Dear Groverat
Sorry first of all. This rant isn't directly aimed at you, but in a post I said that this war was the worst thing to happen since the second world war. You called me a "drama queen" and said I was "full of crap;" while hardly a hugely intelligent response it got me thinking.
Why do I think this has taken us into the most dangerous period of my life, and why my way of life is now under serious threat in a way it has never been? And that the entire world is on the precipice? Can I back that up, or am I being a drama queen?
You're right when you point out that more people died in Rwanda. Even the US had episodes of far worse violent shame in places such as Vietnam and Cambodia, and Stalin's purges were among the bloodiest episodes the world has seen. Hell, Saddam's killed a million-odd himself. But.
Let's start with Iraq and move out. Here is the BEST CASE of what's going to happen.
The US will win. Saddam won't use any WOMD. Basra and Bagdad will fall in a couple of months in a good old fashioned war decided by people shooting at each other with guns and artillery, during which the city will get trashed and thousands of people will die. The people of Iraq remain remain utterly opposed to being invaded and will make the place an absolute hell for the occupying army at first -- and chill a bit when the water and electricity get reconnected (don't doubt but that they're going to get disconnected first). They'll tell of the hell of living under Saddam, which will be worse then we ever thought. Knowing when the war is over will be tricky, as suicide bombs and assassination of US officials will never end throughout Iraq during the period of occupation. They will chill a bit but they will always hate you.
Then, within months, while the US army keeps the peace, the UN will install a Muslim to lead a transitional government who will have the clamouring support of every Iraqi; the country will become a shining beacon of peace and civil wealth as the economy rebuilds itself with oil money flowing into local industrial companies who rebuild the country enriching ordinary citizens who feel, for the first time in decades, free. A proud, rich, democratic Arab state.
Oops, my mistake. A retired US general will turn up for an indefinite period (years) and Iraqi oil money will be used to rebuild the country by paying rich American companies. Iraqis will work for them resentfully and angrily, feeling that all their suspicions of a neo-colonial adventure were absolutely justified. The administration will make choices to the benefit of US interests and not Iraq (Will Jay Garner join Iraq up in OPEC, which is in its interest? Will Iraq join Afghanistan and get a nice new American CDMA mobile network incompatible with all its neighbours and 80% of the world?). Maybe the constant unrest sees the US administration promising to hand over to Iraqis "once there is peace in the land."
Best case. The case that doesn't see Syria and Iran involved at this stage (their time will come). Or Turkey. Or Israeli nukes.
Meanwhile: this action has made us more hated then we ever thought possible in the middle east. I know you "don't give a shit" about this, as you posted last week. But think. At home, the NRA reminds you that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." OK then, what's more dangerous: millions of angry people with access to guns (WOMD, normal bombs, and pilots licenses, and knives), or millions and millions and millions of apoplectically furious people with access to guns (WOMD, normal bombs, and pilots licenses, and knives)? Because al Qaeda (et al) had a choice you see. They could get their bugs and nukes from Saddam -- with whom they had directly contradicting goals and a physically difficult supply chain -- or they could buy them off-the-back-of-a-truck either in markets in Pakistan or directly off some impoverished ex-Soviet republic. If US bio-weapons facilities are leaky enough to let anthrax into the US postal system, how much of this shit is out there from the former USSR? Answer: lots. We know this for a fact.
Long story short, this action has done NOTHING to prevent the proliferation of WOMD and EVERYTHING to provide more motives to more people to use them. Anti US-hatred has never been higher. Even removing WOMD, if it's people that kill people we're seriously in the shit now.
It gets worse. I'm actually being a selfish capitalist when I say this is as bad as I think it is. It seems that my bleeding-heart finds it easier to deal with all the shit that has happened in the world since WWII then the mere thought of my city being made uninhabitable by a dirty bomb and the end of peace in MY country. But that's just one threat.
It gets even worse. This action in Iraq is the first proper example of the agenda promoted by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheyney and Rumsfeld as detailed by think-tanks such as the "Project for the New American Century." It IS policy now, and it comes down to using force to protect US interests, acting pre-emptively toward perceived threats to those interests, ignoring international consensus, preventing a military or economic rival from emerging and preserving the "Pax Americana." That's liberal spin free. Not my words.
