World Politics

[VeloCity]

Re:

Note that Balir blames it on faulty intelligence, which is hogwash. It's convenient to have a group of faceless, nameless people to pin it on, innit.

Yep. What Blair fails to mention is that the neocons didn't care one whit whether the intelligence was accurate or not and had no interest in finding out beforehand because it was exactly what they wanted to hear. That it was untrue and that they knew it was untrue didn't matter, it was usable propaganda.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

GW Bush surely did not decide about the Iraq War on his own. He was just a muppet (and a drunkard).

T

Besides, I'm still wondering by there was less opposition to the Iraq War than there were to the Vietnam War, and less opposition to the Lybian War than to the Iraq War? Why do we welcome wars in particularly in the Muslim world more and more easily?

The opposition to the VietNam was only really got rolling after Tet in 1968. Most Americans supported it from the early 60s, through the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, thru the buildup into the late 60s.

Why wars against Muslims welcomed..where were you on 9/11/2001?

 

[del1962]

The reason that their was more opposition to the Vietnam War was due to the more American Soldiers killed and the fact that drafting was required for the Vietnam war

 

[Amsterhammer]

The usual bizarrely revisionist view from our resident, right wing religious fundamentalist, is simply too laughable to be taken seriously, and replied to in such a manner.

But this - ..."I still believe that the Iraq War was a left-wing/atheistic undertaking. The "far-right" all opposed to it (whether in the US or in Europe).." needs to be saved for posterity as an example of the apex of ideologically motivated delusion.

 

[VeloCity]

Re:

i realize that my question to some will sound rhetorical, but i am dead serious...

why some horrible deeds by politicians are referred to tribunals as war crimes (note, i dont include here the professional military who largely just follow orders) and other at times more horrible and destructive will be forgotten or at best exude a self-righteous apology ?

an example validity of which is widely accepted :

1. the war in iraq was illegal. check.
2. it was started under a false pretext. check.
3.thousands of american mothers never saw their sons come back home defending the illegal falsehood.
4. hundreds of thousands of iraqi mothers still grieve due to the illegal falsehood.
5. as a former pm responsible for the illegal falsehood just admitted, such barbarian org as isil takes its root from the illegal falsehood
etc...etc

the list could be continued, but really, why such monumental misdeeds by certain politicians are swept aside as mere mistakes, miscalculations or a collateral damage instead of facing a criminal probe

again i am serious and i do understand that political mistakes are not necessarily always ill-intended, still, some politicians are thrown in prisons for what others write memoirs and keep smiling...

Because war crimes only apply to "them", never to "us". We're the "good guys".

 

[rhubroma]

GW Bush surely did not decide about the Iraq War on his own. He was just a muppet (and a drunkard).

The neocon movement was definitely born to soome left-wing intellectual circles close to Trotsky-ism in the 1970's: here. These were intellectuals who were increasingly dissatisfied with Nixon's "détente" policy. As Trotsky-ists they staunchly opposed to the Stalinian power in the USSR at that time. Such intellectuals included Seymour Martin Lipset, Melvin Lasky, and Albert Wohlstetter, among others. All from the City College in New-York.

Wohlstetter influenced Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz among others. There you have the connection between liberal movements of the seventies and the Iraq War.

Far-right politicians and/or intellectuals in the US who opposed the war included Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Paul Gottfried, Gary Johnson. I don't necessarily agree with all that these people are saying but it's a fact we have to note.

In the UK, whether BNP is a joke or not, Griffin opposed the war (again I'm not a supporter of the party, just observe). Farage was unknown at that time but he opposed the Lybian War and the planned intervention in Syria afterwards, which suggests that he would have voiced opposition to the Iraq War in 2003 if he were known then.

On the continent, Le Pen and Haider opposed to it, as well.

On the other hand, left-wing intellectuals such as Christopher Hitchens, Oliver Kamm, Bernard-Henri Lévy (and a barrage of French lefties), etc welcomed it and still defended it after anybody realized that it was a disaster and that the WMD were non-existent.

It must be food for thought, I guess.

Besides, I'm still wondering by there was less opposition to the Iraq War than there were to the Vietnam War, and less opposition to the Lybian War than to the Iraq War? Why do we welcome wars in particularly in the Muslim world more and more easily?

Simple the US overstepped its moment. As to your perplexity: Vietnam = Cold War; Iraq = The New American Century.

 

[blutto]

GW Bush surely did not decide about the Iraq War on his own. He was just a muppet (and a drunkard).

