Here is the best summary of post 9/11 events I have seen in the media yet. Covers all the major points except the economic damage of the Bush administration. http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_jan4.html America: The real danger lies within By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor PALM BEACH -- The year 2003 dramatically and dolefully illustrated Lord Acton's famous dictum that absolute power corrupts absolutely. An almighty United States, unrestrained by any rival, international body, or world opinion, bestrode the globe, a belligerent colossus determined to monopolize global oil reserves and use its vast military power to crush lesser nations or malefactors that disturbed the Pax Americana. For America's hard right - a curious farrago of Armageddon-seeking southern Protestants; neo-conservative supporters of Israel's right-wing Likud party; and the military-industrial-petroleum complex - the Bush administration's aggressive foreign policy of world domination, and utter contempt for international laws and old allies, marks a new era of national greatness. President George Bush, who vowed his foreign policy would be "humble" and "compassionate," has turned out to be the most radical president in modern U.S. history. But for those Americans whose primary loyalty was to their country, rather than to religious cultism, foreign nations, or financial profit, the rapid emergence of the U. S. as an imperial power waging two hugely expensive colonial wars in Asia was a disaster, both for America's democratic system and for the rest of the world. Bush's vow to bring "democracy" to the Mideast rang as hollow as pious assurances by 19th century European colonialists they were gobbling up Africa and Asia to bring the blessings of Christianity and civilization to benighted savages. Pillaging resources, not enlightenment, were - and remain - the true colonial motivation. Bush's claims to hold the mandate of heaven to wage global warfare against the nebulous forces of "terrorism" sounded as dangerous and nonsensical as old Chairman Leonid Brezhnev's drunken claims it was the Soviet Union's "sacred internationalist duty" to launch military adventures anywhere on Earth where socialism was threatened. Columnist Georgie Anne Gayer put it perfectly when she recently wrote that whereas America used to lead the world as champion of democracy, personal freedom and human rights, today, under Bush, it instead seeks to dominate the world through raw military and monetary power. Carte blanche In 2003, we saw an abject, cowardly Congress violate its duty as the republic's premier political organ by disgracefully handing the barely elected president carte blanche to wage an unprovoked war against Iraq that was justified by a torrent of ludicrous lies worthy of Dr. Goebbels. Lies and propaganda that were packaged in the best tradition of Soviet agitprop as news, then force-fed by a servile media to an ill-informed public shockingly deficient in any sense of history, geography, or foreign affairs. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and sundry military adventures around the globe, were made possible by a steady drumbeat of warnings from the White House and its neo-con trumpets that the U.S. was in dire national peril from "terrorists" and "rogue states." Paranoia again swept America during the holiday season as planes were grounded and orange alerts flashed at a populace that responded to these synthetic alarms with well-trained Pavlovian reflexes. Though the mighty United States, with only 5% of world population, accounts for nearly 50% of total global military spending, the continuing Orwellian message from Washington was of fear and vulnerability. Vague threats of terrorist attack and menacing Muslims were used to curtail American civil liberties, and expand the government's powers of repression and intrusion. The public barely noticed this sinister, proto-totalitarian campaign. The so-called "war on terrorism" was a hoax used to mask and justify the long-planned expansion of U.S. military power around the globe. What were in reality a series of police actions waged against tiny anti-American groups was no more a war than the farcical "war on drugs." But invoking war trumped criticism and dissent - and justified a real war of aggression against oil-rich Iraq. The very term "terrorism" is a nonsense designed for propaganda effect; a damning label applied by the administration to groups or states strongly opposing U.S. policy. A "war on terrorism" makes no more sense than waging war on evil. Those who opposed Washington's surging imperial and totalitarian impulses were branded "leftists" and "anti-Americans." The French thinker Regis Debray, writing about past colonial powers, answers thus: "The free man is not anti-American, but anti-imperial. America (now) revisits the time of colonizers drunk on their superiority, convinced of their liberating mission, and counting on reimbursing themselves directly." Criticizing U.S. foreign policy run-amok and George Bush does not equal anti-Americanism. It is the citizen's birthright, and the friend's duty. This writer has witnessed nine colonial wars and saw how they corrupted the armies, and then the nations, that waged them, brutalizing conquered and conqueror alike. Iraq is the latest. Mankind's three worst scourges are religious fanaticism, nationalism and imperialism. Each of these three evils has been whipped up by the Bush administration to justify domination abroad, repression of dissidence at home and, of course, re-election. Those who truly love and respect the United States, like this writer, a conservative and U.S. Army veteran, see the very qualities that made America a beacon to the world - its very soul - now under heavy assault by a cabal of religious fanatics, foreign-leaning ideological extremists, and self-enriching Enron-Republicans. That is a danger considerably greater than al-Qaida.
