The linguistic shift: From "War on terror" to "War on Islamo-fascists"

[banyon]

Wrong War, Wrong Word
Katha Pollitt

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/8213/islamofascistsmui1.gif


If you control the language, you control the debate. As the Bush Administration's Middle Eastern policy sinks ever deeper into bloody incoherence, the "war on terror" has been getting a quiet linguistic makeover. It's becoming the "war on Islamic fascism." The term has been around for a while--Nexis takes it back to 1990, when the writer and historian Malise Ruthven used "Islamo-fascism" in the London Independent to describe the authoritarian governments of the Muslim world; after 9/11 it was picked up by neocons and prowar pundits, including Stephen Schwartz in the Spectator and Christopher Hitchens in this magazine, to describe a broad swath of Muslim bad guys from Osama to the mullahs of Iran. But the term moved into the mainstream this August when Bush referred to the recently thwarted Britain-based suicide attack plot on airplanes as "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists." Joe Lieberman compares Iraq to "the Spanish Civil War, which was the harbinger of what was to come." The move away from "war on terrorism" arrives not a moment too soon for language fussbudgets who had problems with the idea of making war on a tactic. To say nothing of those who wondered why, if terrorism was the problem, invading Iraq was the solution. (From the President's August 21 press conference: Q: "But what did Iraq have to do with September 11?" A: "Nothing." Now he tells us!)

What's wrong with "Islamo-fascism"? For starters, it's a terrible historical analogy. Italian Fascism, German Nazism and other European fascist movements of the 1920s and '30s were nationalist and secular, closely allied with international capital and aimed at creating powerful, up-to-date, all-encompassing states. Some of the trappings might have been anti-modernist--Mussolini looked back to ancient Rome, the Nazis were fascinated by Nordic mythology and other Wagnerian folderol--but the basic thrust was modern, bureaucratic and rational. You wouldn't find a fascist leader consulting the Bible to figure out how to organize the banking system or the penal code or the women's fashion industry. Even its anti-Semitism was "scientific": The problem was the Jews' genetic inferiority and otherness, which countless biologists, anthropologists and medical researchers were called upon to prove--not that the Jews killed Christ and refused to accept the true faith. Call me pedantic, but if only to remind us that the worst barbarities of the modern era were committed by the most modern people, I think it is worth preserving "fascism" as a term with specific historical content.

Second, and more important, "Islamo-fascism" conflates a wide variety of disparate states, movements and organizations as if, like the fascists, they all want similar things and are working together to achieve them. Neocons have called Saddam Hussein and the Baathists of Syria Islamo-fascists, but these relatively secular nationalist tyrants have nothing in common with shadowy, stateless, fundamentalist Al Qaeda--as even Bush now acknowledges--or with the Taliban, who want to return Afghanistan to the seventh century; and the Taliban aren't much like Iran, which is different from (and somewhat less repressive than) Saudi Arabia--whoops, our big ally in the Middle East! Who are the "Islamo-fascists" in Saudi Arabia--the current regime or its religious-fanatical opponents? It was under the actually existing US-supported government that female students were forced back into their burning school rather than be allowed to escape unveiled. Under that government people are lashed and beheaded, women can't vote or drive, non-Muslim worship is forbidden, a religious dress code is enforced by the state through violence and Wahhabism--the "Islamo-fascist" denomination--is exported around the globe.

"Islamo-fascism" looks like an analytic term, but really it's an emotional one, intended to get us to think less and fear more. It presents the bewildering politics of the Muslim world as a simple matter of Us versus Them, with war to the end the only answer, as with Hitler. If you doubt that every other British Muslim under the age of 30 is ready to blow himself up for Allah, or that shredding the Constitution is the way to protect ourselves from suicide bombers, if you think that Hamas might be less popular if Palestinians were less miserable, you get cast as Neville Chamberlain, while Bush plays FDR. "Islamo-fascism" rescues the neocons from harsh verdicts on the invasion of Iraq ("cakewalk...roses...sweetmeats...Chalabi") by reframing that ongoing debacle as a minor chapter in a much larger story of evil madmen who want to fly the green flag of Islam over the capitals of the West. Suddenly it's just a detail that Saddam wasn't connected with 9/11, had no WMDs, was not poised to attack the United States or Israel--he hated freedom, and that was enough. It doesn't matter, either, that Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites seem less interested in uniting the umma than in murdering one another. With luck we'll be so scared we won't ask why anyone should listen to another word from people who were spectacularly wrong about the biggest politico-military initiative of the past thirty years, and their balding heads will continue to glow on our TV screens for many nights to come. On to Tehran!

It remains to be seen if "Islamo-fascism" will win back the socially liberal "security moms" who voted for Bush in 2004 but have recently been moving toward the Democrats. But the word is already getting a big reaction in the Muslim world. As I write the New York Times is carrying a full page "open letter" to Bush from the Al Kharafi Group, the mammoth Kuwaiti construction company, featuring photos of dead and wounded Lebanese civilians. "We think there is a misunderstanding in determining: "'Who deserves to be accused of being a fascist'!!!!"


"Islamo-fascism" enrages to no purpose the dwindling number of Muslims who don't already hate us. At the same time, it clouds with ideology a range of situations--Lebanon, Palestine, airplane and subway bombings, Afghanistan, Iraq--we need to see clearly and distinctly and deal with in a focused way. No wonder the people who brought us the disaster in Iraq are so fond of it.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060911/pollitt

[stevieray]

RRWNJ

ying/yang

[banyon]

I know the Nation is not exactly a moderate mag, but I thought this was an interesting insight into this recent shift that BucEyedPea has been highlighting for a month or so (thanks for the image).

[banyon]

RRWNJ

ying/yang

Wow, you responded within 1 minute of the post.

Your reading skills are remarkable!

:)

[Cochise]

I know the Nation is not exactly a moderate mag, but I thought this was an interesting insight into this recent shift that BucEyedPea has been highlighting for a month or so (thanks for the image).

Yeah, I agree. It's good to see us finally recognizing who our fight is with.

[stevieray]

Wow, you responded within 1 minute of the post.

Your reading skills are remarkable!

:)


Thanks. Not hard when half of it is rinse and repeat. Isn't the crux of the article just another label meant to divide and stereotype?

[banyon]

Thanks. Not hard when half of it is rinse and repeat. Isn't the crux of the article just another label meant to divide and stereotype?

Nope. Not even close. :)

[jAZ]

Wow, you responded within 1 minute of the post.

Your reading skills are remarkable!

:)
I think this fits here as well...

http://www.gocougs.net/fuskies/img/demotivivationseries/Stupidity.jpg

[keg in kc]

Oh, who cares if we offend anyone that's not Christian. Unless they're Jewish.

[Chief Henry]

I think this fits here as well...

http://www.gocougs.net/fuskies/img/demotivivationseries/Stupidity.jpg


I thought Kristin VanDenhovel was white?

[Mr. Kotter]

Yeah, I agree. It's good to see us finally recognizing who our fight is with.Yup. Folks nitpicking over the particulars over fascism refuse to recognize (or purposely ignore) the major and most important thing that radical Islam has in common with fascism:

That both are radical authoritarian ideologies that aim(ed) to impose on others a dogmatic world view of the political, economic, and social aspects of society, and to spread that totalitarian worldview across the globe with the use of force, if necessary.

You know, it's what liberals are constantly accusing conservatives of doing. :rolleyes:

There is irony in the fact that the "tolerance" of liberals could allow them to succeed, and that if they were to succeed..... liberals would then really have something to complain about....

Only a radical to be blind to the glaring similarities....

[patteeu]

Here's a challenge for you, banyon. What label would you attach to this war if you believed in it in the same way that the Bush administration believes in it (i.e. our enemy is broader than just al Qaeda and includes addressing perceived threats in rogue states such as Iraq)?

Others who object to "global war on terror" or "war on islamo-fascists," feel free to offer your own serious suggestions.

[BucEyedPea]

Propaganda War sounds good to me! :D

[patteeu]

BTW, BucEyedPea posted some guy's list of 7 or 8 fundamental characteristics of "fascism" and from my pov it matched our enemy in this conflict very well.

This author's very first complaint is that, in her opinion, the current enemy doesn't share two particular characteristics with WWII fascists, secularism and nationalism. Well the reason the "Islamo" part is in "Islamo-fascism" addresses the first distinction by clearly identifying a different type of fascism and the fact is that this current enemy is very driven by nationalistic sentiment. In fact, the ambitious ones want to unite the islamic world into a single nation.

[patteeu]

Propaganda War sounds good to me! :D

I don't think that most of the people complaining about the original terminology or the more recent terminology would be happy with any serious terminology at all. So why should we care what they think? Both sides are trying to control the language as a way to influence people. The anti-war folks are just as engaged in propagandizing as Bush and the neocons.

P.S. I realize you are just having fun here.

