OT: Is Bush a Dry Drunk?
Bo Raxo
holier-than-thou attitude and a crusading belief that they can save
the world, or at least the part of the world that suffers from their
own addiction. Paranoia is often a feature of a reformed addict,
along with grandiosity.
The list of indicative behaviors reads like a lead-up to this fixation
with Saddam and Iraq:
Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity (must save world from WMDs)
Grandiose behavior (Axis of evil)
A rigid, judgmental outlook (inspectors be damned, we're going in)
Impatience (what do you mean, wait for inspections?)
Childish behavior (nodding approval to insults of the French and
Germans)
Irresponsible behavior (no economic stimulus package, accounting board
woes)
Irrational rationalization (Show Saddam he must respect the UN, even
if we have to do it without UN approval)
Projection (Osama is the key to...no, wait, I meant Saddam)
Overreaction (He might gas his own people, let's ship a quarter of a
million troops over and invade)
The article below takes a fascinating look at Dubyah's personality in
terms of what we know about reformed/recovering alcoholics, commonly
referred to as "dry drunks". I think it provides an interesting,
though in context frightening, model to explain George W. Bush's
behavior and world view.
Take care,
Bo Raxo
http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html
October 11, 2002
Addiction, Brain Damage and the President
"Dry Drunk" Syndrome and
George W. Bush
by KATHERINE van WORMER
Ordinarily I would not use this term. But when I came across the
article "Dry Drunk" - - Is Bush Making a Cry for Help? in American
Politics Journal by Alan Bisbort, I was ready to concede, in the case
of George W. Bush, the phrase may be quite apt.
Dry drunk is a slang term used by members and supporters of Alcoholics
Anonymous and substance abuse counselors to describe the recovering
alcoholic who is no longer drinking, one who is dry, but whose
thinking is clouded. Such an individual is said to be dry but not
truly sober. Such an individual tends to go to extremes.
It was when I started noticing the extreme language that colored
President Bush's speeches that I began to wonder. First there were the
terms-- "crusade" and "infinite justice" that were later withdrawn.
Next came "evil doers," "axis of evil," and "regime change", terms
that have almost become clichés in the mass media. Something about the
polarized thinking and the obsessive repetition reminded me of many of
the recovering alcoholics/addicts I had treated. (A point worth noting
is that because of the connection between addiction and "stinking
thinking," relapse prevention usually consists of work in the
cognitive area). Having worked with recovering alcoholics for years, I
flinched at the single-mindedness and ego- and ethnocentricity in the
President's speeches. (My husband likened his phraseology to the
gardener character played by Peter Sellers in the movie, Being There).
Since words are the tools, the representations, of thought, I wondered
what Bush's choice of words said about where he was coming from. Or
where we would be going.
First, in this essay, we will look at the characteristics of the
so-called "dry drunk;" then we will see if they apply to this
individual, our president; and then we will review his drinking
history for the record. What is the dry drunk syndrome? "Dry drunk"
traits consist of:
Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity
Grandiose behavior
A rigid, judgmental outlook
Impatience
Childish behavior
Irresponsible behavior
Irrational rationalization
Projection
Overreaction
Clearly, George W. Bush has all these traits except exaggerated self
importance. He may be pompous, especially with regard to international
dealings, but his actual importance hardly can be exaggerated. His
power, in fact, is such that if he collapses into paranoia, a large
part of the world will collapse with him. Unfortunately, there are
some indications of paranoia in statements such as the following: "We
must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients
before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction
against the United States and our allies and friends." The trait of
projection is evidenced here as well, projection of the fact that we
are ready to attack onto another nation which may not be so inclined.
Bush's rigid, judgmental outlook comes across in virtually all his
speeches. To fight evil, Bush is ready to take on the world, in almost
a Biblical sense. Consider his statement with reference to Israel:
"Look my job isn't to try to nuance. I think moral clarity is
important... this is evil versus good."
Bush's tendency to dichotomize reality is not on the Internet list
above, but it should be, as this tendency to polarize is symptomatic
of the classic addictive thinking pattern. I describe this thinking
distortion in Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective as
either/or reasoning-- "either you are with us or against us." Oddly,
Bush used those very words in his dealings with other nations.
All-or-nothing thinking is a related mode of thinking commonly found
in newly recovering alcoholics/addicts. Such a worldview traps people
in a pattern of destructive behavior.
Obsessive thought patterns are also pronounced in persons prone to
addiction. There are organic reasons for this due to brain chemistry
irregularities; messages in one part of the brain become stuck there.
This leads to maddening repetition of thoughts. President Bush seems
unduly focused on getting revenge on Saddam Hussein ("he tried to kill
my Dad") leading the country and the world into war, accordingly.
Grandiosity enters the picture as well. What Bush is proposing to
Congress is not the right to attack on one country but a total shift
in military policy: America would now have the right to take military
action before the adversary even has the capacity to attack. This is
in violation, of course, of international law as well as national
precedent. How to explain this grandiose request? Jane Bryant Quinn
provides the most commonly offered explanation in a recent Newsweek
editorial, "Iraq: It's the Oil, Stupid." Many other opponents of the
Bush doctrine similarly seek a rational motive behind the obsession
over first, the war on terror and now, Iraq. I believe the explanation
goes deeper than oil, that Bush's logic is being given too much
credit; I believe his obsession is far more visceral.
