Actually, I quite liked Zell Miller's speech. I never want him mad at me, but the theme of his speech is one of the key reasons I am voting for Bush: "Which man, as President, is more likely to keep my family safe?" The answer is NOT John Kerry.
As for Cheney's speech, I thought he did just fine fulfilling his role as set-up man for Bush's spike.
interesting. last time i felt this unsafe was under reagan, when he was making his "evil empire" noises, and i was worried he might actually press the big red button. despite living next door to the then-USSR for many years before that, i didn't worry that they'd do anything to change my life a lot; i figured their days of expansion were over; it hadn't worked, and as long as they felt safe enough, they wouldn't make another move.
bush's actions have made me feel considerably unsafer than i've felt at any time since reagan. i am not sure kerry could at this time positively counteract that; i doubt it very much -- but he's IMO unlikely to make things worse. i can't say i am particularly enamoured with the man; he's socially too conservative for my taste -- that probably gives anyone a good idea of how i feel about bush.
but i don't know that in general i would vote based on how "safe" i feel in a global context. safety for me is much more a daily matter, and the president of the US has very little to do with that -- after all, people are much more likely to die in accidents than in a terrorist attack. my votes for high office are based on other policies, and luckily my country hasn't signed up bigtime for this silly "war on terror", which is about as ineffective, but a lot more dangerous than the "war on drugs". terrorists all in themselves are bad enough, but they are not news to me, and 9-11 didn't change my life; i grew up in a country that had its own homegrown terrorists, and i learned my lessons about the value of civil rights over safety then. i haven't forgotten them.
that is why i would never vote for bush. i think he's at best fuzzy on the concept, and that misses what the US stands for by a large margin. it's sad to watch and it's uncomfortable to see in such a large and powerful neighbour. such tremendous potential getting wasted for illusory gain; it sometimes boggles my mind.
it'll be interesting to see what happens over the next 20 years.
Wow! A real, live Bush supporter! Up until now, I hadn't actually come in contact with any...so thank you for posting that message!
Which man is more likely to keep your family safe? Hmm, let's see.... Which man is more likely to send thousands more American troops off to conquer foreign lands? Which man is more likely to defend 'freedom' by curtailing your civil liberties? Which man is more likely to cut your taxes, leading to an even weaker health care system? Which man is more likely to have your job downsized and sent away to India under their watch?
Of course, these are silly questions, since both Bush and Kerry will do these things. It's just that the Republicans don't try to lie about it....no flip-flopping with them! It's all destruction, all the time! God Bless the U.S.A.!
It seems I started something... I don't want to get into a long debate in BC's journal about MY political beliefs, but I'll try to explain why I support Bush as succintly as possible (not easy, I tend toward the long-winded).
I accept certain things as axiomatic. If you disagree with these beliefs, you probably hold different axioms and unless you can convince me to discard mine for yours, or I can convince you to discard yours for mine, we will likely never agree. So with that being said, flames will get you nowhere with me.
Axiom: Appeasement only emboldens an enemy. Axiom: We are, in fact, at war for the survival of our culture against a culture who will stop at nothing to destroy it. Axiom: A man with the ability to stop evil, but chooses not to, is as evil as the perpetrator.
The goal of the Islamofascist terrorists is to rid the world of the West to make way for the spread of Imperial Islamic Theocracies in glorious subservience to Allah. Any culture which tolerates acceptance of any religious figure other than Allah is guilty of blasphemy and heresy and must be destroyed in order to be cleansed (one of their axioms). We, by dint of our 1st Amendment, are exactly such a culture and therefore, for our own good, must be destroyed so that we may see the truth of Muhammed's enlightenment from the Mountain. We, however, stubborn as we are, don't wish to be cleansed and would rather worship, or not, as we please. We also don't want to die.