[BucEyedPea]

BTW, BucEyedPea posted some guy's list of 7 or 8 fundamental characteristics of "fascism" and from my pov it matched our enemy in this conflict very well.

It also sounds alot like the USA today under Neo-Fasci-Cons.
The Islamist we are at war with isn't even a centralized govt, they're decentralized...but some of the repressive govts we support that rule those people could classify as fascists.

[Mr. Kotter]

... The anti-war folks are just as engaged in propagandizing as Bush and the neocons...

:eek:



You mean, the "left" engages in 'propaganda' too? How can that be? I thought that was just evil, mean, and selfish RWNJs that would ever do that......:hmmm:



I'm shocked that ANYONE would dare question their pure motives.....:harumph:

[Mr. Kotter]

It also sounds alot like the USA today under Neo-Fasci-Cons.
The Islamist we are at war with isn't even a centralized govt, they're decentralized...but some of the repressive govts we support that rule those people could classify as fascists.
Decentralized? Heh.

Yeah, they've got no desire to spread their "way of life" in a way that would unite the governments of the Muslim world......nope. No siree. No desire at all.

[patteeu]

It also sounds alot like the USA today under Neo-Fasci-Cons.
The Islamist we are at war with isn't even a centralized govt, they're decentralized...but some of the repressive govts we support that rule those people could classify as fascists.

You don't have to have a centralized government to be a fascist. These fascists are currently, and thankfully, out of power. When/if they take power, they will have a centralized government.

[banyon]

Yup. Folks nitpicking over the particulars over fascism refuse to recognize (or purposely ignore) the major and most important thing that radical Islam has in common with fascism:

That both are radical authoritarian ideologies that aim(ed) to impose on others a dogmatic world view of the political, economic, and social aspects of society, and to spread that totalitarian worldview across the globe with the use of force, if necessary.


Yes, you have highlighted one similar characteristic over many dissimilar characteristics. As such, using just the above listed quality would entitle them to be labeled monarchists, corporatists, fascists, big "c" Communists, warring cannibalists, amony many designations that have nothing to do with each other.

Problem being, for an analogy to have any relevance, it must share important characteristics while not having relevant disanalogous characteristics like the ones listed by the author.

She lists several relevant points which seem to be being ignored like:

-They are anything but unified in their front against us and mostly battle each other.

-There are some pretty compelling reasons for the Bush Administration to desire this political shift in the terminology for the reasons listed.

I think those are the relevant reasons to distrust this manipulation of language.

[banyon]

Here's a challenge for you, banyon. What label would you attach to this war if you believed in it in the same way that the Bush administration believes in it (i.e. our enemy is broader than just al Qaeda and includes addressing perceived threats in rogue states such as Iraq)?

Others who object to "global war on terror" or "war on islamo-fascists," feel free to offer your own serious suggestions.

Operation: Save our F***ing Oil?

[BucEyedPea]

You don't have to have a centralized government to be a fascist.
That's disinformation. The only ones that are even a govt is Hamas, who targets Israel. AlQaeda and affiliates are our enemy and they are NOT even state sponsored let alone are a govt.


Definitions for Fascism (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en-us&defl=en&q=define:Fascism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title)


•"A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (From The American Heritage Dictionary)

•A social and political ideology with the primary guiding principle that the state or nation is the highest priority, rather than personal or individual freedoms.

[BucEyedPea]

Decentralized? Heh.

Yeah, they've got no desire to spread their "way of life" in a way that would unite the governments of the Muslim world......nope. No siree. No desire at all.
That's not what decentralized means though.
Fascism is also entwined with corporate interests too.

They may be monsters, but comparing a scattered ragtag group living in the caves of Whahabbistan to the massive might of the Wehrmacht is showing a need for a severe reality adjustment—not saying you—but those leading our president into their bizarro world where it's always 1939!

[patteeu]

That's disinformation. The only ones that are even a govt is Hamas, who targets Israel. AlQaeda and affiliates are our enemy and they are NOT even state sponsored let alone are a govt.

No it's not. You don't have to control a state to be a democrat or a communist or a socialist or a monarchist or a totalitarian and you don't have to control a state to be a fascist. What would you call someone whose political ideology leads them to aspire to create a fascist state?

[NewPhin]

There is irony in the fact that many on the Right have been complaining about the flippant and incorrect use of fascism for the last decade, but now suddenly they're using it incorrectly.

It's just more incorrect usage where fascism connotes evil and repression. While fascism was evil and repressive, everything that is evil and repressive isn't fascism.

[patteeu]

There is irony in the fact that many on the Right have been complaining about the flippant and incorrect use of fascism for the last decade, but now suddenly they're using it incorrectly.

It's just more incorrect usage where fascism connotes evil and repression. While fascism was evil and repressive, everything that is evil and repressive isn't fascism.

I'm not sure if this is the definition that BucEyedPea was using the other day, but I think it might be:

Many diverse regimes have self-identified as fascist, and defining fascism has proved complicated and contentious. Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets. Since the 1990s, however, there has been a growing move toward some rough consensus reflected in the work of Stanley Payne, Roger Eatwell, Roger Griffin, and Robert O. Paxton. See Fascism and ideology.

The word "fascism" comes from fascio (plural: fasci), which may mean "bundle," as in a political or militant group or a nation, but also from the fasces (rods bundled around an axe), which were an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of magistrates. The Italian Fascisti were also known as Black Shirts for their style of uniform incorporating a black shirt (See Also: political colour).

Merriam-Webster defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"[3].

A recent definition is that by former Colombia University Professor Robert O. Paxton:

* "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

Paxton further defines fascism's essence as:

* "1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination."

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



Using that definition, the enemy we are fighting against fit pretty well. Far better, IMO, than American conservatives and/or neocons who have been the targets of those previous (and continuing) flippant and incorrect uses of the term.

Personally, I think the terms "militant islamist" and "radical jihadist" are more specific and therefore more accurate, but I'm not opposed to associating these guys with the term fascist. Maybe I'm missing some glaring flaw in that association? I'd certainly be willing to embrace a more clearly accurate label if one were suggested, but as you can see, no one has bothered to offer a serious alternative yet.

[Pitt Gorilla]

What would you call someone whose political ideology leads them to aspire to create a fascist state?
W? :) Couldn't resist...

[jettio]

No matter what you call it, as long as you have Stooges calling the shots, there will not be much progress.

Now that somebody invented viagra, impotent people think they are Hercules. It is incredible to see B*sh supporters parsing obvious propaganda. Wars are not won by spinmeisters, wars are won by warriors.

Bottom line, Bin Laden is laughing while B*sh is stuck trying to give excuses for being stuck in Iraq 3.5 years after he thought he already won.

B*sh can't even get countries that have been our friends for generations to bail his arrogant dumbazz out.

[BucEyedPea]

It is incredible to see B*sh supporters parsing obvious propaganda.
Propaganda by redefinition of words...something I thought only the commies did. :banghead:

[NewPhin]

I'm not sure if this is the definition that BucEyedPea was using the other day, but I think it might be:



Using that definition, the enemy we are fighting against fit pretty well. Far better, IMO, than American conservatives and/or neocons who have been the targets of those previous (and continuing) flippant and incorrect uses of the term.

Personally, I think the terms "militant islamist" and "radical jihadist" are more specific and therefore more accurate, but I'm not opposed to associating these guys with the term fascist. Maybe I'm missing some glaring flaw in that association? I'd certainly be willing to embrace a more clearly accurate label if one were suggested, but as you can see, no one has bothered to offer a serious alternative yet.


Maybe it's due to my qausi-Marxist college education where everything boils down to modes of production, but I can't really label anything as Fascist without examining the economic system which they're hoping to put in place. I realize that the idea that Fascism falls in the realm of economics is controversial, but there's quite a bit of scholarship out there to back me up, albeit much of it is from leftist academics. Anyway, if you're really interested in the debate over whether fascism is related to economics or not, you can see the dialectic play out on this Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism) page. Some of the things that I find essential for fascism from that page can be found in these quotes:

A few see echoes of fascist economic policies in the modern welfare state (DiLorenzo); in the expanding imperial power of U.S. based transnational capitalism (Falk); and in neo-corporatist relationships between the state and private enterprise (Wolin, Britt)...

Under fascism, business and government collude to profit by engaging in economic intervention. Lawrence Britt suggests that protection of corporate power is an essential part of fascism.[7] Socialist historian Gaetano Salvemini said in 1936: "In actual fact, it is the State, i.e., the taxpayer who has become responsible to private enterprise. In Fascist Italy the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social." [8] Yet Mussolini made in clear that the state ultimately subordinated both business and labor under the system called corporatism: "Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State."[9] Paxton notes that the primary economic theme under fascism is anti-socialism. ...

[patteeu]

W? :) Couldn't resist...

