Join 3,557 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


"Worst case is modern Armaggedon"
October 7, 2002 2:41 PM   Subscribe

"Worst case is modern Armaggedon" Dick Cheney reportedly has ambitious plans to chop Iraq into little pieces but Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham worries that terrorist attacks against Americans were "highly likely" in the event of a war with Iraq, which Graham thinks could escalate into "modern Armaggedon". Also worried or unimpressed by the Bush Adminstration's rational for war (flash) a few Americans protested . The NYT and the Washington Post ignored the large protests in Britain, but nobody could ignore it when 1.5 million Italians hit the streets. Guess it's war anyway, eh?
posted by troutfishing (30 comments total)

 
"Why I hate Bush and why I'm against a war on Iraq", MeFi take #391298357197...

...aaand action!
posted by dagny at 2:47 PM on October 7, 2002


Had the NY Times ignored the protest in Gt Britain, as is here claimed, I would not have known about it early this morning.
posted by Postroad at 3:17 PM on October 7, 2002


Here are some photos I took of protest in Seattle where we had 5,000 marchers.
http://www.idixon.com/pages/recent01.html
posted by idixon at 3:20 PM on October 7, 2002


OK, since we're slamming Republicans, a footnote:
Armey's revenge
posted by matteo at 3:38 PM on October 7, 2002


The fact that Europeans generally do not support U.S. intervention in Iraq does not convince me that the U.S. should not proceed alone. The Europeans have been wrong on most war and peace issues -- namely the Reagan-era policies that hastened the end of the cold war -- since the end of World War II.
posted by Durwood at 3:38 PM on October 7, 2002


Antiwar protest in San Francisco:

Anti-war fever awoke over the weekend, as about 8,000 protesters in San Francisco joined brethren across the country in a rising rumble against President Bush's drive to disarm Iraq.

In what was proclaimed a national day of resistance, voices that were never muted became full-throated, amplified by anger and apprehension over saber rattling against Saddam Hussein.

And from the peanut gallery....
"Why I hate Bush and why I'm against a war on Iraq", MeFi take #391298357197......aaand action!

Really hate to see you waste your time at a site like MetaFilter, where the goosestep still ain't completely fashionable. For you and those who crave such, may I recommend Free Republic or MyMindIsADitto.com or some other weblog/warblog. They import beachloads of sand daily....enough to cover the heads of their entire readership several times over....and where they goosestep like they were born with tail feathers.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:46 PM on October 7, 2002


idixon, I could have gone the rest of my life without seeing this picture.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:48 PM on October 7, 2002


In New York, Ms Sarandon called on people to back US politicians who opposed the war

Hmm, intriguing suggestion. Are there any?
posted by RylandDotNet at 3:49 PM on October 7, 2002


Really hate to see you waste your time at a site like MetaFilter, where the goosestep still ain't completely fashionable.

Yes, indeedy. Here on MeFi, you either hate Bush and believe he and the entire administration is evil, or you're a "goose-stepper".

Many thanks. That comment actually made Dagney's point even more forcefully than she did.
posted by MidasMulligan at 4:00 PM on October 7, 2002


Really hate to see you waste your time at a site like MetaFilter, where the goosestep still ain't completely fashionable.

fold_and_mutilate, this is the reason I read MeFi. Comments like these are pure gold. Of course you owe me a cup of coffee for the one I blew out my nose when I read your post... :)
posted by Argyle at 4:02 PM on October 7, 2002


RylandDotNet:
Senator Wellstone of Minnesota is opposing the war. The New York Times story on his senate race was on the front page today: "In the half-dozen closest races expected to determine the balance of power in the Senate, Mr. Wellstone is the only incumbent who has vowed to vote no this week on the resolution giving President Bush the authority to invade Iraq."
posted by stopgap at 4:05 PM on October 7, 2002


Hey, I think dagny and the other naysayers should give it a rest. I mean, hey, the European solution of street protests and nonintervention saved hundreds of thousands from the almost-genocide in Central Africa, ended the Cold War, stopped the Nazis, liberated Kuwait and South Korea and stopped Milosevic.

And I know it's somewhat of an exaggeration, since the Euros were pulled into UN troop mandates in many of those occasions, albeit grudgingly.

I'm not even in favor of a war, at this point. But is anyone stupid enough to believe that *something* needs to be done to get Saddam out of power, considering he's basically committed 3 genocides, attacked 3 foreign nations directly and refused to follow the holy grail, UN-issued sanctions?

