Liberal Source Documentation...interesting...

This is Dave Young's Forum.
Can you really bridge the gap between reality and training? Between traditional karate and real world encounters? Absolutely, we will address in this forum why this transition is necessary and critical for survival, and provide suggestions on how to do this correctly. So come in and feel welcomed, but leave your egos at the door!
User avatar
Don Rearic
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Absurdistan
Contact:

Liberal Source Documentation...interesting...

Post by Don Rearic »

In the past few weeks, there has been a little mini-battle of sorts between myself and others over this whole Iraq conflict and how it would best be resolved. Some basically suggested that the country, Iraq, be left alone.

Some scream that it is all about oil and America never had the intent to help anyone there, just being a greedy superpower and flexing our muscle, we wish to take what we want.

I promptly shot this down in another thread by saying that if we wanted the oil, we could have went to the U.N. and had the sanctions lifted and we would have had it dirt cheap instead of paying anywhere from 75 to 100 billion to go to war. But this falls on the deaf ears of so many who wish to create fantasy upon fantasy of America as some sort of big bully.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Regime, hopefully now deceased, was a threat to the United States. No straw man arguments of him launching missiles here, no, it would not have happened like that. He would have been a weapons-supplier to anyone who wanted to attack us. He is a sponsor of terrorism and as such, he painted a bull's-eye on himself.

But let us assume for just a moment that this really was about oil. Let's assume that George W. Bush and his Cabinet are the madmen many claim they are. Consider this.

If that is the case, isn't the end of this Regime a wonderful thing?

There is the perception that American Media is a right wing propaganda machine, they're fifty-percent correct. It is a propaganda machine, but it's not right wing. When NBC's Katie Couric remarks (yesterday) that she hopes Saddam Hussein made it to Syria, ain't that some sh*t?

CNN has long been the best friend of The American Left. I chuckle when people here say that the media is right wing. Absolutely clueless.

Here is a little bit of what Al-Jazeera won't tell you about and it comes from a most interesting source. CNN. Not Fox News, it's CNN. It also raises some questions as to the influence and sway that Saddam Hussein might have held over ALL news agencies operating out of Iraq. If for no other reason, they wanted to keep their people alive and could not report the truth.
The News We Kept to Ourselves

By EASON JORDAN

ATLANTA — Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard — awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.

For example, in the mid-1990's one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government's ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency's Iraq station chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk.

Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no protection. The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting. Some vanished, never to be heard from again. Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways. Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers.

We also had to worry that our reporting might endanger Iraqis not on our payroll. I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan. If we had gone with the story, I was sure he would have responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in the meeting. After all, secret police thugs brutalized even senior officials of the Information Ministry, just to keep them in line (one such official has long been missing all his fingernails).

Still, I felt I had a moral obligation to warn Jordan's monarch, and I did so the next day. King Hussein dismissed the threat as a madman's rant. A few months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon killed.

I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us.

Last December, when I told Information Minister Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf that we intended to send reporters to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, he warned me they would "suffer the severest possible consequences." CNN went ahead, and in March, Kurdish officials presented us with evidence that they had thwarted an armed attack on our quarters in Erbil. This included videotaped confessions of two men identifying themselves as Iraqi intelligence agents who said their bosses in Baghdad told them the hotel actually housed C.I.A. and Israeli agents. The Kurds offered to let us interview the suspects on camera, but we refused, for fear of endangering our staff in Baghdad.

Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home.

I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely.

Eason Jordan is chief news executive at CNN.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opini ... ner=GOOGLE

Now, is this man a "right wing mouthpiece" or a "right wing nut" as well? From CNN of all places? CNN is not exactly Pro-Republican for those that don't know, in fact they were nicknamed "CNN, The Clinton News Network" for most of the 90s.

This is why I condemn those who support this Regime without coming out and saying they support it. For if you are against the conflict, you are, in a very real way, supporting the continuation of this sort of evil being inflicted on those people.