Under previous administrations, we either ignored the problem, treated it as a law enforcement issue, or simply tried to redirect their ire at someone we also didn't like (see: Libya in the early 80's, Clinton after the first World Trade Center bombing, and Afghanistan in the late 80's, respectively). Despite all these various forms of tolerance, acceptance and appeasement, battle was still joined on our soil. The attacks of September 11 was another battle in a war we didn't even know we were in. Many Americans would still like to believe we are not in a war. Just because we didn't initiate it, debate it or declare it, we have in fact been engaged in it involuntarily.
That being the case, I want a President who recognizes a war when he sees one. When in war, those who sit back and trust to their defenses historically underestimate their attacker's ingenuity. It doesn't matter what steps we take at home, terrorists will find ways to infiltrate and attack us. Instead, we must take the offensive and remove support for terrorists wherever we can. One way is financial. By 2002, a large portion of the financial interests of terrorist groups were found and frozen. They found different ways to access and raise money, but not as much as before. We must root out the command structure of terrorist organizations as we have done with 50 percent or more of Al Qaida. We must also change or extinguish the culture that promotes terrorism as a valid way to escape the poverty and ignorance imposed on them by their own government. In service to the last point, we must show the people of the area that personal liberty is achievable; personal responsibility is desirable; and self-government is possible. Iraq was another battlefield in the war on terror specifically to be made an example of, a shining city on a hill in the middle east. The thought is that with two operating democracies in the middle east (Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which will have their first real democratic elections within a year; and there's three if you count Israel, but it would never serve as a model to muslims), other citizens in other countries will either pressure their governments to reform whether through political process, or more likely through mass exodus, or overthrow them altogether. Its a reincarnation of the Domino Theory. What must be remembered is that this is not a conventional war. Those will likely never be fought again. This is a culture war, a war of ideas. Islamofascists have decided that our two cultures can not coexist. We were content to try. Once they made it clear that they would not rest until one culture was gone, we decided that they, rather than us, should be that culture. In this day and age, no American would choose to completely eliminate another culture. "Live and let live" is not just a cliche in America, it's a cultural force. Most social issues that get people's ire up cause friction when one group feels that another group is violating that maxim. However, when faced with our own possible destruction, we must fight back. A cornered animal does not negotiate with its attacker. It knows it will die if it does not fight. And so it fights.
John Kerry believes that negotiation is the only way to solve a problem, or subservience to an organization with that belief is the only true role of the United States. John Kerry does not have the resolve to stick to a policy decision. He has done nothing to show me that he has the resolve to stick to an unpopular war when the polls swing against him. He will cut and run at the first sign of resistance from voters. This will, of course, encourage the terrorists to find new ways to attack us because we will have shown ourselves unable to believe in the leadership that real war requires.
George Bush believes that it is the responsibility of the United States to protect itself from those who would destroy it. It does not make for popular decisions among half the population, but he believes in the necessity of his actions and so, like Lincoln he continues to fight a war for his country's survival when many don't even believe the country is worth saving. I personally believe the Union is precious, worth protecting, and if someone must die, I choose them. They have said many times before "We choose death." Ideally, our actions will show them the value of a culture that promotes life, and thus they will choose life, but if they must choose death, we will oblige them.
I think France is learning a tragic lesson in what happens when you promote the appeasement of terrorism without succumbing wholly to their wishes. They can't understand why the Iraqi rebels are attacking their citizens when they didn't support the war in the first place. The fact is, France has shown itself to be weak and the attempt to ban the head scarves simply angered the masters they have enslaved themselves to. One wonders if this lesson will be enough, but I doubt it.
a good, solid, well-reasoned response. i agree in some measure with your axioms, disagree in some measure with some of the premises you apply to them to reach conclusions, but am impressed with the presentation.
thanks. :) Perhaps I'll post this to my own journal and the debate can continue over there if people feel the need to? I don't want BC stuck with all of this...
