Want to win the war on terror? Stop engaging in it!

…and stop allying ourselves with those that do!

These are some very apt (paraphrased) words of one of the all-time most hated critics of US foreign policy among cheap laborites – Noam Chomsky. Now before the cheap laborites of this website begin with the ad-hominem attacks, let me get to a specific case which underscores Chomsky’s words - that of the Bush government’s reprehensible relationship with the brutal and tyrannical regime of Karimov of Uzbekistan, a man described as “every bit as bad as Saddam” by former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray.

In this in-depth interview with Amy Goodman, Murray describes the long-standing friendly relationship of Bush with Uzbec dictator Karimov – hooked up by none other than the infamous Kenneth Lay of Enron, who introduced then governor Bush to Uzbec ambassador Safayev to conclude a billion-dollar gas deal.

[quote]Karimov is one of the most vicious dictators in the world, a man who is responsible for the death of thousands of people. Prisoners are boiled to death in Uzbek jails. And he was a guest in the White House in 2002. It’s very easy to find photos of George Bush shaking Karimov’s hand. Rumsfeld is particularly chummy with Karimov, so

A further interesting discussion along this line. Quite a long read, but an indepth examination of the evolution of state sponsored military activity against the terrorist suicide/homocide bomber threat.

[quote]The Counterrevolution
in Military Affairs
Fashionable thinking about defense ignores the great threats of our time.

by Ralph Peters, 02/06/2006, Volume 011, Issue 20

[i]“The ultimate precision weapon, the suicide bomber simultaneously redefines the scope of “legitimate” targets. Delighted to kill our troops, this implacable enemy who regards death as a promotion is equally ready to slaughter men, women, and children of unknown identity who have done him no harm. His force of will towers over our own. He cannot win wars on the traditional battlefields we cherish, but his commitment and actions transcend such tidy limits. In the moment of his deed, the suicide bomber is truly larger than life. The world’s a stage, and every suicide bomber is, at least briefly, a star.”

“paradox of our time is that the overwhelmingly secular global media–a collection of natural-born religion-haters–have become the crucial accomplices of the suicide bomber fueled by rabid faith. Mass murderers are lionized as freedom fighters, while our own troops are attacked by the press they protect for the least waywardness or error. One begins to wonder if the bomber’s suicidal impulse isn’t matched by a deep death wish affecting the West’s cultural froth.”

“One of the most consistently disheartening experiences an adult can have today is to listen to the endless attempts by our intellectuals and intelligence professionals to explain religious terrorism in clinical terms, assigning rational motives to men who have moved irrevocably beyond reason. We suffer under layers of intellectual asymmetries that hinder us from an intuitive recognition of our enemies. Our rear-guard rationalists range from those convinced that every security problem has a technological solution, if only it can be found, to those who insist that members of al Qaeda and its affiliates are motivated by finite, comprehensible, and logical ambitions that, if satisfied, would make our problems disappear.”[/i]
[/quote]

No start letting boys play with Barbie and such at a young age and we wont have to worry about war in the future. :wink:

What bombastic, psychotic rot. The secular global media is a collection of natural born religion haters? Think about that for a second. Natural born religion haters. What sense does that make? Mass murders are lionized as freedom fighters? Where? A deep death wish affecting the West’s cultural froth?

Absolute, total, unmitigated nonsense. The most obnoxious pile of stinking bullshit to ever grace the pages of forumosa. The kind of thing that the lunatic right uses to lend, in their own minds at least, intellectual legitamacy to their obscene agenda.

I think we need fred back here to give another course in critical reading skills.

While I agree with Bob’s opinions on the parts quoted, if you click through the link you come up with this:

[quote]Our prime weapon in our struggles with terrorists, insurgents, and warriors of every patchwork sort remains the soldier or Marine; yet, confronted with reality’s bloody evidence, we simply pretend that other, future, hypothetical wars will justify the systems we adore–purchased at the expense of the assets we need.

Stubbornly, we continue to fantasize that a wondrous enemy will appear who will fight us on our own terms, as a masked knight might have materialized at a stately tournament in a novel by Sir Walter Scott. Yet, not even China–the threat beloved of major defense contractors and their advocates–would play by our rules if folly ignited war. Against terrorists, we have found technology alone incompetent to master men of soaring will–our own flesh and blood provide the only effective counter. At the other extreme, a war with China, which our war gamers blithely assume would be brief, would reveal the quantitative incompetence of our forces. An assault on a continent-spanning power would swiftly drain our stocks of precision weapons, ready pilots, and aircraft. Quality, no matter how great, is not a reliable substitute for a robust force in being and deep reserves that can be mobilized rapidly.