:spank: :p

[penchief]

That's disinformation. The only ones that are even a govt is Hamas, who targets Israel. AlQaeda and affiliates are our enemy and they are NOT even state sponsored let alone are a govt.


Definitions for Fascism (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en-us&defl=en&q=define:Fascism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title)


•"A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (From The American Heritage Dictionary)

•A social and political ideology with the primary guiding principle that the state or nation is the highest priority, rather than personal or individual freedoms.


Damn, that sounds more like the Bush Administration than al-Qaeda. Seriously, if you take out the word "dictator" and actually think about those definitions it certainly comes a lot closer to describing the way our government has been trending under Bush.

[patteeu]

Maybe it's due to my qausi-Marxist college education where everything boils down to modes of production, but I can't really label anything as Fascist without examining the economic system which they're hoping to put in place. I realize that the idea that Fascism falls in the realm of economics is controversial, but there's quite a bit of scholarship out there to back me up, albeit much of it is from leftist academics. Anyway, if you're really interested in the debate over whether fascism is related to economics or not, you can see the dialectic play out on this Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism) page. Some of the things that I find essential for fascism from that page can be found in these quotes:

That seems like a fair criticism. I don't know enough about their economic ideas to evaluate that although I wouldn't be surprised if there is enough information available, both historical (Taliban, Iran) and prospective (the writings of Osama and other jihadists) that someone might be able to evaluate them on that score.

I'm OK with the idea that "islamo-fascist" isn't the best label for our enemies in this war, but I'm convinced that no label will be good enough for those who complained that "global war on terror" was a fight against a tactic instead of a real war. I also think there is just as much irony to be found among those who have casually tossed the "fascist" label at conservatives or neocons but who object to using a form of the word to label the militant islamists that we are fighting against.

[banyon]

I'm OK with the idea that "islamo-fascist" isn't the best label for our enemies in this war, but I'm convinced that no label will be good enough for those who complained that "global war on terror" was a fight against a tactic instead of a real war. I also think there is just as much irony to be found among those who have casually tossed the "fascist" label at conservatives or neocons but who object to using a form of the word to label the militant islamists that we are fighting against.

This is a complaint that people (including myself) sometimes have, but in the case of Iraq the main objection is that the endeavor simply is not a part of that war, or if it is now, it is due to our machinations.

[HC_Chief]

This is a complaint that people (including myself) sometimes have, but in the case of Iraq the main objection is that the endeavor simply is not a part of that war, or if it is now, <i>it is due to our machinations.</i>

Exactly. That was the point: take the fight to the center of the enemy's "homeland"; fight and kill them on their soil, not ours.

[tiptap]

Exactly. That was the point: take the fight to the center of the enemy's "homeland"; fight and kill them on their soil, not ours.

But the homeland statement itself, with the quotation marks, is indicative of the imaginary part of this concrete depiction. There was a homeland hangout in Afganistan for Osama and his thugs. Saddam, was a declining factor, his military was degraded, no WMD and we only had to wait him out. Instead we created a location which recruits for radicalism with the suunis in relation to al queda and the shiites with Iran. There was no western liberal modern state to liberate. It is a miss leading use of words. It speaks more to politics at home than to the reality of the Middle East and fundamentalism.

[NewPhin]

Exactly. That was the point: take the fight to the center of the enemy's "homeland"; fight and kill them on their soil, not ours.

Right. That's where they've shifted the point to now. But that isn't the point that was used to sell the war to the American public. From the beginning of the entire runup to war I (and many others both Cons and Libs) said that the real reason we were going to war was to stabilize the ME and to take the fight to them. However, that was not the reasoning that was used to convince the public. It was the "fact" that Iraq had WMDs and presented a clear and present danger to the US.

Bait and switch baby, bait and switch.

[HC_Chief]

But the homeland statement itself, with the quotation marks, is indicative of the imaginary part of this concrete depiction. There was a homeland hangout in Afganistan for Osama and his thugs. Saddam, was a declining factor, his military was degraded, no WMD and we only had to wait him out. Instead we created a location which recruits for radicalism with the suunis in relation to al queda and the shiites with Iran. There was no western liberal modern state to liberate. It is a miss leading use of words. It speaks more to politics at home than to the reality of the Middle East and fundamentalism.

Osama and his thugs were routed in record time - driven to the mountains and into Pakistan where they hide today.

Saddam was a source of funding and material support for terrorists. Saddam's regime violated numerous UN resolutions. Saddam's regime was known to have attempted to acquire WMD. WMD WERE found by our soldiers. Saddam practically asked for the invasion; we obliged. He will soon be executed. And whether you leftists like it or not, democracy HAS taken hold in Iraq. HUGE voter turnouts across multiple elections have proven as much.

[HC_Chief]

Right. That's where they've shifted the point to now. But that isn't the point that was used to sell the war to the American public. From the beginning of the entire runup to war I (and many others both Cons and Libs) said that the real reason we were going to war was to stabilize the ME and to take the fight to them. However, that was not the reasoning that was used to convince the public. It was the "fact" that Iraq had WMDs and presented a clear and present danger to the US.

Bait and switch baby, bait and switch.

Funny, from the very beginning I've heard "The strategy is to take the fight to the enemy homeland, to cut of his funding, and capture or kill him <i>over there</i>, before he can kill and maim <i>over here</i>". You know, the widely bemoaned "preemptive strike" strategy.

Saddam provided justification for the invasion by thumbing his nose at the UN and IAEA. He funded terrorists (strike two). He violated ceasefire agreements signed after Gulf War 1 (strike 3, you're out!). Only a simpleton would ignore the red flags raised by Saddam's regime. A simpleton, or someone blinded by a psychotic hatred of Bush (see: modern uber-lberal democratic party)

[patteeu]

But the homeland statement itself, with the quotation marks, is indicative of the imaginary part of this concrete depiction. There was a homeland hangout in Afganistan for Osama and his thugs. Saddam, was a declining factor, his military was degraded, no WMD and we only had to wait him out. Instead we created a location which recruits for radicalism with the suunis in relation to al queda and the shiites with Iran. There was no western liberal modern state to liberate. It is a miss leading use of words. It speaks more to politics at home than to the reality of the Middle East and fundamentalism.

How would limiting our focus to Afghanistan have helped us counter the islamist radicalism of Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and the Iranian Ayatollahs (among others) or counter the threats of state sponsorship from Iran, Iraq, and Syria (among others)?

Iraq is absolutely in the heart of the homeland, as would be the Arabian penninsula, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, etc. Iraq, for a number of reasons that we've been through time and time again, was a reasonable best choice for the second phase of the war.

[banyon]

Osama and his thugs were routed in record time - driven to the mountains and into Pakistan where they hide today.

Wow. Have you read anything about Afghanistan in the last 2 years?

[HC_Chief]

Wow. Have you read anything about Afghanistan in the last 2 years?

You trying to deny the Taliban government was trounced and scattered along w/ OBL and his minions?

[banyon]

You trying to deny the Taliban government was trounced and scattered along w/ OBL and his minions?

No. Denying that "they hide there today".

[patteeu]

Right. That's where they've shifted the point to now. But that isn't the point that was used to sell the war to the American public. From the beginning of the entire runup to war I (and many others both Cons and Libs) said that the real reason we were going to war was to stabilize the ME and to take the fight to them. However, that was not the reasoning that was used to convince the public. It was the "fact" that Iraq had WMDs and presented a clear and present danger to the US.

Bait and switch baby, bait and switch.

It's not really bait and switch unless the originally emphasized reason was false. Do you believe that the Bush administration was making a good faith argument when they called Saddam a "gathering threat?"

[NewPhin]

It's not really bait and switch unless the originally emphasized reason was false. Do you believe that the Bush administration was making a good faith argument when they called Saddam a "gathering threat?"

Heh, I imagine you know my answer to that. No, I don't, but I think that very little of what this administration does is done "in good faith." That's the basic reason you and I have a different view on all of this stuff. You give them the benefit of the doubt, I assume the worst.

[Chief Faithful]

She lists several relevant points which seem to be being ignored like:

-They are anything but unified in their front against us and mostly battle each other.

-There are some pretty compelling reasons for the Bush Administration to desire this political shift in the terminology for the reasons listed.

I think those are the relevant reasons to distrust this manipulation of language.

It is humorous to me that people frame this debate like Fascism starts with government. The fact is Fascism is an ideology that starts with individuals then grows into a movements. After these people capture powers of the state then they eliminate their political rivals. The unified front comes at the end not at the beginning.

I like the label 'War on Islamic Fascism' better than 'War on Islamic Terror' because Fascism is an ideology held by individuals while terror is just a tactic. Fascist use terror as a means to an end. Example, the brown shirts were Fascist that used terror as a means to capture the power of state. Terrorism in itself is not an ideology.

The goal of the current Islamic Fascism has been clear; re-build the Islamic state that stretched from Persia to Spain.

