What's in it for me?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 9:45 am

In all this talk of Bush's War, I've never thought to ask: What does President Bush - or Rumsfeld, or Cheney; whomever one thinks is responsible for unjustly starting this war - have to gain? If you're one of the many people who believes the war was started for other than the publicly stated reasons, what is it that you think makes whomever is responsible want to do this thing?

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:08 am

Nothing increases your popularity like a good, successful war against an enemy people are genuinely scared of. If there's any ulterior motive, I think that's it. Well, that and the oil.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:08 am

Well, if they are doing it out of personal gains, then it's to expand their powerbase and hopefully get a place in future history books as the president/whatever that secured dominance, and returned "peace" to the Middle East.

Power and glory. I suppose things haven't changed much since...well, ever.

Van Der Litreb · Post by **Van Der Litreb** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:22 am

Because having an archenemy such as [Communism, Terrorism, Capitalism, Aristocracy, etc.] is good for business. It keeps your populace productive and in place. But most importantly, it allows you to hide your own flaws by accentuating your enemy's.

If anyone still believes the US went to war with Saddam Hussein to free the Iraqi people, they are seriously deluding themselves.

[*sigh* Yes, I'm gunning at the US again, but, really, it wouldn't be much fun if I went for Finland, would it?]

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:28 pm

Van Der Litreb wrote:If anyone still believes the US went to war with Saddam Hussein to free the Iraqi people, they are seriously deluding themselves.

I'd like to interject that I sincerely doubt most of the soldiers sent over there are concerned with expanding the powerbase. I've yet to meet anyone in the military who did so with the express purpose of taking over other countries for the glory of the motherland.

sinsual · Post by **sinsual** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:49 pm

Szechuan wrote:
Van Der Litreb wrote:If anyone still believes the US went to war with Saddam Hussein to free the Iraqi people, they are seriously deluding themselves.
I'd like to interject that I sincerely doubt most of the soldiers sent over there are concerned with expanding the powerbase. I've yet to meet anyone in the military who did so with the express purpose of taking over other countries for the glory of the motherland.

Then you haven't met the right people.

I have met several military that have the attitude that "Iraq needed killin...and so do all the rest of the sand nigga's who thought they was betta' then the US of Fuckin A" (and yes that is an actual quote heard at work) But then again I am in the middle fo the South in which they joke about having Yankee Hangin's and there are guys drivign trucks aroudn with multiple nooses hanging down from their rearview mirrors, sometimes with a monkey in one of them. So you can take a quote like that as however you want.

(edited to add intended tongue in cheek that was missing)

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 5:04 pm

sinsual wrote: Then you haven't met the right people. I have met several military that have the attitude that "Iraq needed killin...and so do all the rest of the sand nigga's who thought they was betta' then the US of Fuckin A" (and yes that is an actual quote heard at work) But then again I am in the middle fo the South...*snip*

Probably because of the geographical difference- I was referring primarily to Canadian troops.
My point, however, was that I'd sooner accuse the politicians involved of being power-hungry, not the soldiers.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 5:11 pm

ah yes, the rampaging Suth'n ego. ...man I'm glad I left all that behind me. I can deal with the swinging corporate dicks up here far better than I could the swinging egos down south.

but back to topic...

do the politicians lie because it's what they learn in order to survive the dog eat dog world of politics or do they lie because of the public? is there something about the collective thought process of the public that makes lies easier to swallow than truth and the public more willing to swallow lies even when proven to be thus?

.... I think I'm confusing myself.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 9:59 pm

Hmm power and glory? Maybe they'll try and sell the Bush presidentail library for a couple hundred million like Nixons estate, or maybe we'll see Jeb Bush in office...is there a GW Bush 3?

snickers

Sin: Obviously you and I have met some way different military people. I knew some people like that, but they were the few not the many. Maybe you should make some new friends dude.

T1000 · Post by **T1000** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 10:40 pm

sinsual wrote:

Then you haven't met the right people.

I have met several military that have the attitude that "Iraq needed killin...and so do all the rest of the sand nigga's who thought they was betta' then the US of Fuckin A" (and yes that is an actual quote heard at work) But then again I am in the middle of the South in which they joke about having Yankee Hangin's and there are guys driving trucks around with multiple nooses hanging down from their rearview mirrors, sometimes with a monkey in one of them. So you can take a quote like that as however you want.

It is obvious that you know little about the military. I am also sure thay you are not in the military and that the "actual quote at work" was not on a military base. Am I right? I have worked in, around, and for the military for many years. All branches Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy. I have [glow]never[/glow] heard an officer make a statement like this and damn few senior enlisted folks. So basically I am telling you that your perception is wrong.

As to the initial point of the thread---why would we go to war---how bout this.

