Foolish WAR protests [Archive]

iain

16th February 2003, 01:36 AM

Perhaps if those who are pro-war could appreciate that there are valid anti-war arguments, they might have some chance of winning the debate. Just hurling insults at anti-war folk doesn't work very well.

I agree with many of the claims that Bush/Blair are making. I am sure Iraq does have some WMDs. I agree that Saddam is a very nasty dictator. I would love to have him deposed and replaced with a democratic government. I don't even think the war is primarily about oil - at least for Blair I think he is sincere about his reasons.

But given all of that, I'm still not convinced that war is the right thing to do at this time. My concerns are :
1. Many people may be killed in war (and yes, of course many have already died, but war isn't going to bring them back to life).

2. War could destabilise the region. Just because Saddam is kicked out does not mean a nice democrat is going to replace him (Kuwait still doesn't have democracy and they were on our side and owed us a favour). This could lead to even more suffering and death for the Iraqi people long after the war is over.

3. Rather than a war against terrorism, this could be a war that increases terrorism as terrorists use the best means of defence they have.

I am not saying that these concerns will definitely be proved correct. I might well be shown to be wrong in a year or two, in which case I will happily admit so. But that does not mean that my concerns are stupid, or that I am an "anti-war nut" for having them.

Its really easy to look at problems around the world and think that a good war will fix the problem. Sometimes it does; but sometimes it makes it a lot worse.

I think the pro-war people have identified the problem but do not have the right solution.

a_unique_person

16th February 2003, 02:42 AM

Already Turkey is having problems. Now what if Turkey was to be taken over by the extremist muslims because of this.

LucienVanImpe

16th February 2003, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Already Turkey is having problems. Now what if Turkey was to be taken over by the extremist muslims because of this.
Extremist Muslims do not have broad appeal in Turkey. I doubt the removal of a despot like Saddam Hussein would change that. And even if it did, the Kemalist military would transform such radicals into dairy products. The Turks take the secular framework of their state seriously. Erdogan, the current de facto leader of Turkey, was jailed for reciting a poem with Islamic content.

I'm not buying that slippery-slope argument. There's popular resentment to a war on Iraq in most European countries, it would be surprising if Turkey was any different. With the added factor of Iraqi Kurdistan, which I believe is their main worry, it's understandable why they would be negative.

Douglas

16th February 2003, 08:29 AM

"Perhaps if those who are pro-war could appreciate that there are valid anti-war arguments, they might have some chance of winning the debate. Just hurling insults at anti-war folk doesn't work very well."

Where are the valid "anti-war"arguments? All I pick up from you is cowering fear and an opinion that it's better to do nothing than stir things up. Oh, and that war is bad.

The Central Scrutinizer

16th February 2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Already Turkey is having problems. Now what if Turkey was to be taken over by the extremist muslims because of this.

Well then, we'll carve up Turkey and mop up Greece.

Careful, Shistallini tried it and look what happened to him!!

Nasarius

16th February 2003, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Instead of calling it an "Anti-War" demonstration... why not call it a "Pro-Starvation and Mutilation" demonstration?

I like John S. Mill on war...

"War is a terrible thing, but it is not the most terrible of things. The sickening, unpatriotic fervor that thinks nothing is worth war is much worse."

Flick

Cute. Is it possible to get any more stereotypically right-wing? :rolleyes:

Rose

16th February 2003, 02:54 PM

What I havent heard anti war activists address yet(and I'm talking the sincere ones, not the various groups and individuals with anit-American, pro-socialist, or enviremental activist agendas they're attaching to this particular movement), is what do we do when continued efforts to gain our objectives fail? At what point do we say, "He's playing games with us, lying, cheating, and hiding things he agreed over a decade go to accept." Anti-war demonstrators ask, "What do we do when we invade and win?" I ask, "what do we do after another month/year/decade of prevarication, intimidation, and lying, everyone finally agrees that Saddam is/has developed WMD.?"

Of course, if the anti-war proponants are correct, we can afford to play these games, and nothing bad will happen. If the pro-war side is correct, the whole game will come to an end when Saddam or his heirs use those weapons on whatever target they are developing them for, and the victim/victims and allies retaliate.

So, those against the idea of war in the immediate future, what is your take? how long do we give the 'peace process', when do we conceed it has failed, and what do we do when we make that concession?

rikzilla

16th February 2003, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Already Turkey is having problems. Now what if Turkey was to be taken over by the extremist muslims because of this.

No problemo

You'd have one more thing to blame the US for.

Then if we decided to go into Turkey and put a democratic government back in place you could march and bitch and say it was all our fault in the first place.

Think of how happy you'd be. :rolleyes:

Richard G

16th February 2003, 03:51 PM

Some may find this interesting. Its a first hand account of a PRO war demonstrator in Colorado. As you read, note the lack of intelligence on the part of the anti-demonstrators.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844344/posts?page=37

http://users.rcn.com/emerald.eyes/freep021503/01.jpg

More pics here...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844221/posts

stamenflicker

16th February 2003, 05:42 PM

Cute. Is it possible to get any more stereotypically right-wing?

Not my words friend. The rest of the quote, in the setting of nationalism and patriotism, says such anti-war individuals, "owe their freedom to better men than themselves."

Again, not my words. And I'm not totally sure I agree with them.

The entire "WAR" thing is a difficult call. But once the call is made, I think its foolish to dilly-dally around about it. You just cause more suffering by waiting-- psychological and other. The world made their call with resolution 1441. It was difficult, but the call was made. Now a few folks want out, I'm not convinced that is wise.

My 2.3 cents :)

Flick

Erik

16th February 2003, 05:45 PM

ROTFLMAO! I'm going through this one in exactly this way. Come to think of it, almost every argument on the topic goes this way, starvation or otherwise.

Originally posted by corplinx
Don't bring up starvation, it creates a no-win arguement.

You: But what about the starving Iraqi people
Anti-War Nut: its America's fault their starving
You: Well, Saddam seems to have enough money to build palaces
Anti-War Nut: it doesnt matter, whats matters is..... (insert easily debunkable claim here)

This goes on and on, the point being that the anti-war nut believes that in the end all of his/her flawed arguements together make a compelling case. And so it winds up like this:

You: I have now debunked 110 claims in a row
Anti-War Nut: Doesn't the fact that there are 110 claims startle you? You just don't get it.
You: I guess you're right, one of us surely doesn't get it.

iain

16th February 2003, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by Rose
What I havent heard anti war activists address yet(and I'm talking the sincere ones, not the various groups and individuals with anit-American, pro-socialist, or enviremental activist agendas they're attaching to this particular movement), is what do we do when continued efforts to gain our objectives fail? At what point do we say, "He's playing games with us, lying, cheating, and hiding things he agreed over a decade go to accept." Anti-war demonstrators ask, "What do we do when we invade and win?" I ask, "what do we do after another month/year/decade of prevarication, intimidation, and lying, everyone finally agrees that Saddam is/has developed WMD.?" Good point Rose, one that deserves an answer. For myself, I don't think war is always wrong or that a war against Saddam would always be wrong. I was in favour of the action against Afghanistan, for example.

It may well be the case that war is the right thing to do at some time in the near future; I dont agree that it is the right thing to do now.

I also don't really understand the argument that it has to be now. Why not say that it had to be a year ago, or two years ago, or five? Why is Saddam suddenly more dangerous now than he was then? Because Bush and Blair say he is? The pro-war folk seem to want to create an alternate reality where there has been some big change in Iraq which suddenly makes it worse than all the other nasty dictatorial states. There hasn't; the change has been in the West.

Douglas wrote
Where are the valid "anti-war"arguments? All I pick up from you is cowering fear and an opinion that it's better to do nothing than stir things up. Oh, and that war is bad.That's pretty much what I mean Douglas. Show me where I demonstrated a "cowering fear" or said that we should do nothing (not going to war is not the same thing as doing nothing). And yes, generally speaking war is bad. Not going to war may be worse in some situations, in which case war is the lesser of two evils, but I don't believe that war is a good thing.

17th February 2003, 01:29 AM

StamenFlicker :

I must admit I was a little surprised to see your post.

I think the demonstration in London was too big to be categorised as simply anti-American. It was anti-war, anti-Blair and also anti-American, in different degrees for different people. The speakers in Hyde Park also represented a vast array of opinions, from an evangelising Jesse Jackson to the playwright Harold Pinter who simply stood there, glared, and said "America is being run a bunch of criminal lunatics. Tony Blair is a hired Christian thug. This war against Iraq is an act of pre-meditated mass murder."

