Bush and Osama bin Laden: They Feed Off of Each Other

[Ted Striker]

Yep, the personalities involved do make a big difference.

Same thing was the case with Bush and Saddam

[MrFun]

Re: Bush and Osama bin Laden: They Feed Off of Each Other

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
but it also helped bin Laden when Bush began using that tape as an example of why his administration should remain in power to pursue the war on terrorism (is that trademarked yet?).

The fact that the Bush administration still has not captured or killed Bin Laden after more than four years should convince us the opposite -- that the Bush administration needs to be removed from power.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Traianvs
You found out what has been clear to many other people for ages. However I don't think that either one will wipe out the other. That's just impossible. More like the US-USSR situation the whole matter will evolve into something else simply because the world changes through time.

Hmm. Well, hopefully it won't take a 50-year on-and-off again war with no real front lines and no real "off-limits" targets before the change comes. If that's the case, we've got a 46-year ride ahead of us. Hang on tight!

A bit like the FARC and rightwing paramilitary groups in Colombia started on an ideological basis, they are now simply part of the economy and their original goals are not really relevant anymore.

Heh. Aren't FARC and the right-wing paramilitary groups *both* now involved in drug smuggling and protection, with the government caught in the middle?

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
this is not a war between extremists on different sides. Its a war of the entire civilized world, including millions of muslims who want to move ahead, against various jihadist and terrorists forces in the muslim world.

Well, it's definitely involving extremists when it comes to al-Qaida and its allies. But I also bet there's more than a few "End Times"-minded types stateside that are getting a Biblical kick out of it, too.

As for the moderate Muslims ... hmm, well, I alternate between sympathizing with them to wishing they'd get pissed off for real and actually do something *tangible* about the nutcases who profess to do what they do in the name of Islam and Allah.

Its a war that really has very little to do with George Bush. In fact at this point, whether his policies are good or bad, the association of the war with his personality, both here and abroad, has become a liability.

Agreed. The man is fueling hatred far beyond the Middle East, too. I mean, take a look at Central and South America. The Chavez and Castro wannabes are using him as a bogeyman to push their own socialist/control freak/nationalist policies that, frankly, I thought had been discredited as viable, long-term means of governing nations. Look, I don't like Bush much, but he is human — IOW, he *isn't* responsible for *all* of the world's ills. A fair number, perhaps (after all, he does lead a superpower), but not all. Humans have this strange ability to screw things up just as often as they fix things, and it shows across the planet!

Fortunately after 2008 George Bush will be a private citizen. The war with violent Islamic extremism is unlikely to be resolved by then. Fortunately both major parties in the US have other leaders of iron resolve.

Unfortunately, Bush will have had eight years in which to cement his policies into place, and this will have ramifications stateside as well as internationally. Odds are, the effects of the "Bush Doctrine" will echo for at least the next 20 to 30 years. IOW, we're going to be living with the after-effects for the foreseeable future.

There are days I wish I could see eye-to-eye with Bush. But, for the most part, I cannot. It's annoying, because more often than not, I can find *something* to like in just about anyone.

As for other "iron resolve" leaders, hmm ... well, I'm still high on McCain, Powell, Obama, Specter, Nelson and so on. IOW, statesmen and women who think 20 to 30 years down the road, rather than on the next election.

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

LOTM wrote:

But the notion that if only it wasnt for Bush and his policies, radical Salafism would disappear, is incorrect, IMHO.

You're absolutely correct on that point.

After all, the planning for Sept. 11, 2001 (and the first WTC attack in 1993), was taking place in the 1990s — a time when a U.S.- and Oslo-facilitated peace between Israel and Palestine seemed a real possibility, a time when we had gone into Somalia to help the poor bastards there, a time when we and our allies had driven Iraq out of Kuwait, and so on. IOW, America under Clinton and the first Bush were, I believe, doing really good things in the lands of Islam, and yet what did we get in return? Well, hell, just pull out a map of the Middle East today, and there's your answer.

Sigh. I need to go look at some pictures of newborn babies. That'll get my spirits back up!

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Usama attacked the US because he concluded it was evil and wanted to change the government to an Islamic republic.

Bush attacked Iraq because he concluded it was even and wanted to change the government to a democratic republic.

What makes you think they are anything alike??

I'm not sure. I think it has something to do with the word "change."

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Elok
All evenly-matched (in the sense that neither can actually defeat the other) enemies eventually become interdependent. Remember Orwell's 1984? It's hardly unique to Bush and bin Laden; their situation is just uniquely obvious and absurd about it.

OK, I think I'm about to post a sacrilege here: I'm pretty sure I've never read George Orwell's "1984." I heard a lot about it, though. Dystopian novels — unless they're by S.M. Stirling — generally don't interest me.

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Sandman
Out of interest, what would happen to bin Laden if he was caught by a third country, say, Pakistan?

Having him executed by a Muslim country would probably be a reasonably desirable outcome, IMO. Reduces the martyr factor.

Probably, but not before we get a chance to drain him dry of whatever intelligence he might still possess WRT al-Qaida and its allied groups.

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Berzerker
sometimes I get the impression this is a war of ideology and civilisation, I certainly hear that alot from Repubs on the internet.
but then I consider how many Muslims are actually involved with this war in any significant way. Not very many, in the thousands, maybe 10-20 thousand at most. Does that sound about right? Its more a battle between the world and a really nasty cult.

