Foolish WAR protests

[stamenflicker]

Oh, come on! Are you that easily swayed by all the madman propaganda?

Ummm, no?

Saddam is very warped, but he's not crazy.

Perhaps you can distinguish between warped and crazy, the line is a bit fuzzy.

To hear foreign affairs experts talk about it, Kim Jong Il is more unstable than Saddam.

He is. And have you noticed that the UN doesn't give a rat's @ss? It's an anti-American institution.

If deterrence won't work, then why has Saddam never attacked the United States? Why didn't he use biological or chemical warheads on the scuds he fired at Israel 12 years ago? (Answer: he was warned in advance that if he did, we'd nuke him.) Ponder that last point a while.

You answered your own question. He knows better. The country would be annihilated.

Saddam is a guy who is obsessed with his survival. As I pointed out to you before, he only invaded Kuwait after the daddy Bush administration bungled its foreign policy so bad that he thought he had tacit approval from the US to do so.

No, he knew Washington would not interfere with an attack on Iran. He was unclear as to what role he would play with the big boys, sure. But he acted on completely on his own-- and he acted with brutal force.

He cared what the US thought. He was one of out clients. Testimony before Congress by the State Department and an undisputed transcript (provided by Iraq) of the meeting between Saddam and the US ambassador bears this out.

Perhaps you could repost your link to such U.S. bashing?

Tell me this: where is the proof that Saddam still has WMD?

WMD is no longer the issue. It's removing Sadaam. Still in order to humor you:

Iraq signed the 1972 international agreement to ban all biological weapons. As part of their surrender in 1991, they agreed to halt all weapons programs. In spite of these concessions, as late as 1995, Iraq was manufacturing, hiding, and failing to disarm. They openly admitted their biological weapons programs in 1995-- a full four years after the 1991 UN resolution, and 23 years after signing a international agreement.

First question Wayne: Do you deny these facts?

Here are some sources-- one of which is even quite liberal:

http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/Iraq
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1995/cbiac_oct95.htm
http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_weapons.php
http://www.britainusa.com/iraq/xq/asp/SarticleType.1/Article_ID.2618/qx/articles_show.htm

Second question, with his people were suffering horribly, how do you excuse this behavior? Enlighten us on how this is ok.

Third question, should murderous dictators be removed from power, or allowed to kill indiscriminately?

Where is the evidence that Iraq poses an immenent threat to the US?

For me this question is mute. Who cares? This man is evil. Is it wrong for us to target Sadaam and ignore other countries? Sure it is.

But last time I check, 99 evil dictators was better than 100 of the bastards.

It's time to put his head on a stick and go "Lord of the Flies" on his @ss. His brutality cannot go unanswered.

Where is the credible evidence that Saddam is linked to al Qaida? Don't tell me you believe that ridiculous argument made by Powell over the bin Laden audiotape. I've read a translation of the full transcript of the tape in question. Usama calls Saddam a socialist and an infidel. He says the Iraqis should not fight to protect Saddam's regime, but to defend Islam against the "crusaders."

Again Wayne, I don't care. Do I think there is a link? It's probably 50/50. Do I think having tons of biological and chemical weapons floating around in the hands of murderous dictators is a problem? Yeah. So let's err on the side of caution.

So what are we going to war over? Supposed, hypothetical scenarios that Iraq might at some future time pose a threat to the US, despite its inability to come anywhere close to the US with any of its missles.

Yes.

That's something North Korea has been doing for the last several years.

It will be curious to see how smart they really are. I look forward to a "test" launch.

So we are going to undertake a dangerous, radical new approach to "self-defense" over a non-threat and against a nation that has never made aggression against us.

That's entirely conjecture. Iraq shoots at our planes in the no-fly zone daily. Some areas of Iraq erupted in pleasure (had parties in the streets) at the collapse of the twin towers.

Furthermore, who cares if he threatens us at all? If he drops children in acid and beheads them in front of their own parents, then that's enough to take him out.

Just look at the difference between the way it is handling Iraq and North Korea. The message is clear. The US is no longer a proponent of international law and peace. It is an aggressor. If you want a chance to avert attack over some phony pretext, get a nuke!

Too funny Wayne. The second we start bombing N.Korea I'm sure you'll dog Bush for that too. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Fact is N.Korea is going to get theirs. Hide and watch.

Flick

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Perhaps you can distinguish between warped and crazy, the line is a bit fuzzy.

Crazy = irrational, unable to distinguish reality or the consequences of one's actions.