I'll let you guess where I stand.

Geoff.

Dazza

17th February 2003, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
StamenFlicker :

I must admit I was a little surprised to see your post.

I think the demonstration in London was too big to be categorised as simply anti-American. It was anti-war, anti-Blair and also anti-American, in different degrees for different people. The speakers in Hyde Park also represented a vast array of opinions, from an evangelising Jesse Jackson to the playwright Harold Pinter who simply stood there, glared, and said "America is being run a bunch of criminal lunatics. Tony Blair is a hired Christian thug. This war against Iraq is an act of pre-meditated mass murder."

I'll let you guess where I stand.

Geoff.

You must have got up early to have got to Hyde Park in time to hear Harold Pinter.

I was at Blackfriars at 12.30, but the crowd was so huge that I didn't pass Big Ben until 3pm! It took a few short cuts to get me to Hyde Park in time to hear Jesse Jackson speak.

You're right about what the march was about. I've been on a few following the same route and this is BY FAR the biggest march I have ever seen. The diversity of the crowd was amazing. The usual suspects from the far left were there, a few worrying people carrying pictures of Saddam, but the vast majority were just ordinary people who don't think Blair is listening to them and wanted to make their voices heard.

It seems clear to me that unless there is a very clear UN mandate in a second resolution, Blair will not support a war. He's not a fool and he's not about to commit political suicide.

If he agrees to the bombing of Iraq without that second resolution, his premiership won't last out the year!

17th February 2003, 02:20 AM

Dazza :

Blair will not support a war. He's not a fool and he's not about to commit political suicide.

I wish you were right. Unfortunately I think that even though he knows precisely how unpopular this will make him he is going to support the war anyway. If he withdrew British support then Bush could go it alone but at a political price too high to be worth paying. Blair could stop this war. History will not look kindly on him if it all goes pear-shaped.

If he agrees to the bombing of Iraq without that second resolution, his premiership won't last out the year!

No. He will be replaced by Gordon Brown or David Blunkett.

17th February 2003, 03:29 AM

Actually, as I look around at the political fallout of Saturdays action I begin to wonder whether there is a real change occuring. Bush, Rumsfeld, Perle and company had already decided to attack Iraq by 12/9/01. Everything else has just been an exercise in trying to do so without looking like a Pariah State. But I don't believe they realised just how difficult it was going to be to get people to support their war of vengeance - and that is what it is - it is vengeance for 9/11 regardless of the fact Saddam has got BUGGER ALL to do with Al-Qaeda. They are having much more difficulty than they expected with NATO, with the UN with the EU and with public opinion across the world. And I do not sense that the peace movement is crumbling - it is defiant and growing and it is increasingly obvious that Bush and Blair are losing the propaganda war. I'm not sure we can prevent this war - I am beginning to hope we CAN - but I sure that we can make the political cost to Blair and the international reputation of Bush/America high enough for this to be a turning point in history. I think this is the beginning of the end for American Imperialism.

As for YOU Stamenflicker :( - If this was was really about saving the lives of starving children then why was it not considered until 12/9/01? What about all the other places in the world where there are starving children? HOW MANY DEATHS FROM STARVATION AND DISEASE COULD BE PREVENTED ACROSS THE THIRD WORLD IF THE MONEY BEING SPENT ON THIS WAR WERE SPENT ON FOOD, SANITATION AND MEDICINE?! EH? I expect mindless imperialistic violence and double-standard morality from GEORGE W CRIMINAL LUNATIC, not from an intellectual Christian.

Segnosaur

17th February 2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
As for YOU Stamenflicker :( - If this was was really about saving the lives of starving children then why was it not considered until 12/9/01? What about all the other places in the world where there are starving children? HOW MANY DEATHS FROM STARVATION AND DISEASE COULD BE PREVENTED ACROSS THE THIRD WORLD IF THE MONEY BEING SPENT ON THIS WAR WERE SPENT ON FOOD, SANITATION AND MEDICINE?! EH? I expect mindless imperialistic violence and double-standard morality from GEORGE W CRIMINAL LUNATIC, not from an intellectual Christian.
A couple of notes:

- You talk of saving lives in the 3rd world by spending money on food, sanitation and medicine. However, remember, there is food available to many of these countries. However, because its genetically modified, they would rather let their people starve. In other cases, lives could be saved, but the countries are not run by people who are actually interested in allowing international aid. In order to get the aid to the people, you'd have to send in armed forces, which again is war.
- Invading Iraq will help save innocent Iraqi lives in the long run (since sanctions will be lifted.) But I do believe that there is an element of self preservation in attacking Iraq (they have supported terrorists in the past), that just doesn't exist when you consider the cases of contries in sub-saharan africa (where they don't seem to be interested in causing global trouble)

rikzilla

17th February 2003, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
Some may find this interesting. Its a first hand account of a PRO war demonstrator in Colorado. As you read, note the lack of intelligence on the part of the anti-demonstrators.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844344/posts?page=37

http://users.rcn.com/emerald.eyes/freep021503/01.jpg

More pics here...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844221/posts

hilarious! :D

but sadly true....

So Geoff,

Did you take that hard look around? Did you see the "usual suspects"...the communists, anarchists,..."scary people holding pics of Saddam??" Sounds like you did unless you are legally blind. See any communists? Well...if you were listening to Jesse Jackson at least you were hearing one.

What I find very telling Geoff is what was NOT happening. Anti-war protests all around the world...but (outside of Baghdad) not the Arab world. Maybe it's because they are scared of Saddam? Maybe it's because they have repressive regimes that don't allow protests....maybe a little of both.

A democratic Iraq...prosperous...stable....would join a democratic Israel in an "axis of democracy" in the region. That might go a long way towards helping resolve the Palestinian/Israel conflict. Remove Saddam...champion of terrorists...and show Palestinians how to create a democracy, live in peace, and create a market economy.

-zilla...awaiting patiently to be picked apart! ;)

(Damn Geoff,...perhaps we ought to go back to discussing philosophy??)

Still friends??
-Rick

iain

17th February 2003, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla
A democratic Iraq...prosperous...stable....would join a democratic Israel in an "axis of democracy" in the region. That might go a long way towards helping resolve the Palestinian/Israel conflict. Remove Saddam...champion of terrorists...and show Palestinians how to create a democracy, live in peace, and create a market economy. A peaceful, democratic Iraq would be a great idea; I doubt many people would disagree with that. (Whether it would ever join with Israel is another matter - not sure about that one). The question is how best to encourage that Iraq to come about. Somehow I don't think that what Bush et. al. are proposing will do the trick.

18th February 2003, 02:08 AM

Rik

See any communists?

I'm not sure I'd know what one looks like, Rik. They looked like a cross-section of completely normal British people. It was a truly representative slice of Britain. As i tried to say before - the whole concept of 'communism' has basically become part of history these days. If people are worried about extremism it is right wing groups they worry about, not the left. It's not just me - if I started talking about "commies" most people would think I had developed some sort of psychiatric problem. Seriously.

A democratic Iraq...prosperous...stable....would join a democratic Israel in an "axis of democracy" in the region. That might go a long way towards helping resolve the Palestinian/Israel conflict. Remove Saddam...champion of terrorists...and show Palestinians how to create a democracy, live in peace, and create a market economy.

I'm not even sure that democracy is compatible with Islam. I do not think you can impose democracy on an Islamic state and expect it to work.

And if you want to show Palestine self-government you'd better do something about the convicted war criminal running Israel.

Q-Source

18th February 2003, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I'm not sure we can prevent this war - I am beginning to hope we CAN - but I sure that we can make the political cost to Blair and the international reputation of Bush/America high enough for this to be a turning point in history. I think this is the beginning of the end for American Imperialism.
[/B]

There is no beginning of the end of USA-Imperialism, Geoff.

Unfortunately those bastard imperialists have people eating from their hands. And the worst of it, is that they have convinced most of those hungry countries that they are doing the right thing. :(

rikzilla

18th February 2003, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

There is no beginning of the end of USA-Imperialism, Geoff.

Unfortunately those bastard imperialists have people eating from their hands. And the worst of it, is that they have convinced most of those hungry countries that they are doing the right thing. :(

Yeah...by feeding them.....:rolleyes:

Bad capitalists!!!

Geoff,...what about the "scary people holding pictures of Saddam"?? See any of them?

Working in DC I've seen protest marches come and go...the constants are the amount of anarchists, communists, and college kids out looking to score some pot or meet women.

