Ignorance is Bliss

[Bush Whacker]

Here's something that I wrote for an English class that I'm taking right now. Each week, we have to write an observational learning log entry that we submit for grading. We also have current events logs that we have to turn in every week. Since I have to quote sources for my logs, I've been doing a lot of reading of several newspapers to find out as many facts as possible. This has nearly cost me one friendship. Read on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ignorance is bliss.

Because of this class, I have almost lost a friendship. It’s not because I spend so much time writing, reading and correcting papers and reading text books…it’s because I read the newspapers, scanning for articles to write about in my current events papers.

You see, I have a friend who gets almost all of her news exclusively from Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation (a.k.a. Fox News). That news she doesn’t get from their Fox News Channel, she usually gets from any other source that is “G.O.P. approved.” Unfortunately, she doesn’t want to bother with checking around to see what information may be flawed, inaccurate, distorted, exaggerated or just downright dubious. What’s worse is that she’s attacked me for even talking about anything that’s going on, claiming that she knows all about politics and doesn’t want to hear any information that might be coming from the “liberal media.”

To explain how far this has gone, at one point, she sent a rather ferocious e-mail to me when I tried to send her to read something that I had posted on a bulletin board regarding one of last year’s proposed military budget cuts that President Bush tried to pass that would reduce the imminent danger (combat) pay and the family separation allowances of the service members in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially since her brother is currently serving on active duty in the U.S. Army. (I should make note that this proposal, once it was made public by several newspapers, was later dropped by the White House after a very negative reaction by the public.) She didn’t like the newspapers that I was using as reference, but what she didn’t realize is that one of the papers that I used for information was the Army Times – a publication that is part of Military Times Media group which also runs the Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times – the original source of this information which lead to other news agencies investigating what the Pentagon and others were up to. Having served during the previous Gulf war (I was stationed elsewhere due to extenuating circumstances) and been a reader of the four publications put out by this group, I know that the papers put out by the Military Times Media group are not particularly known for trying to make waves with the administration in charge, so when they ran the story that Bush was planning to cut pay despite everyone screaming to “support the troops,” it made me want to investigate further. So, when I did get all the information that could be found on the subject through various news agencies and presented it to her, she chose to remain ignorant, even though this information could directly affect a member of her own family, especially since the Pentagon has announced this week that the troop levels will now be kept at their current levels through 2005.

So, in order to keep a friendship from being flushed down the toilet, I’m forced to keep my mouth shut and not talk about anything that is going on relating to current events in the news. I think it’s rather distressing that I have to do this because I like to speak to my friends about a variety of subjects, but if that’s what it’s going to take with her, I guess I’m left with no alternative than to shut my mouth.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I had the same reaction from one of my father's friends. When I told her that we should be looking for the reasons WHY "they" hate us, she said this "those people are so backward that you can't reason with them"... I had to hold my tongue to prevent from lashing out at this ignorant, self-righteous twat... because she was my dad's friend...

 

[97reb]

Well, with friends like that, who needs enemies?

 

[Lord of Delusions]

What you mind find interesting is reading news sources from outside the U.S. Even radio broadcasts. They sometimes have a whole different spin on what is going on here. I personaly take all news I recieve with a grain of salt, and have pretty much quit watching the local stations all together. I also don't belive that most anything you may hear from the media is 100% true and untouched.

 

[Bush Whacker]

While stationed abroad, we usually found the best war footage that we got from Gulf War 1 was from the local stations and not from CNN which was being broadcast by the Far East Network.

I've often found that it helps to read the newspapers because they can go in-depth about the topics that they write about rather than the usual 90 seconds that you'll find with the TV news. Also, when you read several sources of news information, you can find which information remains consistent between all the papers to gather your information and form your opinions that way.

 

[Lord of Delusions]

Hey Bush, let me ask you something a little off topic. Seeing as how you were/(are?) in the armed forces, what do you think of these families that blame the U.S. gov't for essentially killing their loved ones by sending them off to war? I know this may be a little touchy, but I am just interested in your opinion....

 

[Bush Whacker]

Hey Bush, let me ask you something a little off topic. Seeing as how you were/(are?) in the armed forces, what do you think of these families that blame the U.S. gov't for essentially killing their loved ones by sending them off to war? I know this may be a little touchy, but I am just interested in your opinion....

I was in the armed forces.

