Rebranding The War.

May 5, 2006 6:25 PM

First it was called The War on Terror. Then it was called the Global War on Terror. It was even, at one stage, called The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. Basically, it has had many names. But now President Bush is simply calling it World War III.
posted by Effigy2000 (158 comments total)

Well, either he's crazy, or I'm about to get very upset. Come to think of it, even if he is crazy, I'm getting peeved.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:29 PM on May 5, 2006

I thought ww3 was the cold war, making this current round of madness ww4 -- which gets us over the hump. I must admit I like my global conflicts named like Final Fantasy sequels.
posted by undule at 6:32 PM on May 5, 2006

That is OUT OF FUCKING CONTROL!

He has officially snapped harder than the pretzel he choked on, goddamit. We are FUCKED.

Proof that alcohol, cocaine and antidepressants are a DEADLY combo.
posted by dbiedny at 6:35 PM on May 5, 2006

What a complete douche bag. You can forgive the guy who coined the phrase. His died so some hyperbole here and there is understandable. But the President? A douche bag.
posted by oddman at 6:38 PM on May 5, 2006

God, can't Bush just admit that this is more like the Spanish-American War than WWII?
I keep feeling like Bush is Metallica, trying to tell us that St. Anger is a return to the power of Ride the Lightning. It's like, c'mon, Bush, just admit that it's closer to the Spanish-American War and be done with it. Lower our expectations!
posted by klangklangston at 6:41 PM on May 5, 2006

even more spin.
posted by brandz at 6:41 PM on May 5, 2006

(Didn't mean to be all repeating myself redundantly... Blame the booze. I do.)
posted by klangklangston at 6:42 PM on May 5, 2006

These wars are like hollywood franchise flops - a movie does really well and gets brand recognition, so movie-name-II is given to another movie to try to make money, but the movie is lame-ass and bombs completely, but the original is still loved, so movie-name-II is given to another movie, even though it was already used for the last pile of rubbish.

"the Fast and the Furious II" is hitting cinemas soon, conveniently glossing over the existance of "2 Fast 2 Furious".

There was "Highlander", and then half a dezen "Highlander II" movies.

I guess WWII has good brand recognition.

Ugh.
posted by -harlequin- at 6:49 PM on May 5, 2006

There goes all semblance of integrity.
posted by pwedza at 6:51 PM on May 5, 2006

I thought that according to Neo-Con eschatology the cold war was World War III and we're now on World War IV, which is a tune up for World War V against China and World War VI where we fight cryogenically frozen Nazis who were secretly interred in vaults in antarctica at the end of WW II.

Lets compare here... World war One casualties World War Two casualties. Since it's ongoing, World War three won't have a definitive count but let's look at the three main theaters of World War Three. Iraq, Afghanistan, New York.

One of these things is not like the others.
posted by Grimgrin at 6:55 PM on May 5, 2006

Wiii?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:56 PM on May 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

When I saw that on CNBC I paused the DVR, rewinded watched it again and had to change the channel to keep from smashing the TV. One thing is very clear. One way or another the_end_is _near. Either for this bozoministration, or for all of us.
posted by HyperBlue at 6:59 PM on May 5, 2006

Bush is insane and so are the people that prop him up and put words in his mouth.
posted by chance at 6:59 PM on May 5, 2006

Surely this will—

Oh, fuck it. Nothing will bring down this administration. The man is untouchable, and I am sick to my stomach with it all.
posted by Zozo at 7:00 PM on May 5, 2006

Didn't he know that WWIII was the cold war?
I always heard that WWIV was going to be fought with sticks and stones.
The crazy thing is, the Iraqi's are using sticks, stones, and small arms to take out Blackhawk helicopters.
posted by Balisong at 7:01 PM on May 5, 2006

It's getting to the point where the man needs to be stopped by any means necessary. He's a danger to humanity.
posted by empath at 7:01 PM on May 5, 2006

1950's/1960's/1970's -- Fear the Communists!

2001 - on -- Fear the Terrorists!
posted by ericb at 7:02 PM on May 5, 2006

So does that make him Hilter II?
posted by furtive at 7:04 PM on May 5, 2006

this is what makes george bush a great leader - perspective, ambition, even-handedness and the ability to reassure the american people and the world

not

it's not world war 3 yet, george, but i'm sure you'll do your best ...
posted by pyramid termite at 7:09 PM on May 5, 2006

.
posted by EarBucket at 7:11 PM on May 5, 2006

So does that make him Hilter II?

Oh, hell no. I am not wasting a perfectly good "Hilter II: Iraqi Boogaloo" on this sorry sack 'o crap.
posted by Vervain at 7:12 PM on May 5, 2006

WWIII? Will this insanity ever end? I just can't believe it.
posted by rougy at 7:13 PM on May 5, 2006

"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

- Albert Einstein, in a letter to President Harry S. Truman
posted by pruner at 7:14 PM on May 5, 2006

This isn't going to change a thing.

Luckily, he's going down anyway, so it's okay. At least as long as the dems don't fuck up completely.
posted by blacklite at 7:15 PM on May 5, 2006

La la la la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la la.
posted by salvia at 7:17 PM on May 5, 2006

furiousxgeorge - Wiii?

Thank you furiousxgeorge, that made me laugh out loud! Lets hope Bush stops treating this as a game.
posted by Meridian at 7:18 PM on May 5, 2006

Until we have millions dead who gives a shit
posted by cellphone at 7:25 PM on May 5, 2006

World War VI where we fight cryogenically frozen Nazis who were secretly interred in vaults in antarctica at the end of WW II

Grimgrin: have you read Robert Anton Wilson's "Illuminatus!" trilogy lately?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:26 PM on May 5, 2006

World War III? Yeah, he wishes. Self important prick.
posted by Artw at 7:29 PM on May 5, 2006

lol wii
posted by cellphone at 7:36 PM on May 5, 2006

Surely this will—

Oh, fuck it. Nothing will bring down this administration. The man is untouchable, and I am sick to my stomach with it all.
posted by Zozo at 7:00 PM PST on May 5 [!]

