Real reasons for the Iraq invasion (repost)
Real reasons for the Iraq invasion (repost)
Was it all about 'terrorism', or 'freedom'? Was it vital to our 'security', as our President insists? Hardly.
This is an insightful article by a former Pentagon insider. I'm reposting it (link below) from Zlatko's original post in October, for anyone who might have missed it. It's worth a read.
link:
http://www.studioeight.tv/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=5197
This is an insightful article by a former Pentagon insider. I'm reposting it (link below) from Zlatko's original post in October, for anyone who might have missed it. It's worth a read.
link:
http://www.studioeight.tv/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=5197
- Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
Thanks, mnaz, for reposting Karen Kwiatkowski's fine article.
And, I for one would emphasize that the war is also about what Naomi Klein so articulately describes as "Brand Bullies."
Here's a lively and informative interview with NK, as well as information about her important and witty book:
http://www.chartattack.com/damn/2000/06/0706.cfm
--Z
And, I for one would emphasize that the war is also about what Naomi Klein so articulately describes as "Brand Bullies."
Here's a lively and informative interview with NK, as well as information about her important and witty book:
http://www.chartattack.com/damn/2000/06/0706.cfm
--Z
what's the connection b/t branding and the Iraq war? spell it out.
it seems to me that the corporate sponsors/beneficiaries of war like to be clandestine or low-profile. Halliburton, e.g., only seems to run P.R. spots when needed to counter adverse publicity and critical attention. brands are a marketing process; reaping the spoils of war through shady/corrupt gov't contracts is a nonmarket force.
Naomi Klein can be seen appearing in the great documentary The Corporation.
finally, it seems that North America is discovering the sort of critique of consumer culture initiated with unmatched perspicacity by the social and cultural critics of the Weimar era like Adorno.
it seems to me that the corporate sponsors/beneficiaries of war like to be clandestine or low-profile. Halliburton, e.g., only seems to run P.R. spots when needed to counter adverse publicity and critical attention. brands are a marketing process; reaping the spoils of war through shady/corrupt gov't contracts is a nonmarket force.
Naomi Klein can be seen appearing in the great documentary The Corporation.
finally, it seems that North America is discovering the sort of critique of consumer culture initiated with unmatched perspicacity by the social and cultural critics of the Weimar era like Adorno.
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.
- Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
so, i guess the conclusion is that profiteering has many avenues, sometimes the corporate actors use market advertising to create a need for consumer goods, sometimes they use bombs to create a need for reconstruction; they compete for consumer attention through branding and compete for government favors through campaign contributions or by directly placing their guys in positions of power. but ultimately, capitalism rules the day, one way or another.
is that the idea?
it sounds too UnAmerican for me. we should follow the wise advice of Brittany Spears and trust the President.
(see Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9-11 for the pop singer-dancer's quote.)
is that the idea?
it sounds too UnAmerican for me. we should follow the wise advice of Brittany Spears and trust the President.
(see Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9-11 for the pop singer-dancer's quote.)
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.
We know it's all been a bogus sham! How many articles do we have to read, how many times must we drive the "radical points" home via articles and perspectives on printed page?
We get it right? We know we've been dooped in the name of our "Lord". The "lord" can do anything right?
There is no recourse anymore. Maybe there never was. Cheney has wanted this to happen, him and rummy, for 30 years! Cheney has been unhappy about the "weak governing" here in the US and he is doing something about it with a 30 year long determination, and a weak puppet who is experiencing a percieved sense of self power for the first time in his lame life. What better person to carry out this whacked obsessive deed!
So shut up and make lemonade out of lemons right? Be dumb, numb, and happy! It's the American way! We are all gonna die anyway so why not for the Bush and Cheney regime?
What else but for the legacy of out of control power and control?
Did we really think it would come down to anything else? To something better?
Play the game. It'll keep food on your table and sports on the tv....for now anyway.....
H
We get it right? We know we've been dooped in the name of our "Lord". The "lord" can do anything right?
There is no recourse anymore. Maybe there never was. Cheney has wanted this to happen, him and rummy, for 30 years! Cheney has been unhappy about the "weak governing" here in the US and he is doing something about it with a 30 year long determination, and a weak puppet who is experiencing a percieved sense of self power for the first time in his lame life. What better person to carry out this whacked obsessive deed!
So shut up and make lemonade out of lemons right? Be dumb, numb, and happy! It's the American way! We are all gonna die anyway so why not for the Bush and Cheney regime?
What else but for the legacy of out of control power and control?
Did we really think it would come down to anything else? To something better?
Play the game. It'll keep food on your table and sports on the tv....for now anyway.....
H

Yeah hes, that pretty much sums it up. Or so it seems.hester prynne wrote:Be dumb, numb, and happy! It's the American way!
I don't know what happened to us. Sept. 11th caused one giant collective mind-snap.... endless license for rule of the reactionary and War, Inc. Perhaps we may never be the same.
We're into our fifth year of the amorphous "War on Terror" voodoo, and its undefined, blank-check mentality of an endless fight against far-flung "evildoers" of our politician's choice. We're closing in on 3/4-trillion dollars spent-- that's with a "t"-- and borrowing money like crazy from China to help pay for it; all with no evidence that we're actually containing terrorism. Many of our leaders (both sides of the aisle) tell us this "War" could last indefinitely.... feels more like a basic shift than a bump in history's road to me.
