|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-05 12:46:52
On Powell's upcoming speech, Feb. 5, 2003 An article in the L.A. Times says it all.
Robert Scheer:
Only by Swallowing Big Lies Can Powell Justify a War
We know in advance that Colin Powell's performance will be flawless. His military career has prepared him well to execute the orders of his commander in chief, no matter what his doubts as to their morality, efficacy or logic. Making a seamless case for preemptive war on Iraq to the United Nations, the secretary of State can draw on his decade of wartime experience in which he publicly justified the deaths of more than a million Vietnamese, tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Laotians and Cambodians.
It took two decades for Powell, in his autobiography "My American Journey," to acknowledge that all the destruction brought down upon Indochina by the U.S. was based on an uneducated, unfocused and enormously costly policy that he and other military leaders had known to be "bankrupt."
But duty, apparently, required they not tell the public the truth.
"War should be the politics of last resort. And when we go to war, we should have a purpose that our people understand and support," he wrote, summarizing Vietnam's lessons.
Does anybody outside of the extremist claque of think-tank warriors bending the president's ear really think we are at the point of "last resort" with Iraq, a poor country half a world away that is already divvied up into "no-fly" zones, crawling with U.N. inspectors and still shattered economically and militarily from two previous wars? Or that the American people, so divided and apathetic in polls on the subject, "understand and support" why we would start a firestorm in Baghdad and then send our young men and women to fight in its streets?
Regardless of Saddam Hussein's record of cruelty and regional power ambitions, as a military man Powell should be employing a straightforward equation: Does the target pose a direct threat to U.S. security? In the case of Iraq in 2003, the answer can be yes only if Powell is prepared to swallow a trio of Big Lies, the first of which is that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction that pose a real threat to the U.S. or our allies.
"There is no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s," said the U.N.'s chief nuclear weapons inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei.
Less clear is whether Iraq has made at least token efforts to replenish stocks of biological and chemical weapons. In any case, Iraq can deliver payloads only to regional enemies, and the most likely target, Israel, is armed with nuclear weapons.
However, Powell has gone way beyond these facts, claiming U.N. inspectors found that Iraq was concealing and moving illicit material. The U.N.'s chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, categorically denied this in an interview last week with the New York Times, part of a comprehensive rebuke to White House exploitation and media misinterpretation of his balanced, dispassionate report.
Similarly, Powell and the president have employed an irresponsible pattern of exaggeration and innuendo in an attempt to link Iraq to Al Qaeda. This shameful canard molds a few extremely fuzzy and circumstantial bits of proto-evidence into an absurdly convenient "proof" that taking over Iraq will help prevent anti-American terrorism.
In a New York Times report Sunday, sources inside U.S. intelligence agencies "said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network," they were upset that "the intelligence is obviously being politicized" and that "we've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there." Blix also said there was no evidence Iraq had or planned to supply weapons to Al Qaeda.
All of which brings us to the most outrageous Big Lie of the Bush administration: that delaying an invasion to wait for the U.N. to complete inspections would endanger the U.S. The fact is that for more than a decade the military containment of Iraq has effectively neutered Hussein, and there is no reason to believe that can't continue.
Of course, there is a case to be made for keeping up pressure on Iraq to cooperate further with the U.N. It is, however, counterproductive to transparently lie to a skeptical world and immoral to denigrate the inspection process because we are afraid it will undermine our cobbled-together rationale for going to war.
As Powell knows from his Vietnam experience, lies have a way of catching up with you. Years from now, if the U.S. is still spending billions trying to micromanage the Middle East and reaping its rewards in blood, Bush will be marked indelibly, like Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon before him, as a leader who went to war on a lie.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-06 12:57:07
Talk about propoganda and lies.
Lie #1: self-dubbed "peace" activists want the inspections to continue. But, these inspections were non-existant until the US military deployed to the Persian Gulf in a massive way. So, only the threat of military action brought inspectors back to Iraq. If we dialogued with Iraq, inspectors would never be there.
Lie #2: The rationale for war is not cobbled together. It is the result of careful and considered planning as a result of an attack against not just any building (WTC), but a structure of immense symbolic value in our culture.
