Lousy Political Timing

[Michael Tee]

<<And if he wasn't concerned with that? [nuclear anihilation by the U.S. in retaliation for launching or arming a WMD strike on America?]  Suicide bombers aren't concerned with what happens to them, and Saddam supported them, why should he care what happens to him or Iraq. The damage inflicted is what would count. >>

More right-wing fantasizing from the paranoid lunatic fringe.  There isn't a suicide attack in history INCLUDING 911 that posed the remotest risk of nuclear anihilation to the perpetrators or their sponsors.  Not even Bush and his gang of amoral war criminals ever proposed nuking the perps of any "terrorist" or other hostile act to date.  A suicide bomber is nothing more than an alternative means of delivering conventional explosives by ground transport that less courageous combatants like the U.S.A. and Israel prefer to deliver by air.  It's absurd to think that any strike by a suicide bomber would invite a nuclear retaliation.

But thanks for a classic demonstration of right-wing "logic" at work.  I'll use the same "reasoning" in a slightly different context:  Bush sends young Americans to fight and die in Iraq.  These young Americans have the dedication necessary to put their lives on the line to fight America's battles overseas.  Therefore Bush has the dedication necessary to put his life on the line to fight America's battles overseas.  

<<Adjust you sights, commie boy. You miss more than you hit. >>

Not in your case, BT.  I hit every time and you know it.

<<And you certainly do need the practice. >>

Well, everybody can benefit from a little practice.  Nobody's perfect.

[Michael Tee]

But since you exist only as a sequence of characters on my monitor, it is quite likely I who have conceived both your mind AND your allegedly superior reality which you claim it conceives and perceives and therefore my mind has to be the superior one.

[BT]

Mikey,

The war in Iraq isn't about Bush. And if you can't even hit that target correctly, what can you hit.

If it is about oil then it wouldn't matter which party controlled the whitehouse. Because we all know the oil oligarchy controls whoever sits in the chair.

You yourself have said there isn't a dimes difference between the dems and the GOP. They all answer to their masters.

Reload and aim again.

[Religious Dick]

And where's a precident for a terrorist organization using any such weapons?

The ricin attacks in Tokyo.

And yes you can make your own Ricin.

It wasn't Ricin, it was Sarin. And yes, they did make it themselves, which illustrates my point. Seriously, if you were going to initiate a gas attack in the United States, would it be easier to synthesize it here, or try to smuggle in the massive quantity required?

That one strikes me as a no-brainer.

[domer]

To me, you're an actual person sitting at home at a keyboard taking his daily playtime, which, mostly, is to vent not to enlighten. And therein lies my superiority, if any: I truly seek to think and enlighten.

[Michael Tee]

<<The oil issue factors in to decisions, of course, in this way: not so much as to US "control" of the Iraqi output but so to keep the political situation in the Middle East conducive to a continued flow of oil. This is not, except corruptly, about oil companies and fat cat profits; instead, regarding this factor, it is, in a very real sense, designed to keep our nation's lifeblood flowing, and thus averting major dislocation, suffering and death of average Joes like me.>>

Well, since the oil was flowing without the invasion and in all likelihood would have continued to flow for the immediate  future, the invasion could not have had anything to do with "keeping the flow going"  since there was no immediate threat to it.  There WAS, however, Saddam's threat to denominate Iraqi oil sales in euros, a decision which, if adopted, would have had serious negative repercussions on the strength of your vulnerable dollar, particularly if others followed suit.  If you have anything in mind beyond the immediate future, then it seems you are agreeing with me:  they want the flow [to them] to continue in my future scenario of vastly increased international demand outstripping production, when the major players (China in particular) are a lot more muscular than they are at present.  I agree with the possibility you have expressed, that the concern might be more altruistic, in that it could genuinely be about the nation's need for oil, not Bush and Cheney's concerns for the bottom line of their oilpatch buds.  However, given the corrupt and venal nature of both of these men, it is kind of hard to imagine them forsaking a God-given opportunity to reap the immense wealth that is just there for the taking.

