It would seem that Bush himself turns into a veritable Gandhi when it comes to confronting the Saudis, who are coming up with the $$ to pay terrorists.

A kid from my home town was reported killed in Iraq the other day. Thanks to you guys who wanted Saddam out because he was a threat to the US. I guess Iraq was a threat, but not the way you thought it was.

My predictions pre-war were pretty much right on. My new predictions are:

a) sooner or later, the terrorists find a way to blow up large number of US troops. Then, the shit really hits the fan (shades of Lebabon 1983).

b) the next President gets us out of Iraq.

I guess Explorer is behind on the news. A large number of highly plausible theories as to why the WMD haven't been found have been released. Even the most implausible of these is much more credible than the peaceniks' "the world was better off when Saddam was in power" bullshit.

Anyway, it is highly likely we will not have nor need a large scale military presence in Iraq once Bush leaves office in January of 2009. Accordingly, there will be no need for "the next president" to get us out.

OHH Puleeeze,

The biggest "plausible" reason why as to no WMD have been found?? Try this!! There are NO Weapons of Mass Destruction and it looks like there never was. For all the "spin" the GW and the administration try to put on this it all comes down to this: A bogus war, fought for bogus reasons, by a bogus president.

If GW doesn't have a clear exit strategy for the troop ins Iraq, they will develop there own. Already there have been thousands of requests, about 20x normal for info on absentee ballots.

It is absurd to believe that Hussein's regime would not actively try to make WMD, or at least initiate bluffs to make the world think they did have them. Hussein simply miscalculated.

In any event, the cost of the war is miniscule compared to the dividends it will pay in the future in terms of economic stability, by having more oil in friendly hands, and in combatting terrorism.

The cowardly, pathetic naysayers were predicting that if we attack Iraq, we would be victims of massive retaliation. WRONG! International terrorism is on the run, and getting its ass handed to it. All the follow up attacks to 9-11 in this country never materialized. Anyone want to guess why THAT might be?

As much as I disagree with many of its other policies, the Bush administration has done a fine job in international affairs, in terms of destablizinf Al Queda, removing the Taliban and Hussein's regime from power, and pissing off France.

I cannot see any forseeabale dividends to us. The money from the oil, after the oil companies take their share, will go back to rebuilding the infrastructure for the next few decades. In fact some economic studies show that the oil revenues will never make back the revenue needed to rebuild Iraq. The rest of the money wil come from, you guessed it, OUR taxes.

Before Sadam Hussein and the Baath party took over Iraq, the country had real strong ties to France, England.and the rest of Europe. More so than the US.

These countries, especially France, provided most of the infrastructure and built most of the refineries. Even after Sadam took power and Until the embargo, the French kept close contact

The US under Ronnie Reagan, provided arms and Military assistance to counter the Fall of Iran and to (so they thought) counter the Ayatollah Khomeni. Iraqi intelligence, seeing an opportunityto get on the US Military porkbarrel, exxagerated those claims of danger from Iran (sound familiar) , and even instigated the Iran/Iraq war. All to get access to US arms and assistance.

Do not think for one minute that after a legitimate Iraqi government is formed, where they will actually determine their own direction, that they will shower the US with affection and money. Most likely they will start to sever/reduce all ties with the US and prefer to deal with Western Europe whose ties go far deeper. Every day the US wears out its welcome make it easier for this to occur.

Iraq is a Shiite Muslim countries its goals are antithecal to US interests. I would be not at all surprised to see a Islamic Government take hold within 5 years. With the US making its presence more and more unwelcome,this is not a far-fetched idea. Also remember France has close ties with the Shiite movement in Iraq and Iran, providing political and religious asylum to severla important clerics, mullahs and Ayatollahs. Remeber Ayatollah Khomeni sought refuge there. In the last 30 years there have been few islamic terrorists incidents aimed at France or its interests.

The US is screwed. The rest of the World, including France, is letting the US takes its lumps for its "The UN is irelevant, we'll go it alone approach to the Iraq war"
"We don't need you" was the neo-conservatives cry, now they are eating crow and practically begging for assistance. Europe and the rest of the world will let the US eat some humble pie before they consider helping, and they know, the longer they wait, the more it will be on their terms.

The Bush administration has single-handedly made a mess of the US strategic interests around the world. They have alienated most of the US's staunchest allies allies. The Bush policy of trying to bribe other countries to go-along with its policies, have bankrupted the foreign aid program. Now most countries know that if they DISAGREE with the US, they will, sooner or later, offer to be bought out. knowing the longer they wait the more money thet receive. The Bush administration policy of trying to bully/coerce other governments who do not accede to its wishes, is also starting to backfire.

In short, the Bush administrations foreign policy is a joke, It has put us into MORE danger rather than alleviating it.

It seems to me that after Bush is out of office, the French will have the last laugh.

Remeber also, the tremendous strain the Iraq "peace" has but on the armed services. By putting a freeze on soldiers leaving the service when their enlistment is up, has convinced many to exit the reserves and National Guard ASAP.

A fine job in handling terrorism?? I've onlty seen our rights curtailed, ineffectual searches for Osama, Saddam and WMD, and a lot of posturing and outright lies!.. It now seems likely that Moussouie (sic) the only "arrested" terrorist from 9/11 (supposedly) will now go free or be subject to a greatly reduced sentence. This despite assurances early on from the US that this was a slam dunk prosecution. We are not better off, in fact we are probably worse off! (at least until 2004 anyway)

My predictions for 2004:

Violence in Iraq will likely lessen. I just don't see that many people willing to die for Saddam. However, it is likely that the other side will score one big kill that will put everyone into a frenzy.

Just before the election, either Saddam or OBL will be found (most likely dead).

Halliburton will have a very good year, and will reward Bush with large campaign contributions.

"Just before the election, either Saddam or OBL will be found (most likely dead)."

And the critics will claim that:
1) it isn't really Saddam or OBL but just a substitute that the evil CIA created.

or

2) they already had the body on ice for over a year but waited until just prior to the election to present it so as to get the votes.

C'mon Explorer, do really believe all the opposition is being created by Saddam loyalists. How about changing that to Iraqi loyalists. Americans think that Iraqis will be happy if we throw enough money at them, but in the same moment, they despise the money we poor in the USA that they perceive we throw so much money at. Why aren't they throwing roses in the streets also?

Actually there was a report on NBC (I think) last night saying that the only news we see on television is the negative news regarding Iraqi and that most of the Iraqi people are happy that we kicked out Saddam.

Also here is an article posted Oct.14 that says Halliburton has not made much money on Dick Cheney being VP and in particular Hal has had little in the way of net profits from work done this year in Iraq (less than 9% of their revenue generated from Iraqi). Remember Hal has been doing business for over 50 years in Iraq.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2089811/

I own some Halliburton stock and Dick Cheney really fucked up that company when he did the merger with Dresser Industries. Four years ago HAL was a $60 stock and it is now a $25 stock.

I am sticking to my prediction that the violence in Iraq will lessen in 2004. Of course, it may lessen because US troops may be out of Iraq before the election. There is a small chance that we will install some puppet president in Iraq, and then split.

