Cost of War

by teejay 135 Replies latest social current

  • Abaddon

    Before dealing with Thi Chi's response, I would just like to say a big "Thank you" to President Bush, Republican's in general, all those who voted for him and all those who still support him.

    Prior to 911, Afghanistan and Iraq, I didn't know that much about American politics, at least nothing beyond the surface.

    The policies and action of the American government have not only made me become increasingly political, they have made me become increasingly informed, often through discussions here, but also by research elsewhere.

    I can't say I like what I have found out. But I am glad I know it, as ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is not knowing someething.

    In the past few months this has accelerated and I've read of and seen for myself the persistant patterns that can be seen. Also, the coverage by the European media is becoming more accute and is focusing beyond the current issues to the pattern of behaviour in US foreign policy, it's justifications and it's supporters, not only today but back decades. Such analysis reveal a widespread and persistant policy of manipulation by a radical fringe; the programme 'The Power of Nightmares' on the BBC last night was a fine example of such journalism (and a great source of one of two additonal piceces of useful information).

    Most conspiracy theories are bullshit. I debunk and laugh at them.

    But discovering that the US foreign policy (and often the voting of US citizens) IS made on the basis of made-up stories both in the seventies and eighties and today, and that those made-up stories are being made by the same people as then and are based upon an ultra-nationalistic school of thought that actually holds manipulation of the masses by an elite as a good thing. Well, that was a bit of shock, as I thought it was just another conspiracy theory to begin with.

    Now, if you don't know this and laugh and don't read further as you think it is rubbish; more fool you. This can be backed to the HILT, often by statements by the people involved. I am as serious as a serious thing wearing a serious hat on a serious day.

    But, having given my thanks where due to my politicalisation, let's deal with Thi Chi;

    lol. You can't meet the logic test, so lets argue non-issues.

    Ah, so ad homs get added to the continual strawmen, and I don't pass the logic test...? Is your full handle Thi Deceit Chi?

    And if the World being controlled by a small unelected (by the World) elite is a "non-issue", as I say; your love of democracy is all too clear. But if you are 'down with' Leo Staruss, that is scarsely surprising

    You also ignore the examples I gave (which are but a small cross section) of why your statement 'right for the US and the World' is demonstrably false, and then try to make it seem I only bring "non-issues" to the table, when it is you who are ignoring the issues as you can't respond to them.

    You also evade answering this;

    Do you feel 'the ends justify the means'? If not how do you justify the means?

    But then, whilst probably not nearly as clever as you think you are, you're not as stupid as your evasion and logical fallacies can make you seem. If you say the ends justify the means even you can see that puts you in a basket with Facists, Stalanists, radical Muslims, all of those who will suppress personal freedoms or violate human rights if it will acheieve their desired goal.

    Fine. Since we are a Republic form of government, not a Democracy, It is our elected leaders who make the decisions for the US.

    And don't you neo-cons love it that way?

    With power concentrated into an elite, chosen by a quasi-democratic mechanism for a term of office, one can play all sorts of games with the world. Especially if one reduces politics to a game of 'scare the proles', using fear to influence their voting patterns.

    Let's do a bit of "dodilly-doo, dodilly-doo" flashback complete with hand movements like in Wayne's World and see just how badly you have been fooled - or how much you are prepared to lie to defend your world-view.

    Back in 1976 the neo-conservative attempts at manipulating opinions and thus gaining control of power (by both creating something to fear AND offering to save people from it - like a rat catcher who brings a box of rats to set loose and drum up business) began in earnest.

    The results of a analysis of intelligence data by a group of neo-conservatives, set in motion by George Bush Senior, and manned by such people as Paul Wolfowitz, lead the USSR to be indenitified and described as an evil force, a danger to world peace, and desirous of world domination of its philosophies.

    Though Team B?s analysis of the Soviet Union as a rising power on the verge of overwhelming the United States is now recognized by intelligence professionals and many historians as a ludicrous fantasy, it helped shape the national security debate in the late 1970s. American conservatives and neo-conservatives wielded the analysis like a club to bludgeon more moderate Republicans and Democrats, who saw a declining Soviet Union desperate for arms control and other negotiations.

    Neo-Conservatism essentially arose from the writings of Leo Strauss, who having escaped Nazi Germany saw the increasing personal freedoms in post-war America as undermining society, and felt that totalitarian givernments using Orwellian propogandic techniques was the best way to have a stable society, run by an elite.

    It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical ? divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right ? the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."

    This dichotomy requires "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says,"The people are told what they need to know and no more." While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of 'Leo Strauss and the American Right' (St. Martin's 1999).

    I encourage people to read all this article; it's illuminating; here's some other quotes about how Strauss felt;

    "the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state... "

    "Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control... "

    "At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were "a pious fraud." As Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers.""

    People, if you vote for Bush, this is what you are voting for, as the Bush reigeme is neo-con to the tips of its lying little toes, and they think you are the masses and that they are the elite.

