Only days before the fifth anniversary of September 11, President George W. Bush addressed military officers in Washington to warn that nuclear-armed terrorists could “blackmail the free world and spread their ideologies of hate and raise a moral threat to America.” This alarmist vision was accompanied by the White House’s release of “A National Strategy for Combating Terrorism,” which painted… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (21)Page 1 of 1 pagesI’ll just skip by the silly comments about our having weapons of any kind while trying to prevent others from getting them. (Those who are the avowed America haters are not signatories to any treaty.) Remember that, “All’s fair in love and war” and this ain’t about love.
----------------------------------------------------------------Let’s think about the extreme possibilities here:
What if Iran or some other country processing nuclear capability should happen to be seriously considering an attack on the U.S. now or in the future and we are less than totally prepared?
• Remember the uproar over the unpreparedness for Katrina? For the 9/11 attacks? Only a couple of weeks ago there were demands that the government take the necessary steps to make college campuses safe from deranged people.
Let’s take a less drastic and more frequent situation — What if the US were to pass a nationwide firearms ban — no guns for any purpose, hunting, target shooting , self defense — all banned…
• In those cities where this has been the case bad guys still got them. And used them. What is the downside to being prepared?
Then there’s the global warming issue:
• Some people at this site when discussing global warming say we must take steps to protect against it even if it is only a remote threat. If the nuclear threat were to come to pass, all other threats will be of little concern.
The authors say, “...many Iran-watchers and nuclear experts consider their claims of enrichment capacity to be an overblown boast”
Since the “watchers” mentioned here are nameless is of no consequence, since if they are wrong they will know it as soon as the rest of us.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 30, 2007 at 1:34 PM While it is true that if you outlaw guns, or nukes, that only criminals will have them, how well armed must we be? Allowing citizens to have a 9mm pistol at home is fun, but a fully functional 50mm machine gun seems excessive. So it goes with the nuclear programs. We do need a certain number of nuclear devices to defend ourselves with, but we certainly dont need enough to make the earth a nearly uninhabitable place. About one per capital should do it.
Posted by lastchance on Apr 30, 2007 at 6:44 PM Overkill doctrine states that each target requires a minimum of 500 kilotons to be considered “destroyed” As technology increases the CEP or circular error probability of an individual warhead the numbers per target have decreased. But the total tonnage required has remained the same.
As a bonus to our “eco” friendly greenies the new doctrine uses airbursts at 50000 feet which results in little or no radioactive fallout to neighboring countries.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” is unclear?
Posted by texasindependent on Apr 30, 2007 at 11:10 PM Any attempt to micromanage our military preparedness could lead to our ignoring the advice of professionals and trying to accomplish a major operation without adequate resources.
Oh, yeah, Rumsfeld did just that. Too few troops for an all-out invasion (CENTCOM plan was for 500,000). Immediate deployment of the RESERVES (40% of total force) is at least an oxymoron, at worst what we now have. Too little manufacturing capability to provide body armor or replacement parts for Humvees.** Since both Democrats and Republicans have been enthusiastic supporters of deporting our industries you don’t hear anyone contrasting our WW2 output with our present lack.
I think we may find that whoever wins the presidency in ‘08 and becomes saturated/overwhelmed with bits and pieces of intel we never know of, will act far differently than most candidates are currently doing.
Posted by whattheheck on May 1, 2007 at 6:53 AM “What if Iran or some other country processing nuclear capability should happen to be seriously considering an attack on the U.S. now or in the future and we are less than totally prepared? “
does anyone actually believe that any nation state, such as Iran, would ever seriously consider attacking the United States and risk a full nuclear reprisal from the most powerful murder machine ever constructed? Highly unlikely. What is more likely is that a “stray” nuke would be detonated by “terrorist” (we need to start to use that word more objectively) inside of the US. Nuclear prolifiration makes “strays” more likely. What leads to proliferation? A message transmitted by Bush and his boys that says, “if you have no Nukes” we won’t mess with you. Considering the US’ current imperialist stance and objectives, you’d be crazy if you were a country with resources and you weren’t trying to get nukes. It may be the only thing that keeps the US out of your back yard
Posted by dcosby on May 3, 2007 at 4:01 PM dcosby,
“does anyone actually believe that any nation state, such as Iran, would ever seriously consider attacking the United States and risk a full nuclear reprisal...”
