The war in Iraq is especially hated.
Of course, all wars are hated by most thoughtful people, since they involve bloodshed and suffering. And havoc.
It’s not for nothing that Shakespeare wrote in Julius Caesar: “Cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war.” The word “havoc” has two meanings: widespread destruction, and disorder or chaos. Any war unleashes the possibility of either or both; they are part and parcel of the enterprise.
But I’m not talking primarily of that sort of generalized hatred of war, the type that’s shared by both sides and applies to all wars. No, there seems to be something special about the war in Iraq and its aftermath, the reconstruction, which seems to have aroused a level of ire unprecedented in my lifetime (a lifetime that’s included quite a few wars, including another exceptionally controversial one, Vietnam).
So I’ve been wondering about the origins of the extremity and intensity of the hatred. After all, it’s not as though this is a war with especially high casualties on either side, at least as wars go; that first element of the definition of havoc–widespread destruction–has not occurred, not even in Iraq.
And it’s not as though Saddam Hussein, whose regime was the original target of the war, is anybody’s hero outside of Iraq–and even in Iraq his supporters were/are limited, although previously powerful and presently out for blood. So no, even most of those who hate this war find it difficult to get worked up into a lather of sympathy for Saddam, and they often remember to begin war critiques with the disclaimer: “Of course, Saddam was bad, but…”.
Nor is there a draft. So in this country–and in all the other coalition members, as far as I know–no one’s life is on the line who hasn’t volunteered for that solemn responsibility. In Vietnam, in contrast, there’s no question that the draft gave enormous fuel to the protest fire. Self-interest being what it is, and human beings being what they are, that’s understandable.
So, what’s going on here? I’ve come up with a numbers of theories. The first, of course, is the enormous enmity people feel for Bush personally (I’ve written on the subject here, and Dr. Sanity has written a great deal more extensively about it here.) This hatred–and “hatred” is almost not a strong enough word for it–predated the war, of course, so the war has not caused it. Hatred for Bush is no small part of the hatred of the war itself; the two work in a sort of synergy. But by itself it doesn’t appear to account for the degree to which this war is hated.
Nor do I think hatred of this war stems mainly from the failure to find WMDs, although that likewise contributes. Once again, the hatred of this war predated that failure, so it can’t be caused by it.
So, what’s going on? I think there truly is something qualitatively different about this war that contributes greatly. Perhaps many things.
The war in Iraq was characterized with a certain audacity in its genesis. The reasons behind it, although they were explained, were complex and multiple. Some of them seemed merely “technical”–violations of UN resolutions and the ceasefire of the Gulf War, and failure to cooperate with inspectors, are unusual (perhaps unprecedented?) reasons to attack a nation. Even though the war was described as defensive–including defensive of the UN’s authority, which somehow seems ironic–it is very hard for most people to see it as defensive. This is partly because the possibility of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a third-world nation that might give them to terrorists is a relatively new one, difficult to credit and to wrap the mind around (and the failure to find WMDs in Iraq feeds into this difficulty).
But it is especially hard for many to credit the “self-defense” or “defense of the neighbors of Iraq” argument for the war because the US is a strong and powerful nation, especially militarily, and Iraq, although strong for a third-world country (as compared to, for example, Haiti), was no match for it. So the notion of bullying comes into play in many people’s minds as an almost kneejerk reaction to the disparity, without a focus on the fact that Saddam was actually the quintessential bully.
But Saddam’s bullying–and “bullying” is way too weak a word for it; better to call it “tyrannical systematic mass murder and the installation of a totalitarian fear state”–was simply not on the radar screen of most people in the West. Out of sight, out of mind, for the most part. I’m not being especially critical of this; it’s something we all do in order to go about our lives without the constant awareness of all the suffering on earth about which we can do nothing. But the consequence of this tuning out of the hardship of others it that it makes it easy for many people to forget that earlier carnage, and to argue their case as though the suffering just began, sprung full-blown from the head of Bush and only as a consequence of “his” war.
This war and its aftermath also have also been unusually long, at least by modern standards. No, the war’s not even remotely up there with Vietnam in that regard. But compared to the Gulf War, for example, it’s extremely long and complex. That’s mostly because it involves a reconstruction, always a long and difficult project. In fact, if just the original invasion and battles with Saddam’s official armies are considered, the war was remarkably, almost freakishly, short. But we are all correct to consider those skirmishes just the beginning; the real war is the reconstruction.
That fact, combined with modern-day impatience, leads to some of the rage. We’ve lost sight of how difficult such a thing is; we want immediate solutions and clean and simple endings. And of course those things would be wonderful. But they are unrealisitic. And many believe that the Bush administration expected those things as well; witness the focus on Ken Adelman’s “cakewalk” remark (I discussed that remark and its meaning and context here).
But even though Bush actually made many prewar comments on how difficult the tasks of this war would be does not change the fact that the actual reconstruction has been more difficult than most people (including, I believe, most in the administration) expected. I discuss these issues here, and I urge you, if interested, to read what I’ve said, so I don’t have to reinvent the wheel.
Underlying all of this, I believe, is the fact that in some ways this war is sui generis. The invasion of a smaller, weaker country by a larger, stronger one is a familiar sight in history, of course. But previously (absent a provoking attack on the stronger by the weaker) the reason for the attack tends to have been that the larger nation was up to no good. That is, that the invasion was motivated by an exploitative impulse to plunder.
Ancient history is full of such examples, and it’s also much of the modern story of imperialism. So that’s the template: exploitation. The fact that one of the motives for this war–although certainly not the sole factor–was the liberation of the Iraqi people is a statement greeted with derision by so many partly because it isn’t something with which we’ve previously had a great deal of experience. Therefore it’s something we have reason to be cynical about.
But it is nevertheless the truth, in my opinion–part of the reason this war was fought was said liberation. But in this case the critics are at least partly correct, in that the motive for wanting to liberate the Iraqi people has not been solely altruistic. There’s something in it for us, of course.
That’s one of the reasons the dread neocons were in favor of this war: the liberation of the Iraqi people was felt to have been in our own interests. As such, however, it would be a win-win situation: the people’s liberation would also have been in their own interests, as well as ours. And some of the anger of war opponents stems from a difficulty in seeing that self-interest and altruistic impulses are not necessarily in conflict, but sometimes (as in this case, if all goes well) can go hand in hand.
That leaves us with another question: has all gone well? Of course, the jury is out on that so far. And the answer also depends on one’s definition of “gone well,” which, in turn, depends on what one is comparing Iraq’s present state to–Switzerland? Or prewar Saddam’s Iraq? Or, especially, to what would have happened had Saddam stayed in power?
The answer also depends on how patient one is. I think the Iraqi people have demonstrated more patience than many in the West have. Of course, the “insurgents” have quite a bit of patience, too. The patience of Iraqis on both sides is understandable, because they’ve been through a lot more than most Westerners have, and have a lot more to lose. But, paradoxically, whether or not the patience of the freedom- and peace-loving elements of the Iraqi people will be rewarded depends in part on our having patience. And we in the modern West are not known for our patience.
[I may opine some more on this tomorrow; I’ve got enough material for a Part II. We’ll see).
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
What do you have against pygmies?
That would be intellectual pygmy.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
“And I’m still not a kiwi you pygmy.”
What do you have against pygmies? They’re people too!
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
“There are significant studies which show a statistical link between du and several cancers.”,
Then why haven’t you listed them Oz?
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
tumbley said…
The BBC item is interesting. They admit that there’s an issue, but believe that the answer is “greater editorial oversight.”
Actually, they commissioned the study because of a campaign of complaints (and not unconsiderable abuse) by Israeli interests. The ‘issue’ they ‘admit to’ is a series of allegations.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Douglas, I can see that arguing semantics gives you a boner.
The health and environmental effects of du are in dispute. There are significant studies which show a statistical link between du and several cancers. Like so many things of this nature we will have to wait for the jury. The tobacco companies argued successfully for 50 years that smoking had no detrimental health effects.
Until this casualty study is ‘debunked’ by a more reliable independent study, it is probably the best available evidence thus far. Whatever the number, it is too many.
What is the motive of the US for not providing accurate figures? They have a legal obligation to do so. Please read the Geneva Conventions.
Why did I mention Bin Laden? Because the FACT that you haven’t caught him, yet waged a war in Iraq with significant loss of life amongst the civilian population with no believable link to the perpertrators of your trauma, shows up the hypocrisy of the said war and the futility (given the stated aims) of that loss of life.
And I’m still not a kiwi you pygmy.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Name calling, always effective…
*sigh*
“The fact is that the effects of du are unknown and warrant further analysis.”
No, the facts are that DU is nearly harmless radiologically, has some toxic properties, and in casual short term contact, would be harmless. Under certain limited other circumstances, it may increase risks of cancer, and may cause kidney damage. CERTAIN aspects of the long term are unknown, but there is nothing to indicate serious concern about a specific issue with DU. You still can’t come up with a half decent source, can you?
“That may be why the US is conducting its own tests.”
The US conducted many tests and produced numerous reports. They do continute to monitor certain things to verify long term projections, but that’s SOP for scientific research. I didn’t present them to you because I figured a US report would be seen as unreliable to you.
“I don’t think you can pass off an internationally recognised report from Basra University as Saddam’s doing eithet.”
Nothing comes out of totalitarian states that doesn’t toe the party line, or you put your neck at risk. Saddam probably commissioned the report after seeing how people like you were so concerned about DU, never mind the science. I like this topic because it’s hard science, you can’t wiggle out of this one.
