...I keep returning to one simple conclusion. If 9/11 had never occurred, and George W. Bush was doing exactly the same thing he's doing now--actions motivated supposedly because of Saddam's breaking of UN resolutions--then we would be seeing calls for impeachment from everywhere. He would be viewed as a war-mongering madman by everyone, including the Brits. Hell, it wouldn't have been allowed to get this far.
But the destruction of the Twin Towers, an event which--as far as we can tell, had nothing to do with Iraq--has given license to unprecedented aggression. Why? Because, in my opinion, the administration does not want to risk looking impotent in the face of terrorism.
I'm thinking that this will go down as the most spectacular incident of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in all of recorded history.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at March 17, 2003 10:00 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI can see your point, but I have to disagree. Bush is following through on the same policies that the U.S. has had for some time. Clinton made a speech back in '98 (?), where he said how dangerous Saddam was and how we needed to stop his threat, with or without UN approval.
Would you be as opposed to forcing Saddam to disarm if Gore was in office? I've noticed that most anti-war protestors seem to be anti-Bush and I doubt they would be as upset if a Democrat was in office.
--Will
Oh, I'm sure Bush would find other justification or reasoning for a war with Iraq. He'd simply cite Saddam's continued refusal to disarm. I doubt anyone would seriously entertain notions of impeachment.
I want to see him impeached, now. This is an absurd little smoke screen Bush threw up after we could not find Bid Laden. Notice that name doesn't show up in the news anymore...
>>I can see your point, but I have to disagree. Bush is following through on the same policies that the U.S. has had for some time. Clinton made a speech back in '98 (?), where he said how dangerous Saddam was and how we needed to stop his threat, with or without UN approval.
Would you be as opposed to forcing Saddam to disarm if Gore was in office? I've noticed that most anti-war protestors seem to be anti-Bush and I doubt they would be as upset if a Democrat was in office.<<
You've "noticed" this? How? Done polls? For that matter, isn't it possible that Bush's actions have *made* people who were either for him or neutral now in opposition to him?
We're not "forcing Saddam to disarm." We are going to drop bombs on him, and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Let's call it what it is: Slaughter. So to answer the question accurately, would I be opposed to slaughtering the Iraqis if Gore were in office? Absolutely. Not only that, but the GOP would be opposing him with as much stridency as they're supporting Bush.
Just for giggles: Let's go with your earlier comment about Clinton pushing regime change. Let's say Gore was elected (which, in fairness, he was) and 9/11 hadn't happened.
How much support do you think Gore would have from congress and this country if, under those exact circumstances, he was pursing the same course of action Bush is now?
Because if you think the answer is anything other than "None," then I think you're kidding yourself.
PAD
Peter:
Clinton bombed Iraq in '98 and -- even then -- that Hussein had used his "last chance." So, five years and another president later, when do we agree that he's used his last chance?
Violating the terms of the cease fire demands action. Pussy-footing around with lunatics is, well, what leads other lunatics to think that they can fly bombs into your buildings. After all, what will the U.S. really do?
And I'm getting tired of hearing about our perceived "slaughter" of innocent Iraqis. The U.S. military will do all it can to minimize the loss of life. Too bad we can't say the same about Hussein, who has been torturing and killing his own people by the thousands. Even if we go into this war like the drooling madmen you think we are, we won't even come close to Hussein's body count.
Does the loss of life that goes on daily in Iraq *only* matter if we can blame the U.S. for it?
Anyway, you can't say "if 9/11 hadn't happened." You can't turn back time on the thousands of dead Americans. More importantly, you can't feasibly imagine what Gore would have done had he been President (such a horrible act changes an administration mid-stream).
Gore struck me as more conservative in some ways than Clinton, and Clinton let Hussein have it and pushed for regime change.
Actually, I'm more curious as to what the Republicans would be saying if Gore was in office.
Let's say Gore won the election. Let us suppose that a year and a half after 9/11, Bin Laden still hasn't been found, anti-American sentiment is at almost a fever pitch, North Korea and Iran both have nuclear programs far and away more advanced than anything Iraq might have (with us doing absolutely nothing about those two countries), we've managed to alienate just about every single ally we have (including putting our closest ally Tony Blair in the position that he could lose his job at almost any time), we've put 200,000 troops half-way across the world, have done nothing to end the violence between Israelis and Palastinian, which is still at a fevered pitch, and an economy that is basically in the toilet, and allowing civil liberties to drop by the wayside. Do you honestly think the Republicans wouldn't be hopping mad about that?
There were Republicans (Bob Barr in particular) who wanted to impeach Clinton when India developed nuclear weapons. It was the Republicans who talked up the "new world order" of international cooperation. It was the Republicans who pushed for a balanced budget amendment and who always railed against the spend-thrift Democratic congress. It was always the Republicans talking about less intrusion by the government into private lives. It was George W. himself who kept telling everybody that the US couldn't follow the Clinton polcy of being the police force of the world.
And people ask me why I switched to the Democratic party in the 2002 election. Hypocrisy in politics. Gotta love it.
Damn. I'm too slow a typist. PAD already made my point. Sorry.
I think the Democrats have certainly done their part in demonizing Hussein, but it seems to me Gore just has more savvy when it comes to international diplomacy. To much of the international community, it's not just what we're doing (which is bad enough) but how we're doing it - arrogantly, dismissively, as if we're the only country whose opinion matters. And yeah, when you have most of the weapons of mass destruction and there's no other superpower nation to keep your excesses in check, I can see where that attitude might just be inevitable, but I like to think Gore might not have PUSHED it as much.
>>And I'm getting tired of hearing about our perceived "slaughter" of innocent Iraqis. The U.S. military will do all it can to minimize the loss of life.<<
Really? Then what's this about:
WASHINGTON (AP) - In a strategy Pentagon officials are calling "shock and awe," U.S. forces plan to drop 10 times the bombs in the opening days of the air campaign in Iraq than they did in the first Persian Gulf war, officials said today.
I usually stay away from these threads because they generate a whole lot more heat than light, but I have to point something out. Republicans typically do not go against Democratic presidents on foreign policy issues. The only time I remember such a thing happening was when Trent Lott characterized Bill Clinton's bombing of Iraq on the eve of impeachment hearings as suspicious. He later apologized for the remarks due to media pressure, despite the fact that it really was suspicious. The Republicans certainly wouldn't have gone to Baghdad proclaiming they trust Saddam Hussein more than they trust Gore. I don't remember Republicans objecting when Clinton dropped bombs on Serbia, without UN approval and in support of a region which wasn't even a sovereign nation.
Look, I don't know whether going to war is the right thing to do. I do think that Bush is doing what he thinks is the right thing for the country, and that if there is a war it will be quick. What worries me is the aftermath. Do we end up with a permanent American military presence in Iraq propping up a puppet government? That approach didn't work very well with Iran in the long term.
As for our supposed allies, France and Germany didn't want us to go into Afghanistan, either. Anti-americanism didn't begin with 9/11 or with the Bush Administration.
"a combination aimed at overwhelming Iraqi forces"--from your article
Minimizing civilian casualties, yes. Saddam's military,however, won't surrender on our say so.
The idea that we can leave 3rd world leaders who place no value on human life in power must be scrapped. Technology in transit, weapons, and production of WMD demands that all who have a countries resources at their beck and call must have a minimum value on human rights. We must now embark on a humanitarian foreigfn policy, where human rights are the litmus test. For those leaders even of the most primitive societies who do not value human life now have the power to end all of our lives, not just torturing their local subjects.
Iraq has recently claimed that they have had tens of thousands of people offerring to become martyrs (otherwise known as suicide or homicide bombers). There have been reports that Iraq has been training and equipping some of these volunteers.
If any of these alleged martyrs hit civillian targets thereby proving his willingness to work with and support terrorists and/or Saddam was to use chemical or biological weapons against our troops, their Kurdish population, Israel, or Kuwait, how differently do you think the world will see Bush and his stand on Iraq's disarmament in hindsight?
It sure would piss a lot of people off if the dumb cowboy's "shoot first and ask questions later" approach actually worked out for him and his approval rating in the long run.
This is not to say that this scenario is my recommendation on how the U.S. should handle all foreign policy. It's just an interesting possibility, we may be looking at over the next couple of months.
Iraq has never attacked the US.
As his invasion of Kuwait proved, he attacks his neighbors--Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel-- thus being their problem, not America's.
Lots of countries are ruled by nutballs with scary weaponry. North Korea has an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the western United States AND the nuke to put inside it. Iraq doesn't.
Pakistan, another nuclear power run by a dangerous anti-American dictator, just unveiled its new HATF-4 ballistic missile.
If Bush's goal were disarmament, shouldn't THOSE countries--both of which have threatened to use nukes--be higher-priority targets Iraq?
Iraq isn't part of the war on terrorism. The only link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is the fact that they hate each other. No matter how often Bush says "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same breath, Saddam had nothing to do with the terror attacks.
Is Bush's sole reason for war now is so he can "free" the Iraqis from Saddam's rule? Is the U.S. in the liberation business? Will Bush spread democracy to Myamnar, Congo, Turkmenistan, Cambodia, Nigeria, Cuba, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan or Laos, just to name a few places where people can't vote, speak freely or eat much?
Right now America is being a bully. And nobody likes bullies.
I don't think that makes sense. Bush may be stupid and impulsive, but the rest of his administration isn't. They've had a year and a half to think this over, even if 9/11 was the inception of the idea to conquer Iraq, and it wasn't.
Do a search on a group called the "Project For The New American Century." It outlined what we are about to do now years ago, and you will find some very familiar names associated with it, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, who are by no coincidence the main hawks in this administration. And before anyone says conspiracy theory... no. This is all a matter of public record. This group even has their own website.
In regards to the "shock and awe" bombing campaign, the U.S. military will be bending over backwards to minimize civilian casualties because they can't afford a public relations nightmare in addition to what they already have to deal with. The purpose of this large initial bombing campaign is to soften Iraq up for ground troops and to induce surrender from the pschological trauma inflicted from a night of such intense bombing. Likewise the MOAB 21,000 pound bomb we developed was not created to kill civiliams but to be an effective bunker buster bomb and to create a mushroom cloud that could be seen FROM A DISTANCE to again induce surrender. We target an enemy's military installations and resources not civilians. Remember we had a shot at Mullah Mohammed Omar during the Afganistan conflict and passed to avoid significant civillian casualties. Our smart bombs' tracking and targeting systems are ridiculously more advanced then they were during Desert Storm. We'll probably be looking at only 2 or 3 percent of our bombs missing their mark rather than 40 percent or more as in Desert Storm. We will also avoid bombing civillian areas and infrastructure as much as possible because I'm sure we will end up repairing or replacing much of it them.
On a side note, while I clearly don't have much of a problem with the upcoming war with Iraq (really, I could go either way), I hope the war protestors don't go away after the war but instead just rededicate their energies and efforts to making sure that Iraqi oil money and the billions in Saddam's Swiss bank accounts goes to increasing the average Iraqi's quality of life five fold (for starters) from what it's like today. Making sure all that oil and money doesn't disappear is going to be a much bigger and probably harder job than stopping this war.
"You've "noticed" this? How? Done polls?"
Wow, for someone who starts out with pure conjecture--("we would be seeing calls for impeachment from everywhere. He would be viewed as a war-mongering madman by everyone, including the Brits. Hell, it wouldn't have been allowed to get this far.") you sure get upset with someone who is on much more solid ground. It's hard to say what "most" anti war folks think, though the ones with the oh-so-witty BUSH=HITLER signs probably have issues with the man (oppose a totalitarian Jew-hating dictator with dreams of conquering your neighbor and you're a Nazi. Well,ok.)
At any rate, it would be difficult for even the US military to kill as many Iraqi civilians as will die from the sanctions that we are now being told are working so well (2 years ago the sanctions were being called immoral by these very same folks but consistancy is the hobgoblin of small minds and all).
I suspect that your prediction of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties will be off by, oh, a few hundred thousand. After hearing the same claims about the Afghani campaign turn out to be so far off it gets hard to place much faith in the backseat Cassandras.
Have a war--Iraqis will die. Hopefully at the end, they will have a government that doesn't kill so many of them. Don't have a war--Iraqis will die. And probably keep dying.
But hey, soon we will know. If US troops find no sign of illegal weapons it will reflect very poorly on Bush, quite possibly cost him re-election. And if we do find the weapons that even Nancy Pelosi claims Iraq has been hiding--how soon before we start hearing that they were "planted" by Bush to justify the war?
I'm just waiting for the European Union to be renamed Lil America.
Well, I think that Gore would not have pushed for this war, and I really wonder how much of Dubya's actions are informed by having a father who left things unfinished in Iraq and who was then a target of Iraqi malfesance.
There are legitimate reasons to consider bringing down Saddam, but I think there are greatly outweighed by how the US has approached this. With unending arrogance, we have alienated allies, bullied smaller nations, and acted like we know with perfect certainty what to do. We have ignored the new waves of hatred in the world this attitude has generated, drawn up war plans that don't seem to take the worst-case scenarios into account, and made it seem like this will be easy. All the while, Al Qaeda salivates at how good they look to disgruntled Arab youth and how much accalim they will get for "retaliatory" strikes at the US. (Yes, the war is just an excuse for Al Qaeda to act, and they would act eventually anyway if not caught, but why are we giving our true mortal enemy an excuse?)
So what do I see? A war that will possibly make things worse in the vacuum left in Iraq. The increased likelihood of terrorist attacks in NY and Washington (and maybe in the rest of the US). A greater chance that Saddam will give anthrax or VX to terrorists before fleeing into the night. Missiles raining down on Tel Aviv. A bad economy getting worse. North Korea and Iran continuing their weapons programs unchecked while we bomb Iraq. More efforts to remove civil liberties in the guise of "homeland security."
I am afraid. This war could unleash some very bad consequences, the likes of which Europe knows too well but that the US doesn't. Yes, it's likely that the war itself will be done in a short time, but what could be left in its wake scares me greatly. But I cannot shake the sense that Dubya and his people cannot see those consequences. They only see American might unleashed once again.
Sigh. I have nothing left to say, expect perhaps that I find myself praying, and wondering why God himself would let such folly run wild.
1) As to impeachment - Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has already drawn up the Articles Of Impeachment:
2) The U.S. military doesn't have to worry about bad press, as all authorized media will be in press pools where they will only be given as much information as the pentagon wants them to have. Independant journalists who go out on their own risk being killed by the U.S. military.
http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/031003_pentagaon_threatens_to_kill_inde.htm
Bob wrote:
On a side note, while I clearly don't have much of a problem with the upcoming war with Iraq (really, I could go either way), I hope the war protestors don't go away after the war but instead just rededicate their energies and efforts to making sure that Iraqi oil money and the billions in Saddam's Swiss bank accounts goes to increasing the average Iraqi's quality of life five fold (for starters) from what it's like today. Making sure all that oil and money doesn't disappear is going to be a much bigger and probably harder job than stopping this war.
Ha!
I agree with you Bob, but my problem is this: I see that this war really is only designed for two fold.
a) To hopefully get dubya re-elected. And...
b) If not, hey... think about all the contracts his oil buddies are going to make from a very very thankful oil coalition in Iraq. And guess who the oil barons will be even more thankful to?
Now, really, I think Saddam should go. He needs to be out of there. My problem with the whole thing is that I do not trust dubya's intentions. And that makes me against this action. He comes off insincere, and it still doesn't help that his Election campaign was paid for by Enron. (Sounds off, but in the end, this action, like the previous is about one thing: oil.)
I actually believe Tony Blair probably believes in the reasons why Saddam should be taken out. But dubya hasn't convinced me that his reasons are the real reasons. And since we, as Americans, are going to foot the bill for this, then I think we really need to take a look on whether we can afford to do it.
And that answer, I believe, is no.
My opinion as always.
Travis
Bill Mulligan: Wow, for someone who starts out with pure conjecture--("we would be seeing calls for impeachment from everywhere. He would be viewed as a war-mongering madman by everyone, including the Brits. Hell, it wouldn't have been allowed to get this far.") you sure get upset with someone who is on much more solid ground.
Luigi Novi: That analogy is false. Peter was quite obvious in that he was making a conjecture of what would have been. By contrast, Will wasn't. He was making a statement of factual observation on the political leanings of most people against the war.
Trust me, most Brits do regard him
as a war-mongering madman.
It's just that we've got a war mongering madman of our own to worry about. At least ours wone a fair election...
Quote, Peter David: "We are going to drop bombs on him, and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Let's call it what it is: Slaughter."
Hold on battlecat. You're making some leaps here that at this time are unfounded. Unless you possess precognitive ability (or maybe you already have the yet-to-happen Iraqi war injury report?), you're guessing here...and rather sensationalistically. Hundreds of thousands? Slaughter? I would like to see your facts on this coming war that allows you the latitude to place casualty figures in your opinions. Good lord, Peter, that's a bit past the anti-war stance.
Additionally, Matt Adler (apologies if I make a leap past his point to support my thoughts) makes a valid point that it's not just Bush behind this war effort. Being anti-war means you're anti-Blair, anti-Powell, anti-much more than merely G.W.Bush. Seems it's become easier to simply lump an anti-war stance into a Bush rant.
For the record (to stem off thoughts I am one of the pro-war faction): I do not agree with the war effort as it has been presented to the public thus far. I realize I may not have all the facts - and that is the problem I have most with the effort. Since we are committing lives and money and reputation on this war, the public damn well needs to have all the facts. Despite this concern, I remain aware enough to realize it's not just Bush pushing the effort. And I am honest enough to not muddle hyperbole with reality.
BillRitter - Problem is, who do we trust? The government of the US has already publicly stated it considers it perfectly acceptable to use disinformation to throw enemies off. And we remember the first Gulf fracas where they told us what a resounding success the Patriot was when, in truth, it was a dismal failure?
Oh, I believe the army WILL try to keep civilian casualties down to a minimum, but who do we trust to give the body count? Them? Or the Iraqui "we hate the infidels and want to make them look as bad as possible"?
There's a reason why someone wrote that truth is the first casualty of war. On BOTH sides.
I'm a hawk. I think this pre-emptive strike is the right thing, hopefully at the right time. If Saddam had been removed from power in the Gulf War this particular war might not be necessary.
Our peace loving pal Saddam had four years without UN Weapons Inspectors nosing around his labs and factories. Apparently he put those four years to good use creating weapons of mass destruction. For this fellow to be so empowered, I think the world is in serious trouble.
If diplomacy had been successful since the end of the Gulf War, we wouldn't have 250,000 troops so close to Saddam's boarder.
By the way, to the Arab mentality the USA is only evaluated in light of its actions. The fact that President Clinton's response to Al Queda was so limited emboldened them to do the atrocity of 9/11. The fact that we have responded so overwhelmingly to 9/11 plus what we are going to do to Saddam makes the other dictators and terrorists of the world take the USA seriously.
Well, that's my two cents.
For what it's worth (not that I expect people are panting for my opinion), I think we may end up doing the right thing here for horribly wrong reasons.
Is Saddam a bad choice as leader of Iraq? Oh, hell yeah -- and I know of very few informed people who'd say otherwise. Is he a threat to the U.S.? Almost certainly.
Is he an immediate, clear-and-present-we-better-do-something-right-now danger who's so great that it's worth getting the rest of the world, including most of our allies ticked off at us? In my opinion, no.
Is Saddam such a monster that anything is a better choice, including an Iraqi civil war that could destabilize the whole area? In my opinion, no.
Regardless of what Bush's actual intentions are (and I have any number of ideas on that score), our diplomatic efforts over the last few months have been pitiful. Our arguments for war have changed by the day -- one week it's regime change, one week it's disarmament, then back to regime change, then back to disarmament, and suddenly we're trying to rewrite the map of the Middle East and spread democracy everywhere. The only constant in U.S. policy over the last year is that the higher-ups in the administration clearly want Saddam gone, and aren't really that concerned about the justification used to do it. (Remember when Ari Fleischer observed offhand that "all the Iraqis need to solve their problem is one bullet?" If someone said that about the U.S., wouldn't it have serious consequences?)
Now, is it possible that removing Saddam really will solve lots of problems? That it'll bring a stable and U.S.-friendly Iraq, drop oil prices, kick-start the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, result in free and fair elections in every country bordering Iraq, and ensure a new golden age? Sure. I can't imagine it's likely, though -- and given all the handy recruitment material we'll be giving Al Qaeda et al, I see a lot more bad outcomes to this than I do good ones.
Between that and what this administration has done to trample civil liberties in this country since 9/11 (cf. the Patriot Act, its soon-to-be-passed sequel, and many other issues), you'll forgive me if I'm somewhat less than trusting at the moment.
So far as I can see, we've got a president who considers himself divinely appointed to rid the world of evil, and administration officials who back him to the hilt for whatever reasons. No wonder we can't get support in the U.N. -- a lot of countries really do see this as a crusade on the U.S.'s part, and I can't say as our public statements have done much to dissuade them.
Do I think we'll try to minimize loss of life? Probably. Do I think we'll succeed? Maybe.
Do I think the aftermath of this war is going to echo for decades, in ways not helpful to us as a country? Oh, yes.
