Rather Orwellian
 

I find it incredibly disturbing how quietly the focus of this war shifted from WMD's to the "liberation" of the Iraqi people. And now that we've found no WMD's at all, it seems everyone has forgotten the massive scaremongering, the Powell presentation at the UN, the idea that Saddam was building a massive army of death and must be stopped like Hitler in 1939, or that he would sell nukes to fringe groups who would aim them at Washington. In short:

"The reason the US invaded Iraq was to liberate the Iraqi people. The reason the US invaded Iraq has always been to liberate the Iraqi people."

If you've read 1984, you'll know what I mean.

well, what else could bush do?

i for one didnt fall for the change of reason, but a heck of a lot of people did.


if the reason for a war has been to liberate a country, why dont we liberate china? and a shitload of other countries?

Hehe. Yeah, alot of people have been comparing the risk of this 'conflict' turning into a perpetual state of war to 1984 (amongst other comparisons). Its all rather unnearving, but I don't think its at that point.

Still, the Bush administration doesn't have a problem bringing in more of the Big Brother state.

WMD's will be found. We're still exploring Iraq and all the undrground tunnels/bunkers. It's gonna take a long time to search all that shit.

Ever since I read 1984, I've been noticing more and more similarities with the real world. I've come to the conclusion that pretty much every government in every country ever pulls these sort of tricks. It's part of the powermongering mindset. I don't even think they know they're doing it half the time, they fool themselves so much.

It's probably not worth worrying about too much, though. Whatever they do, everyone's still gonna die.

I was quite disturbed by the constant changes in reasoning behind this war. It seemed that they kept trying different reasons to allow this war to pass in the international community.

If they don't find WMD, this war will go down in history as unjustified and unjust. Of course, the American people won't care and Bush will be re-elected, so it really doesn't matter.

every us persident has gone to war

every us president will go to war

this us president will go to war many times

this us president will not be re-elected

That's the philosophy that I find the most comfort in. :p

I find it incredibly disturbing how people these days cannot seem to wait for anything anymore.

The war is, what, in it's third or fourth week? Baghdad has been occupied for barely more than a week... Already the people there are demanding this, and demanding that, and saying the US isn't going to help them after all. There are already people saying that there are no WMDs because none have been found yet. Already, Iraq's neighbors are demanding a quick pull-out. Already, people all over the world are demanding the US to stop looters, fix the electricity, water supply, get medical aid to everyone, bring in food, and restore order today (no, yesterday!). Oh, and they have to organize elections and get their forces out too. While they're still fighting minor battles...

1) Rebuilding Iraq, and Iraq's infrastructure, takes time. Especially if all the Iraqis are doing is *complaining*, instead of DOING something themselves. You got a problem with looters? Stop them! You got a problem with the water supply? Fix it! But complaining and protesting is probably simpler...
2) Finding WMDs in a country the size of Iraq takes time. They could be buried in the middle of the desert, and nobody would ever find them. The US has to find Iraqis who know where to look, and they need to search, find and test the sites... A reason the US forces hasn't found WMDs yet, might be that they were too busy *fighting*. You can't beat the Iraqi army when you're out looking for WMDs instead of shooting. Also, if the former regime had indeed moved the WMDs to Syria... well, good luck finding them, or finding any proof to back this claim.
3) The US will organize elections, and they will leave. However, if they were to speed things up, we might (will) end up with a second Iran. The only organized group left, after the demise of the Ba'ath party, is the Shi'ite clergy. They'd like nothing more than grabbing power and making Iraq into a fundy Islamic state. In fact, some of their leaders already said that democracy isn't right for Iraq, and that *they* should be in power...

What I find Orwellian is the plans to remove the 2005 sunset clause on the Patriot Act. If that happens, it really is all over.

Read this article, it's terrifying (sorry about the ad-per-view): http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20.../index_np.html

yup, patriot is just another name to rip our liberties out

That's scary stuff. It's surprising that there isn't an outrage against this kind of behavior.

