Axis of Evil - Page 2

**Skepticologist** · 12-08-2007, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AB517

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skepticologist

The basic problem, as I see it, is the Bush administration's propensity for painting other countries with the evil vs. good paintbrush.

As evidenced by the administration's reaction to the recently published National Intelligence Estimate, which documented that Iran, like Iraq in 2003, had abadoned its program to produce nuclear weapons, once a country has been declared evil by the world's only superpower, no ameliorating evidence will change the Manichean world view that prompted its original designation; nor will its policies be reviewed in light of new evidence.

This is exactly the same mindset that caused the US to ignore the best available intelligence, or to manufacture its own intelligence to support its desired actions, leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And it will lead to no better outcomes than the Iraqi debacle has produced.

one slight problem.

Iraq is working.
Weather we want to pay the price or not is another story.

Yes, the metrics regarding the level of violence have been trending downward over the past few months. But that doesn't mean "Iraq is working". To say that it is would require that weapons of mass destruction had been found: they haven't and they won't. Or that pre-2003 ties to Al Qaeda had been confirmed: they haven't and they won't. Or that Iraq will become the model of democracy in the Middle East, illuminating the way forward for other countries in the region. Have you kept tabs on the progress of the Iraqi government toward setting up democratic processes. It hasn't happened and it won't.

In terms of paying the price, I figure 6 billion dollars and counting and over 3,700 American soldiers coming home in body bags is payment enough.

What we've seen in Iraq is an extension of the fundamentalist christian mindset that we have all the answers and the "right way" because we are the sole possessors of "the truth". But that's pure fiction, and it's been categorically ineffective at changing anything in the Middle East for the better.

AB517 · 12-12-2007, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skepticologist

Quote:

Originally Posted by AB517

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skepticologist

The basic problem, as I see it, is the Bush administration's propensity for painting other countries with the evil vs. good paintbrush.

As evidenced by the administration's reaction to the recently published National Intelligence Estimate, which documented that Iran, like Iraq in 2003, had abadoned its program to produce nuclear weapons, once a country has been declared evil by the world's only superpower, no ameliorating evidence will change the Manichean world view that prompted its original designation; nor will its policies be reviewed in light of new evidence.

This is exactly the same mindset that caused the US to ignore the best available intelligence, or to manufacture its own intelligence to support its desired actions, leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And it will lead to no better outcomes than the Iraqi debacle has produced.

one slight problem.

Iraq is working.
Weather we want to pay the price or not is another story.

Yes, the metrics regarding the level of violence have been trending downward over the past few months. But that doesn't mean "Iraq is working". To say that it is would require that weapons of mass destruction had been found: they haven't and they won't. Or that pre-2003 ties to Al Qaeda had been confirmed: they haven't and they won't. Or that Iraq will become the model of democracy in the Middle East, illuminating the way forward for other countries in the region. Have you kept tabs on the progress of the Iraqi government toward setting up democratic processes. It hasn't happened and it won't.

In terms of paying the price, I figure 6 billion dollars and counting and over 3,700 American soldiers coming home in body bags is payment enough.

What we've seen in Iraq is an extension of the fundamentalist christian mindset that we have all the answers and the "right way" because we are the sole possessors of "the truth". But that's pure fiction, and it's been categorically ineffective at changing anything in the Middle East for the better.

These are valid points. I agree what you have said.
Except for the part about blaming Christians.
Why do we all blame some one else and not ourselves?

I'll go then. I drive a big truck and need the oil. They can have them there historic rivers and the sand.

**Skepticologist** · 12-13-2007, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AB517

These are valid points. I agree what you have said.
Except for the part about blaming Christians.
Why do we all blame some one else and not ourselves?

I'll go then. I drive a big truck and need the oil. They can have them there historic rivers and the sand.

Let me spell it out for you. George W. Bush's electoral victories over Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 were both exceedingly close. His campaign enjoyed the inevitable huge financial contributions from corporate America and wealthy individuals. But big money alone couldn't have got him elected.

What put him over the top was the support of the christian right who blindly embraced him because he purported to be one of them, or who were just mindlessly following the exhortations of their ministers and pastors. Many of those evangelicals turned against him in 2006 when they finally woke up to the damage he had done, and the clearly illegal policies he had set in motion. But big money ensured that he would suffer no serious sanctions which might threaten the enormous financial gains they had enjoyed from his tax cuts for the wealthy and his war in Iraq, which proved to be a windfall for those of their ilk such as Halliburton and KBR.

