A New Spin on Iraq...

[Henny]

No but he would have to have reached the heights  of other academics like Kissinger, Rice, Brezenski or even Patrick Moynihan for me to acknowledge that he was influential upon the Bush Admin.

This guy has as much influence as Pat Buchanan. Little to none.

BT, I thought about this a bit, and I still disagree with the brush off you're giving Daniel Pipes in regards to this discussion. Point is, he is currently assigned to a DoD committee. You have equated him to Noam Chomsky, but has Noam Chomsky ever been taken seriously enough under any administration to be assigned to an advisory committee? I've looked and have yet to find anything.

[BT]

henny,

The larger point was one of influence. Even with Pipes being thrown a bone by being placed on some obscure committee i doubt he has had the influence of a Chomsky whose books were touted by Hugo Chavez on the floor of the UN. Fact is Chomsky is an anti-authoritarian so it wouldn't make sense to place him in a position of authority.

[Michael Tee]

<<This guy [Pipes] has as much influence as Pat Buchanan. Little to none. >>

I agree, but that's totally missing the point.  Pipes' blatherings about Arab society and its supposed incompatibility with "democracy" are about as relevant to Bush and his gang as studies on the relative frequency of flower metaphors in Shakespeare and Chaucer.  The point being, Bush and his gang don't give a shit about democracy in Iraq and don't need Pipes to advise them on how it can best be installed there or even IF it can be installed there at all.  Their concerns are far more practical - - how to instal a relatively stable puppet regime that will follow U.S. dictates and give the U.S. what it wants: first right of refusal on all Iraqi oil, no energy policy in conflict with U.S. interests, and unlimited perpetual rights to establish and maintain military bases.

Pipes is kind of a "useful idiot" to the administration.  He and others like him keep the "debate" bubbling - - can "democracy" be installed in Iraq without junking the indigenous culture or can it be installed only at the cost of the old indigenous culture?  Sort of like a "debate" in the Third Reich over whether its racial inferiors should be exterminated by gas or by shooting.  The basic premise of the debate remains the same on both sides of the fake issue and is never questioned, i.e. in this case that the U.S. is in Iraq to spread "democracy."

[Plane]

<<This guy [Pipes] has as much influence as Pat Buchanan. Little to none. >>

I agree, but that's totally missing the point.  Pipes' blatherings about Arab society and its supposed incompatibility with "democracy" are about as relevant to Bush and his gang as studies on the relative frequency of flower metaphors in Shakespeare and Chaucer.  The point being, Bush and his gang don't give a shit about democracy in Iraq and don't need Pipes to advise them on how it can best be installed there or even IF it can be installed there at all.  Their concerns are far more practical - - how to instal a relatively stable puppet regime that will follow U.S. dictates and give the U.S. what it wants: first right of refusal on all Iraqi oil, no energy policy in conflict with U.S. interests, and unlimited perpetual rights to establish and maintain military bases.

Pipes is kind of a "useful idiot" to the administration.  He and others like him keep the "debate" bubbling - - can "democracy" be installed in Iraq without junking the indigenous culture or can it be installed only at the cost of the old indigenous culture?  Sort of like a "debate" in the Third Reich over whether its racial inferiors should be exterminated by gas or by shooting.  The basic premise of the debate remains the same on both sides of the fake issue and is never questioned, i.e. in this case that the U.S. is in Iraq to spread "democracy."

It is not a fake issue.

Without the promise of fostering democracy the America people wold never sign on to the project.

The American people are the bigget of the major players in this drama.

[Michael Tee]

<<It is not a fake issue.Without the promise of fostering democracy the America people wold never sign on to the project. >>

It's a fake issue because the idea that the U.S. government has spent half a trillion dollars to "foster democracy" in Iraq is an obvious lie.  It's absolutely preposterous.  There is no intention whatsoever to "foster democracy" in Iraq.  Democracy is the last fucking thing the U.S. government wants to see there.

[sirs]

It's a fake issue because the idea that the U.S. government has spent half a trillion dollars to "foster democracy" in Iraq is an obvious lie.  It's absolutely preposterous.  There is no intention whatsoever to "foster democracy" in Iraq.  Democracy is the last fucking thing the U.S. government wants to see there.

Well, that's 1 completely unsubstantiated and may I add, asanine opinion

[Plane]

<<It is not a fake issue.Without the promise of fostering democracy the America people wold never sign on to the project. >>

It's a fake issue because the idea that the U.S. government has spent half a trillion dollars to "foster democracy" in Iraq is an obvious lie.  It's absolutely preposterous.  There is no intention whatsoever to "foster democracy" in Iraq.  Democracy is the last fucking thing the U.S. government wants to see there.

The US government is not more influential than the American people, they are diffrent and the same depending on what in particular they are doing.

The US government is supposed to be on the leash of the people and the people are lead and persueded by the government , but not to do as they do not approve.

If democracy in Iraq is what the people are persuaded is important it is thereby important.

[Michael Tee]

<<Well, that's 1 completely unsubstantiated and may I add, asanine opinion>>

It's substantiated by a TON of circumstantial evidence, common sense and realism.  The truly asinine opinion is that the U.S. is in Iraq to spread democracy.  That's another lie in a whole pack of lies and the people who make up those whoppers are probably peeing in their pants laughing at the idiots who actually believe in them.

[Michael Tee]

<<The US government is not more influential than the American people, they are diffrent and the same depending on what in particular they are doing.

<<The US government is supposed to be on the leash of the people and the people are lead and persueded by the government , but not to do as they do not approve.>>

The US government can flout the will of the people as long as it chooses to do so unless and until it clashes with some powerful interest group such as the financial or business community.  Viet Nam was one obvious example and Iraq will turn out to be another.

<<If democracy in Iraq is what the people are persuaded is important it is thereby important.>>

Important only in that lies and bullshit have to be created to trick the people into thinking that their wishes are being followed.  Important only as a limiting factor, that when the lies and bullshit start to wear thin, then the government unless it can find new lies and bullshit will finally have to call it quits.

[sirs]

It's substantiated by a TON of circumstantial evidence, common sense and realism.  The truly asinine opinion is that the U.S. is in Iraq to spread democracy.  That's another lie in a whole pack of lies and the people who make up those whoppers are probably peeing in their pants laughing at the idiots who actually believe in them.

Actually, it's substantiated by a TON of hyperbolic accusatory innuendo from like minds.  Common sense and realism haven't shown themselves in that Bush lied diatribe, since the get go

[Michael Tee]

<<Common sense and realism haven't shown themselves in that Bush lied diatribe, since the get go>>

Common sense manifests itself in that when a preposterous excuse is made to invade a small country (we are afraid of what damage Iraq will do to us) bullshit is recognized as bullshit; furthermore, when the original excuse is exposed as the bullshit which it always was, and the army stays and continues fighting the people of the country, and a new excuse is invented, that also is recognized as bullshit.

Realism manifests itself in the realization that ever since oil was discovered in the Middle East, foreign powers have invaded and interfered in local governments to control the oil supply and that this doesn't just stop for no reason the night before Bush and his British partners in crime decide to invade Iraq.  Conversely, absence of realism manifests itself in the willingness of people to believe that the same U.S. government that props up the dictatorships of Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is very, very interested in promoting "democracy" in Iraq.

[Plane]

I am sorry MT but in the course a a debate "common sense" applies to only those who agree with me.


All others must bring stronger ammunition.

[sirs]

<<Common sense and realism haven't shown themselves in that Bush lied diatribe, since the get go>>

Common sense manifests itself in that when a preposterous excuse is made to invade a small country

Preposterous in your completely unobjective OPINION, based on YOUR distorted rationales, (i.e. Saddam's imminent attack on America), which again, only morons on the right, and apparently the left bought into.  When it's based on REALITY, the "excuses" more than demonstrate the vailidty of our operation 

furthermore, when the original excuse is exposed as the bullshit which it always was, and the army stays and continues fighting the people of the country, and a new excuse is invented, that also is recognized as bullshit.

This is more of the garbage of pushing a false premise, then debunking the false premise.  Of course it's BS that saddam was just about to attack America with WMD.  Your problem is NO ONE WAS CLAIMING OR PUSHING THAT.  Your "Mushroom cloud" remains the prevention of Saddam in aquiring it, NOT in prevening his imminent attempt to blow up Boston.  Again, rationally minded people get it.  The others.....?  Well, There's always the Elvis Factor

Realism manifests itself in the realization that ever since oil was discovered in the Middle East, foreign powers have invaded and interfered in local governments to control the oil supply and that this doesn't just stop for no reason the night before Bush and his British partners in crime decide to invade Iraq. 

Realism is if it were about the oil, we would have annexed it from the beginning, and have them guarded 24/7 by our own military.  we'd refer to it as downpayment for our efforts at taking out Saddam.  If we were as evil as you keep claiming, THAT's what would have happened.  To hell with the Iraqis and their democracy, we have the military, and we had the justification. 

[Plane]

[]
Realism is if it were about the oil, we would have annexed it from the beginning, and have them guarded 24/7 by our own military.  we'd refer to it as downpayment for our efforts at taking out Saddam.  If we were as evil as you keep claiming, THAT's what would have happened.  To hell with the Iraqis and their democracy, we have the military, and we had the justification. 

It might behoove us to start paying more attention to the oil.

We need for the oil to start paying for the rebuild of Iraq , it can also pay for the stregthenig of the legitamate  Iriqui government .


Allowing development and the sale of oil to be so slow is starveing the Iriqui people and hamstringing the Iriqui government , I would estimate this to be a success of the insurgency.

[sirs]

It might behoove us to start paying more attention to the oil.  We need for the oil to start paying for the rebuild of Iraq , it can also pay for the stregthenig of the legitamate  Iriqui government .

Agreed.  But according to Tee, we were paying attention to it before hand.  Yet strangely, we're not controlling it.  The one and only real reason we went into iraq, and we're not in charge of it?, not controlling it's flow?, not guarding it 24/7 with our most elite military units and their hardware?  What gives??

Perhaps maybe because it WASN'T about the oil?