Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Hot And Cold

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
Plaid Adder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:49 PM
Original message
Hot And Cold
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 06:54 PM by Plaid Adder
You know, some days you log on, and you just get the sense that the universe itself hates the Bush presidency and is trying to kill it. How many more October surprises is the world going to throw him?

But of course really what's happening is that the Bush team's ever-accelerating corruption and incompetence is catching up with it at an ever-accelerating rate. The Foley scandal has very deep roots in the fucked-up pathology of right-wing politics, and cannot perhaps be blamed on Bush personally, though he has certainly done nothing to give any of the Republican congressional leaders the impression that caring about honesty, transparency, or protecting American citizens is part of their job. North Korea likewise has been a thorn in everyone's side for quite some time. But it was Bush's idea to decide back in 2003 that instead of trying to deal effectively with a nutball Communist dictator who was jumping up and down chanting, "We got nukes, yes we do, we got nukes, how bout you?", he was going to war against a completely different country whose nutball dictator didn't have any. It was truly surreal watching it. "It's up to Saddam Hussein to prove he didn't have weapons of mass destruction!" you not see the crazy man with the giant nuclear warhead? He's standing over there on the right, just below where China is. _I_ can see him. Look, he's waving at you. Oh look, now he's giving you the...dude, what _is_ it with you and Iraq? Do they have the world's biggest shiny object, or what?

There are going to be all kinds of explanations for why that happened in the history books. Let me be the first to advance the Bored Game Theory.

What is everyone always telling us was the crowning achievement of the Reagan/Bush I administrations? The fall of the Soviet Union and the resultant liberation of eastern Europe. That was going to be the end of history. Remember that? The Cold War was over, and we won. We're the sole surviving world power! Woohoo!

Now, admittedly, in a lot of ways, Bush II's crowd doesn't seem to have fully integrated that knowledge. After all, the right-wingers continue to red-bait us just as if the Soviet Union was still a malignant growth trying to infect the whole world with the cancer of international Communism, and continue to oppose any form of welfare, Social Security, etc. on the grounds that these things are socialism and therefore leading us into the maw of the Evil Empire. And of course Condileeza Rice's background is in the Cold War, and most of Bush's major advisors are guys who are certainly of an age to have been formed by the Cold War and the Vietnam era, and they have certainly shown plenty of evidence of ossified and outdated thinking. But anyway, the point is: Bush came into office already convinced that the Cold War was over and we won. After all, his daddy was there to see the Soviet Union into the grave and tramp the dirt down. Mission Accomplished.

But anyhow, back in the day, when the nuclear deterrent was keeping everyone from everyone's throats, people actually had to _use_ shit like diplomacy because direct confrontation, at least after the Cuban Missile Crisis proved that neither of the Big Two was _really_ crazy enough to push the red button, was right out. Oh, you could have proxy wars like in Korea and Vietnam, but as for just marching your army into your enemy's country and trying to take the joint over, no, you really couldn't do that. And somehow I just feel like Bush II and his crew have always felt like the really _cool_ thing about the end of the Cold War was that they could now afford to start a really exciting _hot_ war.

So when Bush II came in, he was _so_ over the Cold War. To get his jollies he created a shiny new one called the War On Terror, and instead of the Communists under the bed he got everyone het up about the Arab (or Muslim? Islamofascist? Liberal? They're not always precisely clear about this) terrorists working at the 7-11. And, you know, that might have been all right if the object of the game were to get Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. But it became unclear very quickly exactly what Bush thought he was playing for, apart from the chance to play again.

So anyway: why should Bush care about North Korea? He doesn't want to play Contain the Communist, he's bored with that. It's too slow-moving and requires too much strategy and thinking ahead and craftiness and whatnot. He needs something with more action, something with really cool graphics and kind of a first-person-shooter thing. To hell with Risk. If he can't blow shit up, it's just not fun.

The persistence of the North Korea problem is just one more example of the Bush team's refusal to think outside their chosen paradigm. OK, the Cold War is over; but North Korea apparently didn't get the memo. Not too much gets into North Korea from the outside, from what I hear. And their inclusion in the Axis Of Evil always seemed kind of awkward. Clearly, one of these things is not like the others; for one thing it's the only member of the AOE that doesn't have a four-letter name that starts with IRA. Not a middle-eastern country breeding Islamofascist terrorists? No oil? Well, then you can't possibly be our problem. We're fighting a War On Terror here, not a War On The Remnants Of The Communist Bloc. The idea that you might have to work in more than one paradigm at once, and be able to understand the world through multiple lenses at the same time, does not have a lot of currency with this crowd.

Well, so, Bush paid North Korea no mind, and now they have the Bomb. But on the bright side, after years of bloody mayhem in Iraq, now Saddam Hussein DOESN'T! Whereas, if we hadn't invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein...uh...still wouldn't have had one.

Some days all you can say is :argh:,

The Plaid Adder
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Redstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well-said, as always. Nothing that I could add as a reply that would
contribute anything.

Excellent writing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
2. K&R.(nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ninkasi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. I love your articles, Plaid Adder
You're right about Bush and his reasons, stupid and juvenile as they are, for not dealing with North Korea. To Bush, being president meant he could boast of being the most powerful man in the world, and choose which countries he wished to fight.

North Korea is a mystery to him, but watching Poppy's years of fighting with Iraq, and being friend to the Saudis, provided him with a chance to beat the old man. He has absolutely no desire to learn about any country which does not provide oil, and where there are no long term Bush family alliances in that area of the world willing to prop him up.

Like many people whose mentalities never grew beyond the early teen aged years, or the terrible two stage of toddlers, he is unwilling and unable to confront any situation which he cannot control 100%. North Korea's leader is a psychotic and dangerous case of arrested development himself. I never understood why Bush has ignored North Korea until your post. Thanks for the insight, I enjoy each and every one of your posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
InvisibleTouch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
4. Always great to read your stuff, Adder. Love the writing! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RonHack Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. LOLS (Laughing Out Loud Sarcastically)
I wonder if he's trying to play THIS game?

DEFCON: Everybody Dies - REVIEW

I mean, your argument is kinda valid - only the other way 'round.

When we attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan. then invaded Iraq, one of the problems that military commanders were having was that there wasn't much stuff to blow up. In fact, in an ironic twist, the only thing that was destroyable were our OWN FORCES. Maybe why they didn't get the equipment they needed, and got (over)charged for the equipment that got (unfortunately) lost during the battle.

But a Nuclear Exchange? Woo-hoo! Big explosions! I am SURE he saw "WarGames", and thought how cool it would be to nuke the flying shit out of some "hapless" country.

So, maybe not a FPS (first-person shooter), since he's getting "his" ass handed back to him on that front.

After all, a real-time strategy game promises to have much nastier battles, so let's try that game out.

Rat Bastard.

The only "Mission Accomplished" I will celebrate, is when this Administration is strung up by their necks, while We The People pelt them with rotten tomatoes and eggs.

Then, The Enemy will be dead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jan 18th 2018, 07:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC