America's next big blunder
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2000/10/trudeau_canadas.php
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2000/11/does_canada_nee.php
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2000/11/canada_from_ric.php
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2001/05/bush_the_revolu.php
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2001/05/italys_right_ar.php
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2001/07/the_leftwing_ch.php
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/1999/10/saintly_sociali.php
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/1998/10/pinochet_is_a_h.php
There ya go Walt, in future try to know what you are talking about.
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2000/11/does_canada_nee.php
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2000/11/canada_from_ric.php
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2001/05/bush_the_revolu.php
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2001/05/italys_right_ar.php
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2001/07/the_leftwing_ch.php
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/1999/10/saintly_sociali.php
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/1998/10/pinochet_is_a_h.php
There ya go Walt, in future try to know what you are talking about.
And....?
Yours don't prove your point.
Here's a quote from one of your articles....
"socialist claptrap"
Yep, he's a hard line socialist alright.
Mine prove my point dear Walt.....sorry about your luck.
Some cons do actually think Bush is wrong.
Yours don't prove your point.
Here's a quote from one of your articles....
"socialist claptrap"
Yep, he's a hard line socialist alright.
Mine prove my point dear Walt.....sorry about your luck.
Some cons do actually think Bush is wrong.
How about this one then Walt...
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2007/05/sarkozyas_revol.php
Gee, where did old Walt go.....?
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2007/05/sarkozyas_revol.php
Gee, where did old Walt go.....?
Last edited:
It's a pretty soft piece, not much controversy there. A couple of minor points that I think are leaps, but nothing to get excited about. For example, saying that attacking the region would be a catastrophic mistake. It would be catastrophic, for sure, but the jury is out on the mistake part. It may well be a catastrophic mistake to let Al Qaeda grow and fester unchecked in the region.
Minor point: "Washington now blames for its humiliating failures to crush al-Qaida or defeat Taliban resistance forces in Afghanistan." As so many here are inclined to say when they have nothing to contribute to a conversation themselves.... Link!? :lol: I don't think any rational person would dispute that having free reign in the border regions of Pakistan is a major boon for Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Ideally the Pakistani's will take care of it themselves, but that doesn't seem likely at this point. They already tried the live and let live approach, and we see how far that got them.
Bottom line is so many people seem intent on ignoring the global nature of this war on us. Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and now Pakistan....those are just battle fields in a world war. Iraq is not a war any more than Dieppe was a war. Just the latest major battle. And it will get worse. Much worse. Nuclear is a very very real possibility, if not liklihood. I believe we've just seen a drop in the bucket of this conflict so far.
It's worlwide.
But overall, no, I don't have much at issue with what's in the article. A nice little synoptical lesson on the region. I just like to take any opportunity to diss Eric "I know! I've been there!" Margolis. Gives me pleasure. :smile:
Being there and writing a book about the region gives him credit on his knowledge of the area and the people who inhabit it. It's like saying you know how to build an engine because you read a book about it without actually seeing it done. Not sure why that is funny and unlike Bush he undersatnds the folly of invasion. I wonder what would happen if we did nothing and let things take their course. We could easily isolate the area if we weren't so dependant on the oil, protect Isreal and carpet bomb any nation who supports a terrorist strike against us. I'm convinced our meddling in others affairs has only made things more dire and until imperialists like Bush are removed from office it will get much worse as future generations of Muslims are lost to extremists because of our democracy by a gun. If a nation is ready for freedom and democracy they will fight for it as have others in the past.
It's a shame really that the U.S. government dosen't have advisors like Eric who know what they are talking about because they have been there.
Thanks for your thoughtful response....it's refreshing.
It's a shame really that the U.S. government dosen't have advisors like Eric who know what they are talking about because they have been there.
Thanks for your thoughtful response....it's refreshing.
No need to wonder. 1979 hostage crisis. Bombing of Marines in Lebanon. Hijackings. Murder of Americans on cruise ships. Blowing up embassies in Africa. Blowing up war ships in friendly ports. Bombing office towers. Flying planes into civilian office towers.
Did I miss anything? These all happened or were planned pre-Bush. Pre-"democracy by gun".
We're not as dependant on the oil as is commonly purported. A small percentage of U.S. oil imports come from the middle east.
I heard it put into real terms once, I'll post a link if I find it....but it was along the lines of - if everyone in the U.S. drove 5 minutes less a year they could eliminate middle east oil imports altogether. Again, I may be off on the details....maybe it was an hour less a year or a hundred miles less a year, I forget. But point being, it was pretty insignificant in light of the big picture.
That's all well and fine but it doesn't explain why the "extremists" ply their trade in places around the world that have nothing to do with the U.S., indeed nothing to do with the west in general, and definitely nothing to do with "democracy by gun".