You answered your own question. He knows better. The country would be annihilated.

So you admit that this war has nothing to do with protecting the United States. It is instead, an act of aggression.

Perhaps you could repost your link to such U.S. bashing?

So pointing out the truth is "U.S. bashing"? Did you know that having a conscience means having the willingness to judge your actions as others affected by them would judge? So the attitude that "my country is never wrong" is unconscionable. Could you even concede that much?

Transcript of Hussein-Glaspie meeting
Another link to the transcript
A summary of the meeting and subsequent admission by Glaspie

On July 25, 1990, eight days before Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein. According to a transcript of the conversation later released to the British press by Iraq, Saddam explained his strategic claims on Iran and Kuwait and asked: "What is the United States' opinion on this?"

The tape transcript records Glaspie's reply: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

The Iraqi leader, believing he'd been given the green light, pounced.

Three weeks after Iraq invaded Kuwait, British reporters confronted Glaspie with the tape as she was leaving the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Before speeding off in her limousine, Glaspie blurted: "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait."

WMD is no longer the issue. It's removing Sadaam.

(snip)

Second question, with his people were suffering horribly, how do you excuse this behavior? Enlighten us on how this is ok.

Third question, should murderous dictators be removed from power, or allowed to kill indiscriminately?

(snip)

For me this question is mute. Who cares? This man is evil. Is it wrong for us to target Sadaam and ignore other countries? Sure it is.

Perhaps for you the issue is removing Saddam, but that is not the issue for the United States. If you travel up this thread a short distance to my correspondence with Advocate, the plan was to invade Iraq whether or not Hussein was still in power. I provide back up for this claim in one of those posts. Read the extracts from my links.

Secondly, you are reacting emotionally to the propaganda that is being spoonfed to you. Yes, Saddam is brutal, enough that it shouldn't be necessary to invent stories about him and his regime, but the invention continues anyway. (Like the well exposed lie used to sell the Persian Gulf War that babies in Kuwait were removed from incubators and "left on the cold floor to die.") However, there are equally brutal stories that could be trumpeted about dozens of other evil dictators.

Should murderous dictators be removed from power? Yes, by the people of that country if they don't like it! See my last post to Advocate on how this works. It is bullsh!t that the people under an authoritarian regime are too weak to do the work themselves. To think so shows a tremendous ignorance of history, including recent history. If the Iranians could overthrow the Shah, if the Filipinos could overthrow Marcos, if the Nicaraguans could overthrow Somoza, if the Cubans could overthow Batista, if the Romanians could overthrow Ceausescu, if the Chinese could overthrow Chang Kai Shek...if the United States could free itself from King George, then the Iraqis could liberate themselves from Hussein if they care to do so.

However, you'd rather that we liberate tens of thousands of them from their lives as we rain down hundreds of bombs in a strategy of "shock and awe," during which, to quote a Defense Department source, "there will be no safe place in Baghdad."

Really, Flick, you are a better man than to fall for this nonsense with all of its consequential blowback and destabilzation. The policy of pre-emption is a policy of pretext for wars of conquest. You are unwittingly backing the biggest threat to world peace today--the war-mongering, imperialist neo-conservatives who've hijacked the Republican party and our government. Read the materials I've given Advocate to consider. It won't take long and you will be much better informed about what is really going on and why.

To address the rest of your post, Iraq has never done anything aggressive toward the US. Shooting at planes patrolling the no-fly zones is a laughable example of "aggression." The NFZ were imposed on Iraq without its consent or a UN mandate. Iraq has every right to fire at military aircraft invading its airspace. What do you think the US response would be if Iraq flew fighter jets over our airspace?

As for North Korea, I would indeed fault Bush if it came to pass that we were bombing that country since that outcome would be the result of the usual ineptitude of the Bush League Administration. Bush has said that North Korea could be dealt with diplomatically and he's right. However, he's too preoccupied with his takeover of the Middle East to do the work! North Korea has offered to give up its nuclear weapons, its ballistic missles, its old reactors, and its biological and chemical weapons (of which it has more than Iraq ever did) in return for the US following through on its obligations under the 1994 agreement (which the North Koreans have long complained the US has been slow and reluctant to do) and--most importantly--a non-aggression pact.

North Korea has long seen the US as its main enemy and threat. According to a CNN program I saw this weekend, it wasn't until two years ago, after Bush had become president and made his hostility toward North Korea known early on and he rejected the path of concilliatory talks between the North and the South, that US intelligence began picking up on indications that North Korea (NK) had resumed its nuclear weapons program. The program greatly accelerated after the stupid "axis of evil" speech. NK was convinced the US was going to attack--as it almost had in 1994.

