…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. Hëll, 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
• 
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
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.
Ðámņ. 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.
Closing link tag…
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. Hëll, 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:
http://www.votetoimpeach.org
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. Hëll, 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 dámņ 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.
Thank you, Peter. I agree with you.
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, hëll 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 hëll 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 http://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. Hëll, 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 Bìŧçh.”
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!”