On this very day, a peace protestor in Portland held up the sign,
"Drunk on Power." This, I believe, is closer to the truth. The drive
for power can be an unquenchable thirst, addictive in itself. Senator
William Fulbright, in his popular bestseller of the 1960s, The
Arrogance of Power, masterfully described the essence of power-hungry
politics as the pursuit of power; this he conceived as an end in
itself. "The causes and consequences of war may have more to do with
pathology than with politics," he wrote, "more to do with irrational
pressures of pride and pain than with rational calculation of
advantage and profit."
Another "dry drunk" trait is impatience. Bush is far from a patient
man: "If we wait for threats to fully materialize," he said in a
speech he gave at West Point, "we will have waited too long."
Significantly, Bush only waited for the United Nations and for
Congress to take up the matter of Iraq's disarmament with extreme
reluctance.
Alan Bisbort argues that Bush possesses the characteristics of the
"dry drunk" in terms of: his incoherence while speaking away from the
script; his irritability with anyone (for example, Germany's Schröder)
who dares disagree with him; and his dangerous obsessing about only
one thing (Iraq) to the exclusion of all other things.
In short, George W. Bush seems to possess the traits characteristic of
addictive persons who still have the thought patterns that accompany
substance abuse. If we consult the latest scientific findings, we will
discover that scientists can now observe changes that occur in the
brain as a result of heavy alcohol and other drug abuse. Some of these
changes may be permanent. Except in extreme cases, however, these
cognitive impairments would not be obvious to most observers.
To reach any conclusions we need of course to know Bush's personal
history relevant to drinking/drug use. To this end I consulted several
biographies. Yes, there was much drunkenness, years of binge drinking
starting in college, at least one conviction for DUI in 1976 in Maine,
and one arrest before that for a drunken episode involving theft of a
Christmas wreath. According to J.D. Hatfield's book, Fortunate Son,
Bush later explained:
"[A]lcohol began to compete with my energies....I'd lose focus."
Although he once said he couldn't remember a day he hadn't had a
drink, he added that he didn't believe he was "clinically alcoholic."
Even his father, who had known for years that his son had a serious
drinking problem, publicly proclaimed: "He was never an alcoholic.
It's just he knows he can't hold his liquor."
Bush drank heavily for over 20 years until he made the decision to
abstain at age 40. About this time he became a "born again Christian,"
going as usual from one extreme to the other. During an Oprah
interview, Bush acknowledged that his wife had told him he needed to
think about what he was doing. When asked in another interview about
his reported drug use, he answered honestly, "I'm not going to talk
about what I did 20 to 30 years ago."
That there might be a tendency toward addiction in Bush's family is
indicated in the recent arrests or criticism of his daughters for
underage drinking and his niece for cocaine possession. Bush, of
course, deserves credit for his realization that he can't drink
moderately, and his decision today to abstain. The fact that he
doesn't drink moderately, may be suggestive of an inability to handle
alcohol. In any case, Bush has clearly gotten his life in order and is
in good physical condition, careful to exercise and rest when he needs
to do so. The fact that some residual effects from his earlier
substance abuse, however slight, might cloud the U.S. President's
thinking and judgment is frightening, however, in the context of the
current global crisis.
One final consideration that might come into play in the foreign
policy realm relates to Bush's history relevant to his father. The
Bush biography reveals the story of a boy named for his father, sent
to the exclusive private school in the East where his father's
reputation as star athlete and later war hero were still remembered.
The younger George's achievements were dwarfed in the school's memory
of his father. Athletically he could not achieve his father's laurels,
being smaller and perhaps less strong. His drinking bouts and lack of
intellectual gifts held him back as well. He was popular and well
liked, however. His military record was mediocre as compared to his
father's as well. Bush entered the Texas National Guard. What he did
there remains largely a mystery. There are reports of a lot of
barhopping during this period. It would be only natural that Bush
would want to prove himself today, that he would feel somewhat
uncomfortable following, as before, in his father's footsteps. I
mention these things because when you follow his speeches, Bush seems
bent on a personal crusade. One motive is to avenge his father.
Another seems to be to prove himself to his father. In fact, Bush
seems to be trying somehow to achieve what his father failed to do - -
to finish the job of the Gulf War, to get the "evildoer" Saddam.
To summarize, George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of
what alcoholics in recovery call "the dry drunk." His behavior is
consistent with barely noticeable but meaningful brain damage brought
on by years of heavy drinking and possible cocaine use. All the
classic patterns of addictive thinking that are spelled out in my book
are here:
the tendency to go to extremes (leading America into a massive 100
billion dollar strike-first war);
a "kill or be killed mentality;" the tunnel vision;
"I" as opposed to "we" thinking;
the black and white polarized thought processes (good versus evil, all
or nothing thinking).