US citizens have been killed by Islamic extremists for the last 20 years. It has happened in the US, Israel, Lebanon, over Scotland, on Cruise Ships. We generally put up with it until they took out the WTC and over 3,000 people. It then became obvious that we are actual targets on a national level. Iraq was an easy target. Terrorism cannot exist without governmental financial sponsorship, directly or indirectly. . It sent a message. The message we sent was "this could happen to you". And what is the result?

Iran is much more "cooperative" at least it appears that way. Syria closed its borders to a large degree. The PLO and all its factions are actually talking to Israel and a REAL peace process may be at hand. The Saudis are clamping down, quietly, on their clerics.

Why did Bush attack Iraq? Simple.

1. Iraq was a convenient target of opportunity.
2. Send a message to the rest of the Middle East that there’s a "new deal".
3. Protect US interests both domestically and in other countries from terrorist actions.
4. Provide the necessary enlightenment to the rest of the entire planet that we CAN take what we desire. Period, end of story. However, we generally choose NOT to do that as long as you don't royally piss us off.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:05 pm

T1000 wrote:It is obvious that you know little about the military.

Oh?

I have [glow]never[/glow] heard an officer make a statement like this and damn few senior enlisted folks.

Wait, who was talking about officers? Not Sin. And if you have heard "damn few senior enlisted folks" make such statements, then there are cases in which those statements are made. By the way you talk, you lead me to believe that among junior "enlisted folk" it would happen even more. Now, Sin didn't make any statements about in which strata of the military these things get said. So I think you indirectly backed his point.

So basically I am telling you that your perception is wrong.

No, you didn't. You basically backed his point, which only says that your perception is merely what you want it to be, not what your perception actually is.

T1000 · Post by **T1000** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:24 pm

Sins comments were in answer to the following

I'd like to interject that I sincerely doubt most of the soldiers sent over there are concerned with expanding the powerbase. I've yet to meet anyone in the military who did so with the express purpose of taking over other countries for the glory of the motherland

Key point is MOST. Any organization made of of 1,000,000+ people will have some nuts. And yes this is more generally found at the junior enlisted level although it is certainly NOT widespread. Why? Because the guy next to you has a 66% chance of being black or hispanic and you don't want to get shot in the back. In short, particulary in combat, things have a way of working out for the good of the organization.

Since military objectives (ie expanding the powerbase) are defined by officers they are the only personnel that actually count. I have yet to see a squad (the largest force commanded by enlisted personnel) actually take over a country, with the possible exception of France.

sinsual · Post by **sinsual** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 3:38 am

The speaker of said quote was in fact a Sergeant in the Army. At least that is what 3 up and 3 down meant besides an end of an inning when I dealt with the military all the time as a manager next to the Hale Koa hotel in Honolulu Hawaii. And yes he was in uniform. As to my military experience itself, I will admit my actual time in didn’t happen. I did however grow up in and around several different military bases in the US. I have had to deal with military personnel in many different capacities from event coordination for an Officer’s Ball to delivery of goods onto a military base. As well as shopping in the Exchange with my civilian employee’s dependent ID. It isn’t the first time I have heard racial or sexist comments come from both enlisted and junior officers. I just had never heard one so blatantly out in the open nor with such venom attached. Just because you don’t see it or hear it on base when there are other personnel around doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I do know it is very rare for the fact you stated. I also know it is NOT the norm nor is it the general thought of the military branches. That was why I went back and edited to make the initial part of the post the tongue in cheek comment it was meant to be. I do however stand behind the quote and I do know it was made by an active duty Army Sergeant. I will also stand by the attitude that I mentioned as one being prevalent here in SC. Again I know it isn’t the norm, however it does seem to be an attitude around here that I hear more and more. Not just from military either, but it tends to stand out when they are in the store I work in while they are wearing their uniform.

Cipher · Post by **Cipher** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 7:43 pm

US citizens have been killed by Islamic extremists for the last 20 years. It has happened in the US, Israel, Lebanon, over Scotland, on Cruise Ships. We generally put up with it until they took out the WTC and over 3,000 people. It then became obvious that we are actual targets on a national level. Iraq was an easy target. Terrorism cannot exist without governmental financial sponsorship, directly or indirectly

I'm afraid I don't buy that last sentence, or see how it follows from the first. The House of Saud, generally considered one of the larger terror financiers in the Mid East, would be filthy rich and would fear the West even without the existence of their own nation (Saudi Arabia). There's no longer a Taliban government in Afghanistan, yet bin Laden is apparently still at large. History is laden with terror groups and guerillas who act without government backing, and attain notable success.

Now I venture from fact into opinion: I believe that the 2001 razing of the World Trade Center demonstrated that the 20th century, and its political worldview, were once and for all over. Specifically, the von Bismarck / Churchill / Stalin view of the "nation-state" as the political agent of action is no longer applicable. Wars are no longer fought between nations, but between key power groups among nations. Wars are no longer fought over borders or alliances, but ideologies (what ideology was at risk when the Triple Entente forced us into WWI? whose borders was Osama bin Laden defending by ordering a terror strike on New York City?).