Consider it MAD - Mututally Assured Destruction.

If Person X goes down, they plan on taking Y.

As Mike Ruppert has hypothesized, the message from President Clinton to the Republicans was simple and clear. “You take me down and I will take everyone down.”

The personal pain to anyone who would work to 'bring down' the administration (ok, any administration) makes it such that only people who have nothing to loose will undertake the effort.

Alot of citizens will have to hit bottom (read: have nothing to lose) before any kind of change will occur.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:39 PM on May 5, 2006

Well, I think he has a point there--I mean World Wars I & II were fought, in part, with rifles and tanks and airplanes, and so is The War on Terror. And, um, that's really all I can come up with.
posted by Nahum Tate at 7:39 PM on May 5, 2006

It's a feature of the hawk mindset that when adversaries exist, you are at war with them. No other state of affairs is possible. So, the Cold War becomes, after the fact, World War III, instead of a series of actions that studiously avoided World War III, which was really very clearly the point when it was going on, such that even hawks understood that at the time. Having thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at you clears the mind that way. With Islamic terrorists, the threat is more amorphous, leaving room for some people to make these claims.
posted by furiousthought at 7:47 PM on May 5, 2006

Be afraid. Be very afraid.
posted by localroger at 7:48 PM on May 5, 2006

I thought it was War 2.0 with Iran-y goodness.
posted by Biblio at 7:49 PM on May 5, 2006

Surely THIS WIIIIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii .. (runs away SIN PANTALONES to hide in the wilderness .. )
(seriously folks we still cannot believe he was re-elected)
posted by zenzizi at 8:02 PM on May 5, 2006

posted by quonsar at 8:03 PM on May 5, 2006

Did somebody say "WWIV?"
posted by keswick at 8:06 PM on May 5, 2006

If I were a WWII vet, I'd be steaming right now at this cocksucker's comment. This "President" has no idea of scale at all—this isn't even close to real "World Wars". Fuck, I've never been in the military, and I'm still upset.
posted by Mikey-San at 8:07 PM on May 5, 2006

Cherry on the top
Like a nuclear warhead
Nuclear bomb
Gonna lift the trigger
I had a
Dog Fly Religion
Neutron
On a chocolate sundae...

World War Three is a giant ice cream cone
World War Three is a giant ice cream cone
World War Three is a giant ice cream cone
World War Three is a giant ice cream cone
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:11 PM on May 5, 2006

UNITED NATIONS - Israel said Monday [4/17] that a new “axis of terror” — Iran, Syria and the Hamas-run Palestinian government — is sowing the seeds of the first world war of the 21st century.
posted by Nquire at 8:11 PM on May 5, 2006

Wow, just when you thought he couldn't possibly be any more embarassing.
posted by homunculus at 8:11 PM on May 5, 2006

Okay, Nquire, now I'm actually scared.
posted by salvia at 8:13 PM on May 5, 2006

GWB is the antichrist. The prophesies are fulfilled.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 8:20 PM on May 5, 2006

Dear. God. No.
posted by Samizdata at 8:28 PM on May 5, 2006

America = The World ?
posted by odinsdream at 8:29 PM on May 5, 2006

No, WWIII is my grandson.

-Wendell Wittler (WW - less than WWW but greater than W)
posted by wendell at 8:30 PM on May 5, 2006

from rough ashlar's link: (Photo courtesy LaRouche Campaign)

Source notwithstanding, could you summarize how that particular theory relates to the current issue? It, um, rambles a bit.
posted by swell at 8:31 PM on May 5, 2006

There is a feeling of inevitability about all of this, as if an unstoppable force is pushing the world towards war. Or maybe we have always been at war and on the edge of war, a perpetual state of tension continually on the verge of escalating into overt armed conflict. Maybe war is the substrate on which our society is built, always present but not always obvious?
posted by Meridian at 8:34 PM on May 5, 2006

Ugh.... not really even worth commenting on... I'll be glad when that idiot is out of office.
posted by AmyMay at 8:39 PM on May 5, 2006

Bush is the decider. If he thinks this is WW3 and he's decided, I guess that makes it so.

I'm still waiting for his Waterloo decision.
posted by infowar at 8:40 PM on May 5, 2006

And Bush is the Sophia Coppola of Presidents. It's starting to make sense.
posted by TimeFactor at 8:45 PM on May 5, 2006

There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 8:47 PM on May 5, 2006

Bush is the decider. If he thinks this is WW3 and he's decided, I guess that makes it so.

You forgot the part where the Press Secretary tells the reporters, who then type it down, spell check it, and go home and make love to their wives.
posted by odinsdream at 9:04 PM on May 5, 2006

World War III? Yeah, he wishes.

The scary thing is, he DOES wish.
posted by sacrilicious at 9:06 PM on May 5, 2006

I must admit I like my global conflicts named like Final Fantasy sequels.

Does this mean WW3 in the US is really WW6 in Japan?
posted by SirOmega at 9:06 PM on May 5, 2006

Source notwithstanding, could you summarize how that particular theory relates to the current issue?
posted by swell at 8:31 PM PST on May 5 [!]

It was a response to the 'what will take the administration down'. An 'example' of MAD at work. Part of me actually fears what would be reveled if the body politic turned on itself trying to bring other parts down. Wounded pigs are less predictable than a pig happily eating at the trough.

I'm not exactly how "you bring me down, I'll bring you down" is a theory however. Such strikes me as observing others behaviors.

"The Current Issue" can be an old man flapping his lips, a reveling slip letting others know what's going on in his head, a con being done for money, a con being done for power, the classic move of war profiteering, an actual legitimate position, et la.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:11 PM on May 5, 2006

Does this mean WW3 in the US is really WW6 in Japan?

