacism" is a form of radical Islam? If one does not believe that Islam in its uncorrupted form is facist, then they shouldn't have a problem with "Islamofacism" as a viable term.
Well, how do you feel about referring to the nazis as Christo-fascists? The swastika has a history as a variant of the Christian cross, the Iron Cross was taken from the Teutonic Knights who were Catholic, and the nazis often referred to the grail myth.
Iraq was a growing threat the United States. The evidence (confirmed by multiple global inteligence agencies and verified by even Bill Clinton) supports that.
The only evidence Iraq was a threat to any of its neighbors was speculation. Scott Ritter was getting substantial coverage a half year up to the invasion saying Iraq was no threat to its neighbors, and the White House produced no evidence to contradict him. In the weeks before the invasion, the back pages of newspapers were reporting that no intelligence agencies -- including the CIA and Israeli intelligence -- could confirm Iraq had any WMDs. George W Bush retconning the justification for invasion to liberating the Iraqi people only confirms Iraq was no international threat.
It's plainly observable you don't know what you're talking about.
We pull out and stop fighting Al Qaida in Iraq, especially prior to Iraq's three year old government being established firmly enough to fight off the insurging terrorists, this enemy will follow us back home and continue more attempts at a 9-11 attack.
The insurgents depend on the US occupation to keep their recruitment up. Of course they would attempt another 9/11 to bring us back.
Pre-9/11, flight schools were reporting to the FBI foreign students who weren't interested in learning how to land airplanes. The national FBI offices were prohibiting the local offices from initiating legal wiretaps against Saudis with ties to known terror cells, Condi Rice was telling Richard Clarke she didn't want to talk about Arab terrorism, and George W Bush took a monthlong vacation barely 6-months into his presidency after reading the memo titled "Bin Laden determined to strike US."
We aren't in danger because religious fanatics want to kill us. We are in danger because George W Bush is in charge of our safety.
Actually, the swastika predates Christianity by (according to some archeological finds) approximately five millenia, and is a sacred symbol in Hinduism and Buddhism, amongst others.
Being found in many ancient European cultures as well, it was used (and perverted) by the Nazis as a symbol in the Aryan movement, theorizing a "Nordic master race," originating in northern Europe.
-Rex Hondo-
I haven't taken the time to read all the comments, but after reading at least three individuals' posts referring to the Kurds vs Shiites vs Sunnis, I need to make a major point of correction. The Kurds ARE largely Sunni Muslims (there is a sizable Shia minority, but there's much less religious strife among the Kurds). They're not ARABS, unlike the other Sunnis in Iraq. That's where the ethnicity comes into play. There's RELIGIOUS strife between the Iraqi Arab Sunnis and Iraqi Arab Shiites and an ETHNIC rivalry between the Iraqi Arabs (Sunnis and Shiites) and the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Modern Kurds are related to the Iranians, and their language belongs to the Indo-European family, not the Semitic family (like Arabic).
While the confusion is understandable since most of the administration's so-called experts on the Middle East seem to be less than aware of this themselves, we should avoid falling into that trap as well.
If we could control Iraq's oil, even by proxy, it would mean we could have more control over the supply and price of oil.
I don't think that's a "tinfoil hat conspiracy theory." It may not have been the primary reason for invading Iraq, but I believe it was among the motives.
Indeed. Safe to say that prospect didn't give them second thoughts or anything.
Being found in many ancient European cultures as well, (the swastika) was used (and perverted) by the Nazis as a symbol in the Aryan movement, theorizing a "Nordic master race," originating in northern Europe.
The sad thing is that you could do that with just about any symbol. What if some murderous, Nazi-like regime put the cross on their flag? Or the peace sign? You'd never be able to wear either in public again without getting harassed for it.
We are overwhelmingly on Israel's side. Wich is a good thing, in my opinion, but not something that the Muslim states are happy about.
I'd say it depends what Israel DOES. If Israel sticks to the moral high ground, they deserve support. But if they sink to the level of their enemies, as one could argue the U.S. has, then they deserve to be rebuked. This was why I was so angry about the bombing of Lebanon earlier this year, and dropping flyers saying "you better haul ass because we're about to blow up your house and neighborhood" doesn't make it a whole lot more acceptable. Metaphorically speaking, good guys don't shoot at the bad guys if there are innocent bystanders in the line of fire, period.
Finally, here are Michael Moore's thoughts if anybody is interested (in this case he argues pretty well and my father, who often agrees with Moore but is turned off by his tone, thought it was one of his better pieces):
The sad thing is that you could do that with just about any symbol. What if some murderous, Nazi-like regime put the cross on their flag? Or the peace sign? You'd never be able to wear either in public again without getting harassed for it.
Well, the swasika as a cultural taboo is a largely western phenomenon, largely I'd imagine, because Christianity is one of the only religions that hadn't used it for centuries on end. It don't have the long standing positive connotations that it does in many east Asian cultures as a balancing influence, unlike the Christian cross or the peace sign. Although, there are quite a few who already don't think too highly of the peace sign anyway...
-Rex Hondo-
Wow, it really has been a long week...
That above, of course, should read, "It doesn't have the long standing..." etc... And using the word "largely" twice in the same sentence. Well, that's just sloppy... :6
I guess it's a good thing I've been tapped for secretary of defense instead of press secretary. ;)
-Rex Hondo-
Wait until they start calling it what it really is.
Resistance.
Posted by Den at November 29, 2006 10:40 PM
Actually, the Northern Alliance was already fighting against the Taliban, so technically, Afghanistan was in a civil war before we toppled the Taliban.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at November 29, 2006 10:43 PM
Using, in large part, the existing anti-taliban forces. I'd say that Afghanistan has been in a state of civil war since the 80s.
You people just loooove pointing out when I'm wrong, don'cha? Well, don't get too high on yourselves... spotting when I'm wrong is like shooting fish in a barrel. :)
Posted by: Darin at November 29, 2006 10:06 PM
So one cannot see that "Islamofacism" is a form of radical Islam?
Actually, "Islamofascism" is simply a term that many Americans use to refer to radical Islam. And I don't think there's anything to "see." As I've already pointed out, the political movements most closely associated with fascism, including Italy under Benito Mussolini and Nazi Germany (erk! Godwin's Law!), were ideological movements that may have borrowed from religion here and there but were not based in religion. Islamic fundamentalism is by definition based in religion.