    Anyway, the lies and fabrication of Team B lead to the candle of detante being snuffed out on totally fabricated grounds. For example, Team B decided, without evidence, that the Soviet's sub force had a non-acoustic detection system. No evidence, and no system, but they said there was one. Sound familiar in any way to recent events?

    The Soviet went from a country willing to enter into a new age of tolerance and interdependence, to a country that wanted to dominate the world, on the basis of made-up stories.

    People at the heart of this - the Bush family, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz - are at the heart of the same game being played today. With the Soviets were no longer being a credible threat there's a new threat; Islamic Terrorism!

    Just as the Soviet Union was not the threat their lies portrayed it to be, so too Iraq was not the threat that their lies portrayed it to be;

    • No WoMD.
    • The 'War on Terror' justification was never that good, as the terrorist attack everyone thought of when that's said had nothing to do with Iraq.
    • And as the USA has and still supports reigemes that violate human rights as badly as Saddam Hussain's did, the claims of humanitarian reasons are empty.

    I guess that massive incompetence seperated by two decades, carried out by the same people, is a more palitable 'coincidence' to believe in than the fact many people have been fooled, and fooled good.

    Obviously there IS a terrorist threat from some fundamental Islamists. But the scale and direction of millitary investment is often NOT effective for terrorist warfare.

    Speaking of fundamental Islamists (who are also traditionalists and willing to use religion to political ends whilst acting out-of-character with the actual beliefs of their religion under some theological justification peaceful people of the same faith refute) one is speaking not of a nation of millions with an army, but of those hold-outs against modernism that are typically at the margins of their societies.

    They might be able to stage audatious attacks, but to arge that they're a major threat to world peace (if the world acts sensibly) is to say 6 billion people can be pursuaded to go to war by a few million (at the most bloated of estimates of potential recruits).

    But of course, a war against terror doesn't require big armies and massive budgets. The fact that Afghanistan is still unstable enough to regulary have casualties, and the ongoing battle with counter-insurgants and terrorists in Iraq shows proper armies don't fight dispersed paramilitaries well.

    But they are great for taking over strategic prizes and getting away with whatever the country possessing them wants on a 'might is right' basis. These are also parts of Strauss's poltical doctines.

    Now, Thi Chi might be ignorant of this. Thi CHi might be a dupe for the neo-con propoganda. Or he might be an apologist for the neo cons. Or Thi Chi might think Thi Chi is one of the elite. It doesn't really matter as Thi Chi is not important.

    The fact the most powerful country in the world is being run by what essentially operates as a ultra-nationalist political schism of conservatism is important.

    The fact neo-cons fabricated evidence to allow a massive millitary build-up in the '70's, and the same bunch (give or take) are doing the same thing again is important.

    Whether one choses to vote based on this fact, or whether one choses to ignore it is important.

    But you Thi Chi, are not. Your responses are barely worth replying to, as dishonest and evasive as they are. They just provide intereseting hooks to hang an analysis of neo-conservative policies on.

    I doubt very much if you will answer this in any comprehensive or worthwhile fashion, but will simply do what you usually do; I would be delighted if your post is a comprehensive reply, and unevasive, and will do my best to answer it if it is.

    However, as your apparent philosophy holds deception to be a useful tool, I don't think you can be trusted to be honest.

  • acsot

    Just wanted to say:

    great post Abaddon!!

  • frenchbabyface

    Thanks God !!! (Ooops !) I mean thanks Abaddon !!!

    Man you know the way you are talking and reasoning people, and seems to be like : EMILE ZOLA !!!

    WOW !!!

  • frenchbabyface
    Man you know the way you are talking and reasoning people, and seems to be like : EMILE ZOLA !!!

    also from the same wood "VICTOR HUGO"

  • Abaddon

    fbf and others:

    Thank you. I know just enough about Zola and Hugo to be embaressed by a totally over-the-top compliment, but thank you anyway fbf. Please remember I didn't suddenly realise this myself; I just state what other people have noted, researched, and stated before me, as I can't find a fault in their analysis of the situtation. I'm just summarising.

    Even if I'd like to I can't find a fault in their analysis of the situtation; believe me, I take no comfort knowing the USA is being used by a self-elected elite whose political philosohophies arise from someone who should have known better.

    I mean, Strauss was Jewish. From Germany. He knew what totalitarian, despotic, militaristic expansionism did. His philosophy (other than being just morally repugnant) invariably gives rise to a situation where conflict is normalised.

    The "State of War" actual or imagined is neccesary to instil the required emotions in the populace (who are expected to vote accordingly every four years and make it seem like proper democracy). It is also neccesary as the external policies are made through force or threat of force, thus requiring a credible war-ready military in case someone has the balls to call the bullies bluff.

    Neo-cons who are actually 'in on it' (i.e. have read-up about their political beliefs and their basis, rather than deciding they liked the sound of what someone said on TV or radio or in a column and adopting the label) have the moral integrity of... well, I can't say whores, as I am sure whores HAVE moral integrity. An informed neo-con's beliefs are based on their innate belief in their own superiority, a fear of change, and a willingness to say anything or do anything to stay on top and be in control.