Lie #3: Bathists like Saddam and religious fanatics like Osamma could never be in league together. Saddam's speeches are laced with religious references, though admittedly his ambitions are more Arabic in focus, not Islamic. But they have a common enemy that each thinks is clearly a greater threat than each other.
Bush may have blood on his hands one day.
But the "do-nothings" will have blood on their hands should any group get their hands on bio/chemical weapons thanks to Iraq or ANY other state sponsor, and bring death to any innocents.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-06 15:49:56
cfallon, are you implying that Iraq had something to do with the attack on the WTC? If so, you are badly mistaken. In spite of the Bush administration's persistent attempts to link the WTC event with Iraq, no link has been found. This has been stated on numerous occasions and so I am surprised that someone who is obviously as well read as you seem to be, would imply that such is the case. A USA Today article dated Feb.6,2003 states "evidenc of Iraq's links to al-Qaeda was played up (in Colin Powell's speech to the UN) despite CIA and FBI officials' charges that evidence is fragmentary and inconclusive and that the administration is exaggerating information to make a political case for war."
Yes, I am sure that Bush will have blood on his hands one day, as you say, but I would greatly prefer that Canada did not join in these atrocities the US administration is advocating.
What, in your opinion, is the danger in continuing UN weapons inspectons? Why not do as France suggests and put in more inspectors until the US is satisfied? Unfortunately, I think we all know that more inspectors would not lead to US corporations getting control of Iraq's vast oilfields. Sad, very sad.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-07 11:57:51
Marl,
I am not implying a direct connection. I know of none. I don't think its terribly important.
I am against prolonging inspections because I am against prolonging sanctions. Sanctions are the great weapon of mass destruction.
You can't lift sanctions under the current Iraqi regime because the minute you do, Saddam will be procuring his evil little pleasures only to unleash them on Tel Aviv or his Kurdish subjects.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-07 12:33:41
cfallon, I wondered if you had read the latest on the outright propaganda the US and British governments are using to win support for this war. Apparently, some of the most damning information that Colin Powell used in his speech to the UN on Feb. 6 was written 12 years ago by a university graduate student and pertained to conditions in Iraq before the last Gulf War. It makes one wonder just how low the warmongers will stoop to bring about a world holocaust. By the way, the deaths that have occurred in Iraq under Saddam Hussein will pale in numbers to the deaths that will be inflicted by the bombing campaign of the US and UK on Baghdad, if they are allowed to go ahead.
Here is an excerpt from one newspaper re: the plagiarized material.
Downing St dossier plagiarised
Iraq
Published: 6 February 2003
Reporter: Julian Rush
The government's carefully co-ordinated propaganda offensive took an embarrassing hit tonight after Downing Street was accused of plagiarism.
Read sample of the accused plagiarised text
The target is an intelligence dossier released on Monday and heralded by none other than Colin Powell at the UN yesterday.
Channel Four News has learnt that the bulk of the nineteen page document was copied from three different articles - one written by a graduate student.
On Monday, the day before the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell addressed the UN, Downing Street published its latest paper on Iraq.
It gives the impression of being an up to the minute intelligence-based analysis - and Mr Powell was fulsome in his praise.
Published on the Number 10 web site, called "Iraq - Its Infrastructure of Concealment Deception and Intimidation", it outlines the structure of Saddam's intelligence organisations.
But it made familiar reading to Cambridge academic Glen Ranwala. It was copied from an article last September in a small journal: the Middle East Review of International Affairs.
It's author, Ibrahim al-Marashi, a postgraduate student from Monterey in California. Large sections do indeed appear, verbatim.
A section, for example, six paragraphs long, on Saddam's Special Security Organisation, the exact same words are in the Californian student's paper.
In several places Downing Street edits the originals to make more sinister reading.
Number 10 says the Mukhabarat - the main intelligence agency - is "spying on foreign embassies in Iraq".
The original reads: "monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq."
And the provocative role of "supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes" has a weaker, political context in the original: "aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes."