“In the absence of the occupation force fullfilling of its responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions and reporting collating and accounting for deaths under the occupation it is left to satistical analysis to come up with a best estimate. If this study was considered robust enough for the Lancet to publish it, there is some basis for believing it is at the very least plausible.”
I don’t accept something as fact just because it came from a ‘reputable’ source, do you? The Lancet is a medical journal. This wasn’t really a medical report, why was it in a medical journal?
But if you think that’s fine, then rebut the rebuttals. I gave you links to solid arguments against it’s veracity. You’ve done little but make further empty assertions and distortions without links or sources, or logical argument for that matter.
Publications with respected traditions have been used before- NYT and Duranty re: the Ukrainian famine.
Don’t swallow your food whole, you might choke on it.
“The Lancet is one of the two most respected medical journals in the English speaking world and you would do yourself a disservice trying to label it with one of your silly neocon putdowns.”
Which of my “silly neocon putdowns” would that be? You’re the one who seems so keen on putdowns.
“The fact that you think that 50,,000 deaths is acceptable in your excellent adventure tells me much about your integrity.”
Ah, first 40,000, now 50,000- soon it’ll be 100,000 will it? I was generous to your take to say 30,000 after the UN report (which put the HIGH end at 29,000). Please quote me saying 50,000 was acceptable. I did no such thing. I supplied counter arguments to your position. I’m not sure what number is acceptable, or if it’s even a meaningful debate in isolation. How many were acceptable in defeating the Imperial Japanese? It’s tough to say after the fact, much less during. Perhaps you should research civilian casualty rates for wars in general to give this context. I’m not debating what’s appropriate, but your distortion of fact. Nice second try to shift the focus, though.
“Where’s Osama?”
What’s your point? Trying to shift focus again? Saying that the war will end with the Death of Osama? What?
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Ther’s no smug moron like a wrong smug moron.
Kiwi indeed. Idiot.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
The fact is that the effects of du are unknown and warrant further analysis. That may be why the US is conducting its own tests. I don’t think you can pass off an internationally recognised report from Basra University as Saddam’s doing eithet.
In the absence of the occupation force fullfilling of its responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions and reporting collating and accounting for deaths under the occupation it is left to satistical analysis to come up with a best estimate. If this study was considered robust enough for the Lancet to publish it, there is some basis for believing it is at the very least plausible.
The Lancet is one of the two most respected medical journals in the English speaking world and you would do yourself a disservice trying to label it with one of your silly neocon putdowns.
The fact that you think that 50,,000 deaths is acceptable in your excellent adventure tells me much about your integrity.
Where’s Osama?
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Don’t you call me a kiwi you moron.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
By the way, Confude, when are you going to come clean that you’re a Kiwi, and that you were imprecise (at best) when you said your “second nearest neighbor” was Indonesia? I guess you just forgot about Papua/New Guinea, Fiji, Vanuatu, etc…
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
www.citypaper.com
“We assumed that most of the deaths were going to be from typhoid” or other disease, Burnham says. Instead, more than half the reported deaths were from violence, particularly coalition air strikes.”
just a few paragraphs after justifying the nuber this way:
“The study, which was carried out over four weeks by a team of seven medical researchers in Iraq, did not say that U.S. soldiers killed 100,000 noncombatants. It said that 100,000 excess deaths occurred since the start of the ground war. That counts the people shot or buried under rubble—and it also counts the people who died of malnutrition or starvation, who became sick and died from drinking polluted water, and people who died from all other causes directly and indirectly related to the war, including the skyrocketing crime rate.”
“More than half” would be over 50,000- still wildly out of range of the UN report numbers… try again.
As for www.iacenter.org-
the best quote you could get from a report written by SADDAMS GOVT was this?:
“The long-term effects of DU on the environment are still not fully developed. This presents a potential risk with time. This situation imposes the need to further field and specialized studies and research.”
Which by the way, is basically in the UN report as well. In plain english, it’s a basic researchers caveat that they have had a limited time of study, and can’t extrapolate (one way OR THE OTHER) about long term results. It’s basically meaningless in the context of our debate here. It proves nothing.
Note the official Saddamist line used in the report here: “used by the western allies during their aggression on Iraq in 1991.”
I love it when you try to bring me facts. More please.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
“You don’t seem cognisant of the fact that most of the pollution from the fires ended up in Iran Nepal Tibet and Kashmir.”
Proximity and spread have a great deal to do with concentration and exposure…
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
confudeforeigner said…
http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=9349
This should be short enough for the average attention span around here.
5:23 PM, May 27, 2006
confudeforeigner said…
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_iraq.htm
“The long-term effects of DU on the environment are still not fully developed. This presents a potential risk with time. This situation imposes the need to further field and specialized studies and research.”
5:30 PM, May 27, 2006
Sorry, made a bit of a hash of these posts. Too many threads open.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I’m quite sure that the oil fires played a part too. You don’t seem cognisant of the fact that most of the pollution from the fires ended up in Iran Nepal Tibet and Kashmir.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Sure, it could be chems. Or it could be oil fires being breathed in. Or both as the case may be, a case of one plus one equals cancer. Since Iran didn’t have oil fields burned in the north and south of Iraq, they didn’t get the same results as Southern Iraq.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
And Iran? Saddam used most of his chemical weapons in the 1st Gulf War. Surely if chemical weapons were the cause of all these cancers then Iran would have higher incidence than Iraq.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Why don’t the Iranians have the same rates then? Or the Kurds?
Because Saddam wasn’t shooting chem weaps at US Forces invading from Kurdland because we were fighting in the South.
Iraqi forces didn’t even know where US armor and helicopters were, they just fired the artillery shell at anyone and anything. That tends to spew a lot of chem weaps around rural villages, with fast dispersal in the air and ground and water supplies.
I think douglas is getting angry. Time for more meditation, douglas.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
“Agent Orange, thalidomide, Viiox etc haave all been deemed safe at various stages.. The rate of child cancers in Southern Iraq is the highest in the world.”
So even the UN report is unconvincing to you? This just shows you think you know more than you do- you’re conflating physics and biology issues- radiation has biological effects, but we know quite well how much = likely side effects. DU just doesn’t emit enough radiation to harm you unless you’ve been shot with it and a big piece stays in you. Read the UN report, and check the link to this: “”Agent Orange, thalidomide, Viiox etc haave all been deemed safe at various stages.. The rate of child cancers in Southern Iraq is the highest in the world.”
So even the UN report is unconvincing to you? This just shows you think you know more than you do- you’re conflating physics and biology issues- radiation has biological effects, but we know quite well how much = likely side effects. DU just doesn’t emit enough radiation to harm you unless you’ve been shot with it and a big piece stays in you. Read the UN report, and check the link to the pdf that has this:“Carcinogenicity Although bone cancer has been induced in experimental animals by
injection or inhalation of soluble compounds of high-specific-activity uranium isotopes
or mixtures of uranium isotopes, no carcinogenic effects have been reported in animals
ingesting soluble or insoluble uranium compounds (Wrenn et al., 1985). However,
given the nature of ionizing radiation damage to DNA, retention of any radioactive
material in the body will have associated an increase in the probability of cancer; albeit
small and depending on the radiation dose.” Now if you had said that southern Iraq had the worlds highest rate of kideny damage, you might’ve been able to defend your assertion, but you didn’t
There are plenty of other reasons why southern Iraq may have high childhood cancer rates- like all the airborne chemicals as a result of the oil well fires set by Saddam at the end of Gulf I. Couldn’t be good for pregnant mothers, or small children. Seems rather likely, in fact. But of course, it must be the US at fault…
“There was a massive amount of ordinance and kids being kids pick up shiny things. Not too many play stations down there.”
Most of that ordinance wasn’t DU, and most of it was fired off in areas like the road to Basra in the middle of nowhere, not walking distance to Basra. How many kids could even be in those areas? Find me ONE photo on the internet of a kid holding a piece of DU he/she picked up…
“On the numbers. It may be far lower than 100,000 but am I supposed to accept that 40,000 is acceptable?”
No, what you believe is ‘acceptable’ is up to you. You’re supposed to realize you bought a line (hook and sinker included), because you didn’t bother to research something easily disproved because it fit in so nicely with your preconceptions. This says something about what you believe in general, and your abilities to discern fact from propaganda. But you’re not gentleman enough to admit you’ve been had, and concede the point.
Is 40,000 (if that’s what it is) acceptable? What if it’s less than the number Saddam would’ve killed in the last three and a half years? Would it be acceptable then? You imply none are acceptable, thats a pretty untenable position.
Let me know when you disgorge the hook.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Oh, and you’re the dope arguing semantics.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Ymarsakar said…
The rate of child cancers in Southern Iraq is the highest in the world.
Saddam=WMD=been used before.
Why don’t the Iranians have the same rates then? Or the Kurds?
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
The rate of child cancers in Southern Iraq is the highest in the world.
Saddam=WMD=been used before.
Saddam was NOT provided with enough food to feed the population.
Oh Saddam had food, he just only fed his loyalists.
On the numbers. It may be far lower than 100,000 but am I supposed to accept that 40,000 is acceptable?
The amount that the United States has directly killed in Iraq, without resorting to semantical arguments of guilt without trial, is a lot lower than 40,000.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
At 5:51 AM, May 26, 2006, douglas said…
Confude, yes depleted uranium is very nearly harmless. You’d have to have a good sized chunk (upwards of several grams) embedded in your body for many years to have even an increased risk of cancer or other ailment. As for the radioactivity (or lack thereof) crewmen in Abrams tanks full of DU ammo actually are exposed to less radiation than infantry in the open. Why? Because the infantry are exposed to background radiation from the sun, and the tank crew are shielded from most of that by the tank’s armor. It’s physics- you can’t just argue this away. DU has a great deal of potential radio energy, but because it has a tremendously long half-life, it is actually giving off very little at any given instant. Here’s the link to the WHO’s DU report. It’s not as informative as some others, but I figure you’ll take their word for it over some US govt. agency.