    The fact this means a violent world (as even if it isn't violent they'll not only say it is but make it violent with their militarism) where the differences between the haves and have-nots are increased as the elite must be given what they think is their due is besides the point to them.

    No matter how often they tell you it is good for the USA and the world, what they mean is they think that it is good for them.

    I just wonder what Thi Chi will say; my best bets are nothing, or a claim they're not a neo-conservative member of the religous right. Or claiming it is just a coincidence!

    Evasion and lies; wow, a real neo-con. Go on Thi CHi, surprise me...

    Anyone remember the line from 1984 when WInston Smith asks his interogater what the futture of the world looked like?

    He replies " Imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever".

    That is the risk of the 'freedom' offered by neo-cons. Freedom for them to do as they wish...

  • waiting

    Don't get to my computer much lately........but saw "Teejay".......and it was like ol' times. Howdy, cutie. Hope your family is doing fine?

    As for this thread? I've read through it......and thank you to all participants! If both sides don't show up for the discussion......well, it ain't a discussion, eh?

    Btw - has there been a thread up lately on HOW TO VOTE? If not, perhaps that would help us long-time-never-voted-jw's.

    I called my local city government, who clicked me to the right office, who explained how to register to vote. "You got a driver's license"? the man asked. I responded, "Yep." "Come in here for 5 min. & I'll register you." That's it! I thought it would be complicated - but no! Do it!

    I did just that - also got an absentee ballot at the same time (still got family in the jw's).......and was informed by some active political people that because of the computer screw ups (Fla currently) - that's a good way to vote. Absentee Ballot. Means they got it & it will be counted.

    lol - if that makes a difference, eh?

    Thanks for the great thread. Hope it continues in a semi-quiet, serious, that it continues. Great information within.


  • dubla


    People at the heart of this - the Bush family, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz - are at the heart of the same game being played today. With the Soviets were no longer being a credible threat there's a new threat; Islamic Terrorism!

    Just as the Soviet Union was not the threat their lies portrayed it to be, so too Iraq was not the threat that their lies portrayed it to be;

    the only problem with tying these "lies" to the bush administration is that kerry told all the same "lies" about iraq being a threat (and he is still sticking to those statements if you watched the debates), and of course voted to go to war in iraq. any point you are trying to make about deceit doesnt differentiate bush from kerry.........that particular argument better serves you when youre pointing out how antiquated our two-party system is, imo.


  • SixofNine

    :and of course voted to go to war in iraq.

    Kerry didn't vote to go to war in Iraq. Going to war in Iraq was never put to a vote; if it had been, we wouldn't be there.

  • frenchbabyface

    LOL ... (shy ??? Ab !!!) don't get me wrong Abaddon those two guy's were writers that's why I/we know them, but how many people are alike (they didn't and will not have the same same opportunity - cause life is also about that - it is not always if you want you can : that'sbullshit )... some just maybe didn't want to be writers but maybe just being gardener (because they like flowers more)

    But the reason why I do remember those two guys and like them is not because of their books (I just don't care never read one to the end) what I like is their ways : of writing of course but really because of how they reacted to specific situations in being able to point the right things (they didn't get it from the begining in every issue either : I mean they were human beings).

    For instance for those who don't know : Victor Hugo have been a Deputy and he gave some speachs that put his fellow deputies back to the toilets were the belonged with not a chance to answer without acting stupid ... And when you read that you feel good ! More over because at that time they really needed someone like him on stage. (WE DON'T - but have jokers that actually more help the other side in making us laught and forgeting to act because we feel like things are so obvious that there will be someone to get rid of the problem if not god) ... when we should take it seriously and react ... Actually I would say your more like Victor hugo and I'm sure he problably messed up more than once like every one of us.

    I'm glad you've been humble on this, it's not good to get the big head. but take this compliment you deserved it ... and you worked hard on it !!! and I can't pay you, and you wouldn't want me to pay for it ! (so ...)

    An informed neo-con's beliefs are based on their innate belief in their own superiority, a fear of change, and a willingness to say anything or do anything to stay on top and be in control.

    VoilĂ  ... that is why we need to raise little by little our own politicians ... more we buy lies and more we will discourage those who would be able to do what this world need for good to live at least on fairness that can protected anybody you included ... (the Elite dispose of 90% and own 60 % of the money the entire planet populace produces worldwide, means that they are eating on your head, and with that need still to cheat on you) ... Take a chance for yourself, take a chance for the world give those bastards a slap (push them out of stage) it's your right if and when they do deserve it !

  • dubla
    Kerry didn't vote to go to war in Iraq.

    sorry six.....i suppose that was bad phrasing. kerry voted to "authorize" the war against iraq, and believed (so he says...anyone arguing bush didnt believe as much cant very well argue that kerry did) at the time that saddam was a grave threat to our nation.


    1. To grant authority or power to.
    2. To give permission for; sanction: the city agency that authorizes construction projects.
    3. To be sufficient grounds for; justify.


Share this