For those who actually believed the Bush party line on why we attacked Iraq:

<http://www.cnn.com/2004/allpolitics/01/10/oneill.bush/index.html>

"The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes. "

There are actually people out there who are surprised over this.

When Bill Clinton lied about getting a blowjob in the Oval Office, people were pissed not because he got a bj, but that he lied about it.

But he didn't lie to go to war and kill over 500 US troops, injure thousands, kill tens of thousands of iraqis including women and children more and cost the US taxpayer 87 billion +.

The bigger lie you tell, the more people will believe it.

OG

bush.mov where have I been.mov (1291.7 k)

Interesting that it should be O'Neill that claimed this. He is the last one I would imagine even having a connection with the whole Iran mess. I felt sorry for the guy when he was canned. Anyone following Rubin was probably going to come in second best. O'Neill's TV interviews always lack a certain sophistication or pizzaz and that's actually a compliment.

Hey Explorer, got a question for you. Here we are a year after the fact. No WMDs. Not a one. Zip. All the claims before the invasion with detailed briefings showing satellite photos, intercepted communications, and the like. Stories about the chemicals being loaded onto tanks surrounding Bagdad. Other stories about missiles and their warheads filled with biological weapons poised to be launched at the peace loving people of Israel. And nothing, but nothing to be found. So why doesn't anyone give a damn? The whole thing has been a scam from the very begining. If the invasion of Panama to get Noreiga (remember that?) was a joke soon forgotten what is this episode to be remembered as? And where's Osama and where's the proof that Iraq had anything at all connected with Al Queda?

What a farce. I dread the day the next big terrorist attack occurs. Not only for the misery that it is going to create for innocent people and their families but for the BS crap that is going to come out afterwards from the people that have wasted our time, money, and lives jerking around in a country that never really was a threat to us.

There is a political gain to be had for the price of being scared.

The cold war was against communism, against an "evil empire", and we scared ourself into believing that the only way to hold of a nuclear doom was to promise more of the same against any and/or all protagonist. If you destroy us we will destroy you type of mentality. It later became apparent that even a massive nuclear strike, even one-sided and unretaliated, would lead to a biological and climatological disaster that would probably doom 4/5th of the world's population anyway.

The big winners out of this fright was the "miltary-industrial complex" that siphoned off trillions of dollars from the economy. money that is still being paid off today, a decade after the fall of the Soviet Union.
When the cold war dried up, industries that depended upon the cold war, started losing stream, as did their stocks, leading to a massive influx of money into other areas, notably the high tech industry not directly associated with the military.

The biggest loser of the peace were the Republicans, whose rhetoric from Ronnie Reagan firmly entrenched the party as "fighter of communism and all things un-american" When the cold war ended they quickly needed another scapegoat.

Enter Saddam Hussein, and the "axis of evil".Based primarily on his support from the Donald Rumsfeld led Reagan and Bush administration, Saddam was allowed to buy chemical and biological weapons from the US and its allies, as a counter to the hardline Islamic Iranian regime. The US encouraged Saddam to attack Iran. (I know this as I was an assistant ADO (area desk officer) for a US intelligence service at the time). Remember the gas used by the Iraqis against the Iranians and later the Kurds was not made in Iraq, it was purchased from the US.

It seems Iraq never had the capability to produce significant amounts of chemical weapons and that is why the US never found any. Instead Saddam simply purchased the weapons from the Europe, Russian and Chinese sources with the tacit approval of the US.

No wonder Saddam was surprised when the US got upset when he invaded Kuwait. After all, wasn't he doing them a favor. George Bush the !st, though had oil freinds who stood to lose large amounts of money if Kuwait oil changed hands.

Few remember that the newly elected Saddam's Iraq sold the US oil during the 77-78 oil embargo when Kuwait and Saudi Arabia refused to do so.
Having the oil revenue stream change hands from a royal family to a dictator, would only mean that more money would go to Western Europe companies who built and maintained the Iraqi oil feilds instead of Saudi/Kuwait/US ones. The Iraqis would be more inclined to sell oil to Western Europe, the US and Japan. They didn't really give a rats ass about Palestine, but used it as lip service to appease the muslims, both Sunni and Shiite.

When Dubya decided he wanted Saddam out, using the terrorist attacks and blaming Saddam was fortuitous, but only if the US voters believed it. So by insinuating and outright lying, he managed to confuse the issues and a lot of people into thinking that Iraq and the terrost attacks were one in the same.

They were not of course. Overthrowing the fundamental islamic Taliban in Afghanistan who wholly supported Osama in words and deeds, was fighting a ideology of changing the world by bringing the misery of terrorism suffered in the Middle east directly to the US doorstep. Much like the age of Hijacking in the 70's when terrorists from the Middle east were hijacking jetliners as well as every looney who wanted to go to Cuba.
The Al-Queda just took hijacking to a new height in that the hijackers sole intent was to be kill and be killed, in the biggeest way possible instead of releasing some prisoner and/or bring to the attention of the world the palestinain problem.

Finally Dubya had the neo-conservatives and the Republicans had their nemesis. Gone were the communists, enter the "Saddam and his WMD's and the terrorists"

Unfortunatly, they were two different issues, requiring two different solutions.

Dubya, who was never a great scholar, diplomat or even halfway intelligent decided just to wrap the issues as one in the same. A simple solution from a simpleton. Kill em all and let God sort them out.

The result is a massive debt load, two wars, and an abridgement of Civil Rights unparralled in the modern history of the United States.

When (if) the next terrorist attack occurs, get ready for a massive amounts of spin and even more draconian measures, all in the name of "keeping us free"

As long as those in power, cause, or cause to increase, fear and anxiety, whether it is merited or not, have a tremendous opportunity to push a political agenda in the name of "protection and freedom" even if thoses protections and freedoms are severely reduced.

In the case of the cold war when the nemisis was a country with armed strength matching our own, this new enemy is an idea, a thought. This is even more evil to those to profess to protect our liberties. You can fight the Soviet Union with missles and bombs, and you can build an infrastructure (the arms industry) to compete, but how do you fight an idea like fundamental and Extreme Islam? The neo-conservs answer? You fight it by knowing what they the enemy is going to do. You spy on them and as a result you spy on everybody. You build up an infrastructure too. But this infrastructure is information technology, Total information awareness. You turn it loose on the ememy by turing it loose on your own. You throw the baby out with the bathwater. But you do it, so they will tell you, for your own good.

There is a political gain in keeping the US citizen scared and in the dark, as long as certain politician can decieve and confuse, can lie with a straight face and tell us it's for our own good, and above all to keep us scared of the "red menace" "the evil empire" or the "axis of evil" it keeps them elected.

OG



Under-Secretary of State during the Reagan/Bush administration is warmly greeted by Saddam Hussein in Baghdad

Hey, I was surprised as anyone when it turned out that Saddam had no WMD.

My guess is that the US does whatever it can to ensure that Iraq only pumps as much as oil as to not affect the worldwide price, but enough to pay some bills.

