I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
As you've mentioned it all depends on what you mean by success.
Noah Feldman, a law prof doing work with the Iraqi Council and trying to help write a constitution has mentioned that what they come up with will probably not look like what Bush/Cheney would have thought. So will a hostile to Israel, Islamic democracy be a $200B success? YMMV.
The people in the Middle East want no part of Bush's idea of democracy. They know who put the Shah in Iran, who supports Israel, and who stole the elction in Florida.
"Ken "Have I been right yet?" Pollack"
Inspired. Great post BTW.
Test
I think it's either all a smoke screen for what has always been the goals behind the plots. Ulterior motives that range from short term profiteering to long range control over the nations that depend on the energy produced from countries like Iraq.
I've always felt that the Bush's are covering ulterior motives behind the persona of good intentions, while the dubious aspects of the ulterior motives peek out from behind the curtains. Those who witness and expose them are labeled as crackpots by those who would either don't care as long as they(meaning the U.S0 come out on top and win, or that it doesn't affect them personally.
Even at the lowest level, most americans who support this war do so for selfish reasons, no selflessness ever existed in a conservative as far as I've ever known them. The rest simply don't want the hassle of having to endure another clinton styled expose, even if they never bothered to recognize that the GOP is taking full advantage of this by creating the scandals so the subsequent scandals will be less attractive. They know a segment of the population is tired of it and don't want to hear anymore, even if it means shooting the messengers.
Ignorance and fat-assed slobbery is the name of the game now.
When you consider how the nation's statistics show we as a nation are growing fatter and less out of shape, this promotes laziness and tired thinking.
MYOB'
.
What is monumentally sad about this issue is that we actually MAY have had democracy in an Arab (OK, Persian, actually) state without divine intervention by the USMC - Iran. Half the population is under 30 (thanks, in part, I think to a bloody war with Iraq). They are increasingly secular, educated, and ready to "take back their country." Of course, Iranian democracy isn't following the Rove/Bush timetable, but can you imagine the ripples THAT would have had throughout the region? And I would imagine spending a lot less than $100B would have pushed the process along a bit--without US military intervention, without body bags, and without completely alienating the US from not only the Arabs but from our own allies.
Had we focused on finding Osama Bin Forgotten and rooting out Al-Qaeda operations, and had a little bit of patience elsewhere, democracy may have happened without all the negatives that will result from our invasion.
I don't think most Americans really give a flying fuck what kind of systems run Middle East countries as long as the price of gasoline remains cheap and we can protect that with a regime favorable to that notion. Sure, lots of well-meaning people place their hands over their hearts and declare they believe in promoting democracy around the world, but certainly not at the loss their cheap prices at Wal-Mart or the gas pump.
If W could ensure victory in '04 by cutting and running from Iraq, what course do you suppose he would follow? When you've answered that question, I think you'll appreciate W's depth of commitment to democracy in the Middle East.
"...not at the loss of thier cheap prices..."
I disagree with the premise, but agree with the conclusion.
One big mistake people on both the right and left are making is buying into the belief that somehow people in the Middle East know nothing of democracy, and it's up to us to teach them. That's the height of arrogance and ignores a lot of history.
Turkey isn't Arab, but it's part of that general area, it's predominantly Muslim and it's a democracy. Not the most perfectly working democracy in the world, but a democracy nonetheless. In Bahrain, Jordan and Kuwait, you're seeing that they're having free and fair elections on the local and parliamentary level. Sure, the emirs and kings still rule, but it's a step in the right direction. In Iran, you find a strong press and elections going on at all levels (yes, they're being stifled by the conservatives, but you can't deny that Iran has strong democratic institutions already in place).
In other words, the Arab world doesn't need us to teach them anything about democracy. In many cases, we've only stifled their efforts, supporting regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and at one time, Iraq. I don't think we should necessarily be pulling our support from these regimes, but to have real, stable democracy in the Middle East, we should instead be encouraging these steps in the right direction and put pressure on our allies to open up more (resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict would also help in this regards).
That being said, we absolutely must not leave Iraq. Not for anything dealing with democracy, but because once we invaded Iraq, which had nothing to do with the war on terrorism, we opened up a new front in that war. If we leave Iraq, it will almost certainly become a failed nation state, and failed nation states are breeding grounds for terrorism. If we leave, we almost certainly will have to come back in a situation similar to Afghanistan.
Bush wants democracy in Iraq? Yeah, right. Then what the hell is he doing in Al Gore's office?
The Neocons don't let on why the Arabs by and large hate us and have hated us for decades. It is because we have a history of overthrowing their governments for their oil.
Do Arabs hate freedom? No. Do they hate Democracy? No. They wish the US would get out of the way so they could give it a try.
We had a democracy, Mossadegh in Iran. We fucked him good. And as we know they don't carry grudges in the Middle East, NOT.
Food for thought:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news.../
iraq_graves_dc
"We believe, based on what Iraqis have reported to us, that there are 300,000 dead and that's the lower end of the estimates.
"In Bosnia it's now eight or nine years since similar atrocities and only 8,000 bodies out of 30,000 have been uncovered. Here in Iraq it's 300,000," said Hodgkinson, a human rights lawyer brought in by the CPA after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam in April. More sites could still be found.
PS Those 300,000 dead (low estimate) are victims in Saddam's mass graves.
read to the end.
Investigators have identified six major crime periods: 1983 attacks on Kurds, a 1988 campaign against Kurds, chemical weapons attacks on Kurds 1986-88, the 1991 crushing of a southern Shi'ite revolt, 1991 crushing of Kurdish insurrection, and crimes against all sectors of the population during the entire period of Baath rule.
Saddam was a bastard, but he was our bastard.
You know that no-one, not a Dem, not a Rethug, is gonna repudiate those Halliburton contracts - they're the only thing propping up the US economy right now.
OT
More on Jessica Lynch
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/
2...8243315124.html
/OT
I highly recommend "All the Shah's Men." You know, last time there was a democratic revolution in the Middle East, it was to throw out foreigners. That's, um, kind of a big thing among Those People.
And btw, you are a defeatist Atrios.
And it's rather comical that you have chosen to give up when 85 percent of the country is entirely pacified.
When the last US soldier leaves, those Halliburton contracts will be repudiated by the new regime in a wink.
"Investigators have identified six major crime periods: 1983 attacks on Kurds, a 1988 campaign against Kurds, chemical weapons attacks on Kurds 1986-88, the 1991 crushing of a southern Shi'ite revolt, 1991 crushing of Kurdish insurrection, and crimes against all sectors of the population during the entire period of Baath rule.
Saddam was a bastard, but he was our bastard."
So let me get this straight. We were bad for allying with him against Iran (I agree) but we're bad for toppling him too? Either way it's America's fault right?
Ok. Check. Got it.
Perhaps, but perhaps not, a UN supervised trained international peacekeeping force could have better results.
Is that a serious statement? Dear God man. A bunch of blue helmeted Danish and Bangladeshis hunkered down in their APCs unable to shoot at anyone at all could do a better job at security than the U.S. Military? Get a grip. I know you crazies love to beat off to the U.N. but even for you that's a really bizarre statement to even suggest "perhaps".
Yes Philly, we've done a wonderful job of 'pacifying' those virtually uninhabited deserts. If only we could figure out how to pacify the populated areas, we'd be in great shape.
RE: Anon | 11.08.03 - 1:21 pm | #You know that no-one, not a Dem, not a Rethug, is gonna repudiate those Halliburton contracts - they're the only thing propping up the US economy right now.
What is / are the data behind this statement?
What is propping up the US economy right now are the Chinese and Japanese central banks who are financing your government's deficits.
Not "pacified", occupied, Philly G. Algeria was 99.9% pacified. Turned out great.
And enough with the war crimes -- Kim Il Jong is still there. The Repugs installed Pinochet. And the Shah. And supported Saddam. You're like Hitler complaining about Stalin's crimes, or vice-versa. Give it a rest. Two wrongs never make a right.
It seems inconceivable that the Iraqi Shiites will allow themselves to be ruled by, well, anyone else. They've suffered too long, and they feel that they're due. Meanwhile, they are playing along with the CPA and using the "coalition forces" for protection.
If they don't receive enough power out of whatever constitution issues forth, they'll take matters into their own hands. The delicate political game is to deliver enough to the Shiites without breaking up the country. Otherwise, it'll be civil war as soon as the U.S. military leaves or retreats into garrisons.
I suspect that if this happens and we can blame it on somebody else (Saddamites, mullahs, Syria, whoever), Rove will be content: "Hey, we've got an election to win, the economy is up, let's send the entire Iraq thing down the memory hole." So what if the neocons fume - f*ck 'em, they're yesterday's news.
The 300,000 include war dead from the Iran-Iraq conflict. And, frankly, they're not hopping back up out of the graves because we invaded. If the rationale for toppling Saddam was his human rights record, which was very bad in 2000, why didn't George W. Bush run on the slogan, "W means Gulf War II!" or something? Because he'd be clearing brush in Crawford full time. So let's lay off the humanitarian justification and go straight to the danger Bush used to justify the war, Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and links to "al-Qaida like" organizations posed to the US and the world. Ooops.
That said, we do indeed have an interest in a stable Iraq. However, the only stable Iraq that has ever existed was dominated by the Sunni Arabs eventually became so very unstable that it lapsed into tyranny. We may be thus pissing into the wind on this one, expensively, fatally. Second, we are encumbered by idiots running our show. If these guys had a decent grasp of Iraq, President Ahmed Chalabi would be presiding over the opening of the Iraqi Federal Congress right now, with Bush at his side and rose petals scattered at his feet, new, secular constitution in hand, cherubic Kurdish, Sunni, and Shi'a Iraqis beaming up at him, all in one big crowd. Frankly, we need international help because the Iraqis will never trust us. We invaded their country, they think after their oil. We won't get significant international help with this string of Pentagon bozos in charge. If the Senate had the slightest regard for good sense, it would have insisted that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and the neocon cadre be dismissed as a condition for additional aid.
"Yes Philly, we've done a wonderful job of 'pacifying' those virtually uninhabited deserts. If only we could figure out how to pacify the populated areas, we'd be in great shape."
Wow, shows how much you know about the country. Stick to the Bush hatred please.
Why is Ken Pollack EVEN in the news anymore after his major fraudulent book, "The Gathering Storm".
"The Gathering Storm", my ass. What gathering non-WMD storm was that?
I'm with atrios. What as stupid bunch of rhetoric. NO wonder Pollack's book was way of the mark. Pollack thinks and speaks like an idiot.
Josh Marshall's Prophet of "doom and gloom". Just where would we be without Pollack’s fossil fuel commissioned book? NOT in this long, hard slog of war for one thing.
We really need to be concerned about the areas that aren't pacified, because the comtinuation of violence is setting the tone for the whole situation:
The International Committee of the Red Cross is temporarily ending its operations in much of Iraq amid concerns over the safety of its staff.
ICRC spokesman Florian Westphal said their Baghdad and Basra offices were closing given "the extremely dangerous and volatile situation" in the country.
[...]
"The situation is so tense on the ground that we don't want to get into details," Mr Westphal was quoted as saying by the Associated Press.
He said the ICRC had received no direct threat but had taken its decision on the basis of an overall assessment of the situation.
"We are still discussing what to do with our foreign staff. The situation is extremely dangerous and volatile," he said.
"NOT in this long, hard slog of war for one thing."
I really can't for the life of me conceive why so many of you think removing Saddam Hussein from power was such a horrible thing.
Frankly, I think I can attribute it to most of you being full of shit. If Bush had a D instead of an R next to his name and was sponsoring universal health care instead of passing tax cuts, then you'd be all for it.
Like Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti etc.
This doesn't apply to everyone, but I'd be willing to bet it applies to most.
What version of "why we are there" are we up to now from Bush Administration?
The Shrub has no clothes, even though he keeps trying to change his outfit every other week.
I think the reality is that, no matter what the U.S. does or doesn't do, Iraq will quickly spin out into three states with the Kurds up north, the Sunnis in the middle, and the Shia in the south. If everybody gets a little oil, the result might be (almost) peaceful.
The wild card here is Saddam. If we don't catch him--and it sure is looking like we never will--you can bet your bippy that he will return to power in the Sunni region. From there, he will probably attempt to consolidate and increase his reign.
And we'll be right back where we started. Except, of course, we'll be about $250 billion poorer and perhaps 1,000 dead soldiers "ahead."
I really can't for the life of me conceive why so many of you think removing Saddam Hussein from power was such a horrible thing.
Number one, it is the epitome of arrogance. The Rumanians removed Ceaucescu. The Chileans got rid of Pinochet, etc. No one removed Franco; he died and the regime changed. The CIA-sponsored Greek colonels were thrown out. In other words, a country's tyrant is primarily an internal affair, unless the tyrant is invading a neighboring state, which Saddam wasn't (and as he turned out didn't have the means to).
(I would LOVE for the Canadians to come in and remove Bush, but realistically I'd oppose that too.)
Number two, it is the epitome of stupidity (even assuming good intentions, which I don't think was the case here) because the results will likely be worse than the cure. Look at post-Tito Yugoslavia, for example. Present-day Iraq. Algeria.
Number three, it is the epitome of hypocrisy when this is done not by a united international community, but by a country whose trademark is "Tyrants 'R Us".
Philly G:
I'll say this slowly, in the hope that you're able to follow the argument:
Thinking that this war was a bad idea does NOT mean wanting Saddam to stay in power. In fact, most of us who opposed the war also opposed Saddam back in the days when he was doing photo ops with Donald Rumsfeld. And he was a vicious killer then, too.
I opposed the war because I figured that it would turn out pretty much the way it HAS turned out, as opposed to the Wolfowitz fairy tale. I think we're already in quicksand, and I expect it get much worse.
Read this from today's Washington Post, for example:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...4-
2003Nov7.html
We already have one fifth of the population opposed to us, and getting better at fighting us. We may have good intentions, but the people running the show clearly don't have the least idea of how they're going to make this project work. The bill is already up to @200 billion and about 250 US combat deaths, and both meters are running.
The world is full of bad guys. Tell me, again, why it was so essential to get rid of THIS one?
Saddam is removed from power?
He has more power now than he had before we invaded.
He's free of embargoes and inspectors.
He has a much more effective army now.
He has the whole radical Muslim world on his side.
And he's killing more Americans.
I'm lost. Who's "we"? People with the power to remove the troops from Iraq, I gather, but impotent to prevent the establishment of a plutocratic colony. I don't know anyone who fits this description.