His drive to finish his father's battles is of no small significance,
psychologically.
If the public (and politicians) could only see what Fulbright noted as
the pathology in the politics. One day, sadly, they will.
Katherine van Wormer is a Professor of Social Work at the University
of Northern Iowa Co-author of Addiction Treatment: A Strengths
Perspective (2002). She can be reached at: Katherine...@uni.edu
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
to get scary with his single-minded pursuit of a war most of the
rest of the world doesn't want, and more than a little bit fake with
his reasons for pursuing it.
This guy needs to go. He's way the hell too reckless and isolated
to continue being the leader of the most powerful nation on earth.
He's launching an offensive war on the thinnest of pretexts, and
obliterating years of alliance-building by presidents far more
worthy of the office than this damn fool is proving to be.
RstJ
"Bo Raxo" <Cheneys...@deathsdoor.com> wrote in message
news:81bfcfe1.03031...@posting.google.com...
jan
demonio\)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I don't know if it's Crusader Syndrome or what, but he's starting
>to get scary with his single-minded pursuit of a war most of the
>rest of the world doesn't want, and more than a little bit fake with
>his reasons for pursuing it.
>
>This guy needs to go.
We'll see what comes of allegations that he and/or his minions
fabricated "evidence" against SH.
If lying under oath in a civil suit is an impeachable offense, so is
lying in official documents used to launch a major war.
--
jan
"During the campaign the president did not express, as you put it,
disdain for nation-building ...."
-- White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, quoted in
Slate Magazine's "Whopper of the Week," lying about
then-candidate George W.Bush's statements regarding
responsibilities of post-war America.
Ranger00089
THEM.
P.S. Notice how Bush is climbing in the polls again? Notice the 65 to 70
percent approval of his handling of Iraq?
Steve, SFC/US Army
sherman
Comment:
Sounds good to me.
Sherman.
"Bo Raxo" <Cheneys...@deathsdoor.com> wrote in message
news:81bfcfe1.03031...@posting.google.com...
jan
wrote:
Notice how almost 60% of the same people believe Iraq was *directly*
involved in the 9/11 attacks?
Way to go, W. You managed to get those lies across. There goes that
"liberal media" again.
jan
wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:40:06 GMT, jan <spindockter_@_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>If lying under oath in a civil suit is an impeachable offense, so is
>>lying in official documents used to launch a major war.
>
>Remember how republiscum equated the alleged misdeeds of Whitewater,
>to the proven misdeeds of Iran/Contra, as having moral equivalency?
To hell with Iran/Contra, they equated Larry Flynt's sexual
investigations into GOPness dalliances to heresy.
Frickin' idiots.
Bo Raxo
"Ranger00089" <range...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20030317205844...@mb-fw.aol.com...
Yeah, I'm sure your God loves to see lots of people run off and kill one
another.
At times of national emergency or war, a President's approval numbers always
bump up. Happened to Bush Sr. in Gulf I. He still lost.
People are supporting the Presidency, not this President.
I also note how you always claim facts and NEVER post an kind of link to
back them up. Is this an actual fact or something you heard on Faux News?
Ranger00089
>Yeah, I'm sure your God loves to see lots of people run off and kill one
>another.
He is a vengeful God.
>At times of national emergency or war, a President's approval numbers always
>bump up. Happened to Bush Sr. in Gulf I. He still lost.
>
>People are supporting the Presidency, not this President.
Damn you hope this is true don't you Bo?
>I also note how you always claim facts and NEVER post an kind of link to
>back them up. Is this an actual fact or something you heard on Faux News?
>
Unlike some people who post here, I have a life outside of this news group. I
do not rely on the internet for my information. If you want to run around
looking for internet sites go ahead. Try, CNN, Fox, AOL for starters. I do find
it comical how you and other weak kneed liberals refer to Fox News as Faux. It
really points to a position that if a news organization doesn't agree with your
political beliefs, it must be wrong. This is why your party will continue to
lose. Reality can slap you in the face and you all keep listening only to party
rhetoric. The blind following the blind Bo.
Steve, SFC/US Army
Ranger00089
>Remember how republiscum equated the alleged misdeeds of Whitewater,
>>to the proven misdeeds of Iran/Contra, as having moral equivalency?
>
>To hell with Iran/Contra, they equated Larry Flynt's sexual
>investigations into GOPness dalliances to heresy.
>
>Frickin' idiots.
>
>
>--
>
>jan
>
LOL. It hurts you so badly to be Dems and wrong about what the people of this
country really believe doesn't it? Change parties kids, why do you think its
called the right?
LMFAO
Steve, SFC/US Army
pat
heard use the term was a KGO radio personality named SHANN NIXX. This
is a way to bring into question the President's ability. In 35+ years
of sobriety knowing hundreds of alcoholics who are sober I would like
to give you the benefits of my experiences. I would have more
confidence
in the sober alcoholic in the time of crisis, these people seem to rise
to the occasion. Where the problem the I have observed is after the
crisis is settled these people have a hard time re-adjusting to the
daily drudgery of everyday life.