Let’s put it in a list of other possible happenings.
• Did anyone think a century ago we’d be talking about man-made temperature concerns?
• Did anyone think 100 years ago that man was capable of inventing a weapon capable of such massive destruction?
• Did anyone think the Soviet Union would attack us if allowed to install ICBMs in Cuba?
• Did anyone think 10 years ago a group of radical young men would commit suicide by crashing into the WTC?
It doesn’t need to be Iran or even a nation state anymore — as we found out 9/11.
It matters less how many there are and is more important WHO has them. wouldn’t it have been better at Virginia Tech if a responsible person had been armed when the deranged guy started shooting?
We managed to live with a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction for decades because none of those who nukes them wanted to die. These religious wackos are like Kamikazes — ask a WW2 Pacific vet what they were like.
If we hadn’t beat the Nazis in atom bomb development we wouldn’t be having this exchange. Pre-PC naiveté we took better care of ourselves and also wouldn’t be having this exchange. God may have created man, but Sam Colt made us equal. It pays to have an edge.
Posted by whattheheck on May 4, 2007 at 11:47 AM whattheheck,
thanks for responding.
I agree with you that only responsible parties should have access to deadly weapons. but How would one measure who is a responsible party. I think that we would both agree that you might want to consider past actions when accessing who is likely to be responsible.First the obvious: the U.S. is the only country to use nulear weapons. We attacked Hiroshima knowing full well the civilian death that would result and, after the first bomb was dropped and we knew the scale of the devastation, we dropped another of these monsters three days later.
Since then the United States has been involved in conflicts in North Korea, Vietnam, Loas, Cambodia, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Somaila and twice in Iraq, to name a few. During that same period in history who did Iran invade? Answer: no one. Not one country. The only war they have been involved in was with a U.S. sponsored Iraq who used poison gas against Iranians with the help of U.S. sattelite intelligence. If the United States were trying to buy a gun at a gun store we, just like the Vrigina Tech killer, should have been/be denied. Just like the VT shooter, warning signs of our psycho pathic behavior are everywhere to see, but no one wants to pay attention.
Question for you: are there any Iranian troops in Canada or Mexico(humor me)? Are there any Iranian subs off the coast of Florida? Does Iran have one spy Sattelite in Space. Does Iran have any aircraft carriers? The US has bases in over 130 countries. We patrol all the worlds oceans. We not only have sattelites in space, we have declared quite openly that any challenge to our space superiority will be seen as an act of war (in military lingo it’s called full spectrum dominance). Keep in mind that the US currently is threatning Iran with a nuclear attack (in the words of Bush, Clinton, Obama and Edwards “all options are on the table"). So who is a threat to who? How many innocent people do you think Iran has killed outside their own borders in the last six years? Be honest, haven’t we killed far more ?
Brother, me and you and all of us have been sold a bill of goods that consist of false propaganda and misplaced patriotism. We are constantly made to feal fear so that we will continue to support the agenda of a small, rich elite who only havee their interest at heart. No? We may have different poliics but I’m sure we agree on this: those f’ers in Washington are mostly liars and thieves. agree? So they lie about everything but this, huh? Come on :-)
And the media are in on it (Cnn, Fox .... no distinction, the ditinction is illusion). Think I’m crazy. Google this : USS Stark. Read what happened. Then ask why you never knew that before. If sadaam was such the hitler why didn’t we attack him then . Why not use this as evidence for the run up to war..... sorry to go so long ..... the rabbit hole goes real deep… but folks like me and you need to start to use some good ole horse sense before it’s too late ....... if you can see the matrix you’re not in it !!! look forwar to hearing from you .... take care
Posted by dcosby on May 4, 2007 at 12:51 PM p.s.
“These religious wackos are like Kamikazes”
“Religous Wackos” ??? Who is parading around the world stating they’re going to rid the world of “the evil doers”. Just because you wear a brooks brothers doesn’t mean you’re not a fundementalist. Just because you live in a big White masion doesn’t mean you’re not a terrorist. Osama Bin Laden would love to have Bush’s body count .
