Who Will Stop World War III? | 56 comments (56 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Who Will Stop World War III? (none / 1)

If anyone thinks that gas prices will remain in the signle digits after a nuclear strike on a Muslim country, they are delusional.

Nuke Iran = half of the oil supply disappears = economic chaos, strict rationing, state of emergency, breakdown of trade between countries.

If anybody thinks life will go on in the West as if almost nothing had happened, they are FUCKING DELUSIONAL.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 11:54:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who Will Stop World War III? (none / 0)

Seriously, Bush probably thinks he can pull it off and "subdue" Iran before his strategic reserve of oil and gas runs out. If he needs to declare the state of emergency to force the oil companies to sell gas at $5, so be it.

You're saying I think he's delusional. I'm ok with that.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 11:57:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who Will Stop World War III? (none / 1)

Nuke Iran = half of the oil supply disappears = economic chaos, strict rationing, state of emergency, breakdown of trade between countries.

If I were really paranoid, I'd point out that for Bush, these would all be good things, not bad ones.

Not least because State of Emergency -> 'postponed' elections and massive imposition of state control over everyone's lives.

If you're Bush - what's not to like?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 01:45:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who Will Stop World War III? (none / 0)

I don't think that this is something Bush would want. Gas prices hurt them and Jerome is absolutely right, attacking Iran would make it worse for a long while. Even an invasion of the country would not guarantee the production. (See Iraq.)

I believe Bush is honestly worried about a nuclear Iran. But even more so, I believe that people do not appreciate how much the nuclear issue is a domestic one -- for Bush, but especially Ahmadinejad. They both need their people to be tense and on the edge for now. But war is not either one's realistic goal. Ahmadinejad may even want -- he probably does -- aerial attacks, so that the country unites behind him, but he would not want an all out war either. In my opinion.

by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 02:27:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who Will Stop World War III? (4.00 / 5)

But you could have made similar arguments about Iraq. And you could also make similar arguments about the suicidal effects of tax cuts for the rich, massive military spending and various other initiatives that Bush has been responsible for.

Bush is not a rational man. Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest don't seem to be rational either. And the GOP crew - Delay, Frist, Team Abramoff and pretty much all of the rats in that sinking ship - have proven that not only are they not rational people, but they won't let nothing get in the way of power and money. Not ethics, not religion, and certainly not the possibility of a disaster of their own making. Even if it eventually falls on them from a great height.

They don't believe in disasters because they don't believe the rules apply to them. Sweat shops, drug cartels, prostitution rackets, criminal diversion of funds into their own pockets as they bleat about supporting the troops while making sure those troops are badly trained and poorly supplied - it's all the same to them. They cover it up with a thin veneer of deep south piety so they can sell their snake oil to the stupid, but behind that there's one of the nastiest and most foetid political brews to appear in the West since the end of WWII.

So I don't see any evidence that Bush cares all that much if everything falls apart. It won't affect him personally, it won't affect his immediate circle, and if he can use it as an excuse to finally kill off the constitution and make himself Supreme Preznit of Everything and Everybody in the Whole World Forever - that wouldn't be a bad thing in BushVille. (At least until he gets bored and decides to go fishing again.)

Remember - this guy doesn't care about anything except his own image. Substantial parts of New Orleans are still ruined and uninhabitable, but there's no sign he's interested any more. A president who can lose a city without missing any sleep isn't going to miss any sleep over the economy tanking, rationing being introduced and elections that he knows are sure to go badly being postponed indefinitely.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 05:02:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who Will Stop World War III? (none / 1)

Thank you for your reply. I think we can agree on this:

they won't let nothing get in the way of power and money. Not ethics, not religion, and certainly not the possibility of a disaster of their own making. Even if it eventually falls on them from a great height.

We agree not because you call them irrational. I am not sure rat8ionalisty is the right paradigm here. At least, they have what is sometimes called instrumental rationality; they have goals and they would do whatever it takes to get them.

But I don't quite agree with this:

So I don't see any evidence that Bush cares all that much if everything falls apart. It won't affect him personally, it won't affect his immediate circle

Two things about this:

First, I am not a Bush fan but I don't think that this characterization is accurate. It is widespread across the world, including in the United States. I think he genuinely believes in his goals. He genuinely believes that freedom=democracy=capitalism. I wish this administration's only concern was money. Had this been the case, the war would have been better conducted. Greed is actually fairly lucid, though unethical. These guys are ideological. They mean what they say; they believed that they would be welcomed with roses in Iraq. Who wouldn't want freedom, money and autonomy, they imagined? I think that they feel the shock of the Iraq war. Had Iraq gone smoothly, or even like Afghanistan, there'd troops in Iran today. In a moment of desperation, or provocation as I have been saying, they may attack Iran. But I stand by my view that he does not want a war right now. He does need domestic distraction; so does the Iranian president.

Second, in that narrow sense, he does care. He wants happy free-market countries all around. I am more and more convinced of that. More broadly, the polls are taking a toll on him. Because it is an ideology, and not a personal autocracy, legacy matters. I read the right wing sites as often - if not more often - than progressive sites and they are furious. Conservatism is taking a toll with Bush. He knows it too.

Bottom line, I would never defend his policies. Far from it. Living in Washington DC does not make it easy. But I think that it is worthwhile to understand the depth - and failures - of an ideology in play, and not the free play of imagination of one man.

by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 05:45:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who Will Stop World War III? (4.00 / 2)

He genuinely believes that freedom=democracy=capitalism.

I agree, absolutely. And that makes me all the more worried. This guy truly believes in something, which, according to his opinion, is worth hundreds of thousands of human lives, and he simply doesn't have any clue about how to realize those goodies, other than going to a war and raze the territory. He gunuinely thought destruction of Fallujah was for the benefit of the people there.