Pat
Glek
news:20030317233652...@mb-fe.aol.com:
Actually, the political distinction between "right" and "left" is another
contribution of the French! Vive le France! again.
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~uvvn/leftright/left_right.html
excerpt from a very long article. The year is 1789:
What were the consequences for the seating of the representatives? During
large meetings with repeated sessions in the same hall, most people tend to
return every time to the place they occupied from the beginning onwards.
There is no good reason why the representatives would behave otherwise - the
more so since the Salle was to hold 1100 "délégués" , and in such a large
crowd it is natural to look for friends and allies at the place where they
formerly could be found. If the representatives indeed behaved in this way,
it is easy to reconstruct what should be the result in the renovated hall,
with the help of fig. 1 which shows the situation before and after the
renovation. Thus, at 10 a.m., July 23, at the opening of the session, the
high aristocracy and the senior clergy suddenly found themselves, instead of
shaded by the canopy for the king, now at the far right of the chairman. The
third estate, up till then far from the king's chair, were now on the left
hand side of the chairman. This simple event, innocently evoked by the
carpenters in their frenzied action, must have been the birth of left- right
in parliamentary politics. Its first real manifestation was during the famous
vote of 11 September 1789 on the judicial power of the king: the delegates
sitting on the left of the chair voted for a significant reduction, the
delegates at right to retain the ancient royal prerogatives.
jan
wrote:
>The cartoon boy and his lil buddy wrote;
>
>>Remember how republiscum equated the alleged misdeeds of Whitewater,
>>>to the proven misdeeds of Iran/Contra, as having moral equivalency?
>>
>>To hell with Iran/Contra, they equated Larry Flynt's sexual
>>investigations into GOPness dalliances to heresy.
>>
>>Frickin' idiots.
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>jan
>>
> LOL. It hurts you so badly to be Dems and wrong about what the people of this
>country really believe doesn't it?
WTF? That doesn't even make sense.
Come back when you're not frothing at the mouth.
>Change parties kids, why do you think its
>called the right?
Because it thinks it's right.
jan
wrote:
>Bo didley wrote;
>
>>Yeah, I'm sure your God loves to see lots of people run off and kill one
>>another.
>
>He is a vengeful God.
Yeah, a real nice role model.
>>People are supporting the Presidency, not this President.
>
>Damn you hope this is true don't you Bo?
Pull your head out of your ass and note the difference in the polling,
among other things, at the very second it was made clear we were going
to wa-rah.
They support the presidency and troops. They still do NOT support the
president.
And just wait until the real fallout occurs.
>
>>I also note how you always claim facts and NEVER post an kind of link to
>>back them up. Is this an actual fact or something you heard on Faux News?
>>
>
>Unlike some people who post here, I have a life outside of this news group.
And an exciting one at that, I'll bet.
Do you worship this "vengeful" god?
I can't imagine bowing down to someone who intentionally kills people.
Sounds like that Saddam guy you hate so much.
yaffaDina
Usually, when there's any kind of threat of violence, i.e. war, there's
a surge in enlistment. Has that happened this time around, I haven't
heard of it and I'm sure I would have if there had been?
yD
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"jan" <spindockter_@_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rm9e7vk0tbppq21v7...@4ax.com...
> On 18 Mar 2003 04:34:07 GMT, range...@aol.comnojunk (Ranger00089)
> wrote:
>
> >Bo didley wrote;
> >
> >>Yeah, I'm sure your God loves to see lots of people run off and kill one
> >>another.
> >
> >He is a vengeful God.
>
> Yeah, a real nice role model.
>
>
>
> >>People are supporting the Presidency, not this President.
> >
> >Damn you hope this is true don't you Bo?
>
> Pull your head out of your ass and note the difference in the polling,
> among other things, at the very second it was made clear we were going
> to wa-rah.
>
> They support the presidency and troops. They still do NOT support the
> president.
>
> And just wait until the real fallout occurs.
Oh man, don't go down that road. If Saddam really did manage to
buy a bomb off the former Soviet Republics, we're likely to find
out about it the hard way.
RstJ
jan
Oh, we're likely to be hatin' life here pretty soon. As someone on CNN
just said, this invasion is a recruiting bonanza for Al Quaida. We'll
see people around the world killed because they are aligned
(ostensibly) with a regime who is killing hundreds of thousands of
Muslims in an attempt to get one of them out of the way.
And W is already blaming *them* for that.
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
> >Oh man, don't go down that road. If Saddam really did manage to
> >buy a bomb off the former Soviet Republics, we're likely to find
> >out about it the hard way.
>
> Oh, we're likely to be hatin' life here pretty soon. As someone on CNN
> just said, this invasion is a recruiting bonanza for Al Quaida. We'll
> see people around the world killed because they are aligned
> (ostensibly) with a regime who is killing hundreds of thousands of
> Muslims in an attempt to get one of them out of the way.
>
> And W is already blaming *them* for that.
> --
>
> jan
Maybe, but not likely. Al-Queda, and especially bin Laden,
have loathed Hussein for years. Most of the theistically-inclined
arab world despises him, especially the countries he's invaded.