Agent Orange, thalidomide, Viiox etc haave all been deemed safe at various stages.. The rate of child cancers in Southern Iraq is the highest in the world. There was a massive amount of ordinance and kids being kids pick up shiny things. Not too many play stations down there.
Au contraire- If I tell you not to hurt anyone, and you do, how am I responsible for that? The United States is not responsible for the shortcomings of the UN, home of the oil-for-food-for-bucks-for-tyrants scandal. Aside from that, if Saddam was provided with enough food and medicine for the people of Iraq, but didn’t give it to them, instead trading it for stuff he wasn’t supposed to have from other people unscrupulous enough to do business with him, how is that the fault of the US? IF you hold that we (the west) are responsible for those deaths, would we not also be responsible for the deaths of those killed by Saddam, since we let it happen? Do you see the problem with your logic yet?
Saddam was NOT provided with enough food to feed the population. Despite the masssive amount of money the regime syphoned off, it is a spit in the ocean compared to the needs of a population of 25+ million people.
As far as medicines and medical equipment goes the issue is not with Saddam it was the bans. Antibiotics were banned, chemotherapy drugs were banned, x-ray and MRI scanners banned, basic surgical instruments banned. Need I go on? Pencils banned for pitys sake.
So yes, we were responsible and we can’t plead ignorance or “unintended consequence” because we knew what was going on from day 1. See the problem with your logic yet?
And yes we are also responsible in part for the other deaths at Saddam’s hand too. Remember he was our ‘rock in the middle east’ for a long time before he was the pariah. He killed an awful lot more people in that time than after. He used chemical weapons approved by the US and largely supplied with raw materials by German companies along with US and Soviet supplied weapons. And we didn’t just turn a blind eye, we actively encouraged him.
Look here.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
On the numbers. It may be far lower than 100,000 but am I supposed to accept that 40,000 is acceptable? Whatever the manner of the deaths, they are the responsibility of the coalition. Read the Geneva Conventions.
Sorry, but you don’t get to pass them off to forces unknown. Bush had no workable plan for post occupation security and saying “gee, we thought we were liberators” doesn’t cut it legally or morally. He placed the security of the oilfields pretty high on his things to do list though didn’t he?
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Cunfude sez: The mindset of the Iranians is that they are suspicious of the west (with good reason) and they want to be entirely strategically self sufficient.
You keep talking about Iranian strategic self-sufficiency. What’s getting almost free electricity(if electricity is what’s really wanted) have to do with strategic issues?
Cunfude: Realpolitik. The symbolism of the head of a hostile rogue nuclear state having policy influence in Washington, given the actual current crisis, is not going to play well in the Islamic world. I have often wondered how many Islamic terrorists signed up on the day when the image of GWB greeting Sharon as a “great man of peace” on the White House lawn was beamed around the world. Jeeeezus H christ. Who said the yanks don’t do irony?
The US can’t stop dealing with allies just because the “Islamic world” is woefully ignorant and misinformed about the Israeli\Palestinian conflict. The typical Muslim believes the US government was behind 9/11 – with the help of the hated Jews, of course. Such deep ignorance will probably never be overcome and certainly won’t be relieved by shunning an ally. On the one hand you deny that most Muslims tacitly support terrorism and deny any monolithic Islamic hatred of the West and on the other hand you caution against stirring up(by consulting with an ally) the very things you deny.
I said earlier: On the “implied threat” – That threat would go away if Iran would stop employing and funding terrorists. If they continue to employ terrorists they need to know that one day there may be an accounting for waging war by proxy.
Cunfude: Again, realpolitik dictates that one must separate and identify your enemies.
I would think that common sense and a desire for survival, not realpolitic, would compel the identification of enemies. That has been one of the problems in the past, that the US has not fully identified its enemies. But by fits and starts that’s being corrected. These tin-pot despots who have been employing the terrorists with impunity need to know that some day, perhaps soon, that there could be retribution.
I said earlier: Considering the two countries’ relative sizes and power I think it more likely that Bush was giving advice to Israel. But good advice should be thoughtfully considered irregardless of the source. Your hatred of Israel is your problem, not Bush’s problem.
Confude: Really? Read the American Century again. And very carefully note the signatories. I recognize the hypocrisy of the Israeli political leadership and I know of the reality of what is a brutal suppression, oppression and sustained murderous treatment of an entire people because they happened to live in Palestine. What were they thinking? In the US you only get one side of the story. Your news media is gutless to the point of culpability.
I’m afraid I’ve read all sides of the sad story. Here are some sites you should visit:
http://www.memri.org
http://www.seconddraft.org
http://camera.org
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Read my post again. It isn’t me that is confused. That goes for the rest of your rant too, I am a westerner. We did it, you included. The sanctions were written by the US and Britain and approved and administered by the UN. We are all equally responsible.
Look, you were talking about the US killing a hundred thousand civilians in the last 4 years. Then you started skipping around to the sanctions, and when I pointed out that there is no logical connection between why the existence of sanctions justifies the US killing 100,000 civilians in the last 4 years, you now talk about “we did it”. No, the US, let alone I, did not kill 100,000 civilians in the last 4 years. And sanctions from 10 years ago aren’t going to cover up that fact of reality.
We are NOT equally all responsible, because the US unlike you, actually ended the sanctions. And we weren’t profiting from ending the sanctions unlike your friends in the UN security council. They would have ended sanctions and let Saddam stay in power, we got rid of both. We are obviouslly not equally responsible because we obviously prefered differenct actions that would have lead to different results.
You are it’s biggest constituent part and the biggest barrier to its reform.
Like the BMC said, constituents are individuals. No individual in the world has any say in the UN. Period. There are no elections, there are no representatives, there are only dictators, democracies, and their ambassadors. The people in the UN represent nations, not individuals.
Put “quotations” around the quotes, which would satisfy Justin’s request.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
The Israelis have been dividing and conquering for decades and Israel is a testament to ethnic cleansing
I guess that’s why the Jews own the Middle East. That’s why victims of ethnic cleansing, like the Kurds, have more sympathy for the Jews than they do for their fellow (Arab) Muslims.
That’s why there are so many Arabs living in Israel.
Hamas has done what ethnic cleansing exactly? You mean wanting to get rid of the settlers as per UN resolution.
From Article 6 of the Hamas Covenant:
“The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.”
From the Preamble:
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”
Hamas wants Lebensraum, just like Hezbollah, just like the Mullahs in Iran, the Janjiweed in the Sudan, the ’separatists’ in Thailand, the ‘rebels’ in Kashmir and just like Al Qaeda.
These groups quote the Koran in the same way that the Ugandan Lords Resistance army uses the Bible to justify mass slayings and slavery. Islam isn’t to blame for groups like al Qaeda, Hamas and their ilk, just like Christianity isn’t to blame for the LRA. The politicians who use Islam to justify ethnic cleansing are to blame.
By the way, didn’t you say this a while ago?
Iran’s economy needs a consistent efficient electricity supply to grow. Why on earth would we try to stop them when, surely, our desire is to see the reemergence of the educated middle class as a force in their politics?
LOL. I’d guess that about 99% of the world’s population knows what these reactors are for and it has nothing to do with oil-rich Iran’s need for ‘energy’. Then you call Iran a “nascent democracy”. Who do you think you’re fooling?
You are threatening them not they you.
I’m proposing that we ignore the Mullahs for now because they’re too stupid to be a nuclear threat.
You’re the one who was whining about an “almighty conflagration”. Since the nuclear genie was let out of the bottle, there has always been a possibility of an “almighty conflagration”. It could happen tomorrow. The best solution is to live well. Stop wasting your free time shilling for the mullahs on the internet.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Thanks for a lot fewer insults than most such threads!
The Palestinians had a point that Israel’s creation was not perfectly just. Yet from 1948 - 1967 Muslim Egypt and Jordan could have but failed to support the creation of a second, Palestinian state, next to the Jewish state, on pre-1967 boundaries.
Instead crazy USSR supported Nasser massed troops on the border, and Israel wiped out the wimpy Muslim fighters in 6 days.
The Jews humiliated the weak, disorganized, undisciplined Arab Muslims — which is a big reason the Jews are hated. Much more so than them taking land which had been conquered Ottoman land, and very poor, for centuries. Muslim shame about weakness has been turned into Jew-hate and America-hate. Supported by those who hate capitalism’s success.
The oppression has always been Arab oppression of Palestinians, as is true in Lebanon today, while blaming it on the West, the US, and Israel. Mostly false blame, yet Israel hasn’t been perfectly just — and there is NO “pure justice” available today.
Peace will require acceptance of less than justice.
It’s important to see how the Left blames America/ the West for most of the evil of recent history.
The Holocaust murders were caused by Hitler, not the West’s unjust Treaty of Versailles; the Cambodian Killing Fields were caused by (China supported) commie Pol Pot, not Nixon’s bombing [with commie victory enabled by the Dems voting to end funding for fighting evil]; the Rwanda genocide was Hutu vs unjust Tutsi (French enabled, Clinton calling it “not genocide”, until it was over); the Darfur genocide is enabled by the UN & Amnesty calling it “not genocide.”