So as I said: Possibly the right thing, but in terribly wrong ways and IMO for the wrong reasons.
And I hope like hell that I'm wrong.
TWL
1) On what grounds can we impeach Bush? He hasn't committed any crimes here that I can tell, and even if he did, impeachment does not equal suspension from public office.
2) "No blood for oil". The idea that we are invading Iraq for their oil is stupid. The idea that we would profit from Iraqi oil after the war is stupid. The idea that a sizeable amount of Iraqi oil would survive a war is a result of short-sightedness and ignorance. Far more likely that the oil fields will be set ablaze either purposely by Iraq (causing an environmental disaster beyond the limitations of the Kyoto Treaty to clean up) or accdentily in conflict. Yippee ki ay. Whatever the cause and cost of this war the oil will more likely be a causuality than a prize.
3) Whatever President 41 left unfinished in Iraq President 42 left equally unfinished. President 43 is not merely the successor of the first PResident Bush but he is charged with the responsibilities, tasks, and continuing legacy of President Clinton. For better or for worse while we've had three different presidents (actually four different presidents) creating and enacting various policies of their own and continuing a few implemented by their respective predecessors Iraq has had one President. For twelve years he's been against us and has had one policy against us. For around twenty years Saddam Hussein has had a policy involving the construction of deadly weapons including that of a nuclear arsenal. (In fact we have Israel to thank for the destruction of that arsenal in 1981.) Why shouldn't one of our Presidents finally draw a line and institute a smackdown?
4) Thanks to http://www.investorsinsight.com/article.asp?id=jm021403 I was given an idea. France doesn't oppose a war with Iraq because of a sacred ideal of any sort. They don't do it on principle or because of honor. They are using the war as an excuse to unite nations against the US with them as the head. Jacque Chirac wants to move up in authority within the European Union. But this is not my idea.
5) Like it or not Al Gore was not elected to be the 43rd President of the United States.
My $.02:
Bush II is bound and determined (as he always has been) to oust Saddam. But looking at the cycle of the arguments that he's put forth leads to questions as to his motives. First it was Al-qaeda ties which have been loose at best, then it was nuclear weapons which the inspectors have said there is NO possiblity, then it was Saddam having chemical/biological weapons-which is the only reason that hasn't been completely debunked by independent sources but it also has not been proven with UP-TO-DATE information and not testimony from 1995ish. At one point Bush II even settled for exile (which no one believed would happen).
Now it seems that Bush II is willing to violate UN rules of engagement (Annan described a non-UN Security council approved action as a blatant disregard and violation of the UN a few weeks ago) in order to show what happens when someone doesn't take the UN seriously. Step back and think about that for a second.
What are his motives? I have no clue. I just know that he seems like a sniper with Saddam in his sites unwilling to look at anything else outside the view he gets through his VERY narrow scope.
Now do I think Saddam is evil? Yes.
Is he dangerous? Kind of. He's a neighborhood bully.
Is the war going to destabilize the region even more? Yes, very much.
Muslims and Arabs are wondering why the double standard - Saddam gets explosives while Kim Jon Il can't get the administration to send anyone higher than an ambassador. Bush II hopes to counter terrorism when what will actually happen is he will give young Middle Easterners greater reason to "hate" the US and join with groups like Al-qaeda.
I'm a muslim convert and an American. I'm very scared. Very.
Thank you Peter for giving us this forum. In a side note I would like to tell you that I think CapMarvel is a good read and well worth the money. The lastest ish treated the idea of cause and effect very well.
Kudos.
Stories like yours allow me to NOT be scared for awhile.
"Like it or not Al Gore was not elected to be the 43rd President of the United States."
Of course not. He lost the vote. The one that went 5-4 in the end. You remember. The one that counted more than 100 million American votes.
Why it's not hyperbolic to call Shock and Awe a slaughter:
We're using ten times as many bombs as 1991 in a shorter period of time, but in "good news" they're supposed to have 90% accuracy (and those are the DOD's numbers). Do the math. That still means that the same number bombs will miss their targets in the first day of this war as landed in the entire first Gulf War! Thus, comperable numbers of casualties, at least.
The population of Baghdad is greater than those of cities like Houston, Toronto, Atlanta, Berlin, Sydney or Seattle... [Population data courtesy of CityPopulation.de, where you can also find other cities for comparison] I don't know if you've been to any of these cities to grok their size firsthand, but can you imagine hundreds of bombs per hour being dropped on a city that size?
Regarding the idea that Baghdad residents could just evacuate the city -- can you imagine evacuating a city that size in the... what... 72 hours Bush promised in his "press conference" last week? [For some reason, I'm suddenly imagining the traffic jams trying to escape the cities in ID4.] And even if it were logistically feasible to get everyone out of there, where would you put them!? They live in a fecking desert! There's no place for them to evacuate to!
Meanwhile, I'm sure Hussein has safe bunkers out of range of our missles, meaning the only people our missles can hurt are innocent civilians.
That's why so many people are outraged by the idea of Shock and Awe. Or, maybe we should just use the original German term: blitzkrieg.
Well, sure you could say that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. Then of course there is the 747 in Salman Pak used by terrorists to train in taking over airplanes for terrorist activities.
(New York Sun: September 11 and Iraq)
(UK Guardian: The Iraqi connection - 11.11.01)
(NY TImes: Defectors Cite Iraqi Training For Terrorism - 11.12.01)
(PBS.org: Highly secret terrorist training camp at Salman Pak)
(Aviation Week: Satellite Photos Believed To Show Airliner for Training Hijackers)
The fact of the matter is that Hussein was told to disarm after the Gulf War. He didn't.
He was told through multiple other resolutions to disarm. He didn't.
All the U.S. is doing is finishing the Gulf War, and doing _exactly_ what Bill Clinton said he would do at one time, but didn't. And the democrats had _no problem_ supporting the president at that time. The unfortunate thing is that the only reason they supported him was because he was a democrat.
Democrats are having this huge problem with Bush is because he's solving a problem instead of leaving it be like they did. Time and again Democrats have shown that they will talk big about a problem, and not do anything about it. (Hussein is the biggest example on this.)
Bush tried to take care this diplomatically through the U.N. Like the democrats, they talked big when they supported unanimously to disarm Hussein with 1441. When it came time for them to walk the walk though, they tripped over and are proving just how poorly they are getting up.
As for the anti-war protests being anti-Bush; there are eye-witness accounts of mannequins dressed up like Bush with either bullet holes through it, nooses on it, or being "bloodied". The people who blame america for all of their problems have no problem showing their true colors about how they feel about President Bush and the job he is doing. Go to www.brain-terminal.com and watch the video there to see the mentality of these anti-war people.
Then there's the fact that these various anti-war people are stating while Hussein doesn't have any WMD, that if we go against Hussein, he will be forced to use them against us. WHAT? How can someone who according to these people doesn't have WMD use them against us? This is like taking tea and no tea at the same time, right?
Yes, some innocent Iraqis may die in this conflict. Blaming our military 100% on this isn't totally fair: we didn't place the iraqi army near the hospitals or school zones.
Why is it that the United Nations seems as if they would be completely willing to let us handle the North Korea situation on our own with little to no involvement on their part but doing the same thing with Iraq is "a violation of the U.N."?
And in regards to the "U.S. just wants Iraq's oil" argument, I've seen the following response used at least 5 times on various news talk shows:
"If we really weren't concerned about the weapons of mass destruction and wanted Iraq's oil, all we would have had to do over the last twelve years would be to pick up the phone and call Saddam and he would have happily cut us a very reasonable deal."
It's a stumper that I've yet to see anyone even try to argue in any way.
>>"You've "noticed" this? How? Done polls?"
Wow, for someone who starts out with pure conjecture--("we would be seeing calls for impeachment from everywhere. He would be viewed as a war-mongering madman by everyone, including the Brits. Hell, it wouldn't have been allowed to get this far.") you sure get upset with someone who is on much more solid ground.<<
Well, no. First, I'm not upset. Second, saying "if this, then that" is taking conjecture and presenting a speculation. What you did is take an unsupported opinion and present it as fact. And your response offered no further support, so...
PAD
>>Additionally, Matt Adler (apologies if I make a leap past his point to support my thoughts) makes a valid point that it's not just Bush behind this war effort. Being anti-war means you're anti-Blair, anti-Powell, anti-much more than merely G.W.Bush. Seems it's become easier to simply lump an anti-war stance into a Bush rant.<<
I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-stupidity.
Blair, I just feel sorry for. You know what the Brits call him? "Bush's Bitch."
PAD
>>4) Thanks to http://www.investorsinsight.com/article.asp?id=jm021403 I was given an idea. France doesn't oppose a war with Iraq because of a sacred ideal of any sort. They don't do it on principle or because of honor. They are using the war as an excuse to unite nations against the US with them as the head. Jacque Chirac wants to move up in authority within the European Union. But this is not my idea.<<
I don't think so. I think they're opposed to war for the same reason Russia is: Because Iraq owes them billions of dollars for weapons they purchased. They're worried that if a new regime does come in, they'll ignore the debt. They figure keeping the status quo is the only shot they have at getting their money.
PAD
Peter,
If you feel that France and Russia's main motivation in fighting the U.S. on a resolution threatening the use of force is based in their military contracts with Iraq, once these country's opinions and votes have been discounted from the equation, doesn't that seem to bring the U.N. to more of a consensus on the use of force to disarm Saddam?
Perhaps the U.N. needs a complete restructuring if all it takes to render it impotent is to buy one member with veto power with oil, military contracts, etc.
"I think they're opposed to war for the same reason Russia is: Because Iraq owes them billions of dollars for weapons they purchased."
Wow. That certainly takes a bit of the moral wind out of their sails.
And I think you are right. Ithink that some countries will be very embarassed when some of their dealings with Iraq come out.
If the stories are true that the French have told their people to get out of Israel (even before they told them to get out of Iraq) you have to wonder if they know something we don't.
Bob:
The UN is far from unanimous in its support for the war, especially in the security council. In the early days, even had France and Russia abstained rather than threatened veto (or had they not had veto power), the US would still not have gained the 9 votes needed to pass the initiative. Blaming France is an exercise in futility.
Perhaps the US needs a complete restructuring if it can set foreign policy for the world. The thing is, perhaps once upon a time, a diplomatic solution was possible. That is, a solution that was internal to the middle east. Most governments over there dislike Saddam as much as we do. However, once you start having a foreign power (who isn't liked much to begin with) come in and start killing civilians (whether that was the purpose or not is irrelevant - the bodies are there), such diplomatic solutions become far more difficult. I fear that the very threat of war has made war inevitable.
If there's any justice in the world, Halabja will one day be as infamous as Guernica. then again, if there were any justice, we would have seen marchers in the streets protesting the removal of Pol Pot, Mobutu Sese Seko, Idi Amin and any of the other mass murdering despots overthrown by outside forces.
But I guess it's only wrong when Americans do it. It's a J. Jonah Jameson world out there.
And I think you are right. Ithink that some countries will be very embarassed when some of their dealings with Iraq come out.
Yes. Including the United States.
"when Iraq released its weapons program dossier on 7 December 2002, it was purloined by the US Administration, edited of 8,000 pages, and it was this edited copy that was finally given to the UN for examination." Before the UN could read the report, the US edited out "the names of various Western companies and government agencies who have supplied Iraq with assistance with their weapons program."
A German newspaper which investigated these cuts found "US corporations listed in the missing pages of the report include Hewlett Packard, DuPont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Tectronics, Bechtel, International Computer Systems, Unisys, Sperry and TI Coating. Further, the missing information shows that US governmental agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as the U.S. government nuclear weapons laboratories Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia, all illegally helped Iraq to build its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs by providing supplies and/or training."
More on this story, including a link to a fuller list of companies at RoadToSurfdom
>>And I think you are right. Ithink that some countries will be very embarassed when some of their dealings with Iraq come out.
Yes. Including the United States.<<
I meant to add -- if our government lets us know. I mean, given the fact that our government already edited these annoying facts out of the previous papers (and then complained that the resulting documents were incomplete)
Being anti-war means you're anti-Blair, anti-Powell, anti-much more than merely G.W.Bush. Seems it's become easier to simply lump an anti-war stance into a Bush rant.
Well, I think Peter makes a good point when he says, "isn't it possible that Bush's actions have *made* people who were either for him or neutral now in opposition to him?"
Are they actually anti-Bush if their dislike of him comes based on this action? Because the implication of "anti-Bush" is that someone wouldn't have given him a break no matter what he did. And I don't think that's the case here, or even in most cases.
Now, I wasn't ever a Bush fan; I think he is an individual of median intelligence who got to this high position in life not on merit, but because of the family he was born into.
But I was comforted by the fact that he at least had the sense to surround himself with intelligent and experienced people in the form of Powell, Rice, and Rumsfeld. And I 100% approved of their actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world eliminating terrorists. I think they've done a good job with that, and I would like to see it continue.
But Iraq came out of left field. I am offended by the implication that those of us who don't think he has shown sufficient justification (and I speak not of moral justification, but national security justification) for this plan, are just blind and ignorant. Because he hasn't shown justification.
His refrain is "The risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action". Even putting aside the loaded nature of the statement (I don't know many people who advocate "inaction", and this action is certainly not the only possible action), he's leaving out one part of the equation. He's described to us in vivid (many would say exaggerated and even fabricated) detail the consequences for the U.S. if we do not take over Iraq.
But he hasn't mentioned at all what the consequences would be if we DO. And I think that is disingenuous. Even if we assume that his position is right and correct, that the risk of not taking over Iraq is greater, don't the American people deserve to hear from their President what is likely to happen if we do? Shouldn't he be honest, and say:
1)The war will cost at least X amount of dollars
2)The casualties (on both sides) are likely to be at least X amount
3)We will have to occupy Iraq for at least X amount of time
4)The occupation will cost at least X amount of dollars, and will have a negative effect on the economy
5)Our troops will be the target of deadly guerilla warfare long after the conventional war is over
6)Islamic radicals will use our occupation as a recruiting campaign for terrorist groups
7)The Middle Eastern public is likely to be enraged at the sight of Westerners governing a Muslim country like in colonial days
8)This will increase anti-American sentiment around the world
9)It is likely to lead to a civil war and massive bloodshed between the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds, who hate each other
10)Iran's intelligence agency is already operating within Iraq, and is trying to get the Shi'ites to form a satellite state aligned with Iran
11)The Kurds will try to form an independent state, and that will incite a military response by neighboring Turkey
12) When all this happens, we will not be able to get out without appearing to have been driven off, costing us credibility among our friends and enemies alike, thus making us a more likely target and giving us less leverage in achieving our national security objectives.
Now if he could be honest with the American public about all that (and none of that is partisan rhetoric, it's based on simple economic and political principles, and there are a substantial number of Republicans who've said the same), I could at least respect his position, if not agree with it. But the fact that he has been selling this as a swift, clean, and uncomplicated victory for both the American and Iraqi people is just dishonest. If we're going to overthrow a dictator and install a new regime, let's be honest about the monetary, political, and human costs. Inform the American people of the realities of the situation, and then make your decision.
It seems to me that people seem to miss the raw facts here:
1) Saddam disarming himself of all WMDs was a condition of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War. Had he not agreed to this, the war would not have ended and Saddam would not now be in power.
2) For 12 years there have been multiple UN reslutions telling Saddam to disarm or there would be serioius consequences.
3) The last UN resolution 1441 was endorsed by ALL of the members of the security council and said it was the that Saddam must make a full, accurate, and immediate declaration of all of his WMDs and disarm or face serious consequences. Again, I repeat that this was endorsed by everyone.
4) Saddams declaration in December was not accurate, and this is not disputed by any of the permanent security council members.
5) Since the time of the declaration, there have been multiple instances where illegal weapons have been found by the inspectors that were not declared. Therefore, Saddam made a false declaration and is still trying to mislead the world.
6) As Blair said so well, there is NO ONE on the security council that believes or will say that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has not made a full, accurate and immediate decision to disarm.
Therefore we have 12 years of warnings after warnings after warnings. Saddam has very clearly been told by the entire UN to disarm or face consequences. The job of the inspectors was not to find Saddams weapons...it was to verify that he has disarmed. He has not, and no one disputes that.
Saddam has defied the world for years. People say that Bush is defying the UN...this amazes me as people are so silent about the 12 years Saddam has defied the UN. When did we start making our leaders the bad guys and ignoring the actions of others? How can we go to someone like North Korea and expect them to disarm their nukes when they see that we told Saddam to disarm himself of WMDs 12 years ago and there have been no consequences? T. Roosevelt said "Speak softly and carry a big stick"...it seems today everyone wants to speak softly but no one wants to mention the stick. The stick is necessary, and there are times it must be used.
Like after 12 years of defiance of international law.
If someone in the US defied a law and were caught they would suffer the consequences (jail, fines, etc.). Why should Saddam be able to defy laws and orders for 12 years and incur no repercussions? Only his people suffer by the sanctions and other "alternate methods" we have devised so far. How can the world community expect anyone to respect the "power" of the UN when it will not even back itself up?
I understand the folks who do not want a war. I really do. War is a terrible thing. But there are times when hard choices have to be made and the answers are not easy or black and white.
12 years of threats, resolutions, sanctions, and rhetoric to try and make a country do what it was obligated to do in order to call a cease-fire on a was. It has defied, lied, and delayed for 12 years. It was given a "last chance" last year, agreed on by the whole of the international community. If other countries do not feel the need to back up their words and orders, I have little repsect for that. I do respect our president making the hard choices and doing what is right. You can speak softly, but you still have to carry that big stick. Some folks can only understand the stick, unfortunately.
Also, I understand that we enjoy free speech and it is one of the wonderful things about our society. But please remember that while everyone debates this heatedly here and uses words like "slaughter"...there are American soldiers out ther in the desert who believe they are doing the right thing for thier country. Their lives are in danger every day, and probably will be more so in the near future. The harsh words may be meant for Bush, but they are taken very seriously and personally by our troops. There is nothing more terrible than feeling that your own people have abandoned you and are accusing you of intending to slaughter innocents. I realize this is not how the comment was meant, but please have some thought for our service men and women. Whether you agree or not, their job is to take care of this and they are OUR people.
Questions that bug me:
How many people died in Afganistan?
How come we didn't immediately follow up 1441 with our timeline for action if there was non-compliance?
How come we're taking on Iraq when Iran and Pakistan house most of the terrorists?
What are we doing about Saudi Arabians financing so much of the terrorist networks?
How come we don't have the guts to call for a UN vote now, when last week we did?
If unaligned nations are pushing for a 30 day deadline, we didn't we propose that 30 days ago?
If Saddam was completely disarming with American troops on his border, would we keep them there forever?
If this works out fine for us in the short term, does that make it right?
What do we tell India the next time they think Pakistan is up to something? Or vice versa?
Food for thought.
Matt Richards:
Thank you for succinctly summarizing the inconvenient facts of the situation.
To judge any aspect of the war on terror from the opening preamble "if 9/11 had never happened" is to utterly miss the point. Simply put, 9/11 woke us up, tragically late, to the fact that the Islamofascist world is looking to eat our young, to destroy us, to remake the world in its foul image. The Islamofascists had been brewing this war (indeed their war, not ours) for years, blowing up embassies in Kenya, attacking US naval posts, relentessly murdering Israelis, setting up hate-cooking Wahabist schools in Europe and America, vomiting the most vitriolic anti-Semitism since the Nazis and yes, working on the development of biolgical, chemical and nuclear weapons. All of this was going on way before 9/11, and indeed it may prove to have been a tactical mistake by the Islamofascists to perpetrate 9/11. After all,they could have let us go on in our ignorant slumber, and hit us with a biological attack which would have killed 30,000, instead of 3,000 or a nuclear attack which would have slain a milion. In their arrogance and hatred-filled eagerness, they may have struck too soon for their own good. 3000 American (and other) lives were sacraficed at the alter of their overwhelming need to bring blood to America sooner rather than later, but in the end that wake-up call may save lives, as we now seek to destroy them before they can hit us with something much worse.
As noted above, the events of 9/11 didn't star the war on terror, that was actually started by the side that engages in and sustains terror. 9/11 simply inspired the long overdue response. Bush made clear in his earliest speechs that the war would operated on a multitude of fronts and that nations which supported terror (whether or not directly linked to 9/11) would be properly placed within the parameters of our defined enemy. Iraq was certainly one of these, long before the "Axis of Evil" speech. One might quibble with the strategic priorties of hitting Iraq now as oppposed to other strategic directions (should we catch Bin Laden first, should we be re-examining our Saudi relations and put a halt on their exportation of anti-American, anti-Semitic hatred, should Iran which is clearly linked to Hezzbollah be first, etc) but conceptually going after Iraq now (and probably Iran next) is consistent with the idea of a war on terror and the particular roadmap of that war as articulated early on by Bush following 9/11.