We therefore cannot conduct this war as a war between nation-states. When Osama bin Laden "sends a message" to the tune of three thousand horrific deaths, his target is a way of thinking, not the United States. For the U.S. to declare war on Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Syria in response belies a way of thinking that is outmoded and outdated. I can't imagine what an appropriate response would be, because (A) my paradigm hasn't shifted fully yet, either, and (B) I'm an anarchist. But even anarchists should recognize that the wars of the 21st century will not be the affairs of politicians and generals alone, but the business of every member of a culture.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 9:30 pm

That's a very interesting observation. In effect, all of this leads from the first major military action of the new paradigm. Certainly, terrorism has been a military tool for a very long time, but this is an action with further-reaching consequences than anything of the sort within recent history. Of course, that supposes that the war in Iraq is an outgrowth of the World Trade Center razing, and that rings of post hoc, ergo propter hoc to me.

Running with the idea anyway, President Bush's actions can be seen as lagging behind the paradigm, actions from the last milennium, inappropriate to this one. Which is traditional in paradigm shifts, but it also usually spells the end for the nation lagging behind.

What's interesting to me is that, in some ways, war is no longer an extension of politics by other means; it's becoming an extension of ideologies by other means.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 9:38 pm

There's a difference?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 9:45 pm

Well, individuals aren't political, they're social. Governments are political. In the past, wars have been fought for churches or nations, not small ideological groups. That's changed over the last couple of hundred years.

[edit]Noteably, it's changed since the beginning of the end of colonialism, when the politics of empire fractured. Now we're back at the old nation-state, and individuals have more of a chance to provoke massive response from nations. Ironically, both the US and Europe - by different means - seem to be trying to continue the cycle, back to something like empires, where by diversification, you increase stability. And we all know where that leads.[/edit]

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:01 pm

3278 wrote:Well, individuals aren't political, they're social. Governments are political. In the past, wars have been fought for churches or nations, not small ideological groups. That's changed over the last couple of hundred years.

So the difference is the same as the one between churches and religions? Hmm. I can buy that.

Cipher · Post by **Cipher** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 3:19 am

Salvation122 wrote:There's a difference?

Yes - politics are not ideological. You can get a lot of fans with the notion of "burning down the infidels" (Middle East), or "hunting down all the towelheads" (Western). However, at the risk of sounding like a bumper sticker, you can't build a road system or negotiate a trade agreement with a doctrine of religious hatred. It takes politics to do that.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 3:46 am

Very true.

Just a question here: am I the only one who thinks GWB is a religious fanatic?

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 4:04 am

Depends where you stand in the spectrum. Yes he has very strong personal beliefs, which he of course thinks are good and proper. It's just that he's well off enough and in a powerful enough position to influence things to a large degree.

And is the word fanatic even appropriate in this instance? Yes we night not agree with his views for whatever reason, that doesn't make them less valid or unreasable.

Edit: I don't mean to have a go at you AK, it's just that I keep seeing terms like fundy or fanatic being thrown around quite easily at the moment and often, seemingly to myself at least, in the wrong context or being used too harshly to demean a persons viewpoint.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 8:33 am

To illustrate, I personally feel anyone who is religous is a fanatic. Of course my beliefs fall at one of the spectrum, obviously.

Cipher very eloquantly put.(Even if I can't spell it you get my meaning.) Although it certainly raises some questions. I want to chew on that for a while.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:10 am

I obviously had a reason to ask this question, but I wanted to collect a few responses to reply to before I got to my point, which is: none of the reasons critics offer for President Bush's actions make any <i>sense.[/i] To whit:

mrmooky wrote:Nothing increases your popularity like a good, successful war against an enemy people are genuinely scared of. Well, that and the oil.

There are several things that increase your popularity more than war, successful or otherwise. Politicians know military action - particularly against dictatorial regimes we don't get along with - is a gamble, at best. Yes, you may pick up 10 points in the polls, or you may drop 40 and start Vietnam. Why not go for something less risky, like decreasing the deficit, or emphasizing your role in the creation of the Homeland Defense people? Fix education, better the economy, /anything/ but start a war.

And, please, tell me, do you think George Bush woke up one morning and said, "You know, I'm concerned I won't get elected again. I'd better start a war with someone." Say what you will about the guy, I don't think he chooses to kill thousands of people so more people will like him. No one does that.

Oil? Do you think President Bush doesn't have enough? Do you think he was worried about how much he had to pay at the pump?

DV8 wrote:Well, if they are doing it out of personal gains, then it's to expand their powerbase and hopefully get a place in future history books as the president/whatever that secured dominance, and returned "peace" to the Middle East.