Saddam's a moslem, of course, but not a fanatic, and has vigorously
persecuted fanatics during his reign. That's what attracted us to
him in the first place.
I don't think Al-Queda is going to be the problem so much as
whatever new group comes along after them, leveraging Iraq
to find new martyrs for whatever cause they espouse. Al-Queda's
primary use now is a bogeyman for the adminstration to justify
things like this war. The problem will come from groups we
aren't aware of yet.
RstJ
Phoenix
And if he didn't manage to get it, what the
hell are we doing over there, anyway?
bel
>
> RstJ
>
>
>
>
jan
demonio\)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Maybe, but not likely. Al-Queda, and especially bin Laden,
>have loathed Hussein for years.
Aha, yes. They loathe *HUSSEIN*.
But as you know, Saddam Hussein will represent .00001% of the
casualties in Iraq. Most Iraqis are true Muslims. Al Quaida does not
despise them.
jan
wrote:
An especially intriguing question when you consider that the stated
reasons we aren't putting N. Korea at the head of our "must-hit" list
is that they already have nukes, so we can't incite them.
This is Keystone Cops foreign policy at its finest.
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Phoenix" <avian...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.18e1182b1...@news-server.carolina.rr.com...
Last I heard we were liberating the country, which is actually
a valid reason for getting rid of Hussein. And if it had been
the first one offered, we might have a lot more international
support. Unfortunately, we started off with spurious claims
of weapons programs that nobody seems to be able to find,
then Al-Queda connections which don't exist, then claims of
a nuke program that were based on forged documents,
and finally an interpretation of a UN resolution that
nobody other than Tony Blair and his 12 best friends
agree with.
Once launched, the war will find its own reasons for
continuing. They always do. Notice that there's no plan
to pull out of Afghanistan anytime in the forseeable future.
RstJ
yaffaDina
I tried to laugh last night when Bush talked about being willing to make
sacrifices -- as if! -- I was gonna write to him and ask if I could
share *his* sacrifices, then I thought better go with Chaney, country
club hideout and stock market tips to boot! I could be okay you know,
if they'd let me :)
yD
yaffaDina
Oh no! As if the fundamentalist Muslims aren't bad enough we'll get the
wrath of the secular muslims as well!
yD
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:50:27 GMT, "Robert St. James \(el corazon del
> demonio\)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Maybe, but not likely. Al-Queda, and especially bin Laden,
> >have loathed Hussein for years.
>
> Aha, yes. They loathe *HUSSEIN*.
And his supporters, and his secret police. It's not just one guy in
a military costume holding a shotgun.
>
> But as you know, Saddam Hussein will represent .00001% of the
> casualties in Iraq. Most Iraqis are true Muslims. Al Quaida does not
> despise them.
>
>
> --
>
> jan
I doubt they care one way or another about them if they can't
make political capital out of them. I was talking about support
at the state level, which Al-Queda never had there. There's
also no evidence they recruited many Iraqis. None of the hijackers
were Iraqi nationals or had any real connection to the area. I don't
deny that Al-Queda (or whatever is left of them) will seize on the
war to justify whatever they have planned, but these guys have never
been short of excuses for their attacks, so if it wasn't the war, they'd
find something else.
RstJ
Nancy Rudins
Just last year we were promising a bright happy democratic
Afghanistan, and wow, look, our installed government maybe kinda sorta
has control of Kabul, the warlords control the rest of it again (same
guys who were fighting in the last civil war, in fact), the Taliban are
on their way back, and Bin Laden is likely moving around in the hills
on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. But oh, wait, we're onto
the next big thing, now. Promises to the Afghans are so... last year.
Kind regards,
Nancy
--
There's nothing you can post that can't be posted.
Nothing you can mail that can't be mailed.
Nowhere you can ftp that isn't where you're meant to ftp.
It's easy. Nancy Rudins http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/nrudins/
Glek
news:3E77556A...@netscape.net:
One of my my wild predictions: I am sure that the Islamist (as opposed to the
moderate Islamic) clergy in Iraq will blame Israel for this invasion. We can
probably see groups forming in Iraq that will pattern themselves after the
European fascist parties including the Nazis, that will combine secular
fascism with Islamic fundamentalism, with Jewish anti-semitism as the
combining thread and Iraqi nationalism as the creed. I hope I am wrong.
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
> Just last year we were promising a bright happy democratic
> Afghanistan, and wow, look, our installed government maybe kinda sorta
> has control of Kabul, the warlords control the rest of it again (same
> guys who were fighting in the last civil war, in fact), the Taliban are
> on their way back, and Bin Laden is likely moving around in the hills
> on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. But oh, wait, we're onto
> the next big thing, now. Promises to the Afghans are so... last year.
>
> Kind regards,
> Nancy
It's starting to take on an ominous, and familiar, tone: US military
and a half-ass government hold the big towns and the road junctions
while resistence begins to form in the hills. The Russians learned
this lesson the hard way too. So did the British. It's easy to "win"
a war in Afghanistan. Problem is, the other side doesn't consider
the war to be over. You don't read about it in the news very often,
but our camps (and the so-called coalition government's) are
frequently attacked:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL301697
"About 20 people have been killed and more than a
dozen injured in a series of rocket attacks or explosions
over the past six weeks in Kandahar, a former Taliban
stronghold until the Islamic regime was ousted
by U.S.-led forces in 2001."