Posted by dcosby on May 4, 2007 at 2:57 PM dcosby,
• The “Iraq War” is as bad a label as “The War on Terror.” We need to remember this is not a nation versus nation conflict like World Wars I & II, or the Cold War. We are in Iraq (big mistake) and now verbally jousting with Iran (“all options are on the table") and others due to the radical Islamic actions of the last several decades (perhaps even longer).
The countries who have given financial support, weapons or allowed training of terrorists to be carried on within their borders are a problem, but not THE primary problem — they’re just easier to identify. The main problem is a minority of Muslim extremists, but dangerous beyond their numbers.
• Through constant sound-bite repetition the media over simplify issues. The media is, IMO, becoming lazier/greedier in the investigating and are primarily profit oriented. It started way back when Edward R. Murrow was shunted to “Person to Person” rather than allowed to continue real investigative reporting. Today “news” is entertainment and a money maker for the networks and cable companies. They are not so much a co-conspirator as a tool for whoever can con them best at the moment.
• Bush: He got my vote by default — I didn’t want either guy. We have such poor choices to pick from. I believe this is due to public acceptance (media influence?) of the idea that a candidate must “please his base”, “look and sound presidential” and “reach out to _____________” (fill in the special interest group of the day).
Currently Obama has an edge due to his short political history, dual racial ancestry and a truly artistic command of the language — He can say a lot without committing to specifics.
Recently McCain has been criticized in the media for “...alienating people with his comments about the war in Iraq.” They went on to say he needs to moderate his position. In other words if he really wants to have a chance he needs to hide his true opinion by adopting one based on the polls. He refuses to do that — so far.
• Iraq: I happen to believe we should not have invaded Iraq — but we did. We did it without enough troops or post combat consideration and have created a disaster. But I also think at this point McCain is unfortunately right — if we tell the terrorists and other factions when we will leave they will be encouraged to fight on. If we leave, the bloodshed will be even worse. (Yes, Jane Fonda, it could be even worse.) We cannot “win” but we can lose more.
• Bush/religion: I think Bush sincerely believes in what he is doing. His personality is such that he believes God has a mission for him and he must persevere. (This is not a good enough reason, IMO — Hey, Hitler believed in his “mission”.)
As a recovering alcoholic he is still basically a compulsive person — he quit the booze and switched to fundamental Christianity. Having been part of a quite conservative religious denomination (I recovered) I can tell you not all Christians and not even all fundamentalists are the same. That’s why there are so many small, ultra conservative churches.
Back to the media — During my youth reporting the news was separated from opinion. There were radio broadcasts labeled as Commentary.
Gabriel Heater, H.V. Kaltenborn, Walter Winchell were “commentators” giving their point of view and people knew it. Ed Murrow reported events from London as he witnessed them during the war, but occasionally added, “In my opinion...” Today there is very little effort to separate opinion or to wait for verification of events. The thrust is to reach the sponsor’s audience to keep the dollars coming.There is an infinite set of possibilities for most events, not just two. We’ve all heard doctors say, “We’ll try prescription X and see if it helps.” or, a call to tech support gets the same “try this” reply.
Too many pretend to be experts — simplifying, drawing conclusions — when a more humble approach is fitting.
Posted by whattheheck on May 6, 2007 at 6:19 AM whatheheck,
I agree with almost everything you said :-). The only real difference I have is with your statement that “The main problem is a minority of Muslim extremists… “. While I agree that Muslim extremism is a problem and dangerous, it isn’t the main problem. The problem is American influence in that part of the world. Look at our best friends in the region : Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, to name a few. What do all of these have in common? All of them are either dictatorships of one kind or another or, as in the case of Turkey, a “democracy” that uses force to subjugate a significant minority (kurds). You can tell alot about a person/country by the company they keep. The muslim world knows the company we keep and see US as part of the apparatus of oppression that makes their lives miserable.
So the everyday muslim in the middle east, while condeming terrorist, is hesistant to condemn them out right because they seem to be the only ones that are addressing their justified greviances with the West. Aren’t we really there to take the oil ??? I hate to put it so bluntly, but if the chief export of the middle east were turnips we wouldn’t be there. Extremism is the result of and not the cause for our presense in the middle east (unless you’re talking about American Extremism). We in the US are conditioned to thing of Arabs in general as violent and the Arab world as chaotic so that we can justify our presense there ("they need us.... what would the poor Arabs do without us").