Another couple of commonly given reasons for President Bush's actions, and these make little more sense than any others: just exactly how much do you think the President of the United States of America feels he needs to increase his power base? He can evaporate anyone in the world; how much better does he need to feel about himself? And for every leader who started a war and went down in history a hero, there's a lot more who went down as bad guys, particularly when they were the aggressor.

Van Der Litreb wrote:Because having an archenemy such as [Communism, Terrorism, Capitalism, Aristocracy, etc.] is good for business. It keeps your populace productive and in place.

So, George Bush was concerned that America wasn't productive enough, and held a noon meeting in which he said, "American productivity is down. I'd like to start a war?" Don't you think he could imagine a couple of ways in which our productivity might be more easily and inexpensively increased? One that /wouldn't/ expose him to the risk of empeachment or global retribution?

Van Der Litreb wrote:But most importantly, it allows you to hide your own flaws by accentuating your enemy's.

Because he was worried that someone might notice we weren't cool, and Iraq was?

Seriously, these aren't reasons. There's no logic in attributing these insane desires on /anyone,/ much less a well-educated, well-raised, respected member of our society. [A little brain-dead, I agree, but still.]

If you claimed that Bethyaga was planning to kill several hundred Americans and several thousand Iraqis so that America would have a better economy, we'd all laugh. What a silly thing to say! No one would take so many lives for reasons as frivolous as those given, or use plans so ill-conceived, and yet we assume a modern American President and all the people around him would be so stupid, so self-concerned, so heartless as to murder hundreds of their own people so gas will be less expensive.

I don't buy it.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:15 am

Define "fanatic".

Do I think he lets religion color his views to an unnecessary degree? Yes, without a doubt. Do I think he uses religion in place of logic? Unquestionably. Do I think he'll force his religion onto others, willing or otherwise? Sort of.

Do I think he's willing to kill or die for his religious beliefs? Not really. Do I think he'll push us into a theocracy? Not at this time, no.

I may dislike the man, but when compared to suicide bombers, I don't think Bush qualifies as a "religious fanatic", no. A religious nut, perhaps, but not quite the same as a "fanatic". More along the lines of those who say: "The King James Bible was good enough for Jay-sus, it's good enough fer me!"

Van Der Litreb · Post by **Van Der Litreb** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:56 pm

32: I'm assuming you're deliberately being a prick, in order to force me to clarify. Otherwise, you're being daft.

I never said the points offered were the only or even the major reasons for going to war, but you can bet your arse they were deciding factors.

Don't you think he could imagine a couple of ways in which our productivity might be more easily and inexpensively increased? One that /wouldn't/ expose him to the risk of empeachment or global retribution?

Oh, I'm sure he's doing everything within his power to do that, as well. Let me turn it around, then; do you think Bush would have taken the US to war if he didn't think there were considerable economic benefits to be gained from such an action?

Empeachment because of military action? Has that ever happened? (I'm just curious about this, but to my memory that's never occurred)

Global retribution? Assuming you mean a decline in public outlook, when the hell did that ever stop anyone? When a bunch of Europeans cried out against the war on Iraq, do you think the average American said "Hm, maybe I should take a step back and re-examine my viewpoints." or "Goddamn collaborators!"?

Because he was worried that someone might notice we weren't cool, and Iraq was?

Uh, that's not what I said, and I don't really see how you came to that conclusion.

Seriously, these aren't reasons. There's no logic in attributing these insane desires on /anyone,/ ...

Dude, everyone does that. You, me, our respective government leaders. And for pretty much the same reasons; to make ourselves look better by picking on the other person.

If you claimed that Bethyaga was planning to kill several hundred Americans and several thousand Iraqis so that America would have a better economy, we'd all laugh. What a silly thing to say!

What a silly thing to say, indeed (but thanks for the humourous mental image

). All respect for Bethy aside, I don't think he has the clout to take advantage of going to war with Iraq.

I have to run off now [sprint, actually], but ah'll be bahk.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:39 am

T1000 wrote:US citizens have been killed by Islamic extremists for the last 20 years. It has happened in the US, Israel, Lebanon, over Scotland, on Cruise Ships. We generally put up with it until they took out the WTC and over 3,000 people. It then became obvious that we are actual targets on a national level. Iraq was an easy target. Terrorism cannot exist without governmental financial sponsorship, directly or indirectly. . It sent a message. The message we sent was "this could happen to you".

Congratulations, you defended the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban. Too bad we're talking about Iraq.

3278 wrote:There are several things that increase your popularity more than war, successful or otherwise. Politicians know military action - particularly against dictatorial regimes we don't get along with - is a gamble, at best.

This particular one less so.

3278 wrote:Yes, you may pick up 10 points in the polls, or you may drop 40 and start Vietnam.