Posted by: Darin at November 29, 2006 10:06 PM
If one does not believe that Islam in its uncorrupted form is facist, then they shouldn't have a problem with "Islamofacism" as a viable term.
That's a false dilemma. You're asserting that any corruption of Islam must be fascist and that simply isn't so.
Posted by: Darin at November 29, 2006 10:06 PM
Iraq was a growing threat the United States. The evidence (confirmed by multiple global inteligence agencies and verified by even Bill Clinton) supports that.
Actually, the evidence supports the very opposite of your conclusion. Iraq had no significant stockpiles of WMDs.
As for who "confirmed" what, the Bush administration silenced the voices inside the CIA who tried to present evidence that his thesis about Iraq was dubious. The rest of the world, aside from Britain, was largely against our invasion of Iraq.
Posted by: Darin at November 29, 2006 10:06 PM
His inability to abide by double-digit UN inspection requirements and resolutions in a post 9-11 world also lead to his being overthrown and his eventual death sentence. I have no pity for Saddam.
Nor do I. He was a brutal dictator. It doesn't mean he was a threat to us.
And using UN resolutions as a moral justification just doesn't wash. Nations all over the world, including the U.S., flout such resolutions all the time. Nations demand their enforcement only when it suits them.
DW
Whoops! I didn't mean to sign my last post "DW"! I was quoting Darin and forgot to remove his initials.
Wait until they start calling it what it really is.
Resistance.
Blowing up cvilians...your own civilians...your own civilians whose only crime is to be walking by a market at the wrong time of day...isn't "resistance".
I don't buy that when Palestinians do it to random Israelis and I certainly don't buy it when Iraqis do it to other Iraqis.
And using UN resolutions as a moral justification just doesn't wash. Nations all over the world, including the U.S., flout such resolutions all the time. Nations demand their enforcement only when it suits them.
Now you've got me thinking about how funny it'd be if Bush were taken into custody by a military invasion force composed of the armed forces of many countries who are in a whole 'nother coalition, spirited out of the U.S. and put on trial for war crimes.
I mean, realistically I know that such an invasion would be wrong and would have the same problems as Iraq, since it would be impossible to do something like that without causing massive destruction and loss of life to innocent bystanders, but still, can you imagine Bush's reaction? The expression on his face? The dude thinks he's above the law, after all, and can do whatever he likes without having to answer to anybody. I would absolutely LOVE to see him on trial just like Saddam, and I feel pretty confident that he'd act pretty much the same way during his trial. Both men reject the idea that anybody has the right to judge or impose sentence on them, and both men will rant and rave and throw tantrums when they find themselves in such a predicament.
"Talk about flip-flopping. Also, the fact that he was able to see all of that coming makes it even more inexcusable for him to have been involved in the invasion 12 years later."
If that quote were brought up to Cheney, he would dispose of it in four words:
"That was before 9/11."
That's the joy of the Twin Towers, you see. It's the be-all/catch-all, fast and dismissive answer to any criticism of the Administration, or at least has been for five years. What they say: "After 9/11, everything changed." What they mean: "After 9/11, we should be able to do whatever we want, and if you disagree, then you support the destruction of more landmarks and more people dying."
The thing is, as the saying goes, You can't fool all of the people all of the time. Bush & Co. said the above enough times that it worked at first...indeed, it worked enough to get Bush re-elected...but it wore out its welcome and they had no Plan B. Which, when you think about it, is Iraq in a nutshell. This Administration never allows for the possibility that their "A" game isn't going to work and that stems from nothing but arrogance, pure and simple.
PAD
Blowing up cvilians...your own civilians...your own civilians whose only crime is to be walking by a market at the wrong time of day...isn't "resistance".
And that's our dilemma. While our troops are still tempting targets for the insurgents and the Al Qaida factions, much of the violations there today is Iraqi-on-Iraqi. So, at what point do we recognize that our presense is not going to point an end to such violence? When do we realize that all we're doing now is getting in between people who want to kill each other?
Please tell me the answer isn't "Once the oil is gone".
The term Islamofascism is annoying because it's typically employed as if Christianity has always been Bing Crosby singing White Christmas and not and burning crosses and witches. If extremism were a qualification to dismiss a religion, Christianity would be subject to dismissal as much as any other.
Well, the swasika as a cultural taboo is a largely western phenomenon, largely I'd imagine, because Christianity is one of the only religions that hadn't used it for centuries on end.
In Christianity, the swastika is sometimes translated as a symbol representing the resurrection of Jesus Christ (the swastika can be seen as a hooked crucifix, symbolizing Christ's victory over death.) Some Christian churches built in the Romanesque and Gothic eras are decorated with swastikas, carrying over earlier Roman designs. Swastikas are prominently displayed in a mosaic in the St. Sophia church of Kiev, Ukraine dating to the 12th century. They also appear as a repeating ornamental motif on a tomb in the Basilica of St. Ambrose in Milan.
Pre-WWII churches in the US included the swastika as a variant of the Christian cross in their religious decoration:
In May of 2006, five terra cotta tiles were removed from St. Mary's Cathedral in St. Cloud Minnesota, the oldest parish in the community.[17] The upper church, constructed in the late 1920's, included a number of decorative tiles including a series of ten that depicted ancient forms of the cross.[18] Located near the eaves, the tiles represented the crux gammata, also known as the Gammadion, "hooked cross". The swastika tiles alternated with a related design featuring the Lauburu or "Basque cross".
...
What if some murderous, Nazi-like regime put the cross on their flag? Or the peace sign? You'd never be able to wear either in public again without getting harassed for it.
That's precisely what happened. The nazis put the a variant of the Christian cross on their flag. Now the swastika is a tabboo, and you have Christians today denying the connection between it and Christianity.
Darin -
Iraq was a growing threat the United States. The evidence (confirmed by multiple global inteligence agencies and verified by even Bill Clinton) supports that.
And yet, all those intelligence agencies couldn't get the simple fact correct that Iraq didn't have any WMD>
They were wrong. Bush was wrong. Clinton was wrong.
Palladin -
My Dad noticed something and made comment to me, they are not blowing up the oil fields.
There were attacks on the oil fields early on, but otherwise, yeah, not so much lately.
