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

  • #31
    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


    • #32
      Originally posted by M-A_19
      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)....
      By what Bush and Co say, that certainly isn't the impression they give. You know their rhetoric doesn't present the issues as they really are, complex. All they care about is to get people's support, and will distort info, and lie about it as they see fit. The way they speak makes people think that we will all be killed by terrorists if we don't kill them first.

      Originally posted by M-A_19
      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]
      Are you a Bush supporter? The terrorists are a threat to a fraction of the large population of USA at any given time dependent on how well they execute a successful attack.
      Yes they can attack us economically. no doubt, the WTC destruction was a huge blow. It still doesn't justify nor answer why are we in Iraq?
      Consider this...
      I see the political system of USA a bigger threat to itself, than terrorists are. I doubt Michael would argue with that. Have you read about what Michael and what other knowledgable people on here have written?
      Mike has written that USA politics hasn't progressed. It seems to him like the stuff of the 19th century. And I recall him writing how there are similarities between present-day USA and the Soviet Union before it collapsed.
      back to the main point...
      How is the president's preemptive policy successful in stopping the threat of terrorism? Like Jerico pointed out, how do you measure success in this matter?

      Comment


      • #33
        [quote="LoE"] Are you a Bush supporter? The terrorists are a threat to a fraction of the large population of USA at any given time dependent on how well they execute a successful attack.

        No, a properly run terrorist campaign is a threat to the whole population. Once the terrorists give the impression of being able to strike anywhere (new york, the pentagon, sounds like pretty much anywhere to me) then everybody runs the risk of being a victim of terrorism. The feeling of being threatened is the brain making a reasonable calculation of risk based on the information available. I think the whole US population (apart from the sympathetic communities I mentioned earlier) feels threatened.

        Originally posted by LoE
        Yes they can attack us economically. no doubt, the WTC destruction was a huge blow. It still doesn't justify nor answer why are we in Iraq?
        I wasn't seeking to justify the war in Iraq, I was merely illustrating how dangerous an enemy who posesses neither nuclear, nor significant conventional weapons can be.

        Originally posted by LoE
        Consider this...
        I see the political system of USA a bigger threat to itself, than terrorists are. I doubt Michael would argue with that. Have you read about what Michael and what other knowledgable people on here have written?
        Mike has written that USA politics hasn't progressed. It seems to him like the stuff of the 19th century.
        fantastic! back to the days of Thomas Paine, thats what I say!

        Originally posted by LoE
        back to the main point...
        How is the president's preemptive policy successful in stopping the threat of terrorism? Like Jerico pointed out, how do you measure success in this matter?
        There is less terrorism on the US mainland than there was before Bush started his foriegn adventures, however the "threat" of terrorism has increased.
        \"It got worse. He needed something to cure himself. What? he asked. M-A 19 he answered.\"

        Comment


        • #34
          Personaly I wanted to vote for McCain in 2000, because I think he is genuine.
          Originally posted by Bill
          "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."

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by M-A_19
            [
            There is less terrorism on the US mainland than there was before Bush started his foriegn adventures...
            Really? I don't agree with that and I don't know exactly how you came up with that conclusion, but thank you for your response.

            Comment


            • #36
              Eva from Austin, Texas is no doubt a well-meaning person, and thank god she is engaged enough to care about these things. More power to her!

              BUT, her statements are a clear example of the fact that you can stack up a bunch of individual facts and no more achieve truth than you can stack up a bunch of letters and achieve words.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by M-A_19
                No, a properly run terrorist campaign is a threat to the whole population..
                I don't feel threatened by terrorists.
                I'm way more concerned with the economy, health care, and education way more than terrorism.
                I wholeheartedly believe if there was no "war on terror," I could still go on a flight somewhere, or visit the Marine Bases here (plausible targets, yes?) everyday for the rest of this year, knowing that the chance of me being killed by terrorists is slim and almost none--
                even if the president were to completely ignore or fail to recieve an intelligence document with a title such as "Terrorists will strike somewhere in the Continental US soon!"
                Well maybe I'm not an ordinary Joe. Even when the president says "we are no longer protected by oceans (actual Bush quote)" I don't get scared. I actually detect that right away as something "loaded," and disingenuous. And then within the same speech will say something like "we are safer because we removed a madman from power," sounds contradictory to me.
                What's been done to counter-act terrorism by this administration is not the best way. In fact, I hardly call it anti-terrorism. What i think is closer to the truth is a neo-con group, pushing an agenda it has had for a while and capitalized on an unfortunate event to have the support it needed to accomplish it, with little resistance from the rest of the "democracy."