It would be very, very bad for the Bush friends if Iraq actually pumped out what it did in the good old days.

Here's a laugher:

"It {Iraq} possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons."

"First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people."

- George Bush

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html>

Good analysis Orgngrndr. I never really bought into the military-industrial complex theory back in the 60s and 70s as it seemed too simplistic. Now I begin to wonder. Your comments about how with the collapse of communism a new boggy man was need and how one has been found in "radical islam" certainly is easy to see.

Equalilly obvious is the dramatic push to be able to control movement in this country in a variety of ways. The administrative groups of our government have always wanted more control over the population via financial transactions. Long before Al Quida the IRS, the treasury dept, and local law inforcement have sought tighter controls over transactions through banks, credit card companies, and other financial avenues. Other controls are desired over the Internet to allow authorities to know where you go, what you buy, how you pay for it, what you read and write. Eventually it will be possible to near instantly link a multitude of sources together dealing with any one person of group. Add the implanted microchip which will soon become required by law, say in the next 10-20 years, and you will have total control over every person. Their physical movements, their buying habits, their belief systems, and much more.

Big Brother is going to become God and expect total and uttter obedience. Or else.

OK, is there ANYONE on this board who believes that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are still out there, waiting to be found? Does anyone believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD earlier this year?

I have to admit that I was fooled, I thought that he still had some left over weapons from what we gave him back in the 1980's.

I was 100% sure that he still had WMD, shit we know that he used them in the early 90's.

I certainly did not believe that he would destroy them. If they were destroyed, why play all the games with the UN inspectors? Its kind of a mystery. So I guess I was wrong. I am not to proud to admit it. But a lot of people were wrong. As late as early 2003 Clinton was writing op-eds for the GUARDIAN stating his belief that Iraq had WMD. Wes Clark testified just before the war that he believed Saddamm had WMD. Maybe they will eventually find something, but nothing on the scale of what every one thought pre-war. But I always said that using WMD as a pretext to invade Iraq was not the best justification, even though I believed he had them.

Unlike some guys on the board who think it was all about oil, I never bought the blood for oil argument. Any one who can do simple math could pen it out and see that there was never any profit in it for the US. Iraq was only pumping 14-15 billion a year in oil. And obviously its entire oil income cant go to the US. Lets say we stretch it and say that half of Iraqi oil revenue, or Iraqi oil, went to the US, it would still take over 20 years to pay back the billions we are going to get stuck with. Thats not a very good ROI

I have heard a plausible oil related theory. Iraq was leading the movement to sell oil on the open markets using the Euro rather than the dollar as the financial measurement. The US does not want that to happen. That could really hurt the dollar, thus really hurt the US. If the US maintains significant influence in the region, that wont happen. So is that a very self serving reason to go to war? Yes. But countries always practice self serving politics. Look at France.

Many months ago, I put forward the theory that taking out the Taliban, and then Saddam, were moves to change the political landscape of the mideast and possibly change the direction that whole shithole was headed in. It may work. Does anybody believe that Lybia coughing up their goods was completely unrelated to the asskicking Saddam got? Does anybody believe that Syria is not a little better neighbor than they were before?

I was wrong about WMD, but I still believe that taking out Sadamm was just one move in a reverse dominoes ploy. Will it be succsesful, I dont know. But it could be.

I do agree completely with Explorer though that Bush is way to easy on Saudia Arabia.

Flame away Mr Orange. and any one else. Its been a long time since I have been involved in any discussion on this board.

batster

Clips and commnets from an article on Washington Post
www.yahoo.com/s/149041

Many agree that the damage to US credibility is serious
"...But a range of foreign policy experts, including supporters of the war, said the long-term consequences of the administration's rhetoric could be severe overseas -- especially because the war was waged without the backing of the United Nations (news - web sites) and was opposed by large majorities, even in countries run by leaders that supported the invasion..."

More people in the US are realizing what many of us already knew
"The U.S. team searching for Iraq's weapons has not issued a report since October, but in recent weeks the gap between administration claims and Iraq's actual weapons holdings has become increasingly clear. The Washington Post reported earlier this month that U.S. investigators have found no evidence that Iraq had a hidden cache of old chemical or biological weapons, and that its nuclear program had been shattered after the 1991 Persian Gulf War (news - web sites). A lengthy study issued by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace also concluded the administration shifted the intelligence consensus on Iraq's weapons in 2002 as officials prepared for war, making it appear more imminent and threatening than was warranted by the evidence...The report further said that the administration "systematically misrepresented the threat" posed by Iraq, often on purpose, in four ways: one, treating nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as a single threat, although each posed different dangers and evidence was particularly thin on Iraq's nuclear and chemical programs; two, insisting without evidence that Hussein would give his weapons to terrorists; three, often dropping caveats and uncertainties contained in the intelligence assessments when making public statements; and four, misrepresenting inspectors' findings so that minor threats were depicted as emergencies."

How about this for fuzzy grammer
"Jessica T. Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment and co-author of the report, pointed to one example in a speech delivered by Bush in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002. U.N. inspectors had noted that Iraq had failed to account for bacterial growth media that, if used, "could have produced about three times as much" anthrax as Iraq had admitted. But Bush, in his speech, turned a theoretical possibility into a fact..."The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount," Bush said. "This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for and is capable of killing millions."...Mathews said her research showed the administration repeatedly and frequently took such liberties with the intelligence and inspectors' findings to bolster its cases for immediate action. In the Cincinnati example, "in 35 words, you go from probably to a likelihood to a fact," she said. "With a few little changes in wording, you turn an 'if' into a dire biological weapons stockpile. Anyone hearing that must be thinking, 'My God, this is an imminent threat.'"..."

And I thought the most important thing involved the president's sex life
"..."The most important call a president can make by a mile is whether to take a country to war," she argued, making the consequences of unwise decisions or misleading statements even greater..."

OK, so now the Bush Administration is admitting that there probably weren't weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the war.

I guess the Bush doctrine will be modifed. Last year the doctrine stated that America can launch a pre-emptive attack against nations that threaten us. Now, the doctrine is that we can launch attacks against nations that we don't like.

Excerpts: Interview with N Chomsky

Simon Mars: Do you think control over energy resources was the main reason for the invasion of Iraq?

Noam Chomsky: They didn't decide to invade Eastern Congo where there's much worse massacres going on. Of course it was Iraq's energy resources. It's not even a question. Iraq's one of the major oil producers in the world. It has the second largest reserves and it's right in the heart of the Gulf's oil producing region, which US intelligence predicts is going to be two thirds of world resources in coming years.

The invasion of Iraq had a number of motives, and one was to illustrate the new National Security Strategy, which declares that the United States will control the world permanently by force if necessary and will eliminate any potential challenge to that domination. It is called pre-emptive war.

It is not a new policy, it's just never been announced so brazenly, which is why it caused such uproar, including among the foreign policy elite in the United States. They're appalled by it.

But having announced the doctrine, it needed an exemplary action, to show that the United States really meant it.

But if the United States is going to attack somebody, the action has to meet several criteria. The first and crucial criterion is that they must be completely defenseless. It's stupid to attack anyone who can shoot back. Anyone knows this.

They understood perfectly well that Iraq was completely defenseless, the weakest country in the region. Its military expenditure was about a third of Kuwait, devastated by sanction, held together by Scotch tape. Mostly dis-armed, under complete surveillance, so Iraq met that condition.

Second criteria is that the place attacked has to be important enough to matter. There's no point taking over Eastern Congo, which is also defenseless, but Iraq matters. That's where the issue of oil comes up, since the United States will end up with military bases right in the heart of the oil producing region.

The third criteria is you have to somehow pretend it's a threat to your existence. While the people of Kuwait and Iran might be delighted to tear Saddam Hussein limb from limb, they still did not regard him as a threat. No one thought he was a threat.

But in the United States the propaganda did succeed in moving the American population, and Congress passed a resolution authorizing the use of force to defend the US against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. No matter what you think, that's just laughable.

RioRules,

I guess Hussein wasn't a threat to his own people? I firmly believed he had WMD, lots of people did including Clinton, Clark, Blair, etc.

But I always said the best reason to get rid of him was to try something new in the middle east. The whole dynamic needs to change. Back before the invasion of Iraq, I argued that for diplomacy to work there had to be real force behind it. Now there are lots of nervous people over there in that part of the world. Or do you believe that Kaddafi coughing up his goods was totally unrelated to the ass kicking in Iraq?

But if you really want to go after a terrorist supporting regime, we should have gone after Iran. Those guys are definitely a threat to peace in the region. And they are also a threat to their own people. Saddams regime was vile and deserved to go, so does Iran. They have always been the real threat over there.

I do agree with you 100% though that the US will only go where there is a strategic interest. They won't ever get involved in Central or Southern Africa where there are regimes just as heinous as Saddams. Its to bad actually, maybe I am an idealist but I think we should kick as wherever people are subjugated to tyranny .....I know some of you guys think we have a tyrant right here. LOL

Batstertheweaponofmassdestruction

batster
i think one of the largest threat is the right wing religious people who support g.a. bush.
son of the half wit who said" nobody will stop the americans way of living".after that you can produce as many theories you want,but this words will always linger.
iggy sca.

"Its to(o) bad actually, maybe I am an idealist but I think we should kick as(s) wherever people are subjugated to tyranny..." --Batster

This guy makes makes me laugh. An idealist for him is one who wants to bomb every little country in the world headed by a tyrant. First of all, that's like more than half the nations on this planet (mostly, run by US clients or puppets); second, the biggest tyrant is here (GWB; so according to you, we should bomb ourselves); and third, we should bomb the biggest of them all, China (for subjugating 1.2 Billion people).

But, of course, Bush doesn't and won't have the balls to even think of going to war in China to save the Chinese people from those Communist dictators. Bullies will only pick fights with the weakest and meekest boy in school.

Gents gents gents...

The president has an obligation to defend us against any legitmate threat. None of the reports from Kay pointed at the president for mis-using information, rather that the intel was wrong. As for the Euro's, their intel also pointed in the direction that Iraq had WMDs, they differed on how to react, not the premise.

Rio: a tyrant subjugates the will and freedom of their constituency. Considering this is a democracy and majority rules, in what way do you feel Bush is repressing the masses? Are you free to travel about? Are you free to attempt to vote him out of office? are you free to pursue and participate in anti-bush dialogue? Junk.

Bush doesn't have balls? I for one wish he had a little less balls and more brains, but hey what do I know...

"...a tyrant subjugates the will and freedom of their constituency." --Don Marco

DM, tell this to the Americans being held without being charged, without the right to representation, and bail; jailed for being suspected of ties with the al-queida.

"Considering this is a democracy and majority rules..."

Of course, you forgot that the majority ruled they prefered Gore to Bush (by half-a-million votes) to be president in the last election. Maybe, you meant by the MAJORITY OF THE SUPREME COURT (who were appointed by the original bully, Reagan and Bush Sr).

I repeat: bullies will only pick fights with the weakest. Bush is a bully. He might have the biggest stick, but he doesn't have the balls to go to war with nations who will fight back. He went instead to clobber the nation that is already weak from the daily bombings since his father bombed it to kingdom hell. So, the younger bully just followed up on the senior bully. What's so f---ing great about that?

"The president has an obligation to defend us against any legitmate threat."

And what does this have to do with Iraq?

Imagine if Red China declared that, say, Taiwan had weapons of mass destruction and launched a premtive strike, only to find no weapons of mass destruction after their takeover of the island. What would be the US position?

For those with suspected ties-- I'm glad their being held.

Regarding the election, I'm referring to the US Constitution, which lays out the electoral system and is the basis for our democracy.

As for bullying, would you prefer he attack all nations that you deem undemocratic? I'm not sure your point... Life is full of calculated risk/reward.

Explorer, I was not personally in favor of the war in Iraq. However, the premise would be:

1) the US has vital national interests in stability in the M. East.

2) Saddam was believed to have and/or developing WMD.

3) Saddam was not in accord with the UN mandates.

4) Item 2 poses a threat to item 1

5) Item 2 +3, requires US/UN direct intervention.

This is a nice read, even if just to have a look at the other side of the Iraq war issue from someone who is never given a voice in the mainstream media. This is the main reason why 65% of Americans are in favor of the invasion of Iraq. The only information they have are coming from the mainstream media which is just parroting the Bush-Powell-Cheny-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz propaganda. Yes, everyone has the right to say anything against Bush, but the media will not give you a space even in the obituary page.

--------------------------

Interview with Noam Chomsky, Professor Emiritus, Linguistics Department, MIT- Why did the U.S. invade Iraq, in your view?

These are naturally speculations, and policy makers may have varying motives. But we can have a high degree of confidence about the answers given by Bush-Powell and the rest; these cannot possibly be taken seriously. They have gone out of their way to make sure we understand that, by a steady dose of self-contradiction ever since last September when the war drums began to beat. One day the "single question" is whether Iraq will disarm; in today's version (April 12): "We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction -- that is what this war was about and is about." That was the pretext throughout the whole UN-disarmament farce, though it was never easy to take seriously; UNMOVIC was doing a good job in virtually disarming Iraq, and could have continued, if that were the goal. But there is no need to discuss it, because after stating solemnly that this is the "single question," they went on the next day to announce that it wasn't the goal at all: even if there isn't a pocket knife anywhere in Iraq, the US will invade anyway, because it is committed to "regime change." The next day we hear that there's nothing to that either; thus at the Azores summit, where Bush-Blair issued their ultimatum to the UN, they made it clear that they would invade even if Saddam and his gang left the country. So "regime change" is not enough. The next day we hear that the goal is "democracy" in the world. Pretexts range over the lot, depending on audience and circumstances, which means that no sane person can take the charade seriously.