Even typographic mistakes in the original articles are repeated.
Of military intelligence, al-Marashi writes in his original paper:
"The head of military intelligence generally did not have to be a relative of Saddam's immediate family, nor a Tikriti. Saddam appointed, Sabir Abd Al-Aziz Al-Duri as head..." Note the comma after appointed.
Downing Street paraphrases the first sentence: "Saddam appointed, Sabir 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Duri as head during the 1991 Gulf War."
This second line is cut and pasted, complete with the same grammatical error.
plagiarism is regarded as intellectual theft.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-07 13:46:20
marl,
actually I hadn't read that and agree, its quite disturbing. The very least we should expect of our leaders is being forthright.
However, I ask that you peruse His Excellency President Saddam Hussein's CV as posted on the United Nations Permanent Mission homepage for Iraq. Talk about propaganda!!!
Personal:
Born on April 28, 1937, in Tikrit, the seat of the Saladdin Province where he finished his primary school.
Married with five children: two boys and three girls.
Academic:
Escaped to Syria and thence to Egypt where he completed his secondary school studies in 1962.
Admitted into the College of Law in Cairo and attended in the period 1962-1963.
Having completed his third and fourth year of studies, following the July 17th Revolution, he obtained a graduate degree from the College of Law.
On February 1, 1976, he was awarded a Master of Art Honors Degree in Military Science together with the Staff Degree.
In 1984, the University of Baghdad awarded him Honorary Doctorate in Law.
Political Career:
Joined the Arab Baath Socialist Party (A.B.S.P) in 1956
Arrested and imprisoned for six months, while he was a secondary school student, over the years 1958 and 1959 for his political activities against the regime at the time. He took part in the revolutionary operation against the dictator Abdul-Karim Qassim who was Prime Minister in 1959. The operation resulted in the dictator receiving several shots. Saddam Hussein was wounded in the leg as a result a shot fired from a bodyguard.
Sentenced to death in absentia on February 25, 1960.
Returned to Iraq after the 14th of Ramadhan Revolution (February 8) 1963.
Discontinued his studies at the college, when in 1963 he had to return to Baghdad to lead the revolutionary struggle against the reactionary draconian regime that had previously toppled the Baath Government.
He was not spared by the round-up campaign waged by the authorities that began on September 4, 1964. He was arrested on October 14, 1963, with charges relating to his leadership of the Baath Party's struggle against the backward regime.
While he was under arrest, he completed and passed his first year studies at the College of Law.
Elected as member of the Baath Party's Pan-Arab National Leadership in 1965 while still under arrest.
In September 1966, he was elected Deputy-Secretary General of the Baath Party Leadership in Iraq.
Escaped from prison in 1967, to resume the leadership of the Baath Party struggle. He was once again obliged to discontinue his studies because he was chased by the secret police.
On July 17,1968, mounting the first tank that besieged the headquarter (the Presidential Palace) of the head of the regime, he led a group of Party members that forced their way into the palace in order to overthrow the reactionary regime. Saddam Hussein played a leading and key role in planning and then carrying out the Revolution that day.
On July 30, 1968, he was personally in charge of a swift operation to purge the new government of the July 17 Revolution of certain of the old regime's figures, who for purely tactical reasons, cooperated with the Baath Party revolutionaries.
He all but officially undertook the role of Vice-Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council as early as July 1968; but was constitutionally elected for the post of Vice-Chairman on November 9, 1969.
On June 1, 1972, he led the process of nationalizing Western oil companies that had the monopoly of Iraq's oil.
On July 1, 1974, he was dubbed the rank of Lieutenant General and awarded the Rafidain Order, First Class (of Military type).
He played a principle role in formulating and implementing the Autonomy Law for the Kurdish citizens on March 11, 1974.
On October 8, 1977, he was elected Assistant Secretary General of the National Pan-Arab Leadership of the Baath Party.
Presidential Career:
On July 16, 1979, he was elected Secretary General of the Regional Leadership of the Baath Party in Iraq, Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, and President of the Republic of Iraq.