This all sounds perfectly reasonable, provided that it's true. But there are some problems with these arguments (which merely regurgitate the official government line). If Islamic fundamentalism is so bad, why is the worst Islamic state of all - Saudi Arabia - an American ally? Armed with American weapons, no less? Why was Osama a good guy as long as he was fighting the Soviets? Why was Iraq taken out? - it wasn't threatening the U.S., nor was it an theocracy.
How can America launch two (so far) wars based on the 9-11 attacks, when no one has yet been charged with perpetrating them, or even claimed responsibility for them? I'm not even going to get into the issue of foreknowledge/negligence, lest I be branded a 'conspiracy theorist'.
Why has America's response to the attacks been to take over two countries that either sat over oil, or desired pipeline routes, and then install puppet governments and permanent military bases to guard them?
How is it that so many in, and connected with, the Bush Administration are getting rich off the 'War on Terror', while people are just more terrified than ever?
I don't understand what you mean about conventional wars not being fought anymore. How is what's happening in Iraq unconventional?
In my opinion, you can't wage war against a noun. If someone commits a crime against you, then you take in those responsible and punish them for their crimes. Offering a 1 Billion dollar bounty for the head of Osama Bin Laden would have been much more cost-effective than sending in the troops, but 'getting' Osama was never the point (although I would not be surprised if his boney ass gets hauled out in front of the cameras before the election - now THAT'S good P.R.). The point is that global oil production is dropping, and to preserve its way of life, America needs to secure access to the remaining reserves in the Middle East, Venezula, and Western Africa. Cheney and Rice know this, coming as they do from the energy sector. The 'War on Terror' is their cover story, to convince people such as yourself that the thievery and murder is justified. Wars are almost always about deciding who gets access to goodies. Watch out - China wants some goodies too, and they've got nukes.
The response I have to "War for Oil" is that it would have been much cheaper and cost a lot less in American lives to just lift the sanctions and remove the corrupt Oil for Food program. America was basically the only roadblock to that happening. We could have left Saddam in charge and increased the world fuel supply without killing anyone... well except for that pesky monthly 2000 Iraqis Saddam was disposing of.
As for the conventional war, I meant two massive standing armies fighting each other to a standstill in trenches and relying on war machinery. I don't think there will be another World War II. Its possible I was using a term for my connotation of "conventional war" that means something else to other people. The small, flexible, strategic units with reliance on individual resourcefulness and ingenuity and much more leeway to make decisions than in the past does not fit in with my definition of "conventional war."
The 'war for oil' thing has been repeated so often since the first 'Gulf War' in 1990, that it's become a bit of a cliche. It comes with the assumption that Iraqi oil is destined for SUVs in California, which makes the argument easy to dismiss, since it's not true...almost none of America's oil comes from Iraq. Far more important is the task of keeping Iraqi supply firmly in American hands - out of reach of its rivals in Europe and Asia. It's worth pointing out that Saddam Hussein had offered exploratory concessions (which remained inactive because of the UN sanctions) to France, China, Russia, Brazil, Italy, and Malaysia. Those concessions are now null nad void, with just British and American oil firms getting to take part in the pillage.
Also, Afghanistan and Iraq were easy targets. Neither had the ability to defend against the American onslaught. Iran and Saudi Arabia will be tougher...but America has now established permanent bases in the area from which to conduct those future campaigns.
There's also the issue of petrodollars. Since the 1970s, OPEC has priced its oil in American dollars, meaning that any nation looking to buy had to have billions in US cash on hand. This kept demand for the dollar high. Also, most of those billions ended up getting reinvested by the Shiekhs and Mullahs on Wall Street, pumping up America stocks and securities. But this situation was being threatened. In 2000, Iraq began pricing its oil in Euros, and other OPEC nations were threatening to do the same. Well, Iraq is back on the dollar now, and other nations got the message.
And on top of all that, war is always good for business. Billions of tax dollars got spent on weapons for blowing up two nations, and billions more will now be forked out to well-connected companies for their reconstruction.
