Saddam Stretched

[mattp]

When are we allowed to ask questions about the Bush's "coincidental" connections to some of the worst villains in modern history? Oh its just because they were all rich and involved in business deals unrelated to their politics? I don't think you have to be a conspiracy theorists for these facts to bother you.

 

Plenty of folks have been asking questions, but it has pretty much uniformly been brushed off as "paranoia" or "mud slinging." Maybe it is, maybe it is not.

 

I'm still wondering why anybody thinks we turned Saddam over to the Iraqi's -- and whether anybody actually thinks such a move was thought more likely to contribute to increased increased instability or peace and reconciliation in Iraq.

[W]

The sarcasm is noted Jay, and I agree that the attempts at labeling such things as a "direct link" are usually a desperate stretch.

 

But what is our recourse for criticism of our government's past misdeeds, which seem to repeat themselves ad nauseum? Right now we're almost 4 years into a war that started to depose a supposedly threatening leader, to whom our very own government provided arms and tactical support to fight the Iranians in the 1980's... and continued to do so for years while that same leader openly committed genocidal acts against his own people. Saddam's character never changed; what changed was his usefulness to us. This sort of "usefulness" that has been repeatedly exploited by our government- to the detriment of countless victims, however unintended- is what I'd like to see more critically examined.

[chucK]

Who is making lots of money in Iraq?

 

Yeah and who makes money doing what you propose continually on this forum on a myriad of topics? Scum-bag, POS lawyers.

 

KK,

 

I used to reasonably value your posts on these topics and carefully consider what you had to say. But lately you've turned into a real asshole.

 

Just thought you'd like to know .

[olyclimber]

[tvashtarkatena]

Our main reason for helping Saddam gain power and keep him there by supplying him with so much aid, military and otherwise, was to counter a powerful Iran. When Saddam went to war with Iran, the US sanctioned and encouraged it. Eight years and a million dead later, the two nations were still stalemated.

 

That ended our 'influence by proxy nation' policy, which began with the installment of the Shah. We had been 'screwed' by both Iran and Iraq at that point. A more direct US influence in the region was 'needed'. Hence, Gulf war I and II, brought to us by Bush I and II.

 

The result, predictably, has been an out and out foreign policy, security, and humanitarian disaster. Ironically, now we're being screwed a second time by both Iran and Iraq, and our influence in the region is, shall we say, tenuous.

[olyclimber]

So, what you're saying is, its all about stupidity.

[Winter]

There are plenty of factually correct statements in Mein Kampf, but the presence of isolated facts in the text doesn't necessarily validate Hitler's central argument.

 

In the case of the Bin Ladens, they've been the principal contractors for the Saudi Royal family for decades, and amassed a fortune as the result of that relationship. Given the size and scope of the conglomerate that they operate, and the wealth that they've amassed, they probably have stakes in an untold number of corporations, hedge-funds, etc. I'd be astonished if they didn't have equity stakes in every company in the S&P 500. So, the Bin Laden family - of which there are literally hundreds of members by this point - had a stake in the Carlyle Group - ergo...the Bush administration is complicit in a conspiracy to bring down the Twin Towers.

 

I have it on good authority that a member of the Bin Laden family consumed a beverage produced by the Coca Cola company. This is a fact. Ergo the CEO of Coca-Cola might as well have been on the plane with Atta or huddled in a cave with Osama.

 

 

Oh yeah, drinking Coca Cola, selling arms and weapons to the Saudis, funding Bin Laden to fight the Soveits - its all the same. They're rich - they have ties to everything. Bury your head in the sand and ignore it - you'll feel much better.

 

JB, I never alleged that Bush brought down the towers. That may or may not be true - but I think there are much larger questions of whether and how the Bush family's business dealings have impacted our national security interests and whether they have used their political positions to financially benefit themselves and their friends to the detriment of those security interests.

 

But the Bin Ladens probably eat pop rocks too, so I'll just tune back into infomercials for the ginsu knive knowing you're on the muthafucka.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

No, smart people in charge fuck up to, just more spectacularly.

 

I'd say the American ego, naivete, and sense of world entitlement came into play more than stupidity in these fiascos.

Edited January 3, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

The sarcasm is noted Jay, and I agree that the attempts at labeling such things as a "direct link" are usually a desperate stretch.

 

But what is our recourse for criticism of our government's past misdeeds, which seem to repeat themselves ad nauseum? Right now we're almost 4 years into a war that started to depose a supposedly threatening leader, to whom our very own government provided arms and tactical support to fight the Iranians in the 1980's... and continued to do so for years while that same leader openly committed genocidal acts against his own people. Saddam's character never changed; what changed was his usefulness to us. This sort of "usefulness" that has been repeatedly exploited by our government- to the detriment of countless victims, however unintended- is what I'd like to see more critically examined.