What's wrong with that pipes up an SDW? "Isn't it any government's duty to try and remain the pre-eminent power if it should find itself in that lucky position which it has worked hard for? They're just jealous of us, and our luck and hard work."
No, they're not jealous. "They" hate you. You're jealous when someone's got a car and you haven't. You hate someone when their actions mean people you know die. And to be clear, the way 'US interests' is typically interpreted means millions of avoidable deaths will occur for economic reasons (one example: export of generic drugs to countries who can't afford the branded versions and don't have manufacture capacity has been prevented by the US delegation to the WHO after BigPharm lobbying). The real danger to world peace is world social cohesion and hatred. This doctrine, now visibly in practice will harm both.
Obviously, the pre-emptive action thing causes hatred too (ref. Iraq), assuming that WOMD is the reason for the pre-emptive invasion this week. All the other planks of this doctrine are dangerous too, making peace-keeping alliances fracture (the US WARNING Turkey, a NATO ally?! Reps saying in congress that GSM mobiles are bad because they're "French" for God's sake!?), wrecking friendship between powerful nations, putting Pax Americana above Pax Mundi as the prime directive. And I've not got started on oil or corruption, both of which mean that even if this doctrine was good for anyone apart from US big business its implementation would go horribly wrong.
And the crux of this is that the US, despite being the world's biggest ever power, is not big enough to hold together all the shit this is going to cause. Deal with North Korea, conflagration in the middle east and Africa while simultaneously preventing China or India from rivaling the US? And simultaneously creating a new generation of terrorists, but doing nothing to prevent WOMD proliferation?
This is lunacy.
Don't know why I bothered doing this. 90% of people won't read it, 5% won't try and understand it and the remaining 5% are posters on an Apple-related rumour BB anyway. All I'll get called is a conspiracy theorist, US-hater, anti-semite ... and you'll manage to ignore the important immediate fact about how the Muslims and Arabs ALL hate us now and the terrorists have got WOMD anyway.
Anyway. The most dangerous period since the Second World War and kicked off by the Iraq war. I stand by it.
Love,
Harald
Why do I think this has taken us into the most dangerous period of my life, and why my way of life is now under serious threat in a way it has never been? And that the entire world is on the precipice? Can I back that up, or am I being a drama queen?
You're right when you point out that more people died in Rwanda. Even the US had episodes of far worse violent shame in places such as Vietnam and Cambodia, and Stalin's purges were among the bloodiest episodes the world has seen. Hell, Saddam's killed a million-odd himself. But.
Let's start with Iraq and move out. Here is the BEST CASE of what's going to happen.
The US will win. Saddam won't use any WOMD. Basra and Bagdad will fall in a couple of months in a good old fashioned war decided by people shooting at each other with guns and artillery, during which the city will get trashed and thousands of people will die. The people of Iraq remain remain utterly opposed to being invaded and will make the place an absolute hell for the occupying army at first -- and chill a bit when the water and electricity get reconnected (don't doubt but that they're going to get disconnected first). They'll tell of the hell of living under Saddam, which will be worse then we ever thought. Knowing when the war is over will be tricky, as suicide bombs and assassination of US officials will never end throughout Iraq during the period of occupation. They will chill a bit but they will always hate you.
Then, within months, while the US army keeps the peace, the UN will install a Muslim to lead a transitional government who will have the clamouring support of every Iraqi; the country will become a shining beacon of peace and civil wealth as the economy rebuilds itself with oil money flowing into local industrial companies who rebuild the country enriching ordinary citizens who feel, for the first time in decades, free. A proud, rich, democratic Arab state.
Oops, my mistake. A retired US general will turn up for an indefinite period (years) and Iraqi oil money will be used to rebuild the country by paying rich American companies. Iraqis will work for them resentfully and angrily, feeling that all their suspicions of a neo-colonial adventure were absolutely justified. The administration will make choices to the benefit of US interests and not Iraq (Will Jay Garner join Iraq up in OPEC, which is in its interest? Will Iraq join Afghanistan and get a nice new American CDMA mobile network incompatible with all its neighbours and 80% of the world?). Maybe the constant unrest sees the US administration promising to hand over to Iraqis "once there is peace in the land."
