Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Whatever happened to Afghanistan?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Bill, answer this question: Where did the money to attack the US on September 11, 2001 come from?

    Clue: It WASN'T Iraq!
    "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
    --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Jagged
      ninconpoops
      Noble Jagged, that is funny, I used the rare word myself a couple of days ago in a private mail. Do you intercept my mail - or did you read a lot of "Tintin" when you were younger. Old Captain Haddock had it in his particular vocabulary ...
      Google ergo sum

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Bill
        "Ooops, sorry Bush. You have backup from ninconpoops in the Congress."

        What kind of comment is that? You either argee with the system or you don't. As somebody else said here, you don't throw out the process just because you don't like the results.

        Or maybe you do. But that isn't what we are talking about in November, is it?
        Good point, Bill. *My* point is that something isn't necessarily The Truth because the US Congress agrees about it... Come on, we all know that they're all just fishing for votes. Well, not all, some do genuinely believe in what they're fighting for, and all kudos to them.

        But arguing that Bush is Forever Right because he has backup in the Congress doesn't make Him impugnable.
        "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Jagged
          But arguing that Bush is Forever Right because he has backup in the Congress doesn't make Him impugnable.
          Truer words were never spoken, though some will still deny them.
          "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
          --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by LEtranger
            Originally posted by Jagged
            ninconpoops
            Noble Jagged, that is funny, I used the rare word myself a couple of days ago in a private mail. Do you intercept my mail - or did you read a lot of "Tintin" when you were younger. Old Captain Haddock had it in his particular vocabulary ...
            Dear Etranger, Esq., I'm a great fan of Capt. Haddock's. He and Bianca Castafiore... and maybe that insureance salesman.... are characters that make an otherwise drab and stiffly drawn comic come to life. You know, the Danish translator (don't remember his name right now, I'll get it if you want), always translated capt. Haddocks swear-words alphabetically into Danish. Hergأ© got wind of it, and used the idea for his last published album about the Picaros.

            Swear-words are fun! Bush is a ninconpoop! a nitwit! a no-good!!!! Heee... I could go on.
            "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

            Comment


            • #21
              "Come on, we all know that they're all just fishing for votes. Well, not all, some do genuinely believe in what they're fighting for, and all kudos to them. But arguing that Bush is Forever Right because he has backup in the Congress doesn't make Him impugnable."

              This makes no sense to me; at what point do any of you think to yourself "whoa, I have this belief, but clearly the rest of the <world/country> don't share it, so mine must not be the only possible right answer?

              All but one Congressman voted. Doesn't make Bush impugnable, but that number clearly includes a most if not all of those that "believe in what they are fighting for". I am not saying that Bush is right becuase Congress said so. I am saying that at some point the naysayers HAVE to self-reflect that maybe their answer is only one of many possible right answers.

              Now on the other thread, after arguing that war is wrong for x months, there are a couple people arguing we should have gone to war with Saudi Arabia. Okay, not exactly, but it seems as though whatever argument can attack Bush will be made regardless of whether it makes sense or is consistent. At that point, I think the proponents of the argument HAVE to take a step back and say, does this make sense?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Jagged
                Dear Etranger, Esq., I'm a great fan of Capt. Haddock's. He and Bianca Castafiore... and maybe that insureance salesman.... are characters that make an otherwise drab and stiffly drawn comic come to life. You know, the Danish translator (don't remember his name right now, I'll get it if you want), always translated capt. Haddocks swear-words alphabetically into Danish. Hergأ© got wind of it, and used the idea for his last published album about the Picaros.

                Swear-words are fun! Bush is a ninconpoop! a nitwit! a no-good!!!! Heee... I could go on.
                :D :D :D :D :D :D Bashi-Bazouk, dunderhead, iconoclast, carpet-bagger! Ah, we have a lot to talk about. My all-time favourite is "Tintin in Tibet!" I read Tintin in English first as I only got those during my childhood in East Africa...
                Lot to talk about, but better not in this thread! We might get into crossfire.
                Google ergo sum

                Comment


                • #23
                  Interestingly enough, the media seems to feel the war in Iraq WAS Bush's baby:

                  "Powell's latest comments appeared to be his most explicit to date suggesting that the central argument for President Bush's decision to invade Iraq -- the belief it possessed weapons of mass destruction -- was flawed."