Try to put that in context with a serious attempt to impeach Bill Clinton because he got a blow job from a White House intern. That constituted a huge moral issue in the minds of evangelicals, but the loss of almost 4,000 American soldiers, countless others physically or mentally disabled for life, and the suffering of the Iraqi people, based on premises which proved to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors, hardly got their attention.

The evanglical mindset, which Bush has exploited for the benefit of his wealthy colleagues, is that we have the truth, and anyone who disagrees with us is a hopeless heathen. Never mind thousands of years of cultural development in the Middle East. We've got the best system and if you don't accept it we'll bomb you into oblivion.

Next time an American president starts throwing around terms like Axis of Evil, get set for a repeat of the debacle of the past 7 years. Simple cultural differences or cross purposes don't mobiliize an electorate. A battle against evil works far better.

AB517 · 12-14-2007, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skepticologist

Quote:

Originally Posted by AB517

These are valid points. I agree what you have said.
Except for the part about blaming Christians.
Why do we all blame some one else and not ourselves?

I'll go then. I drive a big truck and need the oil. They can have them there historic rivers and the sand.

Let me spell it out for you. George W. Bush's electoral victories over Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 were both exceedingly close. His campaign enjoyed the inevitable huge financial contributions from corporate America and wealthy individuals. But big money alone couldn't have got him elected.

What put him over the top was the support of the christian right who blindly embraced him because he purported to be one of them, or who were just mindlessly following the exhortations of their ministers and pastors. Many of those evangelicals turned against him in 2006 when they finally woke up to the damage he had done, and the clearly illegal policies he had set in motion. But big money ensured that he would suffer no serious sanctions which might threaten the enormous financial gains they had enjoyed from his tax cuts for the wealthy and his war in Iraq, which proved to be a windfall for those of their ilk such as Halliburton and KBR.

Try to put that in context with a serious attempt to impeach Bill Clinton because he got a blow job from a White House intern. That constituted a huge moral issue in the minds of evangelicals, but the loss of almost 4,000 American soldiers, countless others physically or mentally disabled for life, and the suffering of the Iraqi people, based on premises which proved to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors, hardly got their attention.

The evanglical mindset, which Bush has exploited for the benefit of his wealthy colleagues, is that we have the truth, and anyone who disagrees with us is a hopeless heathen. Never mind thousands of years of cultural development in the Middle East. We've got the best system and if you don't accept it we'll bomb you into oblivion.

Next time an American president starts throwing around terms like Axis of Evil, get set for a repeat of the debacle of the past 7 years. Simple cultural differences or cross purposes don't mobiliize an electorate. A battle against evil works far better.

Yep, this has some merit.
I have no problem with going somewhere to take care of some matters of the flesh. He did not have lie. Religion was the least of the problem, if he had truly followed his beliefs we mite not be over there.

But I think it is a system flaw. Support whoever has the money or the most votes. Not a Christian flaw.

Kind of like Opera supporting Osama for his, shall we say, "Colorful ideas"

**Skepticologist** · 12-14-2007, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AB517

But I think it is a system flaw. Support whoever has the money or the most votes. Not a Christian flaw.

I'm not saying everything that's wrong with this country is attributable to christians. My point was that the evangelical right put Bush over the top.

If you look at the income demographics of American society, you'll see that the very wealthy couldn't possibly outvote any other significant electoral block; they're simply too few in number. Granted, they wield influence in much greater proportion than their raw numbers through hefty campaign contributions and support for lobbyists. But fundamentalist christians represent an infinitely greater impact in terms of actual votes cast.

From any perspective other than a religious one, evangelicals' political alignment with the very wealthy and big business, which is just the very wealthy in a corporate vs. individual hat, makes no sense. Their interests are almost completely at odds. As an example, a fundamentalist christian who is among the 41 million Americans without health insurance would be a fool to vote Republican.

The reason many of them do is big money's appeal on quasi-religious issues such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage. Yet there's nothing inherent in any of those issues that would lead the very wealthy to take a stand one way or the other. Big money's stand on those issues is driven by nothing more than their interest in getting the religious right on the red side of the election ticket.

In a very true sense, fundamentalist christians are being used by big money. They're put in the paradoxical position of having to choose between being faithful to what they consider their religious principles and what's in their best interests economically.

Clearly, many of the religious right broke ranks in 2006, primarily due to the Iraq debacle. But not enough of them to produce anything but a sliver of a margin for the Democrats. Those who toed the religious line were undoubtedly still blinded by the administration's characterization of the war as a holy cause against the "axis of evil". As such, they were once again foils of the wealthy and powerful.