Unlike Vietnam, we've done this war before. It worked then for a giant popularity boost (which ultimately failed to re-elect Bush - which is one reason I don't buy this as a valid reason directly, but I'll finish this thought later) and we know the terrain and tactics and our military is perfectly suited for them. We may yet get bogged down in the details -- guerilla warfare has started up and that's what nailed us in Vietnam. There wasn't an army to shoot at, there wasn't any easy way to go in and hold a location.

3278 wrote:Why not go for something less risky, like decreasing the deficit, or emphasizing your role in the creation of the Homeland Defense people? Fix education, better the economy, /anything/ but start a war.

Because those are all much worse gambles, and much much more difficult to manage as President. Problem 1: any such reform is going to take a shitload of time, at which point this Bush is out of office. Public opinion being what it is, his succesor will be the one who is hailed as "the man who fixed x". Problem 2: as the executive branch, Bush can't really enact those changes directly (which is what makes Problem 1 so amusing - that President almost couldn't have done anything directly). Certainly he can influence and push a given agenda through, but his ideas will be mangled badly in translation and may end up causing further damage (for which he will be blamed) rather than helping anything. Problem 3: less visibility. The only "good" news reported is winning wars and sports games. You don't hear about how the school in New York City no longer has gang shootings in its halls and has trebled its graduation and matriculation to centers of higher learning rates... you hear about the other one where those things still occur. The effects will make Americans hapier, which will generally improve their opinion of the President (life is good, therefore the President must be doing a good job) but that isn't always the case.

Back to my earlier thought -- The first Gulf War ended up failing to re-elect Bush senior. Why would Bush junior choose to do the same damn thing (assuming some relation to Bush senior's action)? Possible reason 1: Finish the job. It was a common complaint that we ended that war "early". We had all heard about what a bad man Saddam Hussein was, but he remained in power in Iraq and we should've finished things off there before we came home. Possible reason 2: I can outdo my own Dad. Alternate phrasing: I want to get out of my Father's shadow. I don't buy it, personally, but it is a common thing for sons to wish to do (though generally not through middle age). If your father was President, well -- he's made it this far, now he needs to do what his father didn't manage.

Veed is correct -- wars do drive an economy forward, and an indefinite evil is incredibly driving. The Cold War fueled all sorts of industries for years. Before that, various empires fought over almost everything, pushing the majority of the industries forward and causing a great deal of innovation. Humanity as a whole hasn't yet figured out how to live without conflict as a driving motivation. The idea of the free market is founded on the idea that conflict will produce the best product at the lowest cost when clearly cooperation generally produces better products -- unfortunately humans are not well adapted to large-scale cooperative environments as yet. Even within a given "cooperative organization" such as a business, frequently conflict is used to motivate a given team or even individuals. Advancement for one is done by out-performing others, or even simply dragging them down below your level. Multiple teams get similar assignments and the best end product gets a reward. All of human life is founded on the concept of conflict.

So, to answer your question 32, yes. I do think that a President might wake up and say, "Our productivity is down, let's start a little war." Leaders of all sorts of countries and societies have been doing it for millenia, and I don't think Bush is a visionary leader who is going to lead us to some new plateau of society where conflict is no longer utilized for gain.

ratlaw · Post by **ratlaw** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 4:25 am

Some points I've been thinking of for a while now about this question.

1) War for re-election.

If Bush's goal was to win a war to increase his chances of re-election, he clearly screwed up massively. I don't mean to say that he /won't/ be re-elected, but his timing of the war was completely wrong for such a goal. If that were his goal, then he would be much better off if, instead of defying the major European powers, he had let the UN inspectors do their thing till about now, /then/ started clamoring for war. Put simply, he should have scheduled the war so that he would be a sitting president /during/ the war. Bush Sr. lost his re-election bid after successfully winning the first Gulf War because there was too much time inbetween and the economy tanked. If you want to be re-elected because of war, then you start the war right before the election, not a year+.

2) War to boost the US economy

The US economy was and is going to recover regardless, and I haven't read or seen anything to indicate that the second Gulf War didn't have a /negative/ effect, let alone anything to say that it had a positive effect.

3) Cheap Gas

Hmm. I can buy this as an ancilliary reason, but not as a primary one. Gas is, relatively, dirt cheap here in the US already. How do our European members feel about the option of paying 1.309 euros per gallon?

I think it was a combination of factors. One, we needed a boogie man after failing to capture Osama bin Laden in Afganistan. Two, Iraq has been a thorn in our side since the late 80s, and clearly intended to be a threat to our national security, even if he wasn't yet. Three, we now have, as I've stated before, 250,000 US troops poised to invade either Syria or Iran or any other Middle Eastern country that we want. If you don't realize how big that threat to their security is... I think the central location of our troops post-war is the main reason for invading Iraq. We just put a force that can crush any single nation, and probably any combination of nations, in the region smack in the middle of their desert. We've just ignored world opinion in order to take down a tin-pot dictator who was at most a minor threat to our national security, and we did it in how many weeks?. The Taliban and Saddam were object lessons, more or less. They are our response to the World Trade Center attacks, and what they say are "if we even suspect you are supporting terrorists, we will simply send our army to topple your regime."

