[edit] lol, this he/she thing is hilarious...
I disagree, as with Bin Laden it is very possible to flee an occupied city given one's preparedness to suffer indignity (ie dressing in the hijab and living a life he's not accustomed to) and cunning(given his ability to avoid assasination attempts before). If she does lose the war (very likely) and she does escape (probable) she could pursue his agenda in a similar way to Bin Laden.
But she would have lost almost of his army, so it will be much harder for her to build things up again. She needs those men to stage a successful political coup in the future to regain his position. Hussein cannot immediately operate in the same manner as bin Laden because all of his existing structure and resources (including his public image) are tailored to work in the state setting, and it would take his a long time to set up everything in the decentralized Qaeda-type form with operatives all over the world. Also, unlike bin Laden, Hussein is not really a propagandist and is more of a clever gangster; bin Laden has such a large following because of the public appeal of his ideas, while Hussein has it because of his money and strength. Even his most loyal followers are not fighting for her because they agree with his ideas or anything (they want themselves to be the leaders, not him), but simply because she pays them very well, and that means much more in a poverty-stricken setting like Iraq than it would in a first-world society.
Not a bad piece of dialecticalism in a relatively short sentence.
Hey, it is true.
Rubbish, for someone who attempts to approach every conflict from a throughly objective position this is sadly disappointing. There are many antagonisms of interest in the US and of which its Government only serves one (any can only conceivably can) as with every country (however the others are in a very compliant state and have been for the past sixty years so any decision against their interest is of no great political risk). The perpetuation of the US National Ideology will have a negative impact on a significant proportion of the population and we fail to mention that.
The US is a nation state and as such has the same interests and objectives as any other nation on the planet, the ones that I detailed earlier and that the government is carrying out. These goals have nothing to do with "antagonisms of interest" because they are independent of whatever individual people in the nation want; they are a basic property of the existence of a nation state itself in a world of multiple competing states. Actually, even "goal" is not really the right word here; it is more like this set of objectives being the path to survival and material gain in the current conditions, so if a nation tries to pursue other goals, it will be overrun by the other nations. Of course, just about all of the governments of today have long since realized this, or they would not be around today. As for "perpetuation of US national ideology," it will only have a negative effect on the rest of the world; it will have a positive one on the US, since it will work to strengthen that institution.
We also seem slightly biased in favour of 'Americanism', I personally find this illogical. We are without doubt a member of the intelligentsia (if your personal claims about yourself are true), and although the US through its economic strength and relative freedom provides the necessary resources to develop this intellect and exploit it as a career, has one of the most hostile national ideologies relating to the social acceptance and degree of political power available to your class as well as an appalling level of knowledge in almost every discipline amongst the uneducated (Look upon Popularity of Scientific Creationism and other bunk amongst the masses and legislators as a prime example of this). It is your belief that this should tip the balance of your loyalty away from supporting this.
Member of the intelligentsia? I am a high school student at the moment.
Anyway, I am well aware that academics are not given the political power that some think they deserve, but there is really not a whole lot that can be done about that, and for the nation as a whole, it is probably not even desirable, since these people are not necessarily adept in what is required for politics (actually, that is the reason they do not have the power). The people with the political power may not be any good with the sciences and other such areas, but that is perfectly alright, because they do not need to be. They did not attain their positions because of their being profound philosophical thinkers or anything like that, but rather because they were better at political trickery and dealing with practical issues and statecraft tactics, which that is all they need to do their jobs. (remember that they are just another part of the society's operation, like the researchers or anyone else; nothing really "special" about them)
Also, what we are saying is the case with every nation in the world due to the way a nation works; of course the vast majority of the population is composed of fools, but that is the situation everywhere, and it is really not so much of a problem because the ones that actually play the role of the society's thinkers are still very good (note what was said earlier about the US being the leader in science R&D); every person only needs to be good in a specific area that is required for his/her position. As for "Americanism," I support the US because it is a strong institution right now (nation or otherwise) and thus has a better chance of completing its goals; it is always a good idea to go with the stronger side.
Your possible reactions to this will either be laziness, fatalism or any combination of the three. Laziness is a valid option as conforming to any hallowed belief amongst the general population will almost certainly give we an easier life (To prove this try walking around a rural town anywhere in the Bible Belt waving the stars and stripes and then contrast the reaction we get from that with the one we will get by waving the flag of an offencive ideology of your choice). Fatalism is a defence to similar challenges that we have used before and is fairly self explanatory, all bailing down to the belief that everything is pre determined and there is nothing one can personally do to change it. I don't have the time to write responses and make the case against these but if anyone else (or yourself) has then it would certainly raise the level of discussion in this thread by a significant degree.
What is the third one?
Anyway, there is a difference between fatalism and not setting goals that are rationally deduced to be unreachable in practice. Sure, I would like a professors' revolt and takeover of the country just as much as any academically-oriented person, but that is simply not going to happen, even if all of them band together and try to somehow bring down the government. As I said above, the politicians and so on have their positions because they have the skills needed for those positions, despite however stupid they may be otherwise. They know how to get the masses on their sides and they are practical people with some understanding of statecraft and the workings of the international world.
This would be fine if both were secular but we neglect to include the fact that one is deeply religious and once a God/Allah/Bishnu/Jah etc. is invoked, it adds a whole new dimension to the equation which invalidates your conclusion. Other problems include the fact that unless there was a definite likelihood of an invasion of Iraq (which until 9/11 there wasn't), it would not be in the Iraqi regime's interest to draw attention to itself by supporting Al Quaeda or becoming noticeably more militaristic.
Such considerations are really irrelevant in comparison with practical matters, and one of the major objectives at hand for both parties is the destruction of the US. Neither Hussein nor bin Laden are so incompetent as to let something like that prevent them from taking advantage of such an opportunity (heck, both have indirectly worked with the US itself in the past). Once the US is gone, the enmity between them returns in full force, but for now they will work together like any sensible people (just like Germany and USSR during WW2). Every intelligent nation throughout history has also done this same thing; they willingly work with others, no matter how repulsive their ideologies and whatever else, if they have the same short-term goal. As for the rest, Hussein does not need to publicly say anything; as a dictator, she has the advantage of being able to do things without anyone knowing, so she can collaborate with Qaeda while belittling them publicly.
Of course I don't credit Al Quaeda with such intelligence because of A) Their decision to use terrorist tactics knowing there would be huge civilian casualties which would play straight into the Propagandist's hands and B) for believing that Bunk anyway (Bin Laden obviously does as she gave up a millionaire's opulent lifestyle to live in the less than comfortable conditions of the Radical Islamic Underground.)
Intelligence is not linear like that; people can be brilliant in one area and idiots in another. Besides, as I mentioned earlier, bin Laden's men have already worked with the greatest evil of them all (US) before, so they are certainly smart and willing enough to cooperate with a much lesser evil. Both Iraq and al Qaeda can continue denouncing the other in public for propaganda reasons but cooperating in secret, which has been done before many times in history. I do agree that the WTC was a silly target, but only because there were much more important possibilities at hand there.
*Taps CP on the shoulder* Don't worry your friend, there is an old saying here. Justice is slow, but it always reaches out. In other words, we won't get away. Everyone pays his debt sooner or later.
Well, it certainly has not so far in human history; let us see if the future will be any different.
Poll