The neocon movement was definitely born to soome left-wing intellectual circles close to Trotsky-ism in the 1970's: here. These were intellectuals who were increasingly dissatisfied with Nixon's "détente" policy. As Trotsky-ists they staunchly opposed to the Stalinian power in the USSR at that time. Such intellectuals included Seymour Martin Lipset, Melvin Lasky, and Albert Wohlstetter, among others. All from the City College in New-York.

Wohlstetter influenced Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz among others. There you have the connection between liberal movements of the seventies and the Iraq War.

Far-right politicians and/or intellectuals in the US who opposed the war included Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Paul Gottfried, Gary Johnson. I don't necessarily agree with all that these people are saying but it's a fact we have to note.

In the UK, whether BNP is a joke or not, Griffin opposed the war (again I'm not a supporter of the party, just observe). Farage was unknown at that time but he opposed the Lybian War and the planned intervention in Syria afterwards, which suggests that he would have voiced opposition to the Iraq War in 2003 if he were known then.

On the continent, Le Pen and Haider opposed to it, as well.

On the other hand, left-wing intellectuals such as Christopher Hitchens, Oliver Kamm, Bernard-Henri Lévy (and a barrage of French lefties), etc welcomed it and still defended it after anybody realized that it was a disaster and that the WMD were non-existent.

It must be food for thought, I guess.

Besides, I'm still wondering by there was less opposition to the Iraq War than there were to the Vietnam War, and less opposition to the Lybian War than to the Iraq War? Why do we welcome wars in particularly in the Muslim world more and more easily?

....oh my, a theo-con throwing stones at the neo-cons.... gosh that is so rich....

Cheers

 

[python]

i was disappointed just reading several responses to echoes, including the echoes posts as well...

specifically, while i don't quite follow the echoes theory of the leftists/liberals being responsible for the iraq invasion, i have to say, he did argue the points and backed them up by some links that challenge the conventional understanding. in stead of addressing his points, which imo are a stretch, he was attacked personally (well, except by rhoma and velocity). too bad, b/c there was an interspersing nuance i'd like to learn more about (echoes referred to) regarding the fact that such prominent conservatives as pat buchanan were consistently against the war...

also, i am puzzled (and quite frankly amused) how easily the americans with best of intentions simplistically attribute the iraq calamity to partisan issues instead of acknowledging the deeper reality of the us bi-partisan congress (despite quite the lively debates) being also responsible ! indeed, the war would never go on if the funds etc were cut off by those anti-war politicians. really.

what i'm saying is this. if the iraq's illegal falsehood was allowed to go on, there are some pretty ugly issues with americam political culture and system, that throw the very essence of american democracy in doubt.

the funny fascination with partisan fingerprinting is the main reason i read that thread by rarely care to contribute..

 

[red_flanders]

Pointing out that the right-wing contains a few populist/isolationist types is hardly news, and in no way excuses the pointed, aggressive, willful, long-planned for, long-argued for invasion of Iraq by the neo-cons. Pointing out that many neocons used to be liberals hardly makes the extremist, interventionist, and frankly idiotic neocon worldview a liberal one.

When someone spouts such nonsense it really takes a bit of restraint not to attack the person, as clearly the views espoused are twisted, agenda-driven drivel which no amount of fact or reason is really going to influence. You're certainly correct that the personal attacks are pointless. But so is responding earnestly.

 

[Merckx index]

Echoes, you're cherry-picking names. Hitchens was not a left-wing intellectual, he was all over the map ideologically, just ask the poster who uses him as his avatar. Buchanan has long been anti-interventionist.

As for finding neo-con roots in the left, you can connect anything with anything if you go back far enough in time. Lincoln freed the slaves, so by your logic you could argue that the civil rights movement of the 60s was a product of Republicans, not Democrats . Nixon was practically a socialist by the standards of the current right wing of the Republican party, so you could argue that he gave birth to Bernie Sanders..

I wouldn't completely dismiss your point about Syria and Libya, but you're missing a lot of differences between our intervention in those countries and in Iraq, let alone in Vietnam. You're also exaggerating the amount of opposition to Iraq, which wasn't that great until the chickens came home to roost several years after the war was over; and you seem to be underestimating the opposition to our actions in Syria. Scott is not some lone wolf in pointing out what a mess we've made there.

