|
Why does everyone comment on the Bush renewed refusal to demand a cease fire like he actually was working for a peace in the first place? We know he's not. He wants war, they want war. It's in the doctrine, and he has proved it over and over again.
In the near endless realm of things we now don't know/know/believe in/maybe know/refuse to have anything to do with (as 911, election fraud, Israel etc.), there are a few factors that's still possible to judge reality out from.
1 Do - what Bush does and how he executes.
The Iraqi war is a good example. He and the pnac buddies does things too quick and to dirty, they don't plan ahead. That is extremism - the hard learned facts from the past does not affect the present opportunity or the glorious dreams of the future. I know, because I've been pretty extreme, opinionwise, the last years compared to my previous life before 911. It just seems so simple, but isn't. It never is.
What happened to the rose leaves that should be sprinkled across the road to Baghdad? This is no kidding, their lingo was full of metaphors leading up to the invasion. How could they - in an Arab country where family is pretty important - oversee the fact that his father had invaded the country just a decade back, and left more than 30.000 shiites in the lurch?
OK, it may be rationalized to 'Because they wanted the war so badly'. They sure know how to lie.
But then the reports came (I had BBC back then) as the invasion progressed that the US forces actually had trained for the roseleaves scenario, they had been wargaming the wrong invasion scenario. ('- We didn't expect this', '- We didn't game for this')
It is a huge difference in tricking your population into accepting a war and actually tricking the military into a situation where more soldiers are killed than necessary. If you wanna win the war, you give your troops the best advantage possible (even if it means knowing they're heading into hell), anything else points to:
a) Madness
b) You don't want them to win the war or the war to continue (want the war for the purpose of having a war)
Some would argue that they're the same, but the last would mean rational thinking is involved.
The last is, or at least was back then, the most likely and this goes strictly against anything I believe in, so it was really the point where I said goodbye to anything Bush would ever do in the future. It would also imply that many people in the US military must mean the same, or that the process of desicion was so faulty that the reality simply didn't occur to them. I don't think these people are quite as dumb/inadequate as they pretend to be. I find it hard to believe that this is possible, not with so many people involved. I know about Chalabi and I've read about the Lie Factory - it doesn't add up. Every agency in the US has been poking around in the Arab countries for who knows how long, they know the culture.
If they - meaning the people that planned and started the war in the US military - had wanted the soldiers to succed in their mission, they'd have skipped the roseleaves.
To lie to your population about the reality of a war they're facing does not affect the war effort, at least so long reality doesn't leak out. In fact, it is recommended, if you look at most war theory.
Lying to your military about what they're facing is contrary to the war effort and points to the a and b above.
I would say that certain episodes in the 3 years since the invasion reinforces my opinion on this. It is their intention to keep the war going (or at least it was the intention), and the 'Oh, we're so dumb we can't get anything right'-scenario is a useful front under which to maintain that lie. Of course, now the Iraqi madness are more or less self propelled, so their lie keeps itself going.
2. Say - what they say and how it relates to point 1
Here's a quote from Condi Rice just recently:
RICE: (T)he notion that policies that finally confront extremism are actually causing extremism, I find grotesque.
This is the roseleave-scenario reversed. Can she really don't understand that the war in Iraq causes extremism, or does she just give the impression that she's different from the rest of us? I know the war causes extremism, I can feel it in my bones. It eats on people far away from the battle, makes them go mad by the injustice of it and the lies that concieved it, and spend a lot of time informing themselves.
Blair echoes Rice, the pathetic fellow. And Bush say both. No it hasn't produced more terrists, but the terrist threat is even greater than before.
Great.
The indicators that extremism has increased since the Iraqi invasion are everywhere and there should not be any reason to even doubt that for normal people. It is a lie when Rice says that she find's it grotesque, there are ample evidence available for her and her host of political advisors to tell her different.
But how does this make a difference for the war effort? Does she act, and subsequently the US military fight, out from the perspective that 'confronting' extremists (usually meaning, kill them) actually will bring peace about, if enough 'terrorists' are killed? Where's the limit, when do that course of action not apply anymore?
It's the War perpetuum mobile, the end scenario is undefined. And the strategy is at least flaved, if not downright wrong. War produces more terrorism, and especially an unjust war, and this is contrary to the strategy based on an assumption that it doesn't.
It does not add up, and I refuse to believe they - meaning the military leaders planning and executing this war - doesn't know that.
About Rice I don't know. Is she extreme enough to actually believe in what she says, or is it a mask?
She wants peace, that is the stated goal for the Iraqi war. 'Democracy and freedom'. No 'false peace' but a lasting peace. They just have some bombing to do first. How long will we believe that lie? Hezbollah was created after the invasion in 1982. Same pattern - war creates terrorism. Occupation and lies, it's all there.
They have three wars now, two coalition wars, the NATO war in Afghanistan and the Coalition war in Iraq, and one proxy war, the Israeli war in Lebanon. One for revenge, one for greed and one ring to bind them all and .. oh, that was another story ;-)
Are their future actions credible in a peace seeking scenario?
Are their current actions credible in a peace seeking scenario?
Are their previous actions credible in a peace seeking scenario?
Are their ideology credible in a peace seeking scenario?
Are their religion credible in a peace seeking scenario?
The first two will always be YES. Because we hope, oh how we hope! Please no more dead kids! No more conflict!
Because we don't hate each other, and see and feel the toll this conflict takes on ordinary people.
The last three would be NO.
Because it is a lie. Their history shows it, their track record shows it, their ideology has it plainly written down, and their religion is like Jesus most vivid nightmares as a kid. It makes sense, after all Falwells most quoted quote is 'Peace is anti-christ!'.
They are fundies and operate on fundamentals only.
Well, then total war must be ... Christ?
It's the big fire.
Cleansing thru fire isn't unusual, many novels draw upon mythology and old stories that tells about this. The war is a cleansing fire, needless to say this was part of nazi ideology too. You come out on the other side a better man and all that, ready to complement your race. Hardened thru steel, so to speak. It's your 'trial' in life. And in death. It's the death wish they share with the Muslim extremists, but instead of exploding themselves at intervals they let others do the fighting and instead watch what goes on intently, looking for signs, while they save their sucide for the megablast; Armageddon. My God is bigger than your god, because your god is an idol.
Or maybe they're just ordinary crooks, the US govt, hell what do I know.
But we need to adjust what we believe to their intentions for the future to fit better with our experience with their previous actions, ideology and religion. Bush talks a lot of peace, freedom and democracy. It is bullshit and the past 5 years proves it.
If we live in the moment only, we're extremists too.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
