The Complete Absence of Common Sense

[Michael Tee]

<<What Tee is missing in his hypothesis is that the buildup to then the invasion all took place less than two years after 9/11/01. People in this country were still loaded for bear to get at someone, anyone who thought to be responsible or a threat to the nation in this "global war on terror".>>   

I didn't miss it.  That's actually Richard Gwynne's theory, expressed in his book "Future Tense," only he was a little more sanguine about who the real targets were.  Not "anyone thought to be responsible or a threat" but any vulnerable target.   The theory was that the U.S. had been slapped hard across the face by a mere handful of punks.  The punks were Arabs.  The idea was to pick some Arab nation, ANY Arab nation (as long as it couldn't really hit back) and kick its ass to show the world that the U.S. still had the muscle.  If the idea spread that the U.S. was all talk and no action, all hell could break loose.

I find it hard to buy into that theory - - basically that machismo was the primary motivation behind the invasion of Iraq - - because in general I believe that capitalist states act in their own economic interests, and in particular because the plan for the invasion of Iraq (minus only the excuse for it) already existed in the form of the PNAC, drawn up by Bush's own top advisers.

<<Plus the fact that many thought we didn't finish the job back in '91 so it was time to take care of un-finished business.>>

I just don't think too many people were focused on what happened in '91.  It wasn't relevant to anything, nobody really gave a shit about Saddam, he wasn't bothering the U.S. (except for ineffectually shooting at their planes) and it wasn't on anybody's top ten list except for the PNAC planners and the Zionists (often the same people.)

[larry]

Without the media, the imbalance could well become codified by the reigning usurped power.

I agree, Crane. The media is one of the keys to success or failure. The politics of bondage have always been deceptive and misleading. Bondage is a word Americans need to give more thought.

[BT]

I find it hard to buy into that theory - - basically that machismo was the primary motivation behind the invasion of Iraq - - because in general I believe that capitalist states act in their own economic interests, and in particular because the plan for the invasion of Iraq (minus only the excuse for it) already existed in the form of the PNAC, drawn up by Bush's own top advisers.

And yet the PNAC plan was chock full of machismo (we are the only superpower and as top dog we should project outward) and had little to do with capitalist interests.

Do you even read what you post?

[Michael Tee]

<<And yet the PNAC plan was chock full of machismo (we are the only superpower and as top dog we should project outward) and had little to do with capitalist interests.

<<Do you even read what you post?>>

Not only do I read what I post, I read what I post about.  (Well, sometimes)  The PNAC plan was about remaking the middle east for quasi-altruistic reasons.  Reading between the lines, which wasn't hard to do because the sub-text was pretty obvious, there was basically a rationale of grabbing the oil.    Plus the geopolitical advantages that would accrue to the U.S. from having a bunch of satellite states in the region.  There's nothing macho about any aspect of that - - the altruism, real or fake, the greed and the geopolitics. 

Machismo in the sense of appearing to be tough, posturing so as not to lose prestige when one has been violently and successfully attacked - - that was independent of gain, whether material or strategic, and has nothing at all to do with any kind of altruism.  The machismo of Gwynne's theory had nothing at all in common with any of the goals of PNAC.

Yes, of course I read what I post.  Do you understand all the words in my posts?

[BT]

Yes, of course I read what I post.  Do you understand all the words in my posts?

Sure i do. And i understand that you fling rationales against the wall and see what sticks. You make a claim that the war was all about oil and capitalist gains yet fail to come up with one shred of evidence. When challenged with inconsistencies in your theories, you are reduced to name calling and other lame debate tactics.

We came for the oil yet we do not control its production nor its distribution. It's all about money yet it is costing us a bundle to be there. You claim the doctrinaire foundation of the war was the PNAC letters yet fail to recognize and even deny the arrogance and machismo inherent in the documents.

Back to you.