Bahahahahaha!!! < two thumbs up>>
posted by AmyMay at 9:17 PM on May 5, 2006

It's WW3 and by WW3 I mean I'm too stupid to know what I'm saying.
posted by oddman at 9:37 PM on May 5, 2006

Aw fuck it. Cut through all the World War BS and call it the way these dickwads really see it -- the Apocalypse.
posted by MAYORBOB at 9:43 PM on May 5, 2006

I'm not exactly how "you bring me down, I'll bring you down" is a theory however. Such strikes me as observing others behaviors.

Well, it's something that a conspiracy loon hypothesized about Bill Clinton saying in a LaRouche tract about the chairman of the NYSE canoodling with a FARC commander. In 1998.

And Clinton (or W, for that matter) certainly wasn't above dishing it out. I just don't see the connection between the "Financial Coup d'Etat 1998" link and the "WWIII" flap.
posted by swell at 9:44 PM on May 5, 2006

Dear God
Please deliver us from evil.
Thanks, you are totally Awesome.
Amen
posted by Goofyy at 9:49 PM on May 5, 2006

rough ashlar - come again?
posted by rougy at 9:50 PM on May 5, 2006

Oh christ. Cue the news network graphics departments! Ridiculous.
posted by defenestration at 9:50 PM on May 5, 2006

i can just see it now on cbs special reports - "world war 3 - america at the crossroads"

ratings, people, ratings ... they don't have to kill millions of people to have a decent world war these days ... they just have to have the cameras in the right places and spin the narration appropriately

sales of high definition televisions will skyrocket ... the telephone companies will be awash in added revenues from thousands of phone polls asking our opinions ... who knows? .. the newspaper industry might even make a comeback ... and of course the potential for pork barrel spending will be awesome

we don't actually have to have a REAL ww3 to gather the profits ... all we need is a reasonable simulation of it that's presentable and entertaining to the american people

god bless george w bush ... looking out for america's business by melodrama

is this a great country or what?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:17 PM on May 5, 2006

by the way, the cia has informed me that ww4 will not be fought with sticks and stones, but with cocaine straws and beer bottles ... that's the president's choice of weapons ...
posted by pyramid termite at 10:20 PM on May 5, 2006

[My thought process:]

/decides to make a post likening the subtitle of Terminator 3 to the President's statement but then realizes that it was actually Terminator 2 that was called Judgement Day. Drops concept

"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

/realizes that i really like Megadeth's paraphrasing of this: "Einstein said we'd use rocks on the other side", but it's a dead-end post wise.

Proof that alcohol, cocaine and antidepressants are a DEADLY combo.

/Thinks hard about this. Decides this is the post to go with:

Isn't Bush a public servant? Can't we demand that he is drug tested?

Seriously. Think about it. i know it would be the Acme of foolishness to believe that this could happen, but shit, we drug test bus drivers, why not the guy who is supposed to be driving our country?
posted by quin at 10:24 PM on May 5, 2006

Bush's comfort with the term WWIII seems outlandish to us. But then, he may be more aware of recent decisions regarding Iran, China, the Sudan than this thread. Cracker Christians loved this guy because he seemed the type to play fast and loose with the End of Days. How surprised can we really be?

I'm embarassed that this comment was made during an interview about some schlock movie that is little better than propaganda. We're willing to make a summer blockbuster of a national tragedy. Maybe we deserve this C-student of a leader.

I used to comfort myself with the thought that one day historians would damn George W. Bush as the worst President that America ever suffered under. I did this under the assumption that the post-Bush world would include such luxuries as history, discourse, or food that one did not have to scrounge up from under toxic refuse.
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:26 PM on May 5, 2006

Oh, and Goofyy as a serious and hard-core athiest, all i can say is Amen.
posted by quin at 10:27 PM on May 5, 2006

How can you have a world war where one side is subnational terrorist groups? This makes less sense than normal war on a concept (drugs, terrorism). This is conflict, not war. Iraq was a war at one point, we dominated Iraqi armed forces and toppled statues. Suicide bombers make for a high civilian casualty rate, not war.

GWB has always been a black-white guy ("with us or against us"), and this is pretty silly in today's world. For instance, if we use force (black-white) instead of diplomacy (grey) to deal with Iran, that /could/ trigger at least a large regional war.
posted by jhscott at 10:33 PM on May 5, 2006

I've figured it out, Bush figures that Roosevelt got to stay in for four terms because of WWII and now he thinks he can pull the same thing. Failing that, he'll trigger a depression.
posted by drezdn at 10:35 PM on May 5, 2006

"GWB is the antichrist."

That term gets thrown around alot, but I think the antichrist is supposed to be a popular, unifying figure. This guy is just a garden-variety asshole; nothing special in the grand scheme of things.
Antichrist would be a compliment.
posted by 2sheets at 10:36 PM on May 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

And Bush is the Sophia Coppola of Presidents. It's starting to make sense.

I really liked "Lost In Translation" And not just because Scarlett Johanson is hot.
posted by delmoi at 10:41 PM on May 5, 2006

Waitaminute... George W didn't exactly come out with the term on his own. From the article:

[Bush] said he agreed with the description of David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the crash, who in a Wall Street Journal commentary last month called it "our first successful counter-attack in our homeland in this new global war, World War III". Mr Bush said: "I believe that. I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III.

Someone else called it WWIII, and Bush said he agreed with it. Yes, it's complete hyperbolic nonsense, but it's not like he's sinking to a new low. He's been spewing garbage for years; this is par for the course.

It was an off the cuff remark during a TV interview. If it was vetted by his handlers at all, it was a trial balloon and it isn't going anywhere. Is he delusional? Sure, but we knew that already. I don't see this as any reason to be any more outraged than before.
posted by Loudmax at 10:48 PM on May 5, 2006

While some folks surmise that World Wars are planned, and there will be three of them.