On the point about the Guantanamo Bay prisons, does that ever come up in the news much in the US? It never appears in the UK.

Those guys have been there for nearly a year now without any charges or anything.

Well dragonlich, at least we know the Iraqis will transition to a more "Western" lifestyle very easily, complaining instead of actually DOING anything. :rolleyes:

comes up when one of them attempts suicide or when some are released.


they cant report 'em cuz they're not allowed in there.

Very disturbing how we realise (sp 4 different cultures) the damage that the occupation of the coalition forces will cause. (nevermind the looting that is going on now and yesterday) Have we now unwittingly created another militant muslim state? (one with oil as a bargaining chip).
Very scared of the way both the US and UK gov, have now crowed about this, when it isn't quite finished yet, I don't count my paycheck till the taxman comes, how can they count the chickens?
Furthermore on my rant we still haven't had a Major terrorist incident in a 1st world country since 9-11. Scared, no I'm shittin' myself!

bottom line about those guantanamo prisoners is that they don't play by any rules, so we won't really care to reciprocate. secondly, their home countries don't really want most of them back, and so they have no formal representation. and finally, they are not innocent; they are not just random people grabbed off the street.

On paper it's justified in context of what 1441 says, that's the objective part of the war. The subjective part comes in with the the hippy protesters, and the girly pacifists crying about how war is wrong. Course, the other side of that is the Iraqi people who were liberated. I'm sure they enjoy not being under a dictators thumb, blood for oil my ass.

Who's going to beat Bush? He's a conservative wet dream. Plus, John Kerry is a weiner.

Yeah, the're free. What have they done with it in the last five days..... It took the US 150 yrs. + to figger out what to do with the freedom (Give women and the blacks freedom to vote) . There are some serious challenges to face b4 starting on other areas in the middle east (inc. the little prob. from 1945 called Isreal). Hmm..
Please provide answers on a post card to the usual address

Sorry zmiley I did not want to put you off providing a debate . They are of course not a "fundemental cause" (unless you mean the mean the death (and rebirth of a fictional character) of the problem, but yet they are an aggrevation of the grievences that have gone before,
(I am not sure why you have an issue with my discussion of an illegal state as a "problem") I would like to have a creative debate of the current political spectrum in the middle east. (Which I personally think is F'd..)

I hear what you are saying. And agree to a point. We may find those pesky WMD sooner or later. The jury is not back yet.

But.

The thing that disturbs me is the "evidence" that Powell presented at the UN was so clear. The "evidence" that Bush talked about in his address to the nation was so clear. We were told over and over again what a threat Iraq was. Such a threat should leave bigger footprints.

I don't think anyone on any "side" believes that Saddam didn't want WMD. Or wasn't interested in building them. The bill of goods that the adminstration sold us, however, was that Iraq already had them. And had them in significant quantities.

If we find a lab with some minor production, that won't satisfy.

Muammar al-Qadhafi probably has a lab or three. And we know he has supported terrorists. I'm guessing he has abused his people, and tortured prisoners too. Are we going there? What about back to Somalia? There might even be other leaders that abuse their people.

If we had a cabinet level department that was dedicated to post war reconstruction, that worked with the military, I would be a big fan. Then we could make our list, go in and kick ass, leave countries in good shape and move on. Say what you want about Imperialism, at least that would be consistant. And keep me from feeling that "WMD" was just a big excuse for a war we wanted.

Many of you have responded that, given time, we will find WMD's. On that point, we'll have to wait and see. But I have to agree with boatin; it is already blindingly clear that there was absolutely no imminent threat, and that the Administration was lying or greatly exxaggerating its claims about Iraqi power. Do you really expect us to believe that a nation that didn't use WMD's to defend its own capital was capable of launching terrifying nonconventional attacks on Western targets?