                  SOURCE: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6223036
                  (emphasis mine)

                  By the way, that's a story from today, not some old piece of news.

                  Besides, I get the distinct impression Bush wants to take full credit for the war. He sure seems proud of it (why, I can't imagine).
                  "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                  --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by PsychicWarVeteran
                    Interestingly enough, the media seems to feel the war in Iraq WAS Bush's baby
                    Maybe it was. Not an altogether healthy baby, but parents will love a sick baby, you know.

                    Originally posted by PsychicWarVeteran
                    "Powell's latest comments appeared to be his most explicit to date suggesting that the central argument for President Bush's decision to invade Iraq -- the belief it possessed weapons of mass destruction -- was flawed."
                    We all know by now that there're no mass destruction weapons in Iraq -- the question is, was there ground enough for Bush's paranoia to start a war and kill Iraqis and Americans for his suspicions?

                    Originally posted by PsychicWarVeteran
                    Besides, I get the distinct impression Bush wants to take full credit for the war.
                    Brave man. (Or just stupid?)
                    "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by PsychicWarVeteran
                      Originally posted by Bill
                      Not alone, and not without the full support of the U.S. Congress.
                      He said (yet again), fully ignoring Doc's comment: "Although Congress is ultimately responsibie and culpible, it would be hard for anyone to convince me that Bush wasn't the lead salesperson for the bait-and-switch."?
                      Thank you for recognizing such wisdom, PWV :lol:

                      I will repeat the logic in different words. Yes there is blame to go all around Washington. However, Bush, and others in his administration * pushed this war and it's rationale through Washington. They drove the train at a time when Bush could do no wrong in the eyes of many Americans, or at the very least when he had the fullest trust of the American people. I fault the drivers of the train more than the passengers.

                      Which leads me to consider...
                      In my view, Bush's biggest fault --period-- is his lack of accountability on anything negative that has happened while he was in office, yet he is running solely on "leadership." The economy tanks. It is Clinton's fault when the numbers are down, but the tax cuts cause the good numbers. Job losses were first Clinton's fault, then 9/11's fault, and then Clinton's fault again. When the numbers have a modest rebound, his tax cuts are responsible. Abu Ghraib had nothing to do with his watch. He blindly insists that there is a coalition in Iraq. He says that healthcare is doing fine, yet raises medicare premiums the next day, but it was the market that forced him to to it. He supposedly supports the assault weapons ban, yet does nothing to make sure Republican leaders do anything about it.

                      Sorry for the mini-rant. My bigger point is that I can't let Bush of the hook because Congress was supposed to be watching. When someone robs a bank, we blame the robbers, not the security guards.


                      * Everyone missed the obvious opening to use "neoconpoop" with all of the ninconpoop talk :lol:

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I agree with the notion that declaring war or going to war should be done as a last resort.
                        Why does Bush and Co. have a preemptive strategy against deemed enemies?
                        Are these enemies really going to blow us all up if they have a chance?(Maybe we deserve it? especially now)
                        If so, how? The WTC attack was ingenious and devastating, but really, can USA be destroyed by a group of terrorists? You'd actually need a huge army or nuclear weapons. Iraq had neither.
                        In this era, there is no Hitler. Was Saddam like Hitler?
                        Did we go after him because he was a part of and connected to 9/11? That's what Bush and Co. wanted us to believe. Some do believe that false belief still to this day.
                        So we went after Saddam because of 9/11 and his WMDs.
                        Other possibilities aren't possible and plausible?
                        It can't be because Bush wanted to settle a score with an old family enemy could it? (Time Magazine wrote an article of how W. Bush keeps Saddam's pistol as a trophy in his desk drawer. )
                        It's not because we're interested in the Middle East because we are dependent on oil? It's not because big business (Halliburton, Bechtel) make billions in the rebuilding process, reaping the benefits of a post-war setting?
                        Perhaps, "WMDs," "Saddam is a madman," "the Iraqui people want to be free," "we are stopping terror," and "we are safer now" makes more sense to you?