NK is not going to sit patiently while we deal with Iraq so that it can be next on our hit list. If we continue to give NK the cold shoulder, in its desparation it may see a US invasion of Iraq as its best opportunity to fight the US and may invade South Korea. If that happens, then what a fine mess we'll be in.

 

[Jim Lennox]

Wayne - Just like to say you are doing a fantastic job. I keep wanting to reply to posts but you beat me to it (and do it a lot better than I could). Keep it up, I am learning much.

 

[Jim Lennox]

For anyone who's interested you can read Tony Benn's interview with Saddam Hussein from a couple of weeks ago here.

There's Tony Benn's web chat afterwards here.

And the fantastic 'Between Iraq and a hard place' can be watched on line and the transcript is also available here.

 

[Galadriel]

Am I the only one that noticed that when Osama bin Laden didn't come skipping out to be publicly lynched for the One Way Flights, suddenly Saddam Hussein's name started coming up?

Let's face it--America was caught with its pants down that day. Yeah, there'd been terrorist attacks before, but nothing so spectacular as planes crashing into skyscrapers on live TV and those skyscrapers collapsing (also on live TV). It was like watching the neighborhood bully who'd come out of every fight without a scrape suddenly spurting blood from his nose and holding broken ribs. It scared us all, badly. We're not used to someone opening up a can of whoopass on us.

Bush freaked and sent troops to Afghanistan with the sole intention of getting bin Laden (and yeah, as long as you're over there, get rid of the Taliban too, even though before September 2001 the U.S. couldn't care less about them). But ... no bin Laden.

Bush heard bin Laden might be in Pakistan. But Pakistan has nukes and people crazy enough to use them on U.S. troops, and besides they have that whole thing going on with India. Besides, India used to belong to England, and England might get upset, and Tony Blair's the only guy who seems to like Bush. Not a good idea.

Well, how about Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers came from and where al-Queda began? No, we can't do that, because then oil prices would go up and people would start bitching about gas prices and they'll remember that in the next election.

But Bush had to make SOMEBODY the whipping boy. I mean, he stood up in front of America and swore that the people behind the One-Way Flights would pay for attacking the great United States. It's been over a year, bin Laden's still nowhere to be seen, and the natives are restless and bitching about the economy. Enter Saddam Hussein. Hey, what a great idea! People still semi-remember the Gulf War, Iraq's Muslim, everyone knows all Muslims hate America, we could sell this to America no problem!

And so he did--well, he sold it to Congress, who okays the money.

And somewhere in Asia, Osama bin Laden is laughing his ass off.

 

[stamenflicker]

So you admit that this war has nothing to do with protecting the United States. It is instead, an act of aggression.

I think there can be no direct connection between protecting the US and attacking Iraq. I do think there are indirect coorelations. Connection or not, we should invade Iraq, or at least remove Sadaam. War is by definition an "act of aggression."

So pointing out the truth is "U.S. bashing"?

What is the truth? Each of the sources you've posted is littered with disclaimers. The number one disclaimer of all is that the "transcript" came from Iraq. There can be no doubt the US was sympathetic to the Iraqis prior to the Gulf War. They are a talented, intelligent, and resourceful people. And they could of helped further our interests in the region. If this "alleged" incident took place, it doesn't help your case at all. How does that de-legitimize the current situation?

If the US was willing to look the other way while Iraq settled its border disputes, that's hardly pertinent to the issue of a brutal regime subjectating an entire country.

To take this ridiculous sample further... who is to say the US has not given Pakistan or India, or both countries the green light to settle to the Kashmir issue? We certainly aren't doing much intervention. So do they have the "greenlight"? Would one of them still have a "greenlight" if they blew through the disputed area and seized the other's land in full, killing and raping along the way?

You've distracted us with issues of minor importance. The world demanded Sadaam to disarm-- not just the US. What does a decade old "understanding," littered with disclaimers, mean to this conversation?

Did you know that having a conscience means having the willingness to judge your actions as others affected by them would judge? So the attitude that "my country is never wrong" is unconscionable. Could you even concede that much?

My country is wrong all the time. I'm used to it. But it's the best country around. That's why folks are standing in line to get over here. As far as your first statement goes, that's ridiculous. Judging my actions by the way others judge them? So every time we lock up a kiddie-porn child molestor, we should judge our actions by his response? Give me a break.