I tend to agree with Undule who writes "the cold war was World War III and we're now on World War IV". I surmise that WW4 started with Poppy's Desert Storm and we are now in WW4 Part 2 the "The Toxic Texan Avenger"
posted by thedailygrowl at 10:55 PM on May 5, 2006

Any word on what WW V will be fought with?
posted by mazola at 10:57 PM on May 5, 2006

Any word on what WW V will be fought with?

Flint-napped video cards?
posted by quin at 11:02 PM on May 5, 2006

You know your president is certifiable, right? I mean, all we need to hear is that God told him he should start WWIII and that would just about frost the cake.

This is all starting to read like Dead Zone, and Christopher Walken is about to shake the president's hand.
posted by dreamsign at 11:26 PM on May 5, 2006

WW3.

Yeah, that's not an overstatement.

...man, I hope it is.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:26 PM on May 5, 2006

Any word on what WW V will be fought with?

Snowballs of frozen air.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 11:28 PM on May 5, 2006

"You know your president is certifiable, right?"

Sure - tell us about it.
posted by rougy at 11:57 PM on May 5, 2006

Don't some evangelicals believe it is silly to plan for the future because the Judgment Day is coming? Is Bush one of them? Is that why he isn't bothering to plan financially environmentally etc.? Because he doesn't expect there to be a future on Earth? I'm almost sure I'm being paranoid but the tiny possibility that I'm not is very disturbing to me.
posted by Aghast. at 12:06 AM on May 6, 2006

It was an off the cuff remark during a TV interview. If it was vetted by his handlers at all [...]

See, that's what concerns me the most...When we let the supposed leader of our country answer a question he throws around terms like World War 3. Our president shouldn't have to be so heavily handled. He should be able to answer a fluff question without suggesting that we're going to get all the major countries in the world fighting against each other. He's such an idiot.
posted by nadawi at 12:07 AM on May 6, 2006

Aghast.

I can't tell if he really believes it or he really wants us to think he believes it. Either way, he's bat shit insane and so are those that follow him.
posted by nadawi at 12:08 AM on May 6, 2006

Re-branding the occupation of Iraq as WWIII is an attempt to add a certain gravitas to the thing, as others have pointed out--this ain't about that scary bin Laden fellow we can't capture, it's big, bold, paradigm-shifting, etc.

But among the many weird machinations going throught the minds of Bush's handlers these days, I think they forgot some obvious points--

America's involvement in WWI was important, but arguably not necessary for a French/British victory. We were there for less than three years in terms of troop deployment.

America's involvement in WWII was necessary, and thousands of Americans lost their lives, and their families and friends felt the sting. The highest Federal taxation rate was above 80%, which is only one anecdotal piece of evidence to demonstrate that even the chickenhawks of the time were willing to bite the bullet, so to speak.

I don't think Bush understands that there's a reciprocal event when you start talkin' WW3--yes, it's a big deal, but on the home-front, this would require things like fiscal belt-tightening (if not basic responsibility to begin with), a draft, a sense of unity with global partners on a war on terrorism, etc.

Why did I just type all that? It's about the draft, stupid, and since that will never happen to fat and happy Americans (like myself), Bush's mouth is not continuing to write checks that his scruples can't cash. His dwindling supporters are trying to clothe the naked, false emperor and failing miserably.

Utterly, utterly stupid. And no, not terrifying to me, just further proof that we are witnessing the greatest flame-out in American political history. Clinton set the Dems back a decade--Bush II and his party? Probably about five decades. My country? Probably two or three.
posted by bardic at 12:16 AM on May 6, 2006

It's a shame - part of that WW3 site is common sense enough (the emergency preparedness stuff). Before you even get to that, though, sadly, there's the stuff about "HAARP, Weather Control (?!?!) and ChemTrails" and the NWO ("international bankers, oil barons and pharmaceutical cartels, as well as other major multinational corporations [and the] The Royal Family of England" - again, wtf?!?!) And, of course, the chaotic home page of that site doesn't help much with the whole credibility factor.

So as you can see, we're fucked - the nuts on the extreme, extreme left, and the nuts on the right. Oy, time for a stiff drink...


(*added the "?1?1" for emphasis).
posted by rmm at 12:23 AM on May 6, 2006

The draft!! Interesting. When you legitimize a military action by (re)branding it as a war, all sorts of things become justifiable, the draft being one of them. (Others include escalation; bringing the battle to allies of the "enemy", local restrictions on information flow and free speech, control of the media, special presidential powers and miscellaneous other war-time policies that, coincidentally, serve to keep the ruling party in government.) I wonder if there are plans to shift the economy to a war footing?
posted by Meridian at 12:34 AM on May 6, 2006

Aghast:

Don't some evangelicals believe it is silly to plan for the future because the Judgment Day is coming? Is Bush one of them? Is that why he isn't bothering to plan financially environmentally etc.? Because he doesn't expect there to be a future on Earth? I'm almost sure I'm being paranoid but the tiny possibility that I'm not is very disturbing to me.

I keep coming back to that, too. But I think the Bush gang are just crooks, just out to sock away as much cash as they can during this time, make out like bandits. Do they know a collapse is coming? I'm not sure. Are they gonna buy their own island and lie around drinking cocktails? Who knows. Also, I think Bush and Cheney are megalomaniacs who enjoy wielding power for the sake of power, it makes them feel good. Are they destroying things on purpose, or because they're crazy and stupid? Which would be better, from our standpoint?
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 12:35 AM on May 6, 2006

Hey, you know, the measure of a hero is the difficulty of the obstacles he must overcome. Therefore, this must be WWIII, because the president is a great man.
posted by moonbiter at 12:48 AM on May 6, 2006

So none of you guys voted for him in 2000 or 2004?
posted by A189Nut at 1:07 AM on May 6, 2006

"GWB is the antichrist."

That term gets thrown around alot, but I think the antichrist is supposed to be a popular, unifying figure. This guy is just a garden-variety asshole; nothing special in the grand scheme of things.
Antichrist would be a compliment.
posted by 2sheets at 12:36 AM CST on May 6 [!]

