understand it. j/k Great post and good analysis!
----- Original Message -----
From: Harkins, Patrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:31:12 -0400
Subject: RE: Define Terrorism (was Re: Poll - Did you believe ...)
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For the answer to your question I think we have to look to psychology. Or
Laurens Van Der Post's book from the 50's: The Dark Eye in Africa. Basic
thesis: There is such a thing as a collective madness, that can sometime
take over when people in a society dwell too much in the light of
rationality and have not integrated the chaotic darker forces in their
personalities. Think it's a coincidence that Bush is a fundamentalist
Christian? I don't.
That wasn't "intelligence" he saw. It was a speck in his eye. And we have
become the visitor to the room in the Monty Python skit about the expedition
between the two peaks of Mt Kilimanjaro. And the room is wrecked.
I would argue that on a certain level, Bush wasn't Bush anymore, but a
manifestation of the collective desire to strike out and hurt those who hurt
us. The rest of the picture is relatively unimportant.
I have to admit that although opposed to the war, part of me couldn't help
but feel glad that Saddam was being taken down and that the festeric
anaerobic pustule of desert arabism was finally being lanced. Live by the
sword, die by the sword and that sort of thing.
There is a certain logic to moving in to knock out the demon they figured
was removable, in order to gain a closer position from which to wage an
ongoing struggle against terror. That is likely the logic that guys like
Powell may have hoped might work. Instead it has proved to have been a
mistake, by most all accounts.
When Saddam became the "other" and the "enemy" in the eye of the most
powerful politician in the country, the other powerbrokers had no choice but
to buy in and follow. And reason and humanity went out the window.
Cheney and others knew that Saddam had WMDs at one time because they sold
them to him. They must have thought he would still have them or at least
evidence of them somewhere. They didn't figure on him covering his tracks so
well. Meanwhile the light of public attention is still off the Saudis... for
now.
Patrick
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kris Baca [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: August 18, 2004 1:58 PM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: Re: Define Terrorism (was Re: Poll - Did you believe ...)
>
>
>Hi Patrick,
>
>I agree that getting rid of Mr. Hussein achieved multiple objectives,
>whether they are worth the risk is to be determined. As to showing
>American might and resolve I'd say we did that with Afgahnistan, but
>Iraq probably did add to that impression.
>
>Something doesn't make sense though ...
>
>Why did we invade Iraq when we did? The President claimed that we
>couldn't wait for the inspectors because Iraq was a "grave and
>growing" threat. He said we had to act immediately based on the
>intelligence he saw.
>
>However the President's Middle East Advisor at the time, Gen. Anthony
>Zinni, who claims to have seen the same intelligence the President
>did, said that wasn't the case. When asked if Iraq was an imminent
>threat he said:
>
>"No, not at all. It was not an imminent threat. Not even close. Not
>grave, gathering, imminent, serious, severe, mildly upsetting, none of
>those."
>
>It's been suggested that the President was given bad information by
>the CIA. Yet rather than investigate the CIA, the President has
>praised them and continued to insist we had to invade when we did.
>Further, Vice President Cheney continues to insist that not only did
>Iraq possess WMD, but that they are connected with 9/11.
>
>Every credible source has disputed the 9/11 connection including the
>9/11 commission and the lack of evidence of WMD seems to agree with
>General Zinni.
>
>So why did we invade Iraq when we did? Why did we purposely risk our
>relationship with the UN and our allies to invade a country that most
>people who saw the intelligence say wasn't necessary?
>
>If the President was misled by the CIA why did he praise their work?
>
>Why does Vice President Cheney continue to insist on a 9/11 connection
>when there is no evidence to support that?
>
>It doesn't add up.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Harkins, Patrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:16:58 -0400
>Subject: RE: Define Terrorism (was Re: Poll - Did you believe ...)
>To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Maybe, but how does this sound: Can't go after the worst offenders for
> supporting terrorists because they own too much of our
>economy, so instead
> we go after the neighbourhood bully. Kills at least two birds with one
> stone. Shows how much military might we can flex when we are
>pissed and
> vents the national rage and desire for revenge. If it's a
>mess we can be
> accused of being ill-considered, but we can't be accused of
>dithering or
> doing nothing....
>
> -Patrick
>
>________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