Consider this as well as you digest the story above.

"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.' The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food that British sailors risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security."

Orwell's "Pacifism and the War" of July 12, 1942:

Interesting, as I was reading that story from the CNN employee, I was reminded of George Orwell's classic, "1984."

It's almost as if Hussein patterned some of his modern day Gestapo after the Thought Police in "1984" along with his very own Ministry of Love.
Stultorum infinitus est numerus
jorvik

Post by jorvik »

Don
I think you misunderstand many of the comments I and other folks have made.
Quote
"There is the perception that American Media is a right wing propaganda machine, they're fifty-percent correct. It is a propaganda machine, but it's not right wing. When NBC's Katie Couric remarks (yesterday) that she hopes Saddam Hussein made it to Syria, ain't that some sh*t?"

I certainly don't. I hope that he is swimming in his own bodily fluids right now. The other point that I have been trying to make ( over and over again, or so it seems) is that " power politics" like law, has nothing to do with morality.
My major worry or concern still exists. You would have to be a fool to think that Saddam could stand up to the US in a conventional war. I have spoken with fellow countrymen who have been upset becasuse Iraqi's have taken off their uniforms but kept their guns ( Is this naive?....or what :roll: .........it's a goddam war) and the real dangers still exist. I spoke with an ex marine ( who Don, you'll be pleased to know would have given his right arm to be there)...he said the danger now was that as they took their helmets off they would be lulled into a false sense of security, the girl coming up with the flowers could be getting you into the sights of a sniper. He said it was still extremely dangerous.....and the danger has not gone away. There are Saudis ( as in 9/11) Palestinians, and a whole host of others who now more than ever are ready to attack the West. The Suicide bombers could go anywhere. The Al Queda people caught in London, who murdered a Police officer were from Algeria :roll:
I really hope this is the last of it :cry:
User avatar
Don Rearic
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Absurdistan
Contact:

Post by Don Rearic »

jorvik wrote:

I think you misunderstand many of the comments I and other folks have made.
I understand enough most of the time to be very concerned about what is posted.
The other point that I have been trying to make ( over and over again, or so it seems) is that " power politics" like law, has nothing to do with morality.
Sometimes it has to do with forced morality. For example, there is a Puritannical streak of "moral laws" in the U.S., this is where all of the "ban" mentality comes from. From blackjacks to switchblade knives all the way up to firearms. And of course it is about power, any time something is "controlled" or "banned," you are exerting control over certain elements, segments of the population. Sometimes this is about someone in a position of power forcing their morals down the throats of others and other times it is something quite different which you are talking about.

What troubles me greatly about some of your posts is this, you see absolutely no possibility that the U.S. is doing this because we do have intelligence that threats from that Regime existed/exists and you refuse to even consider that we might very well be doing this for other reasons. It just so happens that this was a brutal dictatorship, he was oppressing his people and he was a threat to us. All of these things combined with U.N. Resolution 1441 were brought together as one and he was taken down. It was a combination of the three and not any one element of it.
My major worry or concern still exists. You would have to be a fool to think that Saddam could stand up to the US in a conventional war.
You mean like Democrat Nancy Pelosi? She said there would be "thousands" of dead on both sides of the conflict and the only way that is going to happen is if a WMD is used. Of course, there are thousands of Iraqis that are going to be killed and wounded, the vast majority of them are thugs.

I never said the Hussein Regime could stand up to us in a conventional manner, alot of others did though in our Government that were opposed to it and yes, they were and are fools.
I have spoken with fellow countrymen who have been upset becasuse Iraqi's have taken off their uniforms but kept their guns ( Is this naive?...or what...it's a goddam war) and the real dangers still exist.
Yes, it is naive and yes it is war. But when they remove their uniforms, they are placing themselves in another category of combatant, not officially recognized either. I know the real dangers exist, never said they did not.