[jAZ]

Yeah, I agree. It's good to see us finally recognizing who our fight is with.
It was only useful to use the broadest possible rhetoric until we had successfully lumped Iraq under the umbrella. After that's outa the way, we are free to focus our rhetoric on a more narrowly focused group of the Isalamic Community.

Right?

[jAZ]

The fact is Fascism is an ideology that starts with individuals then grows into a movements. After these people capture powers of the state then they eliminate their political rivals. The unified front comes at the end not at the beginning.
It's just like a "Permant Republican Majority"!

Signed,
Karl Rove
Hugh Hewitt
The Washington Times
Grover Norquist
The Wall Street Journal
et al.

[BucEyedPea]

The goal of the current Islamic Fascism has been clear; re-build the Islamic state that stretched from Persia to Spain.

This line is EXACTLY what I consider to be propaganda right here. This is why I say it is NOT fascism. This claim comes out of ancient history books when Islam ruled from Persia to Spain. RR folks support it because of this history; and because it aligns with Biblical issues...but it excludes modern developments and complaints.

Then there is Cheney & Co's conclusion ( doubt it really is but it provides a way to stir up the masses for their NeoCon agenda) that's being marketed to cloud the issue. So this plays on the emotions of more people than the RR. BY RR I mean Protestant Dispensationalist Christians mainly. In advertising we call this positioning: juxtuposing ideas/images to sell something using emotion. It's very powerful.

Here's some evidence that I feel back-up my opinion:

• Bin Laden’s writings and media interviews indicate that his primary gripes are against U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf, U.S. backing of corrupt Arab rulers and Israel. If he using religious rhetoric to cloathe it; that's only because he is a religious man. No different than the RR in similar cases.

• Ramzi Yousef- World Trade Center in 1993 was because of U.S. policies in the Middle East, specifically active U.S. support for Israel

• Hezbollah bombed the Marine barracks and other targets in Lebanon and kidnapped and killed U.S. personnel because the United States was essentially fighting on the side of a minority Christian government against Muslim militias in the Lebanese civil war. When Reagan pulled out the attacks died down.

• The 1988 bombing by Libyan intelligence agents of Pan American flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland was a culmination of tit-for-tat attacks between Libya and the United States, which started in 1981. There was a significant reduction in Libyan attacks on U.S. targets when the provocations of Libya stopped.

• In the first Bush administration, anti-U.S. terrorist attacks spiked during the Persian Gulf War, increasing to 120 during that period in 1991 compared with only 17 during a comparable period the year before. Some terrorists experts claim this brought 9/11 to our shores due to our troops being on holy lands.

Adopting a policy of military restraint overseas would bring many advantages, one of which is less anti-U.S. terrorism at home and abroad. If "they"* want Islamic states on what is their turf who are we to tell them they can't? Who's being the fascists here?



* Who's they? Another sweeping generality.



Cheny's Counterproductive policy toward terrorists (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1584)


Okay Cochise, I omitted the = in the code....here it is.

[Cochise]

Nice link. You're the Gore Vidal of cut-and-paste.

[BucEyedPea]

Nice link. You're the Gore Vidal of cut-and-paste.

Nice ad hominem deflection. Now say something intelligent.

BTW, since you obviously didn't read the link....it was only the bulleted copy I pasted, along with my additions and edits. Ain't nothing wrong with that.

[Cochise]

Nice ad hominem deflection. Now say something intelligent.

BTW, since you obviously didn't read the link....it was only the bulleted copy I pasted, along with my additions and edits. Ain't nothing wrong with that.

I didn't read the link because it's broken. You're a regular Norman Einstein.

[NewPhin]

I didn't read the link because it's broken. You're a regular Norman Einstein.


Heh. It amazes me that one conservative can piss off all the other conservatives so badly. I wish I would have been reading DC more closely to watch what Pea has done to annoy the righties so much.

[BucEyedPea]

Heh. It amazes me that one conservative can piss off all the other conservatives so badly. I wish I would have been reading DC more closely to watch what Pea has done to annoy the righties so much.

I know, I know....I am like Benedict Arnold to them on post Cold War foreign policy.

[patteeu]

Heh. It amazes me that one conservative can piss off all the other conservatives so badly. I wish I would have been reading DC more closely to watch what Pea has done to annoy the righties so much.

I like BucEyedPea and I agree with a lot of her non-foreign policy comments. I think the reason she gets sideways with other conservatives is because she tells them that they aren't real conservative and is quick to call them (or people with whom they agree) names (e.g. socialists, fascists, Trotskytes, commies, etc.). If that's not enough, she likes to criticize others for "debating the poster/messenger" when she often does the same thing herself. But I think she's cool anyway. I don't even think she realizes she's doing it, although she's no where near as out of touch with herself as penchief.

[tiptap]

Osama and his thugs were routed in record time - driven to the mountains and into Pakistan where they hide today.

Saddam was a source of funding and material support for terrorists. Saddam's regime violated numerous UN resolutions. Saddam's regime was known to have attempted to acquire WMD. WMD WERE found by our soldiers. Saddam practically asked for the invasion; we obliged. He will soon be executed. And whether you leftists like it or not, democracy HAS taken hold in Iraq. HUGE voter turnouts across multiple elections have proven as much.


You are absolutely correct in your first paragraph and I supported, with anxiety, the military intervention in Afganistan. But there is no credible evidence for most of your second paragraph

The Senate findings, just released, found no complicity between Saddam and Al Queada. The give and take between Saddam interpretation and probing of UN resolutions enactment is always the case in the details of how any rule, law or resolution is interpreted. The reality is that the arm forces of Saddam had been degraded by Gulf War I and his military manufactoring capability was destroyed. He was depended upon salvaging parts from existing inventory and occasionally getting legal (and pushing and bribing the system) replacement material from outside Iraq. But he had abandoned nuclear WMD and wanted to keep the intellectual capability for Chemical and Biological weapons but really didn't have capacity to create weapons. WMD found were left over from the stockpile WE arranged for Saddam in his war with Iran. And they were too old to be used. As far as reading Saddam's mind, I think you miss his wish to have control in his own country and a creditable deterrent with his neighbors. It did play well in this country to think we were the only concern in his statements.

It is a dear price for so little gain.

[BucEyedPea]

I like BucEyedPea and I agree with a lot of her non-foreign policy comments. I think the reason she gets sideways with other conservatives is because she tells them that they aren't real conservative and is quick to call them (or people with whom they agree) names (e.g. socialists, fascists, Trotskytes, commies, etc.). If that's not enough, she likes to criticize others for "debating the poster/messenger" when she often does the same thing herself. But I think she's cool anyway. I don't even think she realizes she's doing it, although she's no where near as out of touch with herself as penchief.
No. I call the people framing the argument today for the conservative movement these things...and that's because I believe that to be the truth, based on their own words and writings. They are the "who" behind the current trend.

Ideas start with intellectuals ( and it's been the NeoCons who have been the intellectuals in the conservative movement...some of which has been good imo but not with the ME imo.) and trickles on down within a group or a society until they make it their own. I have also made distinctions, and made them openly, clarifying when I feel someone is a conservative, who is promoting this line which roots ARE in this strain of thought, but who is not fully a NeoCon.You know that. I made the distinction again just above.

But to argue where the conservative movement is going astray, into other political territory is a valid point.

I don't consider it accurate to say this is debating the poster, as much as the philosophy being espoused. I don't consider it ad hominem as far as I understand the word. These are ideas and political philosophies. If someone is advocating them then that's the correct label for it. It's also no different than your indication to banyon, when I first came here, that our progressive income tax is Marxist. I'd say the same thing about the left as well....that they are socialist. Do you not agree with that? No need to answer that ...because I know you do.

[BucEyedPea]

Also, patteeu, the few places where I recall posting something about someone advocating NeoConservatism, I did not call the person that. Just because someone perceived it as such, and reacted that way doesn't mean I called them that personally. As I recall ( think is was maddog and Radar) I called the idea they stated as being NeoConservatism. Big difference.

[patteeu]

You are absolutely correct in your first paragraph and I supported, with anxiety, the military intervention in Afganistan. But there is no credible evidence for most of your second paragraph

The Senate findings, just released, found no complicity between Saddam and Al Queada. The give and take between Saddam interpretation and probing of UN resolutions enactment is always the case in the details of how any rule, law or resolution is interpreted. The reality is that the arm forces of Saddam had been degraded by Gulf War I and his military manufactoring capability was destroyed. He was depended upon salvaging parts from existing inventory and occasionally getting legal (and pushing and bribing the system) replacement material from outside Iraq. But he had abandoned nuclear WMD and wanted to keep the intellectual capability for Chemical and Biological weapons but really didn't have capacity to create weapons. WMD found were left over from the stockpile WE arranged for Saddam in his war with Iran. And they were too old to be used. As far as reading Saddam's mind, I think you miss his wish to have control in his own country and a creditable deterrent with his neighbors. It did play well in this country to think we were the only concern in his statements.

