![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sounds about right..
Sep. 18th, 2003 07:00 amNow that it's working again (if it's slashdotted when you get taken down by /. what does it mean when the LJ'ers take you down?):
Sep. 18th, 2003
Love my country, hate my government...
Sep. 18th, 2003 03:05 pmThis story summarizes a report I heard on NPR coming into work this morning; namely, that Bush is now disavowing claims of ties between al Qaeda and 9/11. While I suppose this is admirable, it doesn't bring back the hundreds of American lives and unknown numbers of Iraqi lives taken in the 'central front on the war on terror'.
Yes, Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator who oppressed his people and had imperial ambitions; one of dozens across the world, in fact. But because his once-feared military was crippled by 12 years of sanctions, and because his palaces swam on a sea of oil, he was 'special', 'integral', and 'essential' to the war on terror. Meanwhile North Korea plans to expand their nuclear capabilities, Iran and the Saudis are considering the nuclear question, India and Pakistan are no better off than they were a year ago, and who is next on our list, apparently? Syria. Amazing.
Know what's even more amazing, though? Our President actually has the balls to claim that the attacks on American soldiers in Iraq are proof positive of an al Qaeda-Iraq linkage. Duh! If you turn a backward, repressed country into an anarchic mess with porous borders, and then staff it with a moderate contingent of likely targets without the mandate to do what they should, you're very fscking likely to get terrorists coming in from all corners to take potshots at them!! Is this CIA-level analysis? Of course not, but it apparently escaped the neocons in their march to war, unless you actually consider the "flypaper strategy" argument a viable option. Weirder things have been suggested, but didn't we already have one haven of anarchy and discontent for them to flock to, i.e. Afghanistan?
Yes, Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator who oppressed his people and had imperial ambitions; one of dozens across the world, in fact. But because his once-feared military was crippled by 12 years of sanctions, and because his palaces swam on a sea of oil, he was 'special', 'integral', and 'essential' to the war on terror. Meanwhile North Korea plans to expand their nuclear capabilities, Iran and the Saudis are considering the nuclear question, India and Pakistan are no better off than they were a year ago, and who is next on our list, apparently? Syria. Amazing.
Know what's even more amazing, though? Our President actually has the balls to claim that the attacks on American soldiers in Iraq are proof positive of an al Qaeda-Iraq linkage. Duh! If you turn a backward, repressed country into an anarchic mess with porous borders, and then staff it with a moderate contingent of likely targets without the mandate to do what they should, you're very fscking likely to get terrorists coming in from all corners to take potshots at them!! Is this CIA-level analysis? Of course not, but it apparently escaped the neocons in their march to war, unless you actually consider the "flypaper strategy" argument a viable option. Weirder things have been suggested, but didn't we already have one haven of anarchy and discontent for them to flock to, i.e. Afghanistan?