For example Bangladesh; Nigeria; Sudan; Thailand; Ivory Coast; Chad; Indonesia; Malaysia; Lebanon among others.
This is why I say the problem is global, the problem is growing, and the problem has nothing to do with Bush, U.S. foreign policy, or "meddling" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Classic Liberal Strategy here:
Distract your opponent with attacks on their intellect and character while offering nothing in the way of the oft promised "I'll prove my point with facts".
I await my distraction with baited breath now...
BTW, who the hell is Eric Margolis and why do you people care what he thinks? I don't seem to have ever heard of him. Is he not that "big time" or something?
Classic Liberal Strategy here:
Distract your opponent with attacks on their intellect and character while offering nothing in the way of the oft promised "I'll prove my point with facts".
I await my distraction with baited breath now...
BTW, who the hell is Eric Margolis and why do you people care what he thinks? I don't seem to have ever heard of him. Is he not that "big time" or something?
Surprising that you don't know of...
http://www.ericmargolis.com/biography.php
LIES, MORE LIES, AND DAMN LIES
16 July 2007
As Americans turn increasingly against President George Bush’s calamitous war in Iraq, and revolt spreads through Republican ranks, the White House is again resorting to its tried and true ploy of fanning grossly inflated fears of terrorism.
The president just made two preposterous claims last week that insult the intelligence of his listeners. First, Bush insisted US forces in Iraq are fighting `the same people’ who staged 9/11.’
Second, withdrawing US forces from Iraq, as the Democratic-controlled Congress is urging, means `surrendering Iraq to al-Qaida.’
These canards mark the latest steps in the Bush administration’s evolving efforts to mislead Americans into believing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are all part of a global fight against al-Qaida.
When marketers want to change the name of an existing product, they first place a new name in small type below the existing one. They gradually shrink the old name, and enlarge the new one until the original name vanishes.
That’s what’s been happening in Iraq. When the US invaded, Iraqis who resisted were initially branded `Saddam loyalists,’ `die-hard Ba’athists,’ or, in Don Rumsfeld’s colorful terminology, `dead-enders.’ Next, the Pentagon and US media called the Iraqi resistance, `terrorists’ or `insurgents.’ The reason for invading Iraq, the White House insisted, was all about removing the tyrant Saddam, seizing weapons of mass destruction, defending humans rights and implanting democracy.
Then, a tiny, previously unknown Iraqi group that had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden appropriated the name, `al-Qaida in Mesopotamia.’
This was such a breathtakingly convenient gift to the Bush Administration, many cynics suspected a false-flag operation created by CIA and Britain’s wily MI6. Soon after, the White House and Pentagon began calling most of Iraq’s 22 plus resistance groups, `al-Qaida.’
The US media eagerly joined this deception, even though 95% of Iraq’s resistance groups had no sympathy for bin Laden’s movement. Watch any US network TV news report on Iraq and you will inevitably hear reporters parroting Pentagon handouts about US forces `launching a new offensive against al-Qaida.’
Al-Qaida in Mesopotamia didn’t even exist before 9/11, but that didn’t stop President Bush from trying to gull credulous voters. He simply ignored the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate that found US-occupied Iraq had become an `incubator’ for violent anti-American groups.
If the US were to withdraw from Iraq tomorrow, the nation would be split between warring Shia, Sunni and Kurdish parties. The fake Al-Qaida in Iraq would end up at the bottom of the totem pole, or be wiped out by other Iraqis. Even Osama bin Laden and his number two, Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, have blasted the phony al-Qaida in Iraq and called for an end to its attacks on Iraqi civilians.
Polls show that in spite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, White House disinformation strategy has worked. Today, an amazing 60% of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.
At least that’s down from the 80% who originally believed this Orwellian big lie in 2003. The White House continues to blur the facts and make Americans believe Iraq and Afghanistan are `central fronts in the global war on terror.’
The fact recent polls found 60% of Americans – and 90% of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan – still believe Saddam and bin Laden had colluded to launch 9/11 is shocking, but not surprising. Ignorance of foreign affairs and mindless flag waving are as American as apple pie.
Tens of millions of Americans are fed a steady diet of political or religious ideology disguised as news from the administration’s house organ, Fox News; from evangelical Christian TV and radio; or from the neoconservative’s version of Pravda, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages. The rest are too busy watching brain-deadening TV pap to pay the least attention to events overseas.
They remain unaware the faux `war against global terror’ is now costing a mind-boggling US $12 billion monthly, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. That’s the cost of 3 nuclear-powered `Nimitz’ class 97,000 ton aircraft carriers every month.
The Bush Administration has spent $610 billion dollars since 2001 on its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, making them the second most expensive conflict in US history after World War II.