Although it surprises me how much Nigeria's problems have been ignored lately. They are one of our top importers for oil, iirc, and they've had a series of attacks against oil piplines and stuff lately.
Oh, and is just me, or has a lot of the sidebar stuff on the main page of this site gone poof?
They were wrong. Bush was wrong. Clinton was wrong.
And yet, as Darin's original comment indicates, there are still many people out there who believe that Iraq somehow was capable of being a "substantial threat". I find that the most distressing thing in this entire thread. PAD may be right that the American people are finally waking up to the massive fraud that has been perpetrated on the American public, but the idea that there are still people who think what comes out of Bush's cakehole has anything but coincidental resemblance to the truth is horrifying. What exactly will it take for them to realize that he's a liar?
And I love the fact that people who dispise the very air that Clinton breathes keep citing him for cover. It's as if they're saying, "See, Clinton bought into the cherry-picked the intel, now shut up!" Of course, Clinton never ordered the invasion of another country based on spurious intelligence with no clue as to how he was going to get us out. But there I go, citing that pesky reality based community again.
Oh, and is just me, or has a lot of the sidebar stuff on the main page of this site gone poof?
Something screwy is going on. The sidebar links are back, but now only about half the page loads.
"I would hope we as a nation would learn from this experience. But I tend to doubt it. We didn't learn anything from Vietnam, obviously."
Well, Bush & his cronies didn't. Some of "we as a nation" knew this war was a con-job from the get go and have been resisting the urge to scream "I f#$&%*# TOLD YOU SO!" for four years now...
"Now the swastika is a tabboo, and you have Christians today denying the connection between it and Christianity."
Part of the problem with any symbology, like the swastika, is that people are trained to react to symbols. Put a swastika or the initials "KKK" or even football logos out for people to see, they're going to judge you viscerally. Symbols are means of communication, and generally people don't want to take the time to find out what people mean by them, the assumption being that what a symbol means to one person, it must mean to all people. Not to get too Pavlovian, or Pavlovesue, or whatever, show the average person the McDonalds logo, see if their stomach doesn't give a little growl. Flash someone the "okay" sign with your index finger touching your thumb around here, no problem, people think you're okay with it. Flash it in some countries, they tell you where to find the prositutes.
Now that I think about it, maybe that's why all the adminstration types don't want to refer to what's going on as a civ--sorry, a CW. OUR CW was the bloodiest conflict in the nation's history, not exactly a pleasant thing to remind people of.
Maybe if Bush had actually gone to Vietnam thirty-five years ago, he'd have learned something. Given his recent statements while he was (finally) in Vietnam, it seems that he learned the wrong lesson: He thinks we should have stayed "until the job was done." If it had been up to him, we'd still be fighting in Nam.
Now, I know there's zero chance of it happening, but I'd love see what would happen if the Bush Doublemint Twins got drafted. Dodging IEDs in Iraq might not be as much fun as running naked in an Argentinian hotel.
Not to get too Pavlovian, or Pavlovesue, or whatever, show the average person the McDonalds logo, see if their stomach doesn't give a little growl.
Speaking solely for myself, the sight of the McDonalds logo makes my stomach lurch at the thought of what passes for "food" served there.
"Actually, the swastika predates Christianity by (according to some archeological finds) approximately five millenia, and is a sacred symbol in Hinduism and Buddhism, amongst others."
Man...the Nazi's were Bhuddiofascists? ;)
"The term Islamofascism is annoying because it's typically employed as if Christianity has always been Bing Crosby singing White Christmas and not and burning crosses and witches. If extremism were a qualification to dismiss a religion, Christianity would be subject to dismissal as much as any other."
No, actually, the term Islamofascism is ACTUALLY meant to differentiate it from other forms of Islam, not to suggest Christianity is without it's blemishes. It's being done to avoid lumping all of Islam in with groups like the Taliban.
Posted by Thom at November 30, 2006 11:56 AM
No, actually, the term Islamofascism is ACTUALLY meant to differentiate it from other forms of Islam, not to suggest Christianity is without it's blemishes. It's being done to avoid lumping all of Islam in with groups like the Taliban.
Regardless of what it is meant to do, in reality the term "Islamofascism" lumps radical Islam with other, dissimilar movements, and hinders understanding of the nature of radical Islam. And I'm not talking about "understanding" from a, y'know, "Oprah" perspective. I'm talking about understanding our enemy so we can defeat them.
Which is an entirely different issue, Bill. :) I was adressing the claim made by Mike as to what is supposedly being suggested by the term. And the term implies nothing about Christianity at all. That's all.
1Here is an article by an internet commentator I often but not always agree with concerning the term Islamofascism.
Fair enough, Thom. I stand properly chastised. :)
Cool! The blog is back!
I have an idea. Let's not call it Islamofascism. Let's call it Islamodrama. Then we can hit the Islamic fundamentalists with devastating taunts like, "Save the drama for Osama!"
No? Oh, well, I tried.
Now you've got me thinking about how funny it'd be if Bush were taken into custody by a military invasion force composed of the armed forces of many countries who are in a whole 'nother coalition, spirited out of the U.S. and put on trial for war crimes.
That's pretty much the gist of the plot for ULTIMATES volume 2.
Interesting article, Micha.
I don't know why some of the same pundits who yell "Fascist!" at the first sign in America of anything critical to their own world view are upset when it gets applied to places that hang gays, issue hits on writers, stone rape victims, long for the extermination of all Jews, outlaw books, films and cartoons that offend them and outlaw all but their own version of a religion. What more do they have to do, paint mediocre watercolors and sport silly mustaches?
No, actually, the term Islamofascism is ACTUALLY meant to differentiate it from other forms of Islam... It's being done to avoid lumping all of Islam in with groups like the Taliban.
That's ridiculous. People who burn crosses, assassinate doctors, and kidnap children in Utah don't need to be labeled Christo-fascists to be differentiated from other Christians.
The insurgents in Iraq have no air force or navy, and even Henry Kissinger has admitted they are kicking our ass. Islamofascism is simply a term used by invasion hawks to present the resolve to resist colonization as something perverse, as if fundamentalist ideology does more to feed the insurgency than an actual invasion. "I can't believe those nutty Islamofascists don't have the sense to take our military occupation lying down! What's wrong with them?"