There is, in short, not a single enemy in existence or on the horizon willing to play the victim to the military we continue to build. [/quote]

Combined with this:

latimes.com/technology/la-na … 3146.story

Never thought I’d be praising the Weekly Standard, but is there a sharper condemnation of Rumsfeldian incompetence out there ?

Thanks. I hadn’t bothered to click onto the link. Judging from the quality of what TC quoted why would I? Anyway, it is an interesting article. Especially in the way it vacillates between the sensible and the practically insane so effortlessly. Have a look at this…

Heralded? Where?

It scares and disgusts a lot of people but this is the first I’ve heard of it impressing anybody.

Resounds as a vivid act of faith? Only a religious fanatic would say something like that.

So, the people we need to understand one set of religious fanatics is another group of religious fanatics? I imagine those same people would have a lot of say in formulating policy as well. Sounds like a plan. For Armageddon.

Paradoxically enough I don’t believe in God and yet have experienced what certainly felt at least like soul shaking glimpses of the divine. These experiences are so hard to nail down with precise terminology dontcha know. Anyway I don’t think those experiences qualify me as any sort of expert in the war on terror, nor on the effects of economic deprivation for that matter.

“Almost nothing” to do with our actions? The election of Hamas, for instance, has “almost nothing to do with our actions”. :loco:

About all of the above…

Um, am I missing something? What the heck does any of this have to do with Bush allying himself with a tyrannical, torture and rape-room employing dictator for energy contracts, and using the so-called ‘war on terror’ as a front for it?

:loco: :loco: :loco:

What bombastic, psychotic rot. The secular global media is a collection of natural born religion haters? Think about that for a second. Natural born religion haters. What sense does that make? Mass murders are lionized as freedom fighters? Where? A deep death wish affecting the West’s cultural froth?

[b]Absolute, total, unmitigated nonsense. The most obnoxious pile of stinking bullshit to ever grace the pages of forumosa. The kind of thing that the lunatic right uses to lend, in their own minds at least, intellectual legitamacy to their obscene agenda.

I think we need fred back here to give another course in critical reading skills.[/quote]bob -
Gee…am I sensing some angst here?

[quote=“bob”]Thanks. I hadn’t bothered to click onto the link. Judging from the quality of what TC quoted why would I? Anyway, it is an interesting article. Especially in the way it vacillates between the sensible and the practically insane so effortlessly. Have a look at this… [/quote]So…ya didn’t read the article or see the context of the quotes? Thats OK bob, I didn’t write the piece. [quote=“bob”]Resounds as a vivid act of faith? Only a religious fanatic would say something like that.[/quote]Hmm…whats a non-religious fanatic called?[quote=“bob”]So, the people we need to understand one set of religious fanatics is another group of religious fanatics? I imagine those same people would have a lot of say in formulating policy as well. Sounds like a plan. For Armageddon.[/quote] That ‘Armageddon’ thing shouldn’t be of concernn to you, eh?[quote=“bob”]Paradoxically enough I don’t believe in God and yet have experienced what certainly felt at least like soul shaking glimpses of the divine. These experiences are so hard to nail down with precise terminology dontcha know.[/quote]Could be the divine, if so, Bless Ya for your testimony![quote=“bob”]Anyway I don’t think those experiences qualify me as any sort of expert in the war on terror, nor on the effects of economic deprivation for that matter.[/quote] Agree with you here.[quote=“bob”]I think we need fred back here to give another course in critical reading skills.[/quote]Just remember to click the links and read the referenced articles before you post comments and you’ll be OK. And its nice you miss the leadership Mr. Smith provided for so many of you. :smiley:

[quote=“Vay”]About all of the above…

Um, am I missing something? What the heck does any of this have to do with Bush allying himself with a tyrannical, torture and rape-room employing dictator for energy contracts, and using the so-called ‘war on terror’ as a front for it?[/quote]

I dunno. You were the one that directed me to the link.

No angst here TC just a desire to weed out the Christian propoganda when I see it. I read the whole article after Vay directed me to it and found “some” of it quite informative actually. What gets me though is that out of all the reasonable enough paragraphs in that article you would pick out the most patently ridiculous. What’s up with that?

Are you sure you’re not talking about Cowboy’s link?

Actually I was talking about this…

but, oops, I just noticed it was MikeN who read the thing and foundsomething worthwhile in it. My mistake. Sorry.

That link you provided to the British Ambassador’s site is a lot more interesting in any case. I’ve yet to read through the whole thing will try but am certainly forward to more discussion of the issue. Thanks.

And again, sorry for sidetracking it here.

What bombastic, psychotic rot. The secular global media is a collection of natural born religion haters? Think about that for a second. Natural born religion haters. What sense does that make? Mass murders are lionized as freedom fighters? Where? A deep death wish affecting the West’s cultural froth?

Absolute, total, unmitigated nonsense. [/quote]
Seconded. Total horse-hockey.

