How to make America dance to your tune

“I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaeda strategy.”
—Dick Cheney

If you read the above closely, you get it. Al-Qaeda is now choosing US foreign policy. Well done, guys!

12 thoughts on “How to make America dance to your tune

  1. I don’t know. My guess is that Cheney wants us to stay at war as long as possible, so that Halliburton can make as much money as possible. Plus there are other companies working on war machines that would be in deep do-do if the war ended before they got their machines finished and purchased by the government.

    As far as al-Qaeda winning, they won the minute they hit the towers. Ever since then, the US has been jumping through every hoop that al-Qaeda has sent us.

  2. I know where Cheney gets his material.

    Jeder Ratschlag, der vom Feinde kommt, ist eine Versuchung unserer Kriegsmoral. Der Feind will genau wie wir den Sieg erringen. Alles, was er sagt und tut, soll dazu dienen, uns durch List irrezuführen und durch Tücke zu überrumpeln. Wer also auf den Feind hört, und bediente er sich dabei noch so scheinheiliger Argumente, verrät damit sein Volk in der höchsten Gefahr. Auch Unwissenheit darf ihn nicht vor der Strafe beschützen, die er verdient.

    “Any piece of advice that comes from the enemy is a test of our will to wage war.  The enemy wants to achieve victory, just as we do.  Everything he says and does is an attempt to mislead us and overpower us through treachery.  Therefore, he who takes advice from the enemy, no matter how he justifies it through hypocritical arguments,  betrays his own people when they are in the greatest danger.  Nor may ignorance protect him from the punishment that he deserves.”
    – Joseph Goebbels, article 7 of The 30 Articles of War for the German People, my translation

  3. If terrorism cannot be completely suppressed and the military (+ budget) is slowly eroded and spread out I wonder how influential US and UK will be in the decades to come, it may be a case of withdrawing and putting up with some level of terrorism, and that would lead to negociating.

    Also I don’t know how publicised it is in the US but Prince Harry is going to Iraq

  4. If terrorism cannot be completely suppressed

    The very wording is a hint: you can’t eradicate it, only suppress it locally, by military means (short of genocide). It pops up again, because it is the ANTI-military strategy of choice for anyone who can’t win in a straight fight (and admittedly, nobody could against the US as of now).

    Humanity has always put up with some level of “terrorism”, in whatever from it comes along. Just as we have always put up with some level of crime, and (for most part) refused to go bonkers and lock people up just because they MIGHT become criminals.

    At least the UK is not nearly as deep in the shit as is the US. And on a final note, I’d support war against Al-Quaida. Somebody remind me again why that had to be in Iraq? Oh, right. Because invading Saudi Arabia/Mecca would have made an even bigger fuss in the Arab World (admittedly a totally rational choice so far) and because the US has nice and cushy favoured-client relations there…

  5. I wonder how long it will be until china outranks the US militarily (+ economically), the US is getting uncomfortable with china’s military buildup and I would expect western comitment in the middle east works to china’s advantage. China has pretty much a free run and can do pretty much what it wants without strong western intervention – the US would not seriously consider sanctions or other action when they struggle with much weaker opponents as is.

  6. Cheney is correct; the AlQueda strategy is a valid one.  They (and other organizations and invididuals) have made the war too expensive for us in lives and materiel, and now we’re looking for the door.

    What I cannot understand is how we got into this mess without someone asking; “What would we do if we were in their place?”  That question could have saved us a lot of trouble because no one in the administration appears to have seen it coming.

    Yes, it IS important to understand your enemy.

  7. Do you really think no one in the administration saw this coming? How about all the generals who have since retired?

    I personally believe that quite a few people in the administration saw this coming and found themselves looking for a new job after saying so.

  8. You could be onto something.  Maybe no one in the administration now saw it coming, and didn’t want to hear it from those who did. 

    And it didn’t take a genius to see it, just the willingness to ask the obvious question.  We attack Iraq, what would we do if we were one of the affected stakeholders?  Oh, right, we’d welcome the Americans as liberators.  Put it that way, is anyone stupid enough to believe it?

  9. DoF; Put it that way, is anyone stupid enough to believe it?

    Um, is this a trick question?  LOL

  10. Um, is this a trick question?

    Is it a trick audience?

    Apparently yes, for people too easily believe that an oft-repeated lie must have some truth in it. None of us is totally immune to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.