The one constant is that the US must end up in control of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was authorized to suppress, brutally, a 1991 uprising that might have overthrown him because "the best of all worlds" for Washington would be "an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein" (by then an embarrassment), which would rule the country with an "iron fist" as Saddam had done with US support and approval (NYT chief diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman). The uprising would have left the country in the hands of Iraqis who might not have subordinated themselves sufficiently to Washington. The murderous sanctions regime of the following years devastated the society, strengthened the tyrant, and compelled the population to rely for survival on his (highly efficient) system for distributing basic goods. The sanctions thus undercut the possibility of the kind of popular revolt that had overthrown an impressive series of other monsters who had been strongly supported by the current incumbents in Washington up to the very end of their bloody rule: Marcos, Duvalier, Ceausescu, Mobutu, Suharto, and a long list of others, some of them easily as tyrannical and barbaric as Saddam. Had it not been for the sanctions, Saddam probably would have gone the same way, as has been pointed out for years by the Westerners who know Iraq best, Denis Halliday and Hans van Sponeck (though one has to go to Canada, England, or elsewhere to find their writings). But overthrow of the regime from within would not be acceptable either, because it would leave Iraqis in charge. The Azores summit merely reiterated that stand.

The question of who rules Iraq remains the prime issue of contention. The US-backed opposition demands that the UN play a vital role in post-war Iraq and rejects US control of reconstruction or government (Leith Kubba, one of the most respected secular voices in the West, connected with the National Endowment of Democracy). One of the leading Shi'ite opposition figures, Sayed Muhamed Baqer al-Hakim, who heads the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), just informed the press that "we understand this war to be about imposing US hegemony over Iraq," and perceive the US as "an occupying rather than a liberating force." He stressed that the UN must supervise elections, and called on "foreign troops to withdraw from Iraq" and leave Iraqis in charge.

US policy-makers have a radically different conception. They must impose a client regime in Iraq, following the practice elsewhere in the region, and most significantly, in the regions that have been under US domination for a century, Central America and the Caribbean. That too is well-understood. Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser to Bush I, just repeated the obvious: "What's going to happen the first time we hold an election in Iraq and it turns out the radicals win? What do you do? We're surely not going to let them take over."

The same holds throughout the region. Recent studies reveal that from Morocco to Lebanon to the Gulf, about 95% of the population want a greater role in government for Islamic religious figures, and the same percentage believe that the sole US interest in the region is to control its oil and strengthen Israel. Antagonism to Washington has reached unprecedented heights, and the idea that Washington would institute a radical change in policy and tolerate truly democratic elections, respecting the outcome, seems rather fanciful, to say the least.

Turning to the question, one reason for the invasion, surely, is to gain control over the world's second largest oil reserves, which will place the US in an even more powerful position of global domination, maintaining "a stranglehold on the global economy," as Michael Klare describes the long-term objective, which he regards as the primary motive for war. However, this cannot explain the timing. Why now?

The drumbeat for war began in September 2002, and the government-media propaganda campaign achieved a spectacular success. Very quickly, the majority of the population came to believe that Iraq posed an imminent threat to US security, even that Iraq was involved in 9-11 (up from 3% after 9-11) and was planning new attacks. Not surprisingly, these beliefs correlated closely with support for the planned war. The beliefs are unique to the US. Even in Kuwait and Iran, which were invaded by Saddam Hussein, he was not feared, though he was despised. They know perfectly well that Iraq was the weakest state in the region, and for years they had joined others in trying to reintegrate Iraq into the regional system, over strong US objections. But a highly effective propaganda assault drove the American population far off the spectrum of world opinion, a remarkable achievement.

The September propaganda assault coincided with two important events. One was the opening of the mid-term election campaign. Karl Rove, the administration's campaign manager, had already pointed out that Republicans have to "go to the country" on the issue of national security, because voters "trust the Republican Party to do a better job of...protecting America." One didn't have to be a political genius to realize that if social and economic issues dominated the election, the Bush administration did not have a chance. Accordingly, it was necessary to concoct a huge threat to our survival, which the powerful leader will manage to overcome, miraculously. For the elections, the strategy barely worked. Polls reveal that voters maintained their preferences, but suppressed concerns over jobs, pensions, benefits, etc., in favor of security. Something similar will be needed for the presidential campaign. All of this is second nature for the current incumbents. They are mostly recycled from the more reactionary sectors of the Reagan-Bush administrations, and know that they were able to run the country for 12 years, carrying out domestic programs that the public largely opposed, by pushing the panic button regularly: Libyan attempting to "expel us from the world" (Reagan), an air base in Grenada from which the Russians would bomb us, Nicaragua only "two-days driving time from Harlingen Texas," waving their copies of Mein Kampf as they planned to take over the hemisphere, black criminals about to rape your sister (Willie Horton, the 1988 presidential campaign), Hispanic narcotraffickers about to destroy us, and on and on.

To maintain political power is an extremely important matter if the narrow sectors of power represented by the Bush administration hope to carry out their reactionary domestic program over strong popular opposition, if possible even to institutionalize them, so it will be hard to reconstruct what is being dismantled.

Something else happened in September 2002: the administration released its National Security Strategy, sending many shudders around the world, including the US foreign policy elite. The Strategy has many precedents, but does break new ground: for the first time in the post-war world, a powerful state announced, loud and clear, that it intends to rule the world by force, forever, crushing any potential challenge it might perceive. This is often called in the press a doctrine of "pre-emptive war." That is crucially wrong; it goes vastly beyond pre-emption. Sometimes it is called more accurately a doctrine of "preventive war." That too understates the doctrine. No military threat, however remote, need be "prevented"; challenges can be concocted at will, and may not involve any threat other than "defiance"; those who pay attention to history know that "successful defiance" has often been taken to be justification for resort to force in the past.

When a doctrine is announced, some action must be taken to demonstrate that it is seriously intended, so that it can become a new "norm in international relations," as commentators will soberly explain. What is needed is a war with an "exemplary quality," Harvard Middle East historian Roger Owen pointed out, discussing the reasons for the attack on Iraq. The exemplary action teaches a lesson that others must heed, or else.

Why Iraq? The experimental subject must have several important qualities. It must be defenseless, and it must be important; there's no point illustrating the doctrine by invading Burundi. Iraq qualified perfectly in both respects. The importance is obvious, and so is the required weakness. Iraq was not much of a military force to begin with, and had been largely disarmed through the 1990s while much of the society was driven to the edge of survival. Its military expenditures and economy were about one-third those of Kuwait, with 10% of its population, far below others in the region, and of course the regional superpower, Israel, by now virtually an offshore military base of the US. The invading force not only had utterly overwhelming military power, but also extensive information to guide its actions from satellite observation and overflights for many years, and more recently U-2 flights on the pretext of disarmament, surely sending data directly back to Washington.

Iraq was therefore a perfect choice for an "exemplary action" to establish the new doctrine of global rule by force as a "norm of international relations." A high official involved in drafting the National Security Strategy informed the press that its publication "was the signal that Iraq would be the first test, but not the last." "Iraq became the petri dish in which this experiment in pre-emptive policy grew," the New York Times reported -- misstating the policy in the usual way, but otherwise accurate.

