![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenite0One of bloggers at Winds of Change came up with an interesting metaphor for the war while discussing the atrocities in Russia:
Smoking contributes to cancer. Russia had a three pack a day habit going in Chechnya for too long, so they shouldn't be too surprised now when the doctors hand Putin the X-Ray and shake their heads. But to suggest now . . . that the solution lies in quitting smoking, is ludicrously inadequate.
The terror has now metastasized, linked up with tumors elsewhere in the body of the world. It is a systemic disease and it requires a systemic cure that acknowledges the true nature of the disease.
The cancer of the jihadi mentality is ready to attack anywhere the tissue is weak. Those who advise against weakening the tissue further are correct, but they insist that the cure go no farther.
Give them what they want? Sure, stop smoking. But the cancer doesn’t want you to stop smoking. It wants you to die.
America's smoking habit has been propping dictators to maintain "stability" in a region that desperately needs change. We've cut back, and hopefully we'll completely quit soon. But the important thing is going after the worst of the cancer wherever we can. Right now that means cutting out the tumors easiest to get to and causing the most damage, not just one the one that made us go to the doctor. Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11--so what? He's contributing to the problem and Iraq's the best place to start on the solution.
I hope we can beat this without resorting to radiation therapy. But that's going to take aggressively using all the other treatment options first.
Smoking contributes to cancer. Russia had a three pack a day habit going in Chechnya for too long, so they shouldn't be too surprised now when the doctors hand Putin the X-Ray and shake their heads. But to suggest now . . . that the solution lies in quitting smoking, is ludicrously inadequate.
The terror has now metastasized, linked up with tumors elsewhere in the body of the world. It is a systemic disease and it requires a systemic cure that acknowledges the true nature of the disease.
The cancer of the jihadi mentality is ready to attack anywhere the tissue is weak. Those who advise against weakening the tissue further are correct, but they insist that the cure go no farther.
Give them what they want? Sure, stop smoking. But the cancer doesn’t want you to stop smoking. It wants you to die.
America's smoking habit has been propping dictators to maintain "stability" in a region that desperately needs change. We've cut back, and hopefully we'll completely quit soon. But the important thing is going after the worst of the cancer wherever we can. Right now that means cutting out the tumors easiest to get to and causing the most damage, not just one the one that made us go to the doctor. Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11--so what? He's contributing to the problem and Iraq's the best place to start on the solution.
I hope we can beat this without resorting to radiation therapy. But that's going to take aggressively using all the other treatment options first.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 10:12 am (UTC)-I don't think most Americans realize the aptness of this metaphor. Any suggestion that America's prior bad actions might have been a major cause of the terrorist attacks is ignored in the popular press and attacked by politicians. That's a big problem.
-I'm not sure the extent of our smoking problem is "propping dictators to maintain 'stability' in a region that desperately needs change". I'm inclined to think it goes deeper than that.
-"He's contributing to the problem and Iraq's the best place to start on the solution." I'm skeptical. Why not start with Saudi Arabia?
Also, if its only a matter of fighting terrorists, why did Bush put Iran in the "Axis of Evil"? They don't sponsor terrorism. I think Bush's strategy shows the same arrogance of most of American postwar foreign policy, and I think its likely to get us in serious trouble. But maybe that's a little off topic.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 12:56 pm (UTC)Your homework assignment for this week is to read up on Hizballah (aka Hezbollah).
no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 01:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 02:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 02:55 pm (UTC)A Post That Sums Up What's Wrong With Neocon Policy
Date: 2004-09-12 11:46 am (UTC)Heck, look at how little the US can count on Kuwait. THAT'S Iraq in a decade if all goes well (and that's a big "if").
America's real "smoking habit" is our dependence on imported oil. Six percent of the world's population uses a quarter of the world's annual oil production. So long as that's the case, SA gets to call the shots.
BTW, SA is (using the terms you use) both the tumor "easiest to get at" and the one "causing the most damage," not Iraq. Hussein's Iraq didn't depend on US aid (SA does), and Hussein's Iraq didn't support jihadis (SA does). Iraq does support the Intifadah, but Palestinians are not and never have been jihadis (kind of hard for them to be jihadis since so many of them are secular or Christian).
Iraq: wrong war, wrong place, wrong way.
Re: A Post That Sums Up What's Wrong With Neocon Policy
Date: 2004-09-12 12:50 pm (UTC)Let's see. 10,000 US troops who don't do their own perimeter security. 30,000 American oil workers and their families. The off switch for enough oil production to totally trash the global economy. The word of the day is "hostages." SA has us by the balls firmly enough that we don't dare mess with them until we've changed our position. Step one, get the troops out, has been done. Step two is developing alternate energy sources and urging US civilians to leave. That's in progress.
Oh, and starting with SA would've given Saddam the opportunity to come in on SA's side.
Seriously, given the trouble Bush had launching an attack against a country we're already legally at war with, what chance would he have had of pulling together a consensus against SA?
Palestinians are not and never have been jihadis
Go read up on Hamas.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 01:23 pm (UTC)A distinct minority among Palestinians. Using them as an example of Palestinain nationalism is like using Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols as an example of ultra-conservative US Army veterans. The PLO and PFLP have always been secular and contained a sizeable non-Muslim leadership core. And Hamas has never attacked the US. The same, BTW, cannot be said of the IDF.
Since when were we legally at war with Iraq? We had UN authorization to conduct military operations to liberate Kuwait and contain Hussein. That does not equate to a legal definition of war (last I checked, only the US Congress can declare war -- and it hasn't since 12 DEC 1941). And even if it did, then wouldn't a better place to start be a known supporter of international terrorism who is much closer to developing nuclear weapons? Say, the Democratic Korean People's Republic?
If the problem is, as you say, America's smoking habit has been propping dictators to maintain "stability" in a region that desperately needs change, shouldn't the US go after the dictators it's propping up?
Nothing you say about SA is wrong. But that is exactly the point. All we're doing right now is further promoting the stability of the dictatorships we support. Wouldn't it be better to pay attention to our only formal ally in the region and do what we can to stabilize them and support them? They thought invading Iraq was a bad idea.
Those 10,000 troops are the reason OBL declared war on the US. Those 30,000 Aramco employees and their dependents are paid quite handsomely (mostly tax-free) for what they do. And the world economy has survived the "off switch" in the past (if anything, it'd probably hurt China more than most Western economies). If we're really at war, shouldn't we be prepared to pay the price? If the metaphor you propose is correct, we're going to have to take care of these issues eventually. Why not now when the American people are theoretically more willing to do so with 9/11 so fresh in our minds? (I know the answer -- it has more to do with the election cycle than anything else).
The Neocons want to have their cake and eat it, too. In the process, they're just making a bigger mess.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 02:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 11:27 am (UTC)A distinct minority among Palestinians.
Not in Gaza. And the Pals have been shifting from secular to Islamist groups over time. I think you're describing how they were in 1994.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/holy/combatants/palestinians.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
http://www.jmcc.org/research/special/study2.htm
Since when were we legally at war with Iraq? We had UN authorization to conduct military operations to liberate Kuwait and contain Hussein. That does not equate to a legal definition of war (last I checked, only the US Congress can declare war -- and it hasn't since 12 DEC 1941).
So--I know you're not as ignorant as you're pretending here. Or do you honestly believe Korea and Viet Nam weren't wars? If you just want to do pedantic nitpicking to confuse the issue, save it for your students. We were in a state of armed conflict with Iraq ("war" to non-pedants), terminated by a cease-fire agreement. When the cease-fire was violated (many, many times) we had legal justification to resume operations against Iraq. Getting real support was more important than a legal rationale, so we went back to the UN Security Council.
And even if it did, then wouldn't a better place to start be a known supporter of international terrorism who is much closer to developing nuclear weapons? Say, the Democratic Korean People's Republic?
Hmmm. You want Bush to start a major land war with China. No, you're not that stupid, you're just being annoying again. Next.
shouldn't the US go after the dictators it's propping up?
Yes. Eventually.
Or do you think Bush would've had an easier time getting a Congressional vote to attack Saudi Arabia? And what would've happened to all the Americans in SA during the debate?
Wouldn't it be better to pay attention to our only formal ally in the region and do what we can to stabilize them and support them? They thought invading Iraq was a bad idea.
So what is it with you and Israel?
Those 10,000 troops are the reason OBL declared war on the US.
You're forgetting Andalusia and the fall of the Caliphate. (http://slate.msn.com/id/1008411)
we're going to have to take care of these issues eventually. Why not now when the American people are theoretically more willing to do so with 9/11 so fresh in our minds? (I know the answer -- it has more to do with the election cycle than anything else).
Or possibly because wars require making decisions based on strategy instead of popularity.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 01:08 pm (UTC)http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/wmid15.xml
Re: A Post That Sums Up What's Wrong With Neocon Policy
Date: 2004-09-12 04:34 pm (UTC)BTW, SA is (using the terms you use) both the tumor "easiest to get at" and the one "causing the most damage," not Iraq.
I'd the it's the absolute reverse that is true. I've had more than a few cancerous tumor operations myself, to the tune of 7 major ops alone.
Tumors are considered inoperable when removing them would cause more damage than good. The same holds true for SA. Surgical removal of that regime woud kills more people, uncluding innocent Saudis, than not.
When you can't 'cut' out a tumor, you have to attack it with other means - radiation, iodine, etc. Alternative treatment for the saudi tumor includes making assocoiation with/dependance upon them obsolete. Treatment in progress.
That treatment progresses in two ways: Researching new methods of energy, and obtaining il from other parties. That other party will be Iraq. Oh, we'll pay for it, mind you. Regardless fo the liberal battlecray, this ain't about stealing oil from Iraq. It's about paying for it.. but that money will be less likely to be tithed to a rabid mosque and used by terrorists, if it's being paid to a people who find themselves increasing grateful for our intervention with Saddam, as word on the ground increasingly convinces me is the case.