But Geoff, honestly...part of the reason why I'm so hung up on communists is that they are obviously out there, but you can't talk about them or you're crazy!. Why is that? Why is it that you can have aromatherapy candles and dilligently check your horoscope in the UK...but if you talk about communism you're a paranoid nut?I mean.. when the wall fell they didn't all just cease to exist did they?

No, they just reinvented themselves as "socialists". A.N.S.W.E.R. (Jesse Jackson's bunch) fancy themselves socialist, but are indeed linked to the WWP (Worker's World Party)....shhhh they're commies! :D ;) You may not know what one looks like....well they don't look much different from anyone else....you listen to them, they don't call each other comrade anymore either. They're just extreme socialists....and you've got a $hitload of 'em over there. Here they just carry Che Guevara posters....'cause he's the James Dean of communism or somesuch and it looks cool I guess???

Our communists aren't terribly serious...that's because they know they have no chance to get elected to anything more important than dog catcher... Even Lyndon LaRouche gets more of his groupies elected these days than communists can. :D

Anyway,...I hope you had fun. You're as wrong as you can be on Iraq, but you obviously enjoy exercising your right to free speech. It would do well for you and everyone else to remember that in a communist dictatorship that right would be an early casualty.

Go here to see how much YOU may have in comon with THEM. (http://www.cpusa.org/)

-zilla

Q-Source

18th February 2003, 04:43 AM

I was talking metaphorically. I thought it would be obvious :rolleyes:

USA Imperialism has taken control of natural resources in some poor countries, they go there and invest their money. They exploit cheap labour and make people believe that they are paying a fair wage. Of course, poor countries need their money, but the cost that they have to pay for it (pollution, exploitation, economic and political subjugation) is very high.

Q

18th February 2003, 05:09 AM

Rik

Anyway,...I hope you had fun. You're as wrong as you can be on Iraq, but you obviously enjoy exercising your right to free speech. It would do well for you and everyone else to remember that in a communist dictatorship that right would be an early casualty.

You never did comment on the Nixon admininstrations assassination of the President and removal of an ELECTED communist government in Chile, or the resulting 17 years of torture, disappearances and general oppression under the brutal military dictatorship of the US-approved General Pinochet.

Geoff.

originalgagster

18th February 2003, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by Douglas
Where are the valid "anti-war"arguments? All I pick up from you is cowering fear

Yeah, because it takes such guts to rant for war on the internet 6000 miles away from the conflict. I wish i was as brave as you.

Douglas

18th February 2003, 06:44 AM

Is that it? An attack based on my military status? Textbook 101 Pussy Lefty!
If opining on anything depends on direct participation the world would be an awful quiet place.

iain

18th February 2003, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Douglas
Is that it? An attack based on my military status? Textbook 101 Pussy Lefty!
If opining on anything depends on direct participation the world would be an awful quiet place. I believe it was you who accused me of cowardice, you textbook Pussy Lefty :D

originalgagster

18th February 2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Douglas
Is that it? An attack based on my military status?

Nope, based on your comment in this thread.

Kodiak

18th February 2003, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Richard G

Forget the sanctions, this many people have been killed by Saddams own hand. And every day that goes by, more people, his own people, are being murdered, by his hand.

Where are all the protests against this fact?? Its very easy to ignore when the root of the matter is America bashing.

The Iraqi people are forbidden, under punishment of death, to protest against Saddam...

Richard G

18th February 2003, 09:15 AM

The Iraqi people are forbidden, under punishment of death, to protest against Saddam...

I know this. Protesters abroad in the world will not protest against Iraq however. They are to busy protesting against America, where they so often forget that they won't be shot for doing so.

Kodiak

18th February 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Richard G

I know this. Protesters abroad in the world will not protest against Iraq however. They are to busy protesting against America, where they so often forget that they won't be shot for doing so.

I assumed you were already aware of this RG, but I was afraid that this point would again be glossed over, which is why I answered your hypothetical question...

iain

18th February 2003, 11:56 PM

In the UK, over a million people marched against war. A majority of people in the UK are opposed to war against Iraq under current circumstances.

However, when asked whether they would oppose a war if properly supported by a second UN resolution, fewer than 10% said yes.

A large number of "anti-war" folk are, like myself, not saying that war is always wrong, nor that Saddam is a nice guy who's just a bit misunderstood. What we are saying is that a US/UK war against Iraq outside the UN will probably do more harm than good and is less likely to achieve the objectives Bush/Blair have been talking about than a UN supported action even if getting UN support means a substantial delay in going to war.

The more the pro-war lobby play up to the strawman of all anti-war people supporting peace at any price, the less credibility (in my eyes) they have.

fsol

19th February 2003, 05:40 AM

Just interested as the thread starts with a CNN link if people actually believe everything that tabloid tells them.

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/news-cnnedit.htm

Advocate

19th February 2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by iain
In the UK, over a million people marched against war. A majority of people in the UK are opposed to war against Iraq under current circumstances.

However, when asked whether they would oppose a war if properly supported by a second UN resolution, fewer than 10% said yes.

A large number of "anti-war" folk are, like myself, not saying that war is always wrong, nor that Saddam is a nice guy who's just a bit misunderstood. What we are saying is that a US/UK war against Iraq outside the UN will probably do more harm than good and is less likely to achieve the objectives Bush/Blair have been talking about than a UN supported action even if getting UN support means a substantial delay in going to war.

The more the pro-war lobby play up to the strawman of all anti-war people supporting peace at any price, the less credibility (in my eyes) they have.

The problem with this stance is that there is essential no chance of a second resolution. France has made that abundantly clear. They will veto any attempt at such a resolution. Of course they also have a financial interest in maintaining the current regime. I am not saying they don't have other reasons, but it seems to me that they are unlikely to support a resolution under any circumstances. I believe that a sufficiently strong connection to terrorism (which is beginning to emerge) will help convince China and Russia, who both have terrorism problems of their own, that their interests in Iraq can take a backseat to their interests in having American support for their own issues. France, on the other hand, stands to lose nothing by allowing Saddam to remain in power regardless of his disregard for previous resolutions and his arsenal of WMDs. It amazes me that the same people who decry America's oil interests don't even seem to acknowledge France's.

Wayne Grabert

19th February 2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Notice the sign this lady is holding. It says, "Are you willing to kill her to get Saadam?"

FACT: She and 500,000 of her children have been killed since 1991 due to sanctions that Saadam continues to not only allow, but invite.

FACT: We kill more Iraqis with sanctions than we ever would with war.

FACT: If these protests were about saving lives, they'd be marching for the removal of Saadam.

FACT: There have been dozens of wars in the last five years, some of which have had death tolls near a million people and we did not see these protests.

FACT: These protests are not against WAR, they are against America.

Flick
Have you ever heard of the concept of the false dilemma? It assumes that there are only two options and then asks someone to choose. For example, either remove Saddam with war or continue the sanctions indefinitely.

There are those of us who oppose the war and who have been for years wanting the Iraq situation to be resolved peacefully so that the sanctions could be lifted. Also, the argument could be made that the sanctions in place are unnecessarily harsh, such as not allowing Iraq to rebuild its water purification plants (ALL of which were destroyed by the US) because chlorine could be a dual-use chemical. The destruction of these facilities was the cause for most of the Iraqi deaths under the sanctions.

When Clinton pulled the inspectors out of Iraq, 90-95% of the banned weapons had been located and almost all of those destroyed. Apparently it was useful to have Saddam around to bully every now and then for political expediency. So what could we do instead?

First, it is not necessary to be 100% sure that every banned weapon has been destroyed. Iraq, with or without Hussein, could always build more. Realistically, Iraq can be deterred. Saddam was supported by the US when he invaded Iran and he thought he had the greenlight from the US to invade Kuwait. (Actually, it seems that he did have that greenlight, but the GHW Bush administration thought he was only going to grab the part of northern Kuwait that was the source of the conflict between them.) Hussein now knows that if he were to attack another of his neighbors that it would mean retaliation by the rest of the world and the end of his regime and, probably, his life.

So you let the inspectors do all they can to find and destroy what they can. You relax those sanctions that can be relaxed for purely humanitarian purposes. (Some of the sanctions were relaxed already. As was pointed out already, Saddam used oil revenues to build new palaces.) At some point when the inspections are not making anymore progress (but not because of stonewalling), you say "good enough" and lift the sanctions.