Right on, Jagger man. Here's what I have to say in reply to the thread title.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Public Service Announcement for Thinking Americans: 1) Always keep a current passport- one that will not expire within a year. 2) Get to work on dual citizenship or work-residency permits now. I grew up in Lebanon, and I know how to love it and leave it, to live better and love it more enough to maybe come back again. (But love is all around).
You know having the draft imopsed might be a light to the fuse, and set off some resentment. But lets face it, the profesional military doesnt want the draft, last I heard. Wuold you say the USA has a few more heights to climb befpre it goes downwards, ie over the next 10-20 years, or are you expecting the decline to start pretty soon?
Guthrie, clearly the Bush Administration has already set enough events into motion for their folly to be clear to a wide majority before the Presidential Election. I posted the thread "Tipping Point" not long ago when this finally dawned on me. Nobody knows the future. One possible one is that new leadership could turn everything around, toward stability and prosperity, and away from confrontation, overextension, isolation, and decline. As a pilot, I'm familiar with dramatic changes of heading. As an American, I'm optimistic.
The draft is usually a political decision when it seems things are not going as plan in target state x. The draft is not a smart militaristic move, unless it is really needed. But I think that over this decade Americans will go either one of two ways pertaining to the military: i) Higher enrolment in the military as a result of extreme militarism, enthusiasm, and patriotism. ii) Lower enrolment as a result of a disastrous foreign policy, and messes overseas. I am torn between both options, if Bush is elected the first option seems more likely, because he will start new wars, or new "war on x" to rally the young potential troops. If a Democrat is elected I think the latter will be a reality, because the perception will be based more on a reality, basically one that the policy is a disaster and many young American boys are not wiling to risk their lives for something truly un-popular. The draft seems a bit off to me, for now. But didn't they re-constitute the draft board?
Highest casualties since Vietnam: Bad for recruitment. Flak vests: Bad for dead hero/living eyesore ratio (also bad for recruitment). Greater instability/insurrection in American and Israeli occupations, along with potential turnovers tomorrow in Pakistan and Saudi, means the PNAC-craving rampaging oliphant needs draftees yesterday.
Big deal, elections are in a year. American can decide what they want at the right time. I don't know what's more hyped: Bush rambling on about vague 'threats' of terrorism, or the left rambling on about police states. .
Greater instability/insurrection in American and Israeli occupations, along with potential turnovers tomorrow in Pakistan and Saudi, means the PNAC-craving rampaging oliphant needs draftees yesterday I don't think the Americans are actually going to intervene in Pakistan; there just is no way that would allowed to happen. Saudi, she may collapse internally and most likely turn into a Sunni Salafi government, that should be fun for the US. I think the test for the US will be the Shi'a threat in Iraq, and the Warlords in Afghanistan. Someone is going to be disappointed in these two states, either the US or the group of ppl within the country. Civil War seems like the inevitable scenario in both states, the Shi'a and the warlords are going to have to be dealt with. That could be two prolonged wars just waiting to happen.
I think that while Saoudi Arabia is boiling like crazy n the inside, I still think that corporate america would send the army to come to the rescue of it's leaders, just like the Kuwaiti fatcats. It's no loyalty, it's bussiness. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Vortexx, the Saudi family controls Makkah and Medina. If the US were to step in they could not provide a believable cover that would avoid an unprecedented stimulus for widescale uprisings and rapid escalation to complex multi-faceted regional warfare. Intervening now in Saudi Arabia is the modern equivalent of nuking the Kremlin: A very bad idea.
I would think that the Saoudi government knows this and has most of it's army and police near the two Holy cities to prevent at least uprise happening overthere (because they cannot sell to even their own allies having us troops entering the holy cities) while the us-troops that are stationed in millitary bases in Saoudi Arabia could assist in crushing the first signs of uprise, should the nervous princes ask for it (wich is a last resort really) CNN will report there was "minor terrorist attempt but that the problem is solved now"