 

[python]

it's good to read that most here don't trust the neocon...

but what about the MAIN point made. about the political system, the congress at large that approved the war funds - for a decade to boot. an illegal war started under a false pretense.

was it really that simple ? why a few policy-setting neocons were able to hood-wink for so long hundreds of mp's including the very vocal and probably sincere anti-war members of parliament ?

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

it's good to read that most here don't trust the neocon...

but what about the MAIN point made. about the political system, the congress at large that approved the war funds - for a decade to boot. an illegal war started under a false pretense.

was it really that simple ? why a few policy-setting neocons were able to hood-wink for so long hundreds of mp's including the very vocal and probably sincere anti-war members of parliament ?

A massive terror attack and a subsequent protracted misinformation campaign which followed may have had something to do with it. And spineless politicians who would not resist the demand for blood from many of their constituents who were too clueless about global politics and basic geography to understand that Iraq and Afghanistan aren't the same thing.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

The usual bizarrely revisionist view from our resident, right wing religious fundamentalist, is simply too laughable to be taken seriously, and replied to in such a manner.

But this - ..."I still believe that the Iraq War was a left-wing/atheistic undertaking. The "far-right" all opposed to it (whether in the US or in Europe).." needs to be saved for posterity as an example of the apex of ideologically motivated delusion.

Sorry I missed this before, this sums it up well.

 

[gooner]

Re:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/258016-tony-blair-apologizes-for-iraq-war

"Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is apologizing for the Iraq War and acknowledging that he could be partly to blame for the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. "There are elements of truth" to accusations that his and former President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein in 2003 led to the rise of the terror group in the Middle East, Blair said in an interview with Fareed Zakaria on CNN airing Sunday, according to the Daily Mail. "I apologize for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong," Blair said. "I also apologize for some of the mistakes in planning and, certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the [Saddam Hussein] regime."

A start, I suppose, though much of it is a non-apology apology, but good to see someone from that period actually accepting some responsibility.

Course, if you listen to the American right it's GW who? and everything in the Middle East is entirely Obama's fault.

"I apologise for the faulty intelligence." Lol.

I just watched Fareed Zakaria's programme "Long Road To Hell" with this interview a part of it. I must say it was brilliant analysis of the war and what we see now with ISIS.

Richard Clarke is in no doubt ISIS is a direct result of Bush's failed policies and intervention.

 

[rhubroma]

Re:

i was disappointed just reading several responses to echoes, including the echoes posts as well...

specifically, while i don't quite follow the echoes theory of the leftists/liberals being responsible for the iraq invasion, i have to say, he did argue the points and backed them up by some links that challenge the conventional understanding. in stead of addressing his points, which imo are a stretch, he was attacked personally (well, except by rhoma and velocity). too bad, b/c there was an interspersing nuance i'd like to learn more about (echoes referred to) regarding the fact that such prominent conservatives as pat buchanan were consistently against the war...

also, i am puzzled (and quite frankly amused) how easily the americans with best of intentions simplistically attribute the iraq calamity to partisan issues instead of acknowledging the deeper reality of the us bi-partisan congress (despite quite the lively debates) being also responsible ! indeed, the war would never go on if the funds etc were cut off by those anti-war politicians. really.

what i'm saying is this. if the iraq's illegal falsehood was allowed to go on, there are some pretty ugly issues with americam political culture and system, that throw the very essence of american democracy in doubt.

the funny fascination with partisan fingerprinting is the main reason i read that thread by rarely care to contribute..

Buchanan simply didn't espouse the 'theocratic' basis that drove the neocons into their quixotic episode in Mesopotamia, which justified the war based on America being divinely chosen for a higher cause that would lead to a radical reformation of the Middle East. Many neocons (like Bush himself) actually believed this, while others just cynically latched onto it for profit in the oil and arms industries (Cheney). In the end, while a reactionary like all conservatives, Buchanan is a classical conservative, who, as in the XIX century, hopes for a radical individualism of the American middle class. At the same time, like many classical conservatives he is basically a non-interventionalist, a patriot and US protectionist.

As far as why most American people ignored the deeper issues and historical reality, on the one hand I think this was owing to the way fear generated after 9-11 was cynically used to manipulate them. The necon New American Century ideals could now be formulated into an organic program of military occupation. On the other hand, mainstream ignorance of those issues is also to blame and the mass media's pathetic renouncment of its journalistic responsibility to inform. Lastly, this was American provincialism at its finest, while on the streets of Europe (and many other places around the world) the people were shouting "noooooooo! this is madness!!!"

