They will never be fogotten

[scaredyclassic]

Pat tillman gave up his football career and joined the army because of 9/11.

There is a connection betwen 9/11 and war.

[NotCranky]

Sarkozy and Cameron got hero’s welcomes in Libya, Scaredy. The French guy more so, I guess.

[Arraya]

[quote=walterwhite]Pat tillman gave up his football career and joined the army because of 9/11.

There is a connection betwen 9/11 and war.[/quote]

Well, of course there is. The Bush administration, prior to being in office, postulated that an event such as , in their words, a “New Pearl Harbor” would be necessary to garner public support for a new level of global militarization that they laid out in their “rebuilding americans defenses” doctrine in the late 90s. Hey, they said it, not me.

Regarding Pat.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1007-22.htm
I don’t believe it,” seethed Ann Coulter.

Her contempt was directed at a September 25 San Francisco Chronicle story reporting that former NFL star and Army Ranger war hero Pat Tillman, who was killed in Afghanistan last year, believed the US war on Iraq was “f***ing illegal” and counted Noam Chomsky among his favorite authors. It must have been quite a moment for Coulter, who upon Tillman’s death described him in her inimitably creepy fashion as “an American original–virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be.” She tried to discredit the story as San Francisco agitprop, but this approach ran into a slight problem: The article’s source was Pat Tillman’s mother, Mary.

Of course, the entire right wing pundit circuit decided Pat’s mother and Chomsky were lying.

[scaredyclassic]

I’m not gay but even I was kind of in love with pat.

[Arraya]

Speaking of never forgetting.

About 50 teachers at a New Jersey school experienced a terrifying moment when a shooting rampage turned out to be a drill, but the teachers didn’t know it.
It happened Aug. 28 at the Phillipsburg New Jersey Early Learning Center.
A man burst into the library and started shooting. But the gun didn’t have any bullets, just blanks.
Teachers took cover under child-sized tables, crying and trembling.
“People are crying. The girl next to me is trembling and shaking. You heard people crying. You heard other people praying. It was pretty dramatic,” one teacher said.
The school district put the drill in place to test staff readiness.
The Phillipsburg School Board heard from angry teachers and parents Monday night.
The board is reviewing the drill.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/17426916/detail.html

[NotCranky]

Thanks for saying what you did about our discussion of Pearl Harbor, Allan.

[NotCranky]

Interesting thread, that can air out some of this quickly without the ad-hominem. http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=164338

BTW TG,you are the one acting like an intellectual and social coward on this thread. Given your self admitted narcissism, you get a pass. I am the sucker to your cheap shots now.

As for passes for historical rhetoric, I am somewhat wiilling to give a pass, or at least be patient with anyone who’s dad fought in one of these awful things(or had a child blown up or whatever similar disaster). On the other hand, I do not give a pass,for the sake of these arguments, to anyone who makes most of their living from war or conquest, at least not in this day and age.

Maybe Ogre also had a personal experience?

[KSMountain]

[quote=Arraya]It’s pretty obvious they had their eyes on Iraq since the mid 90s. Interestingly, in a frontline episode, discussing the run up to war, they would have went to Iraq first if it was not for Colin Powell arguing it would not look good. Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld were arguing hard for just bypassing Afghanistan and going right to Iraq.[/quote]
This is a little conspiratorial for my blood.

It neglects to mention that didn’t lots and lots of folks in Congress of both parties authorize Iraq? Wasn’t Obama like one of the few dissenters?

Also I believe Hillary and Biden both said at the time that it was “a question of when, not if” we go into Iraq.

Arraya are you saying Hillary and Biden were in on the conspiracy? Or were they like naive little rabbits that were duped by the Darth-vader like machinations of Cheney? I don’t believe that for a minute. I believe both of those two are able to think independently.

I don’t feel the action was sufficiently justified, and I wish we didn’t go. I would love to have all the lives (on both sides) and treasure back.

But I don’t agree with scaredy that there was ZERO justification. We didn’t just wake up one day and decide to do it for ZERO reason. That’s a lot of letters to parents of dead kids you’d be signing up to write, and you would KNOW that you would have to do that. Even if you were the allegedly retarded Bush.

Let me take a stab at a justification (acknowledging right up front that it IS weak, but it is more than zero): I believe that in that moment, at that time, after all the UN resolutions, after all the sanctions, after years of No-fly zones, after the Iran Iraq war, after gassing the Kurds, after Gulf War I, when he annexed Kuwait and massed troops just North of Saudi, after him going to great lengths to try to convince everyone that he had WMD, and THEN after 9/11 (try to remember how it felt when it was fresh), “we” (many of our leaders, not just neocons) just weren’t in a mood to take a chance. We wanted to experiment with pre-emptively “solving” the problem.

I don’t agree with that decision, and I remember emailing folks that I was baffled about it at the time.