My own personal opinion is, this is far from being over, Jorvik.
I spoke with an ex marine ( who Don, you'll be pleased to know would have given his right arm to be there)...he said the danger now was that as they took their helmets off they would be lulled into a false sense of security, the girl coming up with the flowers could be getting you into the sights of a sniper. He said it was still extremely dangerous...and the danger has not gone away.
Absolute agreement but I don't know where I said anything differently.
There are Saudis ( as in 9/11) Palestinians, and a whole host of others who now more than ever are ready to attack the West. The Suicide bombers could go anywhere. The Al Queda people caught in London, who murdered a Police officer were from Algeria...

I really hope this is the last of it...
I understand that and we are going to deal with that. I'm sure this is not the "end" of much of anything unless the other thugs get the message that we are ready, willing and able to lay waste to them if they look at us the wrong way.

Syria and Iran need to be taking notes instead of being involved in a semi-covert manner.

What I disagree with is this will be used as an excuse to attack us again, they had that planned anyway, eight years of relative weakness of the Clinton Administration and we were attacked for things that happened ten years before that. They have been and will continue to plan to hit us again and that is why I believe they have to feel the hand of war if they sneeze anymore. If they want to act like barbarians, give them a taste of it.
Stultorum infinitus est numerus
Gene DeMambro
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Weymouth, MA US of A

Post by Gene DeMambro »

For if you are against the conflict, you are, in a very real way, supporting the continuation of this sort of evil being inflicted on those people.
Bull.

Gene
User avatar
Don Rearic
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Absurdistan
Contact:

Post by Don Rearic »

Gene,

Intelligent post. Good work, carry on now.

Don
Stultorum infinitus est numerus
Thaws
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Hopkinton, Ma.

Post by Thaws »

I have to disagree that by not supporing the war one aids the enemy. Whatever moral high ground our government professed is completely gone. Saving the Iraqi people? What a warm and fuzzy facade, good PR. If so, why are we allowing the anarchy, in areas we controll? Granted the Iraqi's are partly to blame, but are we not the occupying force now? Those oil wells are pretty secure. So If we're so worried about the welfare of the people of oppressed nations, who's next; Cuba? 3/4 of africa? How about our native Americans? As a Independant voter, I see administration as a an oxymoron of itself. Republican conservatism creating the need for homeland security(big brother) by its self indulgent foriegn policies,or lack of in some corners.A rat chasing its own tail. As it stands now, all nations who piss dubya off should worry about us commin over and liberatin their peoples, France and Germany included.
User avatar
Don Rearic
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Absurdistan
Contact:

Post by Don Rearic »

Thaws wrote:
I have to disagree that by not supporing the war one aids the enemy. Whatever moral high ground our government professed is completely gone.
At least you disagreed and wrote something of interest and somewhat coherent, although I disagree with you.
Saving the Iraqi people? What a warm and fuzzy facade, good PR. If so, why are we allowing the anarchy, in areas we controll? Granted the Iraqi's are partly to blame, but are we not the occupying force now? Those oil wells are pretty secure.
In case you have not noticed, the war is still going on. It is fairly hard to police the people of Iraq from looting when you are still actively engaged in a war.

On a more interesting level, the only problem I have with the looting going on is when they hit places like hospitals and private homes. As far as looting the private homes of Ba'th Party members, I could not care less. As far as rummaging, rooting and looting through Saddam's palaces and other things like, I could not care less.

