Comments on: Losing The War On Terror — Everywhere

The Nation: From Ethiopia To Pakistan, Bush's Foreign Policy Is In A Meltdown

[quatrops]

" . . . I DON''T BELIEVE THIS WAR IS ABOUT MAKING A SMALL CADRE OF PEOPLE RICH WHO WERE ALREADY RICH TO BEGIN WITH." Although there are many reasons we''re in Iraq today, allow me to address just this one. Your passion may be admirable, zoopster, but to the extent that is based on this particular belief, it is unbelievably naive and misguided.

The drive for those possessing excesses of both wealth and power to acquire even more is so pervasive and powerful that it is a rare individual who can avoid the temptation. Until one understands that phenomena, the conclusions they reach absenting this dynamic are going to be off the mark.

In a way, it''s a "game", and the passions unleashed are as powerful as those of the avid sports fan. Unless they "win" even MORE than they already have, they LOSE! It''s not about the AMOUNT of wealth (or power)! IT''S ABOUT WINNING!

Additionally, as Kissenger said, "power (and the wealth implied) is the great aphrodisiac". Once you have it, you need it even MORE or you feel emasculated.

Look at the excesses of the Keatings et al. Look at the excesses of so many fundamentalist charismatic leaders. Most of us in the "middle" desire more wealth that we have, and have reasonably logical reasons for doing so. But don''t get trapped into believing that those who already possess an excess of wealth are driven by the same dynamics that drive us. If you do, your misconception will lead to faulty conclusions - - which I believe in your case it has.

[andor3]

"And please, stop comparing our elected president with a serial killer."

Well you have a point--most serial killers are loners and likely insane. The president is working within a large framework and carrying out a premeditated and deliberate agenda. The serial killer is the better person.

"People are not [blah]. Dissidents are not [blah], or [blahblah]."

So because it could be worse, therefore it is not bad. Faulty logic, and pretty desperate thinking.

[jerr11]

So please, give your paranoia a rest.

Posted by zoopster1 at 01:24 AM : Nov 08, 2007


Guess you''ll say that to the 4000 Americans who lost their lives.

Give your paranoia a rest!

As for the One_American, wrapping yourself in the flag does not make you a patriot.

It''s better to be a moonbat than a neocon with blood and money on his hands.

[one_american]

Liberals love to be ignorant - and the Nation publication is where liberals come to wallow in their ignorance.

You are losing your grip on society, mootbats.

Soon you will become nothing.

[zoopster1]

Tell ya what. Show me some evidence that DOESN''T come from paranoid conspiracy theory-laden left-wing blogs, that can be backed up by official documentation, and I''ll pay heed. I have read many such documents, including the "Downing Street Memo", which only suggests that the Bushies were not interested in giving Saddam an escape route that would keep him in power. I saw nothing in it that suggested we had advance knowledge of Saddam''s non-conventional warfare capabilities.

And please, stop comparing our elected president with a serial killer. It really insults my intelligence. People are not being rounded up and shot in the streets. Dissidents are not being shipped to gulags, or thrown off the tops of buildings. That stuff happened in Saddam''s Iraq, not here. Even left-wing nutjobs are still free to say what they want without fear of being blackbagged by some secret police. So please, give your paranoia a rest.

[jerr11]

If so, some evidence please.

Posted by zoopster1 at 01:05 AM : Nov 08, 2007



If you''re still looking for evidence, you''re dumber than I thought.

But of course you''ll also give Dahmer the benefit of the doubt too. Maybe he didn''t know he was eating human flesh.

LOL

[zoopster1]

I expected a response like that. So, you are basically saying GW knew IN ADVANCE that Saddam had no significant stockpiles, he was not a threat to America or its interests, and that our inspectors would find nothing. Is that correct? If so, some evidence please. You''re giving ole Dubya a lot of credit, given that even the CIA couldn''t be sure what he had until after the invasion. You''re also ignoring the fact that our own inspectors went in without hindrance, and their report essentially proved we had made a mistake. If that''s NOT what you''re saying, then you''re just being a Monday morning quarterback. Hindsight is always 20/20.

I for one accept that we DIDN''T know for sure what Saddam had. And given the results of the last terrorist attack, I don''t think anyone was in the mood to give him the benefit of the doubt. I know I sure wasn''t -- in fact I wanted us to finish him off back in 1991. He had a lot to answer for (missile attacks on Israel, paying families of Palestinian suicide bombers, plotting the assassination of a US president, what his forces did in Kuwait, etc).

I am also pretty sure he wanted his capabilities to stay ambiguous. Not because of us; because of Iran. Remember them? You may recall they fought a little war a few years back... which Saddam started. If you were Saddam, would you want to clue 20 million crazy Shiites living right next door into the fact that your army couldn''t even secure a shopping mall?? I thought not.

[jerr11]

Jeffrey Dahmer was a pervert and a mass murderer. GW

Posted by zoopster1 at 12:10 AM : Nov 08, 2007


The comparison with Dahmer is very apt.

Bush/Cheney are no less evil than any of our serial murderers multiplied 2000 times.

And they''re getting away with murder because they also used the brainwashing techniques of the great cult leaders like David Koresh.

They terrorized the whole country into submission with their lies of yellow cake and "the next attack may be in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Any time there''s any dissent, raise the color coded threat level and attack the dissenters.

Brilliant strategy, almost as brilliant as Bin laden''s strategy to defeat us by bankrupting us with a permanent endless war on "terror."

[jerr11]

but we lost more soldiers on D-Day than we have lost in Iraq and Afghanistan combined

Posted by zoopster1 at 12:10 AM : Nov 08, 2007


There''s a huge difference between D-Day and Iraq.

One was a war against an imminent threat to our borders, the other a war of choice, for personal and profiteering reasons. And the country was led into the war with fake intel and lies.

Even Afghanistan was a war of necessity, and no one was more happy to see the Taliban defeated than me.

But Bush and Cheney had other agendas on their minds, namely OIL and Halliburton''s bottom line!

No, they didn''t want Afghanistan, they wanted Iraq!!

When the prime instigator of a war is its chief benefactor (think ********), you have a problem!

[zoopster1]

"As for Bush "getting off his duff and DOING something", so did Jeffrey Dahmer, but we don''t hold up his activities as "accomplishments"!"

Jeffrey Dahmer was a pervert and a mass murderer. GW is a politician. Now some may, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, say there is no difference, but this is a serious discussion. It%u2019s unlikely that more than half the electorate would put Jeffrey Dahmer in the White House. And as for the mass murderer part, that is subjective. Lincoln presided over the most costly war in American history, resulting in nearly 1 million dead. FDR gave orders that resulted in the deaths of over 600,000 Americans as well as millions of Japanese and German civilians. Truman gave orders that resulted in the atomic destruction of two Japanese cities as well as the deaths of hundreds of thousands more. What makes Bush any worse (or better) than those guys?
I don''t mean to belittle the casualties we have suffered thus far in this war, but we lost more soldiers on D-Day than we have lost in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. We lost more soldiers in ONE HOUR at places like Antietam and Gettysburg! What makes those sacrifices noble and the ones we''re facing now foolhardy?
Unlike you, I don''t accept that this war is about making a small cadre of people rich who were already rich to begin with. That''s just stupid. What I DO believe, is what goes on in the Middle East affects our society at large HERE. Without oil, our society would collapse. Period.