It is a dear price for so little gain.

You're wrong again, tip tap. Not only was everything in his second paragraph accurate, and not only do you refuse to squarely confront his assertions, but you get several things wrong in your response.

* No complicity between Saddam and al Qaeda

The Senate investigations have indeed concluded that there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between these two entities, but that's not the same as refuting HC's assertion that Saddam provided funding and material support for terrorists. There are several things wrong with your response besides the fact that you dodged the allegation and focused exclusively on collaboration between Saddam and al Qaeda. The same Senate investigations that you cite found numerous contacts between Saddam and al Qaeda and there are good reasons to believe that Saddam's regime harbored members/affiliates of al Qaeda as they fled the Afghan battlefield (most notably Abu al Zarqawi).

* The give and take between Saddam interpretation and probing of UN resolutions enactment is always the case in the details of how any rule, law or resolution is interpreted.

It's closer to SOP than it should be only because the UN is a feckless organization. Having said that, there is no excuse for Saddam's failure to comply with the US-backed UN demand for a disarmament accounting. Despite your Saddam apologetics, HC's assertion is undeniable. Saddam violated several resolutions, for what that's worth.

* He was depended upon salvaging parts from existing inventory and occasionally getting legal (and pushing and bribing the system) replacement material from outside Iraq.

You left out the illegal arms shipments he received from companies in Germany, France, Russia, and China (to name just a few). Some of those companies were owned, either in whole or in part, by those governments.[/quote]

* But he had abandoned nuclear WMD and wanted to keep the intellectual capability for Chemical and Biological weapons but really didn't have capacity to create weapons.

[color=blue]The Iraq Survey Group disagrees with you. They concluded that Saddam was preparing for the day when the sanctions/inspections were ended at which time he planned to reconstitute his WMD efforts (including his nuclear programs).

* WMD found were left over from the stockpile WE arranged for Saddam in his war with Iran.

Where do you get that?

In the scheme of things, we've paid a very small price. The gain or lack thereof remains to be seen.

[patteeu]

No. I call the people framing the argument today for the conservative movement these things...and that's because I believe that to be the truth, based on their own words and writings. They are the "who" behind the current trend.

Ideas start with intellectuals ( and it's been the NeoCons who have been the intellectuals in the conservative movement...some of which has been good imo but not with the ME imo.) and trickles on down within a group or a society until they make it their own. I have also made distinctions, and made them openly, clarifying when I feel someone is a conservative, who is promoting this line which roots ARE in this strain of thought, but who is not fully a NeoCon.You know that. I made the distinction again just above.

But to argue where the conservative movement is going astray, into other political territory is a valid point.

I don't consider it accurate to say this is debating the poster, as much as the philosophy being espoused. I don't consider it ad hominem as far as I understand the word. These are ideas and political philosophies. If someone is advocating them then that's the correct label for it. It's also no different than your indication to banyon, when I first came here, that our progressive income tax is Marxist. I'd say the same thing about the left as well....that they are socialist. Do you not agree with that? No need to answer that ...because I know you do.

I don't have any problem labeling things, people, or ideas. I try not to criticize others for doing it too (unless, like here, I'm criticizing what I see as a form of hypocrisy). What I was thinking about when I mentioned the "debating the poster/messenger" part was the way you label leading neocons as Trotskytes or socialists just because they had historical roots there instead of criticizing their current positions directly or your attempt to shoehorn Bush administration policies into the definition of fascism while criticizing the Bush administration for doing the same to our GWoT enemies. To be fair, you do debate the issues lots of times so I'm not saying you debate the messenger a lot. And, in fact, I don't think there is anything wrong with debating the messenger, but I don't think you should criticize others for doing it if you do it yourself.

Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with the way you post. Keep doing what you do and I'm sudsy with it.

[BucEyedPea]

I don't have any problem labeling things, people, or ideas. I try not to criticize others for doing it too (unless, like here, I'm criticizing what I see as a form of hypocrisy). What I was thinking about when I mentioned the "debating the poster/messenger" part was the way you label leading neocons as Trotskytes or socialists just because they had historical roots there instead of criticizing their current positions directly or your attempt to shoehorn Bush administration policies into the definition of fascism while criticizing the Bush administration for doing the same to our GWoT enemies. To be fair, you do debate the issues lots of times so I'm not saying you debate the messenger a lot. And, in fact, I don't think there is anything wrong with debating the messenger, but I don't think you should criticize others for doing it if you do it yourself.

Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with the way you post. Keep doing what you do and I'm sudsy with it.

Labelling the NeoCons as Trotskytes is not just historically accurate but intellectually valid for how it is trickling into current policy. (Clean Break by Wolfowitz, PNACC etc.) You just don't like the unfavorable association because you don't agree with it because you have not made the same connections I have with it. I assure you that there are intellectuals out there that feel the same as me. Criticizing and labelling a public figure along these lines is NOT debating any poster.

I actually make an effort to not debate the messenger (posters in this case) as much as possible. I feel if I have it's been only in response to it having been done to me or others. I think when it's done it should be pointed out and if I do it first I should be as well.

Public figures--------------> Fair Game.

[Cochise]

Heh. It amazes me that one conservative can piss off all the other conservatives so badly. I wish I would have been reading DC more closely to watch what Pea has done to annoy the righties so much.

T*mcash did the same thing, and Gunther Fan did too.

I honestly had no idea Pea was a conservative from her posts. But admittedly I have a tendency to read a line or two of them, see something that makes me :rolleyes:, and then skip on down to the next post.

[BucEyedPea]

A reason I may not always seem to be is because I say conservative*— with an asterisk. I have a libertarian streak.

I just won't say I am a libertarian because most who claim this label don't really run close to a majority of its views. I am the same but come up around 70-90%. Pure libertarianism is too close too anarcharistic for me.

But libertarians are in both parties, as I understand about 50-50 split. So this can make me appear liberal sometimes. My foreign policy views, at least regarding the ME, come from libertarianism and what is referred to as old-right conservativism ( never knew this before either).

I am abolutely NOT a NeoConservative though. This is big govt, interventionist foreign policy conservatism.

[tiptap]

You're wrong again, tip tap. Not only was everything in his second paragraph accurate, and not only do you refuse to squarely confront his assertions, but you get several things wrong in your response.

* No complicity between Saddam and al Qaeda

The Senate investigations have indeed concluded that there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between these two entities, but that's not the same as refuting HC's assertion that Saddam provided funding and material support for terrorists. There are several things wrong with your response besides the fact that you dodged the allegation and focused exclusively on collaboration between Saddam and al Qaeda. The same Senate investigations that you cite found numerous contacts between Saddam and al Qaeda and there are good reasons to believe that Saddam's regime harbored members/affiliates of al Qaeda as they fled the Afghan battlefield (most notably Abu al Zarqawi).

* The give and take between Saddam interpretation and probing of UN resolutions enactment is always the case in the details of how any rule, law or resolution is interpreted.

It's closer to SOP than it should be only because the UN is a feckless organization. Having said that, there is no excuse for Saddam's failure to comply with the US-backed UN demand for a disarmament accounting. Despite your Saddam apologetics, HC's assertion is undeniable. Saddam violated several resolutions, for what that's worth.

* He was depended upon salvaging parts from existing inventory and occasionally getting legal (and pushing and bribing the system) replacement material from outside Iraq.

[color=blue]You left out the illegal arms shipments he received from companies in Germany, France, Russia, and China (to name just a few). Some of those companies were owned, either in whole or in part, by those governments.

* But he had abandoned nuclear WMD and wanted to keep the intellectual capability for Chemical and Biological weapons but really didn't have capacity to create weapons.

The Iraq Survey Group disagrees with you. They concluded that Saddam was preparing for the day when the sanctions/inspections were ended at which time he planned to reconstitute his WMD efforts (including his nuclear programs).

* WMD found were left over from the stockpile WE arranged for Saddam in his war with Iran.

Where do you get that?

In the scheme of things, we've paid a very small price. The gain or lack thereof remains to be seen.[/QUOTE]


The SCHEME of this is the intention of the Bush administration to invade Iraq. Even considering this before dealing with Afganistan immediately post 9/11. The amount of words offered to foster characterization of Iraq's involvement and capability for war was a prelude to the bellicose intent all along. We were spending 1 billion a year to sustain control of their air space and the lost of life from the efforts of Sadam lay only with the risk to those pilots. This is in comparison to 120 billion a year and 3000 death of Americans. That alone to me is a dear price with no satisfaction (minus Saddam's ouster) quaranteed. IT IS A DEAR PRICE FOR SO LITTLE GAIN.

I thought the Senate report explictly talks about Abu al Zarqawi not being ignored by Saddam. That Al Quaeda was seen as a threat. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report_31

As far as complying or not with UN resolutions, the overall effect was a degrading of Iraq's military. With the 9/11 attack, and the world's sympathy after that attack, that we couldn't have seen a more deligent effort in meeting UN resolutions. After all WE GOT TO INSERT INSPECTIONS AGAIN. Verifying what is so patently clear now that WMD were not present as stated by Bush's own report on WMD.

Now we have a disagreement in other threads about the degradation of Iraq's military. Dispite all the ballyhoo about circumventing the UN or whatever Saddam's intent, the reality was that his military was eroding do to lack of material.

God as far as WMD, no one disputes that given the chance Saddam would pursue WMD (chemical and biological) but the actual condition at time of the start of war was the WMD didn't exist. And the nuclear capability wasn't even being maintained as the Report by Bush administration.

[Radar Chief]

Also, patteeu, the few places where I recall posting something about someone advocating NeoConservatism, I did not call the person that. Just because someone perceived it as such, and reacted that way doesn't mean I called them that personally. As I recall ( think is was maddog and Radar) I called the idea they stated as being NeoConservatism. Big difference.

No, you showed up out’a nowhere and started call’n me a “neo-con”. At the time I thought it was kinda funny since you obviously didn’t know me, then when I threw some of your “ad homonem” back at’cha you said something like, “that’s what neo-cons do”. ROFL

[jettio]

You're wrong again, tip tap. Not only was everything in his second paragraph accurate, and not only do you refuse to squarely confront his assertions, but you get several things wrong in your response.
* No complicity between Saddam and al Qaeda
The Senate investigations have indeed concluded that there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between these two entities, but that's not the same as refuting HC's assertion that Saddam provided funding and material support for terrorists. There are several things wrong with your response besides the fact that you dodged the allegation and focused exclusively on collaboration between Saddam and al Qaeda. The same Senate investigations that you cite found numerous contacts between Saddam and al Qaeda and there are good reasons to believe that Saddam's regime harbored members/affiliates of al Qaeda as they fled the Afghan battlefield (most notably Abu al Zarqawi).
* The give and take between Saddam interpretation and probing of UN resolutions enactment is always the case in the details of how any rule, law or resolution is interpreted.
It's closer to SOP than it should be only because the UN is a feckless organization. Having said that, there is no excuse for Saddam's failure to comply with the US-backed UN demand for a disarmament accounting. Despite your Saddam apologetics, HC's assertion is undeniable. Saddam violated several resolutions, for what that's worth.
* He was depended upon salvaging parts from existing inventory and occasionally getting legal (and pushing and bribing the system) replacement material from outside Iraq.
You left out the illegal arms shipments he received from companies in Germany, France, Russia, and China (to name just a few). Some of those companies were owned, either in whole or in part, by those governments.
* But he had abandoned nuclear WMD and wanted to keep the intellectual capability for Chemical and Biological weapons but really didn't have capacity to create weapons.
[color=blue]The Iraq Survey Group disagrees with you. They concluded that Saddam was preparing for the day when the sanctions/inspections were ended at which time he planned to reconstitute his WMD efforts (including his nuclear programs).
* WMD found were left over from the stockpile WE arranged for Saddam in his war with Iran.
Where do you get that?
In the scheme of things, we've paid a very small price. The gain or lack thereof remains to be seen.

You know more about why B*sh think he done it than he do.
.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Right. That's where they've shifted the point to now. But that isn't the point that was used to sell the war to the American public. From the beginning of the entire runup to war I (and many others both Cons and Libs) said that the real reason we were going to war was to stabilize the ME and to take the fight to them. However, that was not the reasoning that was used to convince the public. It was the "fact" that Iraq had WMDs and presented a clear and present danger to the US.

Bait and switch baby, bait and switch.

So how do you explain the 500 cannisters of Sarin and Mustard gas that were found? Did SoDamn Insane take his kids on a fishing trip on the river Tigris and see the aforementioned cannisters floating in the river and say "well, we can't just let these go to waste"?

He had WMD's and had no intention of disclosing them. The find PROVES this. Even the UN was interfered with while trying to enforce the inspections. Let's not even mention the monies paid to homicide bombers by SoDamn Insane. Nah......we had no reason whatsoever to remove that scumbag.

[BucEyedPea]

No, you showed up out’a nowhere and started call’n me a “neo-con”. At the time I thought it was kinda funny since you obviously didn’t know me, then when I threw some of your “ad homonem” back at’cha you said something like, “that’s what neo-cons do”. ROFL
You can roll on the floor and laugh all you want. The facts say otherwise, especially since you are quoting out-of-context and have no time/date sequence. As I explained to patteeu, I will do it if done to me...but not necessarily right away or always.

4/03/06 I registered
4/14/06 My first thread- Tom Delay Quits Race....

You responded to me three times in this thread accordingly:

But I doubt this realization is gonna keep you from need’n to hear your pea rattle, so nevermind. :rolleyes:

#1 http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=138942&page=6&pp=15&highlight=Palestinians Post 88 Same "pea" comment.

#2 http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=138942&page=7&pp=15&highlight=Palestinians Post 97 Ditto


#3 Same thread: Post 99


I just eventually turned around and dished it back Radar o:-)
Although I'd like to see what immediately preceded my NeoCon comment.
I believe you may have been someone who was labelling me a liberal...and you didn't even know me;made the same hasty generalization of me that you claimed I did of you.
I do believe the "right" is more suspectible to this thing currently.

Yuk! Yuk! Yuk!

I rest my case!

[patteeu]

The SCHEME of this is the intention of the Bush administration to invade Iraq. Even considering this before dealing with Afganistan immediately post 9/11. The amount of words offered to foster characterization of Iraq's involvement and capability for war was a prelude to the bellicose intent all along. We were spending 1 billion a year to sustain control of their air space and the lost of life from the efforts of Sadam lay only with the risk to those pilots. This is in comparison to 120 billion a year and 3000 death of Americans. That alone to me is a dear price with no satisfaction (minus Saddam's ouster) quaranteed. IT IS A DEAR PRICE FOR SO LITTLE GAIN.

I thought the Senate report explictly talks about Abu al Zarqawi not being ignored by Saddam. That Al Quaeda was seen as a threat. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report_31

As far as complying or not with UN resolutions, the overall effect was a degrading of Iraq's military. With the 9/11 attack, and the world's sympathy after that attack, that we couldn't have seen a more deligent effort in meeting UN resolutions. After all WE GOT TO INSERT INSPECTIONS AGAIN. Verifying what is so patently clear now that WMD were not present as stated by Bush's own report on WMD.

Now we have a disagreement in other threads about the degradation of Iraq's military. Dispite all the ballyhoo about circumventing the UN or whatever Saddam's intent, the reality was that his military was eroding do to lack of material.

God as far as WMD, no one disputes that given the chance Saddam would pursue WMD (chemical and biological) but the actual condition at time of the start of war was the WMD didn't exist. And the nuclear capability wasn't even being maintained as the Report by Bush administration.

On the point about Zarqawi, I have seen reports today that the recently (today?) released Senate report explicitly rejects the idea that Saddam harbored or turned a blind eye toward Zarqawi, so on that count I concede the point (at least for now). I haven't had a chance to look at the actual report to see what it actually says.

Your "dear price for so little gain" mantra relies on the assumption that the small price would have maintained adequate sanctions for containment into the future. I think that is a seriously flawed assumption.

[tiptap]

So how do you explain the 500 cannisters of Sarin and Mustard gas that were found? Did SoDamn Insane take his kids on a fishing trip on the river Tigris and see the aforementioned cannisters floating in the river and say "well, we can't just let these go to waste"?

He had WMD's and had no intention of disclosing them. The find PROVES this. Even the UN was interfered with while trying to enforce the inspections. Let's not even mention the monies paid to homicide bombers by SoDamn Insane. Nah......we had no reason whatsoever to remove that scumbag.

OK I bite. The only recollection I have is EMPTY or 15 year old cannisters. As in used. And yes there was a residue. They had been collected all together and did not constitute evidence of activity post Gulf War 1. That was what the ARMY said.
Now I wanted Saddam dead just for threatening to kill the first Bush back whenever. I guess that is the homicide payments you are referencing. But it is not worth 3000 American lives and 120 billion a year.

IT IS A DEAR PRICE FOR SO LITTLE GAIN.

[CHIEF4EVER]

OK I bite. The only recollection I have is EMPTY or 15 year old cannisters. As in used. And yes there was a residue. They had been collected all together and did not constitute evidence of activity post Gulf War 1. That was what the ARMY said.
Now I wanted Saddam dead just for threatening to kill the first Bush back whenever. I guess that is the homicide payments you are referencing. But it is not worth 3000 American lives and 120 billion a year.

IT IS A DEAR PRICE FOR SO LITTLE GAIN.