Perhaps for you the issue is removing Saddam, but that is not the issue for the United States. If you travel up this thread a short distance to my correspondence with Advocate, the plan was to invade Iraq whether or not Hussein was still in power. I provide back up for this claim in one of those posts. Read the extracts from my links.

If I have time, I promise to read them. Hopefully, they aren't of the sort you've used in this thread.

Secondly, you are reacting emotionally to the propaganda that is being spoonfed to you. Yes, Saddam is brutal, enough that it shouldn't be necessary to invent stories about him and his regime, but the invention continues anyway. (Like the well exposed lie used to sell the Persian Gulf War that babies in Kuwait were removed from incubators and "left on the cold floor to die.") However, there are equally brutal stories that could be trumpeted about dozens of other evil dictators.

And I suppose the Holocaust never happened either. It's absurd to me how people will go to any length to whitewash evil. NPR, for Christ's sake, just did a piece on the torture chambers constructed beneath the Iraqi Olympic training facility. What kind of country tortures their olympic atheletes???????????? [Notice they didn't have to begin their story with a disclaimer.]

As far as other dictators, sure. There are dozens, maybe even scores of them. Do I care about that? I sure do. The way I see it, we're about to have one less in the world. And we ought to line up and spank the rest of them too.

Should murderous dictators be removed from power? Yes, by the people of that country if they don't like it!

Should a rapist be removed from the woman bent double? Yes, by the woman, if she doesn't like it. Give me a break.

then the Iraqis could liberate themselves from Hussein if they care to do so.

I would think that 1/2 million dead children might have given them the motivation.

Really, Flick, you are a better man than to fall for this nonsense with all of its consequential blowback and destabilzation. The policy of pre-emption is a policy of pretext for wars of conquest. You are unwittingly backing the biggest threat to world peace today--the war-mongering, imperialist neo-conservatives who've hijacked the Republican party and our government. Read the materials I've given Advocate to consider. It won't take long and you will be much better informed about what is really going on and why.

Conquest? Biggest threat to world peace today? For Christ's sake pick up the newspaper. Wars are fought all over this planet. Major wars-- with death tolls that will far exceed this one-- they have been fought even in the last 5 years, that was the point of this entire thread. The world has it's panties in a wad over this war because its the United States, plain and simple. Let's allow Sudan to kill a mere 2 million a decade. But by all means, lets "protest" this United States aggression! Let's rally! Let's call out the flower power! Down with the US! It's so hypocritical.

There's a pretty clear good guy / bad guy here. Perhaps you need to ask yourself why you can't see it that way.

The program greatly accelerated after the stupid "axis of evil" speech

He called it like it was. I respect that.

Flick

 

[Jim Lennox]

You make a good point about the effects of 911 on America's collective psyche. I have heard it said that the reason for certain European countries hesitancy in going to war is because they have felt the effects of a war being fought on their turf. The US however does not have the benefit of such an experience.

Here is a quote from Tony Benn's web chat that I found pertinent.

I think that the sanctions which have killed over a million Iraqis and the bombing that has gone on since 1998 have strengthened Saddam, just as the blitz in Britain in 1940 strengthened Churchill. The Iraqi people cannot choose their own leader while this goes on.

http://www.channel4.com/community/showcards/C/C4_News_-_Tony_Benn.html

 

[stamenflicker]

Jim,

I couldn't even begin to tell you who Tony Benn is, but how did he keep a straight face during that interview?

Here's some vinatage Sadaam from the link you provided:

Every fair-minded person knows that when Iraqi officials say something, they are trustworthy.

There is only one truth and therefore I tell you as I have said on many occasions before that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever.

Every fair-minded person knows that as far as resolution 1441 is concerned, the Iraqis have been fulfilling their obligations under the resolution.

So when Iraq objects to the conduct of the inspection teams or others, that doesn't mean that Iraq is interested in putting obstacles before them which could hinder the efforts to get to the truth. It is in our interest to facilitate their mission to find the truth.

They have claimed before that Iraq did not implement the previous resolutions. However after many years it became clear that Iraq had complied with these resolutions.