Best case. The case that doesn't see Syria and Iran involved at this stage (their time will come). Or Turkey. Or Israeli nukes.
Meanwhile: this action has made us more hated then we ever thought possible in the middle east. I know you "don't give a shit" about this, as you posted last week. But think. At home, the NRA reminds you that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." OK then, what's more dangerous: millions of angry people with access to guns (WOMD, normal bombs, and pilots licenses, and knives), or millions and millions and millions of apoplectically furious people with access to guns (WOMD, normal bombs, and pilots licenses, and knives)? Because al Qaeda (et al) had a choice you see. They could get their bugs and nukes from Saddam -- with whom they had directly contradicting goals and a physically difficult supply chain -- or they could buy them off-the-back-of-a-truck either in markets in Pakistan or directly off some impoverished ex-Soviet republic. If US bio-weapons facilities are leaky enough to let anthrax into the US postal system, how much of this shit is out there from the former USSR? Answer: lots. We know this for a fact.
Long story short, this action has done NOTHING to prevent the proliferation of WOMD and EVERYTHING to provide more motives to more people to use them. Anti US-hatred has never been higher. Even removing WOMD, if it's people that kill people we're seriously in the shit now.
It gets worse. I'm actually being a selfish capitalist when I say this is as bad as I think it is. It seems that my bleeding-heart finds it easier to deal with all the shit that has happened in the world since WWII then the mere thought of my city being made uninhabitable by a dirty bomb and the end of peace in MY country. But that's just one threat.
It gets even worse. This action in Iraq is the first proper example of the agenda promoted by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheyney and Rumsfeld as detailed by think-tanks such as the "Project for the New American Century." It IS policy now, and it comes down to using force to protect US interests, acting pre-emptively toward perceived threats to those interests, ignoring international consensus, preventing a military or economic rival from emerging and preserving the "Pax Americana." That's liberal spin free. Not my words.
What's wrong with that pipes up an SDW? "Isn't it any government's duty to try and remain the pre-eminent power if it should find itself in that lucky position which it has worked hard for? They're just jealous of us, and our luck and hard work."
No, they're not jealous. "They" hate you. You're jealous when someone's got a car and you haven't. You hate someone when their actions mean people you know die. And to be clear, the way 'US interests' is typically interpreted means millions of avoidable deaths will occur for economic reasons (one example: export of generic drugs to countries who can't afford the branded versions and don't have manufacture capacity has been prevented by the US delegation to the WHO after BigPharm lobbying). The real danger to world peace is world social cohesion and hatred. This doctrine, now visibly in practice will harm both.
Obviously, the pre-emptive action thing causes hatred too (ref. Iraq), assuming that WOMD is the reason for the pre-emptive invasion this week. All the other planks of this doctrine are dangerous too, making peace-keeping alliances fracture (the US WARNING Turkey, a NATO ally?! Reps saying in congress that GSM mobiles are bad because they're "French" for God's sake!?), wrecking friendship between powerful nations, putting Pax Americana above Pax Mundi as the prime directive. And I've not got started on oil or corruption, both of which mean that even if this doctrine was good for anyone apart from US big business its implementation would go horribly wrong.
And the crux of this is that the US, despite being the world's biggest ever power, is not big enough to hold together all the shit this is going to cause. Deal with North Korea, conflagration in the middle east and Africa while simultaneously preventing China or India from rivaling the US? And simultaneously creating a new generation of terrorists, but doing nothing to prevent WOMD proliferation?
This is lunacy.
Don't know why I bothered doing this. 90% of people won't read it, 5% won't try and understand it and the remaining 5% are posters on an Apple-related rumour BB anyway. All I'll get called is a conspiracy theorist, US-hater, anti-semite ... and you'll manage to ignore the important immediate fact about how the Muslims and Arabs ALL hate us now and the terrorists have got WOMD anyway.
Anyway. The most dangerous period since the Second World War and kicked off by the Iraq war. I stand by it.
Love,
Harald
Comments
Originally posted by Harald
Will Iraq join Afghanistan and get a nice new American CDMA mobile network
Sorry but being in the buisness I can´t help but take a special mobile phone angle to the war.