To say we wouldn't be doing any of this had 9/11 never happened is perhaps correct, in a literal sense--but it is a non-starter--like saying, as did recently the moronic wife of the EU head, that Nazi Germany wasn't so bad, if you take away the Holocaust. 9/11 did happen, and it was a culmination (although I fear not THE culmination) of a horde of terror that has been perpetrated by the Islamofascists. To say that 9/11 shouldn't have changed our world-view, our sense of urgency, and our need to conduct war to prevent the reoccurence of mass terror is silly. Of course 9/11 changed us and legitamized that sense of urgency. Would we really want or expect it to be any different? Would any responsible president, including Al Gore, depart from the general thrust of war? I don't think so and I don't thing a responsible Congress would have stopped him.
I'm in total agreement with you on this one, Peter. How anyone can support this war with Iraq is beyond me. Why the heck aren't we more worried about North Korea and their developing nuclear arsenal that could ACTUALLY REACH the west coast of the U.S.? I remember thinking when "W" was appointed president that at least we weren't at war so how bad could it be?
My very glib response to PAD's commentary comes from a line on a Star Trek, TNG episode:
"Our motto is: 'Peace through superior firepower!'"
Another, from which I forget the source, "Freedom isn't free!"
Sorry Peter, but I really just totally disagree with you on every point you've made. I almost laugh when I hear people go on about how Gore "really" won. Will you get over it! Please, enough is enough. Stop this pathetic parinoia.
To tell you honestly, ever since I've been hearing your comments on everything about politics, well it just seems to put me off of your work.
Not saying you don't have a right to your opinion, but I have my right as well. And to tell the truth you just are becoming nothing but one of those mouthy celebraties, who think they know everything just becuase their a respected public person.
Fine, you have a forum, voice your opinion, but why not try putting a little more understanding to other's opinions, instead of putting republicans off - and in effect just calling us stupid.
Name calling is definately never gonna get your point across. So enough with the Stupid-Bush garbage. Just becuase you disagree with him doesn't mean it's the end of all the world. Liberals say that America is side stepping the UN just becuase we don't agree with him. Yet you do the same thing, side stepping having respect for the Office, becuase you disagree with him, and going head on into speculation, and name calling.
If you don't have respect for Bush - Fine! Just try and have some respect for your readers.
Is Iraq a threat? Sure. Is Saddam evil? You bet.
Is there reason to go to war over this? Hell no. And CERTAINLY NOT WITHOUT THE U.N.
There are a whole list of places in the world that are a hell of a lot more dangerous than Iraq:
North Korea. Has a truly insane madman as a leader who is developing nuclear weapons with the intent TO SELL THEM, and is trying very hard to push our buttons. Of course, had Bush not done the stupid "Axis of Evil" speech this would be much less of a problem.
Iran. One of the largest terrorist backing country in the world who many experts says are very near to having nuclear weapons (unlike Iraq) if they don't have them already.
Then's theres all the other places that support terrorist in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, not to mention our so called Allies, like Pakistan and Sadui Arabia...again, one of the largest supporters of terrorist in the world. Of course we can't talk bad about Pakistan and SA, because the former "helped" us with Afghanistan (to save themselves from the same fate) and the later gives us our all-important evil fossil fuels.
Why does Bush and his puppet masters focus on Iraq? Simple. They are boxed in. They have been blocaked, embargoed, and bombed daily since the gulf war ended. They are an easy target and scapegoat for Bin Laden. Not to mention Bush would love to get his hands on the oil (yes, that is a REAL motive not just an excuse... ask Kuwait about who gets most of their oil since we "liberated" it a decade ago. And for all the journalist who say "we had a chance to get Kuwait's oil and we didn't"... shame on you for not doing your homework and for spoonfeeding us White House propaganda.)
And that brings me to another point. What the FUCK is up with the media? American media has become spineless mouthpieces for the White House propaganda, er, press depertment since 9/11. It's bad enough the democrats don't have the balls to stand up to the tyrant running the country, but it's even worse when the press won't even QUESTION WHAT IS GOING ON ANYMORE.
In the last two years, the Bush administration has managed to virtually allianate every ally we have, tear up every treaty that we've signed since WWII, and flush our civil liberties down the drain as they've torn up the constitution and wiped their asses with it.
The stuff going on in this country is down right scary, and people don't seem to notice or care that we're living in more of a police state every day, with our very own dictator and his secret police to spy on and control what people see, hear, and think.
Of course now by typing this I've likely managed to get myself placed on a "radical" "security threat" list by the big brother snoops monitoring my "free speech." But hell, I guess I deserve it for not heading the warning of the white house press secretary to "watch what you say."
No administration has every truly made me ashamed to be an American until today.
"To tell you honestly, ever since I've been hearing your comments on everything about politics, well it just seems to put me off of your work.
Not saying you don't have a right to your opinion, but I have my right as well. And to tell the truth you just are becoming nothing but one of those mouthy celebraties, who think they know everything just becuase their a respected public person."
What a rude arrogant bastard!
You acknowledge PADs right to his own opinion, then insult him for it.
If what you say about PAD is true then the follow must be true as well--- You're just a mouthy nobody who wishes he were somebody who thinks he knows everything. In the end, whats the difference?
Matt Richards:
troops. There is nothing more terrible than feeling that your own people have abandoned you and are accusing you of intending to slaughter innocents. I realize this is not how the comment was meant, but please have some thought for our service men and women. Whether you agree or not, their job is to take care of this and they are OUR people.
Matt, I agree with you, but in your statement is a fallacy: Just because we are anti-this-action, does not mean we are anti-military. (Actually I had an Auntie Military... tough old bird)
Anyway, my brother is in the Air Force. No way am I anti-military. No way do I not pray (and I don't even practice a religion) that these kids come home safely. I support them because they are doing their job, that we hire them to do.
I think that's why the Dems bowed to bush, giving him unilateral control of what to do... they didn't want to appear like they don't support the boys in blue.
Now, this is America, and we have the right to disagree with the the government. We even have the responsibility to voice our protests, because (most of you will groan)... with great liberty comes great responsibility.
I truly believe that... and I truly believe that we can disagree with a police-action/war without the hatred of the military. If the military does not understand that, that is their problem. They are fight for our rights to voice our opinion.
Surges: Liberals say that America is side stepping the UN just becuase we don't agree with him. Yet you do the same thing, side stepping having respect for the Office, becuase you disagree with him, and going head on into speculation, and name calling.
If you don't have respect for Bush - Fine! Just try and have some respect for your readers.
I do not have respect for the office... I haven't had respect for the man in the office since 1976. He wasn't a GREAT president, but he is a good man. Every one since has done irreprable harm. (actually, the last Great president we had was truman)
PAD has not resorted to name calling. I have read his stuff and followed his career for, well, since the beginning of his Hulk run. What is that? 15 years? 16?
In every bit of his ranting and raving, he has always put out well thought out commentaries.
You may disagree with him, but PAD only responds to readers when they attack (on this board, at least)... and his "name-calling" normally is done in a witty fashion, which I perceive is him grabbing a chance at playing with the language, or making a pun.
If you have read most of his non-fiction stuff, I think you would know this. Plus, he's probably the most respectful of his fans. Because he, himself, is one.
He doesn't need me to defend him, but you should know whom and what you're talking about before attacking.
Travis
Need to modify my statement above a bit.
There was irreprable damage to the office of the president done before Carter. From several presidents. Carter is just the one bright spots in the last thirty years.
Travis
>PAD>If 9/11 had never occurred, and George W. Bush was doing exactly the same thing he's doing now--actions motivated supposedly because of Saddam's breaking of UN resolutions--then we would be seeing calls for impeachment from everywhere. He would be viewed as a war-mongering madman by everyone, including the Brits. Hell, it wouldn't have been allowed to get this far.<
Even if 9-11 hadn't occured, Iraq would still be a clear and present danger to the international community (as even Clinton acknowledged). So no, Bush wouldn't have calls for his impeachment coming from "everywhere."
Final ammendment to my post:
I should have stated it was an implied fallacy, not a true fallacy.
Travis
PAD>But the destruction of the Twin Towers, an event which--as far as we can tell, had nothing to do with Iraq--has given license to unprecedented aggression.<
The fallacy that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda has been exposed as such for over a month now in the mainstream press. Even members of the Democratic Party acknowledge this.
By Ann Clwyd
“There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein’s youngest son] personally supervise these murders.”
This is one of the many witness statements that were taken by researchers from Indict — the organisation I chair — to provide evidence for legal cases against specific Iraqi individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. This account was taken in the past two weeks.
Another witness told us about practices of the security services towards women: “Women were suspended by their hair as their families watched; men were forced to watch as their wives were raped . . . women were suspended by their legs while they were menstruating until their periods were over, a procedure designed to cause humiliation.”
The accounts Indict has heard over the past six years are disgusting and horrifying. Our task is not merely passively to record what we are told but to challenge it as well, so that the evidence we produce is of the highest quality. All witnesses swear that their statements are true and sign them.
For these humanitarian reasons alone, it is essential to liberate the people of Iraq from the regime of Saddam. The 17 UN resolutions passed since 1991 on Iraq include Resolution 688, which calls for an end to repression of Iraqi civilians. It has been ignored. Torture, execution and ethnic-cleansing are everyday life in Saddam’s Iraq.
Were it not for the no-fly zones in the south and north of Iraq — which some people still claim are illegal — the Kurds and the Shia would no doubt still be attacked by Iraqi helicopter gunships.
For more than 20 years, senior Iraqi officials have committed genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This list includes far more than the gassing of 5,000 in Halabja and other villages in 1988. It includes serial war crimes during the Iran-Iraq war; the genocidal Anfal campaign against the Iraqi Kurds in 1987-88; the invasion of Kuwait and the killing of more than 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians; the violent suppression, which I witnessed, of the 1991 Kurdish uprising that led to 30,000 or more civilian deaths; the draining of the Southern Marshes during the 1990s, which ethnically cleansed thousands of Shias; and the summary executions of thousands of political opponents.
Many Iraqis wonder why the world applauded the military intervention that eventually rescued the Cambodians from Pol Pot and the Ugandans from Idi Amin when these took place without UN help. They ask why the world has ignored the crimes against them?
All these crimes have been recorded in detail by the UN, the US, Kuwaiti, British, Iranian and other Governments and groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and Indict. Yet the Security Council has failed to set up a war crimes tribunal on Iraq because of opposition from France, China and Russia. As a result, no Iraqi official has ever been indicted for some of the worst crimes of the 20th century. I have said incessantly that I would have preferred such a tribunal to war. But the time for offering Saddam incentives and more time is over.
I do not have a monopoly on wisdom or morality. But I know one thing. This evil, fascist regime must come to an end. With or without the help of the Security Council, and with or without the backing of the Labour Party in the House of Commons tonight.
The author is Labour MP for Cynon Valley.
If you can excuse this kind of behavior, and don't want the people of Iraq to be liberated, then you are no better than the filth that slaughtered the Jews during World War II.
Tommy: If you can excuse this kind of behavior, and don't want the people of Iraq to be liberated, then you are no better than the filth that slaughtered the Jews during World War II.
Hmmm.
Then should we excuse China for it's varied atrocities of the last seven decades? Why aren't we bombing them for Tianammin Square? (sp)
Oh...
That's right.
Money.
They're Favored Nation in trading.
No one is saying that Saddam isn't evil.
What people are saying is that Saddam is not the main threat. We have a dictator in Northern Korea with Nuclear weapons.
Liberation of Iraq would be nice. I'm not against it. But atrocities abound in this world. Why, oh, why, do we just pick this one?
Besides the fact that we helped cause a lot of the other atrocities, I mean....
Again, the end results I'm for... but the end results do not justify the means or the heart behind them.
Travis
"And to tell the truth you just are becoming nothing but one of those mouthy celebraties, who think they know everything just becuase their a respected public person."
Well, you know, maybe you don't like that Peter is a mouthy celebrity, but it says something that YOU took the time to come all the way to a site totally and one hundred percent dedicated to voicing HIS thoughts, so clearly you put some stock in Peter's celebrity. If not, why are you here?
Paul F. P. Pogue
Then should we excuse China for it's varied atrocities of the last seven decades? Why aren't we bombing them for Tianammin Square? (sp)
Oh...
That's right.
Money.
They're Favored Nation in trading.
Hmmmm. Now, I wonder who set that up? Clinton. That's right, The Communist in Chief, Bill Clinton. He, and Al Gore, the two most treasonous presidents we've ever had, set that up, as part of their Campaign Finance Scam. Then again, I can't expect people to tell the truth in the media.
If you think Bush is bad, check out Clinton and the things he's done. It wasn't just about sex, he sold us out to China, and North Korea. We can thank him for the problems in North Korea. Of course, we can thank the last 5 presidents for all the problems we've got with our foreign policy.
We're not picking on Iraq, just because of oil, it's been 12 years. He's been doing the same things since the first gulf war. Bush Senior didn't take care of business, and all the 8 years of Clinton/Gore nothing was done.
We will get to China eventually, now that we're trading with them, all we have to do is raise the tairiffs, or cut the foreign aid. It's time we quit being the world's sugar daddy, and quit employing the third worlders, and focus on American Interests domestically. That way, if we did that, you wouldn't have things to complain about.
Just a few questions. If land war with China ever did happen, what chance would we have, considering the amount of the world's population in the Chinese army?
Also, Tommy, considering your opinions, are you a by any chance a fan of the "Savage Nation"? It wouldn't surprise me.
Peter
I love it when you allow a forum for free speach. It makes me think "Finally, some open critical discussion coming out of America". I don't doubt that these discussions in America do occur, but damn are they hard to find from Australia.
I am here to add our prime minister to the list of those that are suffering from post traumatic stress over the incident on the 9/11. He was in the United States visiting when the planes were crashed. He hasnt' been the same Machiavellian leader since and I have always thought it due to post traumatic stress disorder.
I would like to say that when war does start I think we should all keep in mind that many of the people of Iraq are the victims of disagreements between groups that have not been resolved peacefully. Much like the Americans who died in the World Trade Centre and the Australians who died in the Bali bombing.
Oh god -- Bush just announced a 48 hour ultimatum.
Say what you want -- good war, bad war, good reasons, bad reasons; this sucks.
I guess the only thing we can do is what the administration has been wanting us to do: sit back and enjoy the "fireworks" show. (And to think, the worst thing anyone could say about our government five years ago was that our president shouldn't have lied about getting oral sex....)
No inflammatory comments. Just to say this. I could go on, but I won't. Tommy won't change his mind, and I won't. (Though I never brought up Clinton. Any true liberal really wouldn't like what Clinton did... and I won't go into that, either)
Get ready for the dog and pony show folks.
This blows.
Travis
So PAD, this is your stance?
"If the US wasn't brutally attacked, killing thousands of civilians and non-combatants, as well as disrupting the lives of all Americans for going on two years now, then this wouldn't be thinkable."
If that's what you're saying, then you are making the strongest pro-war argument imagineable. Pre 9/11, it was unthinkable that any of these piddling Middle Eastern nations could harm us. War against them was *unthinkable* short of them driving tanks into Israel or Saudi Arabia. Now that our eyes are open, and we know the destruction they can cause, we have little choice but to elimate the threat to our country. First Afganistan, then Iraq, then whomever is next on the list.
You're exactly right. Before 9/11, this was unthinkable. Luckilly, Osama and the al Queda opened our eyes.
And to tell the truth you just are becoming nothing but one of those mouthy celebraties, who think they know everything just becuase their a respected public person.
Can someone explain something to me?
Why is it that Average Joe American can spout off all the "liberal" or "conservative" nonsense he or she chooses in public via the internet, etc. per his/her First Amendment Rights, but the minute a public figure does so--again, using his/her First Amendment rights--said figure is ridiculed as a "no-nothing idiot" by whichever side doesn't like what was said?
JSM
[Hmph. The posting software has lost my article here, not once but TWICE. Well, third time's the charm, we hope...]
Just one more thought before this thread starts to fade out (assuming it ever does):
Presidential aides have said time and time again that Bush never shows any sign of doubt or worry about his decisions, that's he's always confident and certain of the utter rightness of those decisions. Bush himself has said more than once that he sleeps very well every night.
Suppose it were some other leader. Suppose Country X had a leader who was willing to put hundreds of thousands of his/her people's lives at risk, and never once had a twinge of doubt that he/she might be wrong.
Would we be grateful for that leader's certainty -- or would we worry that we had a fanatic on our hands?
If the latter, why is it different when it's "our guy" saying it?
As for the ultimatum, there's not much we can do now but sit back and watch the fur fly. I hope it all goes well. I very much fear otherwise.
TWL
P.S. Just to lighten the mood and get to something more specifically PAD-related: would sending Richard Arnold to Baghdad violate the Geneva Convention? Discuss. :-)
9/11 was bad. and we should punish the people who commited it. most likely those people are al-queda and bin laden. not iraq. although iraq is bad also. but as someone said earlier nothing has really changed in 12 years. hussein was not a threat to us. we won the last war and i dont think he doubts we will win this one. if it was just us against him. but our going to war against iraq will most likely not stop there. it will set off a chain of events that could lead to WWIII. but maybe i am wrong. however whether or not you like bush or not, he IS the president now. yes he may not be the best one but there is nothing we can do now. unless you can convince most of the american people that iraq and bin laden are not the same or that iraq is not a threat, the US is going to war. and it is the US. its not bush or cheney going to war. whether you like it or not, if you are a citizen of the USA, you are about to be involved in a war. yes it may be stupid and yes it sucks, but thems the facts.
on a lighter note, peter when is the sequel to knight life coming out?
Donald Rumsfeld sold North Korea it's nukes ( http://www.trianglefreepress.org/national.html - second article), but it's all Clinton's fault that thry have nukes. So much for the administration that believes in 'personal responsibility'.
In fact, Clinton convinced North Korea to not produce nuclear weapons ( http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5483 ). It wasn't until Dubya declared North Korea as part of the 'Axis of Evil' (even though they had done nothing hostile) that they returned to an interest in nukes.
From The Boomer Bible:
Chapter 147
Kennedy turned out to be a very popular president with the Yanks,
Who maybe thought he was like a symbol of themselves,
Because he was young,
And successful,
And in charge,
And always trying to do the right thing,
But not taking any guff from anybody,
Like with the Russkies,
Who tried to put some nuclear missiles in Cuba,
Only Kennedy told them to back off,
Because he had his finger on the button,
And would push it if they pushed him,
Which explains why there was a period lasting about two weeks when the whole world held its breath,
And closed its eyes,
And prayed to every deity Mankind has ever worshipped,
Dating all the way back to the first pointed stick of the first civilization,
Wondering if the Yanks were willing to annihilate the world over a point of pride,
Which they were,
As the Russkies eventually realized,
Right before they backed down,
Thus allowing the whole world to breathe the biggest sigh of relief in history.
I guess the only thing we can do is what the administration has been wanting us to do: sit back and enjoy the "fireworks" show. (And to think, the worst thing anyone could say about our government five years ago was that our president shouldn't have lied about getting oral sex....)
Let's see, You're right, they wouldn't dare tell the truth about Bill Clinton. He was a media darling, and a fantastic liar.
Not only was he masturbating in the sink of the Oval Office, and getting oral sex from porky interns, he was selling secrets to China, allowing Osama Bin Laden to roam free. On 3 separate occaisions, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia offered him up to Clinton, and Clinton refused.
Not only these things, but selling the strategic oil reserves on the open market, causing an oil shortage now, because we had to restock the strategic reserve in order to conduct this war. Then, there's the lies he told on TV, which had it been me or anyone else who work for a living, we'd be in prison.
I think this war on terror is a farce, considering we have wide open borders during this war. However, There's a lot of things people aren't being told because they would incriminate Both Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton.
Iraq played a part in the Oklahoma City Bombing. Yes, Ramzi Yousef stayed at the same hotel and met with Timothy McVeigh. Ramzi Yousef was on the Iraqi Payroll. Of course you're going to come back with the whole fertilizer truck nonsense, but anyone who knows weaponry, and explosives, who have served in the military like I have, would know that the building was blown up from the inside. Not to mention the University of Oklahoma's own Seismic Analyses proves there were multiple explosions that day.
But I digress!!!
There are many countries who have committed attrocities, and continue to, to this very day. Like Slavery in Africa. Nobody says a word about it. Where is Jesse Jackson? He doesn't care because there's nobody to shake down. What about Robert Mugabe killing the White European farmers who built Zimbabwe? Wholesale slaughter of babies in Iraq, and yet nobody says a word on the liberal left. Oh, and my favorite, when Bill Clinton was bombing the hell out of Serbia, Nobody said a word.
So tell me, why is it okay to support a treasonous lying weasel like Clinton, and yet not okay to support a President who is trying to fix some problems in foreign policy from the previous administrations?
This war is going to be over fairly soon. I have a little brother over there in that third world toilet. I support what he does. I may not like it, but you know, I'd rather support my country, and support people willing to die to liberate that toilet, than be a seditious treasonous scumbag.
America isn't perfect. Our government isn't perfect. The people in office aren't perfect. However, when it comes to doing what is morally and ethically right, the current administration hasn't shirked its duty. Unlike the Clinton years where the White House was basically a brothel, and a hotel for campaign fundraising. Where China was given nuclear secrets for campaign funds.
I've noticed nobody has refuted what I've said, and only pointed out that they think that Bush is evil. I guess the truth to a liberal is like sunlight to a vampire.
Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, The Phillipenes, all have harbored terrorists. Once Iraq falls, a chief supporter of terrorism will be gone. Then other terrorists will fall as well. Yassir Arafat won't be getting his stipend from Saddam for suicide bombers in Israel. That is a well documented fact too. Again, nobody wants to acknowledge the truth.
I suggest you read a book called, "The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror." A lot of the Arabs in that book, are also mentioned in reports on the first WTC bombing, and the attack on 9-11. It will also give you some insight as to the treason that the previous administration allowed to happen.
Donald Rumsfeld sold North Korea it's nukes ( http://www.trianglefreepress.org/national.html - second article), but it's all Clinton's fault that thry have nukes. So much for the administration that believes in 'personal responsibility'.
In fact, Clinton convinced North Korea to not produce nuclear weapons ( http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5483 ). It wasn't until Dubya declared North Korea as part of the 'Axis of Evil' (even though they had done nothing hostile) that they returned to an interest in nukes.
We can thank quite a few people for giving North Korea some of their technology. However, for 8 years, Clinton paid the North Koreans Billions of dollars, and that money went to producing more weapons, nuclear weapons, and feeding their army, while their people starved and froze to death.
Oh, and my favorite part of your post, is that it's all George Bush's Fault. North Korea has had Nuclear Weapons since 1998. Whose administration was in power at that time? Hmmmmmm.... Where could they have gotten the technology to enrich Uranium? Oh, I can answer it. The Clinton Administration handed North Korea all kinds of stuff, besides Money. It's well documented.
Again, Sunlight to a vampire, as is truth to a liberal.
Our government has screwed up on foreign policy for the last 40 years. Rather than be everyone's sugar daddy, and buying our friends, we should have tried to earn friendships. We've bailed out the French, the Russians, the Japanese, Africa, the Middle East, and yet nobody likes our country. Why? It's because of what we are, and what we stand for. It's too bad you think that America is evil, or that republicans are stupid. I don't subscribe to one religion or the other, being liberal or conservative. The people in our government are the same, on both sides of the aisle. They're all nothing more than the best people that money can buy, and if the Average American had some real power, you can believe that the face of America would be so completely different.
Of course, it's just my opinion on what our country should do. Some people are afraid of war. I'm not. Let it happen, let's correct some problems in the world, and then we'll rebuild them just like we've rebuilt every other country in the world we've bombed, save Serbia.
What I'm really hoping for in the coming months, is a Starbucks on the site of Mecca. Go to the wailing wall and get a latte. I bet they'd call it the "Wailing Wall Wake Up!"
Tommy the last part of your post may be one of the most stupid and offensive things i have ever heard. and i once was told idaho should cecede from the union as an all-white state. when you say stuff like that, all the truth in your posts (if there is any) is completely overcome by your ignorance and racism.
[Previous entry: "THAT TODDLIN' FILM"] [Main Index]
03/17/2003 Entry: "AS WE STAND ON THE BRINK OF WAR..."
...I keep returning to one simple conclusion. If 9/11 had never occurred, and George W. Bush was doing exactly the same thing he's doing now--actions motivated supposedly because of Saddam's breaking of UN resolutions--then we would be seeing calls for impeachment from everywhere. He would be viewed as a war-mongering madman by everyone, including the Brits. Hell, it wouldn't have been allowed to get this far.
But the destruction of the Twin Towers, an event which--as far as we can tell, had nothing to do with Iraq--has given license to unprecedented aggression. Why? Because, in my opinion, the administration does not want to risk looking impotent in the face of terrorism.
I'm thinking that this will go down as the most spectacular incident of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in all of recorded history.
PAD
Replies: 78 comments
I can see your point, but I have to disagree. Bush is following through on the same policies that the U.S. has had for some time. Clinton made a speech back in '98 (?), where he said how dangerous Saddam was and how we needed to stop his threat, with or without UN approval.
Would you be as opposed to forcing Saddam to disarm if Gore was in office? I've noticed that most anti-war protestors seem to be anti-Bush and I doubt they would be as upset if a Democrat was in office.
--Will
Posted by Will @ 03/17/2003 10:16 AM ET
Oh, I'm sure Bush would find other justification or reasoning for a war with Iraq. He'd simply cite Saddam's continued refusal to disarm. I doubt anyone would seriously entertain notions of impeachment.
Posted by Luigi Novi @ 03/17/2003 10:17 AM ET
I want to see him impeached, now. This is an absurd little smoke screen Bush threw up after we could not find Bid Laden. Notice that name doesn't show up in the news anymore...
Posted by Mike M. @ 03/17/2003 10:23 AM ET
>>I can see your point, but I have to disagree. Bush is following through on the same policies that the U.S. has had for some time. Clinton made a speech back in '98 (?), where he said how dangerous Saddam was and how we needed to stop his threat, with or without UN approval.
Would you be as opposed to forcing Saddam to disarm if Gore was in office? I've noticed that most anti-war protestors seem to be anti-Bush and I doubt they would be as upset if a Democrat was in office.<<
You've "noticed" this? How? Done polls? For that matter, isn't it possible that Bush's actions have *made* people who were either for him or neutral now in opposition to him?
We're not "forcing Saddam to disarm." We are going to drop bombs on him, and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Let's call it what it is: Slaughter. So to answer the question accurately, would I be opposed to slaughtering the Iraqis if Gore were in office? Absolutely. Not only that, but the GOP would be opposing him with as much stridency as they're supporting Bush.
Just for giggles: Let's go with your earlier comment about Clinton pushing regime change. Let's say Gore was elected (which, in fairness, he was) and 9/11 hadn't happened.
How much support do you think Gore would have from congress and this country if, under those exact circumstances, he was pursing the same course of action Bush is now?
Because if you think the answer is anything other than "None," then I think you're kidding yourself.
PAD
Posted by Peter David @ 03/17/2003 10:31 AM ET
Peter:
Clinton bombed Iraq in '98 and -- even then -- that Hussein had used his "last chance." So, five years and another president later, when do we agree that he's used his last chance?
Violating the terms of the cease fire demands action. Pussy-footing around with lunatics is, well, what leads other lunatics to think that they can fly bombs into your buildings. After all, what will the U.S. really do?
And I'm getting tired of hearing about our perceived "slaughter" of innocent Iraqis. The U.S. military will do all it can to minimize the loss of life. Too bad we can't say the same about Hussein, who has been torturing and killing his own people by the thousands. Even if we go into this war like the drooling madmen you think we are, we won't even come close to Hussein's body count.
Does the loss of life that goes on daily in Iraq *only* matter if we can blame the U.S. for it?
Anyway, you can't say "if 9/11 hadn't happened." You can't turn back time on the thousands of dead Americans. More importantly, you can't feasibly imagine what Gore would have done had he been President (such a horrible act changes an administration mid-stream).
Gore struck me as more conservative in some ways than Clinton, and Clinton let Hussein have it and pushed for regime change.
Posted by Stephen Robinson @ 03/17/2003 10:38 AM ET
Actually, I'm more curious as to what the Republicans would be saying if Gore was in office.
Let's say Gore won the election. Let us suppose that a year and a half after 9/11, Bin Laden still hasn't been found, anti-American sentiment is at almost a fever pitch, North Korea and Iran both have nuclear programs far and away more advanced than anything Iraq might have (with us doing absolutely nothing about those two countries), we've managed to alienate just about every single ally we have (including putting our closest ally Tony Blair in the position that he could lose his job at almost any time), we've put 200,000 troops half-way across the world, have done nothing to end the violence between Israelis and Palastinian, which is still at a fevered pitch, and an economy that is basically in the toilet, and allowing civil liberties to drop by the wayside. Do you honestly think the Republicans wouldn't be hopping mad about that?
There were Republicans (Bob Barr in particular) who wanted to impeach Clinton when India developed nuclear weapons. It was the Republicans who talked up the "new world order" of international cooperation. It was the Republicans who pushed for a balanced budget amendment and who always railed against the spend-thrift Democratic congress. It was always the Republicans talking about less intrusion by the government into private lives. It was George W. himself who kept telling everybody that the US couldn't follow the Clinton polcy of being the police force of the world.
And people ask me why I switched to the Democratic party in the 2002 election. Hypocrisy in politics. Gotta love it.
Posted by Gregory @ 03/17/2003 10:44 AM ET
Damn. I'm too slow a typist. PAD already made my point. Sorry.
Posted by Gregory @ 03/17/2003 10:46 AM ET
I think the Democrats have certainly done their part in demonizing Hussein, but it seems to me Gore just has more savvy when it comes to international diplomacy. To much of the international community, it's not just what we're doing (which is bad enough) but how we're doing it - arrogantly, dismissively, as if we're the only country whose opinion matters. And yeah, when you have most of the weapons of mass destruction and there's no other superpower nation to keep your excesses in check, I can see where that attitude might just be inevitable, but I like to think Gore might not have PUSHED it as much.
Posted by Elayne Riggs @ 03/17/2003 11:12 AM ET
>>And I'm getting tired of hearing about our perceived "slaughter" of innocent Iraqis. The U.S. military will do all it can to minimize the loss of life.<<
Really? Then what's this about:
WASHINGTON (AP) - In a strategy Pentagon officials are calling "shock and awe," U.S. forces plan to drop 10 times the bombs in the opening days of the air campaign in Iraq than they did in the first Persian Gulf war, officials said today.
Posted by Gian Morithra @ 03/17/2003 11:22 AM ET
Closing link tag...
Posted by oops @ 03/17/2003 11:23 AM ET
I usually stay away from these threads because they generate a whole lot more heat than light, but I have to point something out. Republicans typically do not go against Democratic presidents on foreign policy issues. The only time I remember such a thing happening was when Trent Lott characterized Bill Clinton's bombing of Iraq on the eve of impeachment hearings as suspicious. He later apologized for the remarks due to media pressure, despite the fact that it really was suspicious. The Republicans certainly wouldn't have gone to Baghdad proclaiming they trust Saddam Hussein more than they trust Gore. I don't remember Republicans objecting when Clinton dropped bombs on Serbia, without UN approval and in support of a region which wasn't even a sovereign nation.
Look, I don't know whether going to war is the right thing to do. I do think that Bush is doing what he thinks is the right thing for the country, and that if there is a war it will be quick. What worries me is the aftermath. Do we end up with a permanent American military presence in Iraq propping up a puppet government? That approach didn't work very well with Iran in the long term.
As for our supposed allies, France and Germany didn't want us to go into Afghanistan, either. Anti-americanism didn't begin with 9/11 or with the Bush Administration.
Posted by Robert @ 03/17/2003 11:30 AM ET
"a combination aimed at overwhelming Iraqi forces"--from your article
Minimizing civilian casualties, yes. Saddam's military,however, won't surrender on our say so.
The idea that we can leave 3rd world leaders who place no value on human life in power must be scrapped. Technology in transit, weapons, and production of WMD demands that all who have a countries resources at their beck and call must have a minimum value on human rights. We must now embark on a humanitarian foreigfn policy, where human rights are the litmus test. For those leaders even of the most primitive societies who do not value human life now have the power to end all of our lives, not just torturing their local subjects.
Posted by Siegzon @ 03/17/2003 11:34 AM ET
Iraq has recently claimed that they have had tens of thousands of people offerring to become martyrs (otherwise known as suicide or homicide bombers). There have been reports that Iraq has been training and equipping some of these volunteers.
If any of these alleged martyrs hit civillian targets thereby proving his willingness to work with and support terrorists and/or Saddam was to use chemical or biological weapons against our troops, their Kurdish population, Israel, or Kuwait, how differently do you think the world will see Bush and his stand on Iraq's disarmament in hindsight?
It sure would piss a lot of people off if the dumb cowboy's "shoot first and ask questions later" approach actually worked out for him and his approval rating in the long run.
This is not to say that this scenario is my recommendation on how the U.S. should handle all foreign policy. It's just an interesting possibility, we may be looking at over the next couple of months.
Posted by Bob DeGraff @ 03/17/2003 11:37 AM ET
Iraq has never attacked the US.
As his invasion of Kuwait proved, he attacks his neighbors--Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel-- thus being their problem, not America's.
Lots of countries are ruled by nutballs with scary weaponry. North Korea has an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the western United States AND the nuke to put inside it. Iraq doesn't.
Pakistan, another nuclear power run by a dangerous anti-American dictator, just unveiled its new HATF-4 ballistic missile.
If Bush's goal were disarmament, shouldn't THOSE countries--both of which have threatened to use nukes--be higher-priority targets Iraq?
Iraq isn't part of the war on terrorism. The only link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is the fact that they hate each other. No matter how often Bush says "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same breath, Saddam had nothing to do with the terror attacks.
Is Bush's sole reason for war now is so he can "free" the Iraqis from Saddam's rule? Is the U.S. in the liberation business? Will Bush spread democracy to Myamnar, Congo, Turkmenistan, Cambodia, Nigeria, Cuba, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan or Laos, just to name a few places where people can't vote, speak freely or eat much?
Right now America is being a bully. And nobody likes bullies.
Posted by wams @ 03/17/2003 11:40 AM ET
I don't think that makes sense. Bush may be stupid and impulsive, but the rest of his administration isn't. They've had a year and a half to think this over, even if 9/11 was the inception of the idea to conquer Iraq, and it wasn't.
Do a search on a group called the "Project For The New American Century." It outlined what we are about to do now years ago, and you will find some very familiar names associated with it, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, who are by no coincidence the main hawks in this administration. And before anyone says conspiracy theory... no. This is all a matter of public record. This group even has their own website.
Posted by Matt Adler @ 03/17/2003 12:19 PM ET
In regards to the "shock and awe" bombing campaign, the U.S. military will be bending over backwards to minimize civilian casualties because they can't afford a public relations nightmare in addition to what they already have to deal with. The purpose of this large initial bombing campaign is to soften Iraq up for ground troops and to induce surrender from the pschological trauma inflicted from a night of such intense bombing. Likewise the MOAB 21,000 pound bomb we developed was not created to kill civiliams but to be an effective bunker buster bomb and to create a mushroom cloud that could be seen FROM A DISTANCE to again induce surrender. We target an enemy's military installations and resources not civilians. Remember we had a shot at Mullah Mohammed Omar during the Afganistan conflict and passed to avoid significant civillian casualties. Our smart bombs' tracking and targeting systems are ridiculously more advanced then they were during Desert Storm. We'll probably be looking at only 2 or 3 percent of our bombs missing their mark rather than 40 percent or more as in Desert Storm. We will also avoid bombing civillian areas and infrastructure as much as possible because I'm sure we will end up repairing or replacing much of it them.
On a side note, while I clearly don't have much of a problem with the upcoming war with Iraq (really, I could go either way), I hope the war protestors don't go away after the war but instead just rededicate their energies and efforts to making sure that Iraqi oil money and the billions in Saddam's Swiss bank accounts goes to increasing the average Iraqi's quality of life five fold (for starters) from what it's like today. Making sure all that oil and money doesn't disappear is going to be a much bigger and probably harder job than stopping this war.
Posted by Bob DeGraff @ 03/17/2003 12:35 PM ET
"You've "noticed" this? How? Done polls?"
Wow, for someone who starts out with pure conjecture--("we would be seeing calls for impeachment from everywhere. He would be viewed as a war-mongering madman by everyone, including the Brits. Hell, it wouldn't have been allowed to get this far.") you sure get upset with someone who is on much more solid ground. It's hard to say what "most" anti war folks think, though the ones with the oh-so-witty BUSH=HITLER signs probably have issues with the man (oppose a totalitarian Jew-hating dictator with dreams of conquering your neighbor and you're a Nazi. Well,ok.)
At any rate, it would be difficult for even the US military to kill as many Iraqi civilians as will die from the sanctions that we are now being told are working so well (2 years ago the sanctions were being called immoral by these very same folks but consistancy is the hobgoblin of small minds and all).
I suspect that your prediction of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties will be off by, oh, a few hundred thousand. After hearing the same claims about the Afghani campaign turn out to be so far off it gets hard to place much faith in the backseat Cassandras.
Have a war--Iraqis will die. Hopefully at the end, they will have a government that doesn't kill so many of them. Don't have a war--Iraqis will die. And probably keep dying.
But hey, soon we will know. If US troops find no sign of illegal weapons it will reflect very poorly on Bush, quite possibly cost him re-election. And if we do find the weapons that even Nancy Pelosi claims Iraq has been hiding--how soon before we start hearing that they were "planted" by Bush to justify the war?
Posted by Bill mulligan @ 03/17/2003 12:44 PM ET
I'm just waiting for the European Union to be renamed Lil America.
Posted by Chris Grillo @ 03/17/2003 12:51 PM ET
Well, I think that Gore would not have pushed for this war, and I really wonder how much of Dubya's actions are informed by having a father who left things unfinished in Iraq and who was then a target of Iraqi malfesance.
There are legitimate reasons to consider bringing down Saddam, but I think there are greatly outweighed by how the US has approached this. With unending arrogance, we have alienated allies, bullied smaller nations, and acted like we know with perfect certainty what to do. We have ignored the new waves of hatred in the world this attitude has generated, drawn up war plans that don't seem to take the worst-case scenarios into account, and made it seem like this will be easy. All the while, Al Qaeda salivates at how good they look to disgruntled Arab youth and how much accalim they will get for "retaliatory" strikes at the US. (Yes, the war is just an excuse for Al Qaeda to act, and they would act eventually anyway if not caught, but why are we giving our true mortal enemy an excuse?)
So what do I see? A war that will possibly make things worse in the vacuum left in Iraq. The increased likelihood of terrorist attacks in NY and Washington (and maybe in the rest of the US). A greater chance that Saddam will give anthrax or VX to terrorists before fleeing into the night. Missiles raining down on Tel Aviv. A bad economy getting worse. North Korea and Iran continuing their weapons programs unchecked while we bomb Iraq. More efforts to remove civil liberties in the guise of "homeland security."
I am afraid. This war could unleash some very bad consequences, the likes of which Europe knows too well but that the US doesn't. Yes, it's likely that the war itself will be done in a short time, but what could be left in its wake scares me greatly. But I cannot shake the sense that Dubya and his people cannot see those consequences. They only see American might unleashed once again.
Sigh. I have nothing left to say, expect perhaps that I find myself praying, and wondering why God himself would let such folly run wild.
Posted by Simon DelMonte @ 03/17/2003 01:11 PM ET
1) As to impeachment - Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has already drawn up the Articles Of Impeachment:
2) The U.S. military doesn't have to worry about bad press, as all authorized media will be in press pools where they will only be given as much information as the pentagon wants them to have. Independant journalists who go out on their own risk being killed by the U.S. military.
http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/031003_pentagaon_threatens_to_kill_inde.htm
Posted by Michael Brunner @ 03/17/2003 01:27 PM ET
Bob wrote:
On a side note, while I clearly don't have much of a problem with the upcoming war with Iraq (really, I could go either way), I hope the war protestors don't go away after the war but instead just rededicate their energies and efforts to making sure that Iraqi oil money and the billions in Saddam's Swiss bank accounts goes to increasing the average Iraqi's quality of life five fold (for starters) from what it's like today. Making sure all that oil and money doesn't disappear is going to be a much bigger and probably harder job than stopping this war.
Ha!
I agree with you Bob, but my problem is this: I see that this war really is only designed for two fold.
a) To hopefully get dubya re-elected. And...
b) If not, hey... think about all the contracts his oil buddies are going to make from a very very thankful oil coalition in Iraq. And guess who the oil barons will be even more thankful to?
Now, really, I think Saddam should go. He needs to be out of there. My problem with the whole thing is that I do not trust dubya's intentions. And that makes me against this action. He comes off insincere, and it still doesn't help that his Election campaign was paid for by Enron. (Sounds off, but in the end, this action, like the previous is about one thing: oil.)
I actually believe Tony Blair probably believes in the reasons why Saddam should be taken out. But dubya hasn't convinced me that his reasons are the real reasons. And since we, as Americans, are going to foot the bill for this, then I think we really need to take a look on whether we can afford to do it.
And that answer, I believe, is no.
My opinion as always.
Travis
Posted by Travis @ 03/17/2003 01:33 PM ET
Bill Mulligan: Wow, for someone who starts out with pure conjecture--("we would be seeing calls for impeachment from everywhere. He would be viewed as a war-mongering madman by everyone, including the Brits. Hell, it wouldn't have been allowed to get this far.") you sure get upset with someone who is on much more solid ground.
Luigi Novi: That analogy is false. Peter was quite obvious in that he was making a conjecture of what would have been. By contrast, Will wasn't. He was making a statement of factual observation on the political leanings of most people against the war.
Posted by Luigi Novi @ 03/17/2003 01:38 PM ET
Trust me, most Brits do regard him
as a war-mongering madman.
It's just that we've got a war mongering madman of our own to worry about. At least ours wone a fair election...
Posted by Nick Eden @ 03/17/2003 01:38 PM ET
Quote, Peter David: "We are going to drop bombs on him, and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Let's call it what it is: Slaughter."
Hold on battlecat. You're making some leaps here that at this time are unfounded. Unless you possess precognitive ability (or maybe you already have the yet-to-happen Iraqi war injury report?), you're guessing here...and rather sensationalistically. Hundreds of thousands? Slaughter? I would like to see your facts on this coming war that allows you the latitude to place casualty figures in your opinions. Good lord, Peter, that's a bit past the anti-war stance.