I know that some of the hawks on this board will not be satisfied with this proposition because they believe all the propaganda coming out of the Bush administration that Hussein will build a nuclear bomb and give it to al Qaida, but I find that hard to believe. What I don't find hard to believe, and what you seem to ignore, are all the negative consequences that are likely to result because of a war. (For example, civil war in Iraq; guerilla war against occupying US troops in Iraq by angry Muslims; destabilization of Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia; expansion of the war if Israel is attacked and retalitates; the strengthening of support for al Qaida and increased terrorism against the United States; a push by the Taliban to retake Afghanistan while the US has its hands full with Iraq; the ravaging of the US economy caused by huge deficits and the costs of a war and an occupation that could exceed a trillion dollars, etc.)

Edited to add: I don't think that all of the negative consequences I've listed are equally probable or that they all will occur. However, I think it is very likely that some of them will.

An example of relaxing the sanctions while the inspectors are there: rebuilding the water purification plants and having UN monitors for their operation and the transport of chlorine.

I thought I was through arguing on this board about Iraq, but the presentation of this false dilemma simply had to be addressed.

Wayne Grabert

19th February 2003, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Douglas

Where are the valid "anti-war"arguments? All I pick up from you is cowering fear and an opinion that it's better to do nothing than stir things up. Oh, and that war is bad.
Where are the valid "pro-war" arguments. All I pick up from you is cowering fear that is driven by believing uncritically everything the Bush administration tells you.

Wayne Grabert

19th February 2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Richard G
Some may find this interesting. Its a first hand account of a PRO war demonstrator in Colorado. As you read, note the lack of intelligence on the part of the anti-demonstrators.

The sign "if Osama was a piece of ass, Clinton would have nailed him" brings up the question, why hasn't Bush caught Osama yet? Osama seems to have morphed into Saddam in Bush's eyes.

Also, it doesn't say much for you that you don't realize that those photos that show a "lack of intelligence" were altered. The site even asks its readers to send it photos even if they are altered.

Edited to add: I'm not able to decifer what you mean by "anti-demonstrators." Do you mean "anti-war demonstators," or "counter-demonstrators (who favor war)"? As I read, I could note the lack of intelligence of the latter. :confused:

iain

19th February 2003, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by Advocate

The problem with this stance is that there is essential no chance of a second resolution. France has made that abundantly clear. They will veto any attempt at such a resolution. This is not true. In the recent past, France has often set itself against something initially, then come round in the end. Whilst this time may be different, to say that there is "no chance" of France changing its position is a mistake.

Wayne Grabert

20th February 2003, 12:24 AM

Here's a White House Press release (http://www.bettybowers.com/protests.html) (with photos) of a pro-war demonstration.

ZeeGerman

20th February 2003, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Here's a White House Press release (http://www.bettybowers.com/protests.html) (with photos) of a pro-war demonstration.

Hehe,
isn't that JK holding that "Pinko Commie Homo Scum" sign?

Schtonk

Zee

Advocate

20th February 2003, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by iain
This is not true. In the recent past, France has often set itself against something initially, then come round in the end. Whilst this time may be different, to say that there is "no chance" of France changing its position is a mistake.

Well, I don't see it as any more likely than that the US will change its position. Maybe I should ask a different question. If it became clear that the resolution would not pass only because France was being obstructionist (and I am not saying that this is the case just yet) would you support an international coalition (not just the US and UK) enforcing the previous resolutions with military force? And would your position be any different if the roles of the members of the Security Council were reversed with the US being the objector to a French plan to enforce a resolution with force?

iain

20th February 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by Advocate
If it became clear that the resolution would not pass only because France was being obstructionist (and I am not saying that this is the case just yet) would you support an international coalition (not just the US and UK) enforcing the previous resolutions with military force? The honest answer is that I don't know. There are just too many unknowns and variables for me to feel able to make any sort of sensible judgement on that question right now. You are very welcome to ask me the question again if this should come about. I agree that if this happened, the situation would not be clearcut, but then when is it ever?

And would your position be any different if the roles of the members of the Security Council were reversed with the US being the objector to a French plan to enforce a resolution with force? I don't believe so. My opposition is based on what I believe to be the likely outcome of a war now which bypasses the UN, not on the countries supporting that plan.

stamenflicker

20th February 2003, 12:11 PM

Wayne,

First up, 95% compliance was the success of the inspectors, not the success of Sadaam's good nature. They were destroying weapons as late as 1998-- mark it down, that's a full seven years after the UN demanded they disarm. The inspectors were there to ensure not only that weapons were destroyed, but also that new programs would not be implemented.

So by your logic, the sanctions should end when the weapons are gone, even if he's just going to turn around and build more? That's like taking a kid's rock away, but letting him keep his slingshot. It absolutely doesn't work that way.

Fact is that Sadaam begin re-arming as soon as they left. Clinton should have taken care of Iraq but he didn't want to spend the $$ when he could go down in history as a good economic leader.

Second, of course we backed Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. Stability in the region was crucial, and still is. At the time the anti-American sentiment is Iran was (and some argue still us) autrocious. We were protecting our interests. That's what countries do. Maintaining balance and national boundaries was important to us.

So you let the inspectors do all they can to find and destroy what they can. You relax those sanctions that can be relaxed for purely humanitarian purposes. (Some of the sanctions were relaxed already. As was pointed out already, Saddam used oil revenues to build new palaces.)

Exactly, Sadaam could care less about his people. He did rebuild his palaces the moment sanctions eased. He also funded a variety of weapons programs.

Hence the idea of either / or is viable. There is no other way to consider the matter. Sadaam has demonstrated his unwillingness to comply with the will of the world. So we either shrug our shoulders, or remove him. Re-instituting inspections last Fall was the real joke of all jokes. America did that to appease the weak-kneed rest of the planet.

Flick

DialecticMaterialist

20th February 2003, 01:02 PM

Though I disagree with the protestors and see them as more or less leftist radicals(what I call pseudo-liberals) I must admit I found the the people dancing around in Bush masks amusing. ;)

Wayne Grabert

20th February 2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Though I disagree with the protestors and see them as more or less leftist radicals(what I call pseudo-liberals) I must admit I found the the people dancing around in Bush masks amusing. ;) It's easy to dismiss them when you erroneously and lazily put them into one fringe category. How simple minded! They anti-war movement stretches across the political spectrum. I never knew that the Libertarian Party or guys like Pat Buchanan were leftist radicals.

Edited to add: Here is an article on the anti-war movement (http://www.amconmag.com/02_10_03/feature.html) from The American Conservative. Read and learn.The Antiwar Movement Takes Shape

While the marchers have gone mainstream, many difficult choices lie ahead.

by Justin Raimondo

Edward Hamm is peeved. He not only voted for George W. Bush, he gave half a million dollars to the Republican campaign—and now he wants a refund. On Jan. 13, Hamm and a group of Republican businessmen placed a full- page ad in the Wall Street Journal. Headlined “A Republican Dissent on Iraq,” it gave voice to their complaint: “The candidate we supported in 2000 promised a more humble nation in our dealings with the world. We gave him our votes and our campaign contributions. That candidate was you. We feel betrayed. We want our money back. We want our country back.”

A week later, 100,000 turned out in San Francisco and nearly as many in Washington, D.C., to protest the war. A neoconservative smear campaign was launched that tried to label the protestors radical leftists, but these were not just the usual suspects. The throngs who waved handmade signs and marched through the streets of cities all across America were mostly made up of ordinary, middle-class Americans who oppose taking this giant step on the road to empire. I was proud to march in San Francisco alongside Veterans for Peace, who stood out even in a crowd of 100,000-plus, their banner emblazoned with this trenchant slogan: “Preemptive War is Un-American.”

DialecticMaterialist

20th February 2003, 02:04 PM

Actually I very much supported them in their mockery of Bush....

Wayne Grabert

20th February 2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by stamenflicker
So by your logic, the sanctions should end when the weapons are gone, even if he's just going to turn around and build more? That's like taking a kid's rock away, but letting him keep his slingshot. It absolutely doesn't work that way.So I suppose we are supposed to colonize Iraq?

You seem to have missed my point on deterrence. This is the concept that a nation (like the USSR) that possesses WMD will not use them first because of the retaliation it fears would result. You remember the USSR? They actually did have nuclear weapons--and lots of them. Deterrence worked.

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Second, of course we backed Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. Stability in the region was crucial, and still is.If we were interested in stability, we would not have backed a war that Iraq started. We were interested in overthrowing a regime (Iran's) that was not friendly towards us.

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Exactly, Sadaam could care less about his people. He did rebuild his palaces the moment sanctions eased. He also funded a variety of weapons programs.Saddam has a warped sense of priorities, but before the sanctions and the Gulf War, Iraq had a very modern infrastructure, probably the best in the region.

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Hence the idea of either / or is viable. There is no other way to consider the matter. Sadaam has demonstrated his unwillingness to comply with the will of the world. So we either shrug our shoulders, or remove him. Re-instituting inspections last Fall was the real joke of all jokes. America did that to appease the weak-kneed rest of the planet.

Flick I couldn't disgree more. It is still a false dilemma, but I won't repeat my arguments. And it could be argued that Bush has demonstrated his unwillingness to comply with the rest of the world (on Iraq, the Kyoto treaty, the international court, etc.)

Advocate

20th February 2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by iain
The honest answer is that I don't know. There are just too many unknowns and variables for me to feel able to make any sort of sensible judgement on that question right now. You are very welcome to ask me the question again if this should come about.

Thank you for your honesty. It is my hope, and I believe that of many in the US administration (Colin Powell especially comes to mind.) that something very much like this will come to pass. Just because I don't believe France will ever allow the Security Council to support military action does not mean I think it is time to stop trying to convince as many nations as possible to support it before moving forward. To this end, I think we have seen progress to some extent in the Middle East and to a greater extent in Europe outside France and Germany. I hope this will continue. The less of a unilateral action this is and the more nations that are involved - especially in the reconstruction after any war, the better the outcome is likely to be. On the other hand, I also believe that sitting and waiting will not be a viable option too much longer. How much longer is a question I am neither prepared nor qualified to answer. But it is not something that can go on forever and I think we do need a deadline for compliance and a standard for determining whether it has occurred if we as a world are going to wait for Iraq to disarm.

I agree that if this happened, the situation would not be clearcut, but then when is it ever?

Exactly. I don't think the current situation is as clearcut as I would like it to be. The only thing I see as clearcut is that Iraq must be made to disarm. Beyond that its all a matter of how best to acheive this. A decade of sanctions and inspections have not completed the job, but have killed a large number of Iraqi civilians. Can that be permitted to continue indefinitely?

I don't believe so. My opposition is based on what I believe to be the likely outcome of a war now which bypasses the UN, not on the countries supporting that plan.

How much of that outcome is due to their being a war at all and how much due to it being done without UN support? Also, have you considered the consequences of letting things continue the way they have for the past 12 years? As you said before, it is never clearcut. I am not cheering for us to go to war - though some people are. However, from what I have seen of possible options, it may end up being the lesser of evils.

Advocate

20th February 2003, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
So I suppose we are supposed to colonize Iraq?

No. If we do go to war, the government we set up afterward should be a temporary one to restore stability after a war. It would then be replaced by an elected Iraqi government. Even the temporary government should have representatives of the major factions in Iraq (except of course Saddam's own faction that is in power now). Will this happen? I don't know. But I think it will be a lot closer than outright colonization.

You seem to have missed my point on deterrence. This is the concept that a nation (like the USSR) that possesses WMD will not use them first because of the retaliation it fears would result. You remember the USSR? They actually did have nuclear weapons--and lots of them. Deterrence worked.

Iraq is not the USSR. Do you really think the world would be a safer place if Iraq possessed the kind of arsenal that the USSR had (or Russia has today)? IMHO the whole point behind the past 12 years of sanctions and inspections is to make sure that the current Iraqi regime never comes to possess nuclear weapons and is stripped of its biological and chemical ones. The world has already been through one nuclear standoff (US/USSR) and is in the middle of another (India/Pakistan). Should we tempt fate by allowing Iraq (whose invasion of Kuwait prompted the war that started these sanctions to begin with) to possess such weapons? Who else will develop such weapons out of fear of an Iraqi aresenal? Or who will Iraq use them on because they do not possess such weapons to retaliate with? Or even if they do? Saddam has already shown himself willing to attack without regard for the retaliation on his country. Why would he not also do this with WMDs?

If we were interested in stability, we would not have backed a war that Iraq started. We were interested in overthrowing a regime (Iran's) that was not friendly towards us.

"Not friendly" is an understatement. Iran was actively supporting terrorists that attacked US citizens. Thats a bit more than "not friendly". And the US did not want to overthrow Iran in favor of Iraq. What was desired was a balance of power to keep Iran from becoming a greater threat than it already was. At this the US was successful. Despite the "axis of evil" rhetoric, Iran is much less hostile to the US now than it was 20 years ago. Today it might possibly qualify as only "not friendly", although even now I would want to be careful in dealings with Iran. But it is certainly not as actively hostile as Iraq or North Korea.

Saddam has a warped sense of priorities, but before the sanctions and the Gulf War, Iraq had a very modern infrastructure, probably the best in the region.

True. And a postwar Iraq could have this again with the support of the US and Europe, but without a leader who builds palaces while his own people die.

I couldn't disgree more. It is still a false dilemma, but I won't repeat my arguments. And it could be argued that Bush has demonstrated his unwillingness to comply with the rest of the world (on Iraq, the Kyoto treaty, the international court, etc.)

The US does not have the same status as Iraq. More comparable would be Russia and China (though still not perfectly so) due to their greater roles in world affairs. As I recall, neither has joined the ICC and both have stayed out of other world agreements to about the same extent as the US has.

stamenflicker

20th February 2003, 08:06 PM

You seem to have missed my point on deterrence. This is the concept that a nation (like the USSR) that possesses WMD will not use them first because of the retaliation it fears would result. You remember the USSR? They actually did have nuclear weapons--and lots of them. Deterrence worked.

I agree with you in part. Deterrence is a good thing if both parties want to avert war. However, nations that want to use nuclear weapons as a deterrence, declare their weapons. Even North Korea did that in so many words (ie. backing out of non-proliforation treaties).

Sadaam does not declare his weapons-- he has no need to negotiate with anyone. He's just nuts. To this day, he claims he has no WMD. The only reason to "not declare" your weapons is if you want to use them offensively. Other nations declare, count, and openly provide nuclear information as a deterrence.

Disarming Iraq is not the answer. We must remove Sadaam. If we don't-- it's like taking the rock away, but leaving the kid with the slingshot. It'll come back and bite us, or the region, and it will happen in our lifetime-- with a much higher death toll.

Flick

Wayne Grabert

20th February 2003, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by Advocate

No. If we do go to war, the government we set up afterward should be a temporary one to restore stability after a war. It would then be replaced by an elected Iraqi government. Even the temporary government should have representatives of the major factions in Iraq (except of course Saddam's own faction that is in power now). Will this happen? I don't know. But I think it will be a lot closer than outright colonization.

We'll soon see if your rose colored world comes about. My thoughts are that Iraq may Balkanize into civil war and--even more likely--we will become bogged down in a guerilla war with angry Muslims and al Qaida will reap the rewards of a great influx of recruits and cash.

Wayne Grabert

20th February 2003, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I agree with you in part. Deterrence is a good thing if both parties want to avert war. However, nations that want to use nuclear weapons as a deterrence, declare their weapons. Even North Korea did that in so many words (ie. backing out of non-proliforation treaties).

Oh, come on! Are you that easily swayed by all the madman propaganda? Saddam is very warped, but he's not crazy. To hear foreign affairs experts talk about it, Kim Jong Il is more unstable than Saddam.

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.

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. 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.

Tell me this: where is the proof that Saddam still has WMD? I don't rule out the possibility, but where is the proof?

Here's the harder question: Where is the evidence that Iraq poses an immenent threat to the US?

Another hard question: 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."

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. (Maximum range of what they had during the Gulf War: less than 600 miles.) According to weapons experts, it is more difficult to develop an ICBM than it is to develop a nuclear weapon, and developing an ICBM is not something that can be done secretly. You have to have test firings, for example. That's something North Korea has been doing for the last several years.

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.

Something else for you and Advocate to consider: the Bush administration has done more to encourage nuclear proliferation than all the administrations before it combined. How so? 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!

Advocate

21st February 2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

We'll soon see if your rose colored world comes about. My thoughts are that Iraq may Balkanize into civil war and--even more likely--we will become bogged down in a guerilla war with angry Muslims and al Qaida will reap the rewards of a great influx of recruits and cash.