 

One could make the same arguments about the Roosevelt administration's dealings with Stalin, no? I think that the statement that there are no permanent allies, only permanent interests, is the central principle that actually governs international relations. If you think in terms of interests rather than allies, then some of the inconsistency that you are bemoaning goes away, and the reason why these sorts of unsavory compromises are a fixture of any consequential nation's history becomes evident. It would be nice if it were otherwise, but I don't forsee reality simplifying to the extent that future leaders are spared the necessity of weighing conflicting perogatives or reconciling conflicting interests when trying to determine the best course of action.

[tvashtarkatena]

It's not in our interest to have 30 years of foreign policy backfire miserably. Our interests in the Middle East may have been clearly understood by the administrations involved, but Americans should be asking ourselves by now this question: Why are we so fucking bad, and getting worse, at using foreign policy to move our interests forward? The problem, in my view, is a fundamental flaw in our thinking. Unilateral hegemony is a loser, and always will be. Every nation that has tried it has failed at great cost.

 

And as for our alliance with Stalin, that is a unique and thus bad example. Hitler was on the other side of that equation. There hasn't been world threat that even approaches the scope of Hitler's aggression since.

 

We would do much better foriegn policy wise if we chose allies based on our interests AND values, particularly a respect for basic human rights. That is a more long term strategy, but one that would more successfully spread democracy than what we have been practicing. And a democratic world is definitely in our best interest.

[olyclimber]

No, smart people in charge fuck up to, just more spectacularly.

 

I'd say the American ego, naivete, and sense of world entitlement came into play more than stupidity in these fiascos.

 

How is this not collective stupidity, stupid?!

[Mr_Phil]

And a democratic world is definitely in our best interest.

 

It's the democratic world which put George W. in charge.

 

Paradox, no?

[olyclimber]

No one is as dumb as all of us.

[JayB]

There are plenty of factually correct statements in Mein Kampf, but the presence of isolated facts in the text doesn't necessarily validate Hitler's central argument.

 

In the case of the Bin Ladens, they've been the principal contractors for the Saudi Royal family for decades, and amassed a fortune as the result of that relationship. Given the size and scope of the conglomerate that they operate, and the wealth that they've amassed, they probably have stakes in an untold number of corporations, hedge-funds, etc. I'd be astonished if they didn't have equity stakes in every company in the S&P 500. So, the Bin Laden family - of which there are literally hundreds of members by this point - had a stake in the Carlyle Group - ergo...the Bush administration is complicit in a conspiracy to bring down the Twin Towers.

 

I have it on good authority that a member of the Bin Laden family consumed a beverage produced by the Coca Cola company. This is a fact. Ergo the CEO of Coca-Cola might as well have been on the plane with Atta or huddled in a cave with Osama.

 

 

Oh yeah, drinking Coca Cola, selling arms and weapons to the Saudis, funding Bin Laden to fight the Soveits - its all the same. They're rich - they have ties to everything. Bury your head in the sand and ignore it - you'll feel much better.

 

JB, I never alleged that Bush brought down the towers. That may or may not be true - but I think there are much larger questions of whether and how the Bush family's business dealings have impacted our national security interests and whether they have used their political positions to financially benefit themselves and their friends to the detriment of those security interests.

 

But the Bin Ladens probably eat pop rocks too, so I'll just tune back into infomercials for the ginsu knive knowing you're on the muthafucka.

 

 

Your seem to think that your allegations are actually more fully substantiated and more consequential than the pop-rocks example, but your essential claim is no more well established. Take a fact, make an allegation, and then engage in some far-ranging speculation. Same model, different specifics.

 

This "Until someone can prove otherwise, I believe X" model of thinking is a hallmark of the paranoid and the deluded, and your last post should be included in the revised-and-updated edition of Hofstatder's tome. "Until you can prove to me that the toaster in my kitchen DIDN'T come alive and try to molest me last night, you've got no right to question this claim. There is a toaster in my kitchen. I was in my house last night. These are facts...."

 

Sorry - but the passion and commitment behind your claims is not the least bit consistent with the either the magnitude of the evidence nor the power - cough - of the arguments that you've brought to bear to support them, so don't be surprised if folks beyond the ideological ramparts are not persuaded by either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Agreed, but Bush ran on one thing, got elected, then did something completely different.

 

Now that re-election...I'm too stupid to figure that one out.

[Clavote]

No, smart people in charge fuck up to, just more spectacularly.

 

I'd say the American ego, naivete, and sense of world entitlement came into play more than stupidity in these fiascos.