Additionally, Matt Adler (apologies if I make a leap past his point to support my thoughts) makes a valid point that it's not just Bush behind this war effort. Being anti-war means you're anti-Blair, anti-Powell, anti-much more than merely G.W.Bush. Seems it's become easier to simply lump an anti-war stance into a Bush rant.
For the record (to stem off thoughts I am one of the pro-war faction): I do not agree with the war effort as it has been presented to the public thus far. I realize I may not have all the facts - and that is the problem I have most with the effort. Since we are committing lives and money and reputation on this war, the public damn well needs to have all the facts. Despite this concern, I remain aware enough to realize it's not just Bush pushing the effort. And I am honest enough to not muddle hyperbole with reality.
Posted by BillRitter @ 03/17/2003 01:55 PM ET
BillRitter - Problem is, who do we trust? The government of the US has already publicly stated it considers it perfectly acceptable to use disinformation to throw enemies off. And we remember the first Gulf fracas where they told us what a resounding success the Patriot was when, in truth, it was a dismal failure?
Oh, I believe the army WILL try to keep civilian casualties down to a minimum, but who do we trust to give the body count? Them? Or the Iraqui "we hate the infidels and want to make them look as bad as possible"?
There's a reason why someone wrote that truth is the first casualty of war. On BOTH sides.
Posted by The StarWolf @ 03/17/2003 02:25 PM ET
I'm a hawk. I think this pre-emptive strike is the right thing, hopefully at the right time. If Saddam had been removed from power in the Gulf War this particular war might not be necessary.
Our peace loving pal Saddam had four years without UN Weapons Inspectors nosing around his labs and factories. Apparently he put those four years to good use creating weapons of mass destruction. For this fellow to be so empowered, I think the world is in serious trouble.
If diplomacy had been successful since the end of the Gulf War, we wouldn't have 250,000 troops so close to Saddam's boarder.
By the way, to the Arab mentality the USA is only evaluated in light of its actions. The fact that President Clinton's response to Al Queda was so limited emboldened them to do the atrocity of 9/11. The fact that we have responded so overwhelmingly to 9/11 plus what we are going to do to Saddam makes the other dictators and terrorists of the world take the USA seriously.
Well, that's my two cents.
Posted by Adam Lima @ 03/17/2003 02:29 PM ET
Thank you, Peter. I agree with you.
Posted by Kurt Nyeholt @ 03/17/2003 02:30 PM ET
For what it's worth (not that I expect people are panting for my opinion), I think we may end up doing the right thing here for horribly wrong reasons.
Is Saddam a bad choice as leader of Iraq? Oh, hell yeah -- and I know of very few informed people who'd say otherwise. Is he a threat to the U.S.? Almost certainly.
Is he an immediate, clear-and-present-we-better-do-something-right-now danger who's so great that it's worth getting the rest of the world, including most of our allies ticked off at us? In my opinion, no.
Is Saddam such a monster that anything is a better choice, including an Iraqi civil war that could destabilize the whole area? In my opinion, no.
Regardless of what Bush's actual intentions are (and I have any number of ideas on that score), our diplomatic efforts over the last few months have been pitiful. Our arguments for war have changed by the day -- one week it's regime change, one week it's disarmament, then back to regime change, then back to disarmament, and suddenly we're trying to rewrite the map of the Middle East and spread democracy everywhere. The only constant in U.S. policy over the last year is that the higher-ups in the administration clearly want Saddam gone, and aren't really that concerned about the justification used to do it. (Remember when Ari Fleischer observed offhand that "all the Iraqis need to solve their problem is one bullet?" If someone said that about the U.S., wouldn't it have serious consequences?)
Now, is it possible that removing Saddam really will solve lots of problems? That it'll bring a stable and U.S.-friendly Iraq, drop oil prices, kick-start the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, result in free and fair elections in every country bordering Iraq, and ensure a new golden age? Sure. I can't imagine it's likely, though -- and given all the handy recruitment material we'll be giving Al Qaeda et al, I see a lot more bad outcomes to this than I do good ones.
Between that and what this administration has done to trample civil liberties in this country since 9/11 (cf. the Patriot Act, its soon-to-be-passed sequel, and many other issues), you'll forgive me if I'm somewhat less than trusting at the moment.
So far as I can see, we've got a president who considers himself divinely appointed to rid the world of evil, and administration officials who back him to the hilt for whatever reasons. No wonder we can't get support in the U.N. -- a lot of countries really do see this as a crusade on the U.S.'s part, and I can't say as our public statements have done much to dissuade them.
Do I think we'll try to minimize loss of life? Probably. Do I think we'll succeed? Maybe.
Do I think the aftermath of this war is going to echo for decades, in ways not helpful to us as a country? Oh, yes.
So as I said: Possibly the right thing, but in terribly wrong ways and IMO for the wrong reasons.
And I hope like hell that I'm wrong.
TWL
Posted by Tim Lynch @ 03/17/2003 02:58 PM ET
1) On what grounds can we impeach Bush? He hasn't committed any crimes here that I can tell, and even if he did, impeachment does not equal suspension from public office.
2) "No blood for oil". The idea that we are invading Iraq for their oil is stupid. The idea that we would profit from Iraqi oil after the war is stupid. The idea that a sizeable amount of Iraqi oil would survive a war is a result of short-sightedness and ignorance. Far more likely that the oil fields will be set ablaze either purposely by Iraq (causing an environmental disaster beyond the limitations of the Kyoto Treaty to clean up) or accdentily in conflict. Yippee ki ay. Whatever the cause and cost of this war the oil will more likely be a causuality than a prize.
3) Whatever President 41 left unfinished in Iraq President 42 left equally unfinished. President 43 is not merely the successor of the first PResident Bush but he is charged with the responsibilities, tasks, and continuing legacy of President Clinton. For better or for worse while we've had three different presidents (actually four different presidents) creating and enacting various policies of their own and continuing a few implemented by their respective predecessors Iraq has had one President. For twelve years he's been against us and has had one policy against us. For around twenty years Saddam Hussein has had a policy involving the construction of deadly weapons including that of a nuclear arsenal. (In fact we have Israel to thank for the destruction of that arsenal in 1981.) Why shouldn't one of our Presidents finally draw a line and institute a smackdown?
4) Thanks to http://www.investorsinsight.com/article.asp?id=jm021403 I was given an idea. France doesn't oppose a war with Iraq because of a sacred ideal of any sort. They don't do it on principle or because of honor. They are using the war as an excuse to unite nations against the US with them as the head. Jacque Chirac wants to move up in authority within the European Union. But this is not my idea.
5) Like it or not Al Gore was not elected to be the 43rd President of the United States.
Posted by The Blue Spider @ 03/17/2003 03:01 PM ET
My $.02:
Bush II is bound and determined (as he always has been) to oust Saddam. But looking at the cycle of the arguments that he's put forth leads to questions as to his motives. First it was Al-qaeda ties which have been loose at best, then it was nuclear weapons which the inspectors have said there is NO possiblity, then it was Saddam having chemical/biological weapons-which is the only reason that hasn't been completely debunked by independent sources but it also has not been proven with UP-TO-DATE information and not testimony from 1995ish. At one point Bush II even settled for exile (which no one believed would happen).
Now it seems that Bush II is willing to violate UN rules of engagement (Annan described a non-UN Security council approved action as a blatant disregard and violation of the UN a few weeks ago) in order to show what happens when someone doesn't take the UN seriously. Step back and think about that for a second.
What are his motives? I have no clue. I just know that he seems like a sniper with Saddam in his sites unwilling to look at anything else outside the view he gets through his VERY narrow scope.
Now do I think Saddam is evil? Yes.
Is he dangerous? Kind of. He's a neighborhood bully.
Is the war going to destabilize the region even more? Yes, very much.
Muslims and Arabs are wondering why the double standard - Saddam gets explosives while Kim Jon Il can't get the administration to send anyone higher than an ambassador. Bush II hopes to counter terrorism when what will actually happen is he will give young Middle Easterners greater reason to "hate" the US and join with groups like Al-qaeda.
I'm a muslim convert and an American. I'm very scared. Very.
Thank you Peter for giving us this forum. In a side note I would like to tell you that I think CapMarvel is a good read and well worth the money. The lastest ish treated the idea of cause and effect very well.
Kudos.
Stories like yours allow me to NOT be scared for awhile.
Posted by Tobin Lopes @ 03/17/2003 03:05 PM ET
"Like it or not Al Gore was not elected to be the 43rd President of the United States."
Of course not. He lost the vote. The one that went 5-4 in the end. You remember. The one that counted more than 100 million American votes.
Posted by Paul F. P. Pogue @ 03/17/2003 03:06 PM ET
Why it's not hyperbolic to call Shock and Awe a slaughter:
We're using ten times as many bombs as 1991 in a shorter period of time, but in "good news" they're supposed to have 90% accuracy (and those are the DOD's numbers). Do the math. That still means that the same number bombs will miss their targets in the first day of this war as landed in the entire first Gulf War! Thus, comperable numbers of casualties, at least.
The population of Baghdad is greater than those of cities like Houston, Toronto, Atlanta, Berlin, Sydney or Seattle... [Population data courtesy of CityPopulation.de, where you can also find other cities for comparison] I don't know if you've been to any of these cities to grok their size firsthand, but can you imagine hundreds of bombs per hour being dropped on a city that size?
Regarding the idea that Baghdad residents could just evacuate the city -- can you imagine evacuating a city that size in the... what... 72 hours Bush promised in his "press conference" last week? [For some reason, I'm suddenly imagining the traffic jams trying to escape the cities in ID4.] And even if it were logistically feasible to get everyone out of there, where would you put them!? They live in a fecking desert! There's no place for them to evacuate to!
Meanwhile, I'm sure Hussein has safe bunkers out of range of our missles, meaning the only people our missles can hurt are innocent civilians.
That's why so many people are outraged by the idea of Shock and Awe. Or, maybe we should just use the original German term: blitzkrieg.
Posted by Lis @ 03/17/2003 03:08 PM ET
Well, sure you could say that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. Then of course there is the 747 in Salman Pak used by terrorists to train in taking over airplanes for terrorist activities.
(New York Sun: September 11 and Iraq)
(UK Guardian: The Iraqi connection - 11.11.01)
(NY TImes: Defectors Cite Iraqi Training For Terrorism - 11.12.01)
(PBS.org: Highly secret terrorist training camp at Salman Pak)
(Aviation Week: Satellite Photos Believed To Show Airliner for Training Hijackers)
The fact of the matter is that Hussein was told to disarm after the Gulf War. He didn't.
He was told through multiple other resolutions to disarm. He didn't.
All the U.S. is doing is finishing the Gulf War, and doing _exactly_ what Bill Clinton said he would do at one time, but didn't. And the democrats had _no problem_ supporting the president at that time. The unfortunate thing is that the only reason they supported him was because he was a democrat.
Democrats are having this huge problem with Bush is because he's solving a problem instead of leaving it be like they did. Time and again Democrats have shown that they will talk big about a problem, and not do anything about it. (Hussein is the biggest example on this.)
Bush tried to take care this diplomatically through the U.N. Like the democrats, they talked big when they supported unanimously to disarm Hussein with 1441. When it came time for them to walk the walk though, they tripped over and are proving just how poorly they are getting up.
As for the anti-war protests being anti-Bush; there are eye-witness accounts of mannequins dressed up like Bush with either bullet holes through it, nooses on it, or being "bloodied". The people who blame america for all of their problems have no problem showing their true colors about how they feel about President Bush and the job he is doing. Go to www.brain-terminal.com and watch the video there to see the mentality of these anti-war people.
Then there's the fact that these various anti-war people are stating while Hussein doesn't have any WMD, that if we go against Hussein, he will be forced to use them against us. WHAT? How can someone who according to these people doesn't have WMD use them against us? This is like taking tea and no tea at the same time, right?
Yes, some innocent Iraqis may die in this conflict. Blaming our military 100% on this isn't totally fair: we didn't place the iraqi army near the hospitals or school zones.
Posted by Balder @ 03/17/2003 03:25 PM ET
Why is it that the United Nations seems as if they would be completely willing to let us handle the North Korea situation on our own with little to no involvement on their part but doing the same thing with Iraq is "a violation of the U.N."?
And in regards to the "U.S. just wants Iraq's oil" argument, I've seen the following response used at least 5 times on various news talk shows:
"If we really weren't concerned about the weapons of mass destruction and wanted Iraq's oil, all we would have had to do over the last twelve years would be to pick up the phone and call Saddam and he would have happily cut us a very reasonable deal."
It's a stumper that I've yet to see anyone even try to argue in any way.
Posted by Bob DeGraff @ 03/17/2003 03:36 PM ET
>>"You've "noticed" this? How? Done polls?"
Wow, for someone who starts out with pure conjecture--("we would be seeing calls for impeachment from everywhere. He would be viewed as a war-mongering madman by everyone, including the Brits. Hell, it wouldn't have been allowed to get this far.") you sure get upset with someone who is on much more solid ground.<<
Well, no. First, I'm not upset. Second, saying "if this, then that" is taking conjecture and presenting a speculation. What you did is take an unsupported opinion and present it as fact. And your response offered no further support, so...
PAD
Posted by Peter David @ 03/17/2003 03:37 PM ET
>>Additionally, Matt Adler (apologies if I make a leap past his point to support my thoughts) makes a valid point that it's not just Bush behind this war effort. Being anti-war means you're anti-Blair, anti-Powell, anti-much more than merely G.W.Bush. Seems it's become easier to simply lump an anti-war stance into a Bush rant.<<
I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-stupidity.
Blair, I just feel sorry for. You know what the Brits call him? "Bush's Bitch."
PAD
Posted by Peter David @ 03/17/2003 03:40 PM ET
>>4) Thanks to http://www.investorsinsight.com/article.asp?id=jm021403 I was given an idea. France doesn't oppose a war with Iraq because of a sacred ideal of any sort. They don't do it on principle or because of honor. They are using the war as an excuse to unite nations against the US with them as the head. Jacque Chirac wants to move up in authority within the European Union. But this is not my idea.<<
I don't think so. I think they're opposed to war for the same reason Russia is: Because Iraq owes them billions of dollars for weapons they purchased. They're worried that if a new regime does come in, they'll ignore the debt. They figure keeping the status quo is the only shot they have at getting their money.
PAD
Posted by Peter David @ 03/17/2003 03:43 PM ET
Peter,
If you feel that France and Russia's main motivation in fighting the U.S. on a resolution threatening the use of force is based in their military contracts with Iraq, once these country's opinions and votes have been discounted from the equation, doesn't that seem to bring the U.N. to more of a consensus on the use of force to disarm Saddam?
Perhaps the U.N. needs a complete restructuring if all it takes to render it impotent is to buy one member with veto power with oil, military contracts, etc.
Posted by Bob DeGraff @ 03/17/2003 04:03 PM ET
"I think they're opposed to war for the same reason Russia is: Because Iraq owes them billions of dollars for weapons they purchased."
Wow. That certainly takes a bit of the moral wind out of their sails.
And I think you are right. Ithink that some countries will be very embarassed when some of their dealings with Iraq come out.
If the stories are true that the French have told their people to get out of Israel (even before they told them to get out of Iraq) you have to wonder if they know something we don't.
Posted by Bill Mulligan @ 03/17/2003 04:20 PM ET
Bob:
The UN is far from unanimous in its support for the war, especially in the security council. In the early days, even had France and Russia abstained rather than threatened veto (or had they not had veto power), the US would still not have gained the 9 votes needed to pass the initiative. Blaming France is an exercise in futility.
Perhaps the US needs a complete restructuring if it can set foreign policy for the world. The thing is, perhaps once upon a time, a diplomatic solution was possible. That is, a solution that was internal to the middle east. Most governments over there dislike Saddam as much as we do. However, once you start having a foreign power (who isn't liked much to begin with) come in and start killing civilians (whether that was the purpose or not is irrelevant - the bodies are there), such diplomatic solutions become far more difficult. I fear that the very threat of war has made war inevitable.
Posted by James Carman @ 03/17/2003 04:28 PM ET
If there's any justice in the world, Halabja will one day be as infamous as Guernica. then again, if there were any justice, we would have seen marchers in the streets protesting the removal of Pol Pot, Mobutu Sese Seko, Idi Amin and any of the other mass murdering despots overthrown by outside forces.
But I guess it's only wrong when Americans do it. It's a J. Jonah Jameson world out there.
Posted by Bill Mulligan @ 03/17/2003 04:30 PM ET
And I think you are right. Ithink that some countries will be very embarassed when some of their dealings with Iraq come out.
Yes. Including the United States.
"when Iraq released its weapons program dossier on 7 December 2002, it was purloined by the US Administration, edited of 8,000 pages, and it was this edited copy that was finally given to the UN for examination." Before the UN could read the report, the US edited out "the names of various Western companies and government agencies who have supplied Iraq with assistance with their weapons program."
A German newspaper which investigated these cuts found "US corporations listed in the missing pages of the report include Hewlett Packard, DuPont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Tectronics, Bechtel, International Computer Systems, Unisys, Sperry and TI Coating. Further, the missing information shows that US governmental agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as the U.S. government nuclear weapons laboratories Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia, all illegally helped Iraq to build its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs by providing supplies and/or training."
More on this story, including a link to a fuller list of companies at RoadToSurfdom
Posted by Lis @ 03/17/2003 04:30 PM ET
>>And I think you are right. Ithink that some countries will be very embarassed when some of their dealings with Iraq come out.
Yes. Including the United States.<<
I meant to add -- if our government lets us know. I mean, given the fact that our government already edited these annoying facts out of the previous papers (and then complained that the resulting documents were incomplete)
Posted by Lis @ 03/17/2003 04:32 PM ET
Being anti-war means you're anti-Blair, anti-Powell, anti-much more than merely G.W.Bush. Seems it's become easier to simply lump an anti-war stance into a Bush rant.
Well, I think Peter makes a good point when he says, "isn't it possible that Bush's actions have *made* people who were either for him or neutral now in opposition to him?"
Are they actually anti-Bush if their dislike of him comes based on this action? Because the implication of "anti-Bush" is that someone wouldn't have given him a break no matter what he did. And I don't think that's the case here, or even in most cases.
Now, I wasn't ever a Bush fan; I think he is an individual of median intelligence who got to this high position in life not on merit, but because of the family he was born into.
But I was comforted by the fact that he at least had the sense to surround himself with intelligent and experienced people in the form of Powell, Rice, and Rumsfeld. And I 100% approved of their actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world eliminating terrorists. I think they've done a good job with that, and I would like to see it continue.
But Iraq came out of left field. I am offended by the implication that those of us who don't think he has shown sufficient justification (and I speak not of moral justification, but national security justification) for this plan, are just blind and ignorant. Because he hasn't shown justification.
His refrain is "The risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action". Even putting aside the loaded nature of the statement (I don't know many people who advocate "inaction", and this action is certainly not the only possible action), he's leaving out one part of the equation. He's described to us in vivid (many would say exaggerated and even fabricated) detail the consequences for the U.S. if we do not take over Iraq.
But he hasn't mentioned at all what the consequences would be if we DO. And I think that is disingenuous. Even if we assume that his position is right and correct, that the risk of not taking over Iraq is greater, don't the American people deserve to hear from their President what is likely to happen if we do? Shouldn't he be honest, and say:
1)The war will cost at least X amount of dollars
2)The casualties (on both sides) are likely to be at least X amount
3)We will have to occupy Iraq for at least X amount of time
4)The occupation will cost at least X amount of dollars, and will have a negative effect on the economy
5)Our troops will be the target of deadly guerilla warfare long after the conventional war is over
6)Islamic radicals will use our occupation as a recruiting campaign for terrorist groups
7)The Middle Eastern public is likely to be enraged at the sight of Westerners governing a Muslim country like in colonial days
8)This will increase anti-American sentiment around the world
9)It is likely to lead to a civil war and massive bloodshed between the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds, who hate each other
10)Iran's intelligence agency is already operating within Iraq, and is trying to get the Shi'ites to form a satellite state aligned with Iran
11)The Kurds will try to form an independent state, and that will incite a military response by neighboring Turkey
12) When all this happens, we will not be able to get out without appearing to have been driven off, costing us credibility among our friends and enemies alike, thus making us a more likely target and giving us less leverage in achieving our national security objectives.
Now if he could be honest with the American public about all that (and none of that is partisan rhetoric, it's based on simple economic and political principles, and there are a substantial number of Republicans who've said the same), I could at least respect his position, if not agree with it. But the fact that he has been selling this as a swift, clean, and uncomplicated victory for both the American and Iraqi people is just dishonest. If we're going to overthrow a dictator and install a new regime, let's be honest about the monetary, political, and human costs. Inform the American people of the realities of the situation, and then make your decision.
Posted by Matt Adler @ 03/17/2003 04:35 PM ET
It seems to me that people seem to miss the raw facts here:
1) Saddam disarming himself of all WMDs was a condition of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War. Had he not agreed to this, the war would not have ended and Saddam would not now be in power.