                        If you are so afraid of another terrorist strike on US soil with the magnitude of 9/11, which is a very rare event, why not build a bomb shelter, stock it full of supplies, and bar your doors? Why not instead refreain from going outside, because if you didn't notice, Bush's war on Terror isn't working. If you argue that it is working, how do you know? How do you assess it? How would you say it's successful?
                        Saddam being behind bars, isn't satisfactory. Some of the latest news is that our soldiers are still getting killed there. Innocent people are still being beheaded. Did I just not hear that 7 soldiers were killed? Did I just not hear US soldiers killed has surpassed 1000 dead now?
                        Iraq went from a controlled dictatorship to something less stable, more chaotic. As time goes on, I'd say it's looking even more similar to the Vietnam war.
                        An important question is still not being addressed...
                        Where is Osama bin Laden?
                        I thought we believed in justice? Well justice hasn't been served yet.

                        Do supporters of Bush even ask themselves half of the aforementioned questions? If not, why?

                        That's just the war issue. Is Bush up to par on other issues? Are they honest about what they have accomplished over the past 3.5 years in economics, education, and medical care? Are they being honest about what they plan on doing in a next term?
                        WTF? <-- had to put that one in there!
                        \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
                        Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Jerico wrote:
                          but really, can USA be destroyed by a group of terrorists? You'd actually need a huge army or nuclear weapons.
                          I think the USA could be seriously hurt by purely insurgent means, The first point about terrorists, that makes them different to your straight down the line criminals and psychos, is that they have a cause, And that cause is supported by a wider community of sympathisers who support the terrorist action with funds and materials.

                          the USA is composed of many different communities, some of whom have sympathy with the terrorists, or if not the terrorists, then the "cause" itself. The terrorist only has to make these communities see their goverment as "them" and the terrorists as "us" to cause a great deal of trouble indeed. as neighbour turns on neighbour etc..

                          secondly the US economy can be targetted, the greater the climate of fear, the less the US looks like a good place to invest, especially when a government in a declared state of emergency can seize personal property at will

                          also, the terrorists aim isn't to destroy the US (though I'm sure they'd like to) its to make the US dance to their tune, In the end the public might get sick of being scared and bombed and force their representives to bow to the terrorists demands (withdraw from the arab world etc)

                          enough trouble at home (economic and social) and the US would have to withdraw it's troops (including those performing important peace-keeping duties) and bring them home to put the house in order.

                          Just cos you can't count their H-bombs doesn't mean they aren't a serious threat, Million-dollar helicoptor gunships have been downed by men on horseback, the age of mechanised warfare (metal boxes shooting bits of metal at other metal boxes) is over ;)

                          bring on the networked battlefield! lost lives becomes lost data packets ;)[/quote]
                          \"It got worse. He needed something to cure himself. What? he asked. M-A 19 he answered.\"

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            "In my view, Bush's biggest fault --period-- is his lack of accountability on anything negative that has happened while he was in office, yet he is running solely on "leadership." "

                            I can't argue with that one bit. A little humility goes a long way. Probably the best line of Bill Clinton's DNC speech (the finest speech of BOTH conventions, in my opinion) was his self-deprecating reference to the mistakes he made.

                            "Why does Bush and Co. have a preemptive strategy against deemed enemies? Are these enemies really going to blow us all up if they have a chance?(Maybe we deserve it? especially now)"

                            What kind of statement is that? You are saying that if 9/11 happens again tomorrow that people in the Sears Tower or wherever, or on one of planes, deserves what they get?? The only way that is possible is if the people are therefore responsible in full for the actions of its leaders, whether they agree or not. By that logic, the war in Iraq is beyond reproach, isn't it?