The choice is war or genocide, and the anti-war folk want to stop genocide with words, only. Their failure to do is blamed … on America.
The evil is done by the evil actors, and such evil actors always look to excuse their evil actions with some imperfections of others.
America is good, is great — but is imperfect. The Left that blames America for Iraqis starving due to sanctions, is failing to blame Saddam, the acting dictator in charge, for the deaths.
The Left that blames America for Iraqis dying from suicide bombs is failing to blame the acting Islamist murderers, though more Iraqis are starting to.
The purpose of the blame includes “keeping their hands clean,” but also indulging in BDS Bush-hate. It’s fun to demonize “the enemy” — and Bush-haters do it, with Bush as the enemy.
If Iran gets a nuke, and allows Hizbollah to nuke Tel Aviv “secretly” — such “blame America first” Leftists will blame America.
America should act like Iran is on that path now. Iran, unlike Israel, signed the NPT. That means, for 3 years they’ve been in violation of their signed agreements.
What does “international law” say about violations? Well, no UN SC resolution, no enforcement. It’s not really law, because there’s no World Cop; no World Judge; no democratic World Legislature. There “is” the UN, full of corrupt dictators, all looking to blame America for any evil by themselves, and using America’s imperfections as justifications.
The purpose of the UN was to stop genocide, and stop war — and it has failed, failed, failed, and is still failing. As long as there are important, powerful countries that don’t accept Free Press & Free Religion, it will continue to fail.
(The world needs a Human Rights Enforcement Group / coalitions of willing democracies — but such an org doesn’t exist yet.)
Of course, the Left blames the failures of the UN on … America! Not supporting the ICC, not doing enough (in Darfur), doing too much (in Iraq). Even the weather is America’s fault! — Bush doesn’t support signing Kyoto (which Clinton’s gov’t rejected). Of course, those that DID sign, are virtually all in violation.
But “signed treaties”, like the Paris Peace Accords, are only really to be followed by America. Other country violations don’t matter, don’t count, and never reduce the blame to be given to (too-)rich America for being imperfect.
I blame Bush, too, a little bit — he should have been talking about invading Darfur for two years. He should have pointed out the alternative to imperfect American invasion is slo-mo, UN enabled genocide.
He should also talk about how long, and slow is the process of nation-building. Look at how Iraq is already ahead of Kosovo (media suppressed info, of course).
There were other ways to help Iraqs rebuild faster (municipal loan bonds to elected Iraqi mayors, for instance, controlled by Iraqis), and much cheaper for the US taxpayer.
But read the Euston Manifesto — Leftists like Norm Geras who is more honestly in favor of human rights and democracy, and is increasing disturbed by the rampant, intellectually dishonest anti-Americanism of so much of the Left.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
“Iran has limited but still meaningful choice in their elections, Iran may well liberalise the political process given time. “
You’re not serious, are you? Meaningful choice? In elections where truly meaningful candidates are disallowed from running? The Mullahs are just better at playing the game than Saddam, so people like you will say things like the above quoted silliness. yikes.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Confude, yes depleted uranium is very nearly harmless. You’d have to have a good sized chunk (upwards of several grams) embedded in your body for many years to have even an increased risk of cancer or other ailment. As for the radioactivity (or lack thereof) crewmen in Abrams tanks full of DU ammo actually are exposed to less radiation than infantry in the open. Why? Because the infantry are exposed to background radiation from the sun, and the tank crew are shielded from most of that by the tank’s armor. It’s physics- you can’t just argue this away. DU has a great deal of potential radio energy, but because it has a tremendously long half-life, it is actually giving off very little at any given instant. Here’s the link to the WHO’s DU report. It’s not as informative as some others, but I figure you’ll take their word for it over some US govt. agency.
“The sanctions were written by the US and Britain and approved and administered by the UN. We are all equally responsible.”
Au contraire- If I tell you not to hurt anyone, and you do, how am I responsible for that? The United States is not responsible for the shortcomings of the UN, home of the oil-for-food-for-bucks-for-tyrants scandal. Aside from that, if Saddam was provided with enough food and medicine for the people of Iraq, but didn’t give it to them, instead trading it for stuff he wasn’t supposed to have from other people unscrupulous enough to do business with him, how is that the fault of the US? IF you hold that we (the west) are responsible for those deaths, would we not also be responsible for the deaths of those killed by Saddam, since we let it happen? Do you see the problem with your logic yet?
100,000? Get with the times, that’s long ago debunked. Where, pray tell, do you get your info? This article at Slate slams the survey, and they’re no fans of the Bush admin. He goes with Iraq the body counts numbers, but they’re dissected here. You won’t like the source, but I’d like to see you refute it with logical argument.
Of course, then you’d have to explain why a more complete survey by the UN puts the number FAR lower… link
They say:“War-related Death
The number of deaths of civilians and military personnel in Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion is another set of figures that has raised controversy. The Living Conditions Survey data indicates 24,000 deaths, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 18,000 to 29,000 deaths. According to the survey data, children aged below 18 years comprise 12% percent of the deaths due to warfare.”
One then has to also keep in mind that some of those casualties are ‘civilian’ combatants/insurgents, many were innocent civilians killed BY insurgents, or used as human shields, victims of crime would be indistinguishable from those of warfare, intersectarian violence, etc. Also, subtract all those who weren’t killed by Saddam since he’s been out of power… It actually doesn’t leave all that many for our helicopter gunships and smart-bombs, does it…
Are you starting to see yet why we don’t simply take all you claim as fact at face value???
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Yfronts said…….
So you should really separate out in your mind the sanction period from 1993 to 2003, to the OIF period from 2003 to 2006.
Read my post again. It isn’t me that is confused. That goes for the rest of your rant too, I am a westerner. We did it, you included. The sanctions were written by the US and Britain and approved and administered by the UN. We are all equally responsible. The corruption changes nought in the human cost. The State Dept and the British FO decided the items on the banned list and a lot of it was pure unadulterated bastardry. Pencils and exercise books for gawds sake.
You really need to figure who the UN is Yboy. You are it’s biggest constituent part and the biggest barrier to its reform.
Justin, for some reason I can only get safari to change ALL the font. Sorry, I know it is confusing. New on macs.
Maryzazero.
A ridiculous post. You are threatening them not they you.
The Israelis have been dividing and conquering for decades and Israel is a testament to ethnic cleansing.
Hamas has done what ethnic cleansing exactly? You mean wanting to get rid of the settlers as per UN resolution. Hmmm.
More lovely western hypocrisy. Great stuff. I love that bile from you guys when confronted with the undeniable fact that the Palestinians may have a point.
Learn the history.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Confude, PLEASE indicate when you are quoting somebody (and how much of it is the quote) with bold, italic, anything.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Further, the US as an occupying force is legally and morally responsible for security of the captive population.
That’s why more troops in the beginning wouldn’t have worked. Only orders from High Command to shoot looters, kill and torture kidnappers, behead insurgents publicly in front of town squares, would have helped early on. Neither you nor US High Command were willing to do such things to secure the indigenous population, so you really can’t say your superior to the US in terms of protecting the captive population because you would not have approved the necessary means to secure the captive population.
Conservative estimates put the death toll from the sanctions at 500,000.
Take that up with people who were profiting from the sanctions in Europe and the UN, and the people who thought Saddam was contained.
The US solved the problem of sanctions, permanently. What did you guys do while these “people you didn’t care to liberate” were dieing in Iraq?
By the way, you should really correct your facts, confud.
The fact of the matter is that you/we’ve killed 100,000 plus civilians in the last 4 years and gawd knows how many in Iraq since the Kuwait thing. Explaining to the family of an arab that there dead father/mother/sister/brother/child was ‘collateral damage’ would seem an obscenity wouldn’t it? I won’t even mention the recent spate of summary executions of civilians by US troops in Iraq.
By my calculations, sanctions stopped soon after 2003.
So you should really separate out in your mind the sanction period from 1993 to 2003, to the OIF period from 2003 to 2006.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Hmmm, how about to bring about a peaceful resolution and some understanding that allows the entire planet to move forward without creating one almighty conflagration. I have the impression that you would like the conflagration though.
Peaceful resolution to what? What almighty conflagration are you trying to threaten us with?
Are we supposed to respect the Mullahs et. al. because they’re threatening us with nukes? Why are you encouraging us to give in to baseless extortion? Because you’re afraid of Armegeddon? We’ve been living under the threat of Armegeddon for decades, nothing has changed. Get used to it.
If we’re afraid of the dweebs in Iran we have no business calling ourselves a superpower.
This whole lumping of all the muslims in together and blurring of distinctly different groupings in getting tiring. It is childish and unproductive. I won’t use the ‘r’ word but there is a distinct reek in your last couple of posts.
All Iraqis aren’t Muslims. Did I mention Muslim Kurds, Pakistanis, Lebanese, Moroccans, Egyptians, Nigerians, Americans, Britons, Indonesians, Malaysians or Uighurs?
No, I’m criticizing Islamists. I don’t think we should dialogue with kleptocratic, theocratic chuckleheads who have been carrying out campaigns of ethnic cleansing against Jews, Copts, Palestinian Christians, Lebanese Christians, Zoroastrians and Kurds. Because they are the enemy we’re supposed to be fighting.
You call me a racist for criticizing this campaign of ethnic cleansing. Why?
Who are you going to deal with if you won’t deal with the elected representatives?
In a war against terrorism, the goal is to kill terrorists. I would deal with anyone who could effectively help us kill the enemy, in numbers large enough to force a genuine surrender. If I wanted to win the war.