At any rate I wasn't kidding about the Cold War era radicalism and its ideals in the 60's and early 70's giving way to pop yuppification in the 80's, and the consequences this has had for the civic atrophy that set in the 90's, for which most folks were more occupied with being useful idiots and consumers, rather than paying close attention to the rest of the world. In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, American's were in no condition (much to the neocon's convenience) to formulate an articulated critique of what the hell was going on around them. And in fact the trajectory of history in that moment has led to the disaster of today.

 

[python]

Re: Re:

i was disappointed just reading several responses to echoes, including the echoes posts as well...

specifically, while i don't quite follow the echoes theory of the leftists/liberals being responsible for the iraq invasion, i have to say, he did argue the points and backed them up by some links that challenge the conventional understanding. in stead of addressing his points, which imo are a stretch, he was attacked personally (well, except by rhoma and velocity). too bad, b/c there was an interspersing nuance i'd like to learn more about (echoes referred to) regarding the fact that such prominent conservatives as pat buchanan were consistently against the war...

also, i am puzzled (and quite frankly amused) how easily the americans with best of intentions simplistically attribute the iraq calamity to partisan issues instead of acknowledging the deeper reality of the us bi-partisan congress (despite quite the lively debates) being also responsible ! indeed, the war would never go on if the funds etc were cut off by those anti-war politicians. really.

what i'm saying is this. if the iraq's illegal falsehood was allowed to go on, there are some pretty ugly issues with americam political culture and system, that throw the very essence of american democracy in doubt.

the funny fascination with partisan fingerprinting is the main reason i read that thread by rarely care to contribute..

Buchanan simply didn't espouse the 'theocratic' basis that drove the neocons into their quixotic episode in Mesopotamia, which justified the war based on America being divinely chosen for a higher cause that would lead to a radical reformation of the Middle East. Many neocons (like Bush himself) actually believed this, while others just cynically latched onto it for profit in the oil and arms industries (Cheney). In the end, while a reactionary like all conservatives, Buchanan is a classical conservative, who, as in the XIX century, hopes for a radical individualism of the American middle class. At the same time, like many classical conservatives he is basically a non-interventionalist, a patriot and US protectionist.

As far as why most American people ignored the deeper issues and historical reality, on the one hand I think this was owing to the way fear generated after 9-11 was cynically used to manipulate them. The necon New American Century ideals could now be formulated into an organic program of military occupation. On the other hand, mainstream ignorance of those issues is also to blame and the mass media's pathetic renouncment of its journalistic responsibility to inform. Lastly, this was American provincialism at its finest, while on the streets of Europe (and many other places around the world) the people were shouting "noooooooo! this is madness!!!"

At any rate I wasn't kidding about the Cold War era radicalism and its ideals in the 60's and early 70's giving way to pop yuppification in the 80's, and the consequences this has had for the civic atrophy that set in the 90's, for which most folks were more occupied with being useful idiots and consumers, rather than paying close attention to the rest of the world. In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, American's were in no condition (much to the neocon's convenience) to formulate an articulated critique of what the hell was going on around them. And in fact the trajectory of history in that moment has led to the disaster of today.

my view of international affairs is simple. i look at what verifiably happened or did not...at the cause and effect of deeds and words. this is not to diminish the historical and political categories that you and others often use...

to put it simply, what you and red flanders say is that 9-11 was largely, but not only responsible for paving the way for the bush neocons to con the american parliament - and consequently the entire american nation - into illegal invasion of iraq. perhaps it is correct. yet, my point was, the responsibility for that illegal war must be de facto shared by all voting americans. not just their neo con president at the time.

regarding pat buchanan, what ever tag he is branded with (an isolationist, non-interventionist etc) i reckon if the american right/conservatives were dominated by his ilk, the 9-11 would likely never happen. and the isil would likely never got born, though, the latter, i am not sure about as there are always plenty of those who need to hate and america is just too attractive a target.

then again, look at this morning's news - an american military vessel has demonstratively been routed to south china sea. and this is under the guise of a non-interventionist president ! what if china decides to respond the provocation by some indirect or direct means ? what if some other nervous client of the us misinterprets those 'visit' as an approval for their own anti-china actions ?

there is something very disagreeable about such american moves and i worry it is becoming a cultural consequence of their world view, probably w/o realizing it.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re: Re:

then again, look at this morning's news - an american military vessel has demonstratively been routed to south china sea. and this is under the guise of a non-interventionist president ! what if china decides to respond the provocation by some indirect or direct means ? what if some other nervous client of the us misinterprets those 'visit' as an approval for their own anti-china actions ?

there is something very disagreeable about such american moves and i worry it is becoming a cultural consequence of their world view, probably w/o realizing it.