This is my last post here. If you want to further the discussion I posted this in my journal. BC didn't ask for this kind of debate in a one-line entry.
I don't actually have a response to this other than I dismiss the war for oil theory as just as untenable as the "What did he know and when did he know it" debate. I choose that Iraq and Afghanistan (which harbored the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks) were in fact strategic targets in the War on Terror and that it is in fact a War in defense of our country.
So, since you mentioned in your post that I didn't chime in on this thread, I thought I'd chime in.
First up, although I've previously described myself as a small-l liberal, I'm really much more of a democratic socialist. Liberalism isn't quite radical enough, by my reckoning.
Personally, I agree with the importance of taking a hard line on terrorism. I'm just a bit too young to have a clear recollection of the terrorist period in Canada, but I agree with the modern assessments that say that it was the complete unwillingness of the Canadian and Quebec governments to appease the terrorists that resulted in the end of terrorist activities. Trudeau said, in a famous televised speech:
To bow to the pressures of these kidnappers' demand that the prisoners release would not only be an abdication of responsibility, it would lead to an increase in terrorist activities in Quebec. It would be an invitation to terrorism and kidnappings across the country.
I have a lot of respect for Trudeau, and his strong handling of terrorism in Canada. I don't have that respect for Bush.
Mostly, because I think that Bush has used the terrorist attacks on the US to garner support for a variety of agendas that serve the interests of his wealthy support base. You dismiss such opinions (which, hey, fine), but I do not.
I also don't really believe that there are evil people in the world. I believe that there are sick people in the world. I believe that there are people who are so angry as to make bad decisions. I believe that there are people who feel (rightly or wrongly) that they are engaging in their only possible course of action. The whole RNC rhetoric about "calling evil by its name" resonates with people who want to see the war on terror in simple terms.
I think things are much more complicated. Tonight, Bush talked (in a different context) about addressing not just symptoms, but causes. I genuinely don't believe that the war on terror will be won unless one is willing to work to understand the forces that lead to the kind of hatred that terrorists feel for the west. This post by daniluxe is the sort of thing I'm talking about. I believe that the US activities in Iraq are sowing the seeds of tomorrow's suicide bombers.
Regarding the original point of this post: I think that Zell Miller's speech was so over-the-top that a lot of people's reaction is, "now, wait a minute". After he went a little bit nuts on MSNBC, he ruined any credibility he may have had.
The Democratic Party is smarter than I thought. Who knew that they'd spent the last two years inserting Zell Miller as a deep mole into the Republican Party so that he could bring the whole operation down from the inside.
Zell Miller, proud Democrat, we salute you.
Which is, of course, dismissive in its own way, but I think echoes with a truth: that Zell Miller was more damaging to the RNC than he was a benefit.
I've been hearing reports from journalists on the scene that Zell's speech tended to resonate with men, but that women weren't as receptive, while to an extent the reverse was true with last night's speech by Bush. Also, when read, Zell's speech seemed very good to the delegates but some were less pleased when hearing it.
Personally, I liked the speech. He attacked Kerry on his record, not his personality. He attacked the Democratic Party for abandoning defense of our nation as a legitimate purpose, except for every four years when they need the middle vote. I thought his humour was on the mark and his concerns were legit as well. I think his style is more in the fashion of the Great Southern Democratic Orators like Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.), Henry Clay (Whig-KY), William Jennings Bryan (D-NE), and Strom Thurman(D and then R-NC). Full of bombast and zeal. Unlike the other Great Southern Democratic Orator of our time, Bill Clinton(D-AR), who is eloquent, measured and emotional, yet subdued.
I thought he was a man full of righteous fury at his party for abandoning him in favor of the fringe members. He has stood still while his part has shifted without correction ever-leftward. In the same hall, he delivered another barn burner speech (http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/speeches/demo-conv/zellmiller.txt) full of righteous anger at promises not kept for Bill Clinton in 1992. He support Clinton because he thought he would drag the Democratic Party back to the center-left where it belonged. Instead, Clinton tried forcefully to move the country and his party further leftward, and the only centrist compromises he made were forced on him after the Republican Revolution of 1994.