Let's say "we" are the citizens of the US/UK, and our wishes can be reflected in policy. Saying we should pull out of Iraq at this point is absurd. We're in the middle of running a play now. It wasn't a good play to call in the situation, we didn't have the right players on the field, and so on, but, at this point, we are almost exclusively responsible for the future of Iraq and the stability of the region. Iraq is a mess, and it's not going to fix itself. It has no legitimate government, no security, and no tradition of a peaceful civil society (not among the living, anyway.) It was more than a bit pollyannaish to think that we could reform the entire middle east by plopping down a democracy in Iraq, but, now that we've started, we damned well better finish. It's even more pollyanna to think that we can leave Iraq in this state and it will just sort itself out. Iraq has no army. Car bombs are going off in international releif organizations, mosques, police stations. It's anarchy. If we leave Iraq with a power vacuum, Turkey and Iran (assuming they aren't thoroughly stupid) are going to move to fill it, regional leaders are going to move to fill it, and we will have Afghanistan again. (All of these things - substituting Pakistan for Turkey - are currently underway in Afghanistan, because we have not committed ourselves to holding it together.) If Bush pulls our troops out of there before Iraq is able to stand (or totter, or lean, or something) on it's own, this will actually mark a new low in responsibility. Everything that happens from then on out will be blood on our hands, too.
philly g--ever get tired of trotting out the same tired old arguments?
i'll trot out an oldie-but-a-goodie for you then: instead of posting here, shouldn't you be writing letters to the bush administration pleading for the overthrow of our "ally" Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. Or are you "objectively pro-dissident boiling"?
Saddam gassed the Kurds bullshit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/3...nt&
position=top
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
http://www.villagevoice.com/issu...18/
trilling.php
In a telephone interview with the Voice, Goldberg explained why he had chosen to elide the position of the military and intelligence communities from his piece. "I didn't give it much thought, because it was dismissed by so many people I consider to be experts," he told me. "Very quickly into this story, I decided that I support the mainstream view—of Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights, the State Department, the UN, and various Kurdish groups—that the Iraqis were responsible for Halabja. In the same way, I didn't give any merit to the Iraqi denials."
.....
To Stephen Pelletiere, who was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq throughout the Iran-Iraq War, this is highly alarming. "There is to this day the belief—and I'm not the only one who holds it—that things didn't happen in Halabja the way Goldberg wrote it," he told the Voice. "And it's an especially crucial issue right now. We say Saddam is a monster, a maniac who gassed his own people, and the world shouldn't tolerate him. But why? Because that's the last argument the U.S. has for going to war with Iraq."
Uh, the Iraqis are not our bastard children. Doesn't matter if we "saved the day", we don't get to decide where they go from here. They don't give a fuck about what we think and why should they?
A cogent argument, Andrew. We could of course find a mustachioed strong man (let's call him Dassam) and put him in charge, thus ensuring peace and stability.
Dave L,
I fully understand what you're saying. My point that to be consistent, you cannot support any of Clinton's foreign policy maneuvers, which had absolutely nothing to do with our defense. Milosevic (probably the worst of the tyrants Clinton removed) had no history with the United States that would make him an enemy of the US. Yet Clinton took him out. Whether you were for or against that intervention, the removal of Milosevic was certainly a GOOD thing. Harping on about it months afterwards (as some of you are doing about Saddam) is particularly baffling since the Right is supposed to be mean-spirited and the Left are the world's supposed humanitarians.
Philly G.
With this much expense and loss of lives, with no long term improvement in stability or peace, with the loss of American credibilty becasue of WMD nonsense and post-war incompetence -- yes, this war was not worth it, even though it did get rid of Saddam. The alternative was to do what we had successfully done for years concerning other nasty dictators -- marginalize and isolate them. I seem to remember that we won the Cold War that way against much nastier adversaries.
I guess you'd incur any cost for this war, and consider it worthwhile "because we got rid of Saddam."
Does it trouble your moral calculations any that all of these atrocities happened decades ago when they could easily have been curtailed by the Republican presidents then in power, but weren't? And that in term of killing innocent Iraqis, America is easily matching Saddam's pace? Maybe your average Iraqi would rather die by Bush's bullet instead of Saddam's, but then nobody ever asked them.
I fully understand what you're saying. My point that to be consistent, you cannot support any of Clinton's foreign policy maneuvers, which had absolutely nothing to do with our defense.
Wow, Philly, you are really off your rocker. Do you honestly believe that putting a stop to aggression in the Balkans has nothging to do with American security?
Philly G: are you merely ignoring history when it's inconvenient, or genuinely ignorant of it?
Tackling Milosevic was far more like Gulf War I - then, Saddam was threatening a neighboring country and the world joined in. Not because he was a mean sob (he was THEIR mean sob), but because he "bothered" his neighbor, Kuwait.
Same with Milosevic. The Serbs were actively "bothering" the Bosnians and (to a lesser degree) the Croats, so the world joined in to put a stop to it.
Saddam was basically contained, and this was a totally unecessary war of unprovoked agression. Sort of like the old USSR invading Hungary to help rid them of that pesky Dubcek.
If anyone had truly cared about the plight of the average Iraqi, they then should have lobbied the UN to remove the economic sanctions.
Your hypocrisy is nauseating.
Philly: Because removing Saddam wasn't the point. Make the United States safer was. If removing Saddam means that Afghanistan is chaotic, that al-Qaida goes less-well-tracked and less-well-fettered, that South Asian Islamicism and its infection of subcontinental government is feebly challenged, that lets a country without an army pin half of America's combat strength in the field, that exposes 130,000 Americans who would have been otherwise reasonably safe to attack, that permits North Korea and Iran to putter away on nuclear arms, that alienates the richest, most stable nations Earth and encourages non-American alliances, that undermines the rule of international law and global admiration of American democracy, that encourages America's political leaders to lie to the American nation, that twists American government into venal partnerships with corporations in order to usurp another nation's right to direct the use of its own resources toward the ends that it alone selects, that results in a fragile polity prone dissolve into civil war, theocracy, and the exportation of religious terror, then toppling Saddam might not be the wise thing to do.
Once again, the humanitarian rationale is a total paint-up applied to this wagon once it was put on the road. Saddam has been a very, very bad man for a very, very long time, long enough for it to slip into even the hermetically-sealed mind of George W. Bush well before he ran for the presidency. If we wanted to save lives, we would have invaded the Congo. Why object to toppling Saddam? Because it just may not have been worth the sacrifice of American blood, treasure, and security.
The Republicans are winging off into never never land, and (through their control of the media) they're dragging the rest of us along with them. When W -- a man who prevented the votes from being counted in his own "election," a man who in office set up a blatantly illegal, Executive Department Gulag in defiance of the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers, a man who blithly shredded not only the UN Charter but the Geneva Convention -- lectures the world on "democracy" and the "rule of law," it is greeted everywhere with mordant laughter, except in America.
It's like the question the judge asked Katherine Harris' attorney in the case involving Cruella'a failure to follow the Florida law requiring candidates for office to resign from currently held offices: "she's not a crook, she's just incompetent?" This is the question that has to be asked about the whole Bush Administration. Crooks or imcompetents, There's no third option.
In fact, as with Harris, there's really no second option -- unless you're a demented Republican! They're incompetent crooks!
The world can see it, but here in benighted America, we continue to debate whether W and his cronies might actually be just stupendously incompetent idealists, earnestly trying to bring "peace" and "democracy" to the middle east through smart bombs, M1 tanks and an indefinite military occupation. Perhaps they really do seek to affect the politics of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran, . . . through invading Iraq!
But the world knows that a W and his "cabal" perpetrated an aggressive war in Iraq. What's more, the world isn't even particularly surprised by this -- they expected terrible deeds from the junta that stole the White House. The world has realized that the Iraq attack had nothing to do with WMDs or "grave and gathering" threats or Terrorism or a reverse domino theory. The world has long ago discounted these rationales. The world is asking, why is the US in Iraq?
The world suspects that crooked oil interests are now using the US military for their own purposes. The world is wondering what these interests are planning to do next.
In America, however, despite all evidence, we continue to dream about a non-crooked W, a merely monmumentally incompetent W, a W with good intentions for the US, the Middle East and the world -- a W whose plans may yet, by some miracle, turn out well.
-- end of rant. --
Sorry, Philly G, but zim, Brian C.B., Lupin, and Boronxmake much, much better, more rational arguments than you do.
The American people were sold a damaged bill of goods. Some of Bush's backers are poor, pathetic deluded fools. They're decent, patriotic people, but misguided fools, nonetheless.
Isn't it just a *wee* bit ironic for us to be "imposing" freedom and democracy at 130,00 gunpoints? I really get tired trying to keep up with all of the shifting justifications and rationales for justifying what, in the end, can only be viewd as the criminal act of invading a soverign country and killing thousands of it's population.
We should be very wary of any advocate who claims that we must be prepared to "bear any burden, pay any price" in the service of a particular policy. For core principals, like the preservation of liberty, sure.
Anyone who argues that we must succeed in Iraq no matter the cost is not making a serious case. If, as president Bush claims, Iraq is just a battle in the war on terrorism, then it would be foolish spend all of our capital winning one battle only to lose the war for lack of credibility, troops and cash.
We make a lot of noise about democracy in Iraq, but at the same time we prop up the Saudis and unconditionally support the Israelis, while we criticize Iran. We're a pretty negative advertisement for what democracies are capable of. No surprise that only 20% of Iraqis are interested in becoming like the US.
For the record...
Clinton did not remove Milosevic, he was removed by the Serbian people (and subsequently shipped off to the Hague).
tib,
Speaking of "paying any price," to me on of the most most maddening examples of the Bush Administration's crooked "incompetence" was Strangefeld in the runup to war saying "the price of inaction is greater than the price of action," and then, when asked to estimate the costs of the Iraq Attack, saying, "no one can estimate the costs."
How could he know that the "cost" of inaction was less than the cost of invasion when he claimed not to know the cost of invasion?! Of course, any Secretary of Defense who starts a war without any idea of what it will cost the nation is, at best, totally incompetent and unfit for office.
Wesley Clark let another cat out of the bag a month or so ago when he told an interviewer that he'd heard that the war "cabal" entirely bypassed the planning apparatus of the Pentagon. Why did they do that? Because if they'd "planned" their war in the ordinary way, Congress might have gotten wind of the price tag!
"For the record...
Clinton did not remove Milosevic, he was removed by the Serbian people (and subsequently shipped off to the Hague).
Imperial J"
beat me to it! nonviolently removed, i might add.
philly g, you ignorant dumbass.
Lupin - That's the beauty part. We won't need to find anyone - the Turks will work to put a friendly tash in Kurdistan, and the Iranians will look to do us this favor in the Shitte lands (at least), although they are more partial to beards, I'm led to understand. It's even better than that, because one doubts there will be much chance of a "failure of nerve" when the going gets tough, on the part of the regional "liberators" or any domestic power that takes control. Any atrocities that take place will, of course, be no business of ours, as we merely opened the door.
We're stuck, folks. We're lucky, because we can, at the end of the day, go home, while the Iraqis can't, but we are in very deep right now. The only hope is to try to fix this. I see everyone's pessimism and raise, but walking away, it seems to me, is a sure-fire disaster.
I agree that we must be free to chose withdrawal, summarily or slowly. All options, in the face of this tragically failed policy, must be on the table.
The only way this will be any kind of a success or less of a "miserable failure" is to follow the first law of holes: STOP DIGGING. Bush keeps on shoveling and digging in deeper and deeper and it is utter folly to follow him, even to the extent of agreeing that NOW THAT WE ARE THERE (EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A HORRENDOUS MISTAKE TO BE THERE) WE MUST STAY THE COURSE.
the Bush model is "the more money you spend, the more the 'democratic' process will work in your favor"
100 Billion is just to set up democracy? I could have sworn at least some of it was to fix the bridges, pipes, and power lines we blew up on our way in.
Why is Ken Pollack EVEN in the news anymore after his major fraudulent book, "The Gathering Storm".
"The Gathering Storm", my ass. What gathering non-WMD storm was that?
"I'm with atrios. What as stupid bunch of rhetoric. NO wonder Pollack's book was way of the mark. Pollack thinks and speaks like an idiot.
Josh Marshall's Prophet of "doom and gloom". Just where would we be without Pollack’s fossil fuel commissioned book? NOT in this long, hard slog of war for one thing."
Cheryl raises a good point. What bothered me so much about Pollack's really bad book was that people like Josh Marshall and other neo libs (maybe Tom Friedman) found it to be so persuasive. Once they read it, they became very vocal hawks and used their various platforms to beat the drums for war.
What I have always wondered about when thinking about Pollack, Friedman, Marshall, Perle, Wolfowitz, etc. is this: how much of their war advocacy was a thinly veiled effort to use US force to try and make Israel more secure? It seems to me that objective may be the 800 lb. gorilla sitting in the middle of all conversations about going to war, yet it cannot be discussed. (Please don't think that I'm anti semitic; I'not.)
Why haven't a democratized Morocco influenced Algeria, or a democratized Jordan affected Syria, or a democratizing Yemen swayed Saudi Arabia? So much for a domino effect.
... Dear God man. A bunch of blue helmeted Danish and Bangladeshis hunkered down in their APCs unable to shoot at anyone at all could do a better job at security than the U.S. Military? Get a grip. I know you crazies love to beat off to the U.N. but even for you that's a really bizarre statement to even suggest "perhaps".
Homer the Troll | 11.08.03 - 1:27 pm | #
Umm, homer, there ARE arabs in the UN. in fact, I'm pretty sure that some of the nations in he region who sent troops the first time through would probably send some troops in this time if our President would take of his ass-hat and stop treating this like a game of RISK.
but then again, he calls partisans terrorists. You know, like those 'terrorists' that threw the tea into Boston Harbor a few years back, I'm sure you read about it. or those 'terrorists' who stayed in france to make the nazi occupation more difficult.
waht would YOU do if, to give you a sense of scale, because your leader was a war-mongering idiot, 1.5 million foriegn troops invaded the US, telling you to stay indoors, checking your ID everywhere you went, and generally trying to tell you what to do. Oh, and occasionally killing innocent people 'accidentally'.
even if they left the free press and your guns, I doubt it would go over well with you.
so go pop another OxyContin, it'll help you to dull than nagging sense that people have feelings, and pride, and that they are capable of good things despite worshipping a small idol. It'll also kill andy doubt you have about being right, and in so doing make you even more self righteous than you are.
We can do good there, but the best thing we could do is lead by example, and get a democratic process involved on what to do next.
Bush simply has to pay for this horrible mistake of a war. The blood of every person who has died in Iraq since April '03 is on Bush's hands. He is a disgusting lying excuse for a president. Many more people will die in this war before everybody will finally realize this war is a lost cause and we withdraw. We simply can't impose democracy on them at this point. It ain't gonna happen.