Last week, US Homeland Security Czar Michael Chertoff allowed he had a `gut feel’ that an al-Qaida attack on America was imminent this summer. At the same time, Washington was abuzz with a leaked US intelligence report that al-Qaida – the objective of the so-called war on terror – had reconstituted and was as strong as prior to 9/11, 2001.
America’s sixteen intelligence agencies spend $40 billion annually, with another $15-20 billion in their hidden `black budgets.’ Homeland Security spends $44.6 billion. In spite of these gargantuan expenditures of a trillion dollars – that’s $1,000,000,000,000 - the best intelligence Czar Cheroff can come up with is `gut feel?’
One suspects Chertoff’s worried stomach has far more to do with the growing Republican Party revolt against the president’s Iraq war than nebulous threats from Osama bin Laden’s loud but tiny group.
Polls show the only area where Republicans still command popular support is the `war on terror.’ So Bush/Cheney & Co are trying to use al-Qaida to scare Americans to vote Republican, just as they did prior to 2004 elections. It worked well last time and got Bush re-elected.
But Americans are increasingly leery of the White House’s crying wolf. Many are also asking how Bush could claim `steady progress’ was being made in his wars when it appears the al-Qaida movement is back to pre-2001 strength, anti-American groups are popping up across Asia and Africa, and Iraq is a bloody mess.
After six years of conflict, 3,600 dead and 25,000 wounded American soldiers, expenditure of $610 billion, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and Afghans, collapse of Mideast peace efforts, and a Muslim World enraged against the US, nothing positive seems to have been accomplished by a leader who likes to style himself, `the war president.’
As the White House now ponders an attack on Iran, we would do well to recall the famed words of King Pyrrhus of Epirus, `one more such victory and we are ruined.’
The president just made two preposterous claims last week that insult the intelligence of his listeners. First, Bush insisted US forces in Iraq are fighting `the same people’ who staged 9/11.’
Second, withdrawing US forces from Iraq, as the Democratic-controlled Congress is urging, means `surrendering Iraq to al-Qaida.’
These canards mark the latest steps in the Bush administration’s evolving efforts to mislead Americans into believing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are all part of a global fight against al-Qaida.
When marketers want to change the name of an existing product, they first place a new name in small type below the existing one. They gradually shrink the old name, and enlarge the new one until the original name vanishes.
That’s what’s been happening in Iraq. When the US invaded, Iraqis who resisted were initially branded `Saddam loyalists,’ `die-hard Ba’athists,’ or, in Don Rumsfeld’s colorful terminology, `dead-enders.’ Next, the Pentagon and US media called the Iraqi resistance, `terrorists’ or `insurgents.’ The reason for invading Iraq, the White House insisted, was all about removing the tyrant Saddam, seizing weapons of mass destruction, defending humans rights and implanting democracy.
Then, a tiny, previously unknown Iraqi group that had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden appropriated the name, `al-Qaida in Mesopotamia.’
This was such a breathtakingly convenient gift to the Bush Administration, many cynics suspected a false-flag operation created by CIA and Britain’s wily MI6. Soon after, the White House and Pentagon began calling most of Iraq’s 22 plus resistance groups, `al-Qaida.’
The US media eagerly joined this deception, even though 95% of Iraq’s resistance groups had no sympathy for bin Laden’s movement. Watch any US network TV news report on Iraq and you will inevitably hear reporters parroting Pentagon handouts about US forces `launching a new offensive against al-Qaida.’
Al-Qaida in Mesopotamia didn’t even exist before 9/11, but that didn’t stop President Bush from trying to gull credulous voters. He simply ignored the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate that found US-occupied Iraq had become an `incubator’ for violent anti-American groups.
If the US were to withdraw from Iraq tomorrow, the nation would be split between warring Shia, Sunni and Kurdish parties. The fake Al-Qaida in Iraq would end up at the bottom of the totem pole, or be wiped out by other Iraqis. Even Osama bin Laden and his number two, Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, have blasted the phony al-Qaida in Iraq and called for an end to its attacks on Iraqi civilians.
Polls show that in spite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, White House disinformation strategy has worked. Today, an amazing 60% of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.
At least that’s down from the 80% who originally believed this Orwellian big lie in 2003. The White House continues to blur the facts and make Americans believe Iraq and Afghanistan are `central fronts in the global war on terror.’
The fact recent polls found 60% of Americans – and 90% of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan – still believe Saddam and bin Laden had colluded to launch 9/11 is shocking, but not surprising. Ignorance of foreign affairs and mindless flag waving are as American as apple pie.
Tens of millions of Americans are fed a steady diet of political or religious ideology disguised as news from the administration’s house organ, Fox News; from evangelical Christian TV and radio; or from the neoconservative’s version of Pravda, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages. The rest are too busy watching brain-deadening TV pap to pay the least attention to events overseas.
