Paul Phillips

Everything you write is absolutely true, well written, and very convincing. To me. Unfortunately, the people who need to be convinced cannot be convinced. They have an unwavering, unshakable, and completely irrational confidence that they are doing the right thing. Any kind of change will have to wait two years for a new administration. All we can do is hope that the death toll in the next two years will motivate enough public pressure that both candidates (whoever they may be) will have to promise to end this fiasco in order to get elected.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

People that its truly need to be convinced is so hard to do it. In few word we are destroying a nation. Nation that involves people that is innocent, we need to work hard to make out good persons that work together.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

It looks like you read quickly. You might want to absorb David Brin's blog at www.davidbrin.blogspot.com. Of all the other commentators I read online, you two seem like the most natural allies.

If the whole thing is too much, consider these arguments from him:

That the war on terrorism was won to the extent it could by by the citizens of Flight 93 proving Americans had the will and backbone to defend themselves: http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/07/illusion-of-public-panic-and-power-of.html

That the current administration is waging war on the officer corps of our military: http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/04/officer-corps-fights-back-shall-we.html

And, in an article rather than a blog post, that the left vs. right paradigm for evaluating politics has lost its usefulness: http://www.davidbrin.com/realculturewar1.html

I've almost brought him to your attention half a dozen times since I began following your journal here. He has a creative perspective, and some actual ideas about how to improve things.

(Reply) (Thread)

But wait, Paul. What about the lucky Iraqis we've "liberated"? Aren't they happy we're there? Hmm. Looks to me like about 60% of Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

If Japanese planes bombed Pearl Harbor during the Dubya presidency, I get the feeling that he'd somehow end up invading North Korea, because (1) he's always wanted to, and this is what passes for his excuse, (2) he honestly can't tell the difference between the two, and (3) he'd get away with it because most of the public also can't tell the difference.

(Reply) (Thread)

I'd be curious to hear what post-WWII America thought about Japan, Germany, and Italy. Sixty years later, all three nations are participants in world economy and no American fears for his or her life while traveling there.

What's different about the Middle East nations? Is it their culture, their religion, their people, their leaders? Is the end-goal of making them participants in the world economy even viable? Because that's what I believe is the key - give them the opportunities we all take for granted and all of the sudden becoming a suicide bomber seems less appealing.

Is the US going about things in the wrong way? Data would suggest yes. But I'm sure it's harder than anyone thought it was going to be. Should that make us stop trying? If your premise is that regardless of intent, the US is executing their plan atrociously, then I can only agree. It's just that I can't offer a better solution. I don't believe doing nothing is the correct choice either.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

The points you bring up are the elephant in the room. The problem is not to get people to agree with you, it's to acknowledge that the elephant, that we all know is there, is actually there. However, this is where the Christianism that dominates the political landscpe is so powerful: You are trying to keep a group of people with a good sense of cognitive dissonance sold on the war by saying "everyone else is lying," and lucky for you, you found the most receptive possible audience to this argument.

We are now in a dollar auction. The bid is at two dollars.

(Reply) (Thread)

On a similar note does anyone ever recall US television showing any John Pilger (if anyone has ever heard of him) Documentaries? (He's an Australian born journalist based in the UK who has nmade numerous television documentaries and written several books). I know that I have seen many on UK television but there seems to me to be a distinct lack of anti government view documentaries on US television (admittedly I don't live there but its my perception nonetheless).

Unlike Michael Moore who seems to only produce very biased "Documentaries" that further his own agenda I find it refreshing when you get a proper journalist presenting very strong arguments to support alternate views to the government line on a number of issues not to mention his work on many disasters that have befallen various poeple around the world.

I would strongly recommend all of his documentaries as compelling viewing and with regard to Iraq particualrly the following two;

"Paying The Price - Killing The Children of Iraq" 2000

"Breaking The Silence - The Truth and Lies in The War on Terror" 2003

But for anyone interested here's also a link to his website as I find him one of the better political journalists I have come across and he puts together some very good material.

http://www.johnpilger.com

(Reply) (Thread)

Three Hundred Billion Dollars?

Did anyone check to see how much it would be to buy Iraq?

(Reply) (Thread)

I think I'm going to check out that "Letter to a Christian Nation" book.

(Reply) (Thread)

In any religion you have blind faith. Why should this one be any different. In this case the religion is, amongst other things, that of the neocon movement. It is a blind faith. Like many religions, you DONT want to surround yourself with people who dont believe, because you have a monopoly on truth. You know you are correct, non believers are just ignorant.

Convincing this administration that what they are doing is wrong is like trying to convince a Devout Christian that Jesus is not the son of God. Or an Orthodox Jew that it is OK to eat pork, or convincing a Muslim that Mohammad was not a prophet. These are not easy things to do.