Zell Miller is a Democrat. Born that way and he'll die that way. However, the more left the Democratic Party moves, the more he looks like a neo-conservative (who were, themselves former liberals whose party left them when it abandoned the defense of America in order to deride it). Frankly, I welcome him to my club.
For a decent definition of Neo-Conservatism from someone who should know, go here (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp).
after careful re-reading and further consideration, i've decided that, while i still appreciate the linearity of your manner of argument, i actually disagree pretty much in total with your axioms, premises and conclusions.
given the values you appear to hold, i'm fairly certain that this will be understood as a lack of conviction, consistent only with my own very liberal outlook.
I think France is learning a tragic lesson in what happens when you promote the appeasement of terrorism without succumbing wholly to their wishes. They can't understand why the Iraqi rebels are attacking their citizens when they didn't support the war in the first place.
After reading that link and giving it some thought, while I still don't think that appeasing terrorists is a method of success, my comment did come off as rude and condescending to the French and was insensitive to those two journalists and their local help. My apologies to all concerned.
Incidentally, since the French upheld the scarf ban, they did not appease and did not surrender. I won't speculate on the captors reasons for releasing them, I'm just glad they did.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-01 07:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-01 08:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-01 08:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-01 08:31 pm (UTC)As for Cheney's speech, I thought he did just fine fulfilling his role as set-up man for Bush's spike.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-01 10:33 pm (UTC)Why?
who keeps me safer?
Date: 2004-09-02 02:00 am (UTC)bush's actions have made me feel considerably unsafer than i've felt at any time since reagan. i am not sure kerry could at this time positively counteract that; i doubt it very much -- but he's IMO unlikely to make things worse. i can't say i am particularly enamoured with the man; he's socially too conservative for my taste -- that probably gives anyone a good idea of how i feel about bush.
but i don't know that in general i would vote based on how "safe" i feel in a global context. safety for me is much more a daily matter, and the president of the US has very little to do with that -- after all, people are much more likely to die in accidents than in a terrorist attack. my votes for high office are based on other policies, and luckily my country hasn't signed up bigtime for this silly "war on terror", which is about as ineffective, but a lot more dangerous than the "war on drugs". terrorists all in themselves are bad enough, but they are not news to me, and 9-11 didn't change my life; i grew up in a country that had its own homegrown terrorists, and i learned my lessons about the value of civil rights over safety then. i haven't forgotten them.
that is why i would never vote for bush. i think he's at best fuzzy on the concept, and that misses what the US stands for by a large margin. it's sad to watch and it's uncomfortable to see in such a large and powerful neighbour. such tremendous potential getting wasted for illusory gain; it sometimes boggles my mind.
it'll be interesting to see what happens over the next 20 years.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-02 02:53 am (UTC)my life is measurably less safe, both on a personal level and as a citizen, as both a direct and an indirect result of bush's policies.
hence i will be voting for kerry.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-02 05:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-02 05:49 am (UTC)Which man is more likely to keep your family safe? Hmm, let's see.... Which man is more likely to send thousands more American troops off to conquer foreign lands? Which man is more likely to defend 'freedom' by curtailing your civil liberties? Which man is more likely to cut your taxes, leading to an even weaker health care system? Which man is more likely to have your job downsized and sent away to India under their watch?
Of course, these are silly questions, since both Bush and Kerry will do these things. It's just that the Republicans don't try to lie about it....no flip-flopping with them! It's all destruction, all the time! God Bless the U.S.A.!
A Bushie's response Part the First
Date: 2004-09-02 08:32 am (UTC)I accept certain things as axiomatic. If you disagree with these beliefs, you probably hold different axioms and unless you can convince me to discard mine for yours, or I can convince you to discard yours for mine, we will likely never agree. So with that being said, flames will get you nowhere with me.