                            See what I mean about the arguments? They don't have to make any sense at all, as long as they condemn Bush.

                            "If so, how? The WTC attack was ingenious and devastating, but really, can USA be destroyed by a group of terrorists? You'd actually need a huge army or nuclear weapons. Iraq had neither."

                            You would not. Although I personally believe that the airlines have used 9/11 as a crutch, there is a real possibility that another attack, if done in a certain manner, could cripple our air travel system. It would take only a short time before that rippled out to corporate America (and, as an aside, we would see how much benefit corporate America brings to the populace).

                            "In this era, there is no Hitler. Was Saddam like Hitler?"

                            How do you define that? Unless you are strictly counting numbers, why isn't he? Are you suggesting we should have waiting until Saddam killed 6,000,001 people before he merited attention?

                            "It can't be because Bush wanted to settle a score with an old family enemy could it? (Time Magazine wrote an article of how W. Bush keeps Saddam's pistol as a trophy in his desk drawer. )"

                            Of course this is possible; which is why we have a Congress and an electorate, to provide a check and a balance against such narrowly-focused (and unjustified) activity.

                            "It's not because we're interested in the Middle East because we are dependent on oil?"

                            Yeah, that less than 4% that Iraq supplies is a real killer. Ironically, everyone keeps calling this a war for oil, but we get almost no oil from Iraq.

                            "If you are so afraid of another terrorist strike on US soil with the magnitude of 9/11, which is a very rare event, why not build a bomb shelter, stock it full of supplies, and bar your doors? Why not instead refreain from going outside, because if you didn't notice, Bush's war on Terror isn't working. If you argue that it is working, how do you know?"

                            This is nonsense, and non sequitors. What is a bomb shelter going to do for me and my family when I board a plane? When I travel by train? When I go to a stadium to see a rock band? When I drink water from a public water supply? When I walk down 42nd Street in New York? So I have to live in a bomb shelter to prove I am scared of another (NOT SO RARE) terrorist attack?

                            So, you know and you can tell that it isn't working, but I can't tell and can't know that it is? I don't necessarily hold this dear, and am not arguing this from a personal perspective, but I think it is a plausible argument to say that any effort to distrupt or hamper a future terrorist attack can't hurt. Removing the leaders of known terrorist outfits can't hurt. It is also a plausible argument to make a statement that we absorbed a massive attack on our own soil, and yet were able to mobilze a strong military force in response.

                            "As time goes on, I'd say it's looking even more similar to the Vietnam war."

                            Yep, very similar; Vietnam lasted almost 20 years, with two strong potential ruling governments, one backed by the U.S., one backed by the Chinese vs. less than 2 years in Iraq, with one democratic government - albeit still finding its legs - and small rogue groups of insurgents. Like two peas in a pod.

                            "An important question is still not being addressed... Where is Osama bin Laden? I thought we believed in justice? Well justice hasn't been served yet."

                            So what is your question? It took, what, 20 years to find the Green River Killer? We are supposed to suspend all activity until we find Osama? Doesn't that kind of suggest that he won? There was a report on CNN a couple days ago that, according to leaders in Pakistan, we were closer than ever to finding him. Now, I give the leaders in Pakistan no credibility, but still...

                            "Do supporters of Bush even ask themselves half of the aforementioned questions? If not, why?"

                            Absolutely and every day. Do any of the ABB crowd consider the alternatives? I think less and less every day. ANYTIME you are willing to take on all comers instead of the known quantity, it tells me that there is an insurmountable bias. Let me put it this way: What if tomorrow we find Osama, and on Thursday, Bush recalls all troops from Iraq. Are you going to vote for him? I didn't think so. I'm pretty sure you'll find something else to criticize. As a life-long conservative, I'm supposed to give fair and equal consideration to John Kerry, but is there any circumstance in which you would vote for Bush? I didn't think so.