Concerning withdrawl, I would ask this : is it moraly right for us to be there? Not What strategy will work. Is the occupation morally right or wrong? We invaded a country that never attacked us, didn’t have the ability to attack us and never threatened to attack us. But we’re stil there. Do Bush and company apologize? No! They say that even when we’re wrong we’re still right because we’re brining freedom. The reality is that our presence there can bring about nothing good. We are universally distrusted in the Middle East and our words and promises hold no sway there. You cannot negotiate a peace when the parties concerned distrust your motives. What the US needs to be doing is (1) outlining a plan for a complete withdrawl in the next 12 months (2) conducting a diplomatic full court press with the countries in the region who might be able to help stabilize Iraq (3) offering an apology to the Iraqi people backed by a full and comprehensive reparations backage to pay for the damage we caused. That’s what a great country would do. That’s what a just country would offer. Then possibly (it will take a while) the US can start to establish (notice I did not say “re” establish) some good will and begin to slowly drain the pool of resentment that allows extremist to have safe harbor in parts of the Middle East. But all of this may still fail. That is why more sober minds (daddy Bush included) thought the invasion was a mistake. Because the outcome would leave us with no good choices.
“Bleed and Bankrupt”. That’s what Osama calls it. It is the idea that America cannot be defeated in a conventional military sense, It has to be bled. It will be bled by provoking it to engage evermore in costly military confrontations farther away from home, causing a strain on it’s economy, causing domestic decay, causing collapse. Based on this model, who is really winning this war on terrorism ????
ps. your opinions on the media are dead on .... have you ever read “amusing ourselves to death” check it out ... it’s definitly relevant ....... peace ..... question: what about Bush appealed to you twice??? I ask that meaning no offense , but am still trying to understand intellectually what people who voted for him found apealing. was it the Christian appeal (I too grew up in a church environment and have an Aunt (75 yrs young) who believes Bush can do no wrong).
Posted by dcosby on May 7, 2007 at 9:58 AM dcosby,
I’ll go with your last question first — “...what about Bush appealed to you twice?”
I would never vote for anyone based on his religion. Nothing really appealed to me about either of the Bushes. Gore and Kerry just had no appeal either. Gore is two-faced about ecology with stupid “offsets” and as much tied to the oil industry as Bush. I didn’t trust Kerry anymore than I now trust Bush, but for different reasons. I even considered not voting, but old habits die hard.
I can’t refute the idea that a lot of countries have a low opinion of the U.S. and not totally without cause. However, I don’t agree that we are as bad or even worse than other countries. It is historically so that whoever is biggest or most influential will catch blame for a wide range of things — so justified, but also some due to envy.
Your question concerning withdrawal: “...is it morally right for us to be there?” As I said I think it was a mistake to invade, but think to leave without now or before a more secure situation can be attained would be worse for everyone except the terrorists and war lords.
We should have anticipated the degree of division within the country. We should have realized we had too few troops to do the job. Many professional military people tried to point that out and were let go.
Let me rephrase this, “The main problem is a minority of Muslim extremists.”
OUR main problem is the Muslim extremists. They are not primarily nation oriented. In the west, we think of nations containing various religions. For them religion is primary over all nations. WTC gave us a sample what a few dedicated suicidal religious fanatics can do. With nukes they could and would do much more.“So the everyday Muslim in the middle east, while condemning terrorist, is hesitant to condemn them out right because they seem to be the only ones that are addressing their justified grievances with the West.”
This may be true for some, but I have heard very little condemnation of their tactics by moderate Muslims. They all know their lives are meaningless to the terrorists. Just look how many innocent people they have blown up just to make a point.
“Look at our best friends in the region : Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, to name a few.”
With friends like these who needs enemies?
We must deal with a lot of people, whether as nations or individuals, whom we may not agree with. I know I did in my business. The idea of converting Iraq to a democracy was a pipe dream. There is not a whole lot the U.S. can do to change any nation’s personality.
Somehow people have an overblown sense of control in most circumstances. Usually we hear all kinds of solutions — after each catastrophic event. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Katrina — both the 1929 Great Depression and Pearl Harbor are still generating volumes of “If only...” books.
The recent George Tenet book was designed to exonerate him, but it has shown he was not the best person for CIA Director — a couple articles have already indicated he did not do the administration or the nation any favors by withholding and cherry picking intel before our invading Iraq.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010035
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/615cglnt.asp
Usually things are distorted to both the good and the bad and the truth is somewhere in between.
Posted by whattheheck on May 7, 2007 at 12:30 PM Cosby, welcome. Great posts! I have been saying much the same for years. It’s good to see someone else willing to speak out about the American saber rattling at Iran. You said “Osama Bin Laden would love to have Bush’s body count .” and in a way he does. Or at least gains some advantage from it. It’s a win win situtation for anyone who believes that violence solves problems.
Whattheheck, when you say ...“I can’t refute the idea that a lot of countries have a low opinion of the U.S. and not totally without cause. However, I don’t agree that we are as bad or even worse than other countries.”… I have to ask : How do you measure it? What do you weigh? The number of dead people, yes?
Posted by David in Canuckistan on May 7, 2007 at 6:13 PM David,
U.S. integrity, intentions or whatever: “How do you measure it?”
Certainly not by media reports or political polling. The same media sources which were gung ho during the invasion are now hyper critical of our being there. They do little investigating and a lot of pandering.
If we leave this mess as it is, they will also decry that 24/7.
I’m reading a very interesting book, “The Black Swan”, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. He points out the human tendency to attribute cause to everything and how we over simplify everything.
This is only one of many traits and habits he covers which we should guard against if we seek truth rather than blame or exoneration.
Posted by whattheheck on May 8, 2007 at 7:34 AM David in CA,
Thanks for the encouragement. I need all I can get. Im In the heart of the South (Atlanta, Georgia) and don’t get much of it.
to all,
what do we do from here?
do we need to impeach the President (if we want to save the little that’s left of America’s soul we might want to think about it. I remember when Gerald Ford died and the media went round-and-round about how he saved the country because he pardoned Nixon. How he saved the country from all the grief that would have come from putting an Ex-President on trial. I couldn’t believe it !!! He didn’t save the country, he condemned it !!! If Nixon would have been tried it would have sent a clear signal to future presidents that executive license of this sort will not be tolerated. An unpunished Nixon = an unrepentent Bush.) ???
Do we storm the Capital? No, I’m serious. Do we , peacefully, march on Washington, 6-7 million, occupy the House, the Senate and surround the Whitehouse and put our so called represenatives on notice that this country belongs to the People of the United States of America. Not Halliburton. Not Kellog, Brown & whoever, not any part of corporate America. . The People of the United States of America.
Are we at all willing to look seriously at ourselves? I agree that some right answers tend to be found somewhere in “the middle” and that folks in the debate are sometimes a little too presumptuous (sp?) and a little too certain with their answers. But there are a few things that I can be relatively sure of : free health care for at least every child under 18 might be a good thing (other countries with less seem to have this crazy idea that wealth should not determine whether you live or die). That our schools should be funded at least as well as the military (in reality this would mean cutting the defense budget but, considering that we currently out spend all the worlds countries combined for defense, a little cut won’t hurt the nation where genuine!! defense is concerned). What does this have to due with new nuclear technology and the Iranian threat ??? I’ll simply direct you to google Eishenhower’s farewell address concerning the military industrial complex and the threat it poses for a democracy (when you read his address it’s crazy to think that what an American president said in a fairwell address from the Oval Office is unmentionable in todays climate ) or watch a documentary called Why We Fight ..... have a few more but I’ll stop here and ask again ................. What do we do???
Posted by dcosby on May 8, 2007 at 9:33 AM dcosby,
I wish I could give you workable and meaningful answers. I can’t.
I have come to believe that there aren’t necessarily answers to all problems. It seems as though we (mankind) have come to assume that we could or should be able to “do it right.” Mostly we do this when something seems so stupid after the fact. We aren’t too good at prediction. As Yogi Bera is supposed to have said, “It is hard to predict things, especially about the future.