Axiom: Appeasement only emboldens an enemy.
Axiom: We are, in fact, at war for the survival of our culture against a culture who will stop at nothing to destroy it.
Axiom: A man with the ability to stop evil, but chooses not to, is as evil as the perpetrator.
The goal of the Islamofascist terrorists is to rid the world of the West to make way for the spread of Imperial Islamic Theocracies in glorious subservience to Allah. Any culture which tolerates acceptance of any religious figure other than Allah is guilty of blasphemy and heresy and must be destroyed in order to be cleansed (one of their axioms). We, by dint of our 1st Amendment, are exactly such a culture and therefore, for our own good, must be destroyed so that we may see the truth of Muhammed's enlightenment from the Mountain. We, however, stubborn as we are, don't wish to be cleansed and would rather worship, or not, as we please. We also don't want to die.
Under previous administrations, we either ignored the problem, treated it as a law enforcement issue, or simply tried to redirect their ire at someone we also didn't like (see: Libya in the early 80's, Clinton after the first World Trade Center bombing, and Afghanistan in the late 80's, respectively). Despite all these various forms of tolerance, acceptance and appeasement, battle was still joined on our soil. The attacks of September 11 was another battle in a war we didn't even know we were in. Many Americans would still like to believe we are not in a war. Just because we didn't initiate it, debate it or declare it, we have in fact been engaged in it involuntarily.
Continued in Reply to This...
A Bushie's response Part the Second
Date: 2004-09-02 08:33 am (UTC)In service to the last point, we must show the people of the area that personal liberty is achievable; personal responsibility is desirable; and self-government is possible. Iraq was another battlefield in the war on terror specifically to be made an example of, a shining city on a hill in the middle east. The thought is that with two operating democracies in the middle east (Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which will have their first real democratic elections within a year; and there's three if you count Israel, but it would never serve as a model to muslims), other citizens in other countries will either pressure their governments to reform whether through political process, or more likely through mass exodus, or overthrow them altogether. Its a reincarnation of the Domino Theory.
What must be remembered is that this is not a conventional war. Those will likely never be fought again. This is a culture war, a war of ideas. Islamofascists have decided that our two cultures can not coexist. We were content to try. Once they made it clear that they would not rest until one culture was gone, we decided that they, rather than us, should be that culture. In this day and age, no American would choose to completely eliminate another culture. "Live and let live" is not just a cliche in America, it's a cultural force. Most social issues that get people's ire up cause friction when one group feels that another group is violating that maxim. However, when faced with our own possible destruction, we must fight back. A cornered animal does not negotiate with its attacker. It knows it will die if it does not fight. And so it fights.
John Kerry believes that negotiation is the only way to solve a problem, or subservience to an organization with that belief is the only true role of the United States. John Kerry does not have the resolve to stick to a policy decision. He has done nothing to show me that he has the resolve to stick to an unpopular war when the polls swing against him. He will cut and run at the first sign of resistance from voters. This will, of course, encourage the terrorists to find new ways to attack us because we will have shown ourselves unable to believe in the leadership that real war requires.
George Bush believes that it is the responsibility of the United States to protect itself from those who would destroy it. It does not make for popular decisions among half the population, but he believes in the necessity of his actions and so, like Lincoln he continues to fight a war for his country's survival when many don't even believe the country is worth saving. I personally believe the Union is precious, worth protecting, and if someone must die, I choose them. They have said many times before "We choose death." Ideally, our actions will show them the value of a culture that promotes life, and thus they will choose life, but if they must choose death, we will oblige them.
I think France is learning a tragic lesson in what happens when you promote the appeasement of terrorism without succumbing wholly to their wishes. They can't understand why the Iraqi rebels are attacking their citizens when they didn't support the war in the first place. The fact is, France has shown itself to be weak and the attempt to ban the head scarves simply angered the masters they have enslaved themselves to. One wonders if this lesson will be enough, but I doubt it.