 

Were #1 Baby!!!!

 

Right?

[Mr_Phil]

Is anyone even speculating at this point that the Bush family may not be complete and utter pricks?

 

They hide em well.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Errgo: That quality of a fuck up that will not allow them to admit that they’ve fucked up.

[Winter]

There are plenty of factually correct statements in Mein Kampf, but the presence of isolated facts in the text doesn't necessarily validate Hitler's central argument.

 

In the case of the Bin Ladens, they've been the principal contractors for the Saudi Royal family for decades, and amassed a fortune as the result of that relationship. Given the size and scope of the conglomerate that they operate, and the wealth that they've amassed, they probably have stakes in an untold number of corporations, hedge-funds, etc. I'd be astonished if they didn't have equity stakes in every company in the S&P 500. So, the Bin Laden family - of which there are literally hundreds of members by this point - had a stake in the Carlyle Group - ergo...the Bush administration is complicit in a conspiracy to bring down the Twin Towers.

 

I have it on good authority that a member of the Bin Laden family consumed a beverage produced by the Coca Cola company. This is a fact. Ergo the CEO of Coca-Cola might as well have been on the plane with Atta or huddled in a cave with Osama.

 

 

Oh yeah, drinking Coca Cola, selling arms and weapons to the Saudis, funding Bin Laden to fight the Soveits - its all the same. They're rich - they have ties to everything. Bury your head in the sand and ignore it - you'll feel much better.

 

JB, I never alleged that Bush brought down the towers. That may or may not be true - but I think there are much larger questions of whether and how the Bush family's business dealings have impacted our national security interests and whether they have used their political positions to financially benefit themselves and their friends to the detriment of those security interests.

 

But the Bin Ladens probably eat pop rocks too, so I'll just tune back into infomercials for the ginsu knive knowing you're on the muthafucka.

 

 

Your seem to think that your allegations are actually more fully substantiated and more consequential than the pop-rocks example, but your essential claim is no more well established. Take a fact, make an allegation, and then engage in some far-ranging speculation. Same model, different specifics.

 

This "Until someone can prove otherwise, I believe X" model of thinking is a hallmark of the paranoid and the deluded, and your last post should be included in the revised-and-updated edition of Hofstatder's tome. "Until you can prove to me that the toaster in my kitchen DIDN'T come alive and try to molest me last night, you've got no right to question this claim. There is a toaster in my kitchen. I was in my house last night. These are facts...."

 

Sorry - but the passion and commitment behind your claims is not the least bit consistent with the either the magnitude of the evidence nor the power - cough - of the arguments that you've brought to bear to support them, so don't be surprised if folks beyond the ideological ramparts are not persuaded by either.

 

 

JB, what allegations and what passion and commitment? I have posed a couple of questions - I offered no answers and I set forth no hypotheses or speculation and certainly not an argument. You dogmatic fascination with labeling people paranoid/ideological/deluded and generally intellectucally inferior to yourself is seriously clouding your basic reading comprehension skills amigo.

 

Dissent is partiotic - we ought to look skeptically upon our leaders when their business deals overlap with their political roles as public servants. You can label people, call them names, belittle them and generally be an elitist ass towards them with your fancy prose and acadmic theories, but our leaders should answer the questions instead of hiding behind a wall of elitism and privilege. The American public is tired of being ridiculed for posing perfectly good questions - witness the last election.

[tvashtarkatena]

It's a conspiracy of conspiracy theorists.

[mattp]

And as for our alliance with Stalin, that is a unique and thus bad example. Hitler was on the other side of that equation. There hasn't been world threat that even approaches the scope of Hitler's aggression since.

 

Really, WE are about as close as it has come - both in terms of our ability and our stated aspirations going back over 20 years. Read this:

 

http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm

 

Certainly we are no Nazi Germany, but no free Nation or aspiring world power of any kind can be completely comforted by the proclamations of the Wolfilwitz doctrine, the "for us or against us" rhetoric employed by our leaders since 911, or how we've come to play it out. Whatever we thought we were doing in Iraq, it has certainly proven to be a disaster and our policies with regard to Afghanistan, N. Korea or the Darfur don't appear to be working out very well either -- at least for the moment -- except that in at least some of these cases there are some friends of our first family that are making tons of money.

[tvashtarkatena]

Whatever threat we are to the world's security, and I believe we are significant in that department, pales in comparison to the environmental threat we pose to the climate.

[Winter]

The world's security is dependent upon the environment. They are one in the same. People will kill each other to get the air, water and food they need to feed their families.

[olyclimber]

It's just me against the world, baby.

 

[Bogen]

mwC08cDeSzg