And as for the war, Afghanistan would’ve happened but Iraq wouldn’t have. Iraq happened because it was the agenda of a select few to create a US military presence in the middle of the middle east to create some tension with the hopes of reorganizing things in a way that favors the US and Israel, in addition to securing oil. This agenda isn’t the one of people like Al Gore or the kind of people Al Gore would’ve put into his cabinet. The people who wanted to do this very much dislike Al Gore.
I pretty much agree with that. I disagree slightly since we already have a presence in the Middle East and do a lot of work from Africa and Afgahnistan.
I agree that Iraq wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for the cabinet and their cronies in the legislative branch, et ceteras, I’m just saying they all get in power somehow, so the blame isn’t even entirely on them.
It’s not a one-man thing, where you remove Bush from office, cut off the monster’s head, and it stops. Nope, the monster would keep moving same as it did. That’s the worst part. If it were just Bush, his impeachement would actually mean something, if it were just he and his direct cronies, we just have to wait an administration for most of that to change up, but it’s a sickness within the American people as well. Whether the elections were stolen or not, the fact is, there were a whole lot of legimitate votes and support for these people. Because somebody waved the flag in their face, a whole bunch of Americans were willing to go out and strap on their jackboots.
Overall, though, I agree with Sin; Iraq would not have happened, at least under these circumstances, had Gore been President. All I want to change is to add that while the administration caused the war in Iraq, people caused the administration. It’s not a problem that will just be cut away in less than two years, because, I agree with Sin’s other comment, too; “No, they won’t.”
But the people with that agenda were more organized and dedicated than the people fighting against it. Furthermore, the American people supported that agenda, albeit for their own reasons that were mostly emotional and non-strategic. I doubt Al Gore or anyone else would have been able to stop the war.
Info: imagine you’re the president of Iran or Syria and the US REALLY doesn’t like you. The US says you sponsor terrorism and they have a history with you. All of a sudden, the US starts waving its hand, making stuff up about your neighbour and destroys him. All of a sudden, you have 150k-200k US troops at your door. What do you do?
Because somebody waved the flag in their face, a whole bunch of Americans were willing to go out and strap on their jackboots.
Overall, though, I agree with Sin; Iraq would not have happened, at least under these circumstances, had Gore been President.
But you see, the flag would have been waved in their face regardless of who was president or not. The Republicans were able to make people think Clinton wanted to shutdown churches, a gay lover, and take away people’s guns when they were out of power. They did it through propaganda. If Gore was president, he may not have invaded but the Republicans still would have been able to build support for a potential war. The support was already there WMDs didn’t mean anything for people - they were just a seemingly logical reason people used for something they already wanted to do, the real motivations of which were mostly emotional, the desire to project American military power(kick ass) and scare the world.
Re: Afghanistan, the expression “What goes around comes around” is somewhat fitting in this geopolitical play. The US supplied mujahideen with weapons and money to get rid of the Soviets, only to witness the rise of the Taliban and then Al Qaida in Opiumstan. To a certain extent, you can blame Zbigniew Brzezinski and Jimmy Carter for creating the Muslim Terrorist Apparatus.
This reminds me of the Brezhnev-era Soviet joke:
What’s the difference between propaganda in the USSR and the USA?
In the USSR, people know its false, in the USA people just lap it up and tell everybody else in the world that it is them who are wrong.
Well, with Bush in office, the neoconservatives could push the war through in just a few months. If you recall the end of 2002, it was really bizarre to see how he just started talking about Iraq out of the blue one day, for seemingly no reason. But because the neoconservatives were in charge, they could drum up support for the war, fabricate evidence, and ignore all dissenting opinions just long enough to start the war in early 2003. If they had to wait until the election in late 2004, and if they didn’t have access to official channels and the ability to bypass legitimate experts like Richard Clarke, it might have been harder to keep all of this up. I don’t really disagree with you, though - it would have still been quite possible.