They remain unaware the faux `war against global terror’ is now costing a mind-boggling US $12 billion monthly, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. That’s the cost of 3 nuclear-powered `Nimitz’ class 97,000 ton aircraft carriers every month.
The Bush Administration has spent $610 billion dollars since 2001 on its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, making them the second most expensive conflict in US history after World War II.
Last week, US Homeland Security Czar Michael Chertoff allowed he had a `gut feel’ that an al-Qaida attack on America was imminent this summer. At the same time, Washington was abuzz with a leaked US intelligence report that al-Qaida – the objective of the so-called war on terror – had reconstituted and was as strong as prior to 9/11, 2001.
America’s sixteen intelligence agencies spend $40 billion annually, with another $15-20 billion in their hidden `black budgets.’ Homeland Security spends $44.6 billion. In spite of these gargantuan expenditures of a trillion dollars – that’s $1,000,000,000,000 - the best intelligence Czar Cheroff can come up with is `gut feel?’
One suspects Chertoff’s worried stomach has far more to do with the growing Republican Party revolt against the president’s Iraq war than nebulous threats from Osama bin Laden’s loud but tiny group.
Polls show the only area where Republicans still command popular support is the `war on terror.’ So Bush/Cheney & Co are trying to use al-Qaida to scare Americans to vote Republican, just as they did prior to 2004 elections. It worked well last time and got Bush re-elected.
But Americans are increasingly leery of the White House’s crying wolf. Many are also asking how Bush could claim `steady progress’ was being made in his wars when it appears the al-Qaida movement is back to pre-2001 strength, anti-American groups are popping up across Asia and Africa, and Iraq is a bloody mess.
After six years of conflict, 3,600 dead and 25,000 wounded American soldiers, expenditure of $610 billion, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and Afghans, collapse of Mideast peace efforts, and a Muslim World enraged against the US, nothing positive seems to have been accomplished by a leader who likes to style himself, `the war president.’
As the White House now ponders an attack on Iran, we would do well to recall the famed words of King Pyrrhus of Epirus, `one more such victory and we are ruined.’
Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2007.
Margolis is a longtime columnist on international affairs. One of the must-reads in the rightwing Toronto Sun for years. He's always got something interesting to say. But a possible US attack on Pakistan's tribal regions? God help us. The US is nearing the end of its Iraq commitment and I can't think it wants to enlarge its Afghan mission. The cost of it all just boggles. Somewhere down the line the bean counters will have to trump even the most manic war supporters.
Tamarin
Any coment regarding the distillation of these kinds of issues to the metric of dollars?
If it cost too much....
Not concern over blood and amputee's, not a blink to the years of psychological trauma suffered by everyone involved...
Not a vision of what memories will be seared into the minds of millions across the globe...
We have memorials and cenotaphs to commemorate the celebration of war.... Are these a lie?
Is the memory of millions lost in conflict reduced to being able to afford continuation of the bloodshed?
Send the bean counters children to war beside the politicians children and the defense industry contractor-multi-billionaires war-profiteering children....
We'll "quit" when the return on investment isn't adequate but we'll continue to hate....
Any coment regarding the distillation of these kinds of issues to the metric of dollars?
If it cost too much....
Not concern over blood and amputee's, not a blink to the years of psychological trauma suffered by everyone involved...
Not a vision of what memories will be seared into the minds of millions across the globe...
We have memorials and cenotaphs to commemorate the celebration of war.... Are these a lie?
Is the memory of millions lost in conflict reduced to being able to afford continuation of the bloodshed?
Send the bean counters children to war beside the politicians children and the defense industry contractor-multi-billionaires war-profiteering children....
We'll "quit" when the return on investment isn't adequate but we'll continue to hate....
Classic Liberal Strategy here:
Distract your opponent with attacks on their intellect and character while offering nothing in the way of the oft promised "I'll prove my point with facts".
I await my distraction with baited breath now...
BTW, who the hell is Eric Margolis and why do you people care what he thinks? I don't seem to have ever heard of him. Is he not that "big time" or something?
I offered up exactly what Walt did, if he expects more he should refrain from calling the author things he isn't and debate what the author had to say. The only thing Walt showed was how much he dosen't know and what he thinks he knows.
Mikey, maybe the true avocation of man is war. Monkeys need to be entertained and diverted. I'm surprised given the costs of involvement that the US is still afloat. Maybe, that's more a nod to the mirage of money itself. The US might spend triple what it does per day in Iraq and the sun would still rise and the markets still burble. It's perplexing. Common folk are taught to budget and beware the brick wall. Yet, giants like the US blithely ignore all the basic rules we know by heart. And get away with it.