WAR! What is it good for?

[PJ]

...all this 'Chimp wrote' stuff is pointless...

As far as I know the E-Playa BBS's Quote button doesn't have any other label options.

...what do you think of what he is saying about PNAC and the administration's fully laid out agenda, what do you think of his point here that PNAC stated that to get into the gulf and stay there 'transcended' the Saddam regime...Engage with the issues.

Didn't mention it because I had no objection to it. Prior planning is a good thing; it's not necessarily nefarious. Of course any plan or study of military options in Iraq is distressing to many people.

Those people might also be alarmed to learn that the US DOD has invasion plans in drawers, updated every few years, for every country on earth should it ever prove necessary to do so. For example, had the Soviets rolled across Germany and England, there were already plans on-file so US forces wouldn't have to determine what terrain, population centers, etc. would impact the various counter-invasion options. The continuation of these military studies is both good practice and valid training but I suppose it's alarming to the average Parisian in the café should they learn that, in fact, the US has been planning for decades for another invasion of France.

In practice these plans are mostly useful for training of US Army War College colonels. They get dusted-off whenever some third-world country gets belligerent with a neighbor--just in case local American interests are impacted and it becomes necessary to use special (or even regular) forces to extricate somebody.

[TestesInSac]

And BTW I meant lib. fs. in all jockularity, but i don't want to use an emoticon because every single last one scares the shit out of me.

<smiling> I know what you mean about the emoticons; they also have a homogenizing feel to them. As soon as I can find myself a freeware GIF animator, I'm going to change my avatar, too, as even microwaving smilies is boring me now.

[blyslv]

I happen to like the Pacific better, .

My uncle was a flight navigator in the Pacific theatre. He'd get a couple of drinks in him, start telling an innocuous story, then start crying and have to withdraw. He was stuck in that Catch-22 hell where everytime he got close to having enough missions, they'd raise the ante. He died about 3 years ago and I was lucky enough to spend a lot of time with him just before it happened. He had a lot of stories. RIP, Joe.

[PJ]

...this was all predicted by chomsky several years ago...

I'm wondering: has Noam Chomsky ever explained why he continues to live in the US? Heck, Robert Crumb moved to a French chateau--why not Noam? He's always hated the US so why stay in New York?

[blyslv]

Testes / formerly Casnimot, I have not answered your question still and I am afraid I have absolutely no intention of doing so - I simply did not appreciate all the childish name calling under your previous monicker and fail to see why I should pay you any creedence at all. The same goes for some others and I am sure you know who you are and will be pleased to hear it.

Chimp, you've lost all credibility with me by your refusal to address a very valid question. Which is a shame, because I like your energy and enthusiasm. Yes there's been some name calling and hot under the collar, but let it pass. One thing I love about the eplaya, is that compared to a lot of the e-forums I've been in there a low signal/noise ratio (or high, never could get that straight) what I mean is that there is good will and a real attempt to understand. When you simply refuse to address a valid question because of some previous unplasant nar, well, then it makes you look a little silly.

It's the oldest pattern in the world -- you get into a fight, and then a week later you're pals. At least that's the way it worked on high school...

[TestesInSac]

It's the oldest pattern in the world -- you get into a fight, and then a week later you're pals. At least that's the way it worked on high school...

I have personal experience there. The best friend I ever had in Nashville started out as a fist fight when I was 8 or 9. I can't remember the time between that silly fight (let alone it's cause, if there was one) and the time that he and I started building treehouses together, because that time was quite short. Once we started building stuff, nothing else mattered, including skin color, parents or prior history.

[PJ]

...a low signal/noise ratio (or high, never could get that straight)...

It's a ratio, so high signal-to-noise ratio = good.

[blyslv]

The 'sides' need to listen, and understand each other--a concept that is difficult when one side is convinced that the other actually LIKES war.

Some people do like war. A colleague of mine was a Capitan in Vietnam. He volunteered not for one, but for two tours 68-70. He was in the shit. And he'll tell you right out that it was the biggest rush he's ever had, that he was going to sign up for a third tour but he got scared of what he was seeing in himself. He got to an edge and backed off. Not everybody has that luxury.

It's a very human thing to do, scare the shit out of yourself just for the feeling of being more alive then you've ever been before. I think that very much plays a part in war. The fact that most of the world is invovled in some conflict is not unique, thus has it always been.

[PJ]

...the time that he and I started building treehouses...

I sumbit that the world needs WAY more treehouses.

Can't ever have too many treehouses.

[stuart]

...this was all predicted by chomsky several years ago...

I'm wondering: has Noam Chomsky ever explained why he continues to live in the US? Heck, Robert Crumb moved to a French chateau--why not Noam? He's always hated the US so why stay in New York?

if you read chomsky, you will find that he loves this country and thinks it is the freest in the world. He, as you have surmised, has a few issues with our foreign policy though.

[stuart]

...a low signal/noise ratio (or high, never could get that straight)...