Of course this is one of many reasons that we are supposed to have separation church and state. Now the religious right pretty much argues that we SHOULD have religious overtones from government. The danger is obvious. Of course if you are a neocon, I guess the danger is if we dont.

As to the fox news thing, in your blog (and I have not gone back to refresh my memory), I think I pointed out that it was a little scary that they only wanted to surround themselves with those who agreed. At the time I think you found it a joke. Where I dont exactly find it sinister, and I take your use of the phrase as a bit of hyperbole, I do find it scary.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

The problem is less with this specific administration than with the American view that westernization, democracy, and capitalism are the ONLY correct ways to run a country, an economy, and a continent. This administration is the extreme extension of that view, with the stimulus of 9/11 triggering a military implementation.

They’re the 21st century’s answer to the Crusades, just with a capitalist, democratic message traveling around the globe, forcing the heathens to listen to the power of one man, one vote, one SUV. Every president has had this kind of imperialistic tendency; it’s ingrained in their power struggle to enlarge the “Free World”. After all, if you’re the LOTFW, you should want TFW to be as big as possible. Bush simply had a knee-jerk excuse to use the military.

Is he doing a crappy job of it? Clearly. But your “solution” of doing nothing wouldn’t be much better. Terrorists would have seen inactivity as a sign of docility; “Stupid Americans. We destroyed their buildings and they stood by and watched”. If you think they would have suddenly scaled back their anti-American attacks, you’re grossly mistaken. If the neighbor’s dog shits in your yard, and you don’t do anything about it, odds are that he’s gonna keep shitting in your yard. Of course, invading someone else’s house ain’t gonna stop him either.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

In late '04 you wrote

"I'm glad bush won, mostly because I so loathe michael moore and it is wonderful to see him fail in his attempt to subvert the political process."

I think Moore is an idiot but it really was more serious than that. FWIW it may also be that ecological issues are more serious than you give them credit for being. There are fools proselytising but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

perhaps "a better solution" would've been better termed "a better approach." point taken. there can be many approaches to one problem. asking a non-rhetorical question about what would've been a better counter to terrorism is hardly a black or white argument and therefore is not a fallacy of the excluded middle. perhaps the tone of the question did not carry, i genuinely posed the question.

i do not align myself with conservatism nor liberalism, i prefer to thoroughly examine one issue at a time, in efforts of achieving reasonableness. my mind can be changed if i am shown a more appealing side to an argument, and i even alluded to the fact i agree that the invasion of iraq is heavily flawed.

i understand that an eye for an eye makes the world go blind, but i honestly do not know a better way of trying to protect yourself and the ones you love from continually being attacked? overreacting goes a long way in deterrence. there are other options, i am not denying that. but are there more effective options? should we try and understand the "terrorists" needs? maybe, i honestly don't know. the underlying question is whether or not you think these attacks were provoked. however selfish america may be i do not think that the killing of our civilians was provoked. if you believe that we provoked the "terrorist" attacks then you are probably more likely to disagree with returning deadly force.

i don't think anyone who commits a lot of thought to forming an argument against killing "terrorists" in the manner that we are doing is a "pussy". i rather enjoy pussy and understand its importance in human duality. we all want to protect our families and american soil. unfortunately the leaders of america (incompetent or not...ok incompetent), do not enjoy the luxury of suggesting that doing nothing is better than TRYING to come up with a solution.

paul's lack of an attempt at a solution and what he likely considers to be my short-sighted neanderthal attempt at a solution, can both be prodded endlessly, which is fun if we were in a philosophy class.

i am more interested in fusing the different opinions to TRY and form a practical solution. if everyone agrees, no one is thinking.

i will probably read the books paul mentioned, i usually do. hope i didn't run the risk of being deemed an asshole for disagreeing. i usually agree with the blog posts and b/c of them am often introduced to more lucid thinking. i'd like to think a diverse opinion is valued here and that's the basis for its dissection.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

I just finished reading a superb Iraq book called Shooter: The Autobiography Of The Top-Ranked Marine Sniper. It doesn't delve much into the politics of the situation, though the author supported Rumsfeld's tactical decision to wage a fast-moving "shock-and-awe" war with fewer troops.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

I agree with what you've written, Paul. So much of what has happened should have been obvious to the planners before we invaded. From the beginning I've wondered how could we ever expect a country dominated by three different religious groups (one of which held a slim majority) to be an effective democracy?