On July 17, 1979, President Saddam Hussein was promoted to the rank of Field Marshal.
On October 8, 1979, he was elected Deputy Secretary General of the National Pan-Arab Leadership of the Baath Party.
On September 4, 1980, President Saddam Hussein led the Iraqi people and the Army wisely and bravely against the aggression initiated and launched against Iraq by Ayatollah Khomeini's regime. The war ended in Iraq's great victory on August 8, 1988.
On July 30, 1983, he was dubbed the Revolution Order First Class.
On April 28, 1988, he was dubbed the Order of the people.
President Saddam Hussein actively led the modernization of the Iraq economy, urging the construction of various developed industries and following their administration and execution. He also supervised the modernization of Iraq's countryside, the mechanization of agriculture, and the distribution of land to farmers. He effected a comprehensive revolution in energy industries as well as in public services such as transportation and education. He also initiated and led the National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy and the implementation of Compulsory and Free Education in Iraq.
Led his country in confronting the aggression launched by 33 countries led by the US that waged war against Iraq. The Iraqis' confrontation that is called by Arabs and Iraqis 'The Mother of all Battles' (Um Al-Maarik), is where Iraq stood strong against the invasion, maintaining its sovereignty and political system.
Published Works:
President Saddam Hussein has published several works in the intellectual, political, economic, military, social, and educational fields. They are available in translation from Arabic in the basic world languages.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-07 14:36:15
Yes, I agree that this document also is an example of disinformation. Let me assure you, I do not, for one minute, think that Saddam Hussein is an honorable, just, and worthy leader of his people. However, you seem to mistake my intent in providing the document regarding the UK dossier. The UK dossier was presented to the UN for theh express purpose of persuading nations of the need to attack another sovereign nation. Saddam Hussein, in posting his biography, is not attempting to unite forces to attack another country. So, I think we can agree that his so-called biography falls within the realm of fantasy rather than propaganda. I fail to find a reason to bomb the Iraquis into oblivion just because they have a leader the western world disapproves of. I'm sure you would agree that throughout this world there are many leaders that westerners feel the world would be better off without.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-08 12:43:13
Yes, I do agree: there are many dictators and despots that us westerners could do without.
What separates Saddam from the rest is:
1) The immense purchasing power of Iraq.
2) Clear desire to expand the Iraqi sphere of influence, through military means.
His ethnic cleansing does not distinguish him from the others, Mugabe et al are just as happy to remake their countries in their own ethnic vision.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-09 22:45:53
Just by way of countering the accepted wisdom...this was in the New York Times of Jan.31, 2003
A War Crime or an Act of War?
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE
ECHANICSBURG, Pa. — It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.
But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
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.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.
I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.
In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.
We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.
Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.
Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades — not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.
All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition — thanks to United Nations sanctions — Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.
Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.
Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?
Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: YvonLattrapé
Date: 2003-02-06 23:11:09
Cfallon,
I totally agree with you. George W. Bush is a great humanist, and his only goal is to preserve social justice and universal peace.
He is also a man who keeps his promises: on this, his record as Governor of Texas tells a lot, especially when we remember that he fulfilled his promise to increase the number of executions. In less than 5 years, and because Mr. Bush's effectiveness, 156 individuals got executed in Texas. So I'm not worried: Bush doesn't mind at all getting blood on his hands when it is for a good cause, and he will make sure that thousands of potential terrorist will be killed during the upcoming war against Saddam Hussein, who really personifies The Evil. Just think: if ever Saddam is eliminated, like these 156 killers who were executed in Texas under G.W. Bush's care, another killer would disappear from the surface of the Earth. Wouldn't that be great?