I hope you are wrong there. I don't know if things will end up as good as I proposed that they ought to, but I also don't think they will be as bad as you mentioned. I am sure the US/UK/any other allies should be able to prevent Balkanization and install some sort of government. Now how much and for how long they will protect the new government is a balancing act between stabilization and independence. Leave too soon and the new government may fall. Stay too long and it will be seen as a puppet with reprisals that would follow. IMO the two important things are to make sure a stable government exists before US/UK troops leave the country, and to schedule elections within a reasonable amount of time so as to avoid being seen as installing a puppet (or actually installing a puppet for that matter). We need to put the future of Iraq back in the hands of the Iraqi people. If we are ever to overcome the negative image in the Muslim world from invading in the first place, we absolutely MUST show that we are willing to put control of the country back in the hands of its population with as little delay as possible.

Advocate

21st February 2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Something else for you and Advocate to consider: the Bush administration has done more to encourage nuclear proliferation than all the administrations before it combined. How so? 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!

North Korea has only recently been shown to have violated the agreement it had made with the US. Iraq has been out of compliance with UN resolutions for years. A few months into the crisis with Iraq, the US was still looking for diplomatic solutions there too. If the US had been unwilling to consider diplomacy, the first Gulf War would not have ended with Saddam still in power.

I don't think there is any greater incentive to develop nuclear weapons than there has ever been. There has always been the incentive to build them to prevent attacks by any other country (not just the US). However, there is also the temptation to use nuclear weapons offensively, and that is exactly why Iraq must not be permitted to develop them and must be stripped of its existing biological and chemical weapons. It is because Iraq has failed to show that it has done this that the US is considering war.

If the US invaded any nation that had a leader it did not like and had oil that the US wanted to control, it would have invaded Venezuela instead. Venezuela is much closer. However, Venezuela has not invaded its neighbors and was not therefore forced to accept the destruction of any WMDs it might possess. And even if it had, there is no reason to suspect it possesses any in the first place. So, no WMDs, no war. If this is all about oil and a leader the US doesn't like, why not Venezuela?

Wayne Grabert

21st February 2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Advocate

If the US invaded any nation that had a leader it did not like and had oil that the US wanted to control, it would have invaded Venezuela instead. Venezuela is much closer. However, Venezuela has not invaded its neighbors and was not therefore forced to accept the destruction of any WMDs it might possess. And even if it had, there is no reason to suspect it possesses any in the first place. So, no WMDs, no war. If this is all about oil and a leader the US doesn't like, why not Venezuela?
You should do some research on Venezuela. The US government was behind last year's coup d'etat in Venezuela. It had been funding the opposition to Chavez's government for months before, and helped organize and orchestrate the business-led protests that preceded the coup. The funding came from the ironically named US National Endowment for Democracy.

Read and learn. (http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html) Venezuela coup linked to Bush team

Specialists in the 'dirty wars' of the Eighties encouraged the plotters who tried to topple President Chavez
Observer Worldview

Ed Vulliamy in New York
Sunday April 21, 2002
The Observer

The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time.

Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere.

It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan.

One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair.

Here is more. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0818-04.htm) An examination of grants of more than $1 million, given to organizations in Venezuela by the National Endowment for Democracy, has found that US tax money financed several Chavez opponents, including two organizations prominent in the protests that led up to the coup. The documents and interviews also report that money sent to one US-funded organization never reached its intended target and that another organization apparently falsified its Venezuelan accomplishments.

(snip)

Shortly after the coup, The New York Times reported that the National Endowment for Democracy had financed opposition groups, highlighting the money sent to a union opposed to Chavez. More recently, scrutiny has focused on how the money was spent.
So that is a demonstration of your beloved Duh-bya's support for democracy as opposed to his support for oil interests. Are you going to continue to proclaim the honest intentions of the Bush League Administration?

Advocate

21st February 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

You should do some research on Venezuela. The US government was behind last year's coup d'etat in Venezuela. It had been funding the opposition to Chavez's government for months before, and helped organize and orchestrate the business-led protests that preceded the coup. The funding came from the ironically named US National Endowment for Democracy.

Funding opposition protest groups is not the same as war. I don't want to go off on a tangent with Venezuela, but you made my point for me, which is why I used that example. If the US was so anxious for war, why bother supporting an internal opposition? Why not just send the troops?

I never said the US never interferes in other countries' politics. It has, it does, and it always will. So will any other country that has the ability. But that is not the same as war. And I never said that oil has nothing to do with the impending war in Iraq. Of course it does. But it isn't the only factor or even the most important one. What I am saying is that it takes more than being opposed to US policies and possessing oil to prompt the US to attack.

Wayne Grabert

21st February 2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Advocate

Funding opposition protest groups is not the same as war. I don't want to go off on a tangent with Venezuela, but you made my point for me, which is why I used that example. It's a real stretch to say that I made your point for you, just as it is a stretch to say Venezuela is comparable to Iraq in terms of its oil reserves or would give the US the same opportunity to exert its hegemony over the Middle East. So your use of Venezuela as an example is disingenuous.

Advocate

21st February 2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
It's a real stretch to say that I made your point for you, just as it is a stretch to say Venezuela is comparable to Iraq in terms of its oil reserves or would give the US the same opportunity to exert its hegemony over the Middle East. So your use of Venezuela as an example is disingenuous.

I think you are crediting me with a broader argument than I intended. All I am saying is that it takes more than oil reserves and a leader the US does not like to provoke a war. Thats all I intended to show. I apologize if the way I chose to express this was too confrontational.

Maybe I should express it this way. Venezuela and Iraq both have oil. Granted Iraq's reserves are larger, but Venezuela is much closer and does have the largest oil reserves in the Americas. Venezuela and Iraq both have leaders who the US opposes. Venezuela and Iraq are both in regions over which the US seeks to exert a dominant influence and has historically done so - the Middle East and Latin America. Why then does the US attack Iraq and not Venezuela? To me the answer seems to be Iraq's arsenal and its willingness to use it as well as its ties to terrorism. Even if you discount an Al Queda connection, Saddam has still supported other terrorist groups. Do you think these distinctions are not relevant?

J3K

21st February 2003, 07:23 PM

I haven't really read much of this thread, but I saw something on the news a few days ago about protestor's and what one of them said just struck me as funny. It was like "All the our government wants is power, they want to rule the world, so they go and start wars with people." The whole time I was thinking "we want the power of the world...so we start war with a Iraq? I just don't see how this adds together." Probably one of those had to be there sort of things, but it shows how stupid some of the reasons people are giving for not having a war.

Wayne Grabert

21st February 2003, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Advocate

Maybe I should express it this way. Venezuela and Iraq both have oil. Granted Iraq's reserves are larger, but Venezuela is much closer and does have the largest oil reserves in the Americas. Venezuela and Iraq both have leaders who the US opposes. Venezuela and Iraq are both in regions over which the US seeks to exert a dominant influence and has historically done so - the Middle East and Latin America. Why then does the US attack Iraq and not Venezuela? To me the answer seems to be Iraq's arsenal and its willingness to use it as well as its ties to terrorism. Even if you discount an Al Queda connection, Saddam has still supported other terrorist groups. Do you think these distinctions are not relevant?
The weapons have nothing to do with it. That's a pretext. Almost all of Iraq's prohibited weapons were destroyed by December 1998 when the inspectors were pulled out. North Korea has more chemical and biological weapons than Iraq, plus they have nukes. So why the focus on Iraq and the neglect of North Korea? Because the ultimate aim is global hegemony.

You don't seem to understand the group of neo-conservatives who are in the power elite at present. They are imperialist in nature. However, it's not the old, familiar, colonial style of imperialism they practice. It's the imperialism of client states. The foreign policy strategy statement issued by the Bush administration last September spelled it out. It was a call for global dominance and pre-emptive war to thwart all rivals to the USA's status as a superpower.

If you want to learn more, research The Project for the New American Century. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Project+for+the+New+American+Century&btnG=Google+Search) This neo-con "think tank" developed the blue print during the 1990's for American global dominance through perpetual warfare. It members included Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and other members of the current administration. They are going to do great damage to the future of this country with their imperialist over-reach. The US is now the greatest threat to world peace. We're no longer "the good guys." That's what happens when you allow a chimp and his circus to occupy the White House.

Here is an article (http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html) on the Project for the New American Century. This article is a good place to start. It only takes five minutes to read.