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 30, 2006 10:01 PM
I don't know why some of the same pundits who yell "Fascist!" at the first sign in America of anything critical to their own world view are upset when it gets applied to places that hang gays, issue hits on writers, stone rape victims, long for the extermination of all Jews, outlaw books, films and cartoons that offend them and outlaw all but their own version of a religion.
Well, I hope you don't lump me in with those folks. :)
The term "fascism" is difficult to nail down. It's such a pejorative that no political movements identify themselves as such. And there isn't necessarily a single accepted definition.
I don't mean to keep repeating myself (really, I don't mean to keep repeating myself). But I wonder -- are we not diluting the meaning of the word if we use it to lump together the Nazi ideology (gah-gah-Godwin's Law violation!) and radical Islam? The former was not based in religion. The latter is.
It's not a question of whether I think radical Islam is good. I don't. I just wonder if "fascism" is an accurate label for it.
Your thoughts?
"I don't know why some of the same pundits who yell "Fascist!" at the first sign in America of anything critical to their own world view."
In Marxist tradition Fascist is the worst insult. It goes back to the Spanish civil war (I'm reading Hemingway right now. Really good). For Marxists the Nazi's were Fascist, although not all fascist movements were racist like the Nazis. I've participated in left leaning demonstrations (against the policies of the Israeli government) where people used that term.
However, the article I linked to says it best: there are significant similarities between Fascism and radical Islamism, but the term is bad because it does not help understand the phenomena we are dealing with (instead it makes it shallow), and because of its association to neo-cons, is harmful for the fight against Radical Islamism.
Bill Myers, not all Fascism is Nazism. Nazism was distinctly secular, Italian Fascism less. But, as the article shows, in other respects there similarities between Fascism and Radical Islamism.
But the truth is, it dies not matter. Bush used the term as a sologan to say that Islamic Radicalism is a threat to the whole world that cannot be appeased. Others used it to try to attack Islam as a religion. While others use it to
attack Bush. Slogans are bad if they harm intelligent discussion.
Radical Islamism is a threat. Bush handled that threat in the wrong way.
----------
Sean Scullion wrote
"Just thinking, maybe the problem is that we tried to turn Iraq to a system like ours. Maybe what they need, since they have three groups in the country is a council of three with representatives from each that can try to get things done together. Under the current system over there, no matter who's in charge, two groups feel unrepresented.
Bill then wrote:
It's a nice thought, but a car can't have three fully-functioning steering wheels operated by three separate people and drive very well. Nor can a government operate effectively, I believe, without a single chief executive.
Iraq is just chock full of ethnic hatred, however. Not being as schooled in history as I ought to be, I'm unaware of any historical precedent for creating a democracy under those circumstances."
Look at Lebanon. It is a fucked up system, always on the verge of civil war. But it is a system for rule by several ethnic groups, that can give you an indication of the way middle easterners think of these issues. In Lebanon the president is Christian, the prime minister Sunni, the chairman of parliament Shia.
I don't like their system, I wouldn't want to live under such system, but that's how they work things out.
Posted by: Micha at December 1, 2006 05:54 AM
Bill Myers, not all Fascism is Nazism.
Yes, I'm well aware of that. My point was, however, that extending the term to encompass two extremes -- a secular totalitarian movement and a radical religious movement -- seems to dilute the term to the point of meaninglessness. At least to me.
Posted by: Micha at December 1, 2006 05:54 AM
But, as the article shows, in other respects there similarities between Fascism and Radical Islamism.
True, but you can find similarties between all of the forms of totalitarianism. But certainly it is useful to draw distinctions between them where such distinctions exist.
Sigh... I think I'll make this my last word on the subject here. I think we're fast approaching agree-to-disagree territory.
Posted by: Micha at December 1, 2006 05:54 AM
Look at Lebanon. It is a fucked up system, always on the verge of civil war. But it is a system for rule by several ethnic groups, that can give you an indication of the way middle easterners think of these issues. In Lebanon the president is Christian, the prime minister Sunni, the chairman of parliament Shia.
I don't like their system, I wouldn't want to live under such system, but that's how they work things out.
I guess it depends on your definition of "work things out." The Lebanese government is at the mercy of forces like Iran, Syria, and Hizbollah. Large swaths of the country are controlled by Hizbollah militias that are not answerable to the Lebanese government. It strikes me as a very, very fragile balance that could easily be upset at any time.
That said, it's certainly a damned sight better than what's happening in Iraq. I guess the question is: if we are to use Lebanon as a model, how would one go about bringing a similar order -- however fragile -- to Iraq?
"Sigh... I think I'll make this my last word on the subject here. I think we're fast approaching agree-to-disagree territory."
That's not necessary, since altimately we agree. The articles I linked to show that there are similarities and differences between Fascism and Radical Islamism, but says that we shouldn't lump them together but understand them, similarities and differences, in all their complexity.
"if we are to use Lebanon as a model, how would one go about bringing a similar order -- however fragile -- to Iraq?"
In principal what you need to do is deal with the insurgents and offer them a share of the pie. But, I'm pessimistic about it. The insurgents will probably prefer a victory against the US over peace and a share of the pie. You need a carrot and a stick, both of which should be appropriate for the problems you're dealing with. First the US didn't have the carrot (at least one fitting the people you were dealing with), now you don't have the stick.
Posted by: Micha at December 1, 2006 07:00 AM
That's not necessary, since altimately we agree.
This is the Internet, Micha. We're not supposed to do that. ;)
Posted by Bill Mulligan
Ok, here's MY crazed scenario--Bush is killed, Cheney takes over but is prevented from picking a vice president and immediately impeached, leading to Nancy Pelosi as president
Wan a real nightmea? Thats's only if it happens after she officially takes the position (with the beginning of the new session). Until then...
We can no longer plan on long wars.
Unless France and Germany ally against us and seize all US business interests within their borders...
Posted by Shawn Backs at November 29, 2006 01:30 PM
I often wonder if this war really is another vietnam or if that's just the way it's being spin doctored.
Instinct would lead me to think politicians would know not to get into situations like that anymore, and that protestors like to protest. But my faith in humanity and logic is constantly at question lately.