What is so interesting is your little hint of the oil interest, as if America is only there for the oil, once again. YET...if we focused on the looters and the oil fields were left to be torched, the environmentalists would be screaming the tune that you are about looting, it would be about the damage being caused to the environment. So, the actions of this Government are not going to please everyone.
So If we're so worried about the welfare of the people of oppressed nations, who's next; Cuba? 3/4 of africa?
If they harbor terrorists that are targeting our country as Iraq was, I would be all for it. As I said before, a unique set of circumstances happened that led to this, and UN R 1441 was a large part of it.
How about our native Americans?
Please. For one thing, if you were born here, you ARE a "native American." I take it you are referring to American Indians. I have some Indian blood in me too. If you are going to compare what happened to the people of Iraq in modern times with what is going on now...that would be silly. I think you would have to take a step back into the 1800s for that to happen and I think Hussein's treatment of his populace would still beat it.
As a Independant voter, I see administration as a an oxymoron of itself. Republican conservatism creating the need for homeland security(big brother) by its self indulgent foriegn policies,or lack of in some corners.A rat chasing its own tail.
I have some serious concerns myself. Unfortunately, both major parties are going to do it. I believe the Republicans will do it slower. Simple as that.
As it stands now, all nations who piss dubya off should worry about us commin over and liberatin their peoples, France and Germany included.
We disagree on some things, but my God, don't ruin an otherwise thoughtful post with gibberish. No one is invading France or Germany. Well, Germany might invade France, but that's another story.
Stultorum infinitus est numerus
Thaws
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Hopkinton, Ma.

Post by Thaws »

That last was sarcasm.
Rick Wilson

Post by Rick Wilson »

It is very clear that the people of Iraq are ecstatic to have their murdering dictator taken out. Those who fled his regime and came to North America will confirm this as well.

It seems that we learned nothing from the horrors of WW II. There are still those who are content to sit back and hide behind blinders as people are tortured and killed.

Saddam was an evil sadistic pig. He needed to be taken out. A world without the courage to do so is a sad place to live.

Would you walk by a woman being raped in the street? The only sad thing is it has taken this long. And YES there are other countries who should take heed that there may just be a new attitude that evil will be fought head on.

As for the sad state of Iraq at the moment I think we should let the troops finish the war before they get criticized for something new. My God, first it was that they didn’t finish it in two days (it has taken a couple of weeks – oh my). Now they haven’t stopped the anarchy fast enough – we are such an instant coffee society. Give them a chance will you! Hey maybe even a couple of weeks.

I think the other ludicrous thing is those who refused to take part (my country included) think they should have some say in post war reconstruction. That France and Germany are watering at the mouth to get those big US$ contracts reveal their true colours.
User avatar
Deep Sea
Posts: 1682
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 6:01 am
Contact:

Post by Deep Sea »

Hello Don R. I have followed much of the news and when I read your opening post a few minutes ago I remember saying "Yup!" when I read the article you quoted in your first post.

In the weeks and months to follow, much more will be discovered as to why france and germany (as well as russia) have led the opposition to the war. I'm not going to quote from the URLs I provide below, but as the world turns, so does the screw.

It's really good to listen to people like pelsoki to learn their viewpoints as well as to know sharpton will be running for president, and what other democrats are saying, yadda yadda. It seems that through this whole period of time the outspoken ones have all been against Bush rather than pro-American. At very minimum, at least Bush has balls and doesn't hide behind the bush.

For your reading enjoyment, although the following may by now be common knowledge, whether you are pro-American or against America, for the first URL will appeal to the second I give you:


http://www.cubezero.net/vhsvideo/imagis/

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR1403

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.j ... wrus13.xml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/ ... 9060.shtml
Always with an even keel.
-- Allen
User avatar
Don Rearic
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Absurdistan
Contact:

Post by Don Rearic »

Allen,

Yes, the Canadians, French, Russians and Germans are knocking on the door and saying that there can be no reconstruction of Iraq without the United Nations, i.e., their own involvement.

To them I say...has your blood been spilled there?

They should be prohibited from ANY involvement in Iraq for they were more than happy to sit back and let this person butcher his own people as long as the checks kept coming in. Now that the worm has turned, they want the money. You are correct.