I think there's a lot more than 10,000 to 20,000 folks actively involved with al-Qaida and its related terrorist groups. Odds are, they're not all radical Muslims, either. Probably some free lancers and criminal types, too.

Heh. Yes, al-Qaida is a "nasty cult." One that's metastasizing way to fast for my comfort.

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Re: Re: Bush and Osama bin Laden: They Feed Off of Each Other

Originally posted by MrFun
The fact that the Bush administration still has not captured or killed Bin Laden after more than four years should convince us the opposite -- that the Bush administration needs to be removed from power.

Well, isn't it obvious? Bush employs some masterful spinmeisters — Karl Rove among them — and that counts in no small reason why he was re-elected. Personally, I think bin Laden wanted him re-elected, too. Helps in the long term with recruitment drives and whatnot.

Of course, he's betting he can outlast the U.S. Army, which, if a Pentagon report is anywhere close to being accurate, is a "thin, green line" close to the breaking point thanks to Iraq.

Gatekeeper

[Sikander]

Originally posted by realpolitic


A few months after his election, comedians were already joking about how many nations Bush had alienated by refusing to honor his treaties. "Iron Resolve" may not be enough, we've alienated so many nations, and generated such an insurgency by 2008, it's possible that the only thing that will end this fiasco is Devine Intervention.

God I hope not!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper


Unfortunately, Bush will have had eight years in which to cement his policies into place, and this will have ramifications stateside as well as internationally. Odds are, the effects of the "Bush Doctrine" will echo for at least the next 20 to 30 years.

The socalled Bush Doctrine includes a wide range of policies and principles, and has changed, sometimes dramatically over the last 6 years. Some of those positions are positive, some are negative, and some are quite debatable. Some of the positions that are most blamed for hurting the US position in the world (like OIF) have in fact been supported consistently by a man we both admire, John McCain.

In the last 30 or so years, the US was A. Never going to find a way out of Viet Nam B. Never going to recover from the humiliation of retreating from Viet Nam C. Never going to recover from the weakness, naivete, and human right focus of the Carter admin. D. Going to see the Soviets march to the Indian Ocean, and the Persian Gulf E. Entering an economic decline which we could not pull out of F. Experiencing "morning in America", an age of growth based on tax cuts, the business cycle having been defeated G. About to enter a nuclear war, due to our leaders folly H. Entering the end of history, and the perpetual victory of liberal capitalist democracy I. Establishing the rule of the UNSC J. Entering a period of deficits and decline
K. Entering a period of perpetual, internet based prosperity, the business cycle having been defeated
L. Endangering our future by foolish multilateralism

Now of course we entering a phase of deficits and decline, of alienating the world, etc, etc. And of course its possible for clever minds to show how A - L were just the preface to this.

Take a deep breadth. Take a walk. Take a nap.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
OK, I think I'm about to post a sacrilege here: I'm pretty sure I've never read George Orwell's "1984." I heard a lot about it, though. Dystopian novels — unless they're by S.M. Stirling — generally don't interest me.

To be honest, I only read it fairly recently myself. About a year ago. Basically, in "1984," the world is divided into three massive countries, consisting of Oceania (the Americas and the former UK), Eurasia (Europe and Russia), and Eastasia (China, Japan, India, Indonesia, etc.). Africa is claimed by nobody, and used mainly as a battleground for fighting between the three. At any given time, two of the superpowers are united in war against the third, though which is fighting which constantly changes.

All three are driven by basically identical totalitarian ideologies under different names, and their citizens are taught to hate the wicked foreign belief systems. The wars basically exist just to waste resources and thereby perpetually delay societal growth, which might cause instability. Also, the constant state of war allows the abuse of patriotism as an excuse for oppression, etc. The whole world is malnourished, ignorant, and in desperate poverty. If any of the three powers ever managed to vanquish the others, it would have no means to continue waste and the system would therefore fall apart, but they're so evenly matched that the situation is capable of continuing forever.

Or so it's claimed. Actually, it seems to me that the situation in 1984 couldn't continue at all, just because their systems of government are so unstructured as to make them incapable of responding to anything unexpected. An earthquake or an epidemic would bring the whole thing crashing down. Which was what happened IRL; the Nazis were so horribly inefficient that only their constant expansion, and their continual "discovery" of internal enemies to focus their energy on, allowed them to continue. This kind of pure antagonism between two or more powers is by necessity mindless and chaotic, driven by ideology with no regard for practical measures of governance.

[Gatekeeper]

LOTM:

Heh. Well, that's literally an alphabet soup of reasons not to be pessimistic, at least not all of the time. The ebb and flow of history is something to behold, even if its driving forces — Bush II, bin Laden, et al. — are folks I don't particularly see eye-to-eye with on a host of issues.

As for relaxation techniques, I already do two out of the three. No naps, though. Sorry. I get my seven hours of sleep a night and that's all I need. Unless I'm on vacation; then I might go for eight hours of sleep.

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Elok:

"1984" definitely fits the definition of dystopian novel. The premise sounds fascinating, albeit in a "glad I'm not there" sort of way.

Have you ever read S.M. Stirling's "The Domination" trilogy? Now *that's* dystopian! Descriptive, though, and quite captivating. Glad that parallel reality isn't ours, though. Bad, bad things happen there.

Gatekeeper