                            "economics, education, and medical care? Are they being honest about what they plan on doing in a next term?"

                            This is tough for me; I don't like what Bush has done here, but I don't like what Kerry is proposing to do here (when he actually proposes something). I'm still leaning against Bush for the tax reasons alone; I think the idea of another tax cut is potentially catastrophic for our economy, but the idea of increased taxes to pay for ill-founded programs isn't going to work either. Maybe Marlon Brando had the right idea...

                            "Million-dollar helicoptor gunships have been downed by men on horseback"

                            Black Hawk Down. And they weren't even on horseback.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Is this what they mean when they say, &quot;Bush Lies!?&quot

                              CHENEY MISLEADS ON IRAQ/AL-QAEDA CONNECTION Monday, 7:56 PM

                              All Bush does is mislead, misinform and make mistakes...but for some reason...there's STILL alot of people that aren't listening to the FACTS...and are planning on voting for him anyway!! I've never seen an administration that has counted on the American people's inattention, more than this one! And the worst part of it is...it seems to be working! So sad.

                              CHENEY MISLEADS ON IRAQ/AL-QAEDA CONNECTION

                              Displaying a brazen disregard for the facts, Vice President Cheney told an audience in Cincinnati Thursday that Iraq had "provided safe harbor and sanctuary...for Al Qaeda."[1] There is no evidence to support Cheney's claim. The 9/11 Commission - which spent months exhaustively studying the issue - concluded there was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda.[2]

                              After the release of the report, Cheney claimed there was "overwhelming" evidence of a relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq and that he had "probably" seen evidence that was not shared with the commission.[3] After investigating the matter, the 9/11 Commission found "it had access to the same information the vice president has seen regarding contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks." The commission also reaffirmed its position that it had not discovered a "collaboration-cooperation between al-Qaeda and Iraq."[4]


                              Sources:
                              1. "Cheney Says Iraq Harbored Al Qaeda," Los Angeles Times, 9/10/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3455399&l=54791.
                              2. "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed," Washington Post, 6/17/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3455399&l=54792.
                              3. "Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link," CNN, 6/18/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3455399&l=54793.
                              4. "9/11 Panel Upholds Iraq-al-Qaida Finding," ABC News, 7/7/004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3455399&l=54794.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Eva from Austin, Texas wrote to me...

                                "I hear that Cheney even backed Eastern European dictators because of "oil in the Caspean Sea." Has anyone heard of anything like that? I'll need to make another post somewhere about Cheney doing business with dictators, encouraging Bush to change laws for those business deals, and doing a little oil business with Saddam while at Halliburton. Of course, he asserts that he had no knowledge about this, but do you really believe that he didn't know about doing business illegally with one of our "enemies," and, just to think, he used to be a government official with Senior Bush. The Iraq invasion plan is an old, old plan. I'm willing to bet that Bush's prerogatory presidency had something to do with his super "control" over Congress, or maybe -- and I'm just speculating -- Congress felt a bit threatened by Dubya. After all, when 9/11 happened, Dubya buttoned down the hatches of the ship of state and promptly made sure that the "executive branch" would be allowed to carry on the "government," because he reinstated Eisenhower's old COG plan, for an underground sheltered govenment headquarters in case of attack. What he failed to do was to let Congress know about that and make preparations for other government officials, including the national legislature and the Supreme Court. It's kind of like every man and woman for themselves, considering the circumstances. Then enters the infamous "Ashcroft," who, at the beginning of the Bush administration's term, felt that Timothy McVie, who had been convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing, should get a fair trial. However, when push comes to shove, trials go out the window, and 'military tribunals' dictate the "punishment," without due process. Bush and Company shredded the Constitution on the day 9/11 happened, and they have no intention of restoring any liberties or rights to 'the people.' In fact, if anything, Patriot II will be worse. After all, John Ashcroft declared the streets of the United States a "war zone." Read the Patriot act for the wording 'war zone.' It makes a big difference, the 'language,' I mean."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X