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

Money is the only reason the administration fabricated this fiasco...Those who sell million dollar missiles are making a killing on this war, so are those who won contracts to "rebuild" all the stuff that those same missiles destroyed...It's win/win/win for the profiteers: tax money pays private companies to fight the war, tax money pays private companies to clean up the mess...plus the chaos brought to the region justifies absurd increases in private company's gas prices...(or am i the only one who thinks record profits of the oil industry is NOT a coincidence...)

People will say anything when hundreds of millions of free dollars are at stake, even heads of state...Out of that 300 Billion, how much has been actually accounted for? You've got to be kidding me - this war isn't about ANYTHING but money...the administration never intended to actually win, if we win - then no more "special wartime appropriations"...

(Reply) (Thread)

If you haven't read these yet:

The Republican War on Science, by Chris Mooney
and
How Would a Patriot Act? by Glenn Greenwald

They've enraged me beyond what I thought political happenings could ever do, and they don't even cover the Iraq war.

ps - this is the hardest spam robot text test i've ever taken.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

what really made me upset today was that the guy in colorado that sexually assaulted and reportedly killed a young girl hasn't been labeled a terrorist. isn't what he did just as bad if not worse than what any "terrorist" has done to us? do you have to be arab to be a terrorist? how can we win a war against him or anyone like him? impossible.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

This is not an attempt to refute the full post, as I haven't shared those readings.

One fact is we will never know the alternate history where we don't invade Iraq. Saddam might have imploded, he and his sons might have ruled for 50 years, or any of infinite other possibilities. The administration decided that taking him down was better than the likely alternatives - it wasn't a positive play, it was an attempt to choose a bad outcome over a worse one. And we can never know if the "worse one" was really worse. There are many measures - we would have spent less, but more Iraqis would have been killed/tortured/imprisoned etc. No way to know for sure.

That's the before. Once we are in, then that's a different argument - what should we be doing right now and in the future? Complicated and I am certainly not qualified to make the decisions. As for those "in the bubble" - one reason they are not open to criticism is that the criticism is from all the same people who have been wrong 100 times over (especially in the bubble's view). If you opposed going into Afghanistan, then opposed Iraq, then opposed funding Iraq (media and congress here, not really individuals), then you don't get much voice in the decision-making at this point. You can bet if Condi makes a point, Rummy and Bush listen. But when Noam Chomsky comes out against the administration, don't expect an open door. Now people like Paul and many here are thoughtful and may have even supported the war earlier, but the administration doesn't know you. And the people making your points in congress and the media are the same old tired messengers of opposition and partisanship, and they will continue to be ignored.

Again, I am not offering any solutions here or refuting the other posters - just keep these points in mind. If you think I'm wrong, I welcome the thought. Thanks,

Damien

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

Quote from his last speech:
"We are a nation at war. I wish I could report differently, but you need to have a President who sees the world the way it is, not the way somebody would hope it would be. "

sweet, sweet irony

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

Excellent article, Paul.

"Control Room" is another great documentary that makes a good double-feature when paired with "Outfoxed."

(Reply) (Thread)

While I applaud your ability to read, and AGREE with you regarding the soldiers dying for Bush's ineptitude, anymore I can only read for mindless entertainment. After reading for European Women's History, all I can handle is good old Kurt Vonnegut. Love his wit and sarcasm, would love his view on today's issues.

(Reply) (Thread)

"One of the great non-intuitive truths of life that you can't eliminate poverty by giving people money. (I'm going to go out on a limb and assume people realize this.) In a similar perhaps non-intuitive vein, you can't eliminate terrorism by shooting people. You can't even reduce it."

Be that as it may, you can't (realistcally) eliminate poverty without giving people money either. Naturally it's not a transferable argument, one can't therefore suggest, terrorism can't be eliminated without killing terrorists, though undoubtedly the battle would be made much easier if key players could be eliminated without the process of killing them (but it may be true in some cases) . Disrupting networks, killing terrorists can certainly reduce terrorism in the short-term: unfortunately societies and governments value, it appears, short-termism. There is little doubt your leader isn't prepared for his administration to take a hit for the benefit of future ones. Understandably, the last thing America wanted to do after the September 11th* bombings was to give billions of dollars in aid to countries with the potential for terrorist conveyor belts.

Obviously there is considerable evidence to suggest there is correlation between terrorism and poverty and more importantly (I think) the process of mittigating poverty impacts on terrorism. Naturally it doesn't explain all of the drivers, part must be attributable to the existential vacuum too.

* incidentally, the media's desire to label such events as 9/11, 7/7 adds value to these events for terrorists and sympathisers unlike - by almost making the sound cool, sensational - certainly more iconic. Through 24/7 media coverage affording a self-induglent nation(s) the insatiable need to be made aware they are alive and living in defing times, I fear we also generate the needs of some who engage in terrorism.

(Reply) (Thread)