Ken Pollack makes me sick as well. I saw him on Aaaron Brown the other night completely dismissing the last chance Iraqi bargain for war. What a complete ass-- blood is on his hands as well.
In fact, as with Harris, there's really no second option -- unless you're a demented Republican! They're incompetent crooks!
I think they're very competent crooks. They stole the election and imposed Dubya on us with scarcely a peep from the press; they've implemented their "cut taxes on the rich" and increase defense spending economic program, and they've lied us into a war they've been wet-dreaming about since the last one.
If it takes competence to accomplish your goals, I don't see how you can call the cabal incompetent.
Wow, shows how much you know about the country. Stick to the Bush hatred please.
--Philly G
And how do you know so much more about Iraq? Where's your Info coming from?
Unless your writing these comments from ther Sunni triangle, you're getting the same blinkered view of the situation as the rest of us. No one really knows how things are going in Iraq other than the reports of dead soldiers and pissed off Iraqis. Oh sorry I forgot about the schools! Whatever.
Look Phily G, it's OK to admit that you were misled. A lot of people had good intentions and high hopes for this war. Sad to break it to you this way, across the eather and all, but George W. Bush lied to you. He lied to all of us.
Was Saddam a bad man? Sure. No one's defending him. But we are questioning the motives that got us into this mess and trying hard to figure out the best way to resolve it without too many more lives being lost. Because that's the Humanitarian thing to do. Killing Arabs for oil and inflated, no bid contracts for campaign contributors is bad for democracy, it's bad economics and it's just bad morals.
In Mosul, 250 miles north of Baghdad, witnesses said a vehicle carrying American soldiers was attacked with automatic weapons as it drove down a city street. The vehicle stalled and several wounded soldiers got out and fled on foot. Local people then set the vehicle ablaze.
"They (Americans) are occupying the world," said Shazad Ahmed, a resident who saw the attack. "What do you want the people to do? Kiss them?"
The city, which was once considered to be relatively free of guerrilla activity, has seen dozens of attacks on U.S. forces in recent weeks, indicating that the rebellion has now spread out of its original stronghold in the so-called Sunni Triangle north and west of Baghdad.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage described Iraq as a "war zone," but noted that "we have the momentum in this process."
Armitage: "I'm absolutely convinced we have a very solid plan to go out and get these people who are killing us and killing Iraqis," he told reporters during a visit to Iraq.
Later he said: "I'm pretty convinced after this short visit ... that we will take this fight to the enemy," he said.
Why am I not convinced he's convinced?
http://tinyurl.com/u7wh
re this quote: "We've got another idea. We've got another way of doing things, and that's democratically."
I think no one who knows the history of this country could believe this.
Read some Chomsky, try and dispute the history, and you got zip to support this crap.
Today's paper said that the US troops "swept through Iraqi neighborhoods before dawn today, blasting houses suspected of being insurgent hideouts with machine guns and heavy weapons fire." ""This is to remind the town that we have teeth and claws and we will use them." said Lt. Col. Steven Russell , commander of the 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment." (AP).
I certainly don't think THIS is democracy. I don't know what to call it, but this type of activity should be brought up as war crimes. The Iraqis don't want to be occupied!
How hard is it for the US to understand that?
I really can't for the life of me conceive why so many of you think removing Saddam Hussein from power was such a horrible thing.
Frankly, I think I can attribute it to most of you being full of shit. .
Maybe you should attribute all that shit to your framing what other people think to fit your beliefs.
I was opposed to Saddam back when Kissinger sold out the Kurds to him in the early 70's. The idea of Saddam not being in power in Iraq is just swell. The idea of Kim Jon Il not being in power in N. Korea is equally swell, not to mention a few other tyrants, including Rios Montt, Pinochet, the Shah, and all the others who were conveniently our favorite boys. But it's the way one bunch of neocons decided that the idea should be a reality, and lied their way into it, and caused the deaths of so many people in a predominantly unilateral, pre-emptive attack, and created this godawful mess which has made the U.S. a plethora of new enemies, etc. etc., this is what I think is a horrible thing.
Oh, and the idea of George W. Bush not being in power is the swellest idea of all.
As to the topic, I think the Bush admin. will be mostly out of Iraq by next summer. In their deepest Rovian cynicism, which is a character trait of this crew, they know that whatever mess they leave behind, and however much worse it gets after we are gone, the Amoricons who support Bush will forget all about it when football season starts, guaranteed.
And why anyone would pay attention to anything that comes out of the mouth of William Kristol, one of the earliest PNAC promulgators of this disaster, is beyond me.
,i>PS Those 300,000 dead (low estimate) are victims in Saddam's mass graves.
Philly G | 11.08.03 - 1:18 pm | #
So, I guess none of those mass graves are from all the deaths the sanctions caused, huh? RIGHT!! You think that all those people dying from the waterborn diseases after the US ruined their waterworks and sewage facilities weren't mass graved? When all the plagues run up high death rates, those people are most likely not buried one by one in grave yards. Even in the US during the scarlet fever plagues, they mass graved the masses.
Am I the only one troubled by the framing of this argument - Do we stay or go (black or white, up or down)? There seems to be at least several other alternatives.
We are forced/told to leave. The Iraqi's start mixing in with the attacks a high level of escalating civil disobedience led by the clerics. Take out the support soldiers, we have a ratio of less than one soldier for every 250 Iraqi's.
Try to create an ad-hoc group of Muslim countries to take over most of the peacekeeping mission within the cities and move the US/British forces to the outskirts and do the heavy lifting. Putting the shoe on the other foot, would we not prefer Canandian peacekeepers in America than Muslims that do not speak our language?
"Maybe it's that I just don't see much difference in the net result of being in it for the short or long haul, aside from the body bag count of our soldiers."
I don't mean to be picky and off point, but they aren't body bags any longer. The military now calls them "transfer tubes".
"The world can see it, but here in benighted America, we continue to debate whether W and his cronies might actually be just stupendously incompetent idealists, earnestly trying to bring "peace" and "democracy" to the middle east through smart bombs, M1 tanks and an indefinite military occupation. Perhaps they really do seek to affect the politics of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran, . . . through invading Iraq!
But the world knows that a W and his "cabal" perpetrated an aggressive war in Iraq. What's more, the world isn't even particularly surprised by this -- they expected terrible deeds from the junta that stole the White House. The world has realized that the Iraq attack had nothing to do with WMDs or "grave and gathering" threats or Terrorism or a reverse domino theory. The world has long ago discounted these rationales. The world is asking, why is the US in Iraq?
The world suspects that crooked oil interests are now using the US military for their own purposes. The world is wondering what these interests are planning to do next."
Ah yes, the world of such enlightened opinion that it believes Israel is the greatest threat to world peace nowadays. No thanks, world opinion is pretty unenlightened.
"Bush simply has to pay for this horrible mistake of a war. The blood of every person who has died in Iraq since April '03 is on Bush's hands. He is a disgusting lying excuse for a president. Many more people will die in this war before everybody will finally realize this war is a lost cause and we withdraw. We simply can't impose democracy on them at this point. It ain't gonna happen.
Ken Pollack makes me sick as well. I saw him on Aaaron Brown the other night completely dismissing the last chance Iraqi bargain for war. What a complete ass-- blood is on his hands as well."
There you go with the blood on his hands or her hands. Ok buddy, I'll play along. You have the blood of at least every single victim of Saddam's regime during the period you were protesting to help him stay in power. Way to go, you progressive you!
"I think no one who knows the history of this country could believe this.
Read some Chomsky..."
Wait. Stop right there. Noam Chomsky is an idiot. And only idiots take him seriously.
Wait. Stop right there. Ahmed Chalabi is an idiot. And only idiots take him seriously.
Wait a minute...
Allow me to say: blow it out your ass, you moronic browmshirt fuck.
And best to Unka Karl. We know one place the economy's booming: the MBF boilerroom...
I used to think Philly G was an intellectual brownshirt fuck.
My opinion has changed. He's moving rapidly to the Mark Harden zone.
His hatred of Clinton for kicking the worthless patrician ass of Bush41 into the street, where it belongs, is obvious.
And speaking of Mission Accomplished:
Miss Afghanistan could be charged over beauty pageant
(11-0
12:15 PST KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- A 23-year-old woman who is the first Afghan in three decades to take part in a beauty pageant could face prosecution if she returns to her native country, a senior justice official said Saturday.
Fazel Ahmad Manawi, deputy head of Afghanistan's Supreme Court, told The Associated Press that Vida Samadzai, a college student in California, had betrayed Afghan culture by appearing at the Miss Earth contest in a bikini -- and may have also broken the law.
"I hope that this lady regrets her actions," Mamawi said. He added that Afghan prosecutors may open an investigation, but refused to say what charges or penalties Samadzai could face...
Despite the fall of the Taliban two years ago, many Afghan women still wear the all-covering burqa robes that became an international symbol of the regime's hardline policies. Women who avoid the burqa respect Islamic tradition by covering their hair with a scarf...
Several Afghan women approached on the streets of Kabul refused to speak to The Associated Press when asked about Samadzai. In Afghan culture, women are usually wary of speaking to men in public...
I don't know what the smiley face with sunglasses is doing there...
Philly G,
Where to start? Chomsky is an idiot? An "idiot"? Please, the next time Rush Limbaugh is in town, you can ask him which theses on non-context specific grammars that are the basis for modern computer programming languages he has come up with.
You may not agree with Noam's theses, but to say he's an "idiot" reveals your ignorance.
But I'll ignore that, because Chomsky isn't the issue here. The issue is:
We all feel that Bush lied to get us into this war, and obiously you don't agree. That's a given. But I'll pose you a very simple question:
IF it could be proven to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush lied about the WMD, that he knowingly and willingly lied to the American people about the reasons Saddam was such a threat, would you continue to support this war?
Because I don't think Republicans care that Bush might have lied. I think you all are fine with it. I'm really curious about that fact, whether or not you think that lying about the reasons you take the US to war is OK.
Philly, you're being a troll. You're not on the topic of the main post and have made the thread "about you." You won't get banned here for trolling, but that's what you're doing.
Atrios is quite right. "Success" in Iraq has not been adequately defined nor a strategy for achieving "it" been articulated. We still don't really know what "it" will cost, we're still without significant international support, and "it" has not made us appreciably safer from the terrorism (and neither is Israel, by the way).
If you can actually address the topic, then you have something to say. If all you have is "Chomsky is an idiot," then piss off. (You do realize he's not, right, and that he has revolutionized modern linguistics, whatever you think of his politics? Don't say things which are just idiotic while you call other people idiots.)
We're going about this completely ass-backwards. History has shown that - in the case of a country with no history of democracy - democracy can only take hold in a period of relative stability. The only real exception to this is when it's a homegrown revolution, but that really hasn't happened very often. Any major, ongoing problem will sink it. I don't think WE can succeed in Iraq (though I think there's a distant possibility the UN could) because these attacks will never end. Even if something resembling a democracy is set up it'll be an autocracy of some sort within five years. The best the Bushies can hope for (and this may have been their goal all along) is a new, Western-oriented Saddam type dictator. Free and open democracy takes a generation or so.
"His hatred of Clinton for kicking the worthless patrician ass of Bush41 into the street, where it belongs, is obvious."
Where did I express hatred for Clinton? I was only a teen for most of his years as president, and apolitical for the most part. At worst, I'm apathetic to Clinton.
"If you can actually address the topic, then you have something to say. If all you have is "Chomsky is an idiot," then piss off. (You do realize he's not, right, and that he has revolutionized modern linguistics, whatever you think of his politics? Don't say things which are just idiotic while you call other people idiots.)"
Most people don't buy Chomsky's linguistics books. I have pretty far Left friends who have at times expressed tacit support for Castro and they STILL think Chomsky is a whacko.
"IF it could be proven to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush lied about the WMD, that he knowingly and willingly lied to the American people about the reasons Saddam was such a threat, would you continue to support this war?"
Monkey, the problem that you and eveyone else here has fallen into is that you believe Bush "knowingly and willingly lied" about Saddam to get into a war (which wouldn't make any sense unless you believe he went to war strictly to boost Haliburton's profits, certifying you as a proud member of the Idiotarian Party). However, such a statement presumes that literally EVERYONE else was in on the lie: France, Germany, Russia, Italy, the UK, even the fucking UN. If you'd like to try to prove to me how all these organizations "knowingly and willing lied", then go ahead because I'm all ears. Until then, you're just repeating Atrios talking points which don't resonate beyond any far Left intellectually dishonest crowd.
Very, very smart.
here comes the United States and says, "We've got another idea. We've got another way of doing things, and that's democratically."
One time, in the 1980s, I walked into a Kentucky Fried Chicken and saw a sign touting: "New! French Fries!" Pollack wants to open an Iraq franchise emblazoned with "New! Democracy!"
Dear Mr. Pollack: democracy isn't a new concept to be breathlessly rolled out. People know all about it already.
Brett W - Democracy as a concept isn't new, but it isn't very useful, either. I've got the concept of a million dollars, but somehow I can't pay my bills. Democracy the practiced system of government is what they are proposing to introduce.
Philly G,
Have you ever read any Chomsky? It sounds to me like you are just repeating what you have "heard."
Anyway, not my job to educate you. That's your responsibility.
But you dodged my question. I will try again:
If it could be proven to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush lied to the American people knowingly and willingly in order to justify invading Iraq, would you still support Bush?
A yes or no answer, please. See, I think you would support him no matter what. I think he could lie to your face (and I think he has) and you would go on supporting him.
Please, be honest. Would you support Bush if it could be proven to you that he lied about the WMD and the threat Iraq posed to the US?
Btw, I don't plan on trying to prove it to you. I already have made up my mind about whether or not he lied, I'm just curious if YOU would mind if he lied.
What I don't understand is why if Bush knowingly and willingly lied about Saddam that means everyone else lied too. I don't see that. Everyone agrees that Saddam was a brutal dictator, but I believe the UN, France, Germany, etc. did not buy the administration's "imminent nuclear threat" claim.
Wow. I have friends who say the opposite of what your friends say.
537 votes notes that we might have had a democracy in Iran. In fact, one existed under Mossadegh... until the United States crushed it. (I see Lupin made this point as well)
Sovay says that we must stay in Iraq to prevent it from becoming a breeding ground for terrorists. But isn't that what the US presence is provoking? The US must remain in Iraq only in order not to be humiliated and lessened in the eyes of the world.
Andrew Northrup fears the effects of anarchy. And it is indeed likely that left to it's own devices, Iraq would evolve into an Islamist theocracy. But since the United States apparently is unwilling to allow Iraqis to govern themselves, as indicated by the illegal sales of state assets and the virtual seizure of the oil industry, anarchy (as bad as it would be) could be the lesser of evils.
