Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

U.s. will strike first

shirtless, beepers and suntans

05:32 / 02.06.02

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45929-2002Jun1.html

05:46 / 02.06.02

perhaps i just didn't get anough sleep last night, but reading that article made me think of the final lines of the film 'dune', with bush/america as paul moahdib (excuse spelling): "where there was hatred, moahdib would bring love. where there was war, moahdib would bring peace."

bush as the quizzach haderach (more sp?) - well, okay, probably not.

i really, really cannot help but think that many of the people who run america were *dancing* when the planes crashed into the wtc, because they now have a 'reason' to act any damn way they please (more than they did before anyway) and any country that doesn't kow-tow to america can be instantly labelled an enemy and subject to a first strike.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

09:45 / 02.06.02

Yeah. I'm sure that was so not what Jesus had in mind when he said "he that is not with me is against me".

Of course, the whole "War on Terror" thing is a self-escalating thing (sorry... none too articulate this morning)- everyone else has started using it to justify their actions, making it more likely that THEY'll piss off the US, making it more likely that... and on and fucking on.

Incidentally, sfd- funny you should mention Dune in this context- there was a great article in Fortean Times a while back, which I couldn't find a link for and thus never posted on here, in which Dave Langford pointed out (in, I have to add, a fairly tongue-in-cheek manner) that the story is basically a guy from a rich family with ovrtones of the House of Saud fucks off to live in the desert, become a religious leader and terrorist. And (this is the spooky part)- when the Fremen name him "Usul- the base of the pillar", this translates as "al-Qaida". (As does "Foundation", the Asimov series which is apparently a big seller in the East.) He also gets some Fremen to fly an ornithopter into a spice refinery, saying "a good trade. There must have been hundreds of men in that refinery".

Sorry to get off-topic there.

Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo

11:38 / 02.06.02

I don't know if they were glad about those planes hitting, but it's very easy to tell that the Bush Administration was looking to create a "war" where there wasn't one. When they got into office they shut down all talks with North Korea, perferring to make them a "Rogue State" as if it were 1952, and spent a lot of time provoking China to posture to push their Missile Defense boondoggle (which would pour BILLIONS into the coffers of companies that supported Bush with campaign funds).

What is most telling for me is that as the "War on Terrorism" goes on, the US ignores the facts that Saudi Arabia is pretty much the center of terrorist activity and instead wants to go into Iraq and refight the Gulf War.

Its always easy to distract people from domestic concerns if you've got a war on.

Matthew Fluxington

13:22 / 02.06.02

i really, really cannot help but think that many of the people who run america were *dancing* when the planes crashed into the wtc, because they now have a 'reason' to act any damn way they please (more than they did before anyway) and any country that doesn't kow-tow to america can be instantly labelled an enemy and subject to a first strike.

Which is exactly the reason that I am convinced that the Bush administration either planned or were complicit in creating or allowing the event to occur.

13:36 / 02.06.02

Don't be daft

17:57 / 02.06.02

Maybe I'm being naive here, but doesn't the belief that the executive branch planned September 11th rest on the rather unlikely premise that you could find four people willing to die for George Bush?

gentleman loser

19:21 / 02.06.02

You know it's a mad mad mad mad world when the President of the United States starts to sound like professional wrestling.

There's no question that 9/11 was the greatest possible thing that could have happened to the Bush administration, but it won't last.

Some things that will probably bring Dubya and co. down:

Another massive terrorist attack; having Dick Cheney and co. come out and say "We can't protect you, sorry!" was a political blunder of nightmarish proportions. Most of the clueless public has no idea what's going on anyway, so what was the long term advantage of getting them all upset?

The utter failure of the "war on terrorism". This is pretty much guaranteed since the U.S. is totally unprepared to commit any large scale forces anywhere. The politicians calling the shots are too scared to deal with any serious casualties. We don't have any kind of realistic military plan to deal with our supposed enemies anyway.

Any war run by politicians is a recipe for disaster. The U.S. hasn't won a major conflict in over fifty years. For all of the fools that think the that the Gulf War was such a huge success, I've got two words: Saddam Hussein. The failure of Bush's war will be a millstone around his neck, just as Vietnam was around Johnson's neck.

There will be no unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq, unless Bush is intent on political suicide.

The big question is if the Democrats will grow a spine. I predict that they will not. In any case, they still won't get my vote in 2004.

Bin Laden's sitting in a bunker somewhere laughing his ass off and no doubt raking in his Saudi/Kuwaiti funding even as I type this. I would be if I was him as well.

22:17 / 02.06.02

My favorite parts of the article:

"Some nations need military training to fight terror, and we'll provide it" -Bush. Because thats worked sooo well in the past.

and

The world Bush described was one in which the United States would lead a coalition of great powers -- including Europe, Japan, Russia and eventually China -- that share a set of values and defense priorities, allowing them to unite in stopping threats from terrorists and rogue nations and rewarding less developed states that move toward Western economic and political systems.

Oh, we get to lead the entire world? Great! But what "set of values" are we supposed to be sharing? And how are we going to reward less developed states if they choose to move/are forced into Western political/economic systems? Fuck us. Maybe someone should buy a round table.

And this: ...the Bush administration either planned or were complicit in creating or allowing the event to occur. has crossed my mind several times. I wonder if he sees himself as a modern day FDR and I wonder how the history books will see him if all the current crises are somehow averted.

22:46 / 02.06.02

I admit that this article makes me feel incredibl uneasy with President Bush. However, I cannot say I feel much differently about the suggestion that he actually planned the attacks on the World Trade Center. It's quite an accusation, and I cannot think of any evidence that would implicate him.