If only Saddam grew GM-food, then the left would have a real enemy.
posted by Kevs at 4:06 PM on October 7, 2002


I see we got foldy's Hitler-Nazi comparison of the day. Or is he permitted two daily? I forget. mathowie, what is the limit these days?

I would hardly consider Pakistan's "News International" a definitive source on the thinking inside the office of the Vice President. Certainly more than a few warbloggers have taken that extreme position -- but there's no evidence that the administration thinks it could get away with just willy-nilly redrawing the map, and plenty of reason to think that our critical allies in the region (in this formulation, Turkey and Jordan) have any such interest. This conspiratorial article sounds a lot more like a float to determine support for a Hashemite restoration -- and there are descendants of the last King, or his brother, who have a more concrete claim than anyone on the Jordanian side. The evidence of Afghanistan suggests that a royal relative might be used as a unifying figure, but not "restored".

In any event, if this is to be believed, it disproves the claim that the administration is not thinking about the post-war end-game; it falls in with the left's commonly heard line that Iraq is an artificial state in the first place; it gives the Kurds more autonomy than in any other plan, again buttressing a familiar plank of the left's criticism; and though I don't suppose putting the Sunnis and Shi'as under separate kings is the kind of thing that would appeal to the left, it seems to have a lot more going for it than any proposal that would have them fighting for power in a united Iraq. Still, I think if this exists at all, it's just one of many options on the table, and it's certainly politically practically impossible for a variety of reasons. Even if you eliminate the problems with friends, you have the problem of threats: the new Jordan would be an attenuated sausage, vulnerable to splitting; the new Shi'a Kuwait would be vulnerable to political and military interference from Iran, who would probably seek to seize it; and the Kurds would be in a very difficult position with regard to their own territorial integrity, because Turkey would love to incorporate them (and Turkey has good relations with the Iraqi Kurds today; it's the main reason that the Kurdish rebellion has been fading away).

As for the Italians, when was the last time they voted in the US? Should the Italians be any more influential in our governmental decision-making than the majority of the American public? That's a very ... interesting suggestion.
posted by dhartung at 4:10 PM on October 7, 2002


The NYT and the Washington Post ignored the large protests in Britain, but nobody could ignore it when 1.5 million Italians hit the streets. Guess it's war anyway, eh?

Speaking of ignoring (AP via Drudge): The President is giving a speech tonight on the threat Iraq poses to the US, and the case for military action. You won't, however, be able to watch it in ABC, NBC, or CBS. They aren't covering it.

Apparently when a Democratic President needs a platform upon which to lie to the American population about blowjobs, the widest possible coverage is essential. When a Republican President, however, wants to make the case about threats to the US, and the need to use military force - it's not considered newsworthy enough to pre-empt Drew Carey or the Fear Factor ("... thousands of bees swarm the contestants!").

Interesting.
posted by MidasMulligan at 4:34 PM on October 7, 2002


...wonders whether midas is trying to imply that the dems were clamoring for all the attention to that issue there... or what it has to do with today's subject...
posted by ook at 4:47 PM on October 7, 2002


PBS and NPR are carrying it live, however... Interestingly enough.
posted by y2karl at 4:50 PM on October 7, 2002


Apparently when a Democratic President needs a platform upon which to lie to the American population about blowjobs, the widest possible coverage is essential. When a Republican President, however, wants to make the case about threats to the US, and the need to use military force - it's not considered newsworthy enough to preempt Drew Carey or the Fear Factor ("... thousands of bees swarm the contestants!").

you inadvertently refuted your own supposition. it's not partisan. fact is, clinton's hummer was a ratings bonanza, a springboard for such subsequent infotainment pig-outs as barbara walters' interview with mlle. lewinsky and the commander in chief's own skeezy pseudo-confession. iraq, on the other hand, is dry as a bone, its oiliness notwithstanding. i for one would rather watch the king of queens than listen to bush butcher the english language yet again. it'll be in the papers tomorrow morning anyway, with better commentary than anything some blow dried air head network news anchor could provide.
posted by donkeyschlong at 4:52 PM on October 7, 2002


MM: This inability of a huge part of the public to stop thinking about Clinton's wang is starting to look more than a little pervy.
posted by George_Spiggott at 4:54 PM on October 7, 2002


After all the nashing of teeth is done, here is the President, speaking live on every major network.
posted by Plunge at 5:04 PM on October 7, 2002


Wow, I so much wish we could have watched a presidential address about blow jobs instead of war tonight. When it comes to pornography, I'll take sex over violence any day. But hey, that's just me - ymmv.

troutfishing, I know that your topic may have its supporters and detractors, but I like the way you used several articles from different sources to support the post - much better than a link to a single news item or opinion piece, imo.
posted by madamjujujive at 5:46 PM on October 7, 2002


Off-topic, possibly nit-picking, but modern armageddon? As opposed to the last one which happened in Ancient Times and we didn't notice, or what?
posted by Catch at 5:59 PM on October 7, 2002


Next one will be post-modern?
posted by goethean at 6:15 PM on October 7, 2002


...wonders whether midas is trying to imply that the dems were clamoring for all the attention to that issue there... or what it has to do with today's subject...

Sorry for being apparently obtuse. Today's subject seemed to be a common liberal one - "we have huge turnouts and no one pays attention" (usually implying that there's some sort of media desire to "silence" voices). Thought I might respond by noticing that the same media quite visibly decided to ignore the President as well. And further, that while Clinton seemed to have no problem getting all three networks to cover anything he wished to say - no matter how trivial - a Republican apparently has a much higher bar to hit.

And I wasn't implying the dems were clamoring for attention - rather, I was saying that when a Democratic President desires airtime to address the American public, he generally gets it.

PBS and NPR are carrying it live, however... Interestingly enough.

Not that interesting ... the CPB gets some of it's money from tax dollars. Would be very difficult for them refuse to carry it.

MM: This inability of a huge part of the public to stop thinking about Clinton's wang is starting to look more than a little pervy.

Actually, the point of the sentence was Clinton getting airtime at will - even as a platform to lie about minor matters to the American public. Sorry for using the term "blowjob", I realize now that some members of the public seem to fixate on that word to the exclusion of everything else, and hence miss the point.
posted by MidasMulligan at 6:26 PM on October 7, 2002


*yawn* just listened to Bush's speech. Still no facts, just rhetoric. Let me know when there's information upon which to base an opinion, and not just another syndicated columnists' opinion.
posted by tgrundke at 6:32 PM on October 7, 2002


MM: Was that a retraction??
posted by dash_slot- at 6:35 PM on October 7, 2002


Yes, indeedy. Here on MeFi, you either hate Bush and believe he and the entire administration is evil, or you're a "goose-stepper". Many thanks. That comment actually made Dagney's point even more forcefully than she did.

I see we got foldy's Hitler-Nazi comparison of the day. Or is he permitted two daily? I forget. mathowie, what is the limit these days?


~chuckle~

My, such ruffled tail feathers. May I recommend a good preening before further stepping?

Let us know when "MIdasMulligan" or "dagny" or "dhartung" calling for an end to criticism of the current adminstration (or getting all panicky when someone rightly points out the troubling parallels of stifling critical viewpoints) here on MetaFilter amounts to anything other than goosestepping, will ya?

Many thanks for providing the perfect examples.

MidasMulligan: "When a Republican President, however, wants to make the case about threats to the US, and the need to use military force - it's not considered newsworthy enough to pre-empt Drew Carey or the Fear Factor ("... thousands of bees swarm the contestants!").

Oh, we've got it now. Your come into this thread in support of someone calling for less MetaFilter coverage (which is often critical) of the Bush/Iraq situation, then you turn around a few sentences later and whine about the networks not providing enough coverage of....the Bush/Iraq situation.

But oh, that's right. Bush is going to support your own particular views. So your goals: turn off the ideas critical of your position. Turn on and broadcast those that support your position.

The level of intellectual honesty in that stance is beyond belief. And now one understands the brittle sensitivity among some here to certain 20th century parallels....

dhargung: "In any event, if this is to be believed, it disproves the claim that the administration is not thinking about the post-war end-game...it's what the left actually wants...blah blah blah..."