Or you know, the whole antichrist thing is a combination of popular and religious bullshit.
posted by cellphone at 1:14 AM on May 6, 2006

piramid termyte writes "ratings, people, ratings ... they don't have to kill millions of people to have a decent world war these days"

Not millions indeed, at least 2640 so far not counting 9/11 not counting iraquis and afghanis and maybe iranians soon too. It starts like it's a joke compared to any war in the past, but if there is anything that escalates well, quickly and unexpectedly is a conflict, of any kind.

The draft isn't necessary, maybe, but incumbent menace of a draft would just make a lot of powerful people fret in order to save their youngsters. Maybe shipping a couple hundred young republicans (and supporting democrats !) in Iraq with a cellphone is enough, who knows.

Certainly more real stories are needed, not reality stories, and with less jingoistic spin. Real people is losing real friends and relatives.

As some may know, italy has lost 3 soldiers recently to an IED and two yesterday to another IED. I attended the funerals of the first three ones, even if I completely and utterly disagree with their decision to join this war. The response of people was amazing, but the creepy feeling of the "hero" spin could be felt by being among the people. At the end of the cerimony, after the caskets left the scene, one person stood up on a vehicle and shouted " let's say the truth, we don't support the politicians " who attented en-masse the funeral, as one could expect in a State Funeral "we are here for the families" ..a couple policeman quickly trotted into the scene and silenced the "disturber" by menacing to drag him away.

At the end they didn't drag him away, but managed to have him not protest anymore by arguing with him..which is a more or less fine response given the funeral situation...yet given that the caskets left the scene, the funeral was over and respect to the fallen ones was given, it was open season for vociferous protesting, imho.

Later that day I met a friend of mine who happened to serve a few years in Folgore , the italian elite paratrooper unit , among the best trained soldiers we have. He was grateful that I choosed to attend the funeral , to which I answered that I primarily went to express sympathy to the family (retrospectively, my choice of answer wasn't the best, but sugar coating isn't my first concern) . He almost jumped and asked me not to go further, not to say anything more ! He tought that I was about to criticize his fallen comrades and that's intolerable to him.

His response was entirely emotional and understandable, except that he pretended to read my mind, he automatically tought I was among "the haters". I told him that they knew they were going to join a risky mission...to which he cried an answer "so you think they deserved to die ? " ...I never thought that and told him so.

My friend is avery good, caring person with an advanced education and hate for gratuitous violence and fascist-like behaviors. He's split in two, my frustation for not being able to reach out and have his rational skills prevail over his gut instinct, binary thinking model must be similar to the one felt by friends , relatives and parents who don't want their sons and friend to join in the madness, yet they don't know what to do except being supportive somehow. Certainly jingospinning doesn't help.
posted by elpapacito at 1:53 AM on May 6, 2006

I'm off to the shops to buy lots of white paint and 5000 tins of baked beans.
posted by piscatorius at 2:21 AM on May 6, 2006

World War's are supposed to be multilateral.

What we now have is unilateral aggression against several sovereign nations. (and not even a truly declared war - it's a congressional authorization of miltary force - sheesh)

When a few of them band up against us... that'll be WWIII.

January 20, 2009 can't come fast enough.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 3:10 AM on May 6, 2006

So none of you guys voted for him in 2000 or 2004?

No, we're pretty much an anti-apocaplyse echo chamber here. We really need to reach out to the pro-armageddon folks more.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:18 AM on May 6, 2006

This just goes to show that a good propaganda film ("United 93") gets all the whack-jobs going. Too bad one of them's the prez.

That said, I think this must be the first war that's had protest movies ("Jarhead," "Fahrenheit 911") before it's had hollywood propaganda. If this incident is any sign of our capabilities, we ought to be very cautious about letting hollywood make any more.

BTW, if 9/11 was the first "counter-attack," does that make Desert Storm the first attack? How insightful of Mr. Beamer. < ./constructive misreading>
posted by anotherpanacea at 3:42 AM on May 6, 2006

Well, it's something that a conspiracy loon hypothesized about Bill Clinton saying in a LaRouche tract about

LaRouche is the source of the picture. How do you jump from the picture source to 'LaRouche tract'?

the chairman of the NYSE canoodling with a FARC commander. In 1998.

Was Richard Grasso in Columbia in 1999? Did Mr. Grasso attend a meeting with the FARC leader? Is that picture an authentic capture of reflected photons?

If the above three questions are answered "Yes", then do you have a counter-theory as to why Mr. Grasso is in that picture?
posted by rough ashlar at 3:50 AM on May 6, 2006

Isn't Bush a public servant? Can't we demand that he is drug tested?

Yes.
Yes.

No you can't see the results.

The leadership gets fine preventative healthcare at the Naval Hospital. They need to know what is going on in the leadership's bodies so they don't up and die.

"We citizens" are not gonna get that information.
posted by rough ashlar at 3:54 AM on May 6, 2006

January 20, 2009 can't come fast enough.

what will change then?
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 3:55 AM on May 6, 2006

there's the stuff about "HAARP, Weather Control (?!?!) and ChemTrails"

We do know HAARP exists. We know that it is for:

"The HAARP program is committed to developing a world class ionospheric research facility consisting of:

* The ionospheric research instrument (IRI), a high power transmitter facility operating in the HF frequency range. The IRI will be used to temporarily excite a limited area of the ionosphere for scientific study.
* A sophisticated suite of Scientific (or "diagnostic") instruments that will be used to observe the physical processes that occur in the excited region. "

To "change the weather" would require alot of energy input, and I doubt it would be possible to strong-arm the weather from the land.

Is it possible to use a small input to nudge a system one way or the other? Perhaps. Remember, the Air Force has documents that claim they will "Own the Weather" in 2025 or 2050.

and the NWO ("international bankers, oil barons and pharmaceutical cartels, as well as other major multinational corporations [and the] The Royal Family of England" - again, wtf?!?!)

Well, who has money - and a lot of it? How about the bankers, parts of the energy sector, parts of the health sector, cherry picked corporations.

Money has been equated to speech and politicial influence.
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) as an example.

The Federalists papers point out how one should be warry of the 'monied interests'.

So the only thing up for debate is do the people with the get together and plot step 1, 2 3, does it 'just happen', or do each monied interest approach lawmakers to make laws to keep as much of their money as they can and take action to attempt to grow their piece of the pie at the expense of others?


And you have a 'quote' from Ceasar:

"Beware the leader who beats the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into patriotic fervor, for patriotism is a double-edged sword. It emboldens the blood and narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need to seize the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."

And, of course, the chaotic home page of that site doesn't help much with the whole credibility factor.

So if the home page looks nice, its 'credible'? Here I thought having citations of data is what brings credibility.


So as you can see, we're fucked - the nuts on the extreme, extreme left, and the nuts on the right. Oy, time for a stiff drink...

Yeal, heven forbid the nuts actually have some truth to whatever they are claiming.

If you don't LIKE the "nuts" how about a simple idea:

A transparent government. How can the seed of a nut tree grow in non-fertile soil? If you have governments and corporations who don't like to people under their domain, there is no way to say "Power X lied in the past, so why is this time different?". If you have open bookkeeping you can't hide money as influence...no "black budgets", no missing millions or trillions.

When you have black budgets, lies in the past, and power....there are many spots which are fertile ground for plots/schemes which bears poisioned fruit and the occational nut tree.

But poisioned fruit isn't a nut just because you might not like the bad fruit.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:32 AM on May 6, 2006

January 20, 2009 can't come fast enough.

what will change then?
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 3:55 AM PST on May 6 [!]

New upholstery on the deck chairs of the Hindenberg.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:34 AM on May 6, 2006

How can you have a proper WW without some Germans? I mean seriously people.
posted by jtron at 4:42 AM on May 6, 2006

Any word on what WW V will be fought with?

Atomic robot tentacles.

At least, I hope.
posted by JHarris at 5:37 AM on May 6, 2006

what will change then?

While there is something to be said for the idea that the United States' problems stem from from deeper causes....0

Don't kid yourself. Bush leaving office WILL make things better. I consider it important to note this, since getting disheartened about the the corruption in Washington tends to encourage an air of non-participation, which ultimately works in the wonks' favor. (See: 2004, election)
posted by JHarris at 6:05 AM on May 6, 2006

Hey, at least we have the right man in charge. As Stephen Colbert said: "Bush is a man who thinks on Wednesday what he thought on Monday, despite what happened on Tuesday."

You gotta go from the gut people, that's what I do. And my gut tells me America will win WW3, and we'll be damn proud of it too.
posted by Raoul.Duke at 6:21 AM on May 6, 2006

Here's a thought. What if the biblical prophecies of the antichrist are correct but that Pat Robertson / George W are the antichrist prepared to ignite Armageddon? Jesus did have a loathing for Pharisees.

Makes you sort of worry about June 6, 2006 all over again.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:00 AM on May 6, 2006

If you are trying to start WWIII with an approval rating of 33% you appear to be nothing more than a desperate nut case, not a ferocious leader (although Hitler was plainly a desperate nut case and got plenty far.)

But this is exactly how Bush is beginning to appear to his own party and his own generals. I don't think he will be helped much longer to pursue his lunacy. There are so many once-staunch supporters jumping ship these days, that there are.........er........staunch-supporter-shaped holes in the...er..sides of the ship.

There are ways in which this assessment is accurate however. I mean, after all, Al Queda has mounted deadly attacks on many countries over the past 5 years (UK, Spain, Bali, Egypt, Phillipines etc...), which at least implies a World War against the West being mounted by Islamic extremism. Certainly every spokesman for Al Queda so far has spoken of jihad as a worldwide initiative.
posted by Nicholas West at 7:08 AM on May 6, 2006

I mean, after all, Al Queda has mounted deadly attacks on many countries over the past 5 years (UK, Spain, Bali, Egypt, Phillipines etc...), which at least implies a World War against the West being mounted by Islamic extremism.
posted by Nicholas West at 7:08 AM PST on May 6 [!]

Its not like they have access to the courts for redress.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:27 AM on May 6, 2006

...Al Queda has mounted deadly attacks on many countries over the past 5 years...

Those Poles were beating up Germans!

'member?
posted by rougy at 7:46 AM on May 6, 2006

Osama bin Laden called the conflict the Third World War in a December 2004 audio tape, and President Bush selectively quoted him last June:

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory, or misery and humiliation."

posted by kirkaracha at 8:26 AM on May 6, 2006

But poisioned fruit isn't a nut just because you might not like the bad fruit.


It's funny, rough ashlar, but all those words you typed are in english, but don't make sense in that order.
posted by docgonzo at 8:39 AM on May 6, 2006

On reflection, this isn't all that different than the "Crusade" comment.

I'm guessing he's been stuck in delusions of rapture for some time now.
posted by dreamsign at 8:47 AM on May 6, 2006

Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq.

Yeah right, so he said from the Batcave. Seriously and Robin agrees. Joker wasn't avaiable for comment. It's just the various factions that may be backward, integralist and have two thousand year old broken morals, but they understand they want control over oil and want the lion share of profits. Obviously the interests trying to "liberate" the oil want that too, so there must be a conflict.
posted by elpapacito at 8:59 AM on May 6, 2006

The BBC seems to have nailed what's going on. We're back to the Iran/Contra, death squad, overthrow of governments approach to spreading democracy around the world.

"The BBC Washington correspondent says the most likely reason for his departure is that Mr Goss objected to his new boss, John Negroponte.

"Mr Negroponte was appointed to the post of national intelligence director two weeks ago.

"....a replacement for Mr Goss could be announced as early as Monday, with Air Force General Michael Hayden, top deputy to Mr Negroponte, widely tipped to take over."