I think it is in response to China's 'gun boat diplomacy' in the region. Not an isolated act, happens all the time in various places at sea, but the US, Russia and China, who is striving to create a true blue water navy.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Do any of you watch 'Homeland'? The latest episode (no spoilers) featured some amusing interchanges between various characters about the current state of affairs in Syria, and offered a possible scenario for what might be going on behind the scenes right now.

 

[VeloCity]

Re: Re:

i was disappointed just reading several responses to echoes, including the echoes posts as well...

specifically, while i don't quite follow the echoes theory of the leftists/liberals being responsible for the iraq invasion, i have to say, he did argue the points and backed them up by some links that challenge the conventional understanding. in stead of addressing his points, which imo are a stretch, he was attacked personally (well, except by rhoma and velocity). too bad, b/c there was an interspersing nuance i'd like to learn more about (echoes referred to) regarding the fact that such prominent conservatives as pat buchanan were consistently against the war...

also, i am puzzled (and quite frankly amused) how easily the americans with best of intentions simplistically attribute the iraq calamity to partisan issues instead of acknowledging the deeper reality of the us bi-partisan congress (despite quite the lively debates) being also responsible ! indeed, the war would never go on if the funds etc were cut off by those anti-war politicians. really.

what i'm saying is this. if the iraq's illegal falsehood was allowed to go on, there are some pretty ugly issues with americam political culture and system, that throw the very essence of american democracy in doubt.

the funny fascination with partisan fingerprinting is the main reason i read that thread by rarely care to contribute..

Buchanan simply didn't espouse the 'theocratic' basis that drove the neocons into their quixotic episode in Mesopotamia, which justified the war based on America being divinely chosen for a higher cause that would lead to a radical reformation of the Middle East. Many neocons (like Bush himself) actually believed this, while others just cynically latched onto it for profit in the oil and arms industries (Cheney). In the end, while a reactionary like all conservatives, Buchanan is a classical conservative, who, as in the XIX century, hopes for a radical individualism of the American middle class. At the same time, like many classical conservatives he is basically a non-interventionalist, a patriot and US protectionist.

As far as why most American people ignored the deeper issues and historical reality, on the one hand I think this was owing to the way fear generated after 9-11 was cynically used to manipulate them. The necon New American Century ideals could now be formulated into an organic program of military occupation. On the other hand, mainstream ignorance of those issues is also to blame and the mass media's pathetic renouncment of its journalistic responsibility to inform. Lastly, this was American provincialism at its finest, while on the streets of Europe (and many other places around the world) the people were shouting "noooooooo! this is madness!!!"

At any rate I wasn't kidding about the Cold War era radicalism and its ideals in the 60's and early 70's giving way to pop yuppification in the 80's, and the consequences this has had for the civic atrophy that set in the 90's, for which most folks were more occupied with being useful idiots and consumers, rather than paying close attention to the rest of the world. In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, American's were in no condition (much to the neocon's convenience) to formulate an articulated critique of what the hell was going on around them. And in fact the trajectory of history in that moment has led to the disaster of today.

my view of international affairs is simple. i look at what verifiably happened or did not...at the cause and effect of deeds and words. this is not to diminish the historical and political categories that you and others often use...

to put it simply, what you and red flanders say is that 9-11 was largely, but not only responsible for paving the way for the bush neocons to con the american parliament - and consequently the entire american nation - into illegal invasion of iraq. perhaps it is correct. yet, my point was, the responsibility for that illegal war must be de facto shared by all voting americans. not just their neo con president at the time.

regarding pat buchanan, what ever tag he is branded with (an isolationist, non-interventionist etc) i reckon if the american right/conservatives were dominated by his ilk, the 9-11 would likely never happen. and the isil would likely never got born, though, the latter, i am not sure about as there are always plenty of those who need to hate and america is just too attractive a target.

then again, look at this morning's news - an american military vessel has demonstratively been routed to south china sea. and this is under the guise of a non-interventionist president ! what if china decides to respond the provocation by some indirect or direct means ? what if some other nervous client of the us misinterprets those 'visit' as an approval for their own anti-china actions ?

there is something very disagreeable about such american moves and i worry it is becoming a cultural consequence of their world view, probably w/o realizing it.