To respond to Cipher's point about old paradigms and inapropriate responses:

In order to defeat an opponent you can't attack directly, you must attack him indirectly. (duh) Terrorist groups rely on friendly, or at least neutral, nation-states to protect them and provide a base of operations. They require funds and suppliers. They require new recruits and an environment to recruit them from. We, the US, can't force societal changes in the Middle East that will cut off their source of recruits. However, we can cut off their money, their supplies and their supporters. Those things are nation states, and they are subject to the type of response we have employed. Invading Iraq demonstrated that we are capable and, more importantly, willing to topple regimes in the heart of Islam. We have established a central location from which we can easily launch any other invasions that we feel are necessary or appropriate. We are as close to directly threatening them with military aggression as you can get without saying "or suffer serious consequences."

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 4:48 am

Van Der Litreb wrote:32: I'm assuming you're deliberately being a prick, in order to force me to clarify. Otherwise, you're being daft.

Neither. I'm trying to get you to look at the situation in a different way; you look at the situation and immediately assume the worst, because you expect the worst. I'm not decrying that behavior; I just think it can be useful to think of governments as being people, and not political or ideological figures. George W. Bush is a person, born like you and I, and raised by his family. He watches football, he eats carrots, and at night, he sleeps when he can.

If this were a murder case - Mr. Iraq was shot in the chest - the reasons given for President Bush's actions wouldn't be considered motive at all. And that's what this is: a multiple homocide, for both our side and theirs. So you have to ask yourself, what reason is strong enough to risk empeachment, risk the lives of your countrymen, and kill thousands of foreigners? Would you kill a thousand people so you could have cheaper gas, if you were a millionaire? Then why would anyone think George W. Bush is mad enough, sociopathic enough, to do so himself?

Van Der Litreb wrote:I never said the points offered were the only or even the major reasons for going to war, but you can bet your arse they were deciding factors.

Okay, then what /are/ the major reasons? What made President Bush give the go order?

Van Der Litreb wrote:Let me turn it around, then; do you think Bush would have taken the US to war if he didn't think there were considerable economic benefits to be gained from such an action?

Absolutely. We went into World War II, after all. We went into World War I. I don't think either one of them made us money, when all was said and done.

Van Der Litreb wrote:Empeachment because of military action? Has that ever happened? (I'm just curious about this, but to my memory that's never occurred)

You know, I don't believe it ever has. It's possible that's because no elected President has ever entered into a massive conspiracy to draw the United States into war with an agressive foreign power so that he can get re-elected.

Van Der Litreb wrote:When a bunch of Europeans cried out against the war on Iraq, do you think the average American said "Hm, maybe I should take a step back and re-examine my viewpoints." or "Goddamn collaborators!"?

People have the funniest ideas about Americans. Drive around my city sometime. You'll see that WAGE PEACE signs outnumber even tacky 9-11 bumper stickers. That's just my town, and I'm sure it's not average, but the average American doesn't think you're a collaborator, either.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 4:58 am

3278 wrote:Absolutely. We went into World War II, after all. We went into World War I. I don't think either one of them made us money, when all was said and done.

World War II made us /shitloads/ of money. When the biggest industrial powers in the world are suddenly more or less crippled, and you step in and take their market, you can bet your ass you make out.

Now, I'm not /certain/ that we turned a profit - we did, after all, build a whole bunch of aircraft, tanks, ammunition, and three nuclear bombs - but between the rebuilding of Germany and Japan, and the expansion of United States companies into those nations, I'd be really, really suprised if we didn't, between '41 and '61, make money off World War II.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 5:01 am

Ah, but the /expense/ of rebuilding half of Europe...

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 5:03 am

And Japan. I dunno. As a twenty- or thirty-year investment, I'd say we did okay. (Granted, we sunk anything we made into the Cold War, but that's a different story.)

ratlaw · Post by **ratlaw** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 5:06 am

Salvation122 wrote:
3278 wrote:Absolutely. We went into World War II, after all. We went into World War I. I don't think either one of them made us money, when all was said and done.
World War II made us /shitloads/ of money. When the biggest industrial powers in the world are suddenly more or less crippled, and you step in and take their market, you can bet your ass you make out.

Now, I'm not /certain/ that we turned a profit - we did, after all, build a whole bunch of aircraft, tanks, ammunition, and three nuclear bombs - but between the rebuilding of Germany and Japan, and the expansion of United States companies into those nations, I'd be really, really suprised if we didn't, between '41 and '61, make money off World War II.