Ya know, if I were a right wing ideologue (and sadly, I'm not, although I can hum a few bars of The Horst Wessel Song), I'd come into this thread and immediately break into sobs of outrage about yet another attack on Bush, and get hysteri-huffy at anyone who dared draw certain 20th century parallels to the stupidity and intellectual laziness of following lockstep behind Our Leader. Then I think I'd breathlessly spin-assert that even if Bush et al are actually planning to chop up Iraq post invasion...why, that's actually a good thing(!), because it shows that Bushies are really thinking thoughtful, deep thoughts about post-war Iraq, and that once again, if things are only spun properly, we can see that War is Really Our Friend.

Gosh, oh my. No doubt some of the idologues spinning today would have spun the annexation and division of Czechoslovokia in 1939 in the same way. No doubt those particular 1939 "dividers" (one hesitates to give their name, given the understandable sensitivies here) thought hard about what was best for the Sudeten districts.

~wink~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 6:39 PM on October 7, 2002


When a Republican President, however, wants to make the case about threats to the US, and the need to use military force - it's not considered newsworthy enough to preempt Drew Carey or the Fear Factor

I suppose the network execs felt that Drew Carey and swarming bees were more profitable than geopolitical news tonight. And isn't profit the one and holy goal? Surely, Midas, you're not suggesting that these capitalists could so horribly misjudge the wants of their own consumers?
posted by octobersurprise at 8:43 PM on October 7, 2002


Metatalk.
posted by dhartung at 8:51 PM on October 7, 2002


"Dick Cheney reportedly has ambitious plans to chop Iraq into little pieces..."

Oh gee, I dunno, shouldn't we maybe like WIN THE DAMN WAR FIRST before we start cutting the country up into pieces? Isn't that just a wee bit presumptuous? I mean sure, okay, even Saddam Hussein knows we're gonna win if we fight Iraq, but it's just a little uncouth of Cheney to go around saying, "so we're gonna cut up Iraq and give this piece to Jordan and this piece to Kuwait, and we'll turn this plot of land over here into a SKI resort.. Granted we'll have to import all the SNOW but we'll get it done."

I came home tonight after work and turned on the TV. NBC snubbed Shrub for Joe Rogan! NYES! Thank God! Occasionally I get glimpses that yes my friends, it's still a free country!
posted by ZachsMind at 8:59 PM on October 7, 2002


I guess I pushed the right buttons. For the record, I'd say that Bob Graham's "Iraq SCUDs Israel with bioweapons, Israel then nukes Baghdad which leads to 'Modern Armageddon' " leaves a bit unsaid. [I'm glad somebody noticed the weirdness of the term 'modern Armageddon'.] What's unsaid is the destabilization of PAKISTAN. I hear that, in areas of Pakistan, they are calling Pervez Musharraf "Busharraf". 'Nuff said.

Re: Dhartung: "Evidence" is a slippery thing. Does the Bush Adminstration think that it just redraw the map? Read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" by the "Project for a New American Century". This spells it out in considerable detail. The new Bush doctrine amounts to a complete rejection, as far as I can tell, of the need for American adherence to any international standards, conventions, or treaties and asserts that the US can do what it wants where it wants. This amounts to empire. Just admit it -- you'll feel better! Is empire such a bad thing to acknowledge?

As for Iran.....well, once again, read the aforementioned PNAC doc. - "Iraq provides the immediate justification [for a massive, permanent US military buildup in the gulf]..Iran probably constitutes the larger threat." Meaning: the Bush Adm. does indeed have a plan. And in this plan, Iran is not a threat because it, too, will be dealt with.

I'd credit factions within the Bush administration of thinking -- in a Machievellian style -- far further down the road than most non-neoconservatives, dems. or progressives. What's missing from their thought train, however, is an appreciation for such concepts as "interconnection" and, a bit more esoterically, "nonlinearity". I think the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/Perle faction may be too drunk on power to appreciate that they cannot mantain absolute, clinical control of the US and the world at large. They are testing out the hypothesis that the US can, in fact, take on the whole rest of the world and win. They may be right...but I doubt it and, furthermore, I think that their power-drunkeness dulls their appreciation or their ability to comprehend complex feedbacks.

I'd say that the balls of the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/Perle faction have been really aching from 8 years out of power and that, now back in the saddle, they are overplaying their hand like frustruated, vindictive adolescents. "Patience", I would counsel them. In another 5-10 years, the US might indeed be untoucheable and able to take on the whole world. But this goal is a bit premature at the moment.

Hubris, hubris.............
posted by troutfishing at 10:33 PM on October 7, 2002


« Older Bugs...  |  A Left-wing European human-rig... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments