Re: With a beer bottle, an Aussie Flag and a baseball bat


Simon Pleasants wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2005 17:20:16 -0800, "FRAN" <fran_beta@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Larry ... here's my take on it ...
> >
> >{snip}
> >
> >And of couse, as with everywhere else in the world since September 11
> >2001, we here have had a more or less uninterrupted diet of fear and
> >animus towards muslims and Arabs in general -- what Bush (and more
> >tacitly, Howard and Blair) call "the clash of civilisations".
>
> The war in the middle east is different things to each side. Many of
> the Muslims see it as a crusade against Islam but it's not. It's a
> war about oil.

I believe it's a good deal more complex than that, though it's hard to
believe the idea would have garnered sufficient support without the oil
in the region. This is RSC though and a thesis on the middle east
probably ought to go someplace else.

> One thing it certainly isn't is about terrorism or
> weapons of mass destruction.
>

Well not in the way most define that issue anyway.


> As for terrorism itself frankly I think it's a tool to the government
> - a tool whereby they can create a dangerous invisible foe that you
> can't see, you can't touch but that can strike at you any time, any
> place. On the back of this government sponsored paranoia they can
> ride roughshod over freedom of speech and the rights of the individual
> the public will pat them on the back for doing it - all for our
> protection, you understand.
>

Yup ... a permanent blacnk cheque to the state. True, untrue or
anything in between, it's just as useful.

> Of course the by product of this, quite apart from the erosion of our
> freedom, is further suspicion of Muslims and, by ignorant extension,
> of anyone with dark skin. Not only does this raise illfeelings in the
> white community but further isolates the Muslim, and other coloured,
> communities then generating resentment in them so it becomes a vicious
> circle.
>

Yes ... self-fulfilling in some respects.

> Don't get me wrong, I don't think the governments WANT increased
> racial tension (the French had a good taster of what that brings) I
> just think they want to increase their power to control and monitor
> citizens, but unfortunately their means of doing it involves fall out
> and racial tension is some of that fall out.
>

Fair comment.




> >It's also time to discard this nonsensical talk of "wars on
> >terror" and treat actual terrorist incidents as criminal rather than
> >political, whatever the motives.
>
> Exactly. But they won't stop talking about the war of terror because
> the fear it causes allows the government to get away with things it
> would never be able to otherwise, not least of which is to invade an
> inconveniently unco-operative country with lots of oil and a crooked
> dictator who just happened to have been put in power by the US and UK
> in the first place.

That's about the size of it, but it's also about the rivalry with
Europe and the desire of the Americans to drive a wedge into a rival
trade bloc and to deny them the kind of access to petro-dollars they
were hoping for prior to 1991. There are also some very substantial
defence procurement contracts that swing the way of the US in the
current climate. There's the desire to test their latest equipment in
actual battle conditions, and to have a political excuse to upgrade old
and not so old equipment using the services of companies that are major
donors to the GOP. There's the domestic politics angle of course. And
terrorising the world -- convincing them that you're crazy enough to do
anything if you get pissed is a pretty strong bargaining tool.

Blair's role in this is a little trickier. He's probably been the
biggest of the first world losers out of all this. He could have been
wheeled out of Downing Street with a checkered blanket over his legs if
he'd stayed out of Iraq. Now his credibility -- which was his biggest
asset, has gone down the toilet -- and all so he could solidify his
bloc with Bush. Indeed, he may well have been critical to Bush going
ahead. Had he said straight up, you're on your own on this one, Bush
might have blinked. That's not lost on a lot of Brits I bump into. Even
the Israelis thought it a bit barmy.

But for Bush, with Blair's support, it just works on so many levels.

Fran

Fran

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: To all disappointed Bush bashers
    ... >>You're playing down the contribution of Bush's government. ... The Bush government didn't say: "We go after Saddam because he's such ... in the previous gulf war. ... >>Later abortions, however, are nearing the point where I find it morally ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Hillary the Hun Gung-Ho for War with Iran
    ... Hillary the Hun Gung-Ho for War with Iran ... Hillary Prods Bush to Go After Iran ... the broad cloak of terrorism over Iraqis, ...
    (soc.culture.iraq)
  • Re: Palestinians Under Attack
    ... hated George W. Bush. ... He fell out of favor in starting a war in Iraq that not ... But, so far at least, President Obama seems not ... Many still argue that the federal government ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: (off topic) Bush the sub-human trash -GRAHAM:What I Knew Before the Invasion
    ... Kerry voted to go to war. ... he was as convinced as Bush. ... >>>The war that was started to an election cycle will begin to end to one too. ... quit threatening the world and supporting terrorism. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Miamigate?
    ... ultraright from Miami is always involved in the "gates." ... when the Bush administration has gone to such ridiculous lengths to ... government but of its opponents, as happened in the other "gates." ... The war in Iraq was aimed at gaining military control of the Middle ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)