What never fails to amuse me is when religious twits try their damndest to characterize secular people as irrational. Think about it for a minute–you go to a church and say things out loud and to yourself to an anthropomorphic god who had an, erm, son who died on earth and then was brought back to life which for some reason works as a sacrifice so that your “soul,” a spirit or ghost which survives after your physical body stops working, is saved from going to a nasty place called “hell.” Yup, okay. Now you want to call secularists nutty?

If you have 10 minutes , take a look at this!

http://www.dumpalink.com/media/1137496524/The_False_Connection_Between_911_and_Iraq

[quote=“The Specialist”]If you have 10 minutes , take a look at this!

http://www.dumpalink.com/media/1137496524/The_False_Connection_Between_911_and_Iraq[/quote]

Interesting. We’ve actually been arguing these very issues here at Forumosa and its predecessor, Oriented, since the summer of 2002 but this video is a well-condensed summary of one side of that argument.

There was a vocal contingent of supporters of neoconservatism here at one point arguing the other side but they’ve largely disappeared.

I don’t agree with the conclusion of the video though that the invasion of Iraq was primarily about oil. Karen Kwiatkowski, you’ll notice, implies as much when she says that while concern about access to oil is an important component of U.S. strategy – and rightly so – it merely coincides with the goals of neoconservatism.

The true motivation behind the invasion of Iraq was to seize an opportunity to eliminate a significant military threat to Israel. It’s the only motivation which adequately explains events. While neoconservatives deny it and call such a claim anit-semitism, their lame litany of ever-changing “justifications” is certainly no proper explanation. The fact is that neoconservatives to a person are all strong supporters of Israel but most of them have little or no real passion about energy politics, certainly not enough to start a war over.

Been wondering about that. I don’t read much from the US these days but has the neocon tub thumping that followed 911 died down a tad there too? Do you think it might somehow be related to a swing against the Bush agenda?

HG

Been wondering about that. I don’t read much from the US these days but has the neocon tub thumping that followed 911 died down a tad there too? Do you think it might somehow be related to a swing against the Bush agenda?

HG[/quote]

I think it’s more to do with the bullshit moderating here.

So…all you and American traitors, Canadians, Australians, and Brits can once again join in your happy little circle-jerk. I know you’ll enjoy yourselves.

Jesus!! Awoke a giant!

CS, I think traitor’s a tad harsh. Anyway, a circle-jerk’s no fun. I need the presence of yin to fill my yang. :laughing:

Again, quite oblivious to the actual machinations, though I have seen several references. I’d certainly hope it wasn’t the cause for so much wise commentary dropping off the radar.

HG

Been wondering about that. I don’t read much from the US these days but has the neocon tub thumping that followed 911 died down a tad there too? Do you think it might somehow be related to a swing against the Bush agenda?

HG[/quote]

I think the real reason they’ve gone AWOL is because of the old saying that “time tells all” and time wasn’t on the side of neoconservatives.

It’s virtually impossible in a free-speech, open society for propaganda to compete with the truth though so their ill-tempered exit from the public stage was inevitable.

They’ll be back though, just like their counterpart Osama bin Laden eventually will be who likewise accuses moderate Muslims who refuse to participate in his holy war of being “traitors.”

[quote=“spook”]
I think the real reason they’ve gone AWOL is because of the old saying that “time tells all” and time wasn’t on the side of neoconservatives.

It’s virtually impossible in a free-speech, open society for propaganda to compete with the truth though so their ill-tempered exit from the public stage was inevitable.[/quote]
Don’t kid yourself. Aside from Comrade Stalin, whose politics are just to the right of Ghengis Khan, the rightwingers have mostly stopped posting here. You lefties like to congratulate yourself on the self-imposed exile of Fred Smith, but you’re fooling yourself if you think you “won” the polemical war. Mr. Stalin is kinda right on one score, even if the tone is off-putting and not appropriate…the IP forum has turned into a lefty “circle-jerk.”

I’m certainly not going to take up a position as a standard-bearer for Fred Smith, because I disagree with him on a lot of issues, but for all my griping about what an imbecile Bush is (and make no mistake…the man is seriously demented), I’m still a centrist who has to admit that the evidence is clear that the current administration has been fundamentally right on two scores: the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I’ve looked at all of the evidence from both sides of the political spectrum, and honestly cannot be convinced that they were anything but unavoidable.

Ah, Mr. bin Laden is a “counterpart” of the neo-cons. Erm…okay. You see, this is where you lefties lose me, and indeed, put off rational people who might otherwise by inclined to listen to what you have to say. The hysterical posturing mixed in with Chomsky-ite casuistry do nothing to further your cause. And yes, before you counter with “but what about Comrade Stalin’s “traitors” remark?”, I’ll be the first to say that his abrasive posturing is a big turn-off as well.