He said he had NO WMD's. So have the libs. Both were lying/wrong respectively. Bear in mind, sarin gas is so deadly that 1 drop the size of a pinhead is enough to kill within minutes. SoDamn was a nutball who hated us and didn't mind Al Quaeda all that much. Thanks, I would rather be proactive in my nations' defense.

SoDamn paid handsome money to the families of homicide bombers attacking Israelis. This indicates sympathy and cooperation with terrorist groups. Again, I think prefer not to replay the WWII "let the nutball kill millions before action is taken" scenario.

To date, after 5 years, 2500 americans have been killed in combat. Do you have any idea how many American were lost in a single day at Normandy?

60,000 were killed in Vietnam after 10 years. 12 times the number we are currently on pace for in Iraq.

[Hydrae]

Ok, how about the War on Militant Islam?

[banyon]

He said he had NO WMD's. So have the libs. Both were lying/wrong respectively. Bear in mind, sarin gas is so deadly that 1 drop the size of a pinhead is enough to kill within minutes. SoDamn was a nutball who hated us and didn't mind Al Quaeda all that much. Thanks, I would rather be proactive in my nations' defense.

So we are going to war to punish people for lying now? Or to protect ourselves from imminent threats, as our leaders deceptively implied?

SoDamn paid handsome money to the families of homicide bombers attacking Israelis. This indicates sympathy and cooperation with terrorist groups. Again, I think prefer not to replay the WWII "let the nutball kill millions before action is taken" scenario.

Most of AQ's money (the people that attacked us and that we should give a s*** about) came from Saudi, UAE, and other Arab sources, yet we just buddy up with them all day.

To date, after 5 years, 2500 americans have been killed in combat. Do you have any idea how many American were lost in a single day at Normandy? 60,000 were killed in Vietnam after 10 years. 12 times the number we are currently on pace for in Iraq.

Yes. Thank god for advances in medicine. Of course, if one measures the war in terms of casualties instead of deaths, then the stats don't look so great. Of course I wasn't for squandering the life of even one American soldier on our exalted leaders' misadventure.

[banyon]

Ok, how about the War on Militant Islam?

That's accurate. I'm in.

[Sully]

Ok, how about the War on Militant Islam?
Sounds fantastic.

[CHIEF4EVER]

So we are going to war to punish people for lying now? Or to protect ourselves from imminent threats, as our leaders deceptively implied?

You mean the threat of thousands of our people being killed by 1 nutball with a can full of Sarin dispensed whilst standing on a tall building?



Most of AQ's money (the people that attacked us and that we should give a s*** about) came from Saudi, UAE, and other Arab sources, yet we just buddy up with them all day.

I'm not for "buddying up" with those clowns either.



Yes. Thank god for advances in medicine. Of course, if one measures the war in terms of casualties instead of deaths, then the stats don't look so great. Of course I wasn't for squandering the life of even one American soldier on our exalted leaders' misadventure.

Puhleeze. Advances in medicine? Please elaborate for me the advances in medicine that have improved on the reduction in deaths in gunshot or shrapnel wounds/deaths in the last 30 years. Also, how many were WOUNDED in Normandy in a single day and how many were WOUNDED in Vietnam in the 10 years? Our casualties have been laughable for wartime standards in this conflict.

[banyon]

You mean the threat of thousands of our people being killed by 1 nutball with a can full of Sarin dispensed whilst standing on a tall building?

So we're supposed to go after every country that has a potential individual who can harm others? I guess it's time to declare war on the entire United Nations then.


I'm not for "buddying up" with those clowns either.

Your elected officals are, at the expense of our own security/oil independence.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41075000/jpg/_41075369_afp_bush_saudi203.jpg


Puhleeze. Advances in medicine? Please elaborate for me the advances in medicine that have improved on the reduction in deaths in gunshot or shrapnel wounds/deaths in the last 30 years. Also, how many were WOUNDED in Normandy in a single day and how many were WOUNDED in Vietnam in the 10 years?

Wow. I would guess that the number of articles addressing such a subject is too voluminous for me to even guess how many there might be. But here's a good one on Iraq specifically. From what I understand, it's mostly the development and deployment of FST's (Forward Surgical Teams). http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0829/p03s02-usmi.html Current casualty lists are around 12,000, at less than an 11% fatality rate, which is less than half of what it was in Vietnam.

Our casualties have been laughable for wartime standards in this conflict.

I don't think "laughable" is the word you are looking for.

[CHIEF4EVER]

So we're supposed to go after every country that has a potential individual who can harm others? I guess it's time to declare war on the entire United Nations then.
Ridiculous generalization. 99% of the UN isn't openly hostile to us.Wow. I would guess that the number of articles addressing such a subject is too voluminous for me to even guess how many there might be. But here's a good one on Iraq specifically. From what I understand, it's mostly the development and deployment of FST's (Forward Surgical Teams). http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0829/p03s02-usmi.html Current casualty lists are around 12,000, at less than an 11% fatality rate, which is less than half of what it was in Vietnam.

Forward medical units are nothing new. They have been around since Korea. Previously called MASH. The advent of the "Dust Off" helicopter has helped a great deal since then. The main thing that has been greatly improved between Korea and now is the time it takes to get a casualty from the "2 way rifle range" to the assistance needed.I don't think "laughable" is the word you are looking for.
Laughable as in "a joke compared to the norm". A comparative euphemism. An educated lad like yourself probably already knows that.

[Hydrae]

You mean the threat of thousands of our people being killed by 1 nutball with a can full of Sarin dispensed whilst standing on a tall building?





I'm not for "buddying up" with those clowns either.





Puhleeze. Advances in medicine? Please elaborate for me the advances in medicine that have improved on the reduction in deaths in gunshot or shrapnel wounds/deaths in the last 30 years. Also, how many were WOUNDED in Normandy in a single day and how many were WOUNDED in Vietnam in the 10 years? Our casualties have been laughable for wartime standards in this conflict.


How about the casualities are dramatically down because we "won" the war about 3 years ago? :shrug:

[banyon]

Ridiculous generalization. 99% of the UN isn't openly hostile to us.

Yeah, I know. I based it on a ridiculous premise...yours.

Forward medical units are nothing new. They have been around since Korea. Previously called MASH. The advent of the "Dust Off" helicopter has helped a great deal since then. The main thing that has been greatly improved between Korea and now is the time it takes to get a casualty from the "2 way rifle range" to the assistance needed.

Are you denying that the advances themselves or the exact 50% reductive correlation are significant? Here's a description of FST's:

Each FST is equipped to move directly behind troops and establish a functioning hospital with four ventilator-equipped beds and two operating tables within a difficult-to-fathom 60 minutes. The team travels in six Humvees. They carry three lightweight, Deployable Rapid Assembly Shelter ("drash") tents that can be attached to one another to form a 900-ft2 facility. Supplies to immediately resuscitate and operate on the wounded arrive in five backpacks: an ICU pack, a surgical-technician pack, an anesthesia pack, a general-surgery pack, and an orthopedic pack. They hold sterile instruments, anesthesia equipment, medicines, drapes, gowns, catheters, and a handheld unit allowing clinicians to obtain a hemogram and measure electrolytes or blood gases with a drop of blood. FSTs also carry a small ultrasound machine, portable monitors, transport ventilators, an oxygen concentrator providing up to 50 percent oxygen, 20 units of packed red cells, and six roll-up stretchers with their litter stands. Teams have forgone angiography and radiography equipment. (Orthopedic surgeons detect fractures by feel and apply external fixators.) But they have sufficient supplies to evaluate, and perform surgery on, as many as 30 wounded soldiers. They are not equipped, however, for more than six hours of postoperative intensive care.

New England Journal of Medicine (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2471)

I don't think they were doing all that in Korea.



Laughable as in "a joke compared to the norm". A comparative euphemism. An educated lad like yourself probably already knows that.

Yep, I know. Just think discussing the subject of soldiers' deaths is probably an occasion to choose your words a bit carefully is all.

[Chief Faithful]

Ok, how about the War on Militant Islam?

That is more accurate, but it does not pass the P.C. test. Militant Islam is translated war against Islam. Islamic Fascist is translated war on Fascism, which is why I like this term and why I think it is gaining momentum.

My favorite suggested so far in this thread is war on Islamic Jihadists, but I don't think it has the right impact for it to become popularized.

Whatever Bush calls it I'm glad the Administration is moving away from 'war on terror'. You can win a war against an ideology, but you can't win a war against a tactic.

[Chief Faithful]

You mean the threat of thousands of our people being killed by 1 nutball with a can full of Sarin dispensed whilst standing on a tall building?



I fully expect this type of attack to happen on the subway.

[banyon]

I fully expect this type of attack to happen on the subway.

It did happen, 11 years ago.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Yeah, I know. I based it on a ridiculous premise...yours.

No. It is a ridiculous extrapolation on your part of my initial post.






I don't think they were doing all that in Korea.