Believing in goodies doesn't make anyone worthy of anything. You shouldn't give him any credit for that. He is not an idiot, he is just insane.

I will become a patissier, God willing.

by tuasfait on Thu May 11th, 2006 at 03:29:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who Will Stop World War III? (4.00 / 2)

It is very hard to resist letting the philosopher in me talk in these forums. I try to stay away from philosophical jargon and vocabulary. It is alienating, in many ways. Quoting philosophers is even worse. But, in this case, there is a passage from a philosopher - Zizek - who is unique; he combines philosophy with everyday language and history. This thread reminded me of this passage, quoted at length.

With the global American ideological offensive, the fundamental insight of Graham Greene's The Quiet American is more relevant than ever: We witness the resurgence of the figure of the "quiet American," a naive, benevolent agent who sincerely wants to bring democracy and Western freedom. It is just that his intentions totally misfire, or, as Greene put it: "I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused."
The underlying presupposition is that under our skin, if we scratch the surface, we are all Americans. That is our true desire-all that is needed is just to give people a chance, liberate them from their imposed constraints and they will join us in our ideological dream. It's fitting that in February 2003 the right-wing journalist Stephen Schwartz used the phrase "capitalist revolution" to describe what Americans are now doing: exporting their revolution around the entire world. No wonder they moved from "containing" the enemy to a more aggressive stance.
It is the United States that is now, as the defunct USSR was decades ago, the subversive agent of a world revolution. When Bush said, "Freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the almighty God's gift to every man and woman in the world," his apparent modesty nonetheless concealed, in the best totalitarian fashion, its very opposite.
...
When Bush celebrated the explosive and irrepressible thirst for freedom as a "fire in the minds of men," the unintended irony was that he used a phrase from Dostoevsky's The Possessed. Dostoevsky used the phrase to describe the ruthless activity of radical anarchists who burned a village: "The fire is in the minds of men, not on the roofs of houses." Today, we already see-and smell-the smoke of this fire.

by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Thu May 11th, 2006 at 11:34:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who Will Stop World War III? (none / 0)

Zizek? Now I have an idea where you found yourself on the ET political compass :-)

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu May 11th, 2006 at 11:37:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

just wait a cottonpicking minute (none / 1)

I did not say I line up behind Zizek on everything :)
I did post my numbers for the ET compass, though.

By the way, I am still not sure where that expression (cottonpicking minute) comes from. This is a fascinating language.

by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Thu May 11th, 2006 at 11:41:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: just wait a cottonpicking minute (4.00 / 2)

The compass is in the breakfast.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 11th, 2006 at 11:51:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: just wait a cottonpicking minute (none / 0)

See..breakfast is the most important meal of the day and I had missed it!

by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Thu May 11th, 2006 at 12:04:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: just wait a cottonpicking minute (none / 0)

At a guess the phrase says something about how long it takes to pick cotton by hand, which as I understand it was quite a labour intensive business before modern machinery.

by Gary J on Fri May 12th, 2006 at 04:10:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who Will Stop World War III? (none / 0)

Thank you. I didn't know Zizek and appreciate the quote. I am a bit sceptical about Bush=quiet American but introducing a Russian analogy makes sense to me. It is because I think Bush is more like V.I.Lenin, who was not benevolent or compassionate but was idealistic and no good at anything constructive.

I also think Bush's influence is not confined within the Republicans. Trying to upstage Bush, the Democratic leadership openly call for "no option off the table for Iran" (Hillary 06) or "enough troops in Iraq" (Obama 04). I never thought I would hear a serious call for nuking somebody because the country is enriching uranium, or for sending troops (which don't exist) to pacify a foreign country (i.e. killing more).

I would submit these outrageous statements would not have been acceptable as a serious political speech, but for Bush. Maybe Bush is a true revolutionary.

I will become a patissier, God willing.

by tuasfait on Thu May 11th, 2006 at 01:11:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who Will Stop World War III? (none / 0)

At some point, though, you have to figure out where the line between reason and irrationality is. For example, plenty of Democrats have said that we must continue in Iraq while few support quick withdrawal. And like it or not there are some important countries (Britain, France, Germany) who are on the U.S. side of the argument with Iran at the U.N. Are they also crazy?

When it gets to the point where you have classified practically everybody as crazy, perhaps it's time to reset your definition of craziness.

by asdf on Thu May 11th, 2006 at 08:14:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who Will Stop World War III? | 56 comments (56 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Annual Update of Global Climate Change Indicators

Elon Musk Creates New Party A.A.P.

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - July 2025

City Agriculture - June 22, 2025

Recent Diaries

Dutch Bouwmeester: Terror Is Art

Trump A 100 Year Catastrophe for the West

Elon Musk Creates New Party A.A.P.

Trump & Musk's DOGE Savings a Texas Size Disaster

Rutte In Overdrive It's War

Israel-Iran War Escalates Thru Azerbaijan

Dedicated to the (late?) Arthur Gilroy

Yesilgöz the Pro-Israel Jihadist or Terrorist

Killing Ayatollah Khamenei Deserves Divine Revenge

Mamdani's Stunning Win in NY Mayor Race Exposes Prejudice

Belfast Riots and Troubles [Update]

Trump’s Iran Charade

Spaak a Socialist for Multilateralism, Against War

Israel Plays a Dangerous Game of War

Our Boots on the Ground Is New Demarcation Line

GHF-USAID Creating Terror to Conquer

Sinai Salafist Terror Shifts from Hamas to Islamic State

UN R2P Principle Not for Palestine

NATO Summit Starts with a Royal Dinner

Trump Got Intelligence Wrong Once Again

Occasional Series