                -----------------------
                http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/anal...ulnerability.h

                "Twice on February 10, President Bush used an odd phrase to refer to America pre-September 11. Speaking to a conference of religious broadcasters in Nashville, he said: "Before September the 11th, 2001, we thought oceans would protect us forever." Then, at an informal press conference with Prime Minister John Howard of Australia, Bush said: "The world changed on September 11. . . . In our country, it used to be that oceans could protect us--at least we thought so."

                [I'm sorry, but I think he has no business using "we" in his sentences. --Jer]

                This phrase is nothing new for Bush. At least 29 times in the last seven months, he has invoked this nineteenth century, Eden-like existence for the United States. Here are some other examples: On October 7, he said, "The attacks of September 11 showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger."

                Aha! The Fear Game I call it!
                I must plug my nose! The stench of "you know what" is overwhelming!!
                \"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


                • #38
                  There's probably a lot of "gems" here...

                  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search
                  \"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


                  • #39
                    REPORT SHOWS BUSH NEGLECTING HUNT FOR AL QAEDA

                    In the months after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush promised America he
                    would make the hunt for al Qaeda the number one objective of his
                    administration. "[We] do everything we can to chase [al Qaeda] down and
                    bring them to justice," Bush said. "That's a key priority, obviously, for me
                    and my administration."[1] But according to a new report, the President has dangerously underfunded and understaffed the intelligence unit charged with tracking down al Qaeda's leader.

                    The New York Times reports "Three years after the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency has fewer experienced case officers assigned to its headquarters unit dealing with Osama bin Laden than it did at the time of the attacks." The bin Laden unit is "stretched so thin that it relies on inexperienced officers rotated in and out every 60 to 90 days, and they leave before they know enough to be able to perform any
                    meaningful work."[2]

                    The revelation comes months after the Associated Press reported the Bush
                    Treasury Department "has assigned five times as many agents to investigate Cuban embargo violations as it has to track Osama bin Laden's" financial infrastructure.[3] It also comes after USA Today reported that the President shifted "resources from the bin Laden hunt to the war in Iraq" in 2002.
                    Specifically, Bush moved special forces tracking al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and into Iraq war preparations. He also left the CIA "stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan."[4] That has allowed these terrorists to regroup: according to the senior intelligence officials in July of this year, bin Laden and other top al Qaeda leaders are now directing a plot "to carry out a large-scale terror attack against the United States" and are overseeing the plan "from their remote hideouts somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."[5]

                    Sources:

                    1. "President Calls for Ticket to Independence in Welfare Reform,"
                    WhiteHouse.gov, 5/10/02,
                    http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3439607&l=55681.
                    2. "C.I.A. Unit on bin Laden Is Understaffed, a Senior Official Tells
                    Lawmakers," New York Times, 9/15/04,
                    http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3439607&l=55682.
                    3. "More Agents Track Castro Than Bin Laden," Common Dreams News Center,
                    4/29/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3439607&l=55683.
                    4. "Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions," USA Today, 3/28/04,
                    http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3439607&l=55684.
                    5. "Officials: Bin Laden guiding plots against U.S.," CNN.com, 7/08/04,
                    http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3439607&l=55685.
                    \"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


                    • #40
                      Where is Osama bin Laden?

                      It's an important question right?
                      Where is Osama bin Laden? The previous post shows why that might be a difficult question to answer.
                      And I'd say one of the correct answers is... BUSH DOESN'T CARE.

                      In case you missed it...

                      http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor.../13_Laden.html

                      "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
                      - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

                      "I am truly not that concerned about him."
                      - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
                      3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

                      Hmmm... I wonder why Dubya doesn't care?

                      ------------------------------
                      Did you see the linked webpage?
                      Now that shows a FLIP-FLOP if I've ever seen one! :P
                      \"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


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Jerico
                        Originally posted by M-A_19
                        No, a properly run terrorist campaign is a threat to the whole population..
                        I don't feel threatened by terrorists.
                        I'm way more concerned with the economy, health care, and education
                        Yeah, the US economy does seem to have reached a climax under Clinton and then slid off. Quite a few things climaxed under Clinton I've heard ;)

                        I think you are unusual in the US at the moment, in not feeling threatened by terrorism. Though you are probally right about the domestic threat being slight i don't think you can say that Bush's general tightening up of domestic security has nothing to do with that.