"Lately"?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 29, 2006 01:08 PM
Oh, believe me, I know. Things have not yet reached their nadir. That's what really scares me. Not just how bad it is... but how much worse it could get.
"What worries me is that things may never get back to normal - or, conversely, that they may already have."
Posted by Rob Brown
Being found in many ancient European cultures as well, (the swastika) was used (and perverted) by the Nazis as a symbol in the Aryan movement, theorizing a "Nordic master race," originating in northern Europe.
The sad thing is that you could do that with just about any symbol. What if some murderous, Nazi-like regime put the cross on their flag?
The Teutonic Knights?
The Crusaders?
Imperialist England?
Posted by Den
Now, I know there's zero chance of it happening, but I'd love see what would happen if the Bush Doublemint Twins got drafted. Dodging IEDs in Iraq might not be as much fun as running naked in an Argentinian hotel.
I'm not sure they'd be eleigible for military service with their civilian records.
Posted by Sasha
Now you've got me thinking about how funny it'd be if Bush were taken into custody by a military invasion force composed of the armed forces of many countries who are in a whole 'nother coalition, spirited out of the U.S. and put on trial for war crimes.
That's pretty much the gist of the plot for ULTIMATES volume 2.
Story from the Viet Nam era (forget which magazine published it, probably Galaxy or if:
Elite Special Forces and Spetznaz units, fed up, hold secret conferences in deepest Viet Nam - the part where there woudn't ever be any politicians, just real soldiers - and then, in simultaneous daring midnight raids, kidnap their respective "leaders", take them to some Godsforsaken part of South America, give them AK's and 16's, and let them do the fighting for a change...
Posted by Micha
Bill Myers, not all Fascism is Nazism. Nazism was distinctly secular, Italian Fascism less./i>
As a matter of fact, Mussolini bascally coined the term, to apply to a form of strong centralised government that was not - as originally visualised - very much, if anything, like Nazi-ism. The term derives from the latin "Fasces" - literally a bundle of sticks - which refers to one of Aesop's fables, and, as a bundle of sticks bound around a woodman's axe. was a majuor symbol of Mussolini's party.
Incidentally, if you happen to have a Mercury dime (the previous design to the current Rooesevelt one) you might be amused by the Fascist symbol on its reverse. (http://www.cmf5.com/headtails/Mercury/1939.htm)
al-Maliki has said that the Iraqi forces will be able to take over security by June, and that US forces will just be needed for training purposes. I want to believe that. But when he's facing a revolt by a large chunk of the Iraqi government, I have to wonder just how realistic that is. Maybe, if it all happens as planned, this will be the confidence builder the new Iraqi government needs, creating trust in the new system, but I don't know. What do you guys think? Is this a good sign? Am I being pessimistic or realistic?
"As a matter of fact, Mussolini bascally coined the term, to apply to a form of strong centralised government that was not - as originally visualised - very much, if anything, like Nazi-ism. The term derives from the latin "Fasces" - literally a bundle of sticks - which refers to one of Aesop's fables, and, as a bundle of sticks bound around a woodman's axe. was a majuor symbol of Mussolini's party."
I don't think that is accurate. On the one hand, Mussolini said he coined the term and then developed the ideology, But on the other hand, fascism is much more than strong centralized government.
Here is the definition from the article I linked, which is similar to what I've studied in the university.
"Since there is no agreed definition of Fascism, and Fascist regimes differed, perhaps the best way to decide if a movement or regime is Fascist is to make a list of defining characteristics and then determine the extent to which different regimes conform to those characteristics. Here is one such list:
A Fascism Scale
- Leadership Principle - absolute rule by an individual
- Group is superior to and more important than the individual
- Own group is superior to other groups
- Veneration of heroic traditions and (sometimes mythical) bygone days (eg: Romans, Norse sagas, Samurai, imperial Spain)
- Struggle and death are glorious - cult of heroism
- Cult of action and activism
- Frustration: sense of collective injustice inflicted by foreign enemies.
- Militarist expansionism - World or regional domination is a central goal
- Political repression: Suppression of liberty and intellectual life
- Racism"
The Nazi regime was modeled in many ways on the Italiam regime, but added to it the strong focus on racism. Hitler's imperial dreams seem also to have also been on a larger scale than Mussolini.
The fasces was a roman symbol carried before roman consuls -- a bundle of sticks around an axe. It goes back to the famous roman story about the father that showed his sons that they will be stronger together by showing it is easy to brake a single stick or arrow, but hard to brake a bundle. There is a famous painting by David of this story. Italian Fascism wanted to return to the glory of Rome, so it was used as a symbol. Hitler picked a sign associated with the Indo-European Aryan race.
The United States, from its beginning, was influenced by Roman symbolism too, but for different reasons.
"osted by: Bill Myers at December 1, 2006 07:23 AM
Posted by: Micha at December 1, 2006 07:00 AM
That's not necessary, since altimately we agree.
This is the Internet, Micha. We're not supposed to do that. ;) "
Bill, I enjoy talking, and sometimes arguing, with people like you who understand the complexity of issues, but also know how to deal with disagreements. It is not necessary that we always agree, so long as the purpose is to increase our mutual understanding of the issues. But it is nice to agree too.
Only idiots will spend month arguing about the meaning of a word, and allow themselves to lose the temper over it. We would never do something like that. ;)
Nazism was distinctly secular...
Hitler extended his rationalizations into a religious doctrine, underpinned by his criticism of traditional Catholicism. In particular, and closely related to Positive Christianity, Hitler objected to Catholicism's ungrounded and international character - that is, it did not pertain to an exclusive race and national culture. At the same time, and somewhat contradictorily, the Nazis combined elements of Germany's Lutheran community tradition with its Northern European, organic pagan past. Elements of militarism found their way into Hitler's own theology, as he preached that his was a "true" or "master" religion, because it would "create mastery" and avoid comforting lies. Those who preached love and tolerance, "in contravention to the facts", were said to be "slave" or "false" religions. The man who recognized these "truths", Hitler continued, was said to be a "natural leader", and those who denied it were said to be "natural slaves". "Slaves" – especially intelligent ones, he claimed – were always attempting to hinder their masters by promoting false religious and political doctrines.