RstJ
yaffaDina
Aw, you're too hard on the U.S., Nancy -- Afghanistan is once again the
top supplier of heroin!
yD
yaffaDina
You & me both (hope you're wrong) but ...
yD
pat
use to disparage is character did not work. The next strategy to
disparage his character was to claim that if he was not a active
participant in a 12 Step program (AA) he was susceptible to a behavior
called a "dry drunk." I wonder what James Carville will think up
when this idea does not float???
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Glek" <gle...@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9342818F6...@207.217.77.25...
I'm sure some will. But as a galvinizing pan-Islamic cause, the struggle
against "Zionism" lost much of its force back in the 70s, after the "zionists"
kicked their asses. Saddam's looking back to the good old days when "death
to Israel!" was a rallying cry which could gather support at the level of heads
of state rather than the dispossessed street rabble. Most of those heads of state
long ago realized that Saddam was far more of a real threat than the Israeli
state ever turned out to be.
RstJ
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"pat" <patty...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E776156...@hotmail.com...
> I recall during the election when the strategy of using Bush's drug
> use to disparage is character did not work. The next strategy to
> disparage his character was to claim that if he was not a active
> participant in a 12 Step program (AA) he was susceptible to a behavior
> called a "dry drunk." I wonder what James Carville will think up
> when this idea does not float???
> Pat
How about that he's a war-mongering idiot who has alienated most
of the rest of the world while enacting ecomonic policies at home
which obliterated 75% of the stock market and plunged the country
into a recession.
Good enough for ya?
RstJ
<...>
Nancy Rudins
It is indeed ominous. And, unfortunately, familiar.
As a sidebar, I read something in the advertising
section of the New York Times last week. The Army
and other armed services worry about the juxtaposition
between recruitment and reality, having standing
policies to stop advertising during a war. I
realize people don't need to see the carnage on
color TV to know that's what happens, but I found
it an interesting tidbit.
Nancy Rudins
yaffaDina <yaffa...@netscape.net> writes:
>Nancy Rudins wrote:
>>
>> Just last year we were promising a bright happy democratic
>> Afghanistan, and wow, look, our installed government maybe kinda sorta
>> has control of Kabul, the warlords control the rest of it again (same
>> guys who were fighting in the last civil war, in fact), the Taliban are
>> on their way back, and Bin Laden is likely moving around in the hills
>> on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. But oh, wait, we're onto
>> the next big thing, now. Promises to the Afghans are so... last year.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Nancy
>>
>
>Aw, you're too hard on the U.S., Nancy -- Afghanistan is once again the
>top supplier of heroin!
>yD
>
And the US is probably their biggest customer.
Kind regards,
Nancy
Nancy Rudins
"Robert St. James \(el corazon del demonio\)" <robert...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>"Glek" <gle...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns9342818F6...@207.217.77.25...
>> One of my my wild predictions: I am sure that the Islamist (as opposed to the
>> moderate Islamic) clergy in Iraq will blame Israel for this invasion. We can
>> probably see groups forming in Iraq that will pattern themselves after the
>> European fascist parties including the Nazis, that will combine secular
>> fascism with Islamic fundamentalism, with Jewish anti-semitism as the
>> combining thread and Iraqi nationalism as the creed. I hope I am wrong.
>
>I'm sure some will. But as a galvinizing pan-Islamic cause, the struggle
>against "Zionism" lost much of its force back in the 70s, after the "zionists"
>kicked their asses. Saddam's looking back to the good old days when "death
>to Israel!" was a rallying cry which could gather support at the level of heads
>of state rather than the dispossessed street rabble. Most of those heads of state
>long ago realized that Saddam was far more of a real threat than the Israeli
>state ever turned out to be.
>
>RstJ
>
>
>
>
Because Iraq's sociopolitical picture is not black and white,
Democracy--as we used to know it in the US before King George
the Unready was installed--may not be practical or even
possible with the region's warring factions (Sunnis, Shiites,
Kurds) in an uneasy truce that has existed for a very long
time. Ousting Saddam may actually destabilize the entire
region.
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
> It is indeed ominous. And, unfortunately, familiar.
> As a sidebar, I read something in the advertising
> section of the New York Times last week. The Army
> and other armed services worry about the juxtaposition
> between recruitment and reality, having standing
> policies to stop advertising during a war. I
> realize people don't need to see the carnage on
> color TV to know that's what happens, but I found
> it an interesting tidbit.
>
> Kind regards,
> Nancy
The relatives I have in the Navy and Army understood
what they were signing up for and that it could
involve combat. Interestingly enough, they were more
worried about having to kill other people than they were
about injury to themselves. But yeah, I get your point:
the advertising makes it look like a good way to make
a man of yourself, to learn valuable skills, and to be
part of something larger than yourself. Which it is.