Philly G points to 300,000 murdered under Saddam's regime. He should understand that most of those deaths occurred in the 1980s, when Saddam was a US ally and being equipped with weapons, including the precursors for chemical weapons that were used against Iraqis. (I see Atrios flagged this one properly)
Beth (as often) rocks. The comment about the US having pacified the uninhabited portion of Iraq is spot on. Too bad Philly G won't stop and consider whether Baghdad is inhabited or not before accusing her of not knowing anything about the country.
I also like Lupin's point that things work out best when the people a country themselves oust their dictator. We didn't ask the French to kick the Brits out: we accepted their arms and naval support, and did the hard fighting ourselves. It's a mystery why the superpatriots on these boards don't think Iraqis should have been granted the same opportunity.
Philly G also should understand that Chomsky serves a very important role. Agree with him or not, it doesn't matter: he presents America as it looks to many foreigners. Reading him, even though you may disagree with everything he says, would probably do you a lot of good.
(For the record, I often find Chomsky's arguments tendentious. On the other hand, I also find the arguments of a number of right-wingers tendentious. But I don't shut them out either. Also,
no one can argue with the fact that Chomsky's was one of the lonely voices that brought the atrocities of East Timor to world attention. That alone would count as the good deed of a lifetime.)
Frankly - and this is a bit off-topic - but I think it's slightly ironic that a country where less than a third of the population actually participates in the democratic process is going around telling another country how to be a democracy. Hey, look, Iraq! Now you too can stay home on Election Day and not give a tinker's cuss about who's running the show instead of just being told what to do. It’s just politics, after all, it’s not really important or anything.
And I have to agree with the above statement that anyone who considers Chomsky an "idiot" has never read any of his books or listened to any of his interviews. The man's got serious smarts, and even if you don't agree with everything he says - and as left-wing as I am, I still don't agree with every single thing - you have to admit he does his homework. Point out where he's egregiously wrong - as opposed to being on the other side of the ideological fence - or zip your lip.
As for my take, we're invariably stuck for the time being with Iraq. One way or another, it's our responsibility...on some level. Unfortunately, I agree with the above statement that we'll be out of there by next election time at the latest and, like Afghanistan, it'll be outta sight, outta mind.
js,
Dude, "tendentious" is a very good word. Have to remember that one. And, it's appropos. Chomsky does have an ideological slant, but he doesn't pretend otherwise. And, again, if you read his books, he's citing facts and figures to back up his claims. And as the Great Accoutant says, you can't argue with facts and figures.
Hey Philly G, thanks for the laughs.
Whoa, Philly,
You've confused me, but you'll have to bear with me, 'cause I'm a little slow, though trying not to be intellectually dishonest (if, indeed, intellectual can be attached to me).
How does that presume everyone you list was in on the lie? Are you saying they were complicity? Or that they knew he was lying? 'Cause I think they (at least some of them) made it pretty clear that the evidence BushCo (in the guise of Colin Powell) presented was old news.
I'll just remember Hans Blix, just before the fun started, smiling and saying something to the effect that it would be very interesting what the US (and its bribed allies) found in terms of WMD.
He definitely knew what the truth was.
Why are the only fools in this country? Everyone else seems to have figured it out.
Embarrassing.
Philly G *IS* a troll in the sense that he has not answered, or even tried to answer, any of points I and others have made, refuting some of his most preposterous statements. Instead what we got is more diatribe, anti-Chomsky tirades, whatever.
Give Philly a chance. He might just be AFK.
But I think he really wouldn't care much if Bush DID lie...Republicans usually don't become Republicans through reasoned decisions, they become Republicans through more faith-based, visceral processes.
Not saying that Democrats are beings of pure logic, but I think the left in general is more thoughtful and willing to consider all sides of an argument or position before making up one's mind.
Philly G also revealed exactly how far he is wiling to go when he said he didn't care what the rest of the world thought about the US invasion of Iraq. I've heard that before from people who buy the PNAC line. They honestly don't give a shit and believe the rest of the world doesn't matter because we are the USA dammit! We rule!
Such thinking is terribly naive and terribly wrong.
Monkey - Doesn't that go at least somewhat to the pre-destination, self determination argument?
And it is indeed likely that left to it's own devices, Iraq would evolve into an Islamist theocracy. But since the United States apparently is unwilling to allow Iraqis to govern themselves, as indicated by the illegal sales of state assets and the virtual seizure of the oil industry, anarchy (as bad as it would be) could be the lesser of evils.
I'm still confused about what's open for discussion here. Apparently it's pointless to discuss the character of any rebuilding/occupation/whatever, because that has already been preordained, but we can take a binary "in or out" position. (Towards what end, one wonders?) Foreign policy isn't a yes or no question.
'We can't leave Iraq until we succeed.' What the hell does that mean? What is this so-called "success" in Iraq? It is completely undefined. We can't even agree that democracy in America means empowering everyone to vote, having open and honest disagreements, regulating capitalism to protect against abuses, maintaining separation of church and state, and justice for all.
So how the hell is democracy ever going to be declared established in Iraq? The whole notion is ludicrous. When Rove schedules Iraqi elections sometime this spring or summer, is that it? How many election cycles do we have to wait before troops go home – one – what a joke if that’s it. You can't force democracy on people, or define it for them, or unilaterally declare it established. The notions are ridiculous.
You especially can't impose democracy on a people and expect them to thank you for it.
Imagine if the USSR had invaded the US and "given" us what they call Democracy. I would be out in the streets with a gun alongside my GOP neighbors.
That may not be an exact match, but to the Iraqis, it's close enough for a few thousand dedicated fighters to prove that the US military is powerless to stop them.
"You've confused me, but you'll have to bear with me, 'cause I'm a little slow, though trying not to be intellectually dishonest (if, indeed, intellectual can be attached to me).
How does that presume everyone you list was in on the lie? Are you saying they were complicity? Or that they knew he was lying? 'Cause I think they (at least some of them) made it pretty clear that the evidence BushCo (in the guise of Colin Powell) presented was old news."
The UN, France, Germany, Italy, the UK, etc all believed Saddam retained WMD's. (I might add that many of the potential WMD sites have still not been searched so it is not out of the realm of possibility that WMD's or clandestine WMD programs exist).
So Monkey, prove to me how Bush KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY LIED (key words) here, rather than was just given faulty intelligence or was only "lying" only in as much as everyone else I just listed was "lying" to.
(waits for Counterpunch article claiming some guy told some guy who told some guy that Bush smells and is a liar)
"Philly G also revealed exactly how far he is wiling to go when he said he didn't care what the rest of the world thought about the US invasion of Iraq. I've heard that before from people who buy the PNAC line. They honestly don't give a shit and believe the rest of the world doesn't matter because we are the USA dammit! We rule!
Such thinking is terribly naive and terribly wrong."
Tena, the majority of Germans think the US is responsible for attacking itself on 9/11. Do I really care what such people think?
Philly G, what is really wrong and dangerous is you're thinking; so we're going to change it for you, and we're not going to stop until we 'succeed', not until you start thinking the way we think you should and not until you become an up-standing member of our way of thinking (but we're not going to tell you what that is other then that we call it smugocracy) and we don't care if you want it or not. We know what's good for you.
What do ya think, you think that's the way to win you over?
The UN, France, Germany, Italy, the UK, etc all believed Saddam retained WMD's. (I might add that many of the potential WMD sites have still not been searched so it is not out of the realm of possibility that WMD's or clandestine WMD programs exist).
Philly G, you might add that all the sites haven't been searched.
What sites were used in Powell's speech at the UN?
What sites did the military search until they were moved elsewhere?
What is in David Kay's latest report?
Well, we know, don't we?
It's hard, I know.
Geez, all the sites have been searched and nothing was found.
Sorry, we're watching a very cool lunar eclipse.
All the people as stupid as Tom Friedman please gather under the wall-size fresco of the Dodo bird. The rest of the tour will continue ... we'll come back for you ... maybe.
Bx about as much wants democracy in Iraq as he wants a pit viper in his golf bag. The invasion was intended to produce one major accomplishment:
AIRBASES. The money is cool, but the power is the point.
Let's get on with that part of the story. Ya-da, ya-da, we're the only people crazy enough to blow away innocent people creating this advantage for America, so now we can start wars with the ME countries at will, without having staging problems. Whoopee!
If THAT policy turns out 'well,' then racism is the name of the game. This is the basis of the perennial war Cheney talked about, and it is a real threat to the peoples of the region, as the Bx invasion has already been an act of genocide. Such will no doubt continue, if we cannot 'seize back' the power of our nation.
So Monkey, prove to me how Bush KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY LIED (key words) here, rather than was just given faulty intelligence or was only "lying" only in as much as everyone else I just listed was "lying" to.
Philly,
I asked you a simple question you continue to dodge. It's quite simple.
If it were proven to you that Bush lied about the reasons he took the US to War, would you continue to support him?
Yes, or No?
That's all I ask. I'm not out to change your mind, my friend.
I simply want you to answer the question, straight up.
Would it bother you if Bush lied about the reasons he took the country to war? Would you stop supporting him because of it?
Personally, I defended Clinton when he lied about his sex life, because I thought it was none of my business. But if I thought he lied about something on the scale of going to war under false pretenses...I would have dropped my support for him instantly.
But I don't hear that from Republicans. They seem quite willing to accept that their President lied to them, and that their sons, fathers, and neighbors might be die because of it.
So I'm asking. Are you one of those Republicans?
IF Bush did lie, and you knew it beyond a shadow of a doubt, would you still support him? Or not.
It's a simple question. Your refusal to answer it says a lot about your true motivations.
"Saddam gassed the Kurds bullshit."
No, Thrasyboulos, you are busy spreading long discredited CIA cover story for a dictator that Ronald Reagan thought was swell. Here is a sufficient rebuttal, quoted without permission but in a good cause. Btw, it is worth noting that the continuous attacks on Kurds by SH give ample enough evidence of who gassed the Kurds at Hallabja ('Chemical Ali'). No actual authority questions this.
And, Philly, thou troll, I protested RRR's embrace of the genocidist Saddam Hussein in the late 80s, along with many thousands of Americans concerned about genocide. What Bx just did in Iraq was genocide. You are just this week's version of the same assbites who called us 'traitors' then. You should take it up with Tom Jefferson if you get to see him -- though I'm sure you hate his guts, just like your boy Bx. ("Resistance to tyrants is love of God")
Allegations about the responsibility for the Halabja massacre [from the excellent but often unavailable middleeastreference.uk.org]
[...]
The source for most of these "exposes" of Halabja was a report entitled ‘Iraqi power and US security in the Middle East’ by Stephen Pelletiere (trained in politics, also claims Iran was behind the 1991 intifada in Southern Iraq), ret. Colonel Douglas V. Johnson (trained in strategic studies) and Leif Rosenberger (trained in economics). It was published by the US Army War College - not usually a source that campaigners take as providing the gospel truth. I mention the authors’ academic background only in order to point out that none of them (to my knowledge) are trained in chemistry or medical diagnostics.
[...]
Contrary to one common myth, it cannot be said that this book closely examined the behaviour of the Iraqi army during the hostilities with Iran. Indeed, it only makes brief mention of Halabja, and then only assertively (no evidence is offered). On page 52 of the book it is simply written:
"In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds."
That’s it, the basis of much of the claims that have been circulating among campaigners for the last few years.
[...]
Turning to the actual arguments themselves, Douglas Johnson has explained them in a little more detail in personal correspondence with a colleague of mine. The sole evidential material provided is that the photos of Kurdish victims showed blue discoloration of extremities, and this was an indication of use of a cyanide compound, most probably hydrogen cyanide or its derivatives ("blood gas"); since it was claimed that Iraq did not make use of hydrogen cyanide,
someone else must have done it. Therefore (the argument goes), it must have been Iran. This is coupled with a claim that since Halabja was only recently captured by the Iranian-backed Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, there was probably an Iranian mix-up and the Iranians ended up bombing their own side.
[...argument refuting idea that Iran would have attacked its own people, intentionally or by mistake..]
Regarding the nature of the CWs used - the crucial element in Johnson’s analysis - the most detail survey of the medical effects was done by Professor Christine Gosden, a medical geneticist from Liverpool Uni, who has (I think) done the only survey into the long-term effects of the CW attack (obvious access problems until recently). From looking at the health problems of those who were victims of the attacks on Halabja, her results show that mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX were used in the attack.
Prior UN investigations had catalogued Iraqi use of Tabun and mustard gas from 1983, but ongoing into the later stages of the war (see in particular the specialist report of the UN Sec-Gen of 26/3/84, and the UN expert commission report on use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war doc no. S/18852 of 198. Iraqi use of sarin and VX has been widely asserted (the former, by the Physicians for Human Rights in soil sampling from Birjinni: http://www.phrusa.org/research/c.../chemical.html)
. So it seems quite clear that all the chemical agents that Gosden traces the use of at Halabja had been used previously by Iraq.
By contrast, I have seen no reliable analysis of Iranian use of either Tabun or Hydrogen Cyanide - Dr Johnson doesn’t tell us that he has any such evidence either: all he says is that there was no previous use of cyanide from the Iraqi side, and infers from this that it must have been the Iranians. By contrast, the presence of cyanide which Dr Johnson claims (but is still disputed; the claim stems primarily from Iranian autopsies on victims I believe, but are not independently confirmed) is perfectly explicable in terms of Iraqi use of Tabun. Gosden says:
"The Halabja attack involved multiple chemical agents—including mustard gas, and the nerve agents SARIN, TABUN and VX. Some sources report that cyanide was also used. It may be that an impure form of TABUN, which has a cyanide residue, released the cyanide compound." (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1998_hr/s980422-
cg.htm; reposted in a better format at: http://www.chem-bio.com/resource...ce/gosden.html)
The only credible report that Johnson himself cites in his defence, a PhD from Syracuse University in 1993 - rather than supporting Johnson’s case - shows that the decomposition of the chemical agent, Tabun (which Iraq did use) produces a cyanide compound. Iraq didn’t need to use hydrogen cyanide directly in order to produce blue discoloration around mouths. Its established repertoire of chemicals did that as well.
This interpretation has also been supported by the Jean Pasca
Jean Pascal Zanders, Project Leader of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s Chemical and Biological Warfare Project, who conducted interviews with victims of Halabja brought to Brussels for treatment. Zanders argues that direct use of hydrogen cyanide at Halabja was unlikely. Hydrogen cyanide is itself highly volatile. It must be delivered on the target in huge quantities to be effective and its effects are gone in a matter of seconds. The heat in Halabja would have rendered this even more problematic. Furthermore, the flashpoint of hydrogen cyanide is very low which means that it easily explodes. So at least some bombs or containers with the agent, if that was the method of delivery, would have exploded upon impact. There are no reports of any such explosions (unlike the many accounts of French drums filled with hydrogen cyanide exploding in mid-air or upon impact when lobbed towards the German trenches in WWI).