All of these factors gave good reasons for war. And they also help explain why the planned war was so overwhelmingly opposed by the public worldwide (including the US, particularly when we extract the factor of fear, unique to the US). And also strongly opposed by a substantial part of economic and foreign policy elites, a very unusual development. They rightly fear that the adventurist posture may prove very costly to their own interests, even to survival. It is well-understood that these policies are driving others to develop a deterrent, which could be weapons of mass destruction, or credible threats of serious terror, or even conventional weapons, as in the case of North Korea, with artillery massed to destroy Seoul. With any remnants of some functioning system of world order torn to shreds, the Bush administration is instructing the world that nothing matters but force -- and they hold the mailed fist, though others are not likely to tolerate that for long. Including, one hopes, the American people, who are in by far the best position to counter and reverse these extremely ominous trends.

- Will there be democracy in Iraq, as a result of this invasion?

Depends on what one means by "democracy." I presume the Bush PR team will want to put into place some kind of formal democracy, as long as it has no substance. But it's hard to imagine that they would allow a real voice to the Shi'ite majority, which is likely to join the rest of the region in trying to establish closer relations with Iran, the last thing the Bushites want. Or that they would allow a real voice to the next largest component of the population, the Kurds, who are likely to seek some kind of autonomy within a federal structure that would be anathema to Turkey, a major base for US power in the region. One should not be misled by the recent hysterical reaction to the crime of the Turkish government in adopting the position of 95% of its population, another indication of the passionate hatred of democracy in elite circles here, and another reason why no sensible person can take the rhetoric seriously. Same throughout the region. Functioning democracy would have outcomes that are inconsistent with the goal of US hegemony, just as in our own "backyard" over a century.

- What message has been received by governments around the world, with what likely broad implications?

The message is that the Bush administration intends its National Security Strategy to be taken seriously, as the "test case" illustrates. It intends to dominate the world by force, the one dimension in which it rules supreme, and to do so permanently. A more specific message, illustrated dramatically by the Iraq-North Korea case, is that if you want to fend off a US attack, you had better have a credible deterrent. It's widely assumed in elite circles that the likely consequence is proliferation of WMD and terror, in various forms, based on fear and loathing for the US administration, which was regarded as the greatest threat to world peace even before the invasion. That's no small matter these days. Questions of peace shade quickly into questions of survival for the species, given the case of means of violence.

(7) What was the role of the American media establishment in paving the way for this war, and then rationalizing it, narrowing the terms of discussion, etc.?

The media uncritically relayed government propaganda about the threat to US security posed by Iraq, its involvement in 9-11 and other terror, etc. Some amplified the message on their own. Others simply relayed it. The effects in the polls were striking, as often before. Discussion was, as usual, restricted to "pragmatic grounds": will the US government get away with its plans at a cost acceptable at home. Once the war began it became a shameful exercise of cheering for the home team, appalling much of the world.

- What is next on the agenda, broadly, for Bush and Co., if they are
able to pursue their preferred agendas?

They have publicly announced that the next targets could be Syria and Iran -- which would require a strong military base in Iraq, presumably; another reason why any meaningful democracy is unlikely. It has been reliably reported for some time that the US and its allies (Turkey, Israel, and some others) have been taking steps towards dismemberment of Iran. But there are other possible targets too. The Andean region qualifies. It has very substantial resources, including oil. It is in turmoil, with dangerous independent popular movements that are not under control. It is by now surrounded by US military bases with US forces already on the ground. And one can think of others.

- What obstacles now stand in the way of Bush and Co.'s doing as they prefer, and what obstacles might arise?

The prime obstacle is domestic. But that's up to us.

- What has been your impression of antiwar opposition and what ought to be its agenda now?

Antiwar opposition here has been completely without precedent in scale and commitment, something we've discussed before, and that is certainly obvious to anyone who has had any experience in these matters here for the past 40 years. Its agenda right now, I think, should be to work to ensure that Iraq is run by Iraqis, that the US provide massive reparations for what it has done to Iraq for 20 years (by supporting Saddam Hussein, by wars, by brutal sanctions which probably caused a great deal more damage and deaths than the wars); and if that is too much honesty to expect, then at least massive aid, to be used by Iraqis, as they decide, which will be something other than US taxpayer subsidies to Halliburton and Bechtel. Also high on the agenda should be putting a brake on the extremely dangerous policies announced in the Security Strategy, and carried out in the "petri dish." And related to that, there should be serious efforts to block the bonanza of arms sales that is happily anticipated as a consequence of the war, which will also contribute to making the world a more awful and dangerous place. But that's only the beginning. The antiwar movement is indissolubly linked to the global justice movements, which have much more far-reaching goals, properly.

- What do you think is the relationship between the invasion of Iraq and corporate glboalization, and what should be the relation between the anticorproate globalization movement, and the peace movement?

The invasion of Iraq was strongly opposed by the main centers of corporate globalization. At the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, opposition was so strong that Powell was practically shouted down when he tried to present a case for the war -- announcing, pretty clearly, that the US would "lead" even if no one followed, except for the pathetic Blair. The global justice and peace movements are so closely linked in their objectives that there is nothing much to say. We should, however, recall that the planners do draw these links, as we should too, in our own different way. They predict that their version of "globalization" will proceed on course, leading to "chronic financial volatility" (meaning still slower growth, harming mostly the poor) "and a widening economic divide" (meaning less globalization in the technical sense of convergence). They predict further that "deepening economic stagnation, political instability, and cultural alienation will foster ethnic, ideological and religious extremism, along with violence," much of it directed against the US -- that is, more terror. Military planners make the same assumptions. That is a good part of the rationale for rapidly increasing military spending, including the plans for militarization of space that the entire world is trying to block, without much hope as long as the matter is kept from the sight of Americans, who have the prime responsibility to stop it. I presume that is why some of the major events of last October were not even reported, among them the US vote at the UN, alone (with Israel), against a resolution calling for reaffirmation of a 1925 Geneva convention banning biological weapons and another resolution strengthening the 1967 Outer Space Treaty to ban use of space for military purposes, including offensive weapons that may well do us all in.

Rio,

Thanks for providing Noam's interview. He's a very insightful author regardless of whether or not one agrees with his opinions.

Regarding the media, I feel it is overall very liberal. What amazes me is that is spite of their liberalism, they never seem to criticaly analyze rheatoric coming out of the White House (whether it be Dems or Repubs in charge). Perhaps fear of getting blacklisted by the White House? I dunno know.

DM... you're right in that the media (in general) isn't Republican nor Democratic but rather pro-whitehouse (Remember that news publications and broadcast media are owned by the same businessmen who wants world economic domination).

On the other hand, Chomsky is neither against Republicans or Democrats. Being a humanist, he's against the anti-American and anti-human policies of the US government, whichever administration it happens to be -- Republican or Democrat.

...and for your information, I am not anti-Bush nor am I pro-Clinton or pro-Gore. For me, chossing between the two parties is like choosing between Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola; they are both bad for your teeth and your health. I am a humanist and therefore pro-human. I am anti-multinationals and anti-globalization (which is becoming clearer each day, that it is detrimental to American workers. What with the transfer of millions of jobs overseas -- not just manufacturing jobs but even high-tech and service oriented jobs). Remember, multi-national corporations have no loyalties to their American shareholders nor employees.