If I wanted to lose, I’d negotiate with terrorists.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Ymarsakar said…
I’d say civilians deaths due to American attacks are lower than American fatalities in Iraq. Now civilian deaths due to terroists cutting people’s heads off and blowing children up with IEDs, now that probably exceeds around 10,000 perhaps, although probably not 100,000.
6:59 PM, May 25, 2006
Then you’d be lying. American bombs and bullets have killed innumerably more than what 2500?
Further, the US as an occupying force is legally and morally responsible for security of the captive population.
Conservative estimates put the death toll from the sanctions at 500,000. Even if that is wildly overstated it is still a ridiculous death toll to punish the Baathist leadership. (who were making shedloads of money out of the sanctions).
Its a funny old world.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
??? And 100% of Iraqis voted for Saddam, when Iraq was another “nascent” democracy.
That isn’t worthy of a response really, but here goes, Iran was once a democracy, Iran has limited but still meaningful choice in their elections, Iran may well liberalise the political process given time.
Unlike Saddam’s Iraq which was never anything of the sort, nor had the Iraqi people any experience of democracy or even ever being a nation as such.
This whole lumping of all the muslims in together and blurring of distinctly different groupings in getting tiring. It is childish and unproductive. I won’t use the ‘r’ word but there is a distinct reek in your last couple of posts.
Why would you talk to the mullahs?
Hmmm, how about to bring about a peaceful resolution and some understanding that allows the entire planet to move forward without creating one almighty conflagration. I have the impression that you would like the conflagration though.
Hizbollah and Hamas are working towards the same goals as al Qaeda (Arabism, Islamism, ethnic cleansing of minority groups). The current tactics being used against Hamas are interesting. Giving terrorists political power while taking their money supply away and keeping them behind guarded borders seems to be creating a civil war. It’s scorpions in a bottle, or ‘let’s you and him fight’. If Hamas and Fatah wind up destroying each other, I would hope we could use a similar tactic later. It’s cost-effective too.
Who are you going to deal with if you won’t deal with the elected representatives? Realpolotik remember?
Neither Hamas or Hezbollah have ever been involved in ethnic cleansing. Ridiculous.
You forget that Palestine was a multireligious, multicultural and relatively peaceful place prior to the Zionist terrorists ethnic cleansing, wholesale slaughter and land seizures.
I suppose you were comfortable with apartheid South Africa too.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I’d say civilians deaths due to American attacks are lower than American fatalities in Iraq. Now civilian deaths due to terroists cutting people’s heads off and blowing children up with IEDs, now that probably exceeds around 10,000 perhaps, although probably not 100,000.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
The fact of the matter is that you/we’ve killed 100,000 plus civilians in the last 4 years and gawd knows how many in Iraq since the Kuwait thing.
Are you sure that figure isn’t eleventy million by now? According to the latest issue of Lancet, I’m sure it is.
You need to seperate Hizbollah and Hamas from AQ. Entirely different agendas, different tactics. (I can hear the screeching starting for that
)
Hizbollah and Hamas are working towards the same goals as al Qaeda (Arabism, Islamism, ethnic cleansing of minority groups). The current tactics being used against Hamas are interesting. Giving terrorists political power while taking their money supply away and keeping them behind guarded borders seems to be creating a civil war. It’s scorpions in a bottle, or ‘let’s you and him fight’. If Hamas and Fatah wind up destroying each other, I would hope we could use a similar tactic later. It’s cost-effective too.
Your parallel between the Shia mullahs in Tehran and the Wahabbis is wrong
Then can you tell me why many Iranians call the Islamists ‘Arabs’ (which is one of the most unkind things one Persian can call another).
Let’s not forget that the Iranians have been trying to get a dialogue going for some time now with the US without much success. Each side has been guilty of dissembling and obfuscation but the mullahs have given every indication that they want dialogue with the west.
Why should we want to ‘dialogue’ with troglodyte Mullahs and their spokesman? I think the Iranians are trying to get a Gaddafi’-style deal. I doubt that they are capable of creating a real nuclear arsenal. Everyone with brains left that country decades ago and the Chinese and Russians aren’t stupid enough to give them real equipment. (although Europe might be). That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t target the regime at some point in time, but we shouldn’t panic because they say ‘nukes’! Like Gaddafi, they’re hoping to extort money and legitimacy from us. ‘Dialogue’ and giving in to extortion is the worst option.
If we want to deal effectively with Iran, we’re going to have to improve our relations with China and Russia.
I didn’t say that Iran is a free and open democracy, at best it is a nascent democracy.
??? And 100% of Iraqis voted for Saddam, when Iraq was another “nascent” democracy.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
OK smart kid. How many? And I suppose the sanctions were responsible for no deaths and depleted uranium is benign.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
The fact of the matter is that you/we’ve killed 100,000 plus civilians in the last 4 years and gawd knows how many in Iraq since the Kuwait thing.
Like I said before. Believing the BBC tends to make people utter false things like “US has killed 100,000+ civilians in the last 4 years”.
People who listen to the BBC also tend to say stuff like this.
In the US you only get one side of the story. Your news media is gutless to the point of culpability.
If everyone flips a 100,000 denomination coin, which side lands up 100,000?
Douglas, get a grip ; ) It’s time to eject, the ship’s going to down. SOS
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Douglas said…..
confudeforeigner said…
“Yes, he (Ahmedinejad) is, after all, an elected president who replaced a moderate western leaning head of state who was defeated.”
Elected? Moderate? Defeated? You’re joking, right? You say this like Iran is a free and open democracy, and these presidents aren’t really tapped by the Mullahs. Perhaps we should take everything else you say with a few grains of salt.
No, not joking at all. I didn’t say that Iran is a free and open democracy, at best it is a nascent democracy. Do some reading about the candidates before you blunder in next time and don’t be such a political chauvanist.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Grackle said….
The mindset of the above quote is interesting. If Iran decided to let the West provide almost free electricity to them they wouldn’t be any worse off than they are now. They could always go back to merrily enriching uranium for electricity. I really don’t understand the problem – on the one hand you can enrich uranium for electricity or on the other hand you can have the reactor-grade uranium for free and on top of that you get a free reactor. Sounds like a great deal to me.
Well, I’ll deal with my “mindset” in my own time thanks. The mindset of the Iranians is that they are supicious of the west (with good reason) and they want to be entirely strategically self sufficient.
Not discuss the Middle East with a visiting Middle Eastern ally? Well, I know you don’t like Israel but discussion of issues with an ally is mere elementary, conventional foreign policy behavior – done no doubt since nations were first formed.
Realpolitik. The symbolism of the head of a hostile rogue nuclear state having policy influence in Washington, given the actual current crisis, is not going to play well in the Islamic world.
I have often wondered how many islamic terrorists signed up on the day when the image of GWB greeting Sharon as a “great man of peace” on the White House lawn was beamed around the world. Jeeeezus H christ. Who said the yanks don’t do irony?
On the “implied threat” – That threat would go away if Iran would stop employing and funding terrorists. If they continue to employ terrorists they need to know that one day there may be an accounting for waging war by proxy.
Again, realpolitik dictates that one must seperate and identify your enemies.
Considering the two countries’ relative sizes and power I think it more likely that Bush was giving advice to Israel. But good advice should be thoughtfully considered irregardless of the source. Your hatred of Israel is your problem, not Bush’s problem.
Really? Read the American Century again. And very carefully note the signatories.
I recognize the hypocrisy of the Israeli political leadership and I know of the reality of what is a brutal suppression, opression and sustained murderous treatment of an entire people because they happened to live in Palestine.
What were they thinking?
In the US you only get one side of the story. Your news media is gutless to the point of culpability.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
BMC:“It’s absurd to imagine that any totalitarian state could threaten the US, or the EU.”
Uh, China? They certainly COULD. Would they at some point? Tough question, but they are making some moves of late that might make that a very worthy point of consideration.
confudeforeigner said…
“Yes, he (Ahmedinejad) is, after all, an elected president who replaced a moderate western leaning head of state who was defeated.”
Elected? Moderate? Defeated? You’re joking, right? You say this like Iran is a free and open democracy, and these presidents aren’t really tapped by the Mullahs. Perhaps we should take everything else you say with a few grains of salt.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
maryatexitzero said…
You won’t be able to imprison 1.3 billion people so all you can do is limit the appeal.
We’re not at war with 1.3 billion people, we’re at war with the Islamist mujahideen and their sponsors. As I’ve noted before, most 1.3 billion Muslims also loathe the Islamist mujahideen and their sponsors.
Reading this site and listening to the architects of US foreign policy gives one a distinct impression of the opposite.
Know your enemy. To do that you first have to identify him/her/it.
That’s the easiest part of the equation.
Speaking of our enemy, the mujahideen/Taliban/al Qaeda and your statement “Are you honestly suggesting that killing more people will not recruit more willing terrorists?” my answer to that question is - killing terrorists does not produce more terrorists. We killed very few terrorists before 9/11, and in that time al Qaeda recruited more than 20,000 mujahideen to train in Afghanistan.
The fact of the matter is that you/we’ve killed 100,000 plus civilians in the last 4 years and gawd knows how many in Iraq since the Kuwait thing. Explaining to the family of an arab that there dead father/mother/sister/brother/child was ‘collateral damage’ would seem an obscenity wouldn’t it? I won’t even mention the recent spate of summary executions of civilians by US troops in Iraq.
Our goal in this war should be to kill terrorists and their supporters as quickly and efficently as possible. Afghanistan was a step in the right direction, but Iraq wasn’t a good first choice because of all the nations in the area, Saddam was the least connected to al Qaeda and 9/11. Iran and the Sudan would have been better choices.
