Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum How to manufacture crackpots and confusion

TNZ asks:
"Can any of you tell me what percentage of US citizens actually accept that?" with respect to George Bush's latest scaremongering.

The answer is ... it depends on geography.

Those in urban areas, population greater than 100,000 do not. Also the more educated and less, not religious but not fundamentalist, the less likely they are to buy what they are being sold.

Get someone in a rural area that belongs to a fundamentalist church and they are highly likely to be drinking the Koolaid.

Which should be no surprise in that the more educated a person is the more likely they are to have a brain and make their own decisions. And the less likely they are to follow one alpha male the less likely they are to follow another.

In the part of the US where I live ... I think you might find a substantial percentage of the population willing to deliver Bush and Cheney to the Hague as war criminals for prosecution. I'd personally buy the plane ticket to get them there.

Well that's good to hear Dan. There might be hope after all. I actually think Mr. Cheney is a much more dangerous chappy that Mr. Gorse Bush (gorse is a terrible weed in NZ). However I'd like your thoughts on the other question I asked:

"Why isn't there more song and dance in US about the reasons for the war rather than just bickering over how to end it? Is it simply that both major parties are just part of the kleptocracy?"

Got any ideas?

Couldn't agree more. The joke for years has been that Cheney is Bush's insurance policy.

The reason why you are seeing the games around the war here is that those most likely to end it must face two political realities. The first is that the American public will only put them into office if they appear tough ... alpha-male like.

Here's an interesting study in human behavior. All of those currently in power and making war-and-peace decisions have NEVER served in the military and NEVER been in combat.

Many of those most strongly opposed to the war are those who have served, have REAL combat experience, and know of what they speak.

Note with how much zeal the chicken-hawks tore into Senator Kerry who is a decorated combat veteran. Note how they treat Congressman Murtha and Senator Hagel. It is not all that different from watching some here at SAGG argue that professional climatologists don't understand climatology as well as they do. Those who are weakest ... often scream the loudest trying to imitate the alpha of old (picture a male gorilla pounding his chest).

So to become President, aka Commander-in-Chief of the military one must, in a sense, be dishonest.

The second issue is partially that we have become a kleptocracy but also the reality that it is a lot easier to start a fight than it is to end one.

I can't think of anyone I know with an IQ over room temperature that doesn't thinks going into Iraq in the first place was a bad idea created by a climate of lying to the public and the world.

At the same time I can't think of anyone that doesn't believe that when we leave, no matter when or how, there won't be a blood bath, abuse of women's rights, and horrors reminiscent of Darfur or Stalin's purges.

So comments among those wanting to exit often are one of these:
* We never should have gotten in and created this mess but we will only make it worse by staying one day longer.

* We never should have gotten in and created this mess but we owe to those we've hurt to try to make it better before we leave.

* We never should have gotten in and created this mess but the mess was created by bad execution and bad policy and good execution and good policy will make things right.

In my opinion ... it just isn't that simple.

We made a huge mess and it will take multiple generations of good policies and good behavior to fix it. Something America is very poor at: Patience.

I think what we should do is publicly apologize for what we did in Iraq, publicly apologize for what we did overthrowing Mohammed Mosadek (back in the 50s), publicly apologize for interfering in other country's affairs.

And then realistically take stock of what it took for Europe to overcome its idiotic behaviors (WWI and WWII) and the fact that little short of a similar trauma is going to solve the problems in the Moslem world.

Ellis wrote:

"Terry- Sorry to hear the Rogernomics may rise again."

The one thing that might save us is our electoral system. Any party almost certainly must get the support of at least one other party in order to govern.

Dan, I think you have summed the situation up fairly well. However a big step towards peace in the Middle East (if any US administration is genuine about wanting it) would be to cut off aid to Israel unless it makes some attempt to treat the Palestinians as human beings.

Cutting off aid to Israel would be more likely to produce bad than good. Don't forget that Israel, if it felt threatened, has the means and likely the will to turn the middle east into a glowing cinder. Some portion of that money is maintaining leverage over one of the largest nuclear arsenals on the planet.

It isn't about Israel as much as I sympathize with your point-of-view. Rather simply it is the fact that both groups, Israelis and Palestinians, hate each other more than they love their children.

Expecting the tribal societies of the Middle East to grow up and behave like nation states is nothing but wishful thinking. As much as I've much I dislike about how the tribal societies of the Americas were tamed, or the way the Europeans did it to themselves ... the sad truth is that not a single entity in that region, save it would seem Iran, has learned the lessons of history. And I'm no fan of the wacko's running Iran.

DA. I think I trust Amedinejad (can't remember the spelling) more than I trust Bush.

Your trust, if that is what it is is misplaced.

They are two different sides of the same coin.

Self-righteous alpha males without a single care about making the lives of their people better.

They are equals.

Neither any better or worse than the other. One has his finger on the button ... the other wants to. Either one, given the opportunity, willing to watch others suffer and die for their amusement.

Each, within his own country, a dismal failure.
Each, pounding his chest, demanding respect.
Take a closer look.

Dan wrote:

"They are two different sides of the same coin."

Exactly. Both religious maniacs. But Ahmedinejad probably has less support within his country than does Bush. And, as you say, "One has his finger on the button ..." The other one doesn't. Iran is at least five years away from having nuclear weapons and even then they would be pretty poor ones. Besides which Iran is unlikely to involve NZ in any global ambitions whereas the US is quite keen. I tried (briefly) to find Cheney's speech in Oz yesterday. It's an interesting excercise to sustitute "the USA" where he uses "terrorists". Makes much more sense then.

TNZ wrote:
"But Ahmedinejad probably has less support within his country than does Bush"

Given no one is conducting a poll in Iran anytime soon it is impossible to say. But essentially what you are saying is not that you trust him more but the Iranian people more. I might agree if I knew more.

The assumption that Iran is 5 years away is political nonsense. No one knows for sure. Not even the Iranians themselves. One shipment from North Korea and the Russian mob and they might be building one next week.

It is highly unlikely anyone will involve NZ in anything ... why do you think I have a 50ft sailboat. Have the guest room ready if things start to heat up. <g>

Dan. You nearly had me convinced that your statement "The assumption that Iran is 5 years away is political nonsense" was true. However I just saw the headline in a sunday paper: "Iran is truly a problem says Cheney" or something to that effect. Now, we can asssume that Cheney is lying even when he says he is lying. Therefore we know this headline is not the truth. Once again we merely have the US kleptocracy using the tactics used for Iraq, WMD and links with terroroism, ie. the target is Iranian oil.

But, once again, we have US citizens being sucked in.

I nearly forgot. You wrote:

"But essentially what you are saying is not that you trust him more but the Iranian people more. I might agree if I knew more."

Many times throughout history and prehistory there have been expansions of culture from the Iranian plateau. Almost always they have produced improvements in the human condition. The Kassites, the Medes and Persians. Most of the best of Islamic culture is actually Persian. Iranian culture had a huge influence on Jewish ideas. The whole idea that there is a battle between good and evil is Zoroastrian. It remains to be seen if there will be another cultural expansion from Iran. I certainly am not in a hurry to condemn Iranian ideas.

How do you know Cheney is lying? His lips are moving.

I wish it were a joke.

The Iranian people even got it right with a decent democracy back in the 1950's.

Unfortunately that government actually believed the US wants to spread democracy ... and the CIA took them out in very short order.

The American people would have been outraged had they known. But they were then, as they are now, 'amusing themselves to death'.

I think the biggest problem is this rubbish about not talking to Iran or Syria. If US admin was serious about anything they say on the subject surely this is the most obvious route to success. Of course this would defeat their whole purpose.

The US admin is certainly expert at manufacturing confusion. But I doubt that they are confused about what they want to achieve. However they may be crackpots. I'm afraid it's over to you US citizens to point this out to voters.

Assuming you believe any of this bunk. And I/we 've been lied to so many times it is hard to believe anything said by anyone I can understand not talking without some preconditions as one side would have a reasonable expectation of benefiting by delay: Witness North Korea for the example d'jour.

Quite simply there is only one solution: International inspectors. A refusal to allow them in is a prima facia admission of doing something wrong. A failure by all nations to insist on inspection of all nations is the hypocrisy that manufactures this insanity.

I've little doubt Bush wants a war. I've little doubt the Iranian leadership is equally as stubborn, moronic, and idiotic and will cooperate with him fully. History is full of examples of this: Very few of sanity.

The last time I saw evidence of sanity was Kennedy and Khrushchev. None of the world's current leaders have demonstrated the ability to behave with equal intelligence.

I see the US admin has been reading SAGG. They have decided to talk to Iran and Syria regarding Iraq.

On the possibility that they do read SAGG and follow advice:

George ... Dick ... resign: Now!

Turn yourselves over to the International Criminal Court in The Hague for trail as criminals.

I really do sincerely hope you are correct TNZ.

The thing that makes me grit my teeth most is the "stay til the job is done" thing. It's NOT a job . It started as an invasion, and now it's a horrible fiasco. It is our doing and quite frankly the best thing we could do for the Iraqis is get out and go home and let them get on with patching their lives up. The idea that now we will be of any help is arrogant trash. We should get out, give them back control of their country, and their oil , and pour in aid to the value of the damage we have caused with our bombs.

This could happen under the supervision of NEUTRAL International Inspectors.

How could anyone who started this mess ever think that their reputation would go down in history as far-sighted and noble. History will not be kind to this episode.

...and the "Spent and Approved War Spending" is over $500 billion.
For what? How can educated, worldly leaders of nations be so naive?

Iraq War Results & Statistics as of Feb 11, 2006
From Deborah White,
http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm

"Spent & Approved War-Spending - $505 billion of US taxpayers' funds. President Bush is expected to request another $100 billion in war-spending for 2007 and $140 billion for 2008, which would bring the cumulative total to over $700 billion."

re. the above,
for: Iraq War Results & Statistics as of Feb 11, 2006
read: Iraq War Results & Statistics as of Feb 11, *2007*