Finally, there is no evidence of Iranian use of hydrogen cyanide either. Iran has submitted its declarations on past CW programmes to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international body overseeing the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. International inspectors have verified these declarations, including those regarding former CW production facilities. Zanders mentions that Iran only had pilot plant-scale CW production facilities towards the end of and just after the war. He argues that Iran does not in retrospect appear to have had the capability to mount a major CW attack. This is consistent with UN reports of the time (including the 1988 report referred to above) which found no evidence of large scale Iranian use (it is probable, though, that there were small trial uses by Iran in 1987).
So, in summary, either the atrocity at Halabja was carried out by the Iraqi military against their enemies - with a set of chemical warfare agents that they had a record of use prior to Halabja, and with a proven reputation for using chemical weapons in large amounts against civilians (the mustard gas attacks on Majnun island in September 1984 are estimated to have killed 40,000 people) - or by the Iranians, against their own allies and soldiers in an attack using chemicals that there’s no evidence that they ever have had. If you still choose to believe the latter, you should be aware that the only original report I know of that supports your position is primarily concerned with maintaining friendly relations with Iraq for oil and geostrategic reasons, and shows little understanding of the nature of the chemical agents used in the war.
Author: GLEN RANGWALA
AIRBASES. The money is cool, but the power is the point.
bingo!
its not like its a secret... from the PNAC 9/2000 report:
"...the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
http://
www.newamericancentury.or...casDefenses.pdf
Paul,
They don't care what the facts are. I think we've established that with Philly's refusal to answer a simple question.
They don't care that Bush might have lied to them. They don't care that the CIA might have tried to pin Hallabja on the Iranians, and they don't care that Iraq might not have been involved in 9/11.
They simply don't care about anything that causes them to question their leadership. Bush makes them feel safe, he's doing God's work, end of story.
That's all they need to hear, apparently. Look at Reagan, the man lied to Congress for YEARS, and they're ready to make him a Saint.
Why? Because for Republicans, the ends justify the means.
All that remains to be reiterated is that Reagan, and the Right Wing cabal-lite he had going, blocked UN resolutions damning SH for using chemical (and biological) weapons on the Kurds -- in 1983 and 1988 especially...but over the entire decade as well on a smaller scale. Something like 600 villages of Kurds were destroyed, and many of the men have never reappeared...until now.
This was REAGAN'S CRIME by complicity with Saddam Hussein, a mass murderer, as is now amply proven.
Does that give Bx the right to kill 30,000 or so completely innocent people? Absolutely NOT. Does it give him the right to scatter unexploded munitions around two countries, and poison the region with uranium-tipped weapons and 'free for the asking' nuclear materials? Absolutely NOT. Does it give him the right to send 400 US GIs to their deaths (and around 9,000 other casualities)? Absolutely NOT. Does it give him the right to cook the books to produce unreal threats that entitle him to ignore the manifest protest of tens of millions of people worldwide? Absolutely NOT.
Both Bx's are responsible for genocides. But this one committed treason to accomplish his.
Internationalizing the occupation would at least give the Iraqis half a chance to end up with a government NOT entirely dominated by Bush Cronies. What's happening there now will guarantee built in influence peddling and democracy by special interest.
But it's possible that what's going to happen in Iraq is going to happen whether the US is there or not. If the Sunni, Shiite and Kurds decide to start a real 3-way civil war, who would our soldiers point their guns at? Who's side are we on?
Who's side are we on?
On our side as usual.
Iraq is an Example. Nothing more.
Also, the UN was about to lift the sanctions on Iraq, never forget. They were making all sorts of noises about that in 2000-2001. BushCo could not tolerate that...so we went to war on what I believe to be trumped up charges.
We're going to end up with airbases, and some number of troops pulled back to them (say, 15,000, mostly Marines and Air Force, since Bx has royally screwed the Army, which will have to be rebuilt).
Iraq is going to be 3 provinces, run by 3 warlords, and the US is going to be busy attacking Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Sudan, and Somalia, as it has already said it will. Of course, some of this mass warfare is going to have to wait until after the fake elections.
The mass movements of planes over Scotland in the last few days, if true, suggests that the initial airfields are in place, and the Neo-con bastards are preparing to attack Syria.
Dream on about democracy. To Bx, it's a discredited notion --- by Bx.
What I find really charmingly imperialistic is how the neo-cons are using Iraq as their own little social engineering sandbox, like how they imposed the flat tax.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
ac...anguage=printer
someone remind me again what the difference is between what we're doing and what the imperialists of history did?
Oh yeah I remember now. God is on our side.
God was on their side too, remember?
The flat tax is 15 percent higher than what they were paying under Saddam.
But I guess we can't ask them to pay back the 87 billion as loans with Halliburton's oil profits...but we CAN tax the ordinary Iraqis.
Way to go!
The Philly G train has now left the Station of Ignorance (TX) and propelled by its own considerable amount of bad faith and neo-fascist energy is speeding ahead through Obfuscation Valley, presumably en route to Bullshitville (AL).
Enough railway analogies.
prove to me how Bush KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY LIED (key words)
Bush himself, who knows? His Government, yes. Most assuredly. Niger. They knew they were forgeries. (Marshall even believe the forgeries originated with Cheyney.) They used them knowingly. Lie, lie, lie, lie. There are probably other instances, but this one is so glaring it'd deserve a whole impeachment on its own.
The UN, France, Germany, Italy, the UK, etc all believed Saddam retained WMD's.
Prove it. The opposite is, in fact, likely to be true. To the extent that we can read between the lines, they were recommending that the inspections be continued in order to prove /praying that the US was WRONG. They never thought Saddam was an imminent threat or otherwise.
You defend the same tactics the Soviets used to justify their invasions of Hungary, Czecholovakia, and Afghanistan. You must be proud to be an American, you stalinist dope.
Monkey: yes God was on their side too but OUR God is bigger. He's a Southern Baptist God too, not that pussy Anglican God the Brits worship.
Gen. Boykin told me so, I believe it, and that settles it.
BTW on Veterans Day I'm flying my flag upside-down and turning my home page black to protest our soldiers needlessly dying in Bush's war for empire.
People like Confessore's are so self-centered, so incapable of seeing beyond themselves, that they fabricate these bizarre abstractions to rationalize the depraved ideology we now see in action in Iraq.
Note how he describes what is essentially a fantasy-land of "choice" -- the Iraqi's could "choose" this or that form of rule, and along comes the USA, offering them another "choice."
He acts as if people in the Middle East shop online at Amazon for their governments.
Today's Iraq is the latest chapter in a story that began in the 60's during the Cold War -- when Saddam Hussein was hired and trained by the western alliance to be a contract killer of communists and fundamentalists. The Saudi dictatorship was another neighborhood Happy Hooker, keeping the region firmly entrenched in despotism.
The very idea that people subjected to decades of such brutality and deprivation will embrace Democracy is folly --let alone when it is being "offered" at the end of a gun barrel in a landscape still devastated by "shock and awe."
Would ending the occupation early, after deposing Saddam Hussein, result in a foreign policy that paves the way for a greater Iran and Syria?
One must wonder. Saddam Hussein kept Iraq together. Now that he is gone, if we leave, that doesn't mean that Iraqis will be free to do what they will. They'll be broke, and in chaos.
Guess who'll be invited to dinner? Iran, Syria, and even Turkey may consider a hostile dinner date with the Kurds in the north.
Because let's face it, if we withdraw in defeat of our stated aims, there's no way in hell we're going back in to help out the Kurds or anyone else for a good stretch into the future.
We've made commitments in this action, as much as I opposed and despised the decision when it was made. Backing down on commitments, just because of poor planning, and running out on allies and leaving them exposed in the breeze (i.e. the Kurds), is a recipe for disaster in trying to exert any influence in that region.
Will we betray the Kurds yet again?
if it's politically expedient, of course we will.
renato, it seems as if everyone wants to go in this direction, if this rumour of imminent withdrawal is true.
again, half-hearted and flaky missions mark a recipe for foreign policy disaster, and an unwillingness for anyone to cooperate or trust us in the least.
not that I believe all the rhetoric, but you have to see through the rhetoric of both sides in the partisan wars in order to get a clear vision of what an outside observer will learn from our acts.
we'll say sweet things to get you into bed, but if the going gets tough, we'll sell you down the river
This article is a pile of trash.
There always has been a third option for Arab countries. That is, a socialist-leaning democratic state. This has been an available option since decades and has been tried (or nearly) since WWII. The trick is that every time it has been close to getting power, or indeed got it, the US made all that was possible to utterly crush it. Think Mossadegh in Iran, though it's only the most blatant example.
Basically, the entire US policy has been to support autocracies in Middle East, and to promote islamism and destroy any leftist movement and culture in the entire area. Net result is that, when normally socialist movements should've organised to overthrow tyrannies, in the long term the only viable opposition to tyrannies was extreme islamis, like Khomeyni - and keep in mind the communists were just as important in overthrowing the Shah as Khomeyni boys, but the US preferred Khomeyni as successor to Pahlavi, rather than a more free and democratic Republic that would give part of the power to the Iranian left.
Basically, the US strengthened extremist (and terrorist) organisations in the whole Middle East to contain what it saw as USSR influence - even if in many cases it wasn't much a USSR influence. Of course, we've seen the same in Latin America, as far as demonising any left movement as "traitorous commie" is concerned (think Cuba, Nicaragua and countless other countries where a national liberation, obviously progressve, got cornered by the US and sanctioned to the point the only power left that would help them was USSR).
But of course, saying that basically the US created most of Middle East islamist is just as unfathomable as saying that the US supported the Talibans, helped to create them, and formed Ben Ladin and numerous Al-Qaeda affiliates during Afghan war.
Hey, Paul! You did good.
You did three whole posts of facts, and Philly G. ran away. Excellent!
Of course, Paul has the ridiculous notion that Bush is somehow some sort of genocidal maniac, hence I didn't feel like reading those articles.
Sure, Philly G was wrong for the most part, but he never made a lame-brained charge like that.
I agree, Adam. It's insulting to any decent genocidal maniac.
Bush is an even worse kind of psychopath. "What did she say? 'Pleeease don't kill me?"
Basharov objects to my calling the Busheviks "incompetent crooks." He says:
I think they're very competent crooks. They stole the election and imposed Dubya on us with scarcely a peep from the press; they've implemented their "cut taxes on the rich" and increase defense spending economic program, and they've lied us into a war they've been wet-dreaming about since the last one.
If it takes competence to accomplish your goals, I don't see how you can call the cabal incompetent.
I see your point, Basharov, but remember, they didn't quite manage to steal Florida. Gore still got more, according to the only attempt to count all the votes, the NORC review. W had to call in Fat Tony and the Supremes to actually nullify the election in order to prevent the will of the people of Florida from being reflected in their electoral votes.
If they were competent crooks, they would have stolen Florida cleanly, and we never would have heard about Cruella's purge of the democratic voter rolls, or the "spoiling" of all those ballots in Jacksonville, or all the other funny things that happened in Florida in 2000.
If they were competent crooks, W would have managed to create a few jobs in the process of bankrupting the treasury to give tax cuts to the rich. To manage to squander trillions while losing 2.7 million jobs entails world class incompetence.
If they were competent crooks, they'd have come up with a plausible lie to sell the war, and they'd have stuck to it. As it is, with all the incoherent and shifting rationales given for war, only gullible suckers like Philly G can still even delude themselves that anybody outside of the "cabal" has any idea what the real reasons are that we're in Iraq.
Speaking of which, hey, Philly G, if you know why were in Iraq, why don't you tell the rest of us?
Is it to give them the "gift" of "freedom"? (Imagine how the Founders would have chuckled at that stupid idea.) Or is to turn Iraq into terrorist "flypaper"? Both, you say? But the two goals are totally incompatible.
Zim, you point out well the disparity between the gift of freedom and making the Iraqi neighborhood an epochal war zone. Good luck with that Mssrs. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld...
With that in mind, in the past week, the Bush Administration is starting to get the rhetoric more in line, but they have the focus, the site, and the policies all wrong...
It seems that much has changed since last month. George W. Bush seems to be gaining greater awareness and information beyond his immediate circle. This has to be seen as a good thing, not to mention a bit of self-defense against a coming political firestorm in regards to "the slack in Iraq". His expression of regret for our "errors" of the past, in regards to fostering elites to sustain our free lives of privilege, is a welcome development. There is a lot of blood money and suffering repressed people to acknowledge.
As for spreading freedom and democracy around the globe, we need to be more precise with our language. Freedom is what we should spread, as a means of peace, and we need to do the same just as powerfully here at home. By adopting full accountability and transparency. The freedom of information. For on the scarcity of information, and the curtain of secrecy, all corruptive elites thrive.
Looking back at history, democracy isn't good enough by itself. Democracy with a certain measure of liberty isn't good enough either. Hitler was elected. And then he used the people against themselves to transform political instruments of liberalism to repression. The same could happen anywhere, and has happened frequently in the past century.
Checks and balances are in order. The people need to be the first order check and balance, and this can only happen in alliance with a free and independent media. With this in mind, full transparency and accountability are not only desirable, but necessary, in order to assure the growth and survival of freedom. Not to mention peace. Eliminating the dictates of secrecy would remove much of the malfeasance that escalates to extreme elite deviance in the case of war.
Indeed, in a world of deadly weapons of mass destruction and genetic engineering, state or corporate secrecy is really not a valid option anymore. Institutions, both domestic and transnational, which assure global transparency from the get-go will work far more effectively, and at a much more reasonable price, than open-ended and hopeless investment in competitive human intelligence, which is not a win-win game.
The world is no longer an innocent place. It never really was. Here in America, and around the globe, we're awaking to the potential and threat of the future. Of the present. Of business as usual. Now is the time to open our eyes and make sure we can see everything we need to see to assure our freedom, security, and peace of mind. This is not a radical proposal, in the light of common sense and reason, but is truly revolutionary when it comes to politics and elite deviance as usual.
Just speaking for myself, I love challenges. And this one has so many dimensions, and has so much at stake, that it's the challenge of al
oops...screwed that up...
For on the scarcity of information, and the curtain of secrecy, all corruptive elites thrive.
(sorry all...just meant to post a quote)
*sigh* I'm the last person to believe that George Bush is a stellar individual. But to equate him with genocidal maniacs is ludicrous. Show me how the hell he is one? Lying sack of shit? Yes. One of the worst presidents in US history? Undoubtedly. But some sort of mastermind for the systematic killing of people???? No. Non. Nein. Nyet. You demean any sort of opposition to Bush by spouting such an outlandish claim.