Wayne Grabert

21st February 2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by J3K
I haven't really read much of this thread, but I saw something on the news a few days ago about protestor's and what one of them said just struck me as funny. It was like "All the our government wants is power, they want to rule the world, so they go and start wars with people." The whole time I was thinking "we want the power of the world...so we start war with a Iraq? I just don't see how this adds together." Probably one of those had to be there sort of things, but it shows how stupid some of the reasons people are giving for not having a war.
Read this (http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html) before you reach a judgment on what that protester was saying. By the way, Iraq has the world's second-largest proven reserves and is in a central location within the Middle East, an important geopolitical region. Is it starting to add together yet?

Wayne Grabert

21st February 2003, 10:15 PM

Here is more commentary (http://www.sundayherald.com/27735) and background on the Project for the New American Century, this time from the Sunday Herald. Please note that the war with Iraq doesn't even have anything to do with Saddam Hussein. Saddam is just another pretext. A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.' Are your eyes opening yet? Another quote from the blueprint below.This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'. See what I mean by "perpetual warfare"? This country has been taken over by radicals! Please wake up to that. Saddam isn't the "madman" you have to worry about.

Lazarus

22nd February 2003, 03:56 AM

After reading this entire thread, I am left with the impression that many posters who support a war in Iraq have displayed a wide range of heartfelt convictions. Unfortunately, these convictions, while I am certain are honorable, have been supported by absolutely no references. Several more arguments have been nothing more than personal attacks on people considered to be socialists or communists, again, without evidence in support of these claims.

While opinion is very important, real and tangible reasons for holding those opinions are just as important if we wish for others to accept our opinions and ideas as meaningful and well thought out. I would hope that no one takes offense if I remind everyone of the obvious; “The James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking…” I realize that the mission statement of JREF goes on to speak of the paranormal and pseudoscience, but isn’t critical thinking just as valuable in concerns of this nature?

There are a few more things I am curious about. Stamenflicker opened this thread with five unsupported claims stated as fact. These ‘facts’ appear to be very serious, and I would like to have a citation of these ‘facts’ if I ever chose to use them. In particular, I am most interested in the following:

Originally posted by Stamenflicker
FACT: We kill more Iraqis with sanctions than we ever would with war.
FACT: There have been dozens of wars in the last five years, some of which have had death tolls near a million people and we did not see these protests.
FACT: These protests are not against WAR, they are against America.

Contemporary media reports would be adequate…Thanks.

Plus, the various inferences that socialists and communists are strong in the western anti-war movements seem curious to me. I’ve never even met a real socialist or communist. So, I have a couple of questions. Is there any credible citation for this? And, does this movement become less credible if supported by a majority of self-identified socialists or communists?

That said, I would like to commend Wayne G. for presenting a well conceived argument with mostly good corroboration.

Originally posted by fsol
Just interested as the thread starts with a CNN link if people actually believe everything that tabloid tells them.

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/news-cnnedit.htm

Fsol, you’re link is dead, and I would very much like to see it. Can you, please, update it, if possible?

Finally, I have one more question concerning this war we are contemplating. Considering the strong antagonistic feelings many around the world hold for the US, and the link that the present US administration claims that exists between the Hussein Regime and international terrorism, shouldn’t we pursue policies aimed at finding the roots of this problem and addressing them? I have the impression that the root causes of hostility in the Middle East have been omitted or ignored by many on both sides of the issue. And, I am not referring to the fact that Hussein has violated UN sanctions or has WMDs I refer to the conditions that allow a man like Saddam to come into power, and what can we do to keep this from occurring again in Iraq, or anywhere else, thus avoiding the need for war altogether?

J3K

22nd February 2003, 07:12 AM

Wayne Grabert
I didn't read it all but I see what you are saying. Thanx for filling me in with that information.

Wayne Grabert

22nd February 2003, 11:09 AM

Thank you, Lazarus and J3K, for expressing appreciation for the material I've presented. I assure you, Lazarus, that over the last several months I've provided support for every point I've made on this thread, but it's too much work to cite one or more references everytime I restate a point. And I find it not worth the trouble when some on the other side are True Believers when it comes to politics. It's as though they voted for the guy in office and now they have to defend him 100%! Either that or they are so easily manipulated by fear (and if you pay attention, that is an important strategic element of pushing Bush's agenda) that they can't think rationally. Again, I stress that it is some on the other side of the issue and not all.

I've presented the argument before that the war was about global hegemony (with oil being central to US interest in the region along with support for Israel). I have provided links to the Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) web page at least three times before and have linked to other newspaper analysis of the Project. I suspect some who read my posts were impressed, but the responses I got simply refused to consider the matter. Rather than addressing the facts, they wanted to play word games about the appropriateness of the term "empire."

That is what has been most disappointing (yet illuminating) to me on this board. It's how some people who call themselves skeptics (to the point that they belong to a skeptics' organization) can be so selectively skeptical and so thoroughly emotional when the subject is politics. It's not that I expect them to agree with me; it's the nature of their arguments. They'll demand evidence from me and I'll dutifully provide it. I'll demand evidence from them and never receive it. Yet they'll be unwavering in their position.

Advocate

22nd February 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

The weapons have nothing to do with it. That's a pretext. Almost all of Iraq's prohibited weapons were destroyed by December 1998 when the inspectors were pulled out. North Korea has more chemical and biological weapons than Iraq, plus they have nukes. So why the focus on Iraq and the neglect of North Korea? Because the ultimate aim is global hegemony.

I am not convinced it is only a pretext. IMO North Korea is being neglected for two reasons. First that this has only happened recently and the US has not given up on diplomatic options. And second because the US already has its hands full with Iraq. Switching gears now would make it next to impossible to deal with Iraq again for several more years. There is something to be said for finishing what you start.

You don't seem to understand the group of neo-conservatives who are in the power elite at present. They are imperialist in nature. However, it's not the old, familiar, colonial style of imperialism they practice. It's the imperialism of client states. The foreign policy strategy statement issued by the Bush administration last September spelled it out. It was a call for global dominance and pre-emptive war to thwart all rivals to the USA's status as a superpower.

The US has practiced a kind of "economic imperialism" for almost a century. There has been no change to this regardless of the administration. This relies on keeping American companies dominant across the world. But unlike the colonial system, this does not require a military presence or the use of military force. That was always its advantage. I am assuming you are talking about more than the attempt to dominate world economy though. What country does not try to maximize its own economic influence and prosperity?

If you want to learn more, research The Project for the New American Century. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Project+for+the+New+American+Century&btnG=Google+Search) This neo-con "think tank" developed the blue print during the 1990's for American global dominance through perpetual warfare. It members included Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and other members of the current administration. They are going to do great damage to the future of this country with their imperialist over-reach. The US is now the greatest threat to world peace. We're no longer "the good guys." That's what happens when you allow a chimp and his circus to occupy the White House.

I have not researched this yet, but I will. I will get back to you on this.

Wayne Grabert

22nd February 2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Advocate

The US has practiced a kind of "economic imperialism" for almost a century. There has been no change to this regardless of the administration. This relies on keeping American companies dominant across the world. But unlike the colonial system, this does not require a military presence or the use of military force. You have not read the information I provided. The US has a military presence in over 100 countries and is busily building more bases as I write. Read the information I provided. Read the part about "constabulary duties" (becoming the world's policemen). Consider the threats to world peace this policy of perpetual warfare poses. Consider the drain on our economy from perpetual warfare and maintaining an expanded global military presence. Learn the phrase "global hegemony." Learn the meaning of the term "blowback" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805062394/qid=1045963466/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-0767123-3196033) as it applies to foreign policy.

I am tired of people asking me for evidence to support my views and then ignoring it when it is provided. Don't be another ostrich with his head in the sand. A true skeptic should not be easily manipulated by politicians making unsupported claims.

Edited to add: I reject the notion that it is okay for the United States to mimic the worst impulses of other countries, especially those that were once empires and are now second or third-rate powers because of the consequences of their imperial over-reach. What kind of person, or country, does not learn from his own and others' mistakes? The word "wise" does not seem applicable.

Advocate

23rd February 2003, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
You have not read the information I provided. The US has a military presence in over 100 countries and is busily building more bases as I write. Read the information I provided. Read the part about "constabulary duties" (becoming the world's policemen). Consider the threats to world peace this policy of perpetual warfare poses. Consider the drain on our economy from perpetual warfare and maintaining an expanded global military presence. Learn the phrase "global hegemony." Learn the meaning of the term "blowback" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805062394/qid=1045963466/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-0767123-3196033) as it applies to foreign policy.