Lets see; Humanist is that the new more pc term for the Socialist Party of Marx and Lennin?

Perhaps if the communist nations had won the cold war you would be able to live in that fantasy world of a workers paradise, but guess what....we won that war.

The U.S. government is not perfect but after traveling around the world like I have, I tend to think that it's the best out there.

Roadglide,

I am pro-USA and if I HAD to be labeled, it would be a conservative democrat. I won't dispute your definition of humanist in a generic sense...

However, I would dispute your second paragraph in response to Riorules. Are you in support of eroding the economic foundation for the american workers in the agriculture and manufacturing industries? Are you in support of encouraging large multinationals to ship jobs to labor markets that are exploitive? are you in favor of allowing unabated illegal workers flowing into this country?

As for your third paragraph, I make the assumption it is your summary based on the preceding sentences. I don't see the connection though. Are you to say that because the USA is the best place to live (I agree), specific issues and/or policies should not be questioned? Does it invalidate others' opinions such a Chomsky? If you look at my numerous posts regarding Bush politics, I often take a neutral or pro stance in relation to others', however there are serious questions that should be asked of Bush, his adminstration, and his judgement. The rights of American blue-collar (for the lack of a better term) have suffered and there are very credible and serious questions facing our "intelligence" now that resulted in 506 american deaths (for which we budget 40 billion a year). If your a globalization advocate, a premise should be that we participate in a global economic community. What regulations are in place to ensure that there is a common legal base for employees/ers within his broad community?

RioRules,

I see I nailed it dead on by saying you guys think Bush is the world's biggest tyrant. Thanks for confirming your position.

I did not see any answer to my question wether you believed that Kadaffi's decision to drop his weapons programs was unrelated to the Hussein ass kicking?

I also did not see any response as to wether you believe the Iraqis are better off without Hussein.

I only see a condescending comment about my un realistic desire to see the world free of tyranical regimes. Of course condescension is typical of the far left.

Once again I point out that the US will not get involved in countries where they do not have a lot of interest. Thats how it works and thats how it always will work.

But philisophically, yes, I would love to see Robert Mugabe get his ass kicked, I would love to see the Saudi Royal family, Musharraf, The Iranian theocrats, and all of the two bit dictators of Africa, the middle east and elsewhere all thrown out of office. I think its a tragedy when the Western democracies pay attention to human rights only when its convenient for their interests. So yes bomb the shit out of the offenders( Speaking of bombing, which president has bombed more countries without UN permission, Clinton or Bush?).

As a realist I know that my philosophical preference for a world without tyranical regimes will never happen. But one can always dream right? After all, it was the dream of socialists for 100 years.

Also, as a realist, I know that the Taliban had to go, Hussein had to go, and the Iranian Theocrats will have to go. Saudia Arabia will have to stop exporting Wahabiism, and the Palestinians will have to accept the right of Israel to exist and agree to two nations. None of this is happening diplomatically. In that part of the world, diplomacy sometimes needs to be backed with the threat of force. The ground rules need to be changed. In part that is what Iraq was all about.

What is your solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism? Is it just ignore it like we did all through the 1990's?

batsterthemadbomber

batster! one of the problem is that many israels dont accept the right for palestinians to live there,it is the israelis bulldozing down the houses of the palestinians.doing that they get people joining the jihad,blowing them self and israels to smitherens.just the way jews did in warzaw when the german s.s troups was sending in tanks into the jewish ghetto.so the palestinians use the same tactic as the jews did 43,44,but different weapons.they had the same way of reasoning.if i have to die why not take some of my enemies with me.the arab islamists will try to blow up or kill of every u.s. or any soldier from an occypying country.for the same reason.iggy sca

Iggy,

Israel has been heavy handed and some of their methods are way too much. There are certain orthodox groups that certainly do not accept the Palestinians, but the majority of the Israeli public is ready to move forward. Their government has said they will accept a Palestinian state.

But Arafat's PLO and Jamas and all of the other Palestinian organizations still refuse to accept the right of Israel to exist as a nation. A right that was given by the most holy revered institution of the left, THE UN.

You are right its a complicated messed up issue. But isn't it odd that Israel has a fairly large Arab population and they are allowed to vote. In fact there are several Arab members of the Knesset. How many Jews are allowed to vote and to be members of Arab governments? How many Jews or Christians are allowed to worship freely in the Arab countries? The fact is that Israel is the most functional democracy in the middle east.

I recently saw a UN study that showed a majority of Palestinians favored a government modeled on Israeli lines as the preferred form of government for a Palestininan state. Unfortunately for them
Arafat is not going to let that happen anytime soon.

It is also interesting that Israel is one of the only countries in the midlle east that will grant a palestinian citizenship. Most of the Arab countries only allow them refugee or resident status. In fact after Gulf War 1, Kuwait kicked out its entire Palestinian population. Its a shame what has happened to the palestinian people, and the suffering they are going through is not right, but they should look at their own and leaders for the source of many of their problems.

I also don't buy into moral equivalence. I dont see the relation between a suicide bomber attacking a bus full of women and children and Israel bulldozing the home of an identified terrorist. It sounds like you know alot about the issue. Maybe you can explain to me the equivalence.

And back to the subject of Islamic radicals, and I mean no offense, don't you think its time that some of these Islamic countries were just a little more tolerant of other peoples and other religions? A little tolerance would go along ways to killing terrorism.

batsterwhoisneitherislamicnorjewish

What if some European Country decided that executing children is barbaric and inhuman (which they do. There are only 3 countries in the whole world that still execute children; the US being the only first world nation). And what if they decided that the only way to stop this is by bombing the US? How would you like this? Of course, you wouldn't like it. You wouldn't want any country medling in how your country is run, would you? This is your country, right? And therefore only Americans can decide who and what their political leaders can or cannot do, Right? So, who gave you the right to decide what is good or not good for other peoples? Isn't this just very evangelical? Talk about condenscending...

Sadam had 12 years to come clean with his WMD's. He was playing a game of high stakes poker by trying to bluff.....We called his bluff, and he lost.

He used WMD's in the 80's against Iran and his own people.

Now that he is out of power, the flow of money to the suicide bombers in Israel has been cut down and there have been fewer bombings.

Batster is right about Kadafi. There is no way he would have given up his WMD program if we had not kicked Sadams ass.

Yes we have had over 500 dead in Iraq, and as having served as a member of the U.S. armed force's it's more than just a number for me.

As for Iran, I remember 1979.

"Sadam had 12 years to come clean with his WMD's. He was playing a game of high stakes poker by trying to bluff.....We called his bluff, and he lost."

-- The US has had WMDs (including nuclear weapons) for more than 50 years and it is the only nation that have used the atomic bomb, twice. It's like the father warning his son about the danger of alcohol while drunk. So, the US can have WMDs (even use them); while Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc, Of course, Israel can have them, too. So, who's the hypocrite.

"He used WMD's in the 80's against Iran and his own people."