2) For 12 years there have been multiple UN reslutions telling Saddam to disarm or there would be serioius consequences.
3) The last UN resolution 1441 was endorsed by ALL of the members of the security council and said it was the that Saddam must make a full, accurate, and immediate declaration of all of his WMDs and disarm or face serious consequences. Again, I repeat that this was endorsed by everyone.
4) Saddams declaration in December was not accurate, and this is not disputed by any of the permanent security council members.
5) Since the time of the declaration, there have been multiple instances where illegal weapons have been found by the inspectors that were not declared. Therefore, Saddam made a false declaration and is still trying to mislead the world.
6) As Blair said so well, there is NO ONE on the security council that believes or will say that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has not made a full, accurate and immediate decision to disarm.
Therefore we have 12 years of warnings after warnings after warnings. Saddam has very clearly been told by the entire UN to disarm or face consequences. The job of the inspectors was not to find Saddams weapons...it was to verify that he has disarmed. He has not, and no one disputes that.
Saddam has defied the world for years. People say that Bush is defying the UN...this amazes me as people are so silent about the 12 years Saddam has defied the UN. When did we start making our leaders the bad guys and ignoring the actions of others? How can we go to someone like North Korea and expect them to disarm their nukes when they see that we told Saddam to disarm himself of WMDs 12 years ago and there have been no consequences? T. Roosevelt said "Speak softly and carry a big stick"...it seems today everyone wants to speak softly but no one wants to mention the stick. The stick is necessary, and there are times it must be used.
Like after 12 years of defiance of international law.
If someone in the US defied a law and were caught they would suffer the consequences (jail, fines, etc.). Why should Saddam be able to defy laws and orders for 12 years and incur no repercussions? Only his people suffer by the sanctions and other "alternate methods" we have devised so far. How can the world community expect anyone to respect the "power" of the UN when it will not even back itself up?
I understand the folks who do not want a war. I really do. War is a terrible thing. But there are times when hard choices have to be made and the answers are not easy or black and white.
12 years of threats, resolutions, sanctions, and rhetoric to try and make a country do what it was obligated to do in order to call a cease-fire on a was. It has defied, lied, and delayed for 12 years. It was given a "last chance" last year, agreed on by the whole of the international community. If other countries do not feel the need to back up their words and orders, I have little repsect for that. I do respect our president making the hard choices and doing what is right. You can speak softly, but you still have to carry that big stick. Some folks can only understand the stick, unfortunately.
Also, I understand that we enjoy free speech and it is one of the wonderful things about our society. But please remember that while everyone debates this heatedly here and uses words like "slaughter"...there are American soldiers out ther in the desert who believe they are doing the right thing for thier country. Their lives are in danger every day, and probably will be more so in the near future. The harsh words may be meant for Bush, but they are taken very seriously and personally by our troops. There is nothing more terrible than feeling that your own people have abandoned you and are accusing you of intending to slaughter innocents. I realize this is not how the comment was meant, but please have some thought for our service men and women. Whether you agree or not, their job is to take care of this and they are OUR people.
Posted by Matt Richard @ 03/17/2003 04:48 PM ET
Questions that bug me:
How many people died in Afganistan?
How come we didn't immediately follow up 1441 with our timeline for action if there was non-compliance?
How come we're taking on Iraq when Iran and Pakistan house most of the terrorists?
What are we doing about Saudi Arabians financing so much of the terrorist networks?
How come we don't have the guts to call for a UN vote now, when last week we did?
If unaligned nations are pushing for a 30 day deadline, we didn't we propose that 30 days ago?
If Saddam was completely disarming with American troops on his border, would we keep them there forever?
If this works out fine for us in the short term, does that make it right?
What do we tell India the next time they think Pakistan is up to something? Or vice versa?
Food for thought.
Posted by SlashKaBob @ 03/17/2003 04:57 PM ET
Matt Richards:
Thank you for succinctly summarizing the inconvenient facts of the situation.
Posted by Chris Galdieri @ 03/17/2003 05:10 PM ET
To judge any aspect of the war on terror from the opening preamble "if 9/11 had never happened" is to utterly miss the point. Simply put, 9/11 woke us up, tragically late, to the fact that the Islamofascist world is looking to eat our young, to destroy us, to remake the world in its foul image. The Islamofascists had been brewing this war (indeed their war, not ours) for years, blowing up embassies in Kenya, attacking US naval posts, relentessly murdering Israelis, setting up hate-cooking Wahabist schools in Europe and America, vomiting the most vitriolic anti-Semitism since the Nazis and yes, working on the development of biolgical, chemical and nuclear weapons. All of this was going on way before 9/11, and indeed it may prove to have been a tactical mistake by the Islamofascists to perpetrate 9/11. After all,they could have let us go on in our ignorant slumber, and hit us with a biological attack which would have killed 30,000, instead of 3,000 or a nuclear attack which would have slain a milion. In their arrogance and hatred-filled eagerness, they may have struck too soon for their own good. 3000 American (and other) lives were sacraficed at the alter of their overwhelming need to bring blood to America sooner rather than later, but in the end that wake-up call may save lives, as we now seek to destroy them before they can hit us with something much worse.
As noted above, the events of 9/11 didn't star the war on terror, that was actually started by the side that engages in and sustains terror. 9/11 simply inspired the long overdue response. Bush made clear in his earliest speechs that the war would operated on a multitude of fronts and that nations which supported terror (whether or not directly linked to 9/11) would be properly placed within the parameters of our defined enemy. Iraq was certainly one of these, long before the "Axis of Evil" speech. One might quibble with the strategic priorties of hitting Iraq now as oppposed to other strategic directions (should we catch Bin Laden first, should we be re-examining our Saudi relations and put a halt on their exportation of anti-American, anti-Semitic hatred, should Iran which is clearly linked to Hezzbollah be first, etc) but conceptually going after Iraq now (and probably Iran next) is consistent with the idea of a war on terror and the particular roadmap of that war as articulated early on by Bush following 9/11.
To say we wouldn't be doing any of this had 9/11 never happened is perhaps correct, in a literal sense--but it is a non-starter--like saying, as did recently the moronic wife of the EU head, that Nazi Germany wasn't so bad, if you take away the Holocaust. 9/11 did happen, and it was a culmination (although I fear not THE culmination) of a horde of terror that has been perpetrated by the Islamofascists. To say that 9/11 shouldn't have changed our world-view, our sense of urgency, and our need to conduct war to prevent the reoccurence of mass terror is silly. Of course 9/11 changed us and legitamized that sense of urgency. Would we really want or expect it to be any different? Would any responsible president, including Al Gore, depart from the general thrust of war? I don't think so and I don't thing a responsible Congress would have stopped him.
Posted by jsstag @ 03/17/2003 05:25 PM ET
I'm in total agreement with you on this one, Peter. How anyone can support this war with Iraq is beyond me. Why the heck aren't we more worried about North Korea and their developing nuclear arsenal that could ACTUALLY REACH the west coast of the U.S.? I remember thinking when "W" was appointed president that at least we weren't at war so how bad could it be?
Posted by Christopher Schmit @ 03/17/2003 05:28 PM ET
My very glib response to PAD's commentary comes from a line on a Star Trek, TNG episode:
"Our motto is: 'Peace through superior firepower!'"
Another, from which I forget the source, "Freedom isn't free!"
Posted by EClark1849 @ 03/17/2003 05:41 PM ET
Sorry Peter, but I really just totally disagree with you on every point you've made. I almost laugh when I hear people go on about how Gore "really" won. Will you get over it! Please, enough is enough. Stop this pathetic parinoia.
To tell you honestly, ever since I've been hearing your comments on everything about politics, well it just seems to put me off of your work.
Not saying you don't have a right to your opinion, but I have my right as well. And to tell the truth you just are becoming nothing but one of those mouthy celebraties, who think they know everything just becuase their a respected public person.
Fine, you have a forum, voice your opinion, but why not try putting a little more understanding to other's opinions, instead of putting republicans off - and in effect just calling us stupid.
Name calling is definately never gonna get your point across. So enough with the Stupid-Bush garbage. Just becuase you disagree with him doesn't mean it's the end of all the world. Liberals say that America is side stepping the UN just becuase we don't agree with him. Yet you do the same thing, side stepping having respect for the Office, becuase you disagree with him, and going head on into speculation, and name calling.
If you don't have respect for Bush - Fine! Just try and have some respect for your readers.
Posted by Surges @ 03/17/2003 05:55 PM ET
Is Iraq a threat? Sure. Is Saddam evil? You bet.
Is there reason to go to war over this? Hell no. And CERTAINLY NOT WITHOUT THE U.N.
There are a whole list of places in the world that are a hell of a lot more dangerous than Iraq:
North Korea. Has a truly insane madman as a leader who is developing nuclear weapons with the intent TO SELL THEM, and is trying very hard to push our buttons. Of course, had Bush not done the stupid "Axis of Evil" speech this would be much less of a problem.
Iran. One of the largest terrorist backing country in the world who many experts says are very near to having nuclear weapons (unlike Iraq) if they don't have them already.
Then's theres all the other places that support terrorist in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, not to mention our so called Allies, like Pakistan and Sadui Arabia...again, one of the largest supporters of terrorist in the world. Of course we can't talk bad about Pakistan and SA, because the former "helped" us with Afghanistan (to save themselves from the same fate) and the later gives us our all-important evil fossil fuels.
Why does Bush and his puppet masters focus on Iraq? Simple. They are boxed in. They have been blocaked, embargoed, and bombed daily since the gulf war ended. They are an easy target and scapegoat for Bin Laden. Not to mention Bush would love to get his hands on the oil (yes, that is a REAL motive not just an excuse... ask Kuwait about who gets most of their oil since we "liberated" it a decade ago. And for all the journalist who say "we had a chance to get Kuwait's oil and we didn't"... shame on you for not doing your homework and for spoonfeeding us White House propaganda.)
And that brings me to another point. What the FUCK is up with the media? American media has become spineless mouthpieces for the White House propaganda, er, press depertment since 9/11. It's bad enough the democrats don't have the balls to stand up to the tyrant running the country, but it's even worse when the press won't even QUESTION WHAT IS GOING ON ANYMORE.
In the last two years, the Bush administration has managed to virtually allianate every ally we have, tear up every treaty that we've signed since WWII, and flush our civil liberties down the drain as they've torn up the constitution and wiped their asses with it.
The stuff going on in this country is down right scary, and people don't seem to notice or care that we're living in more of a police state every day, with our very own dictator and his secret police to spy on and control what people see, hear, and think.
Of course now by typing this I've likely managed to get myself placed on a "radical" "security threat" list by the big brother snoops monitoring my "free speech." But hell, I guess I deserve it for not heading the warning of the white house press secretary to "watch what you say."
No administration has every truly made me ashamed to be an American until today.
Posted by Mke @ 03/17/2003 06:03 PM ET
"To tell you honestly, ever since I've been hearing your comments on everything about politics, well it just seems to put me off of your work.
Not saying you don't have a right to your opinion, but I have my right as well. And to tell the truth you just are becoming nothing but one of those mouthy celebraties, who think they know everything just becuase their a respected public person."
What a rude arrogant bastard!
You acknowledge PADs right to his own opinion, then insult him for it.
If what you say about PAD is true then the follow must be true as well--- You're just a mouthy nobody who wishes he were somebody who thinks he knows everything. In the end, whats the difference?
Posted by Steve @ 03/17/2003 06:08 PM ET
Matt Richards:
troops. There is nothing more terrible than feeling that your own people have abandoned you and are accusing you of intending to slaughter innocents. I realize this is not how the comment was meant, but please have some thought for our service men and women. Whether you agree or not, their job is to take care of this and they are OUR people.
Matt, I agree with you, but in your statement is a fallacy: Just because we are anti-this-action, does not mean we are anti-military. (Actually I had an Auntie Military... tough old bird)
Anyway, my brother is in the Air Force. No way am I anti-military. No way do I not pray (and I don't even practice a religion) that these kids come home safely. I support them because they are doing their job, that we hire them to do.
I think that's why the Dems bowed to bush, giving him unilateral control of what to do... they didn't want to appear like they don't support the boys in blue.
Now, this is America, and we have the right to disagree with the the government. We even have the responsibility to voice our protests, because (most of you will groan)... with great liberty comes great responsibility.
I truly believe that... and I truly believe that we can disagree with a police-action/war without the hatred of the military. If the military does not understand that, that is their problem. They are fight for our rights to voice our opinion.
Surges: Liberals say that America is side stepping the UN just becuase we don't agree with him. Yet you do the same thing, side stepping having respect for the Office, becuase you disagree with him, and going head on into speculation, and name calling.
If you don't have respect for Bush - Fine! Just try and have some respect for your readers.
I do not have respect for the office... I haven't had respect for the man in the office since 1976. He wasn't a GREAT president, but he is a good man. Every one since has done irreprable harm. (actually, the last Great president we had was truman)
PAD has not resorted to name calling. I have read his stuff and followed his career for, well, since the beginning of his Hulk run. What is that? 15 years? 16?
In every bit of his ranting and raving, he has always put out well thought out commentaries.
You may disagree with him, but PAD only responds to readers when they attack (on this board, at least)... and his "name-calling" normally is done in a witty fashion, which I perceive is him grabbing a chance at playing with the language, or mak
how did i post anonymously? by not putting my e-mail address? i have fixed that. i apologize. and since many of the pro-war people seem to be also anti-muslim, when you write stuff like you did, its hard to think of it as humor. if you did mean it in jest then i apologize for my comments. but you may want to think though what you write next time.
<http://www.trianglefreepress.org/national.html - second article), but it's all Clinton's fault that thry have nukes. So much for the administration that believes in 'personal responsibility'.
In fact, Clinton convinced North Korea to not produce nuclear weapons ( http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5483 ). It wasn't until Dubya declared North Korea as part of the 'Axis of Evil' (even though they had done nothing hostile) that they returned to an interest in nukes.
Posted by Michael Brunner >>
I hope you don't mind if I take you to task for this post Michael, but I could let it go by. to quote Peter "...saying "if this, then that" is taking conjecture and presenting a speculation. What you did is take an unsupported opinion and present it as fact....""
I read the articles you posted and neither of them say what you do in your post. Even the Triangle Free Press doesn't say that Rumsfeld KNEW of the sale. It said he was a member of the board of Directors and was present at almost all of the meetings. The paper even says they couldn't find out whether Rumsfeld knew.
As for Clinton, all they received was a promise that DPRK wouldn't produce nuclear weapons.
Finally, I'm getting a little tired of the "Axis of Evil" speech being used as an excuse for North Korea doing what they were doing. That speech was just a little over a year ago, That means North Korea was producing nukes in secret since they first GOT the reactor AND was hiding them from the IAEA, the same UN group that couldn't find nukes in Iraq, and the IAEA was there to MONITOR North Korea from the start.
Evil? Personally, I think it's a moot point.
If that was one of the most stupid things you've ever heard I'd have to say that you don't get out much.
EClark - If Rumsfeld isn't responsible for the North Korean nukes because he didn't know about the sale when he was in charge, Then neither is Clinton, because if they were making the nukes in secret, he didn't know it was happening any more than Rumsfeld did. If we're going to hold the person in charge responsible for what happens under his command, then both should share the blame. If we're going to say 'he didn't know, so he's not responsible', then neither should be blamed. Let's use the same standard for both.
As for being tired of hearing the 'Axis of Evil' speech cited, before the speech North Korea wasn't going after our spy planes or launching missles across the Sea Of Japan. If Korea hadn't been named, they wouldn't be hostile to us today. But they are, because Bush included them for no apparent reason.
As has been said so many times before follow the money.
"The White House estimates the war and first year of reconstruction may cost as much as $139 billion, and the United States may decide which firms are hired to repair a crippled Iraq.
The U.S. Agency for International Development is already inviting American contractors, including Fluor Corp., Halliburton Co.'s Kellog Brown & Root unit and Perini Corp. to tender for a $900 million contract to manage reconstruction work. "
Also PNAC has plenty of reason to takeover Iraq in a step to keeping Pax Americana.
"From an American perspective, the value of such
bases would endure even should Saddam
pass from the scene. Over the long term,
Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S.
interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even
should U.S.-Iranian relations improve,
retaining forward-based forces in the region
would still be an essential element in U.S.
security strategy given the longstanding
American interests in the region."
From Rebuilding Americas Defenses.pdf pg. 17
http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm
From the minds of Paul Wolfowitz,William Kristol, Robert Martinage, David Epstein and others involved in PNAC such as :Elliott Abrams,Gary Bauer,William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush,
Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, and Donald Rumsfeld among others clear back in 1997.
Find out who gets the military contracts, the oil contracts, the fire fighting contracts (Haliburton will put out oil refinary fires), etc. The connections will more than likely go back to PNAC and the Bush adminstration.
RAR! WE DER AMERICANS WILL BOMB THE CHILDREN! IT's AmeriKaz Goooal to kill the kiddies!
Have you noticed in all his speeches, Bush has made sure to list the reasons over and over, still trying to sway the many detractors of war. If this was so simple and reasonable a decision, why is he still trying to sell it?
wow, who's the smartass that copied/pasted the entire thread?
I must say I find this discussions fascinating.
For instance could somebody explain me the concept of "killing people to liberate them"?
Is it like, liberating them from life or their homes or something? :P
PAD wrote:
>>Let's say Gore was elected
>>(which, in fairness, he was)
Um, what alternate reality are you living in? Is Hypertime somehow involved? :)
I haven`t read everything because lack of time, but nevertheless maybe I can add some food for thought I haven`t seen so far.
Also because PAD knows Star Trek I want to mention this: This whole debate about attacking or not attacking Iraq reminded me of the TNG episode "The Wounded". I am certainly not agreeing to everything Picard did here but concerning the Cardassians there was never a doubt in my mind and I also never heard from other fellow fans that they disageed: Of course the Cardassians had weapons of mass destruction. But instead of renewing the war Picard gave them a warning from the Federation: They will be vigilant and leave it at that in the interest of peace. It was a powerful message then, it is most definitely now. I only wish more people would listen to it.
Something else: History has shown that no dictatorship lasts forever. Sooner or later, they fall. First of all, it is up to the citizen themselves to achieve change and others by helping in non-violent ways. We saw the fall of Apartheit, the collapse of the Soviet super power, the German reunification. Of course not everything is ideal there either, a lot leaves a lot to be desired. But there is no war and people are free to develop their country for the better in peace.
The USA has no right to go around playing world police, to be judge, jury and executioner. With great power comes great responsibility. Only because the USA is the only super power left, it doesn`t give it that right. And because the UN has no teeth doesn`t change that either.
This new war against Iraq has nothing to do with defending a country that had been invaded by them. Also Iraq`s neighbours haven`t asked the USA for help and I also don`t see a direct threat by Saddam against the USA either. I most definitely agree with what PAD said.
It also makes me sick to hear these speaches by US politicians about human rights and how bad Saddam is but on the other hand never a word (of course) about the abuses of human rights which are going on in the name of the war against terror: People being imprisoned in camps for months and longer with no trials, no legal aid, no contact to relatives. People being under suspicion just because of what they are, where they come from. A lot of what I hear very much smells like an ugly witch hunt. If you preach about human rights, you should lead by example. If Saddam would put US citizens in such camps, I am sure there would be quite an outcry.
What also makes me sick are the attacks against countries who oppose this war. Here in Britain Germany was labelled in some papers as being a traitor, something that annoyed me immensely. They can`t win: If they would have been for war, they would have written what do you expect from a country that started two world wars. Now that Germany is for peace, it is not right either. Well, I am neither ashamed nor a traitor for being a German who prefers peace!
The war will go ahead, no doubt about it. All I can is hope that it will be over quickly with a minimum of casualties on all sides.
I'll freely admit: I'm torn on the issue.
I don't think Bush has made his case. I'll be even more honest--I don't like Bush, I don't trust his administration, and I firmly believe that many of the ulterior motives put on him concerning this war are valid.
However... I think it is equally wrong, as some have stated here, that just because Saddam bullies the middle east and kills the people he rules that it's their problem. The United States has the power and ability to moderate world conflicts. Yes, that means I believe we can act as the world's policeman--if we can act in an impartial manner. It's the mature thing to do when you have this much power. We can't sit by and be isolationists...but we can't be imperial either.
My greatest fear is that this has not been thought through. The aftermath of this could be more damaging than the war itself. How deeply will we get mired in trying to set up a new government? How will the rest of the Arab world view us now? Just how will this solve the terrorism problem by giving them new martyrs?
I'm not offering solutions. Like I said...I'm torn on this.
D. Eric Carpenter
This is a statement made in parody, right?
Post traumatic...this is just stupid. Not only is it stupid, its sanctimonious. And shows a profound lack of respect and understanding for what this administration is having to deal with. I thank God that we have these people leading our country right now.
I want to go on some sort of rant here, but Mr. David your entry is so inane that I can't decide what to say in response. Congratulations, I guess.
"You've "noticed" this? How? Done polls?"
That's right, Peter, I conducted polls. It was probably while you were at the military meetings where you learned what our war strategy was going to be.