My contention is that the TIME involved in evacuating wounded soldiers to medical aid is greatly reduced thus reducing deaths by wounds. Casualties are wounds of all types. DEATHS are the result of those who were too late in receiving aid. Previously, casualties took hours (WWII) to reach surgery, now it is a matter of minutes. Medical advances help somewhat but TIME is of the essence and the largest contributing factor in reducing battlefield deaths.

[CHIEF4EVER]

It did happen, 11 years ago.

Ah, yes. And "Slick Willie" was too busy fondling overweight interns to bring the one responsible to justice or killing him in spite of having 3 cracks at it. Nice job Billy Boy.

[banyon]

No. It is a ridiculous extrapolation on your part of my initial post.

No. it's not.

You said:

You mean the threat of thousands of our people being killed by 1 nutball with a can full of Sarin dispensed whilst standing on a tall building?

you said this in response to my saying:

Or to protect ourselves from imminent threats, as our leaders deceptively implied?

The argument goes as follows:

Premise 1: If there are nutballs with cans of Sarin who could kill thousands of people, then we must go after them.

Premise 2: Iraq Contains nutballs with access to cans of Sarin.

Premise 3: If a country contains nutballs with access to Sarin, then we must invade it.
__________________________________________________
Conclusion: We must invade Iraq.

So, my argument, using the same set of premises, is as follows:

Premise 1: Almost every country in the United Nations contains nutballs with access to Sarin.

Premises 2-4: as above, supplied by CHIEF4EVER
____________________________________________
Conclusion: We must invade almost every country in the United Nations.


It's not an extrapolation at all, it's purely deductive reasoning.





My contention is that the TIME involved in evacuating wounded soldiers to medical aid is greatly reduced thus reducing deaths by wounds. Casualties are wounds of all types. DEATHS are the result of those who were too late in receiving aid. Previously, casualties took hours (WWII) to reach surgery, now it is a matter of minutes. Medical advances help somewhat but TIME is of the essence and the largest contributing factor in reducing battlefield deaths.

Undoubtedly it is a combination of factors including reduced time, advances in equipment technology, and increased medical knowledge.

Of course this post of yours is far removed from the others which allege that there is nothing significant whatsoever going on to reduce fatalities.

I also enjoy how your points of contention seems to fade away one by one in each subsequent post. :evil:

[banyon]

Ah, yes. And "Slick Willie" was too busy fondling overweight interns to bring the one responsible to justice or killing him in spite of having 3 cracks at it. Nice job Billy Boy.

:spock:

Maybe Hashimoto Ryutaro had a little more access to the Japanese security forces?

But I guess there's always a way to blame Clinton...

[penchief]

Ah, yes. And "Slick Willie" was too busy fondling overweight interns to bring the one responsible to justice or killing him in spite of having 3 cracks at it. Nice job Billy Boy.

Are you sure he's not talking about Oklahoma City? That was a nice little terrorist attack about 11 years ago.

[patteeu]

Ok, how about the War on Militant Islam?

Thank you for the serious suggestion. It's a good one, IMO.

[patteeu]

So we are going to war to punish people for lying now? Or to protect ourselves from imminent threats, as our leaders deceptively implied?

A baseless inference doesn't prove the existance of a deceptive implication. Our leaders explicitly described a "gathering threat" not an imminent one, and they declared a policy of pre-emptive war specifically because, they argued, you shouldn't wait for an imminent threat to materialize because then it would be too late.

Yes. Thank god for advances in medicine. Of course, if one measures the war in terms of casualties instead of deaths, then the stats don't look so great. Of course I wasn't for squandering the life of even one American soldier on our exalted leaders' misadventure.

The stats based on casualties instead of deaths aren't as extremely great, but they are still pretty darned great. In Vietnam, there were approx. 211,000 dead and wounded. So far, in Iraq, there have been approx. 22,500 dead and wounded. You can do the math if you want. Those lives and limbs will certainly be squandered if we bail out now.

[CRONUS]

...
That both are radical authoritarian ideologies that aim(ed) to impose on others a dogmatic world view of the political, economic, and social aspects of society, and to spread that totalitarian worldview across the globe with the use of force, if necessary.

You know, it's ....Also sounds a lot like Christian Neoconservativism. Amazing how that works.

[CRONUS]

Here's a challenge for you, banyon. What label would you attach to this war if you believed in it in the same way that the Bush administration believes in it (i.e. our enemy is broader than just al Qaeda and includes addressing perceived threats in rogue states such as Iraq)?

Others who object to "global war on terror" or "war on islamo-fascists," feel free to offer your own serious suggestions.

The war to pacify ignorant neo-conservatives.

[CRONUS]

BTW, BucEyedPea posted some guy's list of 7 or 8 fundamental characteristics of "fascism" and from my pov it matched our enemy in this conflict very well.

This author's very first complaint is that, in her opinion, the current enemy doesn't share two particular characteristics with WWII fascists, secularism and nationalism. Well the reason the "Islamo" part is in "Islamo-fascism" addresses the first distinction by clearly identifying a different type of fascism and the fact is that this current enemy is very driven by nationalistic sentiment. In fact, the ambitious ones want to unite the islamic world into a single nation.

Fascism - 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition


Sounds nothing like what the neo-cons are trying to brand a form of fascism

[Mr. Kotter]

Fascism - 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition


Sounds nothing like what the neo-cons are trying to brand a form of fascism

That's ONE narrow definition, offered by one source....

Political definitions are quite elusive, dynamic and evolving even.....as times goes on, political connotations add dimensions and nuances that are not captured by black-and-white definitions or convenient pigeon-holing.

[CRONUS]

That's ONE narrow definition, offered by one source....

Political definitions are quite elusive, dynamic and evolving even.....as times goes on, political connotations add dimensions and nuances that are not captured by black-and-white definitions or convenient pigeon-holing.

So what you are saying is I will make up any convenient defition I desire so I can justify Bush's incompetence and you better just accept it.

Got it.

[Chief Faithful]

It did happen, 11 years ago.

I know it happened in Japan, but I expect it in the US.

[BucEyedPea]

Maybe it's due to my qausi-Marxist college education where everything boils down to modes of production, but I can't really label anything as Fascist without examining the economic system which they're hoping to put in place. I realize that the idea that Fascism falls in the realm of economics is controversial, but there's quite a bit of scholarship out there to back me up, albeit much of it is from leftist academics. Anyway, if you're really interested in the debate over whether fascism is related to economics or not, you can see the dialectic play out on this Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism) page. Some of the things that I find essential for fascism from that page can be found in these quotes:

I actually completely agree with you, fascism is also an economic system.
You will find similar analysis from right-libertarian or conservative free-marketers.

[patteeu]

Fascism - 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition


Sounds nothing like what the neo-cons are trying to brand a form of fascism

You obviously don't understand our enemy. Our enemy exhibits both of the traits that you emphasized in bold. Our enemies may or may not share the economic theories of fascists, but when it comes to nationalism, supremicism, authoritarianism, leader worship, and blaming their hardships on scapegoats (the Jews and the Great Satan) our enemies fit the definitions quite well.

[HC_Chief]

The left is just angry that the administration is trying to "take <i>their</i> word"... after all, they are the only ones qualified to label others. Besides, the real fascists = United Staes of America, right?

[banyon]

A baseless inference doesn't prove the existance of a deceptive implication. Our leaders explicitly described a "gathering threat" not an imminent one, and they declared a policy of pre-emptive war specifically because, they argued, you shouldn't wait for an imminent threat to materialize because then it would be too late.

Keep pretending that they didn't try to impress upon the American people that the threat was imminent. "Mushroom cloud...grave and gathering threat...etc". After all, if it weren't imminent, then the proposal of the French and the Germans for an augmented inspection regime would've been the obvious choice (even though it still should have been the choice).


The stats based on casualties instead of deaths aren't as extremely great, but they are still pretty darned great. In Vietnam, there were approx. 211,000 dead and wounded. So far, in Iraq, there have been approx. 22,500 dead and wounded. You can do the math if you want. Those lives and limbs will certainly be squandered if we bail out now.

My only point was that you don't often hear the casualty number and it makes the conflict sound more costly if you're aware that those soldiers' lives have been permanently altered as well.

[CRONUS]

You obviously don't understand our enemy. Our enemy exhibits both of the traits that you emphasized in bold. Our enemies may or may not share the economic theories of fascists, but when it comes to nationalism, supremicism, authoritarianism, leader worship, and blaming their hardships on scapegoats (the Jews and the Great Satan) our enemies fit the definitions quite well.It is convenient to believe that but my indications of the facts are that the Islamic extremists are anything but centralized and accept only their only small cells definition of what the goal is, secondly they do not view their plight as a hardship but as a holy sacrifice for allah that increases their spiritual foundation, finally they could care not one bit about nationalism, only about their belief in a religion as each cell defines it. I believe it is you who are misguided.