While I don't disagree that the US economy skyrocketed in the wake of WWII, I think it's a fairly clear case to make that it /didn't/ in the wake of WWI. You win some, you loose some. In the end, I think the difference between War One and War Two was what we did /after/ the war, not the war itself. Sure the US economy peaked in the 20s, but we blithely ignored the crippled economies of Europe. That all caught up with us eventually. After War Two we engaged in a massive spending spree of loans and whatnot to rebuild Western Europe (and we at least /offered/ money to Eastern Europe). Which we didn't do because we're nice guys. We did it because we didn't like our chances to continue to exist once Stalin had taken over all of Europe.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 5:15 am

I wish we'd do that in Iraq. Give them a couple billion in "loans," and then hand off everything to the UN, so no one can accuse us of conflict of interest.

ratlaw · Post by **ratlaw** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 5:29 am

If simply rebuilding Iraq were our concern, then I think we would. However, I think establishing a pro-US government and a US military garrison in the middle of the Middle East is our real goal, and as such I doubt we'll be pulling out our troops in significant numbers anytime soon.

Nightsky · Post by **Nightsky** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:03 am

returned "peace" to the Middle East.

Just out of curosity, has there ever been a point in history when there was peace in the middle east?

ratlaw · Post by **ratlaw** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:38 am

You can fudge things around and find some peaceful times, sure. But for the most part, it's been a conflict ridden place since homo sapiens (presumably) migrated out of Africa.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:43 am

As far as oil goes, while Bush himself may not stand to profit from Iraq's oil, many of his friends do. Bush openly has many friends in the Texas oil industry; not an issue in and of itself, but it does make things somewhat suspicious in the light of it.

Glyph · Post by **Glyph** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 10:01 am

Haliburton is making a lot of money just on the rebuilding in Iraq - and who needs to bid when you're buds with the VP? Most of the "rebuilding" in Afghanistan was to create the infrastructure needed for the oil pipeline so many industrialists in the states wanted (a pipeline that will probably not get built now because of the Afghani/Pakistani tensions). And, of course, we plan on "privatizing" Iraq's oil.

But even with all of Bush's corporate masters doing so well, I still think the primary motivation for this war was not oil, but power. Let's face it, an invasion of Iraq has been bandied about by the conservatives for a LONG time. Read some back issues of the National Review. The ideal is that we can create a modern, secular democracy to both be an example to the other gulf states, and politically undermine them. Not to mention that we will have a lot more control over those resources, giving us more influence over other nations that are even more dependent on it than we are.

As for Bush being a religious fanatic, puh-leeze. He uses religion like he uses patriotism, as jingoism to cover his real motives and appeal to his right-wing constituency. Remember, he participated in a Shinto ceremony over many protests, violating the tenets of his own, supposed religion for political purposes.

Cipher · Post by **Cipher** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 4:11 am

Nightsky wrote:
returned "peace" to the Middle East.
Just out of curosity, has there ever been a point in history when there was peace in the middle east?

Yeah - when the Romans ruled all of it. And even then, they occasionally had to crucify a dissident or two.

Cipher · Post by **Cipher** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 4:13 am

Oh, and World War II was not on net profitable - and that includes the rebuilding of Europe - any more so than a dot-com company with all negatives on its balance sheet would be.

Toryu · Post by **Toryu** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 5:46 pm

3278 wrote: Why not go for something less risky, like decreasing the deficit, or emphasizing your role in the creation of the Homeland Defense people? Fix education, better the economy, /anything/ but start a war.

And, please, tell me, do you think George Bush woke up one morning and said, "You know, I'm concerned I won't get elected again. I'd better start a war with someone." Say what you will about the guy, I don't think he chooses to kill thousands of people so more people will like him. No one does that.

I don't buy it.

Some food for thought. I'd like to quote one particular paragraph:

The BBC wrote:
Defence spending showed the highest jump by far, up 44.1% between April and June. Overall government spending rose by 25.1%, the biggest gain since 1967.

There might be some connection.

Growth by highly increased government spending...this might blow up right in the face of the US economy. We'll see.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 5:57 pm

Toryu wrote:There might be some connection.

But only /might./ It's at least as likely that the war is what's responsible for this recession lasting twice as long as normal; consumer confidence paused hard when the war[-ish thing] started. Plus, the article itself suggests massive government spending itself is a detriment to economic growth.

I hope this isn't all just me preaching-by-question. I really hope some of the more anti-Bush people are reconsidering the causes of the war by reconsidering how they think about the people who make up the government: not as faceless, heartless adversaries, but as people, real people, with real feelings and morals and goals.

Toryu · Post by **Toryu** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 6:29 pm

3278 wrote:
Toryu wrote:There might be some connection.
But only /might./ It's at least as likely that the war is what's responsible for this recession lasting twice as long as normal; consumer confidence paused hard when the war[-ish thing] started. Plus, the article itself suggests massive government spending itself is a detriment to economic growth.