Here is a small passage from one of the links you provided:
Al-Ayyam columnist 'Abdallah 'Awwad wrote of the possibilities of retaliation: "Before the horror, death, destruction, and plunder perpetuated by the arrogant American murder machine, the weak can do nothing but look for a more lethal weapon to defend themselves. [The American] culture of death and murder cannot lead to the creation of [the] opposite culture [of democracy]. This is the law of history and life. The weak who possess no means of resisting [their] destruction, plunder, and death will again awaken to confront the American culture of murder and destruction. There is no room for surprises."

"Whether consciously or unconsciously, the Americans are paving a long, broad path for the death of tens of thousands, maybe even more, of their people. The American madness will bring nothing but counter-madness. They [Americans] have begun an era of destructive and lethal war for human beings in order to feed their aggressive military economic machine, and they will bear the responsibility for it."
To those that think this way, I say, let's get on with the killing, let's get it over with right now because I would rather see it now than later. You see the genius of George W. Bush in finally drawing that line in the sand? Saying that it is going to end right now? The hiding and all the crap that has went on trying to appease barbarians, there is no appeasing these terrorists.

"Don't bring a boxcutter to a Jihad." The Holy War concept better be dropped. If they bring something that glows to a Jihad, they won't regret their choice because they don't care about dying anyway. If they visit that degree of destruction on us, I believe we should end it in an instant if necessary.
Stultorum infinitus est numerus
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

"I promptly shot this down in another thread by saying that if we wanted the oil, we could have went to the U.N. and had the sanctions lifted and we would have had it dirt cheap instead of paying anywhere from 75 to 100 billion to go to war. But this falls on the deaf ears of so many who wish to create fantasy upon fantasy of America as some sort of big bully."

It's hard to argue that the degree of US involvement in foreign affairs is solely proportional to the degree of brutality of the dictators and regimes concerned. What exactly did we do for Rwanda? Here we have millions of being being hacked to death, millions of stories that are just as horrific as the ones coming out of Iraq, and there was a very lethargic response to the problem. There are many other regimes and conflicts we could have entered over the years; the question is why this one? Certainly it was an easier invasion than one in Korea.

Was it the oil? Obviously we wouldn't look very good cutting a deal with a dictator we're at odds with to buy his oil or invading and taking over their reserves, but that doesn't mean this fight was not about oil. Afterall, solely because of our interest in stability of the region's oil reserves that we DO intend to make use of (Saudi Arabia? Kuwait?) there are reasons to take out Saddam. If there's anything we can be sure of it's that our efforts to cut down on our oil dependence is a tremendous joke. Walk 10 feet in any direction and you'll find someone propping the front door of a heated or AC'd store wide open mid winter or height of summer, or someone taking an SUV and not a car or carpool or bus to work because it's beneath them. Where're the cries of "unpatriotic" for all of these actions?

Was it WMD? Much concern has been raised about nuclear weapons being "misplaced" or sold in former Soviet block countries--are we making a proportional effort to minimize that risk? What are we doing about nuclear programs in other countries like north korea or pakistan (do any fanatics live in THOSE countries?).

I'm not saying that Saddam was a non-threat; I'm not saying we were in there for oil and nothing else. I'm just saying that going with EITHER the Fox-news cheerleading version or the Al-Jazeera unbalanced criticism versions of this war is simplistic, as would be trying to figure out if slavery had either everything or nothing to do with the Civil War.

"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.'"

Yes and No. Hampering war efforts does help the other side. Doing nothing and remaining neutral is sometimes appropriate, sometimes spineless acquiescence, but it doesn't require you to hamper anyone's war efforts or pick sides. And the (elsewhere expressed) idea that once a single person (our president) has decided that we will go to war means that we have to get behind the game plan, support whatever efforts he sees fit to engage in, and stifle any impulse to ask questions or outright howl in dissent when or if appropriate--that is objectively pro-fascist too. Where else but in a faux-election in Iraq are you going to see 100% support for a regime--where else SHOULD you?
--Ian
User avatar
Don Rearic
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Absurdistan
Contact:

Post by Don Rearic »

IJ wrote:
It's hard to argue that the degree of US involvement in foreign affairs is solely proportional to the degree of brutality of the dictators and regimes concerned. What exactly did we do for Rwanda? Here we have millions of being being hacked to death, millions of stories that are just as horrific as the ones coming out of Iraq, and there was a very lethargic response to the problem.
The response was not "very lethargic," quite frankly it was damned nonexistent and that is a shame. However, I never argued that America's actions were directly proportionate to the degree of depravity that this particular dictatorship (Iraq) exhibited.