Yeah, but you also have to take into account that the neocons were, by no means, the only people who wanted the war. The media wanted the war because war is always good for business. Oil companies, weapons companies, airline companies, pretty much all corporations wanted the war, because its good for business. Many religious organizations wanted the war for their own unfathomable reasons. All these elements were complicit in the hyping of the war, and they all would have been there irregardless of whether or not the neocons were in power.
But most of all, the American people were in such an emotional state after 9/11 that I believe the war was inevitable. They really wanted to kick Arab ass after 9/11, and Afghanistan wasn’t enough. There was also the paranoia about WMDs. Plus, as you yourself pointed out, the American people supported a similar war(Vietnam) 40 years ago, under a Democratic president!
I think if you look at the creation of the Roman Empire, you really see something similar going on with America. The Romans invaded the nations that surrounded them for essentially the same reason being given to us for the invasion of Iraq - to remake those regions with Roman values and infrastructure, so that they would then be less dangerous to Rome. The impetus for this was based on the paranoia and ego of the Roman people, and not dependent on any lone conspiracies. In fact, the general policy of “invade country cause they can’t take care of themselves and are a thus a threat to us” continued for almost a century through different administrations in the Republic.
Though, I think America will not go that path. I think people have really learned the dangers of sending the military out to “slay dragons”. Evidence of this can be seen in the fact that most people don’t want to invade Iran, even though the Iranian government almost publicly states its intention to acquire nuclear weapons over and over again.
No, it will. Maybe it won’t within our lifetimes, but the American empire will fall for the exact same reason that the Roman empire or the English empire or several other empires have fallen: overextension. I sincerely doubt that we will stop invading countries to “protect” them considering that we have been doing so since at least the 1940s.
Also, historians may have learned from history, but the average American doesn’t even read a full book unless they absolutely have to read it.
Here’s a major difference: Rome’s neighbors were actually a danger to them. A big danger. Throughout history groups have attempted to conquer each other, I suppose because the spoils of war are a wonderful thing to take home.
The impetus for this was based on the paranoia and ego of the Roman people, and not dependent on any lone conspiracies.
I think the basis for this was rather the Sabines’, Etruscans’, and numerous other tribes’ attempts to subjugate the Romans. If you did not defend yourself in the ancient world, a stranger would come pillage your posessions and rape your women. The strong took what they will. Whether this is still the case is a matter of dispute. I think it is more likely that the strong are no longer so disproportionately so.
In fact, the general policy of “invade country cause they can’t take care of themselves and are a thus a threat to us” continued for almost a century through different administrations in the Republic.
In reality, it was probably closer to “Hey, free gold and pussy.”
Only a small percentage of romans were actually soldiers. Most of the peasants did not get ‘free gold and pussy’ from the invasions - in fact, their lives were only made harder, since they had to pay for the wars.
I think some are underestimating the impact the lie that “Saddam/Iraq supports Al Qaeda” had on building public sentiment for this war. I suspect that if such falsities weren’t advertised across the whole media, then people may not have been as enthusiastic for the war. I think a big reason for the war, more than maybe even the “UN violations” was that people believed Iraq was procuring weapons with the intent of selling them to terrorists. Afghanistan would’ve been invaded regardless of who was president, but I doubt other administrations would’ve taken the war to Iraq who didn’t <i>already</i> want to go there.
Curtis: I wouldn’t say they were more dedicated. It was just that there were more of them, and more of them could vote. Combined with the fact that the media did its damnedest to make anyone who protested look Un-American, the protestors were not allowed political power, regardless of dedication.
And on the Roman point about it wasn’t “free gold and pussy,” no. No no no no no no no no no no no no no. You’re wrong. Agriculture is the entire reason Rome became an Empire and went to war so much. Greece’s warllike nature is explained thus, too. Farmers got more, better soil to farm more profitable grains in, their landowners got wealtheir and could afford to charge less for land because they got more of it, everyone benefited. War was largely necessary for the stability of Rome’s fragile economy. When Rome stopped fighting, the economy it had been too busy fighting to develop just started to corrode. That’s, eventually, why Rome began to fall more and more to pieces. Pussy, maybe not, but Gold, everybody in Rome got the gold from its wars.