<<But beyond oil, only a true incorrigible cynic would fail to understand the genuine fear and the reflexive impulse to fight back at the appropriate targets caused by the 911 attacks. >>

Quite honestly, I have yet to meet a real New Yorker who felt any "reflexive impulse" to invade Iraq in response to the 911 attacks.  The only ones I know who will support the Iraq war are rabid Zionists who are just happy to see an enemy of the State of Israel destroyed and his country dismembered into feuding factions.  They see it as one less problem for the Israelis to worry about.    All of them, the Zionists and non-Zionists alike, feel it's sheer insanity to connect Iraq or Saddam to what happened on 911.  If this "reflexive impulse" existed anywhere, it certainly wasn't prevalent in the city most directly victimized by the attacks and I suspect it was deliberately fostered for the sole purpose of facilitating a preconceived administration plan that was related only tangentially if at all to 911.

<<The rationales offered in the beginning were not fig leaves as much as they were the chimera of impassioned minds (leading, I must add, to a wrong policy choice on Iraq). ..

That might have been semi-convincing, had we known nothing of PNAC and the involvment of Bush's senior cabinet members in the plan.  Passion had nothing to do with this.

<<The successive rationales, laudable if successful, were occasioned by the new situation that prevailed in Iraq post-invasion. >>

Does this mean what I think it does?  That as the situation on the ground changed, new reasons for staying there had to be cooked up accordingly?  [I'm leaving aside the "laudable if successful" part because it opens a whole nuther can of worms.]  I'd go along with that.  They lying bastards went in on false pretences and when the original lie was exploded, they had to invent new ones.

<<The idea now, according to all well-meaning people, is to end the matter most successfully according to the highest principles that can be brought to bear on the problem.>>

WOW.  THAT'S lawyer-talk.  You oughtta write for "President" Bush.  It says everything and it says nothing, all at the same time.  Who are "all well-meaning people?"  Are Bush and Cheney included?  Is Jim Baker?  (If I might digress for a moment, WTF is so "well-meaning" about Baker and what group of Americans did he ever benefit?)  Is Cindy Sheehan well-meaning?  Is Ted Kennedy?   Don't ALL "well-meaning people" want to end every project "most successfully" and what are the "highest principles" and which of them can be brought to bear on the problem?  Is that really a confession that nobody knows now what to do?

[Michael Tee]

<<The war in Iraq isn't about Bush. And if you can't even hit that target correctly, what can you hit. >>

The target in this case, BT, was neither Bush nor the war in Iraq.  It was YOU, specifically your absurd contention that the U.S. had a genuine reason to fear that Saddam would turn over his WMD to third parties to attack the USA with."

<<Reload and aim again.>>

Nah, once right in the bull's eye is enough for me.  It was a pretty big bull's eye anyway.  Time for a new target.


<<If it is about oil then it wouldn't matter which party controlled the whitehouse. Because we all know the oil oligarchy controls whoever sits in the chair.

<<You yourself have said there isn't a dimes difference between the dems and the GOP. They all answer to their masters. >>

As is proven by the fact that the Dems didn't put up any fight at all against the invasion and didn't even put an unconditional pull-out in their 2004 campaign.

It's only when the master's plans go badly awry that some servants see the problem faster than others.  The Republicans, being a bunch of crypto-fascist militarist morons, won't see the problems until the disaster is staring them straight in the face, the Democrats, being considerably brighter, will probably see if from further down the road.

[Michael Tee]

<<To me, you're an actual person sitting at home at a keyboard taking his daily playtime, which, mostly, is to vent not to enlighten. And therein lies my superiority, if any: I truly seek to think and enlighten.>.

Well, domer, believe it or not, I too am trying to enlighten.  Not necessarily my interlocutors, but those who follow the thread.  And encourage.  I want people who hear the kind of fascist claptrap freely bandied about here to know that there IS an answer, and that they can and should give it.  I even believe that you too are a real person.  You're NOT a figment of my imagination.  Are you?

[BT]

Seriously, if you were going to initiate a gas attack in the United States, would it be easier to synthesize it here, or try to smuggle in the massive quantity required?