It's a ratio, so high signal-to-noise ratio = good.

this is how my brother and I describe the event. It aint perfect, but the signal to noise ratio is pretty good by comparison.

[blyslv]

[ I suppose it's alarming to the average Parisian in the café should they learn that, in fact, the US has been planning for decades for another invasion of France.

Think how those poor buggers in the Fulda Gap felt!

[PJ]

...if you read chomsky, you will find that he loves this country and thinks it is the freest in the world. He, as you have surmised, has a few issues with our foreign policy though.

I've only occasionally encountered an essay by him; perhaps it's always been something he's dashed off quickly in an emotional response to the foreign policy outrage du jour, and as such wasn't representative of his feelings at a calmer moment. I've also seen some of his older scholarly work regarding linguistics--and I got the impression that he should have stuck to linguistics and avoided politics.

[PJ]

Think how those poor buggers in the Fulda Gap felt!

Just about the time you quit worrying about WWIII rolling through your corn field...that's when your plow dings into an unexploded WWII bomb.

[nymphgonebad]

[quote="Chimp"]PJ

your shoulder?

[Patience]

PJ: I am neither surprised nor appalled that the U.S. has drawn up war plans for every other planet on the globe, and I hope and assume that they are exactly what you describe: primarily training materials, aspects of which occasionally become useful when we do go to war.

However, the PNAC is not a war plan. It is an organization bent on global domination by American leaders. This is not hypothetical for them. From their self-description:

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.

--

Feel free to read their (quite disturbing) literature (the website is http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast.htm). I think you will find the details of more than just an ideology, but a plan for remaking the world in America's image. I particularly recommend reading the Iraq/Middle East section--the 2001 entries are very telling about the long-term planning and positioning involved.

TestesInSac: Good point, about the costs of the war that would've been paid regardless. But then there are costs not yet discussed--Veteran's benefits, for example. If the government is forced to own up (as well they should be, IMO) to the health problems allegedly associated with its use of depleted uranium (Gulf War Syndrome, etc.) the long-term medical costs alone could exceed the cost of the war itself.

I agree that we need to get behind the rebuilding of Iraq, but I do not trust that job to an administration who seems to be primarily interested the increase of its own sphere of influence and power. The job should be turned over to the U.N. until Iraq is stable enough to govern itself, and democracy should not be imposed upon them unwillingly. Democracy has to spring forth from the will of the people.

Shit. I have to get to work. This board is going to be bad for me, I can tell.

[TestesInSac]

Democracy has to spring forth from the will of the people.

Yes, that was another key argument against intervention, IMO. Why should we spill the blood and spend the money to do something for the Iraqis that we did for ourselves two centuries ago?

But then, I'm a selfish bastard. And now that we're there...

[PJ]

...PNAC is not a war plan. It is an organization bent on global domination by American leaders. This is not hypothetical for them...

True enough. My stance is that their goals are unrealizable and I'm ignoring them as I believe that, despite their currently-highly-placed membership, they're no more of a menace than, say, the John Birch Society was during it's heyday. Frankly, much of the world they'd love to re-make just isn't ready for political and economic freedom, and would fight it if it were imposed from outside. Even the majority of the population of western Europe is uncomfortable looking after themselves and honestly prefers a nanny state. (Too many centuries under monarchies?) US voters will quickly tire of paying for too many liberations for it to become a general trend.

My thought is that places like Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, (Trashcanistan, Carjackistan...) will become civilized once there's enough infrastructure in place that the indigenous women can aspire to ownership of labor-saving household appliances, and the young men can realistically hope to acquire a cool automobile. Passivation of querulous humans through limited consumerism has a long history of success. Who wants to go throw rocks at the police when there's something really good on TV and/or your friends are all gonna meet down at CamelBurger and hang out?

[Patience]

True enough. My stance is that their goals are unrealizable and I'm ignoring them as I believe that, despite their currently-highly-placed membership, they're no more of a menace than, say, the John Birch Society was during it's heyday. Frankly, much of the world they'd love to re-make just isn't ready for political and economic freedom, and would fight it if it were imposed from outside. Even the majority of the population of western Europe is uncomfortable looking after themselves and honestly prefers a nanny state. (Too many centuries under monarchies?) US voters will quickly tire of paying for too many liberations for it to become a general trend.

Considering the membership of PNAC (it reads like a who's who list of the GOP), and the fact that their agenda is moving along quite nicely, I wouldn't dismiss it so out of hand. And one "liberation" from the neo-cons was more than enough. True, voters will tire of it eventually. But I, for one, am for working toward educating voters on the imperialist motives behind this kind of war, so we don't have to get to that point. Do we really want to wait for the U.S. to invade say, two or three more nations they accuse of being "threats to democracy" for the American people wake up? I don't. That's why I was so proud to see people organizing and protesting en masse months before the war began.