You try to tell them that it isn't just a simple situation and that the motives involved ( I'm talking about the Iraqi's ) for this situation are difficult to understand because they are brought up in a totally different enviroment ( they always like to apply western logic to this situation ). Not to mention all the different factions in the area. If you were to ask the Iraqis if they want rescuing from Saddam you might get an answer you don't expect. They don't like us anymore than they like Saddam and if truth were known they might prefer him. Crazy as that might seem.
Plus I also believe this will be a years long situation with the U.S. and very expensive. After we've supposedly left they might go back to a similar situation and we might be dealing with someone just as bad in say twenty years. If that happens what's this all for?
Even after it's all said and done and if what we're saying proves out I still think they wouldn't admit it.
Sometimes you just have to let the lemmings jump off the cliff.
Originally posted by tonton
Yeah, but, but, but...
"And terrorists don't need an excuse to kill people! They will kill people anyway!"
This is certainly true. I adamantly believe this. I can't give anyone the benefit of the doubt about this anymore, and expect people to leave us alone if we leave them alone. Wishful thinking at best.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
This is certainly true. I adamantly believe this. I can't give anyone the benefit of the doubt about this anymore, and expect people to leave us alone if we leave them alone. Wishful thinking at best.
Your comment reads as though they ALL wanted to kill us. They didn't. More do now.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Saddam has held onto power for many years. Saddam knows from what has worked for him in his own history that WOMD is what gave him his sense of power and WOMD helped him to cling to power. First Saddam used WOMD on Iranians. Later Saddam used WOMD on the Kurds in the north. The reason the UN has a no fly zone in northern Iraq is to protect the Kurds from this killer named Saddam. Saddam has had defectors that left Iraq and have told our gov't about how Saddam has mobile chemical WL. Keep in mind since the begining of its power the Baath party has used fear. In the begining it was the hanging of Jews in the streets of Baghdad. When first in charge Saddam called for 10 of his close Baath party cabinet members for a meeting and he had each of the 10 killed in front of the entire country to see. Keep in mind that when the UN inspectors got kicked out in the 90's they did not destroy all of the WOMD. Once back they face an evasive Iraq that does not disclose where or how they "claim" they destroyed their stocks of anthrax. Iraq has had years to come clean but they have chosen to remain defiant. Disarming Iraq is the right thing to do as it secures accountability once and for all.
We've heard all this a million times. From my post above, with which portion of this would I disagree? Specifically?
With which specific portion of my post do you disagree?
I am not concerned with angry arabs angered over the US being involved in Iraq. Saddam is not the "hero" to all arabs just as the Talliban in Afganistan was also not the "hero" to all arabs. I believe your fears of dirty bombs etc is a valid fear however I would suggest that they are a method to terror that would be used sooner or later "Iraq war" or not. We do live in a dangerous world.
You're not concerned with angry Arabs. Do you have any idea of what is going on in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia? Do you have any idea of the hatred that is being born? I know the answer. You haven't got a clue.
Originally posted by Harald
5% won't try and understand it
I can understand you having a deep concern for "what comes next" as a result of all this, but the bottom line is whether you espouse the best or worse case scenario, you're still guessing. That goes for anyone.
Beyond that, you of course are leaning towards the worst case due to your own emotional tendancies on the matter. It's not a question of us trying to understand what you're saying; we're (err, what I am) saying is that you're making some OK points but otherwise letting your emotions get the better of your logic facilities. Seems you're bordering on a paniced state and there is no logical reason to be paniced as of yet. We have to take the consequences (good and bad) as they come and analyze from there, no?
That said, do those in the Arab world who despise us (for whatever reason) need an excuse to kill more Americans, possible en masse again one day? No. Would they have done it even if none of this mess with Iraq materialized? Absolutely, as soon as they had the funds and logisitics to pull it off. The point is, if we had handled the prelude to this war in a more intelligent and methodical way, there wouldn't be as many people lining up now to give these bastards the funds and logistics they need.
Clearly the threat wasn't going away or subsiding any, but the way we handled the explanations for and start of this war is only going to make it easier for those who were trying (and presumably failing to some degree since we haven't had another 9/11 since...) to achieve their aims. That's the point. That's why - whether we choose war or not - we have to ackwnowledge the Bush administration should not have glossed over the details and blown off the process as much as they did. Not saying there is no argument for war or even that all of Bush's men are "bahhhd" - just saying we didn't do ourselves any favors by starting this war in the way we did. That much goes without saying I think.
