Mark Hickey said:I'd have been shocked if the new administration
DIDN'T almost immediately make contingency plans to
"invade Iraq".
I'm stunned that anybody is still using this "threat" thing
as an excuse for the invasion of Iraq.
The real skinny is here: <URL: newamericancentur-newamericancentur-Open ↗
y.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf >
The Project For The New American Century published this
paper in September of 2000. The document details a long-term
strategy for using US military power to do nothing less than
subjugate the globe to prevent the rise of a rival power. It
is shockingly candid in this regard.
Here's a choice and relevant sentence from the second
paragraph of section
III:
"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the
immediate justification, the need for a substantial American
force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the
regime of Saddam Hussein."
Indeed, the entire gist of this document appears to be that
foreign policy is a matter of national security; that the
only way the United States can ensure its own survival is by
maintaining military primacy worldwide. This seems to me to
be a tacit admission that the ideologies supported by the
U.S. regime are not supportable on their own merit and can
only be accepted through coercion and threat of violence.
That notion is deeply anti-democratic.
(The document goes on to describe equally candidly how "free
trade" is to be used as a tool to exploit foreign workers
while recognizing that the same policies we force on foreign
nations would be destructive to American workers and so on.
This is really required reading for anybody who cares at all
what their country does in their name.)
Quoted message said:The difference between the Bush and Clinton administration
wasn't in assessing the threat - they both agreed on that.
They both liked to pretend there was a threat, otherwise
there's no justification for massive military build-up and
exorbitant "defense" spending.
I don't know why you bother contrasting Bush with Clinton.
Just because Bush is a liar doesn't mean that Clinton's not
or vice versa. They're both liars and they're both
responsible for murder and terrorism.
Quoted message said:The difference is that Bush wasn't willing to wait for the
inept and corrupt UN to come around before doing something
about that threat.
The UN is inept and corrupt how? Because they are
democratic? Because they are not merely in the pocket of the
United States?
Who was the State Department official that stated outright
that the reason the United States cannot recognize the
International Court of Justice was that it "could not be be
relied upon to protect American interests"? So justice alone
isn't in the American interest. (Well, clearly not since the
only nation EVER convicted of terrorist action by that body
is the United States for its atrocities against Nicaragua.)
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:The next issue is that, by invading Iraq, the US has
removed valuable resources that should have been used to
eliminate the *real* threat, namely Al Qaeda. Instead,
we're left with a still-functioning *real* terrorist
organization, and a country (Afghanistan) that is very
quickly returning to the sorry state that allowed that
group to organize in the first place.
I'd disagree - democracies in that area of the world ARE
the only real solution to As Qaeda. It's not going to be
easy (nothing in that region ever is).
How many democracies has the U.S. had a hand in overthrowing
in the past thirty years? How many could-be revolutions
against right-wing dictators have been subverted by U.S.
intervention? Democracy is NOT a goal of U.S. foreign
policy. That's not only obvious by inference. Consider that
Thomas Carothers, who lead the "Democratic Development
Initiatives" (I think they were called) for the State
Department under Reagan stated that the U.S. "will only
support democratic reform as long as it maintains
traditional economic relationships". In other words, if the
people of a nation decide that their resources should serve
them first, the U.S. will stop supporting democracy and
install a more cooperative government.
U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23, 1948:
"Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern
of relationships which will permit us to maintain this
position of disparity
[U.S. military-economic supremacy]... To do so, we will have
to dispense with all sentimentality and day-
dreaming... We should cease to talk about vague
and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the
raising of the living standards, and democratization.
The day is not far off when we are going to have to
deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then
hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."
-- George Kennan Director of Policy Planning U.S.
State Department
Quoted message said:Negotiations can go on ad infinitum (see Iraq vs. UN).
I think you mean "ad nauseum" -- as in, you get sick of it
before it's done.
Quoted message said:Getting action is what's important
But you don't know what the correct action IS until the
negotiations are complete.
Quoted message said:and I find it hard to believe that Libia would have caved
in without a credible threat of force.
The nation is called Libya. And the point isn't to get them
to "cave in", but for the parties involved to come to a
mutual understanding and consensual agreement as to the
proper course. What you describe is straight bully tactics.
It's no wonder the U.S. is the target of so much animosity.
Whence do you think that comes, anyway?
Quoted message said:GWB told everyone it would be very difficult. When you say
"never considered all the problems" you sound a bit like
Richard Clarke claiming Condi Rice had never heard the
words "Al Qaeda"... ;-)
The troops sent to Iraq were woefully under-prepared for the
task they were undertaking. The number of people required to
forcibly occupy and repress an entire nation of people is
many times that which were sent. But you're right that Bush
knew damned well that this was essentially a permanent
occupation. That was clearly the intent all along. (I still
don't see how you justify shoving your ideology down the
throats of others, yet oppose, say, the Soviet invasion of
Hungary in 1956 or the German invasion of Poland in 1938.)
And there's still no evidence whatsoever that Condi Rice was
aware of the meaning of the words "Al Queda" when Clarke
mentioned them to her. The news media made a very big fuss
over her prior mention of Bin Laden's name, but there is
still a total lack of evidence that she was familiar with
the term before Clarke's conversation with her. It's a minor
detail that essentially means nothing either way and is
solely intended to misdirect the public from the substance
of Clarke's book. The substance is too complex for quick sound-
bites and thirty-second point/counter-point commentary on
CNN and MSNBC, so the more gossipy snippets are blown
totally out of proportion.