I would purchase the finished and certified product rather than try to cook it up on my own in a basement lab.

I believe there are less cargo inspectors than nosy busy body neighbors and my chances of getting caught were less. And with a cut out picking up the shipment, i would have a better chance of beating the rap than i would if i made the goods myself.

I would also let the gas loose in more than one Wal Mart during the after thanksgiving sales.

[domer]

Michael, I coupled "reflexive impulse" with "appropriate target," which Iraq was not, though the passions of the moment made it seem such to many. Undoubtedly, the administration's pre-existing mindset skewed the deliberations in Iraq's direction. That is not to say that those preconceptions were corruptly employed as much recklessly applied: idea met opportunity in a distorting sea of fear and anger.

The focus continually shifted as the occupation wore on, with Bush never admitting his errors in the WMD prediction and the terrorist-supplier belief. We were there, and the situation had changed. A country wrenched from a brutal dictator, comprised of disparate elements, had to be helped along to stable governance (if possible). So the focus turned to that. Quite clearly, in the wake of his non-confessions, Bush used this as political cover. That, however, did not undercut the need of a victor and occupier to aid the defeated and occupied in its new start, an undertaking, I submit, that is clearly within creed of any worthwhile political or military philosophy. This begs the question, the one currently so acute, as to whether this rehabilitation is even possible given the realities.

Finally, I think all of the people you mention are well-meaning. Indeed, Kennedy was not only well-meaning but prescient. Bush andd Cheney, I maintain, are well-meaning but ideologically ensnared, which skews their judgment. And yes, I purposely left the matter vague, for two reasons: it encourages discussion, and anything more definite, at my station and level of understanding, would just be talk for the sake of talk, which, contrary to stereotype, is not what this lawyer is about.

[Religious Dick]

Seriously, if you were going to initiate a gas attack in the United States, would it be easier to synthesize it here, or try to smuggle in the massive quantity required?

I would purchase the finished and certified product rather than try to cook it up on my own in a basement lab.

I believe there are less cargo inspectors than nosy busy body neighbors and my chances of getting caught were less. And with a cut out picking up the shipment, i would have a better chance of beating the rap than i would if i made the goods myself.

I would also let the gas loose in more than one Wal Mart during the after thanksgiving sales.

Considering that every act of terrorism I'm aware of has been perpetrated using home grown implements, including the one instance of Sarin gas, I suspect that your preferences are not shared by most real terrorists.

But even aside from that, say you are an unusually persnickety terrorist, and now that Saddam is gone, and you have to resort to synthesizing your own  Sarin. How much of a barrier is that going to be to someone that was serious enough to attempt importing it? I expect if they're tenacious enough to import it, they're tenacious enough to synthesize it. It's not really all that hard.

[Amianthus]

Considering that every act of terrorism I'm aware of has been perpetrated using home grown implements,

The terrorists built those planes they used on 9/11?

[Religious Dick]

Considering that every act of terrorism I'm aware of has been perpetrated using home grown implements,

The terrorists built those planes they used on 9/11?

You're expecting a serious answer to that?

Were airplanes a locally available implement, or not?

[Michael Tee]

Good post, domer.  Not much I'd disagree with there except I do find it extremely hard to think of Bush and Cheney as well-meaning.  I suppose it's possible, but certainly no more so than that they are NOT well-meaning.

I guess even "well-meaning" is a fairly subjective term.

Would you consider them well-meaning if they invaded Iraq to preserve America's oil supply without any motive of personal or corporate gain?

[Plane]

"..absurd contention that the U.S. had a genuine reason to fear that Saddam would turn over his WMD to third parties to attack the USA with."

This wouldn't seem out of caricter for him , his attempt to kill former President Bush for example , his funding of Palestinian extremists for another.

"...Saddam's threat to denominate Iraqi oil sales in euros, a decision which, if adopted, would have had serious negative repercussions on the strength of your vulnerable dollar, particularly if others followed suit...."


Hmmmm..   Is this a reason for the common American to be offended with Saddam?  Rich Americans and Oil companys can get Euros.