I'm too tired to keep reading that trash. Contrast his statements with history:

a smattering of Iraqi trustworthiness, from the site:
http://www.britainusa.com/iraq/xq/asp/SarticleType.1/Article_ID.2618/qx/articles_show.htm

firing warning shots in the air to prevent IAEA inspectors from intercepting nuclear related equipment (June 1991);

keeping IAEA inspectors in a car park for 4 days and refusing to allow them to leave with incriminating documents on Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme (September 1991);

announcing that UN monitoring and verification plans were "unlawful" (October 1991);

refusing UNSCOM inspectors access to the Ministry of Agriculture. Threats were made to inspectors who remained on watch outside the building. The inspection team had reliable evidence that the site contained archives related to proscribed activities;

refusing to allow UNSCOM the use of its own aircraft to fly into Iraq (January 1993). In 1991-2 Iraq objected to UNSCOM using its own helicopters and choosing its own flight plans;

refusing to allow UNSCOM to install remote-controlled monitoring cameras at two key missile sites (June-July 1993);

repeatedly denying access to inspection teams (1991- December 1998);

interfering with UNSCOM’s helicopter operations, threatening the safety of the aircraft and their crews (June 1997);

demanding the end of U2 aircraft overflights and the withdrawal of US UNSCOM staff (October 1997);

destroying documentary evidence of WMD programmes (September 1997);

and refusing access to inspection teams on the grounds that certain areas and even roads were deemed "Presidential Sites" (1997-98).

....Not to mention finally admitting their biological weapons program a full five years after the first UN resolution.

Flick

 

[Jim Lennox]

Not disputing any of that. Get rid of Saddam. But don't go to war against his people.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

If this "alleged" incident took place, it doesn't help your case at all. How does that de-legitimize the current situation?

It did take place and was widely reported at the time. The point is that the talk that Iraq cannot be deterred ignores Iraq's deferrence to the United States.

Judging my actions by the way others judge them? So every time we lock up a kiddie-porn child molestor, we should judge our actions by his response? Give me a break.

So by your logic, the child molestor did not do anything unconscionable. How the child felt about the molestation is immaterial and not worthy of the molestor's consideration. Might makes right. We should all be guilt-free if we decide to rape children. What a wonderful world insulated from guilt you live in.

As far as the arrest of the child molestor goes, I doubt that he would think the arrest was unjustified. And whether he does or not is not relevant to the point I was making. It's hard to believe it went over your head.

And I suppose the Holocaust never happened either. It's absurd to me how people will go to any length to whitewash evil.

I'm not whitewashing anything. Did I not note that Saddam was brutal? I anticipated from you a mention of the Holocaust and was going to address it then, but the post was already long and I thought I'd see if you could understand the essence of my argument first. You haven't.

In extreme circumstances, such as genocide (whether by Hitler, or Pol Pot (whom the US supported) or by Milosovich), it is perfectly acceptable to intervene to stop the attrocities. I supported our participation in international peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans. I did not support our bombing campaign there for political purposes.

As far as other dictators, sure. There are dozens, maybe even scores of them. Do I care about that? I sure do. The way I see it, we're about to have one less in the world. And we ought to line up and spank the rest of them too.

So you support perpetual warfare taking out regimes not to our liking, intervening without being asked by the people affected, who may not want our "help" to begin with.

I have news for you. The United States did not become a democracy through an act of God. Our ancestors fought for our independence and generations have defended it since. So why should our blood and treasure be spent fighting others' fights for them? Once they take the initiative, we can give appropriate assistance. Otherwise, we should keep our meddling hands to ourselves.

Should a rapist be removed from the woman bent double? Yes, by the woman, if she doesn't like it. Give me a break.

Give me a break from such stupid non sequiturs. It's like calling consensual sex "rape." Yes, CONSENSUAL sex because as I've already argued, and as anyone with any familiarity with history and a modicum of sophistication could see, the ultimate power rests with the people.

Believe it or not, democracy is the exception, not the rule. Not every society is comfortable with or is ready for democracy. Through out human history, up till and including the present, societies have CHOSEN to live in authoritarian systems. That shouldn't be so shocking. In the United States many people don't understand or appreciate such concepts as those embraced by the First Amendment. Many see nothing objectionable with the excess of authority sought by John Ashcroft.

China in 1989 is a good case that demonstates the validity of what I've been saying. A group of students held an authoritarian regime at bay and in fear for several days. However, the students overestimated their countrymen who felt sympathy for the students, but not for their cause. The people were simply not ready to revolt on behalf of democracy. When this became clear and the authorities were satisfied that moving against the students would not spark a revolt, they put an end to the Tiananmen Square "revolution."

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Wayne - Just like to say you are doing a fantastic job. I keep wanting to reply to posts but you beat me to it (and do it a lot better than I could). Keep it up, I am learning much.

Thank you! It is reassuring to know that someone is learning. However, I simply won't have the time to continue arguing this issue.