My thought is that places like Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, (Trashcanistan, Carjackistan...) will become civilized once there's enough infrastructure in place that the indigenous women can aspire to ownership of labor-saving household appliances, and the young men can realistically hope to acquire a cool automobile. Passivation of querulous humans through limited consumerism has a long history of success. Who wants to go throw rocks at the police when there's something really good on TV and/or your friends are all gonna meet down at CamelBurger and hang out?

So, saving the world through consumerism? Somehow I'm skeptical.

[TestesInSac]

There is another, more direct approach, to democratizing the Muslim world. It has to do with the ratio of men to women. If that ratio were more like 1-2, then the men would be happier, or at least better occupied, and the women, of necessity, would start doing work that had been forbidden to women before. Moreover, the need to not be pregnant at work would prompt women to take charge of their reproductive rights, they'd want the right to vote, etc.

[PJ]

There is another, more direct approach, to democratizing the Muslim world. It has to do with the ratio of men to women. If that ratio were more like 1-2, then the men would be happier...

I think that program is already in place--they attach explosives to their excess young men and let them blow themselves up.

[PJ]

...saving the world through consumerism? Somehow I'm skeptical.

I'm not saying they'll achieve inner contentment, only that they'll quit fighting.

It's been working in American suburbia for 80 years.

[blyslv]

What do you think about what it says about oil and American interests? Engage with the issues.

Also - I posted it, not wrote it.

Just a note on Netiquette. Posting long articles that you agree with is a little off putting to us upper crust public school types. It's just not the type of thing that gentlemen do, doncha know. Much better to post a link and let us choose if we want to read it. Mr Chimp I would be far more interested in what YOU thought about oil and American interests. Feel free to provide cites, URLs or fisting clown references. But if I want to read reportage I will go to the sources, there's a plethora on the Web (although the al-jazeera site is hard to find, what's up with that?). And finally, I see a lot of people engaging the issues here, and think it is worthwhile.

And just for the record. I think war is bad.

[blyslv]

if you read chomsky, you will find that he loves this country and thinks it is the freest in the world. He, as you have surmised, has a few issues with our foreign policy though.

Dude's a fucking patriot!

[Patience]

...saving the world through consumerism? Somehow I'm skeptical.

I'm not saying they'll achieve inner contentment, only that they'll quit fighting.

It's been working in American suburbia for 80 years.

I know it has, and that's what scares me. A peaceful population is great. A passive population is dangerous, especially a passively violent population, much like we appear to have in America. A passive population invites corrupt government, the erosion of human rights (see the Patriot Act), and violence, because the people are not engaged enough to keep the government in check. A passive population doesn't care what the government is doing.

A passively violent population wants blood and war, so long as they can sit at home and watch it on TV. This applies to a very large percentage of Americans, measuring by the war in Iraq. The fact that 60% of Americans still believe that Saddam's regime was responsible for the 9/11 attacks to me represents laziness and apathy, not stupidity. The American people believed the hype because they weren't engaged enough to seek out the facts. They just didn't care, and I think that's the kind of passivity that is born from living lives of privilege and consumerist ideals.

[PJ]

...A peaceful population is great. A passive population is dangerous, especially a passively violent population, much like we appear to have in America. A passive population invites corrupt government, the erosion of human rights (see the Patriot Act), and violence, because the people are not engaged enough to keep the government in check. A passive population doesn't care what the government is doing...

My belief is that job #1 is to make them content enough that they'll outgrow their jihadist leanings. A realistic chance of having careers, homes, families, and the aspiration for their children to do even better than themselves has been demonstrated to keep huge populations peaceful. That doesn't meant they have to also be politically-inert however. Americans are free to read up on all sides of every issue that interests them. Watching NFL football instead isn't mandatory. However, it's counter-productive to force people to be smart or well-informed. Witness any number of former Communist states where political indoctrination WAS mandatory.

[Badger]

if you read chomsky, you will find that he loves this country and thinks it is the freest in the world. He, as you have surmised, has a few issues with our foreign policy though.

Problem with Chomsky is the same one I have with Michael Moore (in print). I love 'em both. Articulate, focused, know their facts, difficult to refute but when the smoke clears neither has ever been really good about suggesting answers or alternatives to that which they so wonderfully rail against.

Im hoping that they'll change a bit. I'm also hoping I get a bit more free time to read more of Chomsky and discover that my perceptions are unfounded. For now I'm too engaged in reading 'Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies'

Quite a good read.

[stuart]

holy shit

guns germs and steel rawwwcks!

[Badger]

Indeed it does. I'm 1/3 of the way through it and have continually been blown away by Diamond's assessments of the topic.

I guess there is a lot to be said about Pulitzer winners.

[Lust4Life]

Waaaaay down with Guns & Germs. Stephen Pinker "How the Mind Works" is also a must read. In fact, I'd recommend reading both at once, along with Sexual Personae by Camille Paglia, if you haven't gotten to it already.