The current war in Iraq is a bit touchy with me. While the members of the armed forces that are currently serving are strictly there in Iraq of their own volition, I do feel that the Bush Administration is guilty of sending our troops off to die for the misguided whims of the current administration. Remember, all members of the military are volunteers since there is no draft. That may change soon, though since our forces are spread so dangerously thin because of this war.

In my opinion, there really wasn't any need to go to war with Iraq. As Al Franken wrote in his book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, a Fair and Balanced Look at the Right , the equivalent manuever would be if we had attacked Mexico following the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. Allow me to explain:

The last known Iraq-sponsored terrorist activity against the United States that occured was a failed assassination attempt against former President George H. W. Bush when he was in the Middle East in 1993. Following that attempt to end Bush Sr.'s life, then President Clinton ordered the launch of several missles against Baghdad. Some of the missles missed their chosen targets. The one that was targeted to hit Saddam's palace was slightly off course and landed across the street, killing Iraq's most popular female singer.

Now, even if Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, as Bush had stated, they did not have the capabilities to successfully launch a strike against anyone else other than neighboring countries such as Iran or Kuwait. As you remember from the first Gulf War back in 1991, the deadliest weapon at the disposal of Saddam Hussein was the Scud missle and he was launching these missles at Israel in an attempt to deter the United States from invading. Of course, since the Scud missle has such a limited range of distance when fully loaded, all the explosive ordinance had to be removed for the missle to make the trip to Israel. The end result was equivalent of Saddam catapulting large, heavy and fast moving rocks at Israel. Iraq's air force capabilities were extremely limited as well, providing only enough protection for the nation itself. Even if they were to try to attack the United States post Gulf War 1, they wouldn't have had enough fuel to make it here.

As Richard Clarke wrote in his book Against All Enemies, Osama bin Laden said in one of his videotapes that was released that George W. Bush would attack a neighboring Islamist nation in retaliation for the events of September 11th, 2001. According to Clarke, it was as if bin Laden was using a form long distance mind control saying, "Attack Iraq...attack Iraq." Sure enough, we went into Iraq at the beginning of 2003 because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. When those weren't found, we were there to bring democracy to the Middle East. If that's the case, why aren't we also telling Saudi Arabia to stop being a monarchy and get on the democracy bandwagon?

Add to the futility of being in Iraq in the first place, when we find that the armed forces don't have enough armor for their flak jackets to protect the lives of our soldiers under fire and that the HMMV's don't have enough armor plating...it's a serious sign that this administration didn't have their act together when they planned this war. Thus far, it's been a tragic case of Murphy's Law lessons that have been broadcast to the world.

 

[Lord of Delusions]

This sucks, I had written a reply, and somehow it got lost and never made it. So, now I gotta write it again....the good thing is its gonna be reivsed and not so friggin' long.

I wanted to say that I agree with you that this war is misguided, and it is. But look at it this way: No one blames the police department when an officer gets killed patrolling a bad part of town. Everyone knows that its a bad area, and that the chances of injury or death are much higher than if they were to be cruising the ritzy neigborhood. But something needs to be done to keep it under control before the whole city goes to hell. It has to be done.

I have alot of conflicting feelings about the war. I think its an excuse to do something that the gov't has been wanting to do for years, but couldn't fully justify it. Yeah, its good that we are out there getting the bad guys and opening some doors to possibly better the lives of the locals. But at this point its no longer cost effective, both in lives and money. Without the proper support from the rest of the worlds powers, it is a very expensive temporary solution. This is a great country with alot of power, but alone it is not enough to stop fighting that has been going on for a thousand years. Its foolish to think we can.

Another thing to consider is what if our leaders decided NOT to retaliate after 9-11? What if we let it go, pulled our troops from the middle east, and refused any aid at all? How would that look to the people of this country and the rest of the world? How long before we would be asking the President to step down? How long before his replacement would be deploying troops to fight terrorism, avoiding the mistake his predecessor made? Even if he didn't engage in war, the next pres. might, or the next, etc, etc. It may have taken longer to come about, but we would eventually end up right where we are now. It could be no other way. Over time, I believe we could have had the same results without such a big show of force or loss of life. Somewhere, sometime, they would have gotten cocky and slipped up and we would be there to catch them.

Personaly I think we should begin focusing on our own problems within our borders. While we are running around trying making the world a better place, our little slice of heaven is getting a bit rough around the edges. I am getting off topic again here, so I will stop typing...