I think it's also the responsiblity of the potential recruit
to educate himself about the other side of it. The Services
are not a profession to be entered lightly. Fortunately,
it is a profession now, rather than a draft. Although at
the rate we're swallowing up countries, the draft might
not be as far away as we'd like to think.
RstJ
yaffaDina
What I like are the 'experts' predicting it to be a very quick war -- as
if there was no chance that this is an opportunity for the Saudi Royal
Family to be overthrown, or that none of the other nations (incl.
perhaps, Saudi Arabia under a new (different) govt.) will take sides and
join right in.
Then, as previously mentioned, there's N. Korea and Iran ...
yD
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
<...>
> Because Iraq's sociopolitical picture is not black and white,
> Democracy--as we used to know it in the US before King George
> the Unready was installed--may not be practical or even
> possible with the region's warring factions (Sunnis, Shiites,
> Kurds) in an uneasy truce that has existed for a very long
> time. Ousting Saddam may actually destabilize the entire
> region.
>
> Kind regards,
> Nancy
It will. This "little pink houses" vision of how the rest of
the world should be is not realistic. How many of us knew
about the ethnic tension in Yugoslavia before Tito croaked?
There will be furious reprisals against the people who
supported Saddam and the Turks have made it clear they
do not want an independent Kurdish state on their borders.
Bush and Co. give no indication of having any real plan
for a post-war Iraq beyond giving big rebuilding contracts
to their pals. Keeping the peaces in the burnt-out remains
of a police state might prove to be far more of a challenge
than ousting Saddam Hussein.
RstJ
Nancy Rudins
That's so true. In a perfect world, we could just airdrop in
a legislative body, but this is reality. The Iraqi people
have been disenfranchised for so long that any new regime
must have as its goal the empowerment of Iraqis through
political means. This will require power-sharing among
the groups who are more accustomed to power-grabbing than
sharing. Any mechanism for rebuilding a nation will
require an occupation force, and all the things that go
with it.
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
> That's so true. In a perfect world, we could just airdrop in
> a legislative body, but this is reality. The Iraqi people
> have been disenfranchised for so long that any new regime
> must have as its goal the empowerment of Iraqis through
> political means. This will require power-sharing among
> the groups who are more accustomed to power-grabbing than
> sharing. Any mechanism for rebuilding a nation will
> require an occupation force, and all the things that go
> with it.
>
> Kind regards,
> Nancy
Including the 100s of billions of dollars necessary to maintain
an occupying force, a bill that will not be shared by our Eurpoean
allies due to Bush's inept diplomacy. Even the Romans stopped
short at the banks of the Euphrates, wisely choosing not to assume
the burden of trying to run an area of the world with a loooong history
of revolt. I think we're about to get a history lesson nobody on Capitol
hill bargained for.
RstJ
formica63
> >It will. This "little pink houses" vision of how the rest of
> >the world should be is not realistic. How many of us knew
> >about the ethnic tension in Yugoslavia before Tito croaked?
Actually, this was well known to me, at least, as I lived in a part of the
city heavily settled by Yugoslavian immigrants whose turf wars and
firebombing gave some indication of the fractious nature of this fictional
"nation."
> >There will be furious reprisals against the people who
> >supported Saddam and the Turks have made it clear they
> >do not want an independent Kurdish state on their borders.
> >Bush and Co. give no indication of having any real plan
> >for a post-war Iraq beyond giving big rebuilding contracts
> >to their pals. Keeping the peaces in the burnt-out remains
> >of a police state might prove to be far more of a challenge
> >than ousting Saddam Hussein.
Of course it will be. "Iraq" as a nation is, like so many "nations" in
post-colonial areas, a designation of convenience, not an historical
reality. Having been yoked together first by a colonial fiction and
subsequently by a tyrant does not provide fertile ground for a sense of
nationhood.
Form.
Glek
news:XgNda.3143$dE2....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com:
Which is precisely why I argue it would be a huge mistake for us to invade
Iraq without the UN and support of other nations. We will need help to
contain the chaos that will be let loose after Saddam's ouster. Getting rid
of Saddam will be a piece of cake. His demise, however warranted, could turn
Iraq into another Lebanon, only much worse.
jan
<yaffa...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>What I like are the 'experts' predicting it to be a very quick war -- as
>if there was no chance that this is an opportunity for the Saudi Royal
>Family to be overthrown, or that none of the other nations (incl.
>perhaps, Saudi Arabia under a new (different) govt.) will take sides and
>join right in.
Sure, it'll be a quick *war*. How long does it take to drop 5,000
bombs?
The unending quagmire will be in its aftermath -- which will likely
result in spinoff wars, fighting among religious factions, a complete
infrastructural mess (with US corporations poised to clean that up on
the Iraqi's dimes) and a devastatingly damaged environment of world
relations.
--
jan
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:58:17 -0500, yaffaDina
> <yaffa...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >What I like are the 'experts' predicting it to be a very quick war -- as
> >if there was no chance that this is an opportunity for the Saudi Royal
> >Family to be overthrown, or that none of the other nations (incl.