Re: A Bushie's response Part the Second
Date: 2004-09-02 08:50 am (UTC)thank you.
Re: A Bushie's response Part the Second
Date: 2004-09-02 08:54 am (UTC)Re: A Bushie's response Part the Second
Date: 2004-09-02 09:11 am (UTC)How can America launch two (so far) wars based on the 9-11 attacks, when no one has yet been charged with perpetrating them, or even claimed responsibility for them? I'm not even going to get into the issue of foreknowledge/negligence, lest I be branded a 'conspiracy theorist'.
Why has America's response to the attacks been to take over two countries that either sat over oil, or desired pipeline routes, and then install puppet governments and permanent military bases to guard them?
How is it that so many in, and connected with, the Bush Administration are getting rich off the 'War on Terror', while people are just more terrified than ever?
I don't understand what you mean about conventional wars not being fought anymore. How is what's happening in Iraq unconventional?
In my opinion, you can't wage war against a noun. If someone commits a crime against you, then you take in those responsible and punish them for their crimes. Offering a 1 Billion dollar bounty for the head of Osama Bin Laden would have been much more cost-effective than sending in the troops, but 'getting' Osama was never the point (although I would not be surprised if his boney ass gets hauled out in front of the cameras before the election - now THAT'S good P.R.). The point is that global oil production is dropping, and to preserve its way of life, America needs to secure access to the remaining reserves in the Middle East, Venezula, and Western Africa. Cheney and Rice know this, coming as they do from the energy sector. The 'War on Terror' is their cover story, to convince people such as yourself that the thievery and murder is justified. Wars are almost always about deciding who gets access to goodies. Watch out - China wants some goodies too, and they've got nukes.
Re: A Bushie's response Part the Second
Date: 2004-09-02 11:04 am (UTC)As for the conventional war, I meant two massive standing armies fighting each other to a standstill in trenches and relying on war machinery. I don't think there will be another World War II. Its possible I was using a term for my connotation of "conventional war" that means something else to other people. The small, flexible, strategic units with reliance on individual resourcefulness and ingenuity and much more leeway to make decisions than in the past does not fit in with my definition of "conventional war."
Re: A Bushie's response Part the Second
Date: 2004-09-02 11:27 am (UTC)Also, Afghanistan and Iraq were easy targets. Neither had the ability to defend against the American onslaught. Iran and Saudi Arabia will be tougher...but America has now established permanent bases in the area from which to conduct those future campaigns.
There's also the issue of petrodollars. Since the 1970s, OPEC has priced its oil in American dollars, meaning that any nation looking to buy had to have billions in US cash on hand. This kept demand for the dollar high. Also, most of those billions ended up getting reinvested by the Shiekhs and Mullahs on Wall Street, pumping up America stocks and securities. But this situation was being threatened. In 2000, Iraq began pricing its oil in Euros, and other OPEC nations were threatening to do the same. Well, Iraq is back on the dollar now, and other nations got the message.
And on top of all that, war is always good for business. Billions of tax dollars got spent on weapons for blowing up two nations, and billions more will now be forked out to well-connected companies for their reconstruction.
Re: A Bushie's response Part the Second
Date: 2004-09-02 01:02 pm (UTC)I don't actually have a response to this other than I dismiss the war for oil theory as just as untenable as the "What did he know and when did he know it" debate. I choose that Iraq and Afghanistan (which harbored the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks) were in fact strategic targets in the War on Terror and that it is in fact a War in defense of our country.
Re: A Bushie's response Part the Second
Date: 2004-09-02 01:18 pm (UTC)Re: A Bushie's response Part the Second
Date: 2004-09-02 09:29 pm (UTC)First up, although I've previously described myself as a small-l liberal, I'm really much more of a democratic socialist. Liberalism isn't quite radical enough, by my reckoning.