I specifically said I had not yet read the links. Although since then I have read the second one that you called "a good place to start". What I was referring to is a US policy that has been ongoing at least since the time of Theodore Roosevelt to keep American businesses dominant worldwide. From my understanding of that article, you are saying that we have moved beyond that limited goal (which for decades required a military intervention only occasionally) to a broader goal of insuring no competition to US businesses at all, even from local ones, and that this will require a serious expansion of both military presence and intervention. Do I have this basic premise right? I think I may have been misunderstanding your argument before just as I believe you have been misunderstanding mine. I want to be sure I understand what you are arguing for before I go through the evidence. As with both sides in this argument, there is a lot of emotion and accusation to sift through to get the evidence and I want to be sure of what I am looking to see if the evidence supports. Please do not take this as an accusation because it is not intended that way.

I am tired of people asking me for evidence to support my views and then ignoring it when it is provided. Don't be another ostrich with his head in the sand. A true skeptic should not be easily manipulated by politicians making unsupported claims.

Not ignoring. I just hadn't gotten to them yet. I wanted to acknowledge that I had seen your post before the thread moved on. Now that I think I understand your premise, I will look through the links you provided to see if it holds up. I am not yet saying it will or it won't. It seems unlikely to me at the moment but I can't say there isn't a "smoking gun" in there. However, I would also like to know what you propose US foreign policy should be if our current policies are wrong. By the way, I also want to tell you that I respect your opinion on this subject more than I do that of most of the other anti-war people since your opposition is in terms of what is good for the US and its people (the "blowback" argument and the resource draining effects of empire) and not in terms that seem to me to be saying that its OK for Iraq/North Korea/whoever to ignore the UN and kill their own people and/or their neighbors, but its not OK for the US to ignore the UN and use force to stop them.

Edited to add: I reject the notion that it is okay for the United States to mimic the worst impulses of other countries, especially those that were once empires and are now second or third-rate powers because of the consequences of their imperial over-reach. What kind of person, or country, does not learn from his own and others' mistakes? The word "wise" does not seem applicable.

I agree with you there. But does their having lost their empires necessarily make them any wiser? I don't think you are saying they are but some people do seem to be making this claim.

Wayne Grabert

23rd February 2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Advocate
I specifically said I had not yet read the links. Although since then I have read the second one that you called "a good place to start". What I was referring to is a US policy that has been ongoing at least since the time of Theodore Roosevelt to keep American businesses dominant worldwide. From my understanding of that article, you are saying that we have moved beyond that limited goal (which for decades required a military intervention only occasionally) to a broader goal of insuring no competition to US businesses at all, even from local ones, and that this will require a serious expansion of both military presence and intervention. Do I have this basic premise right?
I'm glad to hear back from you, Advocate. I'm sorry we didn't discuss these matters a couple months ago when my patience was not wearing thin. You seemed to me to be a reasonable and thoughtful person, and I was worried that you were bailing out on me with, "I'll have to consider that later." It's happened to me before. However, I feel now that you will at least give honest consideration to my arguments.

You are right about the interventionist history of the US. The goal has not shifted to insuring no business competition, but it has shifted to world hegemony. When the USSR fell, many people thought, "Great! Now we don't have to worry about our security being threatened by evil Communists trying to take over the world and there is so much more hope for world peace." Another, smaller group of people, in all their greed and arrogance thought, "Great, there goes the competition! Now we have so much more opportunity to wage war and take over the world."

The latter group is called the neo-conservatives. They have the misguided notion that it is the US's mission to remake the world according to its design and to do so by employing military might. They have a whole series of wars planned for us. They are the authors of the policy of pre-emption. What pre-emption is really about can be seen in our dealing with Iraq. It has nothing to do with responding to actual threats. It has everything to do with finding pretext for wars of conquest. As a Libertarian pundit put it, the Department of Defense should be named the Department of Offense.

I'm not a Libertarian (I'm a nonpartisan liberal), but I agree with them on this issue. I've never liked Pat Buchanan, but I agree with him when he says that we are supposed to be a republic, not an empire. The anti-war movement is broad. Far from being a bunch of radicals on the left fringe, it reaches across the political spectrum to include traditional conservatives and Libertarians. The radicals are the neo-conservatives, some of the most prominent of whom, like David Horowitz, were communists in the Sixties or at some point in their lives. They just transferred their communist one-world dreams to what they saw as the winning side.

Originally posted by Advocate
However, I would also like to know what you propose US foreign policy should be if our current policies are wrong. By the way, I also want to tell you that I respect your opinion on this subject more than I do that of most of the other anti-war people since your opposition is in terms of what is good for the US and its people (the "blowback" argument and the resource draining effects of empire) and not in terms that seem to me to be saying that its OK for Iraq/North Korea/whoever to ignore the UN and kill their own people and/or their neighbors, but its not OK for the US to ignore the UN and use force to stop them. Thank you for your respect. However, your characterization of the majority of the anti-war movement does not seem accurate to me, but that's another discussion and one I'm not interested in pursuing. We'll both just have to pay more attention to what the protesters are saying to know what their position is.

My position on foreign policy is this: Respecting the right of self-determination of others. That means that it should not matter what form of government another nation chooses (democratic, monarchy, socialist, communist, some other form of authoritarianism) as long as it has legitimacy. Legitimacy is the acceptance of the government's authority by its people. That is not the same as popularity. Nor is it the same as a lack of complaints. The US government has maintained legitimacy even though at times the president (not any particular president) has had approval ratings below 50% and people have always had complaints. As long as that foreign government is not hostile and aggressive towards us, we should recognize it and pursue friendly relations with it.

My philosophy recognizes that the ultimate power rests with the people--even in authoriatarian regimes. Authoritarian regimes are overthrown when the people want change bad enough. History is full of examples, including recent ones. It is not the duty of, nor is it appropriate for, the United States to impose its choice of government on other people. The idea put forth by some conservatives that people living under an authoritarian regime are helpless and must be liberated from the outside is one that ignores history and reality. If the US (and other countries) could become a democracy through popular revolt, then why should it be the place of the US to spend its lives and treasure doing other people's work for them? (Especially when they're not asking for that help.) It is my belief that democracy in some form is the result of a natural progression of an increasingly sophisticated society. It is independent of culture, but culture will influence the particular form that the democracy takes.

Once it becomes clear to the best of our honest judgment that a regime has lost legitimacy (a large, popular revolt is a good clue), then the United States can and should withdraw its recognition of the regime and assist in whatever way practical the popular revolt to expedite the inevitable and maintain goodwill with that country's people. (Those people bashing France for not being our puppet should learn that France helped us during the Revolutionary War, and for that we are indebted to them just as they are indebted to us for the liberation from the Nazis. Of course, when France helped us it was mainly to hurt the British empire than it was out of sympathy for us, but their help was still important. I think they were being sincere when they gave us the gift of the Statue of Liberty in 1876.)

So my idea of foreign policy is one of peaceful co-existence rather than war-mongering hegemony.

Please read the two articles I've directly linked (the one from the Sunday Herald is fairly short) and then continue to learn more about this. It will help you understand what is really going on.

Edited for minor corrections.

stamenflicker

23rd February 2003, 03:22 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

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

23rd February 2003, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by stamenflicker
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.
Originally posted by stamenflicker
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.
Originally posted by stamenflicker
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 (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html)
Another link to the transcript (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7891/saddam_glaspie.html)
A summary of the meeting and subsequent admission by Glaspie (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14263)
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."

Originally posted by stamenflicker
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." (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=shock+awe+%22no+safe+place+in+Baghdad%22&btnG=Google+Search)

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

23rd February 2003, 06:22 PM

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

23rd February 2003, 07:30 PM

For anyone who's interested you can read Tony Benn's interview with Saddam Hussein from a couple of weeks ago here. (http://www.channel4.co.uk/news/2003/02/week_1/04_saddam_benn.html)

There's Tony Benn's web chat afterwards here. (http://www.channel4.com/community/showcards/C/C4_News_-_Tony_Benn.html)

And the fantastic 'Between Iraq and a hard place' can be watched on line and the transcript is also available here. (http://www.channel4.co.uk/news/2003/special_reports/iraq_hard_place.html)

Galadriel

23rd February 2003, 07:42 PM

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

23rd February 2003, 07:53 PM

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

23rd February 2003, 07:59 PM

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

23rd February 2003, 08:05 PM

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

23rd February 2003, 08:22 PM

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

Wayne Grabert

23rd February 2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by stamenflicker
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.

Originally posted by stamenflicker
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.

Originally posted by stamenflicker
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.

Originally posted by stamenflicker
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.

Originally posted by stamenflicker
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."