Hubble head

A good post Koy -I especially like the correlation to 1984 being Iraq and the US being the Brave New World. So true, so true. "Soma, anyone?"

ProNihil

Uh, I think you got the wrong idea here. I was attempting to get people to see what I was talking about in reference to the answers given when either I or Dubya say something and someone feels like responding. I was asking for people to point out the actual proper names for the fallacies they see. This in turn will help me learn all of them in a much more dynamic way, i.e. learning from stuff that I am interested in as opposed to memorizing the definitions of those fallacies in some dusty old tome. (something I will also be doing)

Insofar as presuming that only infidels are against G.W., I don't know where you got that. I could just as easily have posted sample dialogue beteween the Virgin Mary and our local paperboy. However, given the subject my first post and the particular discussion forum on which it resides, "internet infidels" I thought it appropriate.

Just Another Infidel

Good thread ProNihil. I feel militant Islam (Islamism) is currently the most threatening force in the world. When George Bush says "terrorist" he means "Militant Islamist".

I'm still waffling on this invasion, but I have arrived at what I think the real reason for conducting it is.

Initially I thought taking down Saddam was for Israel's benefit. I now think it's mostly about militant Islam and maintaining access to oil, but Israel's security gets improved also.

The West (USA/Europe) is the economic engine of the world. The West needs oil to survive. Without a steady flow of oil we're hosed. We need it for more than SUVs.

Our most oily friend in the middle-east is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are in jeopardy of succumbing to an Islamist uprising, fueled by a lousy economy, overpopulation and resentment of the citizenry towards the greedy and corrupt royal family.

Islamists are spreading their fundamentalist, intolerant form of theocracy throughout the middle east, central Asia and Africa. They are fueled by Saudi Petro dollars. Islamists (Wahhabi inspired Muslims) have no interest in human rights or personal freedom. They don't give a rats-ass about the world economy.

If the Islamists can gain significant political clout in the region they will turn the oil spigots off and on as they wish to exercise political/economic power over the West.

As unlikely as it is that Saddam would sell Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to Islamists, he might. The Iranian Mullahs (Shia Islamists) probably would.

By invading Iraq, establishing a somewhat representative government (friendly to the USA of course) and maintaining a potent military presence in the region, the U.S. is in a better position to ensure the oil keeps flowing and the Islamists can be contained through direct military/law enforcement confrontation and the gradual introduction of democratic regimes throughout the region.

My reservations:

I'm not in any way convinced that Bush & Co. will follow through effectively after ejecting Saddam. I'll be surprised if they can keep the Islamists from gaining a significant foothold in a Saddam-free Iraq.

I don't like the fact that innocent Iraqis will be killed and maimed, but I do know that of all the militaries in the world, the USA will take greater lengths than any other military on the planet to minimize those innocent casualties. I acknowlege that "lack of intent" is of little comfort to the victims.

The populations of the region aren't going to like our "colonial presence" no matter how nice we make it smell. This will work to the advantage of the Islamists. From what I've seen, Muslims will feel better towards militant Islamists than they will towards Infidel liberators. They've been indoctrinated that way since they were born.

Is it right to invade another country to stop a religious/political movement which threatens your way of life? I tend to think it is justified. It's damned unfortunate there isn't a better way though.


My $.02

JAI