For those too young to remember, Wikipedia:

"John Dimitri Negroponte ... involvement in the covert funding of the Contras and the coverup of human rights abuses carried out by CIA-trained operatives in Honduras in the 1980s. According to The New York Times, Negroponte carried out "the covert strategy of the Reagan administration to crush the Sandinistas government in Nicaragua."

Message to democratically elected governments would appear to be: "Spread! And await the attentions of the United States."
posted by hank at 9:00 AM on May 6, 2006

I'm sure anyone with any shred of connection to WW2, or the people who fought in it, would be sickened to think that such a morally ambiguous conflict could be dubbed -- in anyone's mind -- a "world war". (I know I am.) The War on Terror was / is a stupid enough title; but if this administration wants to devalue the contributions of everyone who died in previous (read: legitimate) world wars, then there really is no floor to their depravity.

I feel sorry for my American friends; your leader is continually tarnishing the name of a great nation.
posted by Dark Messiah at 9:26 AM on May 6, 2006

He sure is. He is insane, and infuses everything he touches with misery, hostility and psychotic confusion.
posted by Nicholas West at 9:31 AM on May 6, 2006

That said, I think this must be the first war that's had protest movies ("Jarhead," "Fahrenheit 911") before it's had hollywood propaganda.

Jarhead was about the last war in Iraq, not this one.
posted by inigo2 at 9:35 AM on May 6, 2006

Nicholas West: you're not DrPerky are you?
posted by Dark Messiah at 9:43 AM on May 6, 2006

Jarhead was about the last war in Iraq, not this one.

I think Jarhead was about the first Gulf War the way M*A*S*H was about Korea.
posted by EarBucket at 9:44 AM on May 6, 2006

And there's the American Football World Cup.

There is no approaching WWIII.

There is one maniac in command on one side of the Atlantic along with the majority of 290M brains supporting that very maniac.

Wake the rest of us up when you're done with the American War World Cup.

And don't expect any support from the rest of us 6'611M brains on the other side of planet earth.
posted by psychomedia at 9:54 AM on May 6, 2006

Since I was young, cynics have claimed that U.S. Foreign Policy was guided by the fact that they were late for the last two World Wars, and very keen to be on time for the next one.

Just saying.
posted by Grangousier at 10:02 AM on May 6, 2006

Who, praytell, is DrPerky?
posted by Nicholas West at 10:19 AM on May 6, 2006

This is all starting to read like Dead Zone, and Christopher Walken is about to shake the president's hand.

except if you'd read Dead Zone, you'd know that Christopher Walken wasn't in it.
posted by quonsar at 10:21 AM on May 6, 2006

WW 3.0 rc1
posted by airguitar at 10:28 AM on May 6, 2006

That's right, it was Gene Hackman in the book.
posted by brain_drain at 10:28 AM on May 6, 2006

Osama bin Laden called the conflict the Third World War

Well, for those of you who are wondering just how batshit insane out president is, there's your answer. He's at least as crazy as a guy who lives in a cave.
posted by c13 at 10:47 AM on May 6, 2006

I think the phrase "Third World War" is a much more appropriate name for it than "World War Three", because after a century of our exploitation and thoughtless brutality the Third World is finally rising up to kick our ass.

Payback time!!!
posted by squalor at 11:03 AM on May 6, 2006

Heh. Back in the 80s/early 90s the title "Third World War" was used for a British comic about multinational corporations, for just that reason.
posted by Artw at 11:40 AM on May 6, 2006

Nicholas West: Who, praytell, is DrPerky?

Nevermind. I used to know a Nick West who went by that handle. Obviously you're not him. Sorry for the derail. (You had no posted e-mail address; this was my only means of contact you.)
posted by Dark Messiah at 11:47 AM on May 6, 2006

c13: Indeed.
posted by Freen at 11:54 AM on May 6, 2006

Haven't seen the film, but have read Swofford's Jarhead. It's definitely his memoir of Iraq 91.
posted by bardic at 12:37 PM on May 6, 2006

praytell

"pray, tell". an archaic usage popular among those hoping to portray verbal sophistication, but frequently exposing an amusing grammatic ignorance.

pray, as to petition.
tell, as to reveal.

"pray, tell", as in "please tell me".
posted by quonsar at 3:13 PM on May 6, 2006

bardic: Jarhead was produced as a film because it resonates with the current war. Think about the way MASH, a show about Korea, had such resonance with the war in Vietnam. That said, it's definitely unfair to Swofford to call his -book- antiwar; as he says, that's too complicated a question to respond with a simple 'pro' or 'con.' But the movie depicts war-making as pointless, wasteful, and cruel, so I'll stick with the claim that it's not the same sort of propaganda as "United 93".

All this is beside the point:

WWIII. WOW.
posted by anotherpanacea at 3:19 PM on May 6, 2006

Let's agree to disagree anotherpanacea. What's brilliant about Jarhead (not the movie) is the demonstration of what a clusterfuck "good" wars like Iraq I are, from the perspective of those who actually fight and/or don't fight it.
posted by bardic at 3:44 PM on May 6, 2006

Bush has turned me and many others into religious people. Every night we pray to god and thank him for term limits. 2008 isn't that far away.
posted by skallas at 4:30 PM on May 6, 2006

Not millions indeed, at least 2640 so far not counting 9/11 not counting iraquis and afghanis and maybe iranians soon too.

Let's count them too. According to one source,* 239,786 people have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. For each person killed in the 9/11 attacks, about 75 Iraqis and 4 Afghans have been killed.

* Its numbers are higher than the Iraq Body Count's, but its sources sound credible.
posted by salvia at 4:44 PM on May 6, 2006

Jarhead is closer to Catch-22 than All Quiet on the Western Front.
posted by klangklangston at 4:48 PM on May 6, 2006

No, we're pretty much an anti-apocaplyse echo chamber here. We really need to reach out to the pro-armageddon folks more.