                        I remember when the IRA bombed my town, I was disturbed that there was a bunch of people who wanted to kill me just because of where I was born, and for a long time afterwards It would be in the back of my mind when I was shopping in major cities.
                        \"It got worse. He needed something to cure himself. What? he asked. M-A 19 he answered.\"

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Well I'm all for having tightened security.
                          But if anyone believes that the US has well guarded
                          borders now, much better than pre-9/11, it's not true.

                          Don't get me wrong Mr. MA, I do think terrorism is a
                          big issue, but I refuse to let it to affect my life/ behavior.
                          If i want to visit Washington D.C., I will go. Thoughts of
                          buildings there blowing up won't stop me.
                          In my opinion, what's going on with USA's economy,
                          education, and health care (etc.) is of much more concern
                          than terrorism. And the cost of the war, in terms of both
                          money and lives, adds more to the problems, rather than
                          solving any.

                          I've heard that you lose to terrorism when you do what you want them to do. Like Spain kotowing during their elections.
                          Perhaps the terrorists are wanting to do the same with USA?
                          The thing for us to do, is to not be affected by any threats right?
                          Carry on with our election process as normal I'd say. Sure, beef-up security in likely target areas, fine.

                          In my opinion, when Americans buy into the "Fear Game" that President has going for himself, they are doing what the terrorists want-- living in fear. (Consider the example I posted: "we are no longer protected by vast oceans..." How can you not question that kind of statement? Does that mean the terrorists are more capable nowadays of getting here by boat and plane? They wear better disguises nowadays? Just listen to Bush's rhetoric. It's simple, and allows me to easily see what the "latent," underlying message is-- "we are no longer protected by oceans" = be afraid, but don't worry, I'll get them; invading Iraq was the right thing to do.)

                          I'd say 9/11 WTC happened because the terrorists had the financial backing and an ingenious plan, coupled with a lack of diligence and vigilance by USA's leaders in Intelligence and the White House. Without that combination of circumstances, the tragedy couldn't have occurred.
                          Don't take my word for it even, consider what the 9/11 Investigation Committee and Washington insiders had to say.
                          \"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


                          • #43
                            Here...
                            talk to this guy...

                            http://journals.aol.com/armandt/sense/
                            \"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


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Bill
                              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?
                              I can only speak for myself here... and the answer is, all the time. Most people around me in my daily life are middle-rightish, but my aspiration, really, is to be a thinking creature, not a lemming. Who knows, one day I may succeed!

                              Bill... you're really too good for such a line of argument. You put your case, and that doesn't make me claim you don't try to understand mine.

                              Originally posted by Bill
                              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?
                              Now that you mention it, a war with Saudi does make as much sense as the war with Saddam's Iraq. When it comes to human rights, I need a magnifying glass to tell the difference. And when it comes to connections to Osama bin Laden, it would strike me to look to Saudi before a secular dictatorship with no obvious relations to him. [EDIT: of course we can rule out oil interests here. That's the interest of the French froggies, as Bill pointed out in another thread about The Coalition taking action against Iraq without waiting for the UN.]

                              Now for today's Jeopardy: Which American politician said something about right-wing dictators, going something like, "They're bastards, but they're our bastards."
                              "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Jerico
                                Why does Bush and Co. have a preemptive strategy against deemed enemies?
                                To me, it sounds a lot like an excuse to attack anybody you like. If somebody says, "They hadn't done you anything", you can always say, "No, but I'm sure they wanted to."

                                Pre-emptive war is a startling innovation in international politics, and it's a wonder the concept hasn't got more attention than it has. Not even the former Soviet Union would have dared to make an argument like that, although some of their rhetorics have obviously been taken over by the Bush government. Take the "terrorist" word. Is anybody in this forum as old as me, so that they can remember the vilification and hate-speech made by Western countries against Soviet when Breznev attached the term "terrorists" to some bearded religious fanatics in... Afghanistan?

                                So long as the Talebans were up against the commies, they were freedom-fighters, almost heroes, weren't they? Spirited religious souls against the atheist Evil Empire. Only when the Evil Empire fell in the late 1980'es did the Bible bashers remember that they happened to be of the wrong religion...
                                "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X