Yippee!
"If Iraq was not a terrorist hub prior to the U.S. invasion, it has become one, U.S. military officials say, with fighters gaining experience and making contacts there, then moving to other places where they could start new terrorist cells."
Just a thought: what if the billions of dollars, human lives, and special training we're donating to Iraq, in the end, becomes their strongest weapon to use against us? What if we're simply providing them the means to better attack us? It's happened before... several times. More importantly, why didn't our leadership speak candidly about this very real possibility when they were cheerleading this unconstitutional war?
I guess I have nothing new to say. I'm just as sick to my stomach as ever. God help us all.
posted by Smorgasbord at 10:51 AM
8 Comments:
You're right, Smorg. It has happened before. What do you think the solution is?
Hope you and yours are well.
-Jack
Right now, looking at things as realistically as possible, it's safe to say we're in quagmire. I could go on and on about what we should have done--a big part of my disdain for our "leadership" is how they handled this crap storm--but should-have's don’t help us out now...
I'm no expert in international affairs, but I still maintain that we would be better off if we had more international help. Bush, of course, will never get it because in the beginning he petulantly flicked off those who could have helped the most. So after he finally leaves office, hopefully we can get aid in the form of troops and money. While that kind of support will be very helpful, it will not address the core of the problem; the thing that Bush and his idiot administration have been ignoring for the entirety of their failed and miserable war on terror: why they attack us.
This is probably the best example of how much better off we'd be as a nation if we had a real leader in office; someone who can make decisions for themselves and who has guts and integrity. Someone who operates like that--a real leader--would have known in the beginning that punching someone who's pissed at you for slapping them isn't how you alleviate their anger. Someone with guts would have been strong enough to lead by example instead of consistently subscribing to the notion of "do as I say and not as I do." My point is, it's widely known that the best way to stop an enemy--especially one that is bred from prejudice and ignorance--is to make them a friend; to use empathy to understand them and then compassion to win them over.
So, speaking in concrete terms, I don't think we have much of a choice while Bush is in office other than to stupidly "stay the course." Once he's gone, hopefully we'll get a real leader and we can start addressing the real problem: people's discontent. Our war on terror is exactly like the war on drugs. It cannot be won by conventional means because it is not really a "war." Every drug dealer we put in jail simply creates space for another dealer to take his place. Every terrorist whose family we bomb or harass or imprison is not going to magically see the light, they're going to hate us even more and teach that hatred to everyone they know. If we want to stop people from dealing drugs we need to stop people from using drugs. If we want to stop terrorism we need to address the causes rather than the affects. As George Clinton and Funkadelic said in the 70's, "if you don't like the affect, don't produce the cause."
I wish more people would address the cause rather than the effect, as Smorgasbord points out. But honestly, those who do so are dismissed as America-haters, terrorist-lovers, and so on. As long as the Iraq war proponent's propaganda and economic resources hold sway, then our tax dollars and military will continue to be employed as stormtroopers for corporate interests.
Better choices in candidates, as Wolnosc says, will help, but I think that will involve massive reforms in our electoral process. Eliminate lobbying, begin public funding of elections so as to eliminate candidates' buying their way into public office, more alternatives parties and independent candidates, and scrap the obsolete electoral college. If we can manage that before the neocons manage to destroy us all, then we might have a chance.
Interesting article on the monetary cost of the war.
You're right! I put together these stats, which are pretty apalling. Basically, we could have used the money to send 6.25 million students to Harvard with full four year scholarships. And that's the most conservative estimate of the cost I could find.
It's eerie how insane this whole thing is.
And how reassuring it was, that Bush had the nerve to admit that he intends to continue the war throughout the remainder of his stranglehold, er, "presidency".
Sorry so long in dropping back in. Good discussion string.
WSC, the buffoons are there because we put them there. Whose to blame? We the people.
-Jack
Not at all...
Oh, you forgot to add one--our public education system at work too!
-Jack
Post a Comment
<< Home