I’ll agree that Iraq was a ridiculous choice and I have no problem with going after the Taliaban, although the tactics were/are reprehensible and the job wasn’t finished in any satisfactory way. I won’t agree though that Iran should be a target for 11/9. Your parallel between the Shia mullahs in Tehran and the Wahabbis is wrong (and way too big an argument for here). It is all very well to say they sponsor terrorism but that is a blanket statement paints too broad a brushstroke to capture the realpolitik on the ground.
You need to seperate Hizbollah and Hamas from AQ. Entirely different agendas, different tactics. (I can hear the screeching starting for that
)
Without linkage to Bin Laden and hard evidence that they knew of the plot there isn’t sufficient reason to launch an attack that will surely killl more innocents.
Let’s not forget that the Iranians have been trying to get a dialogue going for some time now with the US without much success. Each side has been guilty of dissembling and obfuscation but the mullahs have given every indication that they want dialogue with the west.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I think the US or any sovereign state would be crazy to turn down such a deal – or have another motive not related to electricity.
If the French offered to build us our nuclear plants, we’d take it. And France ain’t very popular with me or Jacksonian America.
If people like me don’t worry about the French controlling American “electricity”, what is up with the paranoid conspiracy theorists concerning iranian electricity?
impression that teh USA is all set on a new crusader war….read the posts.
That’s like saying two people looking at a piece of art will see, say, and think the same thing. This isn’t totalitarian America yet. Reading the posts will do nothing to justify the statement that the USA is all set on a new crusader war, regardless of who you are talking about.
Neo does believe there is something intrinsically wrong with Muslim culture. I’l start just by listing one problem. Polygamy.
When one man has 10 wives, what do you think the younger males will be doing in the mean time? A bunch of sex starved, socially redundant young males, with no family connections to worry about, are known as “cannon fodder” to be thrown at “new wars” for the benefit of those who have 10 wives.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Iran sees the US as a part of ‘the west’ and they are unlikely to be jumping at something that gives the west power over something as strategically vital as their electricity supply.
The mindset of the above quote is interesting. If Iran decided to let the West provide almost free electricity to them they wouldn’t be any worse off than they are now. They could always go back to merrily enriching uranium for electricity. I really don’t understand the problem – on the one hand you can enrich uranium for electricity or on the other hand you can have the reactor-grade uranium for free and on top of that you get a free reactor. Sounds like a great deal to me.
Do you think the US or any sovereign state would accept anything similar? The US won’t even allow the UN to pass a resolution condemning Israel for its nuclear weapons.
I think the US or any sovereign state would be crazy to turn down such a deal – or have another motive not related to electricity.
I was questioning the need for GWB to be discussing the issue with Israel, not Russia. It isn’t a good look.
Not discuss the Middle East with a visiting Middle Eastern ally? Well, I know you don’t like Israel but discussion of issues with an ally is mere elementary, conventional foreign policy behavior – done no doubt since nations were first formed.
The thing is, that Iran is a sovereign state with a political process, however limited. It is in their interests to do business with the west constructively.
What’s more constructive than accepting a great deal that would prove the US is wrong about Iran’s nuclear intentions.
The European plan may well be attractive economically but is still strategically unattractive. It doesn’t look much like they will get the option anyway at the moment because the US is threatening to veto it.
I’m still not understanding why a free reactor and free fuel to run it is “strategically unattractive.”
The Iranians aren’t talking whilst under implied threat. GWB needs to think about this and it doesn’t look good from where I sit.
It doesn’t look good from where I sit, either – only it doesn’t look good when I gaze in Iran’s direction. On the “implied threat” – That threat would go away if Iran would stop employing and funding terrorists. If they continue to employ terrorists they need to know that one day there may be an accounting for waging war by proxy.
Taking advice from Tel Aviv is not the responsible option.
Considering the two countries’ relative sizes and power I think it more likely that Bush was giving advice to Israel. But good advice should be thoughtfully considered irregardless of the source. Your hatred of Israel is your problem, not Bush’s problem.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
People like neo believe there is something intrinsically wrong with the whole muslim culture and it can only be sorted out by force
No, ‘people like neo’ believe that Muslim culture can be reformed, not necessarily by force. Most neo-cons believe in the hearts and minds theory, that money and good will, combined with as little war as possible, will reform a culture.
I don’t think this will work, first because Islam (the religion) is not to blame and second because, even if it was, there’s no way that we can ‘reform’ it. It’s not our religion.
However, if we’re offering lots of money and political power to anyone who promises to ‘reform’ Islam and control extremism you can bet that a lot of people will promise to do it. Look at the Ayatollah Sistani.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
If your are serious about being on the side of “moderate” muslim opinion then you had better get the rest of these neo-cons to be quiet as they give any muslim who comes on here the firm impression that teh USA is all set on a new crusader war….read the posts.
People like neo believe there is something intrinsically wrong with the whole muslim culture and it can only be sorted out by force.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
You won’t be able to imprison 1.3 billion people so all you can do is limit the appeal.
We’re not at war with 1.3 billion people, we’re at war with the Islamist mujahideen and their sponsors. As I’ve noted before, most 1.3 billion Muslims also loathe the Islamist mujahideen and their sponsors.
Know your enemy. To do that you first have to identify him/her/it.
That’s the easiest part of the equation.
Speaking of our enemy, the mujahideen/Taliban/al Qaeda and your statement “Are you honestly suggesting that killing more people will not recruit more willing terrorists?” my answer to that question is - killing terrorists does not produce more terrorists. We killed very few terrorists before 9/11, and in that time al Qaeda recruited more than 20,000 mujahideen to train in Afghanistan.
Those 20,000 were inspired by peace and by our attempts to live with and negotiate with the Taliban. After 9/11, it was a good idea to kill thousands of Taliban, but we didn’t kill enough of them. Following the war in Afganistan, we should only have attacked the states that directly supported the 9/11 attacks.
The purpose of war shouldn’t be to bring democracy to our enemies or make them better, happier people. It should be to kill enemy troops/combatants/mujahideen until they reach the point of offering a genuine surrender. War should be used only in self-defense.
The message of the 9/11 attacks was that we were facing an enemy whose goal wasn’t negotiation or even war, it was just annihilation. That’s their goal, and the only thing that limits them is their lack of powerful weaponry. We’re facing an intractable enemy. You don’t negotiate with an intractable enemy.
Iraq didn’t produce the terrorists coming out of the KSA, Kuwait or the UAE - if you look back on the history of the Gulf Arabs and Wahhabism, you’ll see that their history and traditions are, basically, terrorism and imperialism. In the good old days, they were too dirt poor to act on their goals. Now they have money. Yet another reason why giving terrorists money is the worst possible idea.
If you look at the history of Iran, you’ll see that their leaders more resemble Wahhabis now. They’re rapidly destroying their rich, Persian heritage.
Our goal in this war should be to kill terrorists and their supporters as quickly and efficently as possible. Afghanistan was a step in the right direction, but Iraq wasn’t a good first choice because of all the nations in the area, Saddam was the least connected to al Qaeda and 9/11. Iran and the Sudan would have been better choices.
Look at Iraq. Oh, I forgot, Iraq is a shining success and all the bad guys are Saudis. Yeah right.
If you look back on my comments, I said that Iraq wasn’t a success because it benefitted nations like the KSA.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
People against the war are really fucking stupid.
I’m sorry, but there just isn’t a good reason to be against it.
Now, I know, all you war critics will say that’s way over the top, but it’s really bloody true: you’re stupid. You are ignorant fools and morons and you really have no grasp of the real world.
The war was about a ton of things. The president mentioned disarmament because it was on issue that all the countries of the world could agree on, at least on paper. But does it matter? Is disarmament the reason we were flying our planes for billions of dollars over the span of twelve years in the skies of Iraq? Was that the reason we were there? Are you absolute fucking morons to believe that this is the only reason?
The reason was that Saddam was the bad guy. He’s the enemy. I don’t care what the hell the reason is that you are against because it doesn’t matter: he’s the enemy. And, in the real world, you take out the enemies that you can take out. That’s the brutal nature of the world.
Grow the fuck up. That’s the way the world works. It matters very much who controls what land, and it also matters what they do with it. It matters what happens in a world where anyone can travel to any place at any time and do anything they want and perhaps kill millions of people. It doesn’t, however, matter if Saddam was planning a huge terrorist strike against America because even if he wasn’t - and I really don’t care if he was - he still fell under the same category: the enemy. If you’re the enemy, then you’re on the other side.
Leftists and anti-war nuts just dont’ get that concept. That’s why they get so outraged when we, on the right in this war, denounce them as the enemy. Orwell got it back then, and Bush (as much of a buffoon as they believe he is) gets it. What amazes me is that these erudite jerks don’t get it. That’s why we denounce people who are against this war, and why those on the other side are regarded with loathing and contempt. Being aghast doesn’t change our point of view, because you can’t change the nature of the world and you can’t change human nature.
And in the world, you take out the enemy that you can take out. Saddam was already a prime target since many years and we already had enough military there to justify us finishing him off. All of a sudden, you now have some anti-war screechers claiming that they thought Iran was the real threat all along. Well, fine: what would you have had us done first? With draw all forces from around Iraq to concentrate on Iran? That would have been permissible? Where would they have been based? Or perhaps you just would have wanted us to leave the Middle East altogether and, quite literally, then given in to every single demand that Bin Laden had made of us? I’ve heard it before from the likes of Cindy Sheehan: just leave the Middle East. Great suggestion there. Just say it outright: do what Bin Laden says. That’ll fix our problems.
And she and her friends wonder why they are mocked and reviled.
And then to the argument about the United Nations. What a wonderful little fantasy that one is. As if Americans really want to sit on a round table where sworn enemies of American interest can have a say whether or not to allow it to act; and even while our “friends” who should be supporting us are stabbing us in the back by doing deals with our enemy. What a great idea that is. And then that argument places so much trust in the United Nations. The UN is a failed body. It’s a piece of fucking trash. The UN is the most stupid, incompetent, and boorish body to ever be put together. Just because the United Nations includes the “voices” of every country in the world doesn’t mean shit. What kind of a bloody idiot thinks that this is a valid point of view? In the 1930’s, the majority of the voices in the world supported fascism. What a great argument that is for vox populi. Not to mention the fact that the majority of the bodies sitting at the UN are from dictatorships. It’s like trying to form a Better Business Bureau to protect your city from crime, and inviting the Mafia to have a free voice on the panel as equal partners. What enlightened thinking that one is. Ah, and lest we forget: had the UN been around in 1930, Hitler would have had representation there as well. When the President of Iran can threaten open genocide against an entire people and not get his ass thrown out of those “hallowed” halls of power, then what the hell would the UN have said to Hitler? “You’re a bad boy?”
As I recall, Clinton went into Kosovo without UN permission. In fact, he never even went to the United Nations. Well, guess who was the driving intellectual clout behind that one? Leftists. And did they protest? No, because it suited their aims. But hey, whatever floats your intellectual agenda at the price of the lives of others, right? Not that I minded pounding the shit out of Slobo, but the same holds true for Saddam. Any moron can see that the two were bullies that had to be dealt with.
And then to the notion about WMD. Who gives a shit? I know full well that Iraq had them. I also know full well that they hid them or transposed them before we got there. Everyone knows he wasn’t clean. But, oh, we didn’t find anything so Bush must have lied - convenient and stupid self-serving moronic meme. But does it matter? Does it fucking matter?
No. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter who has WMD but how they are acting. Quite frankly, I don’t give a damn who has WMD in this world as long as they aren’t banging their fist in public and screaming for bloody murder while throngs of worshipers chant at gunpoint that he is the newly resurrected king of Babylon. That’s Saddam, for you ignorant masses. And if Iran wasn’t an insane regime which goes around threatening other countries and blowing people up with suicide bombers by proxy, then I wouldn’t give a damn if they wanted a nuclear program. Do I lose sleep over the fact that the UK has a nuclear bomb? No, because they act like civilized and enlightened people overall.
But again: Iraq was the enemy. And so is Iran. The fact that they act the way they do makes them so. That defines the nature of the word “enemy”, but leftists really don’t get that either. It isn’t that leftists have valid arguments to counter this, it’s just that they are stupid as fuck or dishonest as lying Saudi pigs.
Wake the fuck up and accept the nature of the world you live in. I’m insulting everyone who is against the war for a reason: I have contempt for you. I loathe your comfy, cushy, smarmy little critiques to undermine this country for the sake of your political gain. I hate it, I hate you, and you’re the fucking enemy too. If you stop acting like the enemy, I won’t hate you.
And before you start screaming about freedom of speech, remember what Lincoln did to those who openly criticized his war. And he was right. And fuck you for trying to second-guess one of the greatest liberators, humanitarians, and minds that ever existed in this nation’s history. And fuck you for trying to undermine something which is far, far, greater than you.
Pathetic fucking idiots.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I’ve figured it out, the anti-war crowd are larval creationists. Compare their rhetoric sometime.
…what?
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I’ve figured it out, the anti-war crowd are larval creationists. Compare their rhetoric sometime.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
GRACKLE -
Your fatuous post somehow failed to mention that there weren’t any WMD to move to Syria.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Sorry Justin, I forgot to answer your question. Thanks for reminding me Yfronts.
Yes the term is for 4 years with a limit of 2 terms. He may well only be around for another 3 and a bit years.
BTW He is the first since the revolution who is not a mullah.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I prefer to execute a whole bunch of terroists in GitMo instead of imprisoning them.
Is there a limit to how many times he (and the others) can be elected, as in the US?
I really doubt, Justin, that this would be something Iranians would abide by even if it was in their “socalled” Constitution.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Well geee Maryzazero,
maybe if we treated them fairly and abided by international law ourselves, that might help. This is becoming just one more episode of extreme western hypocrisy, which is after all, the rallying cry for the jihadis.
Put yourself in their position. Know your enemy. To do that you first have to identify him/her/it.
You won’t be able to imprison 1.3 billion people so all you can do is limit the appeal. Being fair and avoiding hypocritical foreign beat ups would be a good place to start.
I see the antisneering campaign has lost its impetus. Oh well.
Are you honestly suggesting that killing more people will not recruit more willing terrorists?
Look at Iraq. Oh, I forgot, Iraq is a shining success and all the bad guys are Saudis. Yeah right.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
What will more sabre rattling and possible military strikes do to wrestle hearts and minds from the jihadists?
Gee, confudeforeigner, if sabre rattling and war produce more jihadists, do you think we could will those oh-so-valueable hearts and minds by spending lots of money on them?
If we give them lots of money, do you think we can convince the jihadis to stop being terrorists?
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Sorry if that seems disjointed but it is all I have time for at the moment.
The point is, dialogue is what is needed. Sabre rattling will only harden the positions. Unless the object is war.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Iran sees the US as a part of ‘the west’ and they are unlikely to be jumping at something that gives the west power over someting as strategically vital as their electricity supply.
Do you thinK the US or any sovereign state would accept anything similar? The US won’t even allow the UN to pass a resolution condemning Israel for its nuclear weapons.
I was questioning the need for GWB to be discussing the issue with Israel, not Russia. It isn’t a good look.
The thing is, that Iran is a sovereign state with a political process, however limited. It is in their interests to do business with the west constructively.
The European plan may well be attractive economically but is still strategically unattractive. It doesn’t look much like they will get the option anyway at the moment because the US is threatening to veto it.
The Iranians aren’t talking whilst under implied threat. GWB needs to think about this and it doesn’t look good from where I sit. Taking advice from Tel Aviv is not the responsible option.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Yes, he is, after all, an elected president who replaced a moderate western leaning head of state who was defeated. The security situation from an Iranian perspective surely played a part in his election.
Sorry, I shoved two thoughts together in such a way that it was unclear that they were two separate possibilities. Is there a limit to how many times he (and the others) can be elected, as in the US? If not, perhaps we can get him voted out next election (not that I know when that is).
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Given the history and the antipathy between the US and Iran, I think you have to understand their desire to be self sufficient surely. I’m sure I don’t have to explain the strategic risks for Iran in that plan.
Yes, I’m afraid you will have to explain. As part of the deal the EU guarantees the fuel, so the Iranians get it even if we Americans decide to back out of the deal at some time in the future. The EU has already offered to build Iran a nuclear reactor for free. That means Iran could have all the electricity they want almost for free. I wish someone would offer me such a deal. My electrical bill was $97 last month; I would be thrilled if I only had to pay 97 cents!
It is interesting that GWB would be talking to the head of a rogue nuclear power about a non-nuclear signatory to the NPT and expecting us to believe that this is constructive.
Bush has to ‘back-channel’ somehow, there hasn’t been a US embassy in Tehran since 1979 and the Russians seem to have the Iranians’ ear. Why isn’t it “constructive” to offer the Iranians what the Iranians profess to desire: uranium suitable for reactor fuel?
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Yes, he is, after all, an elected president who replaced a moderate western leaning head of state who was defeated. The security situation from an Iranian perspective surely played a part in his election.
So, it seems to me that the sabre rattling, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the (at the time rise) and rise of Sharon’s stocks in Washington, pushed enough voters toward an extremist populist. What will more sabre rattling and possible military strikes do to wrestle hearts and minds from the jihadists?
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I wonder… are there term limits in Iran? Maybe we can get Ahmadinejad and the other scary people in Iran voted out in the few years (likely in the 5 to 10 range) before Iran would have the ability for large-scale enrichment
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Given the history and the antipathy between the US and Iran, I think you have to understand their desire to be self sufficient surely. I’m sure I don’t have to explain the strategic risks for Iran in that plan.
It is interesting that GWB would be talking to the head of a rogue nuclear power about a non-nuclear signatory to the NPT and expecting us to believe that this is constructive.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I said earlier: Tsk, tsk, one really should take care to be more informed.
Very true, one should. The devil, as always, is in the detail though isn’t it. Enriching a few milligrams to 5% enrichment (reactor grade) is a world away from enriching kilograms to 85% (weapons grade).
It’s just a matter of how quickly the Iranians can buy the centrifuges – a matter of money and an unknown amount of time.
Iran’s economy needs a consistent efficient electricity supply to grow. Why on earth would we try to stop them when, surely, our desire is to see the reemergence of the educated middle class as a force in their politics?
Through the Russians Bush has offered the Iranians free reactor grade fuel necessary for generating power. The Iranians could have all the reactor grade uranium they want for free but so far the Iranians aren’t taking the offer. Bush talked about the deal during the recent press conference with the visiting Israeli PM.
I thought we were trying to do away with the sneering type comments.
Sorry about the “more informed” crack. I’d just been condescendingly told by others to read a report I almost know by heart and had my radar out for examples of the anti-war crowd being uninformed. I agree the rhetoric needs toning down and will try to keep my shots clean.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
OK I’ll accept your word, but I am of the understanding that weapons grade plutonium enrichment is a different process entirely and would require pre-enriched material in large quantities to be diverted from the gaze of IAEA inspectors and couldn’t be achieved under the current EU plan.