The Regime that existed there was a threat because it sponsored terrorism. The same Regime had invaded a neighbor over a decade ago (Kuwait) and we went to war over that and in order to avoid annihilation, Saddam Hussein declared that he would allow unfettered inspections for various weapons that he would be prohibited from possessing as a condition to stop the (Gulf) War.

This went back and forth over some 16+ U.N. Resolutions and ending with 1441 (As far as I know) which did not allow for The United States to attack Iraq in a premeditated manner but to resume hostilities in that country if they did not comply. They were offered chance after chance, in reality, Hussein could have kept his terror machine in place and it could have been business as usual. He refused. We are at war, it is a resumption of war and not a preemption - preemptive strike.

So, if you look at Iraq from one point of view, it is a nation that sponsored terrorism, this can be debated over and over again, it's pretty plain to see for anyone who does not have a political axe to grind against a Republic POTUS. It's clear. So, we have a nation that will not allow us to inspect, the "other side" of this game here in our own country and the international scene confused "U.N. Inspections" with "Easter Egg Hunts." It was never the job of any U.N. Inspector to play hide and seek with this person and his machine.

I think it is disingenuous of some people, in the extreme, to continue on with the cries about "preemptive attack" which is the sort of thing you see in that rag "The Nation." Unless you are going to ignore the U.N. Resolutions (how convenient to do so!) and start to redefine what "resumption" and "preemption" means (which comes as no surprise with liberals who have to quibble over the definition of what "is," is.) just as I think it is fundamentally dishonest to whine and opine over and over again about Inspectors, more Inspectors, more time for the Inspections to "work."

Let me ask you a question. If you take 100 55-gallon drums and bury them wherever you want in the State of California, just how long, without any real cooperation whatsoever, do you think that it would take 500 "Inspectors" who are allowed 100% access (which NEVER happened in Iraq!), to find what you have hidden? You have, literally, hundreds of millions of dollars for a budget to make whatever underground complex that you wish to have. Do you honestly think this relatively small, in the grand scheme of things, material(s) could ever be found under the current U.N. "Inspection" Program?

Now, if you answer that you think that these things could be found. God bless you! You are an eternal optimist, but hardly a realist.

The liberation of the people of Iraq serves two purposes, it gets rid of the Hussein Regime, the terror machine and the hope is that the Iraqi People will have a "better tomorrow" so we will not have to worry about Iraq being a sponsor of terrorism/terrorists in the future. By giving them their freedom, it is hoped that they will carry on and be free. We get to do the right thing, that which should be done, and we have the added benefit of not having to worry about the terror machine there.

But it is not about oil because it would have been far cheaper to simply lift the sanctions and get it dirt cheap and make friends with this bastard again and he could have continued on the way he wanted to.