Like Bill Mulligan pointed out, the signs equating Bush with Hitler (and other such nonsense) were a pretty good indication that they were anti-Bush. Also, listening to interviews with some of the radical left participating in the marches and incidents like the one in California where the protestors burned a 9-11 memorial display made it clear what they think.
I live in Scotland, and I can safely say that 90%of our country does not want war. WE are more afraid of Bush's triggor happy finger than anything else, because after Saddam, who else is on Bushs list
I have to admit I always skip the Buffy/Angel blogs and sometimes the political ones.
I agree with PAD in relation to the Israel/Pal situtation, but the point was made over and over. Same thing when it comes to Bush and war. For a writer who pimps his material maybe now it'd be better for PAD to support the troops and accept the war is happening and pray for USA soldiers instead of complaining about cancelations of titles, which, my point is PAD should take some blame for losing readers (not the cancelled books) since he makes it known his stance on politics. There's 3 sensitive subjects: racism, religion, and politics and he should know better...
Well, the Dixie Chicks certainly have learned a lesson about what they ought to say in public. Now they have a bad rap and I imagine quite a drop in fans.
I'm not denying the right to anyone to say what's on their mind, but when you're a public figure and you make a living selling goods like that then you're taking a risk that can be easily avoided.
If anyone follows what Bill O'Reilly says...I totally agree with what he's been saying all along.
Based on Talk backs I've skimmed here now comes the part where I'm name called and labeled a Bush/Republican supporting jerk. Actually I've seen it both ways at this site.
The idea that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are going to die is what Fred Kaplan of Slate calls GIGO: http://slate.msn.com/id/2079264
"Well, the Dixie Chicks certainly have learned a lesson about what they ought to say in public. Now they have a bad rap and I imagine quite a drop in fans."
Ah. So expressing an opinion in public is something that people should have to "learn a lesson" about. Does that apply to all opinions, or just the ones you disagree with?
Just askin'.
TWL
Am I the only one, or does everyone see this section [BRINK OF WAR] with the lines flowing off the side without the usual text wrapping to the next line? Both Netscrape (6.2.2) and Exploder (6.0.28) set at 800x600 are failing to see it 'correctly'. All the other areas of the Web Log are fine, however.
Here's Christopher Hitchen's take on the war. Keep in mind this is a Trotskyite who wants Kissinger tried for war crimes.
Here's an article by an Iraqi exile with an extended family in Baghdad. He certainly thinks they'll be in more danger from leaving Hussein in power:http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p11s02-coop.html
Here's a British dove who was turned into a hawk after visiting the Kurdish enclave in Iraq. Money quote: 'Assos Hardi, the editor of the liberal newspaper Hawalati in Sulaimania, was more mathematical in his appraisal. He said: "How many people do you think will die if America attacks Saddam? It will probably be less than the number of people he kills in a single month."'
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/17/1042520777122.html
In the same line, another leftist supporting the war:
And another, writing in the left wing Guardian about how the left is ignoring the democratic movement in Iraq: http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,12809,896660,00.html
An article from the NYT, which is against the war:http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/weekinreview/16BURN.html
Another Iraqi, writing about the uprising in 1991 and whether Iraqis Hussein gone:http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030210&s=alsuwaij021003
Michael Totten has an article on why liberals should support liberating Iraq.
Salon, a liberal e-zine, debunks the idea that this war is about oil. Big oil is opposed to war. They wanted the sanctions lifted, which is what the Bush administration was moving towards before 9/11. It also says who gets Kuwait's oil: the Kuwaiti government, who used US companies to rebuild and then told them to leave. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/25/oil/index_np.html
If you want links between Iraq and al-Qaida, here they are, by Jeffrey Goldberg in the New Yorker:http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1a and
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030210fa_fact
We're not the ones isolated, it's France and Germany: here.
Why are we going after a country that might get nuclear weapons as opposed to one that might have one? Doesn't that question answer itself? (Quoting Orsen Scott Card.) Not to mention that North Korea has 10,000 artillery pieces Fred Kaplan also weighs in:http://slate.msn.com/id/2076468/
Here's an interview with Ken Pollack about Iraq's nuclear program. This guy was in the Clinton White House:
But in 1994 we really thought the IAEA had eradicated their nuclear program. And the IAEA really thought that they'd eradicated their nuclear program. And they were telling us they'd eradicated their nuclear program. And Khidhir Hamza comes out and says 'No, the nuclear program in 1994 was bigger than it had ever been before.' In point of fact the Iraqis had found all kinds of ways to hide what they were doing. It introduced inefficiencies in what they were doing. For example, they talk about these short track cascades. Normally the cascade is enormous. The way we do it it's three football fields long. That's the most efficient way to do it. The Iraqis figured out ways to do short cascades, which didn't require as much energy, which weren't as big and therefore were much more easily concealed. They were more inefficient. They didn't produce the enriched uranium nearly as well. But nevertheless they were able to do it.
The interview is at http://talkingpointsmemo.com/jan0304.html#0129031156pm
This will discombobulate some people here. Clinton's view on the war: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html
Here's the links that didn't go through:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p11s02-coop.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,12809,896660,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/weekinreview/16BURN.html
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030210&s=alsuwaij021003
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1a
http://slate.msn.com/id/2076468
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html
Finally, here's an article in the New Republic about why democracy in Iraq won't be as hard as peopl say:
I want to see him impeached, now. This is an absurd little smoke screen Bush threw up after we could not find Bid Laden. Notice that name doesn't show up in the news anymore...
Have you been watching the news lately? The new leads provided of bin Laden's whereabouts have been all over.
Well, the Dixie Chicks certainly have learned a lesson about what they ought to say in public. Now they have a bad rap and I imagine quite a drop in fans."
Ah. So expressing an opinion in public is something that people should have to "learn a lesson" about. Does that apply to all opinions, or just the ones you disagree with?
Just askin'.
TWL
The question is so seemingly sarcastic and/or cofrontational that it really doesn't warrant an answer.
Where did I say I disagreed to an opinion? Oh, but like you we don't have to be responsible for our words...I guess you missed my point all together.
\\Just for giggles: Let's go with your earlier comment about Clinton pushing regime change. Let's say Gore was elected (which, in fairness, he was) and 9/11 hadn't happened.
How much support do you think Gore would have from congress and this country if, under those exact circumstances, he was pursing the same course of action Bush is now?
Because if you think the answer is anything other than "None," then I think you're kidding yourself.\\
He'd get at least as much as Clinton got for removing Milosevic.
Iraq has never attacked the US.
He tried to kill a President of the United States, and he constantly tries to shoot our planes down.
As his invasion of Kuwait proved, he attacks his neighbors--Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel-- thus being their problem, not America's.
Cedras in Haiti and Milocevic were only threats to their neighbors. Hussein regularly makes speeches where he says he wants to be remembered as the man who brought down America. And if he nukes Israel (as he's threatened to do) don't you think we'd respond (this course would actually kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.)
Lots of countries are ruled by nutballs with scary weaponry. North Korea has an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the western United States AND the nuke to put inside it. Iraq doesn't.
Pakistan, another nuclear power run by a dangerous anti-American dictator, just unveiled its new HATF-4 ballistic missile.
Mussaref isn't anti-American. Just ask Khalid Mohammed.
If Bush's goal were disarmament, shouldn't THOSE countries--both of which have threatened to use nukes--be higher-priority targets Iraq?
But what are you saying? That you want to invade a nuclear armed country, causing millions of deaths? The whole reason for stopping Iraq now is to prevent it from becoming as great a threat. Actually, it would be bigger, since Hussein told one of his scientists (interviewed on "60 Minutes") that he wants to use the bomb to rewrite the Middle East.
Iraq isn't part of the war on terrorism. The only link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is the fact that they hate each other. No matter how often Bush says "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same breath, Saddam had nothing to do with the terror attacks.
Iraq and al-Qaida are cooperating in Northern Iraq. They were having meetings in 1998. Anyone who repeats the canard that Hussein is a secularist should just look at the "Allah Akbar" he added to Iraq's flag a few years ago.
Is Bush's sole reason for war now is so he can "free" the Iraqis from Saddam's rule? Is the U.S. in the liberation business? Will Bush spread democracy to Myamnar, Congo, Turkmenistan, Cambodia, Nigeria, Cuba, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan or Laos, just to name a few places where people can't vote, speak freely or eat much?
You're just parroting Ted Rall (without attribution). Here's Bill Herbert's response:
http://cointelprotool.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_cointelprotool_archive.html#90763615
Right now America is being a bully. And nobody likes bullies.
We should be like Chirac and threaten European countries that don't toe the line?
Throwing this article, which I think is on the mark, into this debate:
Just curious what other people have to say about it.
Read the following paragraph of UN Resolution 687 (Which Bush & Blair are trying to draw on as justification for war... sorry "military conflict") very carefully:
5. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with Iraq and Kuwait, to submit within three days to the Security Council for its approval a plan for the immediate deployment of a United Nations observer unit to monitor the Khor Abdullah and a demilitarized zone, which is hereby established, extending ten kilometres into Iraq and five kilometres into Kuwait from the boundary referred to in the "Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters" of 4 October 1963; to deter violations of the boundary through its presence in and surveillance of the demilitarized zone; to observe any hostile or potentially hostile action mounted from the territory of one State to the other; and for the Secretary-General to report regularly to the Security Council on the operations of the unit, and immediately if there are serious violations of the zone or potential threats to peace;
As such, the UN Security Council should take action under chapter VII of the UN Charter against the US, Britain and any other countries which breach the demilitarised zone.
> In regards to the "shock and awe" bombing campaign, the U.S. military will be bending over backwards to minimize civilian casualties...
No they won't. You forget the first rule of modern politics: "It doesn't matter what you've done wrong, so long as you have not been seen to have done wrong"
All the journalists in place are under military control, the US has bought up all the commercial satellite time of any satellites which overfly Iraq with pictures.
We'll only be told of the "successful" operations if they can help it, with maybe one or two "errors" for plausibility.
There was irreprable damage to the office of the president done before Carter. From several presidents. Carter is just the one bright spots in the last thirty years.
You've got to be kidding. from Hitchens:
Carter announced himself as "a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises." More accurate would have been "who provoked several severe international crises." It was the Carter administration that green-lighted, and later armed and aided, Saddam Hussein's distinctly unilateral invasion of Iran in 1979, an invasion that cost about a million and a half casualties, many of them civilian. I don't recall Carter being "provoked" by that at all. Incidentally, he describes the present American posture as "substantially unilateral," a piece of casuistry that wouldn't disgrace Cardinal Etchegaray himself.
> If there's any justice in the world, Halabja will one day be as infamous as Guernica. then again, if there were any justice, we would have seen marchers in the streets protesting the removal of Pol Pot, Mobutu Sese Seko, Idi Amin and any of the other mass murdering despots overthrown by outside forces.
But I guess it's only wrong when Americans do it. It's a J. Jonah Jameson world out there.
To pick three:
Venezuela, 2002.
Chile, 1973.
Guatemala, 1954.
Proud moments, huh?
> I must say I find this discussions fascinating.
> For instance could somebody explain me the concept of "killing people to liberate them"?
> Is it like, liberating them from life or their homes or something? :P
http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/images/9morality.ram
(RealPlayer required)
And yes, its a satire.
Tim Lynch wrote:
>Ah. So expressing an opinion in
>public is something that people
>should have to "learn a lesson"
>about. Does that apply to all
>opinions, or just the ones you
>disagree with?
The members of the Dixie Chicks are free to express their opinions, but sometimes there are appropriate places to do so. Personally I don't think a concert it the right one (people pay to hear their music, not their political views). Sure there's people who'll agree with their viewpoint, but what about the ones who don't? Don't they have the right to voice their displeasure? Probably not since it doesn't agree with what you think, huh? There are two sides to every coin you know...
This is ridiculous. Every time i think I'm done, I find something else to reply to, or remember something I reallty should have included in a previous post, but forgot about.
http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/iraq_hard_place.html
Transcript here.
RealPlayer Videos:
And generally, I recommend looking around http://www.channel4.com/bremnerbirdfortune
Also:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4627274,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916235,00.html
And I plan to make that my last post for a while
Well, I think that Gore would not have pushed for this war, and I really wonder how much of Dubya's actions are informed by having a father who left things unfinished in Iraq and who was then a target of Iraqi malfesance.
The important thing isn't that it was Bush's father, it was that it was a President of the United States. Like the captain in 48 Hours said, "The official line is that we go after copkillers harder than anyone because they'll kill anyone. We both know it's more than that." Works for me.
There are legitimate reasons to consider bringing down Saddam, but I think there are greatly outweighed by how the US has approached this. With unending arrogance, we have alienated allies, bullied smaller nations, and acted like we know with perfect certainty what to do.
What should we have done to avoid this alienation? Have the UN pass a unamimous resolution? Done. Have Colin Powell lay out evidence that Timothy Noah of Slate (who was against the war) call "indisputable"? Done. It was France who stabbed Powell in the back, not the other way around. No matter what, it wouldn't like much different that what it is now.
We have ignored the new waves of hatred in the world this attitude has generated, drawn up war plans that don't seem to take the worst-case scenarios into account, and made it seem like this will be easy.
You're privy to the Pentagon's war plans? They are preparing for prolonged urban combat. They just don't give credence to ludicrous doomsday scenarios.
All the while, Al Qaeda salivates at how good they look to disgruntled Arab youth and how much accalim they will get for "retaliatory" strikes at the US. (Yes, the war is just an excuse for Al Qaeda to act, and they would act eventually anyway if not caught, but why are we giving our true mortal enemy an excuse?)
Is that the same disgruntled youth who were going to flock the al-Qaida when we invaded Afghanistan? What will they do if Americans are greeted with cheering crowds, as before? Saddam Hussein has been written off by the Arab world. Al-Qaida is pretty much finished anyway. If they had the ability to launch a strike, they'd have done so already. Al-Qaida thrives on American weakness. Bailing in Somalia is what gave them the idea to go after us.
So what do I see? A war that will possibly make things worse in the vacuum left in Iraq.
The Iraqis don't agree.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/03/15/MN262934.DTL
Again, that was what people said about Afghanistan.
The increased likelihood of terrorist attacks in NY and Washington (and maybe in the rest of the US).
See above. If they do something that exposes them, as opposed to a well planed operation, that's all the better.
A greater chance that Saddam will give anthrax or VX to terrorists before fleeing into the night. Missiles raining down on Tel Aviv.
But he's not supposed to have that stuff. If you're hoping that he'll be happy just having them, that's called appeasement. Clinton didn't think much of it.
http://andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030310
A bad economy getting worse. North Korea and Iran continuing their weapons programs unchecked while we bomb Iraq.
I get the impression that people who say this don't want to do anything about North Korea (and would protest if we did), they just want to ignore Iraq until it gets nuclear weapons and probably beyond.
More efforts to remove civil liberties in the guise of "homeland security."
Can you name any civil liberties that have been removed?
I am afraid. This war could unleash some very bad consequences, the likes of which Europe knows too well but that the US doesn't.
Russia is mercilessly crushing the Chechens. France foments a war in Algeria that has killed 100,000 so far. Who wants advice from them?
Yes, it's likely that the war itself will be done in a short time, but what could be left in its wake scares me greatly. But I cannot shake the sense that Dubya and his people cannot see those consequences. They only see American might unleashed once again.
You were wrong about the first Gulf War, when Hussein was a lot more popular. You were wrong about Afghanistan. These guys were right.
2) The U.S. military doesn't have to worry about bad press, as all authorized media will be in press pools where they will only be given as much information as the pentagon wants them to have.
That's not true, they're going to be imbedded with actual units.
Independant journalists who go out on their own risk being killed by the U.S. military.
http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/031003_pentagaon_threatens_to_kill_inde.htm
Also false. That's a warning against using satelite uplinks in a war zone where radar is being targetted. it's not a threat.
2) The U.S. military doesn't have to worry about bad press, as all authorized media will be in press pools where they will only be given as much information as the pentagon wants them to have.
That's not true, they're going to be imbedded with actual units.
(Love people that can't spell - eedded)
<sarcasm>Yes, and that is SO different. Obviously they will be fully independent, none of their material will be censored, and they will be taken to every single incident</sarcasm>
> Independant journalists who go out on their own risk being killed by the U.S. military.
http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/031003_pentagaon_threatens_to_kill_inde.htm
> Also false. That's a warning against using satelite uplinks in a war zone where radar is being targetted. it's not a threat.
<sarcasm>And of course, if an independent journalist needs to upload their report, they won't get fired upon</sarcasm>
\\I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-stupidity.
Blair, I just feel sorry for. You know what the Brits call him? "Bush's Bitch."
PAD\\
Could have fooled me. As for Blair, even the anti-war Guardian says he should get credit for honesty. And so do a lot of people:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,916466,00.html
The UN is far from unanimous in its support for the war, especially in the security council. In the early days, even had France and Russia abstained rather than threatened veto (or had they not had veto power), the US would still not have gained the 9 votes needed to pass the initiative. Blaming France is an exercise in futility.
Clinton doesn't have any problems with it. France was also lobbying those countries, even threatening their EU membership. They cited France's veto as reason for not sticking their necks out.
Perhaps the US needs a complete restructuring if it can set foreign policy for the world. The thing is, perhaps once upon a time, a diplomatic solution was possible. That is, a solution that was internal to the middle east. Most governments over there dislike Saddam as much as we do. However, once you start having a foreign power (who isn't liked much to begin with) come in and start killing civilians (whether that was the purpose or not is irrelevant - the bodies are there), such diplomatic solutions become far more difficult. I fear that the very threat of war has made war inevitable.
Security Council permission has been given only three times for a war. France didn't ned it when it invaded the Ivory Coast and imposed a new government. The only reason inspectors were there in the first place was the use of force. Before that, diplomacy was moving towrds letting Hussein off the hook.
2) The U.S. military doesn't have to worry about bad press, as all authorized media will be in press pools where they will only be given as much information as the pentagon wants them to have.
That's not true, they're going to be imbedded with actual units.
(Love people that can't spell - eedded)
Look who's talking.
Yes, and that is SO different. Obviously they will be fully independent, none of their material will be censored, and they will be taken to every single incident
They aren't being taken to every incident because someone will be with a unit already there. As for censorship, none's being talked about. Are their memories going to be erased by mind-control lasers?
> Independant journalists who go out on their own risk being killed by the U.S. military.
http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/031003_pentagaon_threatens_to_kill_inde.htm
> Also false. That's a warning against using satelite uplinks in a war zone where radar is being targetted. it's not a threat.
And of course, if an independent journalist needs to upload their report, they won't get fired upon
The missiles can't tell the difference. It's like going out in a lightning storm. No one accuses God of threatening journalists.
\\And I think you are right. Ithink that some countries will be very embarassed when some of their dealings with Iraq come out.
Yes. Including the United States.
"when Iraq released its weapons program dossier on 7 December 2002, it was purloined by the US Administration, edited of 8,000 pages, and it was this edited copy that was finally given to the UN for examination." Before the UN could read the report, the US edited out "the names of various Western companies and government agencies who have supplied Iraq with assistance with their weapons program."
A German newspaper which investigated these cuts found "US corporations listed in the missing pages of the report include Hewlett Packard, DuPont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Tectronics, Bechtel, International Computer Systems, Unisys, Sperry and TI Coating. Further, the missing information shows that US governmental agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as the U.S. government nuclear weapons laboratories Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia, all illegally helped Iraq to build its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs by providing supplies and/or training."\\
More nonsense. The Security Council got an unedited copy. Editing sensitive information is routinely done for the non-permanent members. We provided some material, but France and Russia provided a lot more.
If you're going to quote German newspapers, how about the way Schroeders government covered up evidence that Iraq had small pox right before the election.
1)Also false. That's a warning against using satelite uplinks in a war zone where radar is being targetted. it's not a threat. Since we keep hearing how exact & precise (the term 'pinpoint accuracy' gets used quite often)the targeting weaponry is, The military should be able to tell the difference between military & civilian positions.
2) Can you name any civil liberties that have been removed? How about:
*Right to an attorney
*Right to a trial
*Right to know the charges against you
*Right to dispute evidence - which you cannot do when it is presented to the judges as "secret evidence"
*Right to be presented with a warrant when the government wants to search your home, car, computer, etc.
These are just some of the abuses of power given to the government under The Patriot Act. The Patriot Act II (as it has been nicknamed) goes even further, including things such as stripping people of their U.S. citizenship & deporting them, again without a fair trial, but merely on the say-so of the government. After all, a terrorist is "whoever the executive branch says". For more details about the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 see http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206&Type=s
5)Our troops will be the target of deadly guerilla warfare long after the conventional war is over
Like in Afghanistan? Never happened.
6)Islamic radicals will use our occupation as a recruiting campaign for terrorist groups
People aren't going to die for Hussein. He's seen as a loser, not the popular hero like during the first Gulf War. Even fellow arab states are calling for him to go into exile.
7)The Middle Eastern public is likely to be enraged at the sight of Westerners governing a Muslim country like in colonial days
Everyone kkeps saying the Arab street will rise up (after the firsr Gulf War, Afghanistan, etc.) and it never does.