But from the “it’s an ill wind that blows no good” department – do you give any credence to the idea that overthrowing Hussein and establishing a democracy in Iraq could have in any way contributed to the so-called Arab Spring? And might that be some small measure of “good” that came out of the war? Beyond that, might things be better for Shia and Kurds in Iraq now? Not saying it’s justification – but maybe it’s *something* to show for $1.5T or whatever it is.

[/me dons flame-retardant suit]

[KSMountain]

This is the justification that was offered at the time:
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/bush_2003march.htm

[Arraya]

[quote=KSMountain]]
This is a little conspiratorial for my blood.[/quote]

I don’t know what to say. It’s not really a matter of speculation. They wrote “rebuilding america’s defenses” and wrote a letter to clinton about invading Iraq in 98 or 97. “They” as in the vast majority of the Bush administration. Ironically, Bush was not a signatory. A few other high profile DC think tanks had similar plans. The PNAC crew seemed to be a culmination of a few think tanks.

[quote=KSMountain]]
Arraya are you saying Hillary and Biden were in on the conspiracy? Or were they like naive little rabbits that were duped by the Darth-vader like machinations of Cheney? I don’t believe that for a minute. I believe both of those two are able to think independently. [/quote]

They are insiders, but did not sign the letter to clinton nor the PNAC document which was a think tank of the neoconservative flavor(which has it’s roots with political philosopher Leo Strauss).

Strauss taught that liberalism in its modern form contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards extreme relativism, which in turn led to two types of nihilism[12] The first was a “brutal” nihilism, expressed in Nazi and Marxist regimes. In On Tyranny, he wrote that these ideologies, both descendants of Enlightenment thought, tried to destroy all traditions, history, ethics, and moral standards and replace them by force under which nature and mankind are subjugated and conquered.[13] The second type – the “gentle” nihilism expressed in Western liberal democracies – was a kind of value-free aimlessness and a hedonistic “permissive egalitarianism”, which he saw as permeating the fabric of contemporary American society.[14][15] In the belief that 20th century relativism, scientism, historicism, and nihilism were all implicated in the deterioration of modern society and philosophy, Strauss sought to uncover the philosophical pathways that had led to this situation. The resultant study led him to advocate a tentative return to classical political philosophy as a starting point for judging political action.[1

When he speaks of liberalism, he is talking about capitalism. Which, I tend to agree with, to an extent.

[KSMountain]

From the “it wasn’t just the neo-cons, and wasn’t a new idea” department:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support “regime change.” The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives [4] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[5] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998.

President Clinton stated in February 1998:
Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production…. Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq’s remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits…. It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons…. Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he’ll use the arsenal…. President Clinton ~ 1998 [6]

[Arraya]

[quote=KSMountain]

Let me take a stab at a justification (acknowledging right up front that it IS weak, but it is more than zero): I believe that in that moment, at that time, after all the UN resolutions, after all the sanctions, after years of No-fly zones, after the Iran Iraq war, after gassing the Kurds, after Gulf War I, when he annexed Kuwait and massed troops just North of Saudi, after him going to great lengths to try to convince everyone that he had WMD, and THEN after 9/11 (try to remember how it felt when it was fresh), “we” (many of our leaders, not just neocons) just weren’t in a mood to take a chance. We wanted to experiment with pre-emptively “solving” the problem.
][/quote]

He was a US strongman that became unpredictable and went rogue. I understand the policy of preemption and the rational behind it. However, to me it looks like there was ulterior motives. First and foremost, there was NO intelligence agency that thought he was a threat to anybody, but his own people. Actually Colin Powell was out in early 2000 talking about how he was a “junk yard dog with no teeth” living in constant fear. Yes, *some* thought he could *possibly* have, loosely defined, WMDs. And he liked to pretend he did as well. But so do a lot of tin pot dictators. They DID, however, completely twist facts and somebody slipped a the “Yellow Cake” charge in for good measure(I have an idea where that came from)

Sure, he was a piece of shit – but his real estate made him a powerful piece of shit.

In a sense, the precarious nature of the oil market, made him too powerful and potentially very dangerous. So, I understand the rationale behind wanting to take him out beyond what was sold beyond just monetary gain.

Still, where we stand today, is Iraq has aligned with Iran due to ethnic ties. So, even from the conspiratorial view, it did not work out. To really make it work then need to take out Iran and I highly doubt that is going to happen.

[Arraya]

[quote=KSMountain]From the “it wasn’t just the neo-cons, and wasn’t a new idea” department:
[/quote]

No, I agree. Like I said it was floating around think tanks since the mid 90s. Though, the PNAC document really laid out a plan that wanted him gone fast. But, I wonder who conceived that bill Clinton signed. Hmmmm?

PNAC From Jan 98

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

snip

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction.In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

[scaredyclassic]

Ok I guess there was a reason. We were freaked out. Fair enough.

[KSMountain]

Interesting Arraya. I note in that quote Iran is not mentioned once.

Way to not anticipate seemingly predictable consequences.

[Author]

Posts