”
I know many people think Bush lied, purposely distorted information and anything else to “justify” going into Iraq. That he has lost credibility is unquestionable. I have always distrusted him because I think he is inept, in a job way past his Peter Principle and too simplistic in his analysis of events. I would describe him as programmable.Last month a discussion group I go to covered the idea of impeachment. (At 69 I am one of the youngest members of the group.) Two people brought petitions and made their case. The majority are much more liberal than I am on most issues, but only a few were willing to sign.
The consensus case (not my favorite way to decide anything) was that it would take too long and divert an already do-little congress just as with Clinton. My view is that it would have no chance of happening. We have a very closely divided congress made up mostly of lawyers and 1.)The primary legal tactic is to stall. 2.) Even though there has been a lot of information from many sources which sound bad for him, there is little admissible evidence for a solid legal charge of any kind.
I try to read as much as possible on all sides of issues. Each day I come to this site, the Wall Street Journal Opinion page, and a couple international websites to see what is being said and by whom. With regard to the Iraq situation: I’ve spoken with several returning vets. I have read two books by generals who opposed invasion and Tony Blankley’s, “The West Last Chance.” I’m familiar with the Downing Street Memo and other intel reports.
The most recent book to come out is by George Tenet. I have not read it yet, but already much of his “self defense” attempt has made Bush look less informed than he should have been and Tenet to be at best a poor selection for heading the CIA and at worst a liar himself.We get a lot of information — too much for us to intelligently analyze. We may get much the same story from several reporters, but we never know how much comes from a single primary source or if that source is accurate and unbiased.
I believe much of the negative reaction to the news is due to frustration. I believe much of the negative news is politically inspired.
Our process for choosing presidential candidates has me frustrated — the quality of those who get the nomination and their performance once in office. It is generally accepted that anyone who tells his genuine opinion will NOT be elected. (Look at Goldwater/LBJ in 1964 and what happened in Viet Nam.)
I have seen the isolation of many CEOs in medium to large companies. No one dares to tell them anything they won’t want to hear. Imagine how this must be even more so with a head of state.
Think of the number of issues of great importance such a president must deal with each day and the volume of info. When does a president have time to think? To read? Human beings need a memory upgrade just like my computer. Maybe a couple more GHz in the brain would help us all.
Posted by whattheheck on May 8, 2007 at 10:35 AM I have a much better plan dcosby . You start the impeachment process. I start the civil war process. We split the country into politically acceptable parts. Considering the political stance of the country you would get a lot of people without any practical skills, states without many natural resources, or connected borders. Your emotionally mature part starves, freezes, and rides bicycles. My knuckledragging part eats red meat, watches porn, and drives hummers. We never speak again and mine the borders. Your happy. I am happy. Deal?
Posted by texasindependent on May 10, 2007 at 2:03 PM texasindependent,
thanks for responding.
Well, I’m almost at a loss for words..... almost :-).
You might be happy with the America you’ve described but I would not want to live in that place. Part of the problem in the United States today is that we have lost the ability to have rational discourse. Our conversations often reflect the bizzare atmosphere that we see on most corporate news/talk show forums.As far as civil war is concerned, I’m not sure how to respond to that. I’ll assume for a moment that you’re not currently amassing a stockpile of weapons in the hopes of sometime in the near future fracturing the country “into politically acceptable parts” and then “mine the borders”. In other other words, you’re kidding. Hoping that I’m right, I would rather speak to the sentiment emodied in your response rather than the actual content.
I think what you express is a growing frustration being felt by more and more Americans over the lack of real dialogue. We have no outlet for our angst and seem to have no power. So we say things that ,more than reflecting a true belief , actually express more of our collective anger at seeing the America we thougt was become to our eyes the America that actually is. As result we say things like “bomb em all” or “let’s split the country up”. The fact that we don’t really mean these things eventually adds weight to the meaninglessness we feel when hearing almost anyone speak about these issues. We become more and more disillusioned because no one means what they say.
Now, to be clear, I’m not saying the solution is for you to be more sincere about this civil war you’re promising :-). A first step might be just stating coherently what , speciifically, is making you say what you say.