Personally, I agree with the importance of taking a hard line on terrorism. I'm just a bit too young to have a clear recollection of the terrorist period in Canada, but I agree with the modern assessments that say that it was the complete unwillingness of the Canadian and Quebec governments to appease the terrorists that resulted in the end of terrorist activities. Trudeau said, in a famous televised speech:
I have a lot of respect for Trudeau, and his strong handling of terrorism in Canada. I don't have that respect for Bush.
Mostly, because I think that Bush has used the terrorist attacks on the US to garner support for a variety of agendas that serve the interests of his wealthy support base. You dismiss such opinions (which, hey, fine), but I do not.
I also don't really believe that there are evil people in the world. I believe that there are sick people in the world. I believe that there are people who are so angry as to make bad decisions. I believe that there are people who feel (rightly or wrongly) that they are engaging in their only possible course of action. The whole RNC rhetoric about "calling evil by its name" resonates with people who want to see the war on terror in simple terms.
I think things are much more complicated. Tonight, Bush talked (in a different context) about addressing not just symptoms, but causes. I genuinely don't believe that the war on terror will be won unless one is willing to work to understand the forces that lead to the kind of hatred that terrorists feel for the west. This post by
Re: A Bushie's response Part the Second
Date: 2004-09-02 09:39 pm (UTC)Atrios made the wry comment:
Which is, of course, dismissive in its own way, but I think echoes with a truth: that Zell Miller was more damaging to the RNC than he was a benefit.
Re: A Bushie's response Part the Second
Date: 2004-09-03 01:26 pm (UTC)Personally, I liked the speech. He attacked Kerry on his record, not his personality. He attacked the Democratic Party for abandoning defense of our nation as a legitimate purpose, except for every four years when they need the middle vote. I thought his humour was on the mark and his concerns were legit as well. I think his style is more in the fashion of the Great Southern Democratic Orators like Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.), Henry Clay (Whig-KY), William Jennings Bryan (D-NE), and Strom Thurman(D and then R-NC). Full of bombast and zeal. Unlike the other Great Southern Democratic Orator of our time, Bill Clinton(D-AR), who is eloquent, measured and emotional, yet subdued.
I thought he was a man full of righteous fury at his party for abandoning him in favor of the fringe members. He has stood still while his part has shifted without correction ever-leftward. In the same hall, he delivered another barn burner speech (http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/speeches/demo-conv/zellmiller.txt) full of righteous anger at promises not kept for Bill Clinton in 1992. He support Clinton because he thought he would drag the Democratic Party back to the center-left where it belonged. Instead, Clinton tried forcefully to move the country and his party further leftward, and the only centrist compromises he made were forced on him after the Republican Revolution of 1994.
Zell Miller is a Democrat. Born that way and he'll die that way. However, the more left the Democratic Party moves, the more he looks like a neo-conservative (who were, themselves former liberals whose party left them when it abandoned the defense of America in order to deride it). Frankly, I welcome him to my club.
For a decent definition of Neo-Conservatism from someone who should know, go here (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp).
Re: A Bushie's response Part the Second
Date: 2004-09-03 11:51 pm (UTC)given the values you appear to hold, i'm fairly certain that this will be understood as a lack of conviction, consistent only with my own very liberal outlook.
One more point...
Date: 2004-09-08 09:57 am (UTC)I think France is learning a tragic lesson in what happens when you promote the appeasement of terrorism without succumbing wholly to their wishes. They can't understand why the Iraqi rebels are attacking their citizens when they didn't support the war in the first place.
I basically agree with Paul Wells' comments on this matter.
Re: One more point...
Date: 2004-09-08 05:03 pm (UTC)Incidentally, since the French upheld the scarf ban, they did not appease and did not surrender. I won't speculate on the captors reasons for releasing them, I'm just glad they did.