Anti-clericalism can also be interpreted as part of Nazi ideology, simply because the new Nazi hierarchy was not about to let itself be overode by the power that the Church traditionally held. In Austria, clerics had a powerful role in politics and ultimately responded to the Vatican. Although a few exceptions exist, Christian persecution was primarily limited to those who refused to accommodate the new regime and yield to its power. The Nazis often used the church to justify their stance and included many Christian symbols in the Third Reich (Steigmann–Gall).
Christo-fascism is just as valid a term as Islamofascism, but the first is persistently denied by those who employ the second -- as demonstrated here. Invasion hawks simply employ the latter term to blame ideology for feeding the insurgency rather than the bogus invasion itself.
I'm not sure they'd be eleigible for military service with their civilian records.
The way that the army has been lowering standards lately, they might still be able to get it.
I know, zero chance of them volunteering or getting drafted. But I can dream :)
I think the bottom line with fascism is that, like nazism, it's become a catch-all perjorative term for any political opinion or action that people perceive as infringing on their freedoms or that they just don't like.
There are still remnants of the fascist movement in Italy, although they've merged with other political parties. I remember reading about how Mousolini's granddaughter had gotten elected to parliament and she said something to the effect that she was hoping people would stop being embarrassed by being called fascists.
Well, I hope you don't lump me in with those folks. :)
Given my generally low opinion of pundits. there's little chance of that!
But I wonder -- are we not diluting the meaning of the word if we use it to lump together the Nazi ideology (gah-gah-Godwin's Law violation!) and radical Islam? The former was not based in religion. The latter is.
A good point--but that would explain the islamo part. Were Iran exactly the same but without the religious component I don't think too many would be troubled by calling it fascist.
The articles Micha linked to have some interesting things to say. It's true that racism is not an essential component of fascism, though the two are often linked. A Jew in fascist Italy was more likely to survive the war than one on France. I don't think that Franco's Spain was particularly racist.
Now, I know there's zero chance of it happening, but I'd love see what would happen if the Bush Doublemint Twins got drafted. Dodging IEDs in Iraq might not be as much fun as running naked in an Argentinian hotel.
I'm not sure they'd be eleigible for military service with their civilian records.
The armed forces excludes kids who have been caught drinking before they're 21? Wow, it's amazing they have been able to fill their quotas!
It goes back to the famous roman story about the father that showed his sons that they will be stronger together by showing it is easy to brake a single stick or arrow, but hard to brake a bundle.
There's also a great version of this in Kurusawa's amazing film RAN (a samurai take on King Lear). If stranded on a desert island with a DVD player and a long extension cord, one could do far worse than to have Kurusawa's oeuvre to pass the time away.
A Fascism Scale
- Leadership Principle - absolute rule by an individual
- Group is superior to and more important than the individual
- Own group is superior to other groups
- Veneration of heroic traditions and (sometimes mythical) bygone days (eg: Romans, Norse sagas, Samurai, imperial Spain)
- Struggle and death are glorious - cult of heroism
- Cult of action and activism
- Frustration: sense of collective injustice inflicted by foreign enemies.
- Militarist expansionism - World or regional domination is a central goal
- Political repression: Suppression of liberty and intellectual life
- Racism"
So let's see if Iran applies:
A Fascism Scale
Leadership Principle - absolute rule by an individual
They have some supreme religious leader who's word is superior to all--one reason why democratic reform is unlikely.
Group is superior to and more important than the individual
The glorification of the suicide bomber seems to indicate a rather cavalier attitude to the value of the individual life
Own group is superior to other groups
A no-brainer. Not only is Islam the only acceptable religion, it has to be THEIR version.
Veneration of heroic traditions and (sometimes mythical) bygone days (eg: Romans, Norse sagas, Samurai, imperial Spain)
There has been a lot of talk about the good old days when Islam had Spain and was poised to take over Europe.
Struggle and death are glorious - cult of heroism
Obvious parallels.
Cult of action and activism
ditto
Frustration: sense of collective injustice inflicted by foreign enemies.
ditto again. Israel and the USA get blamed for everything, including earthquakes.
Militarist expansionism - World or regional domination is a central goal
Listen to the talk coming out of Iran. One is tempted to shrug it off as just bluster...a mistake, I think.
Political repression: Suppression of liberty and intellectual life
Would anyone even argue this point?
Racism
The anti-Jewish component could be passed off as more political than racist and the general anti-Arab sentiment often found in Iran could also be more of a religious quarrel than a purely racial one. I'd give Iran a partial pass on this one, though the Holocaust denial and use of Nazi era anti-Jewish propaganda tilts them pretty clearly into the racist category.
So if one accepts this scale as accurate, it would seem that Iran clearly is a fascist state.
Bill, I think it is better to reserve the term fascist to the group of movements that emerged after WWII. While using a different term, like Islamic Radicalism or something like that, that addresses to unique quallities of this movement.
Bush used the terms Islamo-Fascism and the Axis of evil as solgans in order to evoke similarities to WWII. But we should require of ourselves to be smart enough to understand the nature of Islamic Radicalism, and oppose its negative qualities (some of which resemble fascism) without resorting to a misleading label. Just as we should require from ourselves to understand that Islamic Radicalism is a movement that emerged inside Islam, and derives its legitimacy from Islamic tradition, but that it is not Islam.
Posted by: Micha at December 1, 2006 08:35 AM
Bill, I enjoy talking, and sometimes arguing, with people like you who understand the complexity of issues, but also know how to deal with disagreements.
Thank you, Micha. I feel the same way.
Posted by: Micha at December 1, 2006 08:35 AM
It is not necessary that we always agree, so long as the purpose is to increase our mutual understanding of the issues. But it is nice to agree too.
Again, I feel the same way.
Posted by: Micha at December 1, 2006 08:35 AM
Only idiots will spend month arguing about the meaning of a word, and allow themselves to lose the temper over it. We would never do something like that. ;)
You are obviously trying to trigger within me an attack of post-traumatic stress disorder.
By the way, regarding whether Nazism was secular: the Nazi movement borrowed from religion. Still, the focus ultimately was on the state and not on God. Whereas Islamic fundamentalism is ultimately about Allah, and involves groups like Al Qaeda that are not limited by national boundaries.
"There's also a great version of this in Kurusawa's amazing film RAN (a samurai take on King Lear). If stranded on a desert island with a DVD player and a long extension cord, one could do far worse than to have Kurusawa's oeuvre to pass the time away."