*claps*
Excellent post jimm.
I think we can safely ignore Philly G from now on.
Previously, he would at least pretend to make cogent argument, but in the past several days he's just gone completely off the deep end of wingnut monochromatic rhetoric.
In his world, the only options were "plunge the US, almost totally alone, into a badly-managed, plan-as-we-go, violent and expensive quagmire" or "do nothing."
No room for proper planning, recruitment of allies, or efficient use of personnel and resources.
Goodness, no, any delay whatsoever would have been tantamount to giving Saddam blowjobs and bringing him fresh babies to rape!
Anyway. Leave him to his black and white world. Until he comes around, he's useless.
Backslider says, "Chomsky does have an ideological slant, but he doesn't pretend otherwise. And, again, if you read his books, he's citing facts and figures to back up his claims."
No argument, Backslider. The guy is brilliant and, as academics are, careful to back up what he claims (though his sources sometimes raise one's eyebrows). He makes the best possible case for his point of view. People who want to understand issues seek out such people-- from all sides of the issue-- to listen to.
Andrew Northrup says, "I'm still confused about what's open for discussion here. Apparently it's pointless to discuss the character of any rebuilding/occupation/whatever, because that has already been preordained, but we can take a binary 'in or out' position. (Towards what end, one wonders?) Foreign policy isn't a yes or no question."
Perhaps this will help: If Bill Clinton were president and had a Democratic Congress to back him up, I believe he could accomplish what the Bush Administration *claims* it is trying to do, namely rebuild Iraq as a democratic state. Under such conditions, I could support an American presence. However, Bill Clinton would never have invaded, since "pre-emptive war" is the primary war crime prohibited by the UN charter and prosecuted at Nuremburg after World War II.
George Bush has already made it plain that he doesn't care about international law, doesn't care about genuine democracy, doesn't even care to listen to experts on how to maintain order in an occupation. He does care about Iraqi oil assets.
Given that, occupation is likely to be more damaging to life and to eventual stability than outright anarchy or the imposition of an Islamic theocracy. Sometimes what seems bad is an alternative to much worse.
Philly G, I think you have confused your sources and what they are saying. Everyone agreed that there was an accounting problem: Saddam had bought more materiel than the inspectors could account for. But as Scott Ritter pointed out, chemical weapons and biological weapons have shelf lives. They degrade and cease to be toxic. Furthermore, in Operation Desert Fox, suspected weapons sites were knocked out. For both reasons, statements prior to 1998 do not necessarily hold. Finally, there was general agreement that Saddam had no delivery system capable of harming Europe or probably even Israel.
The definitive reading on what people believed can be seen by what the UN did: refuse to approve invasion.
Jan. 17, 1991. The U.S. begins the air assault on Iraq. For 42 days, the U.S. will average 2000 sorties a day through Iraq and
Kuwait. The entire civilian infrastructure (transportation facilities, electricity, sewage, water purification facilities, crops,
livestock, agricultural processing and fertilizer, including many hospitals and schools are destroyed).
Feb. 21, 1991 - The Soviets announce that Iraq has agreed to full and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait. The U.S. rejects the
plan and issues an ultimatum: that Iraq withdraw by noon Feb. 23 or face a ground attack.
Feb. 23 - President Bush orders the ground assault to begin.
Feb. 26 - Iraq announces on Baghdad Radio that its forces are withdrawing from Kuwait. Iraqi forces begin retreating along the
Basra road. U.S. planes bomb both ends of the road the then proceed to attack the long rows of cars and busses traffic jammed on
the road. The U.S. kills thousands, many with the white flags of surrender, in what pilots called a "turkey shoot," then buries
them with bulldozers in mass graves before the press is allowed back into Kuwait.
March 2, 1991 - The 24th Mechanized Infantry Division slaughters thousands of Iraqi soldiers in a post cease-fire battle. No
Americans die. During this was the equivalent of 7.5 Hiroshima bombs are dropped on Iraq, including weapons containing an
estimated 300 tons of radioactive depleted uranium, leaving much of southern Iraq a mass of low level radioactivity.
August 27, 1992 - "No-fly" zones are created in the south along the 32nd parallel and in the north along the 36th parallel, violating
Iraq's sovereignty and dividing the country into three parts.
December 27, 1992, January 1993, April 1993, and June 1993, the U.S. again repeatedly bombs civilian targets in Iraq claiming
violations of its no fly zones, or that its planes were being followed by Iraqi radar.
1991-1998: Massive disease (including typhus and other communicable diseases, cancers, and birth deformities, infant mortality,
stunted growth and retardation), misery, and starvation have decimated Iraq. Compared to 250,000 who died during the 42 days
of the Gulf War., to date, one and a half million have died of starvation and disease (in a population of 18 million). This includes
an estimated 4,500 children under five per month who die in their mother's arms in hospitals helpless to give them even an aspirin
to lessen their suffering.
http://filebox.vt.edu/org/amnesty/iraqfact.pdf
Here are some mass graves, Philly.
"if this rumour of imminent withdrawal is true."
Withdrawal? How much salami would you like with that cheese?
The PNACers have as much intention of withdrawing as dogs have of putting on perfume. This is SPIN, people. They lie to your faces, and then you just go back for more. Incredible to watch...really, it is.
"But to equate him with genocidal maniacs is ludicrous."
Really! Tell it to the 30,000 DEAD PEOPLE in Iraq, you numbskull. Tell it to the parents of the 1,000s of dead children, the kids with no arms or legs, the blinded, the deafened, the poisoned.
White supremacy (or 1st worldism, if you prefer) drives the logic of many Americans, who quite simply think that THEIR dictators are clean and pure 'idiots,' instead of amoral motherfuckers with no concern for other human beings.
Bx cooked up a fake need for a fake war in order to proceed with a genocide of the entire ME, for American corporations, while draping the thing in lies about democracy. He has NO concern for the downside of his policy, which is called BLOWBACK. 9-11 was blowback, but Bx was busy reading a book about a duck so he didn't have to answer the red phone.
Kiss my ass about the 'skewing of the argument' that occurs in calling Bx what he is. He is a mass murderer and a war criminal. Not only that, he is a traitor, a conspirator, and a fascist. I've lived through quite a few Presidents, and this shitpile is no President. He is an enemy of democracy, he and his entire Thug Party band of Benedict Arnolds.
"But some sort of mastermind for the systematic killing of people????"
You misunderstand the meaning of the word genocide. It does not require 'systematic' killing. It simply requires MASS killing.
When the Turks slaughtered the Armenians, they did not 'systematically' exterminate them. There were no gas chambers and such. They simply marched them out into the desert and rode away. Have a nice day!
Mass slaughter of civilians is the NUMBER ONE reason the UN was formed. Bx made it clear that he did not consider this abiding purpose pertinent, and he has in fact violated international law, UN charter, nonproliferation treaties, and blown away a gigantic amount of goodwill built up by decent Americans with the glee of Atilla the Hun.
It is genocide that he has accomplished, and everything else he CLAIMS he is going to accomplish is just more lies and false promises from a person so innately evil that 'hypocrite' is too mild of a term. He is EXACTLY the kind of person who should have his neck stretched a few inches after an international warcrimes trial.
Jeez, I'm gone for half a day and everyone assumes I just ran away.
"I asked you a simple question you continue to dodge. It's quite simple.
If it were proven to you that Bush lied about the reasons he took the US to War, would you continue to support him?
Yes, or No?
That's all I ask. I'm not out to change your mind, my friend.
I simply want you to answer the question, straight up.
Would it bother you if Bush lied about the reasons he took the country to war? Would you stop supporting him because of it?
Personally, I defended Clinton when he lied about his sex life, because I thought it was none of my business. But if I thought he lied about something on the scale of going to war under false pretenses...I would have dropped my support for him instantly.
But I don't hear that from Republicans. They seem quite willing to accept that their President lied to them, and that their sons, fathers, and neighbors might be die because of it.
So I'm asking. Are you one of those Republicans?
IF Bush did lie, and you knew it beyond a shadow of a doubt, would you still support him? Or not.
It's a simple question. Your refusal to answer it says a lot about your true motivations."
Depends once again what you're referring to as a "lie" here. I would say no depending on what "lie" you're referring to. Politicians bend the truth always, Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, you name it. If I expected a President to be completely forthcoming for me to "approve" of him, I'd never approve of any candidates. You're giving a loaded question because you naturally assume Bush lied and you're not explaining how he lied. What specific "lie" are we talking about here? And also, I suggest you recognize the difference between lying and simply being wrong about something.
"Bush himself, who knows? His Government, yes. Most assuredly. Niger. They knew they were forgeries. (Marshall even believe the forgeries originated with Cheyney.) They used them knowingly. Lie, lie, lie, lie. There are probably other instances, but this one is so glaring it'd deserve a whole impeachment on its own."
No actually Bush referred to the purchase of uranium from AFRICA in the SOTU, not specifically Niger. The UK still stands by this intelligence to this day, and is not basing it on the debunked Niger claim which Bush never used. Stop lying please.
"Prove it. The opposite is, in fact, likely to be true. To the extent that we can read between the lines, they were recommending that the inspections be continued in order to prove /praying that the US was WRONG. They never thought Saddam was an imminent threat or otherwise."
No go find the info yourself. It's relatively easy to find. It's well known that the countries I listed as well as the UN were well aware of the fact that Saddam had significant quantities of WMD's that were unaccounted for. If you're not aware of this, where the hell have you been for t
he past year?
As for the imminent threat, Bush referred in his SOTU to not being able to afford to wait until the threat became imminent, as evidenced by 9/11. Just because a group of people repeatedly scream "lie!" does not make it so.
"Both Bx's are responsible for genocides. But this one committed treason to accomplish his."
"I agree, Adam. It's insulting to any decent genocidal maniac.
Bush is an even worse kind of psychopath. "What did she say? 'Pleeease don't kill me?"
The problem with you people is that your hatred of Bush is so off the charts that you're willing to excuse REAL murderous dictators if it furthers an anti-Bush agenda. Seriously, you are sad, pathetic, wretched people.
"Really! Tell it to the 30,000 DEAD PEOPLE in Iraq, you numbskull. Tell it to the parents of the 1,000s of dead children, the kids with no arms or legs, the blinded, the deafened, the poisoned.
White supremacy (or 1st worldism, if you prefer) drives the logic of many Americans, who quite simply think that THEIR dictators are clean and pure 'idiots,' instead of amoral motherfuckers with no concern for other human beings.
Bx cooked up a fake need for a fake war in order to proceed with a genocide of the entire ME, for American corporations, while draping the thing in lies about democracy. He has NO concern for the downside of his policy, which is called BLOWBACK. 9-11 was blowback, but Bx was busy reading a book about a duck so he didn't have to answer the red phone."
Paul, you really are a fucking moron. There's really no way around it. You're the dictionary definition of an Idiotarian. Bush went to war to boost profits for Halliburton right? And only Paul and his tin foil hat brigade was able to decipher the REAL TRUTH(c) behind this war. Unfortunately, most of us dumb yokel Americans are too stupid to be as enlightened as Paul. This is partially unfair though as Paul is guided by Dennise Kucinich mind control satellites and the rest of us are not. Oh and he reads Chomsky too.
"It is genocide that he has accomplished, and everything else he CLAIMS he is going to accomplish is just more lies and false promises from a person so innately evil that 'hypocrite' is too mild of a term. He is EXACTLY the kind of person who should have his neck stretched a few inches after an international warcrimes trial."
Innately evil? Omg, disregard my previous comment. Please keep talking Paul. You're a riot.
Btw, back to you monkey, I suggest on the issue of "imminent threat", you read Sullivan today. It appears that the best Marshall's "lie" contest can do is quote Richard Perle (who apparently said it once). Unfortunately, Perle isn't even on Bush's staff!
That's like quoting me saying imminent threat months back. Doing so would be rather meaningless since I really don't affect policy. Or at least I'm not aware of it if I do.
Philly, that blood is all over your face. You will never wash it off. The scoffing at murder of innocent people that the GOP has specialized in the last 30 years is a truly stunning example of human cruelty and hatred.
I never thought I'd see a pair to the massive evil that was Kissinger/Nixon's Cambodian bombing campaign. And then we saw Bx 1's destruction of the minimally culpable Iraqi soldiers, and now Bx 2's murder of 30,000 innocent people (and the eventual deaths of many thousands more).
You ever think about how much of a RACIST you are Philly? Or don't you read the papers, like your pal Bx?
paul,
to be fair, the iraqi deaths due to sanctions were *mostly* on clinton's watch.
Philly,
Wow. All that to avoid answering a yes or no question.
Interesting philosphical exercise, but you know what I'm asking you.
IF it could be proven to you (for the sake of argument here) that everything we believe about Bush lying about the WMD and the threat from Iraq is true, would you still support him?
Please, a yes or no answer is all I'm asking for.
That it has taken you this many repeated dodges says a lot, to me, about your motivations.
But I'll ask again:
IF, for the sake of argument, it was proven to you that Bush lied about the reasons for taking the US to war in Iraq, would you still support him?
Yes or no please.
Philly,
If the threat wasn't imminent, then we went to war "preventatively" which is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter.
You can't have it both ways. It was either an imminent threat, or it wasn't. If it wasn't, it is illegal under international law.
The reason "preventative" war is a war crime is so that neighbors can't simply accuse their neighbors of planning war against them and invade.
Now, I know your side of the aisle scoffs at international law, but it does exist.
Perhaps this will help: If Bill Clinton were president and had a Democratic Congress to back him up, I believe he could accomplish what the Bush Administration *claims* it is trying to do, namely rebuild Iraq as a democratic state. Under such conditions, I could support an American presence. However, Bill Clinton would never have invaded, since "pre-emptive war" is the primary war crime prohibited by the UN charter and prosecuted at Nuremburg after World War II.
George Bush has already made it plain that he doesn't care about international law, doesn't care about genuine democracy, doesn't even care to listen to experts on how to maintain order in an occupation. He does care about Iraqi oil assets.
Given that, occupation is likely to be more damaging to life and to eventual stability than outright anarchy or the imposition of an Islamic theocracy. Sometimes what seems bad is an alternative to much worse.
No, that doesn't help at all. Here is the question again: why can we choose about whether or not the occupation continues, but not, if it were to continue, the manner in which it proceeds?
And by what measure is anarchy preferable to this? Anarchy is a complete breakdown of all order - no police, no public health, no defense against the tender mercies of your Iranian/Turkish neighbors, or against any domestic armed groups. "Because Bush is mean" is not an answer, nor is "read Chomsky". (For one thing, if we stay in Iraq, we're going to be there for a lot longer than Bush is). At the end of the day, the decision the US makes here (whether you agreed with the decisions that led to this point) is the US's complete responsibility, and wishing it away won't help. Anarchy is, almost certainly, disease, violence and civil war. There's a lot of reverse Hamletizing about making sure rhetorical blood is on your opponent's hands, but in this case, if we simply abandon Iraq in this state, we will bear a great responsibility for what comes about.