-- Yes, this is true. What you forgot (or maybe you didn't know) to say is that these WMDs were supplied by the US and that Saddam's gassing of his own people was done with the blessing of the US government.

In March 1991, right at the end of the Gulf War when the U.S., of course, had total control over the whole area, there was a rebellion in the south, a major rebellion, a Shi'ite rebellion, which could well have overthrown the Saddam, probably would have, except for the fact that the U.S. authorized Saddam to use his air force helicopters, planes, to devastate the resistance.  In fact, there were probably more people killed then, more civilians, than during the war.

Saddam Hussein was authorized to suppress, brutally, the 1991 uprising that might have overthrown him because "the best of all worlds" for Washington would be "an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein" (by then an embarrassment), which would rule the country with an "iron fist" as Saddam had done with US support and approval (NYT chief diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman). The uprising would have left the country in the hands of Iraqis who might not have subordinated themselves sufficiently to Washington.

The murderous sanctions regime of the following years devastated the society, strengthened the tyrant, and compelled the population to rely for survival on his (highly efficient) system for distributing basic goods. The sanctions thus undercut the possibility of the kind of popular revolt that had overthrown an impressive series of other monsters who had been strongly supported by the current incumbents in Washington up to the very end of their bloody rule: Marcos, Duvalier, Ceausescu, Mobutu, Suharto, and a long list of others, some of them easily as tyrannical and barbaric as Saddam. Had it not been for the sanctions, Saddam probably would have gone the same way, as has been pointed out for years by the Westerners who know Iraq best, Denis Halliday and Hans van Sponeck (though one has to go to Canada, England, or elsewhere to find their writings). But overthrow of the regime from within would not be acceptable either, because it would leave Iraqis in charge. The Azores summit merely reiterated that stand.

batster!
i dont think i said it was moral equivalent blowing civilians to kingdom come.we shall not forget that israel has nothing against killing civilians if they think it will gain their agenda.it s been done in different cities in europe oslo (norway) witch they admitted 20 years later.during formation of their country a few u.n.soldiers were killed. by the "stern gang".some of that gang later landed inthe government.
in claiming that they only tear down houses inhabiting terrorist is a rather weak argument they have been teard down mostly to make room for settlers.under the pretencene that they didnt had israel government approval to be built,problem was they where built long before the territories where occupied by israel settlers.in germany they called it "lebensraum".
i know there is quite big arabian population in israel and they are israel citizens and so on.
i agree whole heartedly with you on the issue about the arabian countries.they ought to be a heck more openminded about other religious directions,buddism,catolics (asa belivers).
iggysca.whobelievesinthor&odenandsärimner

Riorules is a known anti-American, America basher, and a member of the "blame America first" crowd. He has proven this many times on this website.

Talking politics on this site is a waste of time. It is a bastion of liberalism and hysterical thought. You can write as much as want, post as many articles to support your position you want, and post as many gay, moveon.org "Bush is Hitler" stupid-ass images you want, but in the end, nothing that is said on here matters and you aren't solving shit so stop wasting your time.

(Message edited by aldaron on January 30, 2004)

Riorules -

I appreciate the anti-globalization arguments (although i disagree with them) and I also agree that sanctions, like those on Iraq, Cuba, Myanmar, et.c often hurt civilians more than their government. I guess my issue is this:

How can you support, at the same time, an anti-globalization agenda AND an anti-sanctions agenda?

The less globalized we are, the less dependent we are on foreign goods, services, culture, etc. While the anti-globalists point to the evil of multinationals as the source of the issues, its really about an economic argument that countries are better off producing higher cost goods internally (thus producing jobs) rather than importing them more cheaply (and exporting jobs). If we are more self sufficient, sanctions don't really hurt because even without them, trade barriers and subsidies would make these foreign goods irrelevant. The Iraqis would enjoy delicious dinners of grapes and olives washed down with some premium unleaded while Yanks would be stuck with genetically altered steaks and mcdonalds. Mmmm, I'm lovin' it!

Also remember, if there are any countries on the planet that win with globalization, its the OPEC nations and others with rich resources. And, its countries like France with essentially no remaining core competencies, save maybe steel, that lose. Funny then, that they're seemingly the most vocal anti-globalists.

And, to answer your question, I'm not Thomas L. Friedman and I don't work for the NYTimes.

Sorry, I forgot to put Chomsky's name after the quote. Here it goes again:

"In March 1991, right at the end of the Gulf War when the U.S., of course, had total control over the whole area, there was a rebellion in the south, a major rebellion, a Shi'ite rebellion, which could well have overthrown the Saddam, probably would have, except for the fact that the U.S. authorized Saddam to use his air force helicopters, planes, to devastate the resistance.  In fact, there were probably more people killed then, more civilians, than during the war.

Saddam Hussein was authorized to suppress, brutally, the 1991 uprising that might have overthrown him because "the best of all worlds" for Washington would be "an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein" (by then an embarrassment), which would rule the country with an "iron fist" as Saddam had done with US support and approval (NYT chief diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman). The uprising would have left the country in the hands of Iraqis who might not have subordinated themselves sufficiently to Washington.

The murderous sanctions regime of the following years devastated the society, strengthened the tyrant, and compelled the population to rely for survival on his (highly efficient) system for distributing basic goods. The sanctions thus undercut the possibility of the kind of popular revolt that had overthrown an impressive series of other monsters who had been strongly supported by the current incumbents in Washington up to the very end of their bloody rule: Marcos, Duvalier, Ceausescu, Mobutu, Suharto, and a long list of others, some of them easily as tyrannical and barbaric as Saddam. Had it not been for the sanctions, Saddam probably would have gone the same way, as has been pointed out for years by the Westerners who know Iraq best, Denis Halliday and Hans van Sponeck (though one has to go to Canada, England, or elsewhere to find their writings). But overthrow of the regime from within would not be acceptable either, because it would leave Iraqis in charge. The Azores summit merely reiterated that stand."

--Noam Chomsky

"except for the fact that the U.S. authorized Saddam to use his air force helicopters, planes, to devastate the resistance."

During the General's surrender meeting, at the last minute one Iraqi General asked, "since our roads and bridges are destroyed, can we use helicopters to get around the country?" Without thinking through the repercussions, Schwartzcroft agreed, never envisioning helicopter gunships. The Shiite rebellion had not even started afterall. More blatant lies from the left. Oh yeah... and we went there for the oil and that's why we are there now.. etc., etc., nevermind the fact that if we wanted the oil we could have had it in 1991. It's always "blame America first" forgetting that the fucker killed millions of Iraqis, Iranians, and Kuwaitis.

That's about as deep as I'm going. This topic sucks on a WHORE MONGERING website.

Aldaron...

I just want to remind you that CH is not just about sex -- although for some people, it is the only thing in their heads. There are some people here (especially on this thread) that wants to have a friendly exchange with regards their opinions on matters that are political. Who are you to tell us that it is a waste time?

So if you have anything to say to counter my post, please just post it. But please, do not get personal. I do not even know you, nor you, me.

Join a newsgroup. You have too much time on your hands constantly dwelling on this shit.