Nuclear physics or engineering is not my discipline though so I would be much more comfortable with the IAEA overseeing the whole thing than without. The Iranians need the energy.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I’ll assume that this is where Iran comes into your thinking. The actual hard evidence, based on inspections thus far and the knowledge of people with a far greater understanding of nuclear fission and uranium enrichment have stated categorically that there is no evidence that Iran has any ability to, or any programme designed to enrich uranium to weapons grade. We are talking an enormous difference in enrichment terms.
It is indeed a large difference in enrichment capabilities. It’s also true that their current capabilities (which you rounded up to 5% enrichment) are far short of being able to produce weapons-grade uranium at any practical pace. However, Iran (by its own claims) has plans to increase the number of centrifuges by more than two orders of magnitude, the number given being three and a half times what would be needed to practically produce nuclear weapons. Unless the US, or UN, or somebody else intervenes, Iran WILL have the ability to refine uranium to weapons grade within several years. The real question is whether they’ll use it for a massive power plant (such as one seen in Russia), as they say, or for nuclear weapons.
Not so much an argument as an FYI.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
It’s a two part logic chain. If the first part is true, then and only then does the second part about not paying attention apply. If you knew about the Iranian yellow cake party, then logically you cannot be said to be ignorant of it.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Grackle said…
How about accepting the “feeling” of the Iranians themselves? Confude, did you miss the big televised ceremony on the 9th of April this year in which the Iranians announced their success at uranium enrichment? Tsk, tsk, one really should take care to be more informed.
Very true, one should. The devil, as always, is in the detail though isn’t it. Enriching a few milligrams to 5% enrichment (reactor grade) is a world away from enriching kilograms to 85% (weapons grade).
Iran’s economy needs a consistent efficient electricity supply to grow. Why on earth would we try to stop them when, surely, our desire is to see the reemergence of the educated middle class as a force in their politics?
I thought we were trying to do away with the sneering type comments.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Confude says: I’ll assume that this is where Iran comes into your thinking. The actual hard evidence, based on inspections thus far and the knowledge of people with a far greater understanding of nuclear fission and uranium enrichment have stated categorically that there is no evidence that Iran has any ability to, or any programme designed to enrich uranium to weapons grade. We are talking an enormous difference in enrichment terms.
So, should we accept the ‘feeling’ of GWB et al or the actual real verifiable evidence that nobody thus far has argued against. Bush’s judgement, or if you prefer , his intelligence aparatus, hasn’t proved to be that reliable to date.
How about accepting the “feeling” of the Iranians themselves? Confude, did you miss the big televised ceremony on the 9th of April this year in which the Iranians announced their success at uranium enrichment? Tsk, tsk, one really should take care to be more informed.
Do we nuke the civilians of the orient because we in the occident have a feeling that their political leaders may be up to no good in the future?
No nukes needed, conventional weaponry will do fine for now, thank you. Think ‘stealth,’ think ‘smart bombs’ and ‘bunker busters.’ And not civilians, but military and technical targets and especially political leaders that have sponsored terrorism.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I asked earlier: Steve, what do you suppose happened to the WMD arsenal from which Saddam gassed the Kurds?
Steve’s reply: They were destroyed. Read the Duelfer Report.
Neoconned chimes in: He could also do some reading on the Iran - Iraq war too. The notion that Saddam sent these weapons to Syria is as farcical as the Bin Laden - Saddam stuff.
One good thing these sometimes pointless debates provide is a fairly good knowledge of the different reports, speeches and articles pertaining to the issues. I read the Duelfer Report as soon as it was available on line. Since then I’ve read it 3 or 4 more times in the course of debates on-line. I think also that our hostess is very conversant with the Report. Perhaps Steve and Neoconned can provide some quotes from the Report; here’s one of my favorites:
“Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.”
Elsewhere in the report:
“Iraq built a new and larger liquid-rocket engine test stand capable, with some modification, of supporting engines or engine clusters larger than the single SA-2 engine used in the Al Samud II. Iraq built or refurbished solid-propellant facilities and equipment, including a large propellant mixer, an aging oven, and a casting pit that could support large diameter motors. Iraq’s investing in studies into new propellants and manufacturing technologies demonstrated its desire for more capable or effective delivery systems.”
And the clincher:
“Given Iraq’s investments in technology and infrastructure improvements, an effective procurement network, skilled scientists, and designs already on the books for longer range missiles, ISG assesses that Saddam clearly intended to reconstitute long-range delivery systems and that the systems potentially were for WMD.”
Steve and Neoconned, I already consider myself somewhat informed and I am getting better informed as time passes.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I need someone to invent a quantum universe spying machine. Please, we need it, desperately.
You must be making reference to String Theory, which is a separate subject from Quantum Computers. Or are you getting the two confused? To the best of my knowledge, Quantum Mechanics does not cover alternate universes, and the concepts of String Theory do not readily or theoretically apply themselves to “machines”. But anyway…you’ll get to that in your second semester of “Survey of Modern Physics”.
Nah, we can just nuke anyone we even THINK might be:
1. Developing WMDs
2. In league with Islamofacists
3. Nationalizing their oil (!)
4. Insulting Israel (!)
I’m sure you have more.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I need someone to invent a quantum universe spying machine. Please, we need it, desperately.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Steve, what do you suppose happened to the WMD arsenal from which Saddam gassed the Kurds? What happened to the manufacturing plants used to make the nerve agent used on the Kurds? What happened to the munitions used to deliver the gas? What happened to the technicians, scientists and their military supervisors that developed these weapons systems? Where did these people go? Where did the materials, buildings and documentation go? Until someone adequately answers these questions I’m going to have to suppose that Saddam hid them.
Are you for real? He DESTROYED THEM after being ordered to do so by the U.N. and the United States. It’s been documented. Do a Google search for God’s sake.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
So had the Clinton Admistration. Not sure about the TriLateral Commission or the Iluminati.
Um, no. Sorry. The Clinton administration HAD advocated for regime change as a desireable goal in Iraq, but had not actually committed to go forward with making it happen. Big difference. And besides, you’re back to the old “BUUUUT CLINTON…!!!” winger argument. And further, are you denying the overt existence of PNAC, and that several signatories to the call to oust Saddam are now or were members of Bush’s cabinet? So was Clinton the victim of bad advice, intel too? hmmmmm….
This is so manifestly false that I think we can safely label it a lie.
I hope you’re kidding:
Traitors
More Traitors
and too many bloggers to mention. Do you really deny this?
Dunno, but so what? And I guess it wasn’t all that SECRET, was it?
No, thanks to something called “leaks” and the FOIA. So what? You figure it out, smarty pants.
That the evidence was on paper doesn’t make it “paper-thin”. Furthermore, the evidence never pointed to the “conflation” of Saddam and al Qaeda but with their links.
Nice pun. Seems like if the government had an airtight case in these documents, they’d have done the research themselves - but no. They release them to amateur translators and voila! Links (however tentative and nascent) between Saddam and Al Qaeda - assuming the translation was even correct. You’re grasping at straws now, arent’ you? And please provide the obligatory link to this document. I must see it.
Often a war necessarily has multiple theaters — it’s only the particularly slow leftists that have difficulty with the idea of a nation being able to do two things at once.
And often fools confuse one war with another “war”. See point number one. Funny, but I seem to remember Afghanistan being punitive retribution, and Iraq being “preemptive”. Count on a winger to embrace convenient memes sold by the Administration.
A crime, exposed and punished by the American military.
So wrong, in so many ways. A crime with oversight going WAY up the ladder, for which a couple of grunts take the fall. Were they not trained properly? Were they following orders? Either way, sounds a lot like piss poor leadership.
This wouldn’t make the war generally hated — it’s only leftie moonbats who are so heavily invested in the idea that there were NO WMDs!!! that are now incensed at the idea there might have been WMDs.
Um, excuse me? Yes, there WERE WMDs a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far…through the right wing looking glass, drinking kool aid. Please provide some links to creditabe evidence supporting your contention that there were indeed WMDs, and that we’ve found/traced them. Newsmaxx and RW blogs don’t count. Don’t you think that had we found proof, the Administration would be trumpeting it far and wide? Oh wait, the MSLM - you know, the place where Rummy just admitted we were wrong. Thanks in advance.
But the advice of other military experts was followed — afterwards, of course, advice is always 20-20.
Nice try. Too bad the advice I speak of was blatantly ignored for the simple reason that the information therein was deemed to be unpalatable to the American people, whose support was needed to prosecute this war - you know, things such as cost, number of troops, etc. that would have been required to REALLY secure the peace. But your kind likes to ignore inconvenient truths.
BTW - why don’t you provide me with some links to back up your assertion that “other military experts” thought the plan we went with was satisfactory - as long as it includes even the faintest consideration of plans for the occupation/reconstruction.
Well, by the same token, it provides a good testing ground for the US military, and a good bit of flypaper to attract and kill those unstable and unfortunate enough to be tempted into joining anti-West Islamist terrorist groups.
From the immediate vicinity, maybe. But a strawman argument at best. You seem to be forgetting that fundamentalist Islam exists in many more places than Iraq’s immediate neighbors. Where did Al Qaeda learn it’s trade? Afghanistan - ever heard the term “Blowback”?
Finally, I guess now that we’re there, we need to do what it takes to secure the peace and get out. But we won’t, and you know it - and you can’t blame the “moonbats” for jack - because the Dems haven’t controlled anything in this country for a long time.
Care to try again?
May 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Here’s a curly one.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/