Couldn't you just build a raft and use the extension cord to pull yourself back to civilization?
Posted by: Den at December 1, 2006 01:56 PM
Couldn't you just build a raft and use the extension cord to pull yourself back to civilization?
You owe me a new computer monitor. You made me spit coffee all over the one I was using.
Throwing this out for the gallery:
Should Godwin's Law be expanded to include fascism?
Discuss.
"Whereas Islamic fundamentalism is ultimately about Allah, and involves groups like Al Qaeda that are not limited by national boundaries."
That raises a question that's been living in my head rent-free for a while now. Are the leaders of these Islamic groups true believers like they seem or are they just using the religion to stir up the people around them? Seeing as how the most extreme religious people I'm ever around are a couple devout Baptists and a couple devout Pagans, I don't have too much experience in this arena. Are they the devout or do they just play the devout in front of the audience?
Should Godwin's Law be expanded to include fascism?
Then how will the members of DailyKos ever be able to discuss the Bush administration?
Couldn't you just build a raft and use the extension cord to pull yourself back to civilization?
Well, I ...damn.
You know, maybe I WANTED to be alone with my collection of Kurusawa DVDs! Is that so wrong?
Then how will the members of DailyKos ever be able to discuss the Bush administration?
Plenty of other adjectives:
incompetent
deceitful
lying
inept
corrupt
stupid
totalitarian
authoritarian
anti-freedom
You get the idea.
"By the way, regarding whether Nazism was secular: the Nazi movement borrowed from religion. Still, the focus ultimately was on the state and not on God. Whereas Islamic fundamentalism is ultimately about Allah, and involves groups like Al Qaeda that are not limited by national boundaries."
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the point of reference of nazism was the German people and Pagan, Christinan and secular German culture. the point of view of Islamic Radicalism is the Islamic Umma (nation?), and Islamic culture (as viewed by them).
------------
Should Godwin's Law be expanded to include fascism?
Yes. I'm stopping now.
"That raises a question that's been living in my head rent-free for a while now. Are the leaders of these Islamic groups true believers like they seem or are they just using the religion to stir up the people around them? Seeing as how the most extreme religious people I'm ever around are a couple devout Baptists and a couple devout Pagans, I don't have too much experience in this arena. Are they the devout or do they just play the devout in front of the audience?"
there is no real way to determine. But the answer is probably yes.
Posted by: Den at December 1, 2006 02:02 PM
Throwing this out for the gallery:
Should Godwin's Law be expanded to include fascism?
Perhaps. I'm comfortable with abandoning the topic.
But, to be fair, I don't think I've sent this thread off the rails (others, yes, I'm ashamed to say, but not this one) by starting a discussion about fascism. The thread topic was the Bush administration's denial that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. The major players in that war include some powerful radical Islamic clerics, making Islamic fundamentalism a logical -- and related -- topic. Someone used the term "Islamofascist," and I thought I'd discuss it. I've found the exchange to be illuminating.
I don't think it's quite like someone dropping the Nazi bombshell into a thread about macrame. :)
You owe me a new computer monitor. You made me spit coffee all over the one I was using.
Actually, I think I might have an old one that still works.
A bit off the thread of "islamodrama" and Iraq but what the hell happened to Afganistan?? You remember, Afganistan was the country we actually thought bid Laden was in. (as opposed to the country one of his Lieutenants had a cappaccino with Saddam in)
Remember November 2001, where very few if any Middle Eastern countries disputed our war with the Taliban? The Taliban wasn't popular even with Islamic countries let alone the West. What would the region have looked like if world leaders from East and West came together to help Afganistan get back on it's feet from Taliban rule?
Even if I agreed with the "we-need-to-go-it-alone-and-create-a-Muslim-democracy-in-the-Middle-East-to-stop-terrorism" policy of the neo-cons (which I DON'T) wouldn't it have been better to rebuild Afganistan with the help of the world community (read: Middle Eastern countries sick of the Taliban.) instead of wasting time in Iraq?
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOO.....
We had to go to Iraq and after three @#@$##@$ years Osama's probably having a iced frapaccino someplace in backwoods Pakistan yelling "Come and get me Oral Roberts!!"
1. Where the hell is Osama?
2. Why the hell are the Taliban coming back?
3. If Bush is so tough on terrorists why do I have to ask questions one and two?
Captain Naraht
Y'all do realize Godwin's Law simply states that an online discussion's length increases the likelihood a comparison to Hitler or Nazis will be made, yes? Godwin makes no prohibition against making such a comparison. The misinterpretation of Godwin sounds like an excuse to shelter predatory agenda.
Should Godwin's Law be expanded to include fascism?Then how will the members of DailyKos ever be able to discuss the Bush administration?
Other metaphors for predatory agendas can be found.
There was one exact moment, in fact, when I knew for sure that Al Gore would never be President of the United States, no matter what the experts were saying— and that was when the whole Bush family suddenly appeared on TV and openly scoffed at the idea of Gore winning Florida. It was Nonsense, said the Candidate, Utter nonsense... Anybody who believed Bush had lost Florida was a Fool. The Media, all of them, were Liars & Dunces or treacherous whores trying to sabotage his victory... Here was the whole bloody Family laughing & hooting & sneering at the dumbness of the whole world on National TV. The old man was the real tip-off. The leer on his face was almost frightening. It was like looking into the eyes of a tall hyena with a living sheep in its mouth. The sheep's fate was sealed, and so was Al Gore's.
"Should Godwin's Law be expanded to include fascism?"
Yes
1) Because comparisons to fascism can have a similar negative effect on the understanding of issues as comparisons to nazism.
2) Because it is equally likely to shift the discussion from the original issue to a historical discussion of fascism.
"But, to be fair, I don't think I've sent this thread off the rails"
You didn't. This discussion was mostly conducted in good faith in order to bettererstand Islamic Radicalism. and Fascism is an interesting historical subject.
"I've found the exchange to be illuminating."
It was. But it is good that Craig mentioned Godwin's law, so as to divert us back to the original issue of the thread -- macrame.
Do people get very upset when a thread goes off the track? I kind of enjoy the organic nature of the thing and there are few topics so fascinating that they can sustain days worth of focus.