8)This will increase anti-American sentiment around the world
No one's going to mourn Hussein.
9)It is likely to lead to a civil war and massive bloodshed between the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds, who hate each other
That's a lie. They've been living in peace for thousands of years. What they hate is Hussein and his thugs.
10)Iran's intelligence agency is already operating within Iraq, and is trying to get the Shi'ites to form a satellite state aligned with Iran
The Shi'ites are still Arabs and don't want to join Iran. They were even willing to fight "Persian invaders" during the Iran-Iraq war.
11)The Kurds will try to form an independent state, and that will incite a military response by neighboring Turkey
No they won't. They want to be federalism. They aren't stupid.
12) When all this happens, we will not be able to get out without appearing to have been driven off, costing us credibility among our friends and enemies alike, thus making us a more likely target and giving us less leverage in achieving our national security objectives.
Again, like in Afghanistan? They've got a good start at democracy in the north.
> Again, like in Afghanistan? They've got a good start at democracy in the north.
Yes, which is why their goverment is near-bankrupt, and the last time they were forced to go cap in hand, bush gave them $50 million -- on condition $35m was used to build a 5-star hotel.
And the "m" key on the computer I was using at the time worked only intermittently.
1)Also false. That's a warning against using satelite uplinks in a war zone where radar is being targetted. it's not a threat. Since we keep hearing how exact & precise (the term 'pinpoint accuracy' gets used quite often)the targeting weaponry is, The military should be able to tell the difference between military & civilian positions.
It's tracking radio waves. Those are the same coming from an uplink or radar.
2) Can you name any civil liberties that have been removed? How about:
*Right to an attorney
*Right to a trial
*Right to know the charges against you
*Right to dispute evidence - which you cannot do when it is presented to the judges as "secret evidence"
That's immigration law. There's no right for non-citizens to come to this country. This has been decided by the Supreme Court long before the Bush administration.
*Right to be presented with a warrant when the government wants to search your home, car, computer, etc.
There's no such right. Read the Constitution. Or just watch the episode of the Sopranos where the FBI plants secret wiretaps.
These are just some of the abuses of power given to the government under The Patriot Act. The Patriot Act II (as it has been nicknamed) goes even further, including things such as stripping people of their U.S. citizenship & deporting them, again without a fair trial, but merely on the say-so of the government. After all, a terrorist is "whoever the executive branch says". For more details about the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 see http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206&Type=s
That hasn't even been passed into law, and the ACLU is going into hyperbole over a leaked draft. mens rea and a trial is required to lose citizenship, and it can already be lost for acts like enlisting in the army of a foreign power.
As for being tired of hearing the 'Axis of Evil' speech cited, before the speech North Korea wasn't going after our spy planes or launching missles across the Sea Of Japan. If Korea hadn't been named, they wouldn't be hostile to us today. But they are, because Bush included them for no apparent reason.
They were indeed launching miisiles across the Sea of Japan. They've been hostile to us all along. Just look at their rhetoric. Even during Clinton, they were saying things a lot worse than "Axis of Evil". They're going after our surveillance (not spy) planes because we called them on their violation of the Agreed Framework.
\\Again, like in Afghanistan? They've got a good start at democracy in the north.
Yes, which is why their goverment is near-bankrupt, and the last time they were forced to go cap in hand, bush gave them $50 million -- on condition $35m was used to build a 5-star hotel.\\
I was talking about Northern Iraq, in the Kurdish enclave. As for Afghanistan, surprise! It's not utopia after 25 years of war. The hotel was $40 million, and it came from investors.
Here's another article on the subject from that right-wing rag, the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,838892,00.html?=rss
And this:
http://www.hoosierreview.com/2003_02_09_archive.html#89109222
And the "m" key on the computer I was using at the time worked only intermittently.
Well, the Dixie Chicks certainly have learned a lesson about what they ought to say in public. Now they have a bad rap and I imagine quite a drop in fans."
Ah. So expressing an opinion in public is something that people should have to "learn a lesson" about. Does that apply to all opinions, or just the ones you disagree with?
Just askin'.
TWL
Free speech doesn't mean without consequenses. Just ask Trent Lott.
Just some more food for thought.
Very interesting.
Hello all,
I actually came to this site to check out rumors about a new ninja turtle comic, and lo and behold the war has affected even this arena. Which is as it should be.
Peter, I am so glad you started this debate, and I am glad you are not only a talented and respected artist but a thoughtful one as well.
For my comments, this is beyond what happened 9-11, and its beyond Bush because if Gore was in office he would be doing the same thing. 9-11 was used as excuse to unleash this unending war, for the US to be able to have the right to control whatever it wants. Its not even about oil, because it also will affect the entire region, such as Isreal/Palesestine, which the US would like to be resolved soon.
I could type for days and not fully cover the horror this war will bring to people of the world. Including Americans, US REP COBALT and other US officials have hinted that concentration camps for Iraqies in this country might be a reality when the war starts. That's beside the whole patroit act II situation.
Let me conclude by inviting you to check out some of my stories at fanfiction.net, particularly This is Not a 9-11 Story, and also www.notinourname.net, a profound antiwar website. In fact they have published an add in the New York Times which inlcuded hundreds of signatories from prominent poets, artists, actors, singers, ect. I would love to see Peter David on there.
Red Turtle
PS: Oh,I might as well say here that I look forward to your doing a new ninja turtle comic, I'm actually not enjoying the current Peter Laird one. I'm glad you listen to your children.
I haven`t read everything because lack of time, but nevertheless maybe I can add some food for thought I haven`t seen so far.
Also because PAD knows Star Trek I want to mention this: This whole debate about attacking or not attacking Iraq reminded me of the TNG episode "The Wounded". I am certainly not agreeing to everything Picard did here but concerning the Cardassians there was never a doubt in my mind and I also never heard from other fellow fans that they disageed: Of course the Cardassians had weapons of mass destruction. But instead of renewing the war Picard gave them a warning from the Federation: They will be vigilant and leave it at that in the interest of peace. It was a powerful message then, it is most definitely now. I only wish more people would listen to it.
You do know that in DS9, the Cardassians joined the Dominion and nearly helped destroy the Federation?
Let me conclude by inviting you to check out some of my stories at fanfiction.net, particularly This is Not a 9-11 Story, and also www.notinourname.net, a profound antiwar website. In fact they have published an add in the New York Times which inlcuded hundreds of signatories from prominent poets, artists, actors, singers, ect. I would love to see Peter David on there.
Since Not in Our Name gets its funding from radical Islamic groups that want to destroy Israel, I don't think he would.
This morning, Jacob wrote:
Well, the Dixie Chicks certainly have learned a lesson about what they ought to say in public. Now they have a bad rap and I imagine quite a drop in fans.
I responded:
Ah. So expressing an opinion in public is something that people should have to "learn a lesson" about. Does that apply to all opinions, or just the ones you disagree with?
Just askin'.
Jacob's response:
The question is so seemingly sarcastic and/or cofrontational that it really doesn't warrant an answer.
Where did I say I disagreed to an opinion?
Actually, looking back ... you didn't. My apologies. I didn't sleep especially well last night, and as a result when I saw something that reminded me way too much of Ari Fleischer's "watch what you say" to Bill Maher (which is very much a governmental response to an opinion rather than a "let the public judge" note), I reacted badly to it.
Again, my apologies for misreading the situation.
Oh, but like you we don't have to be responsible for our words...
Now this I'll disagree with. I've enough words out there in the public eye (albeit not usually on topics this heated) that I'm very used to being held responsible for them. If I feel one of my statements was out of line or inappropriate, I apologize (as I just did above). If not, I stand by them. I try not to put words in others' mouths (though I don't always succeed, clearly), and would appreciate the same courtesy.
TWL
Can you name any civil liberties that have been removed?
Well, beyond the ones previously mentioned, how about the fact that you can no longer go to a library and trust that your choice of reading is private?
Granted, that was never a liberty codified into law (which appears to be the criterion used by some here), but having Ashcroft look at what I'm checking out sure as hell doesn't fit MY definition of a free society.
You do know that in DS9, the Cardassians joined the Dominion and nearly helped destroy the Federation?
1) Okay then, I'll be sure to be wary when Saddam has a chance to ally himself with some newly undiscovered superpower that has a major technological edge over us. :-)
2) More seriously ... yep, they did. After the Klingons attacked them without cause and the Fed stood by and did nothing.
Besides, the Klingons had no shortage of attacks on the Fed in its day. They're allies now. I kinda thought that was a fairly significant point at the time, too.
Quoting Trek precedents is going to be about as decisive here as quoting Scripture. Potentially more interesting, though. ;-)
TWL
I'm becoming more and more anti-war as the likelihood of "Angel" being pre-empted tomorrow grows.
Can someone fix the formatting on this page? These comments are really hard to read.
Yolande
As a huge Trek fan, I think pointing to Trek to make arguments about this war is just plain silly.
The point of Picard's actions with regard to Captain Maxwell in The Wounded(TNG) were not whether the Cardassians had illegal weapons or whether the Federation should engage in a pre-emptive strike.
The point was that it wasn't up to one starship captain to make that decision himself, which only an idiot would disagree with. To my knowledge, no one has seriously argued that General Tommy Franks should make the decision himself without strict orders from Bush or Rumsfeld.
Also because PAD knows Star Trek I want to mention this: This whole debate about attacking or not attacking Iraq reminded me of the TNG episode "The Wounded". I am certainly not agreeing to everything Picard did here but concerning the Cardassians there was never a doubt in my mind and I also never heard from other fellow fans that they disageed: Of course the Cardassians had weapons of mass destruction. But instead of renewing the war Picard gave them a warning from the Federation: They will be vigilant and leave it at that in the interest of peace. It was a powerful message then, it is most definitely now. I only wish more people would listen to it.
I'd like to point out that the Federation could've afforded a cold war more than hot one at that point. At that point brinkmanship could have worked. In that sci-fi realm of the 24th Century brinkmanship was as an acceptable and worthwhile tactic against the Cardassian Union as it was against the Soviet Union for the entire Cold War. Also a hot war between the USSR and the United States would have been highly devastating for both sides. A cold war with the threat of mutual annihilation saved lives. Similar threats worked against the Federation's enemies for a time.
On the other hand, the current situation with Iraq does not parallel anything on Star Trek: the Next Generation. In the current situation brinkmanship and threats of annihilation have worked about as well as threats of vigilance. In other words while we declare vigilance and future vigilance and make threats Saddam builds bombs and hides them.
Now if we promised an extension of vigilance and commit to an actual consequence we may get war. However, a hot war against a lesser-armed nation that is hostile towards us may prove more profitable in the long run than an oft-repeated threat of vigilance until the enemy is well-armed and prepared to whomp us in the future.
It also doesn't help the concept of brinkmanship that certain leaders are certainly willing to condemn their people to death in order to hurt their respective enemies.
heh.
Hm, my remark about "The Wounded" started an interesting discussion :-).
Well, of course the real world is not Star Trek and of course even the situation in that episode is not completely the same as the one we face now with Iraq and the coming war. Nevertheless, there are some parallels I found interesting and worth thinking about.
My point was among others, the USA would not have chosen to attack Iraq if they would not have been sure that they could win relatively easily. I think there is no doubt about it that Saddam`s military is no real match in the coming conflict. This is certainly also the main reason why Bush is not intending to attack Korea, not to mention interfere militarily in the unfortunately neverending conflict in the Middle East involving Israel and the Palestines. All of them have weapons of mass destruction or at least the potential to create them. And not following UN resolutions? If that would be a major factor, the USA would have invaded the Middle East long ago!
Which is of course a parallel to the Star Trek situation, that the Federation was shying away from a new conflict with the Cardassians because it would cost too much in material and of course casualties.
But I honestly believe that Picard was really holding back because he believed that peace is more important here than getting rid of these weapons at the cost of war.
It is this two-facedness of the USA that also annoys me so much in the coming conflict in Iraq.
"Blair, I just feel sorry for. You know what the Brits call him? "Bush's Bitch." "
Actually I've never heard him caleld that. Perhaps because Bitch doesn't have the catemite connetations it does in the US.
We do call him "Bush's Poodle".
But Bush and Blair are viewed as war-mongering madman over here in Germany ...
I wonder why so many people bring this probable war and the 09/11 together in one sentence. These are two different topics. This war will be because of politics which have developed long before 09/11. Can no one remember that Bush Sr. has his story with Hussein? And isn't it obvious that Bush Jr. is only in power because he had powerful support during election? (Or should I say his president post was bought for him?)
I am really shocked that Bush and Blair do not seem to be interested what all the other UN-Nations say and what millions of people all over the world think and showed in their demonstrations. It is so sad.
Why couldn't they just have set an assasin at his trail like in the books or films, huh? Maybe it wouldn't have been koscher but it maybe would have solved the actual problem.
Thank you, PAD. As usual, your perspective is on the money. I totally agree.
This sets a dangerous new precedent for international disputes. If Israel was to invade Palestine to implement 'regime change' and oust what it considers a 'dictator', what grounds would the US or Britain have to protest?
By sidestepping the UN it opens the door for others who would like to do the same. If it is good enough for the US then why not everyone else?
And what of UN sanctions and such? Can these be avoided too?
I'm not sure if people realise that this is a lot bigger than Iraq.
Pad, could you do me a favor and post your original message over on the Geoff Johns Message board, you are saying some important things that I think many there should hear. Or if it's okay with you, could I copy it over there...I suppose a link could work, never mind, is it okay with you if I link it?
Grem-
Maja Rosenberg wrote:
>Can no one remember that Bush Sr.
>has his story with Hussein?
Can you remember that it was Saddam who used weapons of mass destruciton on his own people? Can you remember that it was Saddam who invaded Kuwait (and Iran befoe that)? Can you remember it was Saddam who was supposed to dissarm 12 years ago and cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors and hasn't?
>I am really shocked that Bush and
>Blair do not seem to be
>interested what all the other UN-
>Nations say and what millions of
>people all over the world think
>and showed in their >demonstrations. It is so sad.
And I think it's sad you have these delusions that the U.S. (and Britian) is going into this alone. Bush and Blair do care what the other nations think (why else go to the UN in the first place?). If it wasn't for the self-serving French, we'd more than likley have had a UN resolution to go into Iraq. Why should one country like France stand in 'our' way?
Ok war was declaired today and it saddens me to my soul. Two things about today will haunt me firstly the woman I sit next to a twork is from Iraq she grew up most of her life in Australia but she has family in Iraq she was telling me that she spoke with her mother in law yesterday who is currently in Bagdad apparently the people of Bagdad are no longer going to work the children arnt going to school people are sitting in there houses sick with fear waiting to die. This disturbed me on several levels which I cant properly express.
The second thing to trouble me is tonight the Prime Minister of Australia addressed the Nation he sat there with a smug look upon his face and lied through his teeth aparently the reason Australia is throwing herself in the conflict is because of our undying loyalty to America ?????? also we are apparently living in fear of an invasion from North Korea!! Um hello convient nobody has mentioned this burning desire of the North Koreans to rule Australia until today. But we have been assured if we throw ourselves in to Iraq without UN backing but because America would like us to when North Korea invades (Any day now im sure) America will leep to our rescue. Again umm hello!!! No offence to anybody but I dont think we could count on America charging to our rescue because at the end of the day we have nothing you want but what the hay lets bomb a few Iraqis and it might help later.
I hope every death in this stupid war haunts whatever remains of Bush & Blair's consciences to the end of their days and beyond.
Yes, I wish debillitating psychological harm to others.
I want them to feel pain until they die. This is their own conflict and they should feel the consequences....
wait. you know what? This is a rather sick thing to think when you blow out the candles on your birthday cake.
When you wish upon a star you wish harm on your fellow man.
Judgemental somebody. Sick creep.
"This sets a dangerous new precedent for international disputes. If Israel was to invade Palestine to implement 'regime change' and oust what it considers a 'dictator', what grounds would the US or Britain have to protest?"
There ain't no Palestine. There is no such place.
The prescedent is... comforting actually given how unique the circumstances are. This is the anti-Neville Chamberlain situation.
IceSurfer - Say, buddy, before you post again, pull your head out of your ass and learn proper English.
Icesurfer wrote:
>she has family in Iraq she was
>telling me that she spoke with
>her mother in law yesterday who
>is currently in Bagdad apparently
>the people of Bagdad are no
>longer going to work the children
>arnt going to school people are
>sitting in there houses sick with
>fear waiting to die.
Oh, what a drama queen. It's too bad that these people must experience this fear, but why don't you think about "tomorrow" where life will probably be much much better for them when their sadistic regime is toppled? Also, you ever think that some of those Iraqi people may be waiting with hope to be liberated?
>No offence to anybody but I dont
>think we could count on America
>charging to our rescue because at
>the end of the day we have
>nothing you want but what the hay
>lets bomb a few Iraqis and it
>might help later.
You poor misguided fool. If Australia were to be in trouble the United States of America would be the first to their aid. To think otherwise is just ignorant on your part.
IceSurfer - Say, buddy, before you post again, pull your head out of your ass and learn proper English.
Uugghh huhhh 'POP'
"Wow" who would have thought the world would be so much brighter with my head out of my arse?
Now to go find me some proper English I wonder if it will turn out ass is a donkey and not the thing at the top of my legs?
Here is something I found on the webpage of Paul Coelho (writer of other stuff):
Thank you, President Bush
Paulo Coelho
Thank you, great leader George W. Bush.
Thank you for showing everyone what a danger Saddam Hussein represents. Many of us might otherwise have forgotten that he had used chemical weapons against his own people, against the Kurds and against the Iranians. Hussein is a bloodthirsty dictator and one of the clearest expressions of evil in today's world.
But this is not my only reason for thanking you. During the first two months of 2003, you have shown the world a great many other important things and, therefore, deserve my gratitude.
So, remembering a poem I learned as a child, I want to say thank you.
Thank you for showing everyone that the Turkish people and their Parliament are not for sale, not even for 26 billion dollars.
Thank you for revealing to the world the gulf that exists between the decisions made by those in power and the wishes of the people. Thank you for making it clear that neither José María Aznar nor Tony Blair give the slightest weight to or show the slightest respect for the votes they received. Aznar is perfectly capable of ignoring the fact that 90% of Spaniards are against the war, and Blair is unmoved by the largest public demonstration to take place in England in the last thirty years.
Thank you for making it necessary for Tony Blair to go to the British Parliament with a fabricated dossier written by a student ten years ago, and present this as 'damning evidence collected by the British Secret Service'.
Thank you for allowing Colin Powell to make a complete fool of himself by showing the UN Security Council photos which, one week later, were publicly challenged by Hans Blix, the Inspector responsible for disarming Iraq.
Thank you for adopting your current position and thus ensuring that, at the plenary session, the French Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin's anti-war speech was greeted with applause - something, as far as I know, that has only happened once before in the history of the UN, following a speech by Nelson Mandela.
Thank you too, because, after all your efforts to promote war, the normally divided Arab nations, at their meeting in Cairo during the last week in February, were, for the first time, unanimous in their condemnation of any invasion.
Thank you for your rhetoric stating that 'the UN now has a chance to demonstrate its relevance', a statement which made even the most reluctant countries take up a position opposing any attack on Iraq.
Thank you for your foreign policy which provoked the British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, into declaring that in the 21st century, 'a war can have a moral justification', thus causing him to lose all credibility.
Thank you for trying to divide a Europe that is currently struggling for unification; this was a warning that will not go unheeded.
Thank you for having achieved something that very few have so far managed to do in this century: the bringing together of millions of people on all continents to fight for the same idea, even though that idea is opposed to yours.
Thank you for making us feel once more that though our words may not be heard, they are at least spoken - this will make us stronger in the future.
Thank you for ignoring us, for marginalising all those who oppose your decision, because the future of the Earth belongs to the excluded.
Thank you, because, without you, we would not have realised our own ability to mobilise. It may serve no purpose this time, but it will doubtless be useful later on.
Now that there seems no way of silencing the drums of war, I would like to say, as an ancient European king said to an invader: 'May your morning be a beautiful one, may the sun shine on your soldiers' armour, for in the afternoon, I will defeat you.'
Thank you for allowing us - an army of anonymous people filling the streets in an attempt to stop a process that is already underway - to know what it feels like to be powerless and to learn to grapple with that feeling and transform it.
So, enjoy your morning and whatever glory it may yet bring you.
Thank you for not listening to us and not taking us seriously, but know that we are listening to you and that we will not forget your words.
Thank you, great leader George W. Bush.
Thank you very much.
March 8, 2003
To the pacifists:
You're nothing but bottom-feeding cowards, too weak to stand up for anything worthwhile. Instead, you piss and moan, supporting murdering dictators and traitorist nations and individuals.
When this is over, all of you anti-war motherfuckers can feel free to either line up and suck my cock in apology.
If you manage to get me off without annoying me, I might be willing to forgive you.
Thank you to James for his rabid, mindlessly moronic and offensive remarks.
In return, I give him this piece of advice:
Print off this post.
Use glossy A4 or letter paper.
Fold it in half lengthways.
Fold the ends so that it comes to a point at the fold.
Repeat twice.
Bend over and remove your trousers & pants.
Stuff the post page where the sun don't shine.