Rwanda was a different story altogether. Unfortunately, much of Africa is a basketcase of atrocities and it has been that way for quite some time. Do I think the United Nations should have stepped in and stopped that or at least tried to? Yes, probably so if they could have even caught it in time to do anything.
Was it WMD? Much concern has been raised about nuclear weapons being "misplaced" or sold in former Soviet block countries--are we making a proportional effort to minimize that risk? What are we doing about nuclear programs in other countries like north korea or pakistan (do any fanatics live in THOSE countries?).
I believe that we are working behind the scenes in order to insure some degree of safety from those threats. Consider this, however, three countries making a lot of money in Iraq voted against us because they were doing things they should not have been doing. They wanted their cash cow, I hope they are not deprived of it.
Hampering war efforts does help the other side. Doing nothing and remaining neutral is sometimes appropriate, sometimes spineless acquiescence, but it doesn't require you to hamper anyone's war efforts or pick sides. And the (elsewhere expressed) idea that once a single person (our president) has decided that we will go to war means that we have to get behind the game plan, support whatever efforts he sees fit to engage in, and stifle any impulse to ask questions or outright howl in dissent when or if appropriate--that is objectively pro-fascist too. Where else but in a faux-election in Iraq are you going to see 100% support for a regime--where else SHOULD you?
First of all, let's make a distinction between treason, sedition and sabotage. You have a right to free speech and if you are against the war, you should be able to voice your opinion as long as it does not give aid and comfort to the enemy. What Peter Arnett did was treason if he was NOT under duress. Jane Fonda sat on a N. Vietnamese AA Weapon and smiled...she should have been charged with treason.

Lying down in front of trucks or anything like that. deliberately effecting the free movement of other people should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law because that crosses the line, it's no longer free speech, just like cracking a Cop in the head with a bat or throwing feces, urine, acids or using Syrup of Ipecac to vomit on someone is not free speech.

In closing, I don't know what country you are in where one person decided to go to war and that one person was Bush. Seems to me like he has an entire Cabinet and dozens of advisors.
Stultorum infinitus est numerus
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

"But it is not about oil because it would have been far cheaper to simply lift the sanctions and get it dirt cheap and make friends with this bastard again and he could have continued on the way he wanted to."

That far cheaper option isn't realistic. Like I said before, just because we could have obtained oil from Iraq in unpalatable ways doesn't mean that this more palatable option had nothing to do with oil. We COULD drill in ANWAR, but we don't want to. We COULD have made buddies with Saddam but for obvious reasons didn't. Maybe we can solve our energy problem by driving solar powered tin cans and carpooling; if we don't, that doesn't mean that oil can never affect policy decisions again.

I'm not dumb enough to believe that oil was the ONE reason we went to war, but neither will I believe that in a parallel universe in which Iraq and neighbors sit upon only the world's largest supply of sand instead of sand AND oil, would our decisions be completely the same. This decision, like most decisions, was influenced by multiple factors.

http://archive.abcnews.go.com/sections/ ... roups.html
--most of these countries (and those on the formal list of terrorist states) have not yet been invaded by the USA. Why? Can we eliminate terrorism by occupying all suspect nations? Tim McVeigh says no.

Keeping in mind that I agree that it's not easy to prove a nation is in compliance, think on this: if one starts with the premise that weapons inspections could never be sensitive enough to detect hidden chemical weapons even without interference from the state in question, one is also able to claim that any country which says it is complying with inspections has WMD until it gives up the precise amount of WMD we think it has, or more. Anything less, and they're hiding them in the desert. This means that inspections are completely pointless and that we as a nation get to submit lists of WMD that other nations must produce or face invasion.

"In closing, I don't know what country you are in where one person decided to go to war and that one person was Bush. Seems to me like he has an entire Cabinet and dozens of advisors."

I'm in the USA. He had advisers, but to my knowledge, held no vote. I didn't get to vote for or against any of them anyway.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
Here's 1441 in all it's glory. Seems like a good idea the next time this becomes an issue is to re-write item 13 with a little more clarity. It reads:

"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."

That's just not what one wants to have said, I'd think. (disclaimer: I did not go bac and read all the preceeding resolutions) Imagine how simple this whole matter would have been if it went more like this:

"13. Recalls that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face enforcement of the above-described disarmament by any force deemed necessary if it is not in full compliance with the requirements outlined above by (specific date)."

Then instead of a debate about what means what and what a resumption or a preemption is or whatnot or how many gallons of oil equals a kilogram of freedom fries, the debate would have gone like this:

"Should we enforce our resolution or roll over?"