Also, according to the UN charter, "pre-emptive" war is not forbidden. (International jurists talk about "anticipatory defense", which means you can go after someone who masses troops on your border.) The Iraq invasion, of course, was not "pre-emptive", and it doesn't look like Iraq was ever going to attack us or anyone in the forseeable future. It was "preventative" war, and that's a very different idea.
the faith of the imperialists is amazing. Everyone who wrote along the lines of "what if it works" or "but we're also bad for trying to fix it" should try reading an account of the life of Smedley Butler (e.g., Maverick Marine by Hans Schmidt), in which we set up all kinds of democracies throughout sundry tropical sites with one result-the 20th century form of colonies. Put insultingly bluntly, if a man rapes a woman in a back alley, but later claims he was trying to be sensitive to her needs or good things could come out of it or some rubbish, who doubts that he is a monster? Who doubts that the illegal PNACzi junta never gave a damn about building anything, and if a viable, stable democracy grows out of this mess, sunflowers will grow out of Cheney's ears!
"You ever think about how much of a RACIST you are Philly? Or don't you read the papers, like your pal Bx?"
Paul, did you ever look in a mirror and realize you're wasting your life away making idiotic statements like this? Put the Chomsky down man...get a job or something.
"If the threat wasn't imminent, then we went to war "preventatively" which is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter.
You can't have it both ways. It was either an imminent threat, or it wasn't. If it wasn't, it is illegal under international law.
The reason "preventative" war is a war crime is so that neighbors can't simply accuse their neighbors of planning war against them and invade.
Now, I know your side of the aisle scoffs at international law, but it does exist."
As per your previous question, my answer is NO, i would not support Bush for president in 04' if he deliberately lied about the causes for war. Although I've said I consider myself a Libertarian first anyway. Regardless, I think the right thing was done with the removal of Saddam and the gradual democratization of the Middle East. Bush re-affirmed this in his speech this week.
And no, I don't believe international law exists. It's a man-made construction that is only relevant if it's enforced. Considering the UN has never been able to do anything remotely productive and counts Libya as the head of its Human Rights COmmission, I'd be more apt to break international law simply because it'd probably be the right thing to do.
"the faith of the imperialists is amazing. Everyone who wrote along the lines of "what if it works" or "but we're also bad for trying to fix it" should try reading an account of the life of Smedley Butler (e.g., Maverick Marine by Hans Schmidt), in which we set up all kinds of democracies throughout sundry tropical sites with one result-the 20th century form of colonies. Put insultingly bluntly, if a man rapes a woman in a back alley, but later claims he was trying to be sensitive to her needs or good things could come out of it or some rubbish, who doubts that he is a monster? Who doubts that the illegal PNACzi junta never gave a damn about building anything, and if a viable, stable democracy grows out of this mess, sunflowers will grow out of Cheney's ears!"
More of the same. Anyone who can honestly claim that the peoplewho supported the removal of a Nazi like tyrant (who practically banished his entire Jewish population from Iraq) are Nazis does not deserve to call themselves "progressives".
"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out 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."
-George Orwell
Philly G,
Thanks for answering my question. I figured as much.
It was like pulling teeth to get it out of you, though. I wonder why?
Considering the UN has never been able to do anything remotely productive and counts Libya as the head of its Human Rights Commission, I'd be more apt to break international law simply because it'd probably be the right thing to do.
I suggest you learn a bit of the history of the UN, starting with its founding.
When do you start Junior Year, btw?
Ha! I think we just picked off another vote from Shrub: Philly G's. If we can prove that our first convicted criminal pResident "deliberately" lied, Philly says he'll stop supporting him. But that's easy!
Forget for a minute, Phil, all the "legal hairsplitting" about whether a "grave and gathering danger" is anything like an "imminent threat."
Forget about all the smoking guns that can turn into mushroom clouds and the anthrax trucks and the robot planes carrying suitcase nukes and the wake up calls unanswered and the dots not connected. Forget about yellow cake and Niger unranium. Forget about all that BS.
Just look at the most basic, plain as the nose on your face, facts about our recent history. Bush said "war is my last resort." But he said that as he moved 300K troops into the region.
And when in March he pulled the trigger on his big gun, he did it when he did it for one single reason, known to the whole world: THE WEATHER!
He invaded in March because springtime is the best time for war in Mesopatamia!
That makes the "war is my last resort" line a huge, fat, stinking, deliberate lie, don't it? Even a gullible sucker like you can see that, can't you?
Zim,
No use calling names. It only makes them angry.
I *think* we're on the same side as Philly G, in that we want what's best for America.
He will come around on his own, or he won't.
He for damn sure won't tell US, the people who have been hounding his side about it, when he does.
In fact, the more we hound them, the more likely they are to vote for Bush, IMO.
No actually Bush referred to the purchase of uranium from AFRICA in the SOTU, not specifically Niger. The UK still stands by this intelligence to this day, and is not basing it on the debunked Niger claim which Bush never used. Stop lying please.
Yeah, Philly G's head is so far up his ass he could do a tonsillectomy. Even the Admin doesn't defend that one anymore.
"It was like pulling teeth to get it out of you, though. I wonder why?"
Simple, because you were asking a loaded question as you've already come to the conclusion Bush lied.
Unfortunately, you've never put forth evidence of this "deliberate and intentional lie". That's a big difference from simply being wrong about something or literally making up things Bush said like "imminent threat" (if Marshall's contest is the best the Left can do, then you're coming up way short).
Another lie of this site: that Bush's SOTU referred to Niger. NO, it referred to AFRICA, and British intelligence still stands by that intelligence to this day, and this intelligence is supposedly based outside of Niger.
So monkey, I have a question for you: Where are these supposedly horrendous, horrible and INTENTIONAL and DELIBERATE lies? I'm still waiting.
Philly, start with, "War is my last option." An obvious, blatant, DELIBERATE lie when what W was really thinking was, "Saddam, we're taking him out when the War weather is good in the Spring!!!"
Philly, start with, "War is my last option." An obvious, blatant, DELIBERATE lie when what W was really thinking was, "Saddam, we're taking him out when the War weather is good in the Spring!!!"
Andrew Northrup asks "Here is the question again: why can we choose about whether or not the occupation continues, but not, if it were to continue, the manner in which it proceeds?"
We, meaning you and I, can't choose about anything. Our leaders make the choices. In theory, they are free to choose anything, including how the occupation would proceed. In reality, they (and this includes Democrats as well as Republicans) have a certain worldview that makes certain choices virtually impossible. For example, they fear the results of a genuine democratic process. Therefore, they have not permitted the selection of popular leaders to guide the process, installing instead strongmen. As the strongmen quarrel over how to divide the pie, the process of creating a constitutional framework is apparently breaking down. The US is talking of replacing it; installing a king is in discussion. In nation after nation, the United States has destroyed nascent efforts at democracy. Why would we imagine that Iraq will be any different?
Andrew asks, "And by what measure is anarchy preferable to this? Anarchy is a complete breakdown of all order - no police, no public health, no defense against the tender mercies of your Iranian/Turkish neighbors, or against any domestic armed groups."
The answer is gained by looking at nations like Iran, 1952-4 and Guatemala, 1954, where we have a long, historical perspective (a biography of Mossadegh is available at http://www.jebhemelli.org/Mosade...sh-
Mosadegh.htm and of Arbenz at http://www.stanford.edu/~mbuchel...li/arbenz.html)
In those nations, tyrannies were replaced by democratic governments.
In both nations, the United States, dissatisfied with the "disorder", imposed dictatorships. In both nations, bloodbaths of horrific proportions ensued. Even 50 years later, neither nation has evolved a democracy. By comparison, one can cite situations in which anarchy has ruled for a time (the French Revolution, for example) have led to terrible injustices and even deaths-- but eventual democratization. Historically, the odds seem to be that if people are allowed to sort things out, they will do the right thing.
As for Turkish or Iranian intervention, if the UN and especially the US makes it clear that sanctions would immediately follow, neither nation would move.
Andrew adds, ""Because Bush is mean" is not an answer, nor is "read Chomsky".
This is a strawman argument, since I have never said the former nor advised the latter for any purpose other than understanding how the US looks to foreigners.
Andrew says, "Also, according to the UN charter, "pre-emptive" war is not forbidden. ... It was "preventative" war, and that's a very different idea."
Fair enough. You understood what I was saying, namely that nations do not have the right to invade unless there is an imminent threat.
Philly G says, "And no, I don't believe international law exists. It's a man-made construction that is only relevant if it's enforced."
A truly astonishing re-statement of the principle that might makes right.
Philly G says, "British intelligence still stands by that intelligence [re:African purchases of uranium] to this day, and this intelligence is supposedly based outside of Niger."
This is not correct. British intelligence says that it obtained documents from a foreign intelligence service. They are not standing behind the accuracy of those documents. We now now that that service was Italy's. We also know that the documents were crude forgeries.
All of this has been published in The New Yorker.
Oh, and Philly: It's ironic to use Orwell's quote that "pacifism is objectively pro-fascist"
1: Many of the people who express opposition to Bush's policies in Iraq have been fighting Saddam Hussein for 20 years... back when Reagan and Bush were selling him weapons.
2: Orwell was talking about a time when Britain's existence was threatened. To use it in the context of Iraq, which has never had the capability of destroying the United States, is simply a means of trying to bully people into silence.
It won't work. It's also contemptible.
More on the Orwell quote:
It's true that Orwell wrote the line above, in 1942. What writers who flourish it so triumphantly fail to mention is that he specifically disowned the same quote in 1944, as Gene Lyons notes in this column (for which I am indebted to reader Chris Borthwick).
In December 1944, (Orwell) used his regular "As I Please" column in the Tribune to specifically repudiate the term "objectively," and apologized by name to individuals whose views he'd caricatured and whose loyalty to England he'd unfairly questioned. Blaming "the lunatic atmosphere of war," he explained that the habit of accusing political dissenters of "conscious treachery....is not only dishonest; it also carries a severe penalty with it. If you disregard people's motives, it becomes harder to forsee their actions." The example Orwell gave was a pacifist asked to be an enemy spy. An honorable pacifist, he argued, would never betray his country. "The important thing is to discover WHICH individuals are honest and which are not," he wrote "and the usual blanket accusation merely makes this more difficult. The atmosphere of hatred in which [political] controversy is conducted blinds people to considerations of this kind. To admit that an opponent might be both honest and intelligent is felt to be intolerable. It is more immediately satisfying to shout that he is a fool or a scoundrel."
...The real message of Orwell's work, as well as of his heroic personal example, is that intellectual integrity is more far crucial to an embattled democracy than orthodoxy. Without vigorous dissent, there's no creative thinking. Honest people can change their minds; demagogic bullies, alas, almost never do.
posted by Tom Tomorrow at 11:20 AM| link
http://www.thismodernworld.com/
w...a.html#78821166
More on the Orwell quote:
Inevitably, more than one supporter of this war has taunted its opponents with Orwell's famous observation in 1942 that pacifists—the few who opposed a military response to Hitler—were "objectively pro-fascist." The suggestion is that opposing this war makes you objectively pro-Saddam. In an oddly less famous passage two years later, Orwell recanted that "objectively" formula and called it "dishonest." Which it is.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2081376/
Since the man has seen his own foolishness, Philly G, I hope you'll stop using the quote.
js - We, meaning you and I, can't choose about anything.
Now I'm even more confused. If we can't choose anything, why restrict meaningless choices to "in or out"? Why not go to the bar? It's more fun. I'd suggest instead that we do have some, albeit very small, influence on policy, and that it is our responsibility to weild this minor influence as well as we can. A good start would be to allow the excluded middle.
Re: anarchy - I don't think "people will spontaneously create democracy, unless the US ruins it" is a very good political theory. And neither Iran nor Guatamala were destroyed by war and tyranny, and, while we can argue about the specific causes, I think you'd have to agree that such breif examples, while perhaps not anomalies, could hardly be considered proof of the stability or likelihood of such regimes spontaneously occuring. For more relevant counterexamples, I'd suggest (as you say) the French revolution, and also the Russian revolution, Lebanon, Iraq right now, or, the real nightmare, the civil war in Congo. Even better, revolutionary Iran, or Afghanistan after the withdrawal of Russian troops, and Western aid. What you will likely get (I'd argue) is rule by whoever can successfully organize large groups, particularly large armed groups, likely with foreign influence, if not direct intervention. Yeah, maybe this would result in democracy (the Kurds are apparently having a go at it, and have been somewhat successful, so maybe it might spread south, although I think Kurd/Arab antagonism makes this unlikely). Maybe a lot of things. The fact of the matter is that Iraq is not very far from civil war as is (82 killed in the tomb of Ali a few months ago). I don't personally have a whole lot of faith that the establishment of democracy and a peaceful civil society in Iraq will work - there are just too many ways it could fail - but I have zero faith in essentialist arguments about what will happen if the US gets involved, or political theories based on very fleeting moments in history.
As for Turkish or Iranian intervention, if the UN and especially the US makes it clear that sanctions would immediately follow, neither nation would move.
You should write science fiction! Why on Earth would the US suddenly stand against its Turkish allies? Why would Iran listen to the US? By what mechanism would a boycott be enforced? By what precident would the case for such a boycott be convincingly made? Turkey and Iran have serious security concerns about Iraq, concerns that will ilkely be exacerbated if the situation in Iraq destabilizes, concerns which any government which cares to preserve itself will have to deal with. Again, it's a strange world where we can argue (powerlessly, still, I assume) that "we" can organize a massive boycott of two very important countries, one a key ally, the other a major oil producer, if they attempt to protect themselves from a mess we will have creat
Where are these supposedly horrendous, horrible and INTENTIONAL and DELIBERATE lies? I'm still waiting.
Oh, that. I didn't know you were serious.
Bush lied when he said Saddam was a threat to the US.
It seems pretty obvious that he wasn't, as there were no WMD that could be used against US.
If he didn't know, then he's incompetent. If he did, he's a liar.
You can't have it both ways.
By the way, when DO you start your junior year, Philly G?
Bugger. Ate my comment. Trust me, the rest was brilliant.
Monkey, as I've been saying, the fact is that they're both incompetent AND liers, but I suspect that's as clear to you as it is to me and the rest of the inhabitants of planet earth outside of the US!
Here in America demented Bush lovers like Philly -- and others bamboozled by the Republican controlled media -- keep dreaming and hoping that W is merely totally incompetent, that he really had good intentions when he inadvertantly (without any "INTENTIONAL" or "DELIBERATE" lying, oh no) goofed us into committing aggressive war!
