?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Apr. 23rd, 2003

The Washington Post on Wednesday quoted Bush administration officials as saying they had focused so much on ousting Saddam that they had not given much thought to how the ensuing power vacuum would be filled.

The officials said the administration had underestimated the organizational strength of the Shi'ite majority and were not ready to prevent the possible rise of an anti-American, Islamic fundamentalist government.


I can't believe this. Are you fucking serious? Bush administration officials are ADMITTING this? You never thought of this, this never occurred to you? Are you fucking serious? DON'T YOU READ LIVEJOURNAL? We've all been wondering what the fuck you were going to do after the war for MONTHS! Amazing. I mean not amazing that it's happening, but amazing that they think they can shrug their shoulders and say "we didn't really have time to think about it" and expect us to all be like "yeah, you really had a lot on your mind, don't worry about it, we'll figure something out." This isn't college! You can't finish this shit the night before it's due and get two hours of sleep and stumble into class and start a fucking war and then you get to the end and you're like oh yeah we forgot about that!

The mind boggles.

Tags:

Comments

( 20 comments — Leave a comment )
littlewashu
Apr. 23rd, 2003 08:01 am (UTC)
Dude, they "were not ready to prevent the possible rise of an anti-American, Islamic fundamentalist government." Seriously. I can't wrap my head around that. They didn't see it coming. They didn't think that might be what would happen. I just . . . I just can't get over that.
intothelight
Apr. 23rd, 2003 08:12 am (UTC)
i just sent that link in this email to my friend troy.
To: Troy
From: Lindsey
Subject: Pack your bags

Reverend,
We're moving to Canada.

Love,
Lindsey J.
counterfeitfake
Apr. 23rd, 2003 08:44 am (UTC)
Re: i just sent that link in this email to my friend troy.
Are you going to be the first person who has ever threatened to do this and carried through?
calamityjon
Apr. 23rd, 2003 09:41 am (UTC)
Re: i just sent that link in this email to my friend troy.
Oh ho, ho ho, you got an uncontrolled chortle out of me, boyo.
intothelight
Apr. 23rd, 2003 10:53 am (UTC)
Re: i just sent that link in this email to my friend troy.
oh man, it was just a little 9am joke. i've got college to finish and countries to conquer.
(Deleted comment)
neonplatypus
Apr. 23rd, 2003 08:47 am (UTC)
Re: Minor Oversight
And How!
prettykate
Apr. 23rd, 2003 08:59 am (UTC)
"the possible rise of an anti-American, Islamic fundamentalist government"

Not to sound ignorant, but what did they have BEFORE the war?!
littlewashu
Apr. 23rd, 2003 09:01 am (UTC)
Iraq's goverment was secular, actually. Saddam was not a religious leader, and didn't like Islamic fundamentalists (like the Shi'ites) because they didn't want him in charge.

I hope I got that right.
qed
Apr. 23rd, 2003 09:42 am (UTC)
I think that's correct. I also don't think he was particularly anti-American. I mean, I'm sure he was pissed about the Gulf War, but I think he was just a generic tyrant. He wanted as much power and wealth as he could grab, and had no particular desire to fuck with the US. We just stepped in and smacked him down when he grabbed Kuwait, which threatened our oil supply.

I don't see why democracy and religious fundamentalist government are necessarily mutually exclusive. If we restore democracy in Iraq, and the Iraqi people vote in religious fundamentalists, then didn't democracy work? To be honest, if that happens, I'd feel much better about this war. It would indicate that we actually did liberate the Iraqi people, and didn't just conquer the country to control the oil supply.
calamityjon
Apr. 23rd, 2003 09:47 am (UTC)
"I don't see why democracy and religious fundamentalist government are necessarily mutually exclusive."

The precepts of religious fundamentalism and democracy are wholly contradictory, as we enforce and promote democracy. Fundamentalism insists on singular deism, unshakable doctrine and immutable codes of conduct and morality, whereas democracy is all about the grease, baby ...
king_kai
Apr. 23rd, 2003 12:08 pm (UTC)
i thought democracy was all about government through representation, or majority rule. if the general populace is directly involved in the governing, whether directly or thru elected officials, you have democracy. now, if that populace chooses a fundamentalist religious doctrine by which to govern their nation, that's their business. but it still seems like democracy in my book...
calamityjon
Apr. 23rd, 2003 12:31 pm (UTC)
That's great, and I thusly encourage you to go take over Iraq and put your democracy to work.

But in the case of America's constitional representative democracy, "... as we enforce and promote democracy*," even the overwhelming wishes of the majority cannot infringe on the conferred rights of the minority. Fundamentalism and allowances for guaranteed minimal civil rights for dissent don't mix, by the nature of Fundamentalism.

*Which is what I said up above. So it's nice that you have a different interpretation of democracy. Hell, I do too. It's just that apparently differs from the democracy as enforced and encouraged by the diplomatic foreign policy of the US...
king_kai
Apr. 23rd, 2003 12:59 pm (UTC)
fuck iraq. maybe you haven't heard, but i'm taking over the WORLD. as in Commissioner of the. then you & everyone else'll get a full disclosure of my interpretation of democracy...right upside your ass. yeah, i said it.

my point was merely that "democracy," by widely-accepted definition, does not exclude a fundamentalist regime. that's all. there's a difference between liberating iraq by providing an opportunity for a democratic future (what the u.s. claims to be doing) & simply installing an american system of government.
calamityjon
Apr. 23rd, 2003 09:44 am (UTC)
Yup, and it's also worth noting that Saddam gve a lot of lip service to Islam despite the fact that his government policies were almost wholly secular. One of the many reasons that the Arab League was not fond of the guy.

--Phantom Mazurka
superdaintykate
Apr. 23rd, 2003 07:50 pm (UTC)
Correct, with the added bonus that he tended to oppress the Shi'ite's. And man, they aren't people you wanna do that to. They're the mean drunks, metaphorically speaking, of Islam. Or, to be more specific, bugshit fanaticism seems to be more of a facet of that sect than of Sunni. I've been wrong before, of cuss.
kinglaugh
Apr. 23rd, 2003 10:28 am (UTC)
OH CANADA...
counterfeitfake
Apr. 23rd, 2003 12:36 pm (UTC)
OH MAN...
kinglaugh
Apr. 23rd, 2003 02:25 pm (UTC)
Re:
WHOA MAN...
boomerkuwanger
Apr. 23rd, 2003 11:37 am (UTC)
Dude, it's ok cause if they do stay up late to finish the governmemnt and waltz into Iraq with 3 hours of sleep, they can totally just take a nap afterwards and sleep through N.Korea Class. I mean that's what i alwauys do right?
king_kai
Apr. 23rd, 2003 12:09 pm (UTC)
completely unrelated
what happened to you, china? you used to be cool...
( 20 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

March 2015
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Witold Riedel