Unless there is someone trying to deliberately make themselves the subject of the thread (and such people are best ignored, as we've seen) I rather like the way we bounce around, especially when it's illuminating, as this one has been.
Then how will the members of DailyKos ever be able to discuss the Bush administration?
Well, hell, why am I citing 6-year-old quotes by Garrison Keillor, when Kos is finding the commentary on Virginia's new senator floating around perfectly fitting:
...Webb was rightly insulted when Bush pressed him in that bullying way--"That's not what I asked you"--trying to force the conversation back to Webb's son. Webb could have asked how the Bush girls are doing, partying their way across Argentina. He could have told Bush he was worried about his son; the vehicle next to him was blown up recently, killing three Marines. Given the contrast between their respective offspring, Webb showed restraint.
But that's not how much of official Washington reacted. Columnist George F. Will was the most offended, declaring civility dead and Webb a boor and a "pompous poseur." Were the etiquette police as exercised when Vice President Dick Cheney told Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy to perform an anatomically impossible act on the Senate floor?
Just so long as we get to discuss zombies, vampires or really bad science fiction at least briefly, I don't care where a thread ultimately goes.
:)
This thread could go off the rails a few times and be fine as the news could bring relevant information to it every few days or so. Besides, I've noticed that the little derailments sometimes break the thread's downward slide and it then returns to its main point with a bit more strength. It's only the really big derailments that seem to be a sure sign that the thread has lived past its intended function.
Now, something in the threads general topic: The CW.
I may have to change my position on Iraq if the news continues to worsen at this rate. I had hopes that Iraq had not yet crossed its point of no return. Between the (yet another) sharp increase in the level of open violence amongst the Iraqi peoples, the Iraqi government seeking an almost partnership like relationship with Iran, the semi-frosty meeting dropout between our Prez & theirs from the other day and the walk out of huge numbers of Iraqis from all areas of their government last week, I think we've hit the the tipping point.
I think I misjudged our timetable a few weeks ago. I really wanted us to have enough time to right the mess that Bush inflicted upon the world with his ill advised crusade. I no longer know if I can truly say that I believe we have the time to do so now.
"Just so long as we get to discuss zombies, vampires or really bad science fiction at least briefly, I don't care where a thread ultimately goes."
yes
But that's not how much of official Washington reacted. Columnist George F. Will was the most offended, declaring civility dead and Webb a boor and a "pompous poseur."
Of course, in order to make his case, Will used heavily edited versions of the comments, deleting Webb's use of the honorific, "Mr. President" in his replies to Bush.
I can't believe they would not first target Israel--and if they use atom bombs on anyone, even fellow Muslims, the Israelis would probably take the opportunity to make sure they weren't the next target.
Iran would make sure to hit them first if they were to get the bomb.
I feel like I've just read an issue of Tales of Suspense. Who still uses these expressions "get the bomb"? Isn't the atom bomb collecting dust at the Smithsonian? I was under the impression that creating a nuclear device is quite simple, providing you aqcuire the necessary materials (plutonium, uranium, or hydrogen isotopes). The more challenging aspect is actually delivery. It may be assumed that any nation can develop long range, even intercontinental missles, but remember that only a handful of nations have had space programs, and that even Iraq hadn't progressed past scud missles, which have limited range and are inaccurate.
Further complicating the ability to deploy WMDs are superior defense systems. The Patriot missle cam knock out ICBMs with decent results, and unless Iran has developed stealth bombers, any aircrafts of unknown origin nearing Israli airspace will be swiftly downed.
For all of these reasons, the most likely scenario for a nuclear attack is a dirty bomb. The device fits into a large briefcase, and can be hand-delivered. This makes it far more clandestine and accurate than any other option. Furthermore, the culprit of the act could remain a complete enigma, making reciprocity an excercise in pure conjecture.
So while Steve Rogers might have been our best bet against atom bombs, what the world needs now is Jean Grey (although I wouldn't object to her wearing her old-fashioned midi-skirts, a little nostalgia is allowed).
John Kinney,
Making an atomic bomb once you have the necessary nuclear materials may not be that hard, but based on what I've read, making an A-bomb that will fit into the nose-cone of a missile is very hard.
As to Patriot missiles, it's my understanding that they aren't a great defense against even crappy missiles like scuds and are useless against ICBMs. This is not meant to be a dig against the Patriots, ironically. I seem to recall from the first Iraq war that the Patriots were originally design for some other purpose and were pressed into service because we needed scud defense. As to ICBMs, the U.S. is currently lined up to spend an additional $200 Billion (after the first 200) to try to develop a missile shield to protect us from rogue states "such as" North Korea. And it's never worked in any test where the target didn't have a special transmitter to allow it to home in on the thing. The last test I heard about was canceled because of rain (maybe the [fill in enemy of choice] will be kind enough to attack on a sunny day). No one should be deluding themselves into thinking that any nation has a workable defense once the missiles actually start flying.
I'm not really worried about missile, however. I'm much more worried about the sieve of U.S. Customs that inspects 5% of incoming cargo reacting synergistically with us not making a big enough priority of locking down possible loose nukes in the former Soviet Union. Why let the whole world know you're a Nuclear Madman(TM) by launching a missile right out in the open, when a Van-Based Delivery System(TM) will get the job done and leave much less evidence?
Building a working nuclear weapon once you have the materials is not that difficult. Getting weapons grade uranium or plutonium is very hard though as the processing is very intensive and is strictly monitored by countries that already have nuclear technology.
David is right, though, making one that can be launched in a missile is very difficult. However, building one that can fit in a cargo container or the back of a truck is child's play. Iran wouldn't need to have a missile capable of delivering a nuclear device to Israel. They could put one into a cargo container and smuggle it into Tel Aviv. Would smuggling it through Israeli border security be tougher than smuggling it into say, NYC? Sure, but it wouldn't be impossible.
And they'd only have to succeed once.
I'm sure the NSA, CIA, and FBI have 'bots that scour the Web looking for talk about building nuclear bombs. I'd be curious to know if we've made it onto their radar screen yet. :)
Considering the opinions about the Chimp-in-Chief, we've been on their watch list for a while.
To borrow a phrase from Dennis Miller (back when he was funny) "My phone is so tapped I have more clicks on my line than a Ubange marital spat." (I just know I spelled that tribe's name wrong...)