Because we were repeatedly lied to - Blair's "faulty" intelligence is bulls88t, the Bush administration knew it was false or at best misleading - and in some cases, outright fabrications - but sold it as fact. At the time a lot of people believed the yellow cake story, for eg, now we know that it was a lie and that the administration knew it was a lie at the time, as did Blair - British intelligence told him it was untrue at the time but he ignored it.

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline

Why people like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld aren't in jail is beyond me. Or Chalabi, especially, the guy who was single-handedly responsible for many of the lies and misinformation.

 

[blackcat]

GW Bush surely did not decide about the Iraq War on his own. He was just a muppet (and a drunkard).

guy aint that stupid. even with his classmate at Yale having a laff about his intellect, David Milch that is, but Milch won the bloom English award at Yale, and is a verified jewish genius, so mebbe in those terms, GW is an idjit. But GW aint an idjit. he aint an intellectual, he aint an academic, and he may have struggled to get thru Phillips Academy and Yale, and with his Cambridge mba, but, he aint an idjit. The family aint a bunch of retards innit? Something must rub off just being in those circles, like Vidal's education with his grandfather in congress. You cant be an idjit with that education. <and i am not invoking education qua education, i am just speaking about the adolescence Rupert Murdoch's sons got in Manhattan, nightly dinners with diplomats and heads of state, james and lachlan the scions were always gonna have a different, worldly education by product of their family's and family' dinner table... this is starting to sound <eugenics> lol

anyway, read up on Michael Glennon's Double Government. There are so many people pulling strings in DC, the POTUS is almost a determinist role. They can tinker round the edges with things that big-powers and the geo-politik[sic] states see as inconsequential trivialities.

just p'raps, the NSA general, and the Joint Chiefs head in Pentagon, have more REAL power than anyone in the Whitehouse or Congress. The unvoted voted (sic, you gotta work out the meaning) hint, its not a verb, its a noun.

The neocon movement was definitely born to soome left-wing intellectual circles close to Trotsky-ism in the 1970's: here. These were intellectuals who were increasingly dissatisfied with Nixon's "détente" policy. As Trotsky-ists they staunchly opposed to the Stalinian power in the USSR at that time. Such intellectuals included Seymour Martin Lipset, Melvin Lasky, and Albert Wohlstetter, among others. All from the City College in New-York.

Rupert again, his loss making pamphlet/journal/magazine Weekly Standard edited by the comedian Billy Chystal <strikethru> thats a joke folkx, no, William Kristol is the editor, his old man is generally seen as the pere(father) of neo-conservatism, and some came out of Denver U and think Albright's father, tho not a neo-con was instrumental with his take on international affairs and Russia, he taught Condi Rice at Denver...

Wohlstetter influenced Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz among others. There you have the connection between liberal movements of the seventies and the Iraq War.

Perle Wurmser Feith

A New Break

: Strategy For Securing the Realm during the first Bibi administration in the 90s with Bill Clinton in the Whitehouse, those jewish neo-con advisors were influential in Bibi's Likud party regime... we know that the thru narrative that got ascendency in the Pentagon and Whitehouse State Dep't was the path to regime change in Tehran, overturning Iran (AGAIN) lay thru Iraq, then Syria, then Lebanon, then they could make Iran fall at the final stage.

Far-right politicians and/or intellectuals in the US who opposed the war included Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Paul Gottfried, Gary Johnson. I don't necessarily agree with all that these people are saying but it's a fact we have to note.

In the UK, whether BNP is a joke or not, Griffin opposed the war (again I'm not a supporter of the party, just observe). Farage was unknown at that time but he opposed the Lybian War and the planned intervention in Syria afterwards, which suggests that he would have voiced opposition to the Iraq War in 2003 if he were known then.

On the continent, Le Pen and Haider opposed to it, as well.

On the other hand, left-wing intellectuals such as Christopher Hitchens, Oliver Kamm, Bernard-Henri Lévy (and a barrage of French lefties), etc welcomed it and still defended it after anybody realized that it was a disaster and that the WMD were non-existent.

neo-cons not lefties, and pseudo intellectuals, public intellectuals. they don't further the literature in the academy, they are out for themselves and their face time

It must be food for thought, I guess.

Besides, I'm still wondering by there was less opposition to the Iraq War than there were to the Vietnam War, and less opposition to the Lybian War than to the Iraq War? Why do we welcome wars in particularly in the Muslim world more and more easily?