Heck, maybe it was organized by Al Gore, as an act of revenge against Bush for stealing the elections. Or Mayor Giuliani! His approval rating skyrocketed after September 11, and he needed that if he was going to have a political future. After all, NY has term limits. Or maybe some of the folks here at Barbelith had a hand in it. You all knew he'd start fighting wars, and, now that he has, you can call him a warmonger. Yay for us!

Fuck you.

00:13 / 03.06.02

Oh, wow, a "fuck you." Thanks, Matt.

Its been less than a year since the WTC fell and every other day some piece of info surfaces in the papers. We should have known this was going to happen. Its possible that there were huge gaps in gathering and sharing intelligence. Is it also possible that an american president would allow bad things to happen to Americans? Or turn his back on a few in order to mobalize the country towards what he feels is the greater good? I think so.

No one ever claimed FDR was flying one of the planes that bombed Pearl Harbor.

08:33 / 03.06.02

it is by no means ridiculous to ask whether the American authorities were complicit in 9/11. if people didn't ask paranoid questions, we would all simply be swallowing the government line and putting our faith in the hands of people who clearly do not have our best interests at heart. I'm not buying the idea, but questions need to be asked.

witness the ongoing hoo-ha about intelligence incompetence. Would this debate be getting any airtime at all if we weren't up to asking a few paranoid questions?

Bush's new stance scares me, and inspires much paranoia. (This, clearly, is a good thing.) But he's clearly all mouth and no trousers. He's not capable of effecting change on this level. Of course, he's more than capable of blowing shit up, but that isn't the kind of change we need.

shirtless, beepers and suntans

21:29 / 03.06.02

you're all jackasses. everyone knows 9/11 was orchestrated by the country singer who penned "proud to be an american." you know--what's-his-name.

00:28 / 04.06.02

if people didn't ask paranoid questions, we would all simply be swallowing the government line and putting our faith in the hands of people who clearly do not have our best interests at heart.

Are you sure you mean "paranoid questions"? Maybe it's just me, but I think of paranoia as implicitly irrational. In this case, we would indeed be looking into intelligence incompetence even without asking paranoid questions, because there is evidence presented that they have problems.

I hope you'll forgive me if I reacted harshly. I'm afraid I still haven't gotten over the attacks on the World Trade Centre.

08:54 / 04.06.02

SMatthew- yep, I'm sure. Paranoia opens up so many interesting new lines of enquiry. Where would we be without it?

15:19 / 04.06.02

Looks like Gephardt's getting in line, w/r/t Iraq:

http://www.salon.com/politics/wire/2002/06/04/gephardt/index.html

' "I share President Bush's resolve to confront this menace head-on," the Missouri Democrat, a likely presidential contender in 2004, said in a speech prepared for delivery on Tuesday. '

He's the House Democratic leader. I think it's cute that Democrats are thinking of running for president in the next election.

22:10 / 04.06.02

I saw this article in the Times on the weekend with the headline "War on Terror to be brought to 60 nations". That was a wake-up.

But reading the above posts, I remember that barely anyone outside of the US will help them in attacking any other countries, and that they probably couldn't go it alone against Iraq if they wanted to.

"We have our best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the 17th century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace instead of prepare for war." This brings a picture of what Europe was like just before WWI. Not a nice thought. Shall we go back to dividing up the lesser nations amongst us? China gets SE Asia, America gets the Western Hemisphere, etc.? And then have a nice worldwide war over it?

Although Bush wasnt in on the planning of the attacks or directly responsible, the govt. is the one who armed all those bastards back in the day and should be held partly responsible.

00:13 / 05.06.02

The article says "Historically, the U.S. military has not conducted preemptive or surprise attacks," and this is not really accurate. The Clinton administration conducted preemptive attacks on targets believed to be building weapons of mass destruction. It has not done so without error, and there is a danger in using preempive attacks. The change in policy seems to be that the Clinton administration wasn't so damned loud about it.

It is difficult for me to oppose the destruction of a chemical or biological weapons facility in any nation, especially one hostile to the United States. However, it does present a danger of increasing tensions between nations. It is a problem that we may get innaccurate intelligence reports and bomb a building not producing weapons at all. It is even a problem that our president, or those informing him could lie about it, and we bomb someone we just don't like very much. Even if you accept that bombing a chemical weapons facility is justified, it may not be good policy. And I think that Bush has a little more in mind than just this. He's likely to seek out terrorist organizations, which is a very dangerous position.

As someone said, it turns "Islamic terrorists" into magic words. Even if the U.S. were to be completely noble in their preemptive strikes, it makes it difficult to criticize other nations who say, "we're doing what you're doing."

00:16 / 05.06.02

Sorry. When I said, "seek out terrorist organizations," I was incomplete. I am not opposed in any way to finding them. It is that he may target the leadership or their meeting centres, detain members and supporters of the organization, and so on.

15:10 / 06.06.02

the clinton attack on the pharmaceutical plants was ostensibly in retaliation for the terrorist attack on the german discotecque where "Our Boys Over There" were killed whilst boogie-ing down and probably thinking about scoring a date rape . . .

this is a change, i guess, in that we've decided we need less and less pretext for our attacks. "The more power and privilege you have, the
less it’s necessary to think, because you can do what you want anyway. When power and privilege decline, willingness to think becomes part of survival. "

we become more poweful, we become stupider, or at least less refined in our justifications for our actions . . . .