America: Land of Cognitive Dissonance

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Jan 16, 2005.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Feb 14, 2004
    OBJECTIVE reality
    There have been so many bad Bush/Iraq articles today that I had to put them all into one topic.

    First up is the announcement that we should lower our expectations for the upcoming democratic elections in Iraq:

    (My bold.)

    So we didn't achieve our first objective -- finding WMDs -- because it was a lie, of course. And though they spun out a second objective -- establishing democratic elections in Iraq -- they now tell us that we shouldn't expect really expect too much.

    They just keep getting mired deeper and deeper in their lies, don't they?

    Which wouldn't be so bad if anybody held them accountable.

    "I felt like we'd find weapons?" Is he kidding?? That's just idiotic.

    But like Reagan -- whose "excuse" is one of the worst I've ever heard -- Bush will not be held to account by most Americans.

    What's horrible about that, of course, is less Bush's attitude and more the fact that he's right. And the result is that we're going to get more incompetence and hypocrisy:

    So all this is enough to make Americans sorry they voted for the guy -- again -- right? Wrong.

    Yeah, no matter how stupid or evil our leaders are, let's not get angry or upset. Let's just keep on telling ourselves how great we're doing.

    Sorry for the long post, but all these stories tie together so beautifully I had to include them.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go take my anti-depressants.
  2. skunk macrumors G4


    Jun 29, 2002
    Republic of Ukistan
    Am I the only one confused by the math here? :confused:

    This Presidency will be an object lesson for many years to come.
  3. atszyman macrumors 68020


    Sep 16, 2003
    The Dallas 'burbs
    It's not that confusing when you realize that the options are not mutually exclusive.

    I can be worried and hopeful at the same time. I am worried that he will continue to botch everything he touches, bankrupting the USA and ruining our relationships with the rest of the world. I am hopeful that I am wrong for the sake of my 10 week old daughter.

    I also would not say that I am angry about his next four years, extremely disappointed, but not angry (at least not anymore).

    If events are not mutually exclusive you can have fun results.
  4. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Jul 4, 2003
    Terlingua, Texas
    I'm on record as having said I supported the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I'm also on record as having said that a lot of the "how to" was/is flawed. I don't want to get into a bunch of woulda/coulda/shoulda, however.

    So, by and large, I'm in accord to varying extents with many of the comments of the opening post, and comments thereafter which address issues.

    That said, however, I gotta raise an eyebrow at comments such as

    ""These elections are a joke," said Juan Cole, a professor of modern Middle East history at the University of Michigan.

    "The Bush administration has created the worst possible advertisement for democracy because the perception across the Middle East is that democracy means you get a country where everything is out of control," he said."

    My problem with the good professor is that he's putting the cart before the horse. There has yet to be democracy in Iraq. There won't be until after some form of elections are held, and won't really be in place as structure until after all areas can peacefully have elections.

    The sad part is that the nihilistic murderers who are car-bombing Iraqi citizens and shooting/bombing candidates are the ones who are preventing any real form of democracy. Remember, those leaders of this opposition have had everything but on-bended-knee begging of them to take part in the political process.

  5. SuperChuck macrumors 6502


    Nov 15, 2003
    Chucktown, SC
    The only thing that continues to mystify me is the fact that our soldiers in Iraq voted for Bush by a sizable margin. And yet the vast majority of soldiers in Iraq have major problems with the way the war is being executed by this administration.

    Do they really think so poorly of Democrats that they assume what we have is better than the alternative? I honestly don't understand why so much of America hates the DNC, but if the Dems can't figure out how to fix it, this country is @$#%ed.
  6. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000


    Jul 4, 2004
    It doesn't matter what they do, the republicans rally their base in ways that make things like this seem trivial. All it took was for Reagan to convince people that greed is good, and we were back down the same old path. This time with the full support of the Christian right. It just doesn't get any better than that.

    Bushs base doesn't care, they think it is going to make them rich. The rest are ignorant and/or current events and others still will vote how their church tells them to vote.
  7. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Jul 16, 2002
    First, nihilism is the belief in nothing, the total destruction of all order. The insurgents in Iraq may not believe in democracy, but they certainly don't believe in no order of any kind. Some probably believe in a theocratic order; others in the kind of order they had before the invasion.

    Second, Iraq has no history whatsoever of democracy. In a place with this history, it requires a broad revolution in thinking for democracy to be embraced by the populace as a viable form of governance. Otherwise it cannot take hold, or it will quickly fail.

    Third, revolution has never been successfully imposed from outside. Revolution has to come from within. The situation in Iraq suggests that a revolution is going on, but that we can only guess how and when it will end. It's a big and hugely risky and expensive coin-flip.
  8. SPG macrumors 65816


    Jul 24, 2001
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    I was against this war from the get go.
    1. The prior actions of the bush team left a lot to be desired in the ethics and trust dept.
    2. There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 (**** about the Prague meeting that most likely never happened, and even if it did would prove little or nothing)
    3. Osama wasn't caught and Afghanistan wasn't finished.
    4. The UN inspection teams got rid of most of the banned weapons that they thought there were and couldn't find any more.
    5. There were no signs whatsoever that Iraq would ever seek to attack the US.
    6. Iraq was completely contained as a threat against it's neighbors.
    7. Instability in the region had the potential to escalate wildly and make a much bigger mess than any of us could ever imagine.
    8. The loss of life that an invasion would cause would be more than what Saddam was doing.
    9. The cost of an invasion, occupation, reconstruction would be more than what we could afford and would be better spent at home.
    10. The Project for a New American Century spelled out what they were really up to and it just wasn't worth all of the above.

    Now here we are with a total clusterfk and no good way out. Elections are going to be a joke just like all the other "turning the corner" moments. The election will be the smoke screen to get out and let the real civil war begin. The shiite theocracy that takes over Iraq will not be friendly to the US, but will turn to Iran instead. The Kurds will fight over Kirkuk and then they will start to cause all sorts of problems for Turkey maybe resulting in southern Turkey seceding into a new Kurdistan or maybe just another protracted guerilla and terror campaign.
    How is the current situation preferable to a contained disarmed Iraq? Sure Saddam isn't running the place anymore but now we're the ones killing and torturing instead so that's not even a big improvement either. Somebody please tell me why we did this? How are we making the world better? Who's benefitting from all this?
  9. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Jul 16, 2002
    I'd like to add an item (11) to your list. The White House talks now about Saddam's designs on restarting his banned weapons programs when the UN sanctions were lifted. But sanctions were not about to be lifted, so this is a specious argument. Ironically, the Bush administration started out on the right foot, by getting weapons inspectors reinserted into Iraq. They succeeded in getting the UN and our allies in Europe talking about the Saddam problem again. All of this was good, IMO. So in reality, the screws were being tightened on Saddam, not loosened, when Bush made the decision to invade. We can only imagine what the alternate Iraq scenario might have been, had the original course been followed to a more logical conclusion.
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040


    Apr 24, 2003
    But Saddam was a Really Bad Guy! Rape rooms! The world is better off with Saddam out of power! The tyrant of Baghdad is no more! That guy gassed thousands of his own people and you would have left him in power! Oil for food program! Do nothing UN!


Share This Page