Quoted message said:Those groups have hated each other for many centuries, and
getting them to play nice together won't be easy. But the
only real possibility of that happening is via precisely
what's happening in Iraq now.
Hiring mercenaries to slaughter those who oppose
foreign rule? You have a very funny idea of democracy
and consensus-building.
Quoted message said:And FWIW, most Iraqis DO support the US presence and 90%
are in favor of a democratic government.
Right... because Iraq currently has the infrastructure to
take a meaningful poll of its well-informed populace and
they're totally in support of the foreign infidels who
patrol their streets with heavy weaponry and bomb their
power plants and water purification systems. I'm sure
they're quite sympathetic in those astronomical numbers.
After all, isn't everyone, deep down, an American waiting to
bust out of their repressive traditions? The whole world is
jealous of our lifestyle and the only reason they don't
share in our prosperity is that they are too ignorant or
just not allowed by their tyrannical dictators to embrace
UT.
Quoted message said:As usual, it's going to be dealing with the fringe
elements that's difficult.
Democracy is all about lining up the minorities and shooting
them, apparently.
What you're calling the "fringe" is the element of that
society that actively cares about self-rule and taking your
precious action to oust foreign invaders from their
homeland. You would cheer their actions if the foreign
invaders were not capitalists.
Quoted message said:It's a very sound decision, IMHO. Less than 1% of the
mercury comes from US coal fired power plants, and
instituting the Clinton 90% reduction (as opposed to the
Bush 70%) would have cost a fortune for a meaningless
reduction.
Health of living creatures or, indeed, the entire ecosystem
is "meaningless" while some finite amount of money spent one
time is "a fortune". Your priorities are clear.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:No Child Left Behind without any funding and the Rod
Paige "Texas Miracle" (fraud).
Let's not forget that the previous administration didn't
have the No Child Left Behind program, funding or no.
That's an extremely ignorant statement! Without funding,
programs that enforce that kind of rigid adherence to
arbitrary standards just take away resources from positive
work already being done.
Creating such a program without funding it is irresponsible
in the extreme. It's a death sentence on public education.
Of course, that's exactly what Grover Norquist wants.
Quoted message said:Bush has done more to hold educators accountable than
anyone else in decades. If you don't think that's
necessary, read more posts on the 'net... ;-)
Educators aren't responsible for the social inequities and
poverty that cause most children to do poorly in school...
nor are they responsible for funding the programs that
effectively include and educate every child. Systems by
which funding is REMOVED when a school fails to meet
standards just make it harder for that school to meet
standards in the future.
Of course, as noted, if your goal is to shut down public
schools, it's a smart move.
Quoted message said:It IS a "death tax".
No, it's an inheritance tax. Get it straight. If it were a
death tax, it would have to be paid by the estate of every
dead person. It's not. There is no tax for dying. There is,
however, a tax on transferring certain kinds of wealth after
death. To call it anything other than an "inheritance tax"
is an attempt to euphemize in order to mislead.
Quoted message said:It's morally wrong for the government to step in and take
a huge chunk of an estate that's been built with taxed
dollares.
You're kidding, right? That's like saying you shouldn't pay
income taxes on money that your employer paid income tax on
receiving or that you shouldn't pay sales tax because you
paid income tax when you got the paycheck you're using to
buy things. In fact, by that rationale, you couldn't ever
tax any financial transaction other than initial payments by
the Federal Reserve, which amounts to the government paying
itself. Money moves in circles and every public transaction
is subject to regulation including taxation.
Quoted message said:I don't have strong feelings about either of these
issues... but public scrutiny isn't always the answer. Too
often it becomes a circus (in an election year
particularly).
Again, your disdain for democracy shows through. Public
scrutiny is the ONLY means by which democracy retains
meaning. Without it, your elections mean nothing more than
those in any other banana republic. The Bush regime's
antipathy for public scrutiny and love of secrecy is in
direct contempt of democracy and the public.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Lying about the cost of the Medicare program (yet another
"disgruntled" employee, eh?) to Congress.
If we kick out every president who ever misjudged the
price of a pet program, we're going to go through a lot of
presidents
Yep. Are you saying that we should lower the bar simply
because the current offerings are poor? You wouldn't hire
crack-heads and tweakers to run your cash register just
because they were the only ones that put in a job
application, would you?
Get your standards up off the floor. I understand why
they're down there, but have some self-respect and take some
pride in your nation.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Do you really believe the White House's story that the
Navy (or was it the carrier crew?) asked for the "Mission
Accomplished" banner, and the White House just made it for
them ("we do things like that"😉? How convenient.
I was under the impression the banner was made by the
carrier crew.
Right... they had it done up at the Deck 6 Kinko's.
Whatever.
The President doesn't make PR appearances without approving
the banners that are to fly behind his head. It doesn't
matter who asked for it, his smiling appearance in front of
it is an endorsement of the sentiment.
Quoted message said:Either way, I do feel that the prime mission WAS
accomplished.
Well, you're right about that. He made an unprovoked first-
strike against a foreign nation and toppled a sovereign
state in order to lay the groundwork for a U.S. controlled
puppet government and show the entire world that the ruling
class of this country is willing to kill thousands to get
what it wants. Mission accomplished.
Quoted message said:It's not like Bush said "it's all over - relax". He was
preparing us all for the long haul before we ever went
into Iraq.
Well, we agree about that, at least. His intention is
permanent global warfare to maintain U.S. primacy.
Elmo King