> >perhaps, Saudi Arabia under a new (different) govt.) will take sides and
> >join right in.
>
>
> Sure, it'll be a quick *war*. How long does it take to drop 5,000
> bombs?
>
> The unending quagmire will be in its aftermath -- which will likely
> result in spinoff wars, fighting among religious factions, a complete
> infrastructural mess (with US corporations poised to clean that up on
> the Iraqi's dimes) and a devastatingly damaged environment of world
> relations.
>
>
> --
>
> jan
I don't know that it will be a quick war. We have to do something
that we haven't done in a while--take a major city. If they throw
down their arms and come running out to greet us, then it will be
over quickly.
And if they dynamite the suburbs and crouch down behind the rubble,
it might take months.
RstJ
Ranger00089
>How about that he's a war-mongering idiot who has alienated most
>of the rest of the world while enacting ecomonic policies at home
>which obliterated 75% of the stock market and plunged the country
>into a recession.
This is typical left wing nonsense. What policy did he pass before he became
President? Because the market started it fall well before President Clinton
left office. As for war mongering, what exactly has he done that has not been
in accordance with US or UN policy and presidence?
Do you not understand that we fought Iraq in 1991 and the UN established rules
of surrender at that time. Iraq has refused to honor this agreement for 12
years. That is 12 long years of attempted diplomatic solutions. What would you
and Jan and the other left wingers here have done? How much more than 12 years
is enough? How could your party bitch that Hussien had no WMD and now bitch
that he is going to kill hundreds of thousands of our soldiers WMD?
Do you people spit pea soup when your heads turn around and around?
>Good enough for ya?
Not even close.
Steve, SFC/US Army
jan
wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:27:06 GMT, nru...@kitsch.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Nancy
>Rudins) wrote:
>
>>Any mechanism for rebuilding a nation will
>>require an occupation force, and all the things that go
>>with it.
>
>Like all the corporate carpet baggers in dubya's coterie.
It's his way of padding the US economy.
With Iraqi dollars.
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Bart Bailey" <bar...@nethere.net> wrote in message
news:3e7fdf88...@news.brain.net...
>
> Iran, like an amateur boxer telegraphing his moves <g>
>
> Bart
The mullahs must be freaking out right now. We're about to lay
waste to their neighbor and they're probably worried that someone's
going to remember the good ol' days of the Ayatollah.
RstJ
Nancy Rudins
jan <spindockter_@_yahoo.com> writes:
>On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:58:17 -0500, yaffaDina
><yaffa...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>What I like are the 'experts' predicting it to be a very quick war -- as
>>if there was no chance that this is an opportunity for the Saudi Royal
>>Family to be overthrown, or that none of the other nations (incl.
>>perhaps, Saudi Arabia under a new (different) govt.) will take sides and
>>join right in.
>
>
>Sure, it'll be a quick *war*. How long does it take to drop 5,000
>bombs?
>
>The unending quagmire will be in its aftermath -- which will likely
>result in spinoff wars, fighting among religious factions, a complete
>infrastructural mess (with US corporations poised to clean that up on
>the Iraqi's dimes) and a devastatingly damaged environment of world
>relations.
>
>
>--
>
>jan
>
The financial aftereffect will be devastating to the US. We need
$400 billion in foreign investments to cover our trade deficit or
the dollar will plunge and our budget deficit will be *much* harder
to finance. There are already signs that foreign investment is
slowing, just when American may be about to fight a whole series
of wars. Yes, a series. I truly think Iraq will be the first
of many.
Kind regards,
Nancy
jan
Long Dong Kim (or whoever that nutjob in N. Korea is) has already
commenced his hissy fit. He wants attention, dammit. But Mad Cowboy
Disease W is too busy beelining for Iraq.
I predict a "nukular" tangle with Asia around the horizon. Should be
fun. Maybe W will be the first to go. But I doubt it. He doesn't like
to travel.
yaffaDina
>
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:07:50 -0500, yaffaDina <yaffa...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Usually, when there's any kind of threat of violence, i.e. war, there's
> >a surge in enlistment. Has that happened this time around, I haven't
> >heard of it and I'm sure I would have if there had been?
>
> I think the weekend warriors getting called into active duty,
> after they thought it would never happen,
> has cast a pall on enlistment at all levels.
>
> Bart
Huh? I was thinking of all those young men who normally (?) couldn't
wait to get out there and kick ass. Where are they?
yD
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"yaffaDina" <yaffa...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3E78B85A...@netscape.net...
Kuwaiit , last I heard...
RstJ
yaffaDina
So, are you saying that there *has* been a surge of enlisting? That's
all I really want to know. I haven't heard that there was, maybe I
missed it -- I do look away from the news ocassionally :)
yD
jan
I haven't heard, either way.
But with a stop-loss order looming, I sincerely doubt anyone will be
motivated to devote their lives to taking other lives for the
forseeable future.
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
I don't know. Maybe. Won't make any difference for this war I don't
think. The army was already pretty large before all this started. I was
saying that the young guys who want to kick ass have already joined
the military, and have now found an ass to kick.
RstJ