Next up, note that while Iran states its intent to have nuclear waeapons, America already has them. We’re just as dangerous as Iran with them, really. Secondly, a three front war? People don’t want one of those because, although very dumb, most of them are not dumb enough to miss what usually happens when one fights those; one loses.
GAP: I’d say even before the 1940s; the Spanish American war was to save/protect the people of Cuba and the Phillipines, after all.
Otherwise, my opinions fall pretty much exactly with those of GAP and SK.
Merlin: That is the heart of the matter of how much Bush and co. are to blame. I’ve said many times I think that people just wanted the war for emotional reasons, and that they just needed WMDs as an excuse. However, there’s no way to prove this either way.
But, assuming WMDs were the main reason people supported the war, consider how easily Bush and co. were able to make the lie, and how easily propagandists would have been able to make it regardless of which administration was in power. Clinton was forced to adopt an agenda very unlike the one he originally planned, first by Republicans out of power. Health Care and Gay marriage both failed when the Dems had control of Congress and the Presidency. Later, the GOP won Congress. That goes to show how much real power the President has when he goes against the wishes of the majority. I think if Gore was president, you would have seen something like in '94, where the GOP whipped their constituents into a frenzy. This would have led to the GOP gaining massive control of Congress if Gore didn’t start talking about invading Iraq.
Generally, I don’t think democratic leaders have much control over the policies they adopt. If they go against the majority, their policies fail, and if they persist they’re voted out of office.
Arac: I don’t remember a lot about Roman history, so I’ll just take your word for it.
What Sil says about invading the Celts is true - they were a invading Rome and thus a real danger. But a significant part of the empire - the eastern Mediterranean kingdoms left over from Alexander the Great - were stable, and Rome did invade those kingdoms in part because of paranoia.
It was profit more than paranoia. Roman government and economy when Rome was at war. For all the governmental influence it had on the future, its actual governent was pathetic in its execution. When Rome wasn’t at war with the outside, it ended up fighting itself because it’s economic and political systems could not sustain themselves. This got worse as the empire grew and diversified, especially when it created the God-empire to unite it’s oversized conquest. It eventually got to the point where War’s unifying power no longer unified Rome and it ended up having crippling internal battles while it fought outside wars, until it stopped fighting the outside, curled up in a little ball and all-but waited for the Goths to come in and deal the deathblow.
One text on the history of Rome I read explained the idea as “Imagine yourself running, when you lose balance and begin to fall. To regain your balance, you quicken your step and move faster, and every time the fall starts to catch up to you, you run faster. You know you’re going to fall eventually, and you know it will be harder the faster you’re going, and thus that all this work to keep falling is in vain, but you cannot let yourself fall. Picture this, and you picture the prosperity of post-Augustus Rome.”
Moving faster and faster, insisting on growing more and more in every way. Momentum can only maintain balance for so long, though, and rather than take the worse fall, people hold out as long as they can, sometimes, and wait for the horrifical, final fall. The Japanese economic collapse of the '80s is an example of a time when people just let themselves fall and then got up and started walking again, a little slower, but they did start walking. Same with China after the Shang, Zhou, or Qin dynasties. Rome, and America, just fall. They don’t get back up the same ever again. It’s one of the two ways of history. The cycle, where you take little falls and get up, and the line, where you wait to fall until you run yourself off the edge of a fucking cliff. It’s not all that final, Rome is still a city and all, but Rome was really never an Empire again (the Holy Roman Empire being mostly made up of Franco-Germanic people), and probably won’t be for a very long time, if ever.
That’s very interesting, Arac. However, America has taken its falls over many times instead of just waiting for the big one. Our whole history is full of a variety of fuck-ups that would have destroyed lesser nations, but we always recovered.