Those who want to preserve liberty must be, any time, ready to kill if ever it was necessary. That is exactly why George W. Bush is a hero. And we must support him, because he wants to make gentle the life of this world. For the sake of world peace, let's dedicate ourselves to the fight for the good cause with George W. Bush as our supreme Captain.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-06 23:56:37
Yvonn, I am not sure if you are satirizing here but just thought I would post this for your perusal as it is difficult to believe that anyone would actually applaud the actions of this unthinking man as "humanist"
Texas Justice
Under Governor George W. Bush, Texas ranked first in executions and dead last in social services. Bush opposed legislation banning the execution of people with IQs under 65 and legislation providing funding for the basic legal defense of indigent people. Instead Bush signed off on 152 executions, in what has been described as an "assembly-line" death penalty process. In a 1998 report, Amnesty International stated that ""at every step in the death penalty process in Texas, a litany of grossly inadequate legal procedures fail to meet recognized minimum international standards for the protection of human rights."
Many of these inmates had attorneys that were clearly incompetent, even falling asleep during the trial. According to the Washington Post, "With few public defender offices in Texas, most indigent defendants must rely on court-appointed lawyers. Interviews with lawyers and other experts, as well as a review of 16 Texas death penalty cases, revealed instances in which lawyers in capital trials slept though key testimony, failed to file crucial legal papers correctly or on time, or had been cited for professional misconduct repeatedly in their careers."
Even when presented with evidence of possible innocence, George W. Bush refused to show mercy to any of the 152 dead. In fact, Bush has said that he doesn't need to study the evidence, that he trusts the mechanizations of the system, a system that has proven to be seriously flawed.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-07 11:25:33
Yvon is definetely satirizing.
But, I do not feel compelled to defend Bush's record as Texas governor. I am in no way a supporter of capital punishment, which strikes me as a barbaric institution.
However, we should not be touting the number of executed in Texas under his governorship. Afterall, Saddam has of course killed many multiples of that number and mostly for not having the right ethnic profile for his version of Iraq.
I urge you to visit the Iraqi Permanent Mission to the UN website for a sampling of Saddam's thoughts.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: YvonLattrapé
Date: 2003-02-11 23:53:12
Dear Marl,
I think you don't understant that G.W. Bush, the leader of the Free World, the Champion of Human Rights, the man who is perceived as a real terror by the Evil, did all these great things in Texas because he was sure that, as he publicly said once, God welcomes in Heaven the innocents who might get executed by the Texas Justice system, which is certainly a fate that is much better than living on this planet. This tells alot on Mr. Bush's genuine and deep humanism and great generosity. That's another reason why I admire so much this amazing President of the Free World.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-09 14:11:16
You guys just don't get it, do you?
"There is no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s," said the U.N.'s chief nuclear weapons inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei.
That isn't the problem. The problem is that Iraq has provided no evidence that its WMD program no longer exist. Give me 4 years, a country the size of California where I have the country in a state of terrified obedience, and I will be able to hide virtually anything. Any idiot could. Today, after Iraq said they had fully complied, and given the inspectors all their documents, they give them more regarding VX, and anthrax. I guess they just plum forgot about them eh?
And by your logic, I guess that we shouldn't have sent troops over in WWII, since there was no immediate threat to us. After all the war was over in Europe right, not here. I can understand the desire to avoid war, but it should not be clouding the reasoning process as much as it is.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: vandoo
Date: 2003-02-14 19:51:02
following your line of thought the Un inspectors are blind and stupid. I fully agree that Iraq has not fully complied with the UN. Altough Saddam is a dictator and a danger to other countries, why should he not be allowed his own WMD, Bush and the americans have thiers and thier just as dangerous to other countries.As to yopur remark about WWII, we went in to protect democracy, What will we be protecting if we go to war with Iraq, American Big Business interest.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-18 23:35:21
You completely miss my point. I was saying that no matter how good the inspections, or how smart they are, they will never find more than some careless loose strings left around (as has been done).
The Americans have had WMDs for decades, and have proven to be trustworthy with them. In WWII they were used, but that was a completely different administration. You can't hold the current one accountable for that. On the other hand, the current regime in Iraq has used them. That's why he shouldn't be allowed to have them.
We will also be protecting democracy if we invade Iraq, and more importantly, our security and peace of mind. I wish people would stop using the ridiculous argument that the war is about American big business or oil. There is no evidence to support this, only far fetched theories and links. Conspiracy theories seem to be believed by more people than rational thinking and factual information. Wonders never cease.
Reply to this message
|
|