Originally posted by Harald
Your comment reads as though they ALL wanted to kill us. They didn't. More do now.
Harald I ask this as it needs to be answered, Are you "afraid" to use force against an arab country because it will create more hate towards us? If so are you saying the world should never confront an arab country as we would face a backlash in your view? Does that not invite bad dictators / leaders of arab countries a chance to use that very fear you have to leverage or sway popular opinion in the non-arab world to allow arab powers to mass up countless WOMD as we all know once attained WOMD give a leader a sense of power. Does that sit well with you to know WOMD are in hands of killers in some cases like Saddam? Should we in your opinion let Bin Laden be free because if we capture or kill him that will "anger" arabs and we are afraid of that? Should we allow Bin Laden, the Talliban, and Saddam to have and mass up WOMD?
I am sorry we can't be afraid to take action against killers be they Hitler from Europe or be they an arab.
Period.
If one chooses to take the position of "being afraid" be prepared to be squashed.
Fellowship
Just so I can be clear, which part of my post would you say is guesswork in my best case? The US will win; Jay Garner will be imposed as pro-consul; suicide bomb attacks will continue.
The bit about the Arab and Muslim world uniting in a fresh level of hatred is happening all ready.
My logic is flawed? Talk me through it.
It goes without saying I agree with your points about the start of this war.
Please first answer my questions specifically. Then I'll answer yours.
My point is this. Arabs and anger is nothing new. It is as old as time.
What is new is the WOMD and terror tactics of today. When in the hands of the ever angry arabs we have more terror and problems.
The US and UK partners to disarm Iraq is in place to address this very issue.
Again arabs and anger are nothing new. Many arabs are racist against Jews. This racism provides for the jews to be a nice target for their anger. Add to that some political leaders in the arab world who feed off of leading the pack to hate jews and you have whole arab groups that hate. So if Israel has a friend in the world that friend is also a target by angry arabs who are racist.
Israel is a democracy and is pluralistic. Some arabs wish for strict islamic law and view places like america as the "great satan" We disagree.
If arabs want to stay angry that is sad. I would hope more arabs would stand up for their economic future and move on with life.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Harald
(taptaptaptaptaptaptaptap)
To answer about your post what I see wrong with it is this:
I believe it is more dangerous to do nothing than to worry about what "they think" if we do take action to disarm a brutal dictator in Iraq.
I already told you Saddam is not the Hero of the arabs nor was the Talliban.
Have I seen the hate in Lebanon? Yes Arabs hate and they have for a long time.
I had some questions for you that I would like to know your response.
Fellolwship
what gave me hope today was the very peacefull demonstration in Jakarta today,
the biggest sofar (200.000 people), including muslims, christians and others, no violence
gives me hope from a country where the majority of people hate america
Originally posted by Harald
Just so I can be clear, which part of my post would you say is guesswork in my best case?
The bit about the Arab and Muslim world uniting in a fresh level of hatred is happening all ready.
My logic is flawed? Talk me through it.
1. All of it. Whether worst case or best. How do you *know* for a certainty who will take over the helm in the post-war rebuilding effort initially, or in the long run? You can make educated guesses at this point, but it's still very early in the whole process -- a guess is a guess is a guess.
2. Yes, I'm sure people in the Arab world are uniting in their shared hatred of us. How do you know from which specific event(s) this hatred stemmed from? Even if you did know exactly which ones and why, how do you know the same gathering of Anti-American types wouldn't have taken place regardless of what we did. Again, you're guessing. And really, where's the data? We never see candid interviews with Arab citizens from different nations in this country - pro or con - and we never see anything that helps us to ascertain what's really going on in the communities other than the typical idiot waving a charred American flag. Nothing new there, right? That guy might as well be from any country, any year since the early 80s.
3. I never said your logic was flawed, so much as your basing your assertions on emotion instead of logic. If you want to guess and discuss, then make that clear in the thread title -- nothing wrong with making educated guesses and debating from there. But you take the tone of posing your cases as eventual fact when we both know things could easily turn out completely different than you predict -- in either case.