The article does, but modern economic theory doesn't. Raising government spending causes GDP growth, at least short-term, which would be what we might have here. Long term implications of a fiscal expansions, however, are no GDP effect at all ('crowding out') and higher interest rates. Not all that good, but short-term could prolly be well after the elections.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 8:59 pm

Okay, I'll stipulate that, but does that mean that President Bush started the war to improve the economy to get re-elected?

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 9:28 pm

Don't ask for such conclusive statements, 32. Nothing is conclusive in this purely hypothetical discussion, so don't ask for it just so you can then later poke holes in them.

Toryu · Post by **Toryu** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 9:31 pm

3278 wrote:Okay, I'll stipulate that, but does that mean that President Bush started the war to improve the economy to get re-elected?

I don't know Bush. I never met him in person (Duh). I really don't have the best impression of him. But then again, I admit to being strongly influenced by German media, which is quite left-leaning, and thus subjective.

Do I think it is possible? Yes.

Do I have any concrete proof? No.

But there's empiric evidence that support the claim he could've done it for economic reasons. Especially if you take into account what modern economists (Mundell, Stiglitz, Krugman) think of the overall effect of a fiscal expansion.

Killing tons of towel-heads for economic recovery? It could be. Who cares anyways about tens of thousands of dead towel-heads some five thousands miles away? The mere thought that any human being could simply shrug off that many deaths is gruesome, but hey, to pick an example, who remembers Ruanda these days anyways? Not that all that many cared even when it happened. One Million people slaughtered. In less than half a year. And hardly anyone in Europe and North America at all realized it happened.

So, to answer your question: Do I consider it possible? Yes. Do I consider it likely? Yes.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 10:00 pm

DV8 wrote:Don't ask for such conclusive statements, 32. Nothing is conclusive in this purely hypothetical discussion, so don't ask for it just so you can then later poke holes in them.

This isn't a purely hypothetical discussion. I'm asking people what their /real/ opinions are, their beliefs as to what the /actual/ causes of the war are.

And, don't go visiting my intentions. Not ever.

Toryu wrote:Do I think it is possible? Yes. Do I have any concrete proof? No.

Well, okay. If you think a human being is capable of the mass-murder of Americans and Iraqis, without any evidence to that effect, there's little I could say that would sway your opinion in any case. Thank you, though, Jan. I really appreciate your honesty.

Toryu · Post by **Toryu** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 10:46 pm

3278 wrote:
Well, okay. If you think a human being is capable of the mass-murder of Americans and Iraqis, without any evidence to that effect, there's little I could say that would sway your opinion in any case. Thank you, though, Jan. I really appreciate your honesty.

You're welcome.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 10:47 pm

3278 wrote:
Toryu wrote:Do I think it is possible? Yes. Do I have any concrete proof? No.
Well, okay. If you think a human being is capable of the mass-murder of Americans and Iraqis, without any evidence to that effect, there's little I could say that would sway your opinion in any case. Thank you, though, Jan. I really appreciate your honesty.

I'll echo Jan, here, somewhat (though I thik I already said as much previously). I don't know Bush, but I do know people who would be prefectly happy to kill hundreds, thousands or even, probably, millions for a few extra bucks. They reside in almost every vehicle manufacturer, and they do these things where they'll figure out how many people will die and be injured, what the total cost of all the lawsuits and settlements will be and the total cost of a recall and decide whether to implement the recall based on that. They put a dollar value on human life, and it's pretty fucking small. And they do this to their customers. Do you think they'd give a damn about some guys off in the middle of a desert not buying their product, do you? Abstractions make it so much easier. Hell, we have people in the U.S. government condemning millions to starve in order to help the U.S. economy a fractional amount. The Dept. of Agriculture pays some farmers to leave their fields fallow, and also warehouses food products, lets it rot, and refuses to ship it to places where it's needed in order to drive prices up. No matter that they could ship it off for about the same cost and the net effect locally would be exactly the same... But yeah, I can see a few humans ordering the deaths of some other humans who aren't personal friends fairly easily. So do I know Bush did it for these reasons? No, no, I don't. But I do think it's possible and even probable that he, or someone else feeding him information and advice, would be quite willing and even eager to send troops off to die in order to make a few extra bucks.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 12:29 am

I wish I had my old textbooks handy, 32. I could show you studies done where normal, everyday Americans were perfectly willing to kill off hundreds of people they didn't know. There was even one famous study where normal, everyday Americans were willing to kill when asked-- oh, there it is, Stanley Milgram's study on obedience.

If Bush were told by someone he trusted that killing all these people was worth it, he could easily do it. Not because he's a rat bastard, but because he's a human being.