"The Defense Department claims 12 nations with nuclear weapons programs, 13 with biological weapons, 16 with chemical weapons, and 28 with ballistic missiles as existing and emerging threats to the United States. But only one of those countries sits atop the second largest oil reserves in the world."
Charles Peña, Senior Defense Policy Fellow of the Cato Institute, for The Chicago Tribune

I agree that it is a little premature to be judging the US handling of post-war Iraq. That said, our handling of Afghanistan was far less than stellar. In the vast majority of the country, the only difference between a Taliban-led and a US-led regime is the resumed production and export of opium. Karzai has come asking for aid to rebuild the country, and we have done little, now heavily financially involved in Iraq, and possibly Syria / North Korea next. We simply can't afford to continue fighting all these wars and rebuilding the countries we conquer, and the US is not going to stop its march of war. It is clear, then, where the sacrifice is being made.

You should go see a theater version of 1984 before you say Orwellian

It's hard to get your head around (in book form) the total and utter control that the state has in that world

I can see why you are worrying but untill sites like the TFP or any place of discussion are stopped dead - We are far away from 1984

rumsfeld said the other day in interview, "i don't think we'll find any weapons." he wasn't singing that tune a month and a half ago.

Well hey, we've got a President who has said "there ought to be limits to freedom" in regard to a website about him. We may be far away at this point, but we're headed in that direction. Patriot Act was a blow, and Patriot Act II, if it passes, may well be another crippling one.

Crimson, I can see why you would counsel against paranoia with the TFP still here and us being far from 1984; but I guess the whole point is that, in a way, we have to worry now while we still have the capacity to worry.

The worst oppression is when, through subtle manipulation, we lose the ability to even conceptualize lack of freedom.

A TFP where we were "free" to write but had not the minds to write a thread like this one would be scarier than no TFP whatsoever.

I disagree with this war, but I am surprised that they haven't found any WMDs yet.

Try a google search http://www.google.com/search?hl=sv&i...om%22+bush&lr= and you get all the sources you need.

And another GWB quote while we're on the subject of Orwellian:
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..."
--Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect

And you know what? He's right. Dictators have it much easier than democratically elected presidents. They can do whatever they want, even good things, without having to worry about morons/sheep/idiots voting them out of office for doing something harmless (example: getting a blow job).

Just because Bush says dictatorships are easier, doesn't mean you're on the way to a dictatorship. As long as you have a constitution, seperation of powers, and the right to speak your mind, you do not have, and will not have a dictatorship.

Here's a thought: suppose all those non-voting Americans would get up, and vote for an independent candidate in the next election... wouldn't that totally ruin any chances of the US ever becoming a dictatorship? If you don't like the politics or politicians, you can vote for someone else.

I'n not saying he's wrong about a dictatorship being a lot easier to run than a democracy, I just thought it was fitting considering what we are discussing.

I understood that. Just trying to put the unrealistic fears of "1984" to rest by exposing the truth behind the quote. :)

Just my two cents on the UK situation as this equally applicable there. I think we get something like 30% (Top o' my head figure, but fairly close) turnout to vote. Pretty scary, but without having viable alternative (I like the idea of having a "No good Parties available, please try again" check box) there is some serious apathy.

Also we haven't got a Bill Of Rights here. Closest thing is Magna Carta and that was made a joke of years before I was born. For all its faults the US still has quite a bit of freedom. (Not as much as some would like)

I think you are right.

By the time Nov. 2004 rolls around, Bush will loose, just like his old man who campaigned about "we kicked some Iraqi butt"

Well, "it's the economy stupid" is going to sink this Bush just like it did the last Bush.

With 2 million more American unemployed now verses pre Bush, and record deficits, and underemployment, and the cost of this tidy little war I don't think it will be long before ma and pa kettle say, "Hey, wait a minute...."

In 92 no-one thought Bush Sr. was beatable.

Wrong, just give it some time.

the problem i see there, unfortunately, is a lack of great democratic candidates. On a side note, when I vote in the next election, I will probably go Green, but my own vote for a third party does not change the almost certain reality that I will be governed by either a Democrat or a Republican.

Well let's see.


Separation of powers. The Supreme Court has already proven its ability to be partisan in the face of important national concerns. The Congress has bent over backwards to yield to this President, basically giving up its constitutional responsibility to be the arbiter of American involvement in war.