Or are we? :)
posted by salvia at 4:55 PM on May 6, 2006

It would be ever so nice if some nutbar would just up and solve the problem. Surely the Administration isn't that difficult to eliminate. Hell, isn't it practically traditional for Presidents to get assassinated? Even Reagun got in on it.

Someone's not doing their job here. Why have the nuts forsaken us?
posted by five fresh fish at 5:05 PM on May 6, 2006

Hunh. Next I bet he rebrands the end game "HERO-shima."
posted by DenOfSizer at 5:08 PM on May 6, 2006

This thread really bummed me out.
posted by taosbat at 5:33 PM on May 6, 2006

fff, it may be pleasant to contemplate in the abstract but at this point, an assassination is just about the only thing that could save Bush's legacy. LBJ used JFK's memory to help push through the Great Society legislation, and President Cheney would use "Bush, the Fallen Hero" to establish an imperial presidency. Then he'd run in 2008, and win. And then we'd never get rid of the bastards.

So, no -- we don't need any nuts. Thanks for thinking of us, though.
posted by vetiver at 5:34 PM on May 6, 2006

You're thinking small, vetiver. Any nut worth having would be a nut that takes both of them out. :-)

Failing that, I sure hope you Americans get your shit together this next election and vote for honest, good people this time around.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:08 PM on May 6, 2006

Good gosh. I sound like a certain other user when I say things like that (re: assassinations). That really bothers me. I apologize to everyone. It must have been my inner cretin creeping out.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:18 PM on May 6, 2006

Surely the Administration isn't that difficult to eliminate.

On a different but related topic... I don't know how many of you caught the ushering-in of the new anti-corruption head in Italy. The previous one had received death threats and been under constant guard. You couldn't go near him. So they blew up a bridge with him and several protection vehicles around him. Just blew up the whole damn area he was in. The new guy, he got death threats, too. Said he'd be gone by Christmas. This was a couple of years ago now. Anybody know how long he lasted? Is he still alive?

except if you'd read Dead Zone, you'd know that Christopher Walken wasn't in it.

except that I have read Dead Zone, and I'm perfectly aware that people don't "star" in books. one: when I see a movie of a book, I inevitably lose the mental image I had of the characters and it is irrevocably replaced with the film version (I know there was a non-Wood version of Frodo somewhere in my head, but what it was I do not know), and two, I imagined that most would know the movie and not the book, and it's the image I was conjuring.

Three, you're a doo-doo head.
posted by dreamsign at 7:42 PM on May 6, 2006

Gotta agree with the negative consequences of assassination (even aside from that little ethical issue). But there's an interesting factoid that many presidents elected in years ending in 0 have died or been shot while in office.
posted by hattifattener at 8:32 PM on May 6, 2006

Take it away Mr. Hemingway--

"War is no longer made by simply analysed economic forces if it ever was. War is made or planned now by individual men, demagogues and dictators who play on the patriotism of their people to mislead them into a belief in the great fallacy of war when all their vaunted reforms have failed to satisfy the people they misrule. And we in America should see that no man is ever given, no matter how gradually or how noble and excellent the man, the power to put this country into a war which is now being prepared and brought closer each day with all the pre-meditation of a long planned murder. For when you give power to an executive you do not know who will be filling that position when the time of crisis comes."

--Notes on the next war.

"Oh, I wanna get high, I wanna get it on,
'Cause you know that soon things will all go wrong.
I wanna--wanna live, yeah, just one more.
I wanna party like it's World War IV."
posted by octobersurprise at 8:52 PM on May 6, 2006

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Hermann Goering
posted by dreamsign at 11:30 PM on May 6, 2006

>And Bush is the Sophia Coppola of Presidents. It's starting to make sense.

Don't insult sophia! She may be a lousy actress, but a) she can direct, and b) she's hawt.

Neither a) nor b) apply to shrub.
posted by spincycle at 12:19 AM on May 7, 2006

Failing that, I sure hope you Americans get your shit together this next election and vote for honest, good people this time around.

You know what? I'm kind of tired of "Americans" having to take the fall for this asshole. Tell it to my Republican neighbors down the street. As for me, I no more elected him to office than you did, and I've probably done a lot more than you have to combat the bullshit created by him and his party.

If you don't like him, why don't YOU do something about it? Like, try to pressure your government not to work with his administration?

If that seems like an impossibly difficult and improbable task, imagine what it feels like trying to incite political action against the administration in THIS country.
posted by rockabilly_pete at 1:36 AM on May 7, 2006

Nelson Muntz voice: Ha ha! Your president is crazy!

*Realizes Bush is now talking about a world war, that Europe is part of the world.*

Fuck.
posted by sveskemus at 2:28 AM on May 7, 2006

An apology from a Bush voter
posted by homunculus at 10:54 AM on May 7, 2006

"In Russia, reaction to Mr. Cheney's speech on Thursday was sharp. Kommersant, a major daily, called it 'the beginning of a second cold war,' this time in a struggle over energy and competing spheres of influence rather than ideology."
posted by homunculus at 10:58 AM on May 7, 2006

Farnsworth (shouting from attic): "Buddha! Zeus! God! One of you guys do something!"
posted by dglynn at 11:55 AM on May 7, 2006

Oh, this one is nice:

"Gen. Hayden [indignant]: "Just to be very clear ... mmkay... and believe me, if there's any Amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. Alright? And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. The constitutional standard is 'reasonable'"

Isn't this the dude they're wanting to put in charge of the CIA?

The standard is "probable," not "reasonable." FFS.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:31 PM on May 7, 2006

I'll be in my freehold. Books will be accepted in trade for supplies and food.
posted by nlindstrom at 3:14 PM on May 7, 2006

I'll be in my freehold. Books will be accepted in trade for supplies and food.

Lotsa' F**king Luck, Farnham...ooops...I thought I was talking to someone imanginary.
posted by taosbat at 3:47 PM on May 7, 2006

Oh, that scamp. He'll call it anything but what it is: war crime.
posted by Decani at 5:01 PM on May 7, 2006