 

[Bush Whacker]

What reason is there for us to be there, though? Weapons of mass destruction? Donald Rumsfeld stated that they knew where they were. Where are they? Moving tons of chemicals, weapons or vast numbers of troops is virtually impossible to do with the use of spy satellites. Rummy, if you know where they are, get on the plane and direct our men and women there to destroy them immediately. Did we have to bring democracy to the Middle East? Look at Iran. Those people actually fought to live in a total theocracy. Does this mean that we should go around forcing democracy and equality on people by the end of a gun? I don't think so.

Even with the events of 9-11-2001, we still can't justify a reason for being in Iraq other than Bush Jr. wanted to finish what his father couldn't, revenge for the assassination attempt on his father or because he couldn't find oil in Texas. If we had gone into Afghanistan to hunt down bin Laden and we had a president that wasn't busy alienating the leadership of foreign nations, we would have the kind of coalition that we had back in 1990 when Saddam first invaded Kuwait. We would have captured bin Laden and the hydra-headed beast that is al Qaeda most likely would have been brought down. However, by invading a neighboring Islamic nation (which bin Laden predicted that we would), losing control of its populace, not getting basic necessities restored (i.e. water and electricity) and abusing the nationals of Iraq (well documented by the cruelty being suffered by innocent detainees at Abu Ghraib), we have turned the Muslim world against our cause and given free, documented propaganda for the recruitment of more Islamic extremists.

Also, don't think for a second that any president (Democrat or Republican; conservative or liberal) would not retaliate for what had happened. 9-11-01 was the single most catastrophic act of terrorism against the U.S. and possibly the world. The way the current war is going, many people are asking Bush to step down. (Currently, Kerry is either just slightly ahead or tied for popular opinion depending on which poll that you're viewing.) Remember, we're dealing with a president who has stated publicly that he doesn't listen to polls, opinions or read newspapers. Bush and his administration were warned not to allow looting; to get the electricity, water and other essentials restored; and not to allow the borders of Iraq to remain unprotected. When they let the looting happen, it signaled that we don't have control over the populace. What kind of signal does it send to these people when a country that has put men on the moon can't get the electricty back up (to run air conditioning...how many have died as a result of the heat?) or get the water running (it's the Sahara. The people there need potable water)? And, what has happened since the borders of Iraq are unprotected? Alleged al Qaeda members (i.e. Abu Musab al Zarqawi) have breached those borders and are now actively engaged in more acts of terrorism (i.e. the beheading of Nick Berg) or helping to lead or fund the current insurgency (leéve en masse). The deployments are expected to remain at the current levels of 135,000 troops (soon to be 138,000 now that the Pentagon is removing 10% of the force from South Korea...remember, North Korea has nuclear weapons and has threatened to turn Seoul into "a sea of fire") through the end of December 2005, even after the transfer of sovereignty. We could not have achieved the results we were looking for with the current numbers or force that we now have in Iraq. Remember, the last war in Iraq we had a coalition of 500,000. What have we got now? Believe me, the way things are going, unless the draft comes back, we're in for some very serious problems with our forces stretched so thin.

And, as much as we should be focusing on the growing threat of terrorism here at home, we're dealing with a government accused of ignoring the problem in the first place. Read my signature for one example. The same accusation has been leveled against Bush by Bob Woodward (editor of the Washington Post and author of the novel, Plan of Attack, a book on the George W. Bush re-election campaign website that is recommended reading (!)), and Richard A. Clarke (former director of counterterrorism and author of Against All Enemies; Inside America's War on Terror). There has been the reported threat that al Qaeda is planning to attack again on a major scale, either here or in Europe and with reports of stolen tanker trucks (used in bombings of Tel Aviv, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia), missing nuclear fuel rods (a key ingredient in a "dirty" bomb) and the theft of tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer from Normandy and France (used in the Oklahoma City bombing and a documented favorite bomb chemical of al Qaeda), it's looking like things are going to be getting much worse for years to come.

 

[Bush Whacker]

There has been the reported threat that al Qaeda is planning to attack again on a major scale, either here or in Europe and with reports of stolen tanker trucks (used in bombings of Tel Aviv, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia), missing nuclear fuel rods (a key ingredient in a "dirty" bomb) and the theft of tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer from Normandy and France (used in the Oklahoma City bombing and a documented favorite bomb chemical of al Qaeda), it's looking like things are going to be getting much worse for years to come.

It's not reassuring to find out that what I've predicted just might happen, though some are discounting Ashcroft's announcement as being used to "scare people into voting for Bush," at times when Bush's poll ratings are so low, though he leads in opinions on who will fight terrorism better. He's done a great job of it so far (9/11).