The Constitution. The PATRIOT Act has already made brutal attacks on the constitution. There are people rotting in jail cells right now who have been charged with no crime, have not been given access to an attorney, and are being held as "material witnesses"... witnesses to what, nobody will say.

The same act makes it cake for the federal government to wiretap and use CARNIVORE to intercept emails (I have firsthand experience, my cousin and his family got a visit from the Feds after they intercepted email correspondence with some family in Pakistan.) In addition, the institution of Military tribunals on civilians tried in terror-related cases makes the use of secret evidence (which a defendant and his attorneys have no access to) legal.

Most of the congressmen who voted for the Act admitted that it was so long they didn't even get a chance to read it first. Talk about bending over for the executive branch.

Yeah. We're certainly not at 1984, but the idea is to stop it before things get that far.

so, hiredgun... what you're basically saying is that there's an unconstitutional Patriot act, and a supreme court that doesn't do it's job.

Okay, how's about this: the supreme court will eventually do what it's supposed to do, and strike down the Patriot act.

If enough people oppose it and *say* they oppose it, it'll be gone.

Absolutely. So that's what I'm doing, opposing it.

Again, the idea of this topic was not that we are hopelessly confined to some paranoid police state. The idea is that we are starting to show signs of it, and that we need people to oppose measures that restrict our freedoms, and to filter through the BS and lies that our government sometimes feeds us.

Another deck of cards...
 

http://goddoubleplusblessamerica.org...ion_manual.jpg

More at http://yorick.infinitejest.org:81/1/cards.html

Regarding the erosion of liberties in America.

In upholding the provisions of the Patriot Act, Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said in a speech on March 18 that Americans' rights go far beyond the provisions of the Constitution.

What this means is that the opinion of the Supreme Court is that we have more "rights" than the Constitution says we should have and therefore we should not feel threatened by the Patriot Act, since many "rights" we enjoy aren't really guaranteed by the Constitution in the first place.

A provision of the Patriot Act compels libraries and bookstores to notify the government of the reading habit of "suspect" citizens. Who is a "suspect" citizen? That's up to John Ashcroft to decide.

Naturally, many people are concerned about libraries and bookstores keeping the government abreast of the reading habits of free people. Attorney General John Ashcroft has stated that this concern is misplaced. After all, according to Ashcroft, investigators must show probable cause before investigating which books we enjoy reading. But if our government is willing to monitor such treasonous acts as reading the wrong book, what will they decide is "probable cause"? Not supporting your president enough? Don't we have enough mouth-foaming extremists already of the opinion that badmouthing the president during wartime is treasonous? Is it such a stretch to conclude that this could be deemed as "probable cause"?

Some people say our concern over such Orwellian acts is unfounded and hysterical. Well, put me down as being hysterical because once my government decides that they need to know what I'm reading, I become concerned.

There is much to the argument that we are moving towards a more Orwellian society. However, I would propose that there is a good amount of "Brave New World" thrown in for good measure.

Some arguments have been made that we will never become an Orwellian society as long as we have places like the TFP at our disposal. As much as I love this site and enjoy the postings and the opinions of all the members here, what good are our opinions doing if all we're doing is stating them? The illusion of freedom does not freedom make. In my honest opinion, being able to state your opinion on matters such as these means nothing to us if, when we check out a book on Marxism at the library, our name is flagged. This flagging then results in us being told, "I'm sorry, Mr. So-and-so, but you're name has appeared on our list and you will not be able to purchase an airline ticket."

Check out the Travel Security Administration website. You may be denied the purchase of an airline ticket if you are considered "suspect". If you put a lock on a suitcase they will break it.
<b>The right of the people to be secure in their property and possessions against unwarranted searches and seizures shall not be infringed.</b>
They cite "security reasons." Read up on some of their laws.

Read the Patriot Act.

Add up all of these things and much more and I come to one conclusion.
Yes, I'm concerned.

Now I'm finsihed. I realize most people won't read the entire post, but thank you if you did. It's a bit wordy.