Maybe the people will rise up and apply some political hurt to this mentality, these politicians, in the next election. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Maybe the people will rise up and apply some political hurt to this mentality, these politicians, in the next election. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Knip, I remember back on Litkicks you wrote a nice piece on sailing through I believe the Persian Gulf and looking from your ship at the countries you were passing and reflecting on the history of the region and the length of history and it was really hopeful.we never are the same as we were yesterday, but this is only a slice in time...not being apologetic...merely observing how long history is
Things are pretty bad now but who would have thought that after the Holocaust Germany would ever be considered a 1st world country again? And Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, which led to war which led to America becoming the first and only country to use atomic weapons.
Less than 65 years ago, within the life span of many Americans, we were at war with both those countries, yet now both are allies and regularly rank in the Top 5 of America's trading partners.
History if very long, indeed.
Exactly my point. History is long. And so is the goddamned "War on Terror", 5 years and counting if you include Bushco's scheming on how to get into Iraq from Day One.... and I do mean Day One. It was the first topic discussed in the first cabinet meeting in Jan., '01. Five years.... as long as WW2 itself, nearly.... a full 8.3 percent of the time between then and now.
And for what? Endless pillage of the treasury and war profiteering, botched military occupations and weak, half-assed attempts at "democratization", dressed up in lofty, high-minded rhetoric. And people are so slow to call bullshit on any of this. History is long, indeed. History should have taught us more than this.
Ok, Ok..... deep breaths....
I try to keep a cool head about this, I really do.
It's the basic mindset I object to; that ultimately, only military might and control can solve our global issues. Time for a new "paradigm", perhaps?
And for what? Endless pillage of the treasury and war profiteering, botched military occupations and weak, half-assed attempts at "democratization", dressed up in lofty, high-minded rhetoric. And people are so slow to call bullshit on any of this. History is long, indeed. History should have taught us more than this.
Ok, Ok..... deep breaths....
I try to keep a cool head about this, I really do.
It's the basic mindset I object to; that ultimately, only military might and control can solve our global issues. Time for a new "paradigm", perhaps?
regarding history and the winds of political change:
does anyone who was alive and politically conscious during the Reagan revolution have sense of how public attitudes to his regime compare with that of the current state of affaires? that is, was there a sense of presidential lawlessness and warmongering, was the country polarized with a vocal opposition as there is today?
for example, the great statement made recently by Harry Belafonte that Bush is the biggest terrorist dictator in the world. did that sort of oppositional sentiment find expression in the '80s or was the populace docile?
does anyone who was alive and politically conscious during the Reagan revolution have sense of how public attitudes to his regime compare with that of the current state of affaires? that is, was there a sense of presidential lawlessness and warmongering, was the country polarized with a vocal opposition as there is today?
for example, the great statement made recently by Harry Belafonte that Bush is the biggest terrorist dictator in the world. did that sort of oppositional sentiment find expression in the '80s or was the populace docile?
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.
- stilltrucking
- Posts: 20646
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
ten four, if things were any better I me vote republican. History ain't that long. We play that game the enemy of our enemy is our firend. I love that movie The Mouse That Roared. I wonder if they will ever remake it. I can't see how they could without Peter Sellers.Play the game. It'll keep food on your table and sports on the tv....for now anyway.....
H
Mwanwhile they stick it to the plain old middle class with a Alternative Minimum Tax meant to tax the super rich.
I got friends who make six figures but I would not call them rich, costs money to make money. Corporate taxes are way down. That is for the corporations who still bother to pay tax.
take a deep breath
hell take three breaths and listen
begin meditation on the metafiscal blues.
what the hell was this post about anyway?
yeah history is short, just yesterday it seemed Saddam was our pal and osama bin laden was a freedom fighter,
I think we had this conversation before how Some how vietnam was blamed on the civilians fuking up the military program, same thing this time, so it was a war of choice, a war of greed, so the generals said three hundred to five hundred thousand boots on the ground, fuk those generals find some one more ambitious. Do it on the cheap more bang for the buck. Not only was it a war of choice, it was a ill concieved and planned war. And now here we are. It has to all fall down. We pave the way for Iran to take over, but not before we try to provoke the Israelis into attacking their nuclear power plant like they did to Iraz
shit listen to me ain't I so got dam smart
sounds like I know what I am talkinga bout and I can't spell
- stilltrucking
- Posts: 20646
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
I was not as politically conscious as I should have been in those days, but I had some contact with a strong, vocal opposition movement (acquaintances, etc.). However, the opposition was not a major factor in the aggregate. Several possible reasons:does anyone who was alive and politically conscious during the Reagan revolution have sense of how public attitudes to his regime compare with that of the current state of affaires? that is, was there a sense of presidential lawlessness and warmongering, was the country polarized with a vocal opposition as there is today?
1. We were perceived as "winning" the Cold War as the '80s progressed. Plays well with middle America.
2. We had very few of our own troops committed to fighting Reagan's imperial wars, many of which were covert operations.
3. Reagan's toxic/criminal operations and alliances were under-reported, largely ignored, probably due to point 2 above. Where were the questions raised over Reagan's arming of Saddam, despite Saddam's atrocities, for example?
4. Reagan ran a budget deficit, but not nearly as monstrous and threatening as Bush's red ink. Reagan, if I recall, actually backed off on at least some of his corporate tax giveaways to help finance his military buildup.
That's what comes to mind right now.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests