Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Can terrorism be stopped by any President?

roachboy · 10-13-2004, 07:26 AM

let's talk about hypocrisy with reference to iraq.

during the reagan administration, because of the iran-iraq war, the americans sold iraq serious weapons systems, and said nothing about the gassing of the kurds because, at the time, the administration believed hussein's claim that the objective was military and that the kurds who died were, in a sense "collateral damage"
all this because iraq was, at the time, politically convenient.
iran was the problem. hostage crisis and all that. remember?

after hussein's invasion of kuwait (motivations aside), things changed.
but that for domestic political purposes, to sell the first gulf war.
the americans did not give a shit about the kurds at the time the gassing happened.
the americans did not give a shit about the kurds during the period when they were encouraged to organize resistance and then were left to be crushed after the first gulf war.
the americans do not give a shit about the kurds now.

on the annoying "noble france and germany" and its inverse "france and gemany: hyprocrites"---a pair of terms operational in rightwing land and nowhere else---the fact is that france and germany and a majority of the security council did not support bushwar because the administration made no compelling case for war at any particular time.
neither france nor germany has been a great hero of international pacifism; neither is run by a pacifist. the fact is that the bush administration fucked up--they presented a shabby, obviously false case the premises of which were undercut within minutes by the un inspectors reports. ever since that vote, the administration and its think tank apparatus have been blowing a smoke screen about that vote, trying anything and everything to divert attention from the fact of the matter: the americans had no case for war.

if there is hyprocrisy in all this, it clearly sits with the american right. not even with the americans in general (restricting myself here to talking about iraq--in the longer historical frame, there is plenty of blame to be shared by all factions within the american oligarchy)

back to the question at hand: an american president could in fact do something to diminish terrorism, whatever that is.
but this president cannot and will not.
the conclusion i have come to is: if you are concerned about fighting terrorism, then you pretty much have to oppose george w bush.

10-13-2004, 07:26 AM	#61 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	let's talk about hypocrisy with reference to iraq. during the reagan administration, because of the iran-iraq war, the americans sold iraq serious weapons systems, and said nothing about the gassing of the kurds because, at the time, the administration believed hussein's claim that the objective was military and that the kurds who died were, in a sense "collateral damage" all this because iraq was, at the time, politically convenient. iran was the problem. hostage crisis and all that. remember? after hussein's invasion of kuwait (motivations aside), things changed. but that for domestic political purposes, to sell the first gulf war. the americans did not give a shit about the kurds at the time the gassing happened. the americans did not give a shit about the kurds during the period when they were encouraged to organize resistance and then were left to be crushed after the first gulf war. the americans do not give a shit about the kurds now. on the annoying "noble france and germany" and its inverse "france and gemany: hyprocrites"---a pair of terms operational in rightwing land and nowhere else---the fact is that france and germany and a majority of the security council did not support bushwar because the administration made no compelling case for war at any particular time. neither france nor germany has been a great hero of international pacifism; neither is run by a pacifist. the fact is that the bush administration fucked up--they presented a shabby, obviously false case the premises of which were undercut within minutes by the un inspectors reports. ever since that vote, the administration and its think tank apparatus have been blowing a smoke screen about that vote, trying anything and everything to divert attention from the fact of the matter: the americans had no case for war. if there is hyprocrisy in all this, it clearly sits with the american right. not even with the americans in general (restricting myself here to talking about iraq--in the longer historical frame, there is plenty of blame to be shared by all factions within the american oligarchy) back to the question at hand: an american president could in fact do something to diminish terrorism, whatever that is. but this president cannot and will not. the conclusion i have come to is: if you are concerned about fighting terrorism, then you pretty much have to oppose george w bush. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 10-13-2004 at 07:32 AM..