Port Authority planes as missiles. 9.11

America got hit, the collective psyche got hit, they wanted retribution and revenge, and it did not matter on whom. brown people were the convenient and opportune target. they were not gonna hit back. even accounting for asymmetric response.

Simple the US overstepped its moment. As to your perplexity: Vietnam = Cold War; Iraq = The New American Century.

PNAC. Glennon's double government.

Pentagon and standing armies. Abraham or Avraham Maslow's law of instrument. aka maslow's hammer, it is a bit lit the hierarchy of needs wrt its patent truth, obvious, given, manifest.

But if the budget for the Pentagon is in realm (pun/sic) of a trillion, they gotta do something with that trillion. When the MICC(militarycongressionalcomplex) wants to sell them half a trillion or materiel and hardware, and software, and K-Street lobbies The Hill to the tune of a few billion.... you do the sums . In the inimitable words of Jan Ullrich, and immortal words, if you cant add two and two together I cant help you.

 

[blackcat]

here is Glennon on Double Government, he is a prof in the international strategy faculty at Tufts
http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-national-security-and-double-government-by-michael-j-glennon-1419983619
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Double_Government
http://scotthorton.org/interviews/2014/10/22/102214-michael-glennon/
http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html

oh Glenn, if you pot Scott Horton, u can just ferk right off

(yes, I have invoked Glennon multiple times on here already)

THE VOTERS WHO put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.

But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.

 

[blackcat]

also, dont believe that Petraeus had that affair with Valerie Plame and his biographer...ok, it wasnt Plame, just throwing a few jokes in..

dont believe that Petraeus had that affair with the WaPo biographer and no-one knew about it and then when it goes big and hits the airwaves Obama asks him for his resignation because of pillow talk.

No, this is not how this d'affaire went down. /grammar. I just prefer to use d'affaire, cos it confers an elan on my posts.


here are some points on d'affaire Petraeus.

i) ambitious man
ii) Murdoch is in his corner, he intimates, no, more than intimates, heck it was seeded in WSJ and other of Murdoch's papers and media and Fox, that Rupe is gonna be the patron and organising the sounding group or whatever it is called for the tilt at the Whitehouse for Petraeus. This is the 2012 election where Romney has the GOP nomination.
iii)sometime around 06 07 Petraeus is chief of CIA, after he resigned from the Afghanistan and Iraq general chief, dont think he was ever inside Pentagon in Joint Chiefs, please give me a wide berth, not american here... aphorism of maciavelli rings true keep your friends close and enemies closer
iiii) Petraeus does his Dreams About My Father tome, but the biographer is penned by a similarly ambitious youngish journalist who was formerly a Pentagon staffer and rose to something lieutenant and may have been at West Point, matters little for the point of my post alliterationz
iiiii) (I dont do greek numbering well) everyone becomes aware of his d'affaire /grammar with his biographer.
iiiiii) Obama wants to smack him down, his d'affaire is leaked to sympathetic ears at WaPo and NYTimes...
iiiiiii) we have always heard the prefix for Landis, then Armstrong, the adjective disgraced, now fit for Petraeus.
iiiiiiii) Petraeus has no option but to resign and fall on his sword... Rupert cant help... Petraeus is now a blind mine searching in the rubble to recover his "legacy".

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Do any of you watch 'Homeland'? The latest episode (no spoilers) featured some amusing interchanges between various characters about the current state of affairs in Syria, and offered a possible scenario for what might be going on behind the scenes right now.

is this like the show with IKeifer Sutherland 24 and the producer/director who had a publicised ambition to normalise torture, much like the Harvard OJ Simpson law professor, Dershowitz also wrote a book on torture...

#tickingtimebombfallacy

some of the graphic designers who the producers or directors of Homeland contracted to do some of the set/art design with arabic graffit did one of the oldest tattoo tropes in Asia when the tattoo artists put on their sanskrit tattoos to bogans/white trash like Beckham and other college co-ed drunks, something profane in the letters they tattoo on their skin... well, the graffiti on homeland, supposedly says, "Homeland is racist" or something to that effect.

 

[blackcat]

people you cant isolate Iraq as a discreet action.

You dont even need to read Smedly Butler or Zinn.

This is just a linear extrapolation of the American Experiment.