This is why I can't agree with you when you tell me that Philly wants what's best for America. These people are dangerous.
Philly and the other Republicans who have clearly gone off the deep end for W chose party over country in 2000. They made their choice then that they'd had all they could take of our old republican form of government if it meant counting all the legally cast votes in Florida.
And here's my real point: a guy like Philly really doesn't care if W is totally incompetent! He's more or less willing to concede that point so long as he can still delude himself somehow that W is not a crook!
"A truly astonishing re-statement of the principle that might makes right. "
And one which you seemingly can't disprove. The fact you are so willingly and blindly willing to let the United Nations' sovereignty trump national sovereignty when the UN counts Libya as the head of the Human Rights Commission and Cuba as a member as well shows why the Left simply doesn't "get it". Where are all the international policemen btw?
"1: Many of the people who express opposition to Bush's policies in Iraq have been fighting Saddam Hussein for 20 years... back when Reagan and Bush were selling him weapons."
So why did you stop all of a sudden?
"Oh, that. I didn't know you were serious.
Bush lied when he said Saddam was a threat to the US.
It seems pretty obvious that he wasn't, as there were no WMD that could be used against US.
If he didn't know, then he's incompetent. If he did, he's a liar.
You can't have it both ways."
Once again, you're just stating "he lied" without any actual evidence of a "deliberate and intentional lie". Stating it doesn't make it so. There's a difference between being wrong (after being given poor intelligence) and flat out deliberately and intentionally lying. It appears you can't tell the difference. Well I'd imagine that everyone here (except perhaps Paul and Tena) is smart enough to tell the difference, they just choose not to. Better to scream "Bush lied! Bush lied!" rather than make a coherent argument and just hope it resonates with the rest of the country. It won't.
"By the way, when DO you start your junior year, Philly G?"
Is this a joke? Sarcasm? If so, I'm not sure what you're trying to say or implying, but if you must know, I'm a first semester senior in college.
"Monkey, as I've been saying, the fact is that they're both incompetent AND liers, but I suspect that's as clear to you as it is to me and the rest of the inhabitants of planet earth outside of the US!
Here in America demented Bush lovers like Philly -- and others bamboozled by the Republican controlled media -- keep dreaming and hoping that W is merely totally incompetent, that he really had good intentions when he inadvertantly (without any "INTENTIONAL" or "DELIBERATE" lying, oh no) goofed us into committing aggressive war!
This is why I can't agree with you when you tell me that Philly wants what's best for America. These people are dangerous.
Philly and the other Republicans who have clearly gone off the deep end for W chose party over country in 2000. They made their choice then that they'd had all they could take of our old republican form of government if it meant counting all the legally cast votes in Florida.
And here's my real point: a guy like Philly really doesn't care if W is totally incompetent! He's more or less willing to concede that point so long as he can still delude himself somehow that W is not a crook!"
Once again, more talk and no action. Where is the intentional and deliberate LYING by Bush? I think you're all smart enough to know the difference between getting faulty intelligence and deliberate lying.
Here's a quote from another "lying liar" Dick Gephardt (and I even posted his criticism of how Bush handled the war to be fair):
http://www.gephardtgrassroots.co...ives/
000103.php
GEPHARDT: It was not a mistake. We had intelligence over 15 years, from both the Clinton administration, the U.N., European countries, that Saddam Hussein had weapons or had components of weapons of mass destruction -- certainly had the ability to quickly make them. This was the right thing to do.
The problem now is the president did his photo-op, he landed on the aircraft carrier, declared the war was over. But he's never had a plan, and he's never gotten us the help that we need and our troops deserve from other countries. He said in his speech in September at the U.N., "This is a world problem, not just an American problem." He now needs to get that help.
So is Dick Gephardt in on the LIES!!! too?
Philly,
I think it's been pretty well established that Bush lied.
That you choose not to see it says a lot about you.
Bush claimed that the British had intelligence "from Africa" that he in fact had been told by the CIA was false.
That he repeated it, was, where I come from, a lie.
You're a senior? Funny, you sound like a sophomore.
If you had ever been one of my students and demonstrated such a lack of critical thinking skills, you'd have suffered for it when I got out my red pen.
Pity none of your teachers has taken the time to teach you basic critical thinking skills.
Maybe someday, you'll pick them up on your own. You're not showing many encouraging signs, but, people change as they age.
Until we meet again,
My regards.
PhillyG says that I can't disprove that international law doesn't exist. He has claimed that if law isn't enforced, it doesn't exist.
This is one of the most foolish statements that I have seen on the boards. It's a solipsism equivalent to saying that the sun doesn't exist because no one can prove that it exists, that if the parking cop has a sick day, then parking meters don't exist. Try putting "School of International Law" into Google. You'll find that quite a few people believe it exists.
You've invented nonsense about people who opposed Saddam having suddenly stopped. That's a lie and it would be insulting if it weren't so pathetic.
Look, kid, get back to me when you can defend yourself. In the meantime, consider what you'er doing by misusing the Orwell quote. It ain't pretty.
Andrew says, " If we can't choose anything, why restrict meaningless choices to "in or out"? Why not go to the bar? It's more fun. "
I'd vote for that. That vote, unlike about 100,000 in Florida, would at least get counted.
As for trying to influence the political process, I do what I can do in the blind belied it will make a difference, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Andrew says, "I don't think "people will spontaneously create democracy, unless the US ruins it" is a very good political theory."
I did not specifically say "unless the US ruins it" (yet another strawman in the stack). I spoke of outside intervention, which could have been Soviet or Syrian or whatever.
As for whether it's a "good" political theory, at least it's debatable, unlike many political theories which are kinds of theology. I can at least point to cases where democracy has emerged in states that have never known it (including the US in the Revolutionary War) simply because totalitarian powers (like King George) were unable to stop them. What country can you name where democracy has not previously existed but was created by US intervention? Not Japan and Germany: they had democratic governments before they were crushed. Despite the fact that the US has intervened in about 70 countries post WW II, success stories are few indeed. The failures are horrific: Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Guatemala....
Andrew says, "For more relevant counterexamples, I'd suggest (as you say) the French revolution, and also the Russian revolution, Lebanon, Iraq right now, or, the real nightmare, the civil war in Congo. Even better, revolutionary Iran, or Afghanistan after the withdrawal of Russian troops, and Western aid."
Most of those are poor examples to support your case. Afghanistan is a classic case of what happens when outside powers (in this case, Pakistan's ISI probably under US aegis) intervenes. Yes, that's right: the Taliban is the creation of Pakistan, not the Afghan people. The United States and Britain DID intervene in the Russian Revolution, creating long-term ill will and feeding Russian paranoia while accomplishing nothing. Iraq right now cannot be presented as an example of anarchy. It's a police state and we're the police. The wars in Africa are a direct result of the US (and the USSR) arming some of the nastiest militias on earth. Revolutionary Iran wasn't that bloody, as I recall, at least compared to the last days of the Shah. It quickly became a theocratic totalitarian state. And Lebanon... well, it's a parliamentary democracy, NOT thanks to Israeli and Syrian intervention.
Andrew says, "You should write science fiction! Why on Earth would the US suddenly stand against its Turkish allies? Why would Iran listen to the US? By what mechanism would a boycott be enforced? By what precident would the case for such a boycott be convincingly made? "
Ad hominem does not advance your argument.
(Reply to Andrew continued)
Andrew says, "You should write science fiction! Why on Earth would the US suddenly stand against its Turkish allies? Why would Iran listen to the US? By what mechanism would a boycott be enforced? By what precident would the case for such a boycott be convincingly made? "
Ad hominem does not advance your argument.
Let's start from the precedent for sanctions (not a "boycott" as you wrongly claim I said; third strawman on the stack). The most immediate precedent is Iraq. Sanctions were immediately imposed in 1991 after the invasion and were maintained for 12 years. That, by the way, answers the question of the mechanism. The much-derided UN sanctions in fact worked. In many ways, all too well, denying people basic medicine on the flimsy excuse that medicines like atropine could have dual uses.
Iran is already "listening" to the UN and through it to the US. Negotiations are underway to control Iraq's nuclear program. If that can be negotiated, so can overt intervention. (As for their influence over the Shia population, well, that's part of reality. If people *want* an Islamic fundamentalist state, who are we to tell them they may not have it?)
Finally, why would the US stand against its Turkish allies? Why did the Turks-- who had infinitely more to lose-- stand against its US allies in refusing to allow troops across its borders? The answer is that it thought that what the US was doing was wrong. If the US has similarly lost its capability of doing what's required because it's right, then it has truly lost its way.
You should try studying history. It's even stranger than science fiction.
js - Watching you call "straw man" instead of adressing points is rather dull. Please desist. Also, answer my original question, which I have now posed 14 times.
What country can you name where democracy has not previously existed but was created by US intervention?
Well, the United States, for one. Pre-WW2 Germany. If you truly mean "intervention", and not "invasion", the answer is: probably most of them. I could go on, but it's irrelevent. What country can you name that was invaded by America, and then America left, and then the UN community embargoed Turkey and Iran, and then turned democratic by itself? I can name several countries that have built civil societies and democracies in other countries, which is really the point. No more essentialist arguments, please.
Afghanistan is a classic case of what happens when outside powers (in this case, Pakistan's ISI probably under US aegis) intervenes. Yes, that's right: the Taliban is the creation of Pakistan, not the Afghan people.
And we intervened in Iraq. that is the situation under discussion, no? Perhaps that's why I choose it. Something to consider.
The United States and Britain DID intervene in the Russian Revolution, creating long-term ill will and feeding Russian paranoia while accomplishing nothing.
Trivia. The Russian revolution was an archetypal revolution from within - certainly more so than the American revolution, which you try to use to bolster your case.
Iraq right now cannot be presented as an example of anarchy. It's a police state and we're the police.
No. Shit. That's why I'm saying we shouldn't leave. Please keep up.
The wars in Africa are a direct result of the US (and the USSR) arming some of the nastiest militias on earth.
Guns start wars, eh? All wars in Africa, is it? What utter rubbish. The war in Congo is the result of the loss of central authority in the country, precipitating anarchy, precipitating the intervention of regional powers to fill the vacuum in the interest of their own national security. Most of killing in Congo was by disease and starvation, neither supplied by the USSR or US, and much of the rest was done by machete. Perhaps 3.5 million dead in 5 years. Please don't be so silly.
Revolutionary Iran wasn't that bloody, as I recall, at least compared to the last days of the Shah.
Um, I'd double-check that one if I were you.
And Lebanon... well, it's a parliamentary democracy, NOT thanks to Israeli and Syrian intervention.
Oh, give me a fucking break. It's a Syrian puppet, thanks to Syrian intervention. It descended into anarchy in the 70's and 80's, and Israel and Syria, in the interest of their own national security, filled the vacuum. 100,000-200,000 died. If this is starting to sound familiar, it should.
Ad hominem does not advance your argument.
It's not ad hominem, it's humor. But I shall refrain, to preserve the dignity of the internet.
Let's start from the precedent for sanctions (not a "boycott" as you wrongly claim I said; third strawman on the stack).
Andrew Sullivan-level whining about word choice doesn't advance your argument, it makes you look like a jackass. See what happened when you (wrongly, another strawman on the stack) said pre-emptive war was illegal. Don't be such an ass.
The most immediate precedent is Iraq. Sanctions were immediately imposed in 1991 after the invasion and were maintained for 12 years. That, by the way, answers the question of the mechanism. The much-derided UN sanctions in fact worked.
You may have missed this factoid, but Iraq invaded Kuwait. That's why there were sanctions. Iraq did not meddle in another country's affairs, it invaded the other country. Countries meddle in other countries' affairs all the time, particularly when their national security is at stake, and there are no sanctions.
And it's a rather bizarre statement to say that "sanctions worked". Sanctions prevented him from getting WMD, and kept him weak, but never got him to comply.
Iran is already "listening" to the UN and through it to the US. Negotiations are underway to control Iraq's nuclear program. If that can be negotiated, so can overt intervention.
Not if it is in their national security interest not to.
Finally, why would the US stand against its Turkish allies? Why did the Turks-- who had infinitely more to lose-- stand against its US allies in refusing to allow troops across its borders? The answer is that it thought that what the US was doing was wrong.
Science fiction again. No nation, least of all Turkey, bases its foreign policy around "right" and "wrong". (There is nothing worse for the human mind than Bush on one shoulder and Chomsky on the other.) Was it "right" for Turkey to kill tens of thousands of Kurds in the 1980's? No, I'll offer the opinion that it wasn't. It was, in fact, an enormous massacre, which Turkey engaged in because (wait for it) they wanted to protect their national security against Kurdish terrorists, or, failing that, just drive the entire Kurdish population out of their homes. Why did Turkey send troops into northern Iraq after GW1? To prevent Kurdish incursions and incitements, they said. So here's the $64 question: why on Earth did Turkey oppose the invasion of Iraq? Why, oh why, did Turkey oppose the removal of inveterate Kurd-killer Saddam Hussein, and the potential fracturing of the country, with the good possibility of an autonomous (and oil-rich) Kurdish state on its borders? Because it was "wrong"? Because they had the courage to stand up, and, in clear, bell-like tones proclaim "NO! This is wrong!"? Why is Turkey now offering to sends thousands of troops into Iraq? Bec
...Because it is "right"? Or because it has been their decades-long (centuries, even) policy to suppress Kurdish nationalism? Hoo, that's a toughie!
You should try studying history. It's even stranger than science fiction.
Would I learn that guns cause war?
Andrew says, "Watching you call "straw man" instead of adressing points is rather dull. Please desist."
Fine. You seem to know little and want to know less and can't even have adult manners in the process. I don't need to talk to you. End of story.
And you had so much left to teach me ...
such wisdom ...
lost ...
forever.
"to be fair, the iraqi deaths due to sanctions were *mostly* on clinton's watch. selise"
I didn't mention the sanction-deaths, but to be FAIR, it wasn't Clinton's policy. And there might have been a chance to reverse that policy earlier had the Clinton Wars not been in full swing. That said, BC does bear partial responsibility for genocide...in Rwanda, and has said so and apologized. I include the Iraq sanctions under BC's sins, but it results from political pressures, not from a cooked up desire to murder the innocent.
If the reverse domino theory held any water, why does Iraq matter anyway? There are representative governments all over the bloody world! This one place is somehow the lynchpin for the entire Middle East?
What bullshit. It's basic anthropology that one culture will try to be dominant, and one gang within that culture will try to get as much power as possible. Any Neocon can look in the mirror and tell you that!
If things didn't work that way, then the NSC wouldn't install and/or support the Pinochets, Samozas, Shahs, and Husseins of the world.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