What specific issue are you most concerned about.? Maybe we’d find we agree on some things, who knows.So what, specifically, do you think is driving the country to the point of “civil war”. Maybe I’m not that tough of a guy, but generally I like a little dialogue and maybe some coffee and a doughnut before my revolutions start :-)
Take care
Posted by dcosby on May 10, 2007 at 4:00 PM dcosby, Tex,
“I think what you express is a growing frustration being felt by more and more Americans over the lack of real dialogue. We have no outlet for our angst and seem to have no power.”
You are certainly describing my feelings, dcosby and it appears to be so with Tex too.
It is physically impossible for even the most diligent elected representative to read the inflow of communication from us, but their canned replies are so skewed to match polls and media blather that it is insulting to our intelligence. While I don’t swallow much of the reporting we get, there is little doubt that our “representatives” are out off touch with our daily lives.
Yesterday I attended a economic presentation by a man whose opinion I read monthly and basically respect. I had a chance to present some of my conflicting perceptions one-o-one following his talk.
His views are based on the official numbers, traditional textbook learning and almost completely out of touch with middle class America’s condition in this age of globalization. Both the politician and the economist need to break away from the media/corporate/government environment and learn what life is like for ordinary people.
This lack of understanding is what, IMO, creates the “collective anger” you mentioned, as our vision of America becomes far less than it used to be.However, we need to guard against the herd instinct which repetition arouses. The cure for disillusionment is not re-illusionment of some other kind.
I strongly recommend the book, “The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. You can get a fairly good idea of his thinking from reading the reviews at amazon.com. He advocates skepticism of the reports by “experts” and examines the human tendencies to think we know more than we actually can. His technique is applicable to any virtually issue.
Posted by whattheheck on May 11, 2007 at 7:07 AM whattheheck,
I’m definitely going to pickup that book you mentioned this weekend (you’re the second person to have mentioned that to me this week). I read a few reviews on it the other day and it looks to be very interesting .
when you say, “However, we need to guard against the herd instinct which repetition arouses. The cure for disillusionment is not re-illusionment of some other kind. “, what sort of re-illusionment do you mean.
Posted by dcosby on May 11, 2007 at 8:01 AM I am tired. I am tired of the defeatism of the far left and the ultranationalism of the far right. I don’t want a fucked up quasi socialist government and I don’t want a police state. I am tired of the left gloating over every lost soldier in Iraq and I am tired of the glorification of the same soldier by the right. I am tired and disgusted with both sides and this endless political wrangling. Neither side has the ability to effect any legislation so we spin our wheels until 2008. The answer for me and 62 percent in the latest poll in my state is seccession. We were an independent nation for 10 years before we became a state. We can do it again and join OPEC. Fight it out amongst yourselves.
Posted by texasindependent on May 11, 2007 at 11:20 AM dcosby,
re-illusionment? I’ll just apply it to the war.
We are not alone in our feelings that our country has not lived up to expectations. While I put little faith in polls when making choices, I do believe they are fairly accurate in measuring emotion.
The media is pervasive. We are affected in subtle and insidious ways. They like to keep it simple — black or white, good or bad, right or wrong.
We need to keep an open mind, remember human failings are not always conspiratorial or sinister. Keep a sense of proportion — 3,000 casualties are bad, but in less time during WW2 we had over 300,000. The news was as bad in all previous wars, but easier to suppress, more difficult and time consuming to deliver and therefore in some ways less damning.It easier to accept a new illusion of what the U.S. is than to think about the larger picture.
Many are now calling for us to pull, if not immediately, by a given date. The illusion here is that anything different than what we now have will be better (or least less bad) — but we don’t really “know” that anymore than we “knew” what our invasion would bring.
Why are we so expectant that someone must be able to predict everything from weather to stock performance?
I think if even once I had heard Rumsfeld say, “I don’t know.” I could be more forgiving off his terrible, arrogant decisions —
Too few troops for the job. Expectations that the Iraqi army would convert to “our side” immediately. Ignoring the religious history of the area. Assuming the application of Reserve and National guard in the initial attacks was good enough to offset the cuts which had taken place since the end of the Cold War.
This it could fit any other issue as well — economy, legislation...?
Posted by whattheheck on May 12, 2007 at 7:32 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by William D. Hartung and Frida Berrigan
- Duck and Cover
The Bush admininstration's "Complex 2030" plan is reviving the nuclear threat
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2007 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