And everyone would have known right away where everyone stood and why and what needed to be done. There's no way to make resolutions and schedule inspections in a meaningful way unless one is willing and able to back them up with force. The "delay and inspect" camp doesn't seem to universally understand this detail. This kind of language would have simplified the matter enormously.
--Ian
User avatar
Don Rearic
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Absurdistan
Contact:

Post by Don Rearic »

IJ wrote:
That far cheaper option isn't realistic. Like I said before, just because we could have obtained oil from Iraq in unpalatable ways doesn't mean that this more palatable option had nothing to do with oil. We COULD drill in ANWAR, but we don't want to. We COULD have made buddies with Saddam but for obvious reasons didn't. Maybe we can solve our energy problem by driving solar powered tin cans and carpooling; if we don't, that doesn't mean that oil can never affect policy decisions again.
No, you and folks like you don't want to drill in Anwar, I don't care as long as it is done in a responsible manner. In fact, I think it should be done and I think it can be done in an environmentally responsible manner.
I'm not dumb enough to believe that oil was the ONE reason we went to war, but neither will I believe that in a parallel universe in which Iraq and neighbors sit upon only the world's largest supply of sand instead of sand AND oil, would our decisions be completely the same. This decision, like most decisions, was influenced by multiple factors.
Again, why not pour a few billion into Venezuela and help them with their problems and get their oil? The oil conspiracies just don't stand up outside of a meeting of the local Democrats Club parading as The Optimist's Club.
...most of these countries (and those on the formal list of terrorist states) have not yet been invaded by the USA. Why? Can we eliminate terrorism by occupying all suspect nations? Tim McVeigh says no.
It's not an army of occupation. If I'm going to hear the Nancy Pelosi line, I'm not going to respond to it because some things are absurd. While it has to be an army of occupation to begin with, it is not going to stay that way for long.

My whole point above in my post earlier today was missed by you. We can change this situation and turn a nation that exists on thuggery and change that to something more benevolent.

"Tim," how pleasant, McVeigh, besides killing a bunch of innocent people, he forever buried the innocent, murdered children of Waco with his own criminal acts. But if you want to talk about some really interesting "conspiracies," there sure are around Timothy McVeigh and the Middle East connection.
Keeping in mind that I agree that it's not easy to prove a nation is in compliance, think on this: if one starts with the premise that weapons inspections could never be sensitive enough to detect hidden chemical weapons even without interference from the state in question, one is also able to claim that any country which says it is complying with inspections has WMD until it gives up the precise amount of WMD we think it has, or more. Anything less, and they're hiding them in the desert. This means that inspections are completely pointless and that we as a nation get to submit lists of WMD that other nations must produce or face invasion.
You're right, that's why we should have done it right the first time but we didn't. Was it a political decision last time to go to Baghdad or was it a political decision born out of not having the "sanction" to "go all the way." This could have been settled the last time they were pounded into the dirt and thousands of dead would be alive RIGHT NOW, thousands would not have been tortured and damaged beyond all repair...but it did not happen that way.
"In closing, I don't know what country you are in where one person decided to go to war and that one person was Bush. Seems to me like he has an entire Cabinet and dozens of advisors." - Don
Your response:
I'm in the USA. He had advisers, but to my knowledge, held no vote. I didn't get to vote for or against any of them anyway.
You are correct once again, I wish I could have voted against SecDef Les Aspin who was one of the Clinton morons who could not have a proper dirtbomb battle as a child, let alone conduct warfare. Unfortunately, that is not the way it works, I guarantee you there are Democrats that wish they could have had a say in that appointment as well, but didn't. That's' the way it goes. Rangers and a couple Delta Operators died because the mission in Mogadishu was lacking in suitable air cover and armor on the ground.

Don't send a dove to perform a hawk's job...
Stultorum infinitus est numerus
Post Reply

Return to “Realist Training”