That is the aperture lens, but a meta or macro prism, would offer something more profound on human behaviour and organising principles.

a devil's advocate, or caveat, the Canadian philosopher, Canadian American philosopher Steven Pinker, has a statistical and analytical take on conflict and war, and it being less prevalent.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111904106704576583203589408180

p'raps, without reading Pinker, p'raps it is a confluence of technology and media, and the spread of news and history. we think that **** is bad because of access to news, and the media gatekeepers now being kneecapped.

and technology means wars are now prevented with the mutally assured desctruction or this as a metaphor, no one will likely take on the Americans because they will crush them, and asymmetic hits only take a few thousand at 9.11

And no one in the ME will take on the Israelis. except a few Palestinians with knives when they have lost hope and wish to commit suicide (see: If Americans Knew by Alison Weir for the true fatality numbers)

And the Americans and Russians will just fight proxy wars over ports in Tartus in the Med, when the Yanks true ambition is actually an ambition to stifle the Sino's getting their hands on resources in Africa and the Persians oil and the Libyan's oil fields. The Yanks ambitions was about AFRICOM to stifle the Sino's ambitions. The Yanks dont give two hoots about Israel, they will fukc them over just like they have fukced over everyone else, wont matter how much AIPAC put up a stink.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Buchanan simply didn't espouse the 'theocratic' basis that drove the neocons into their quixotic episode in Mesopotamia, which justified the war based on America being divinely chosen for a higher cause that would lead to a radical reformation of the Middle East. Many neocons (like Bush himself) actually believed this, while others just cynically latched onto it for profit in the oil and arms industries (Cheney). In the end, while a reactionary like all conservatives, Buchanan is a classical conservative, who, as in the XIX century, hopes for a radical individualism of the American middle class. At the same time, like many classical conservatives he is basically a non-interventionalist, a patriot and US protectionist.

I am not rejecting your point, or reducing it to one motive re theocracy, we both are aware there are many motives in the mixing pot that are used to justify the decision. but p'raps, the most significant is the groupthink and determinism. This is what America does. America seeks to shape the world. In GW or Chenye's words, cant remember who said it, "create our own reality". well, "create your own counter-factual u fukcers" alliterationz

they have a self-selection fallacy or barrier to entry at West Point. How many Snowden's or Ellsberg's get thru the psychological testing and background research on candidates...

The World as tabula rasa for everyone in DC and the shadow government organisations and departments.

Also, the motives for Iraq, as tabula rasa. It is pretty easy to point to about a dozen elements, and make a legitimate case for this motive being the most significant element into the war decision. And you will find quotes from either the Bush regime, and Wolfowitz or Feith or Perle or Cheney or Rumsfeld or other people and learned people, public intellectuals, people like Blair, people like Murdoch, you can find the quotes to support your case (rhetoric, not a response to Rhub, just a generic response). But why are there similar arguments for many other motives and reasoning(s)? Because they are all legit. So what would this tell you?

That they are all legit?
That none are legit?
That too many people have influence in DC?
That the reasoning is so incoherent?
That the beuracracy of nations of a certain size and maturity with all the civic faculties, becomes unwieldy, and impossible to govern coherently? (I think Eric Schlosser alludes to this in his latest book on nuclear weapons, and the trend to complexity, creates its own problems

I think it is complex systems theory, and system complexity. Then one becomes prisoner(metaphor) to the system. The system is self-fulfilling and governing. see: Snowden and NSA for starters. How do you turn around the boat when it is as unwieldy as titanic and going into a narrow harbor?

As far as why most American people ignored the deeper issues and historical reality, on the one hand I think this was owing to the way fear generated after 9-11 was cynically used to manipulate them. The necon New American Century ideals could now be formulated into an organic program of military occupation. On the other hand, mainstream ignorance of those issues is also to blame and the mass media's pathetic renouncment of its journalistic responsibility to inform. Lastly, this was American provincialism at its finest, while on the streets of Europe (and many other places around the world) the people were shouting "noooooooo! this is madness!!!"

At any rate I wasn't kidding about the Cold War era radicalism and its ideals in the 60's and early 70's giving way to pop yuppification in the 80's, and the consequences this has had for the civic atrophy that set in the 90's, for which most folks were more occupied with being useful idiots and consumers, rather than paying close attention to the rest of the world. In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, American's were in no condition (much to the neocon's convenience) to formulate an articulated critique of what the hell was going on around them. And in fact the trajectory of history in that moment has led to the disaster of today.

basically, the two paras the synopsis of what i was attempting to say in one page of threads, if i had just read and quoted this post and said x1000 before i went on to extemporise