|
Participant: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-29 17:08:19
It has been revealed by Richard Haass, policy-planning chief at the US State Department that this war has been in the works since July 2002. Even earlier than that it was reported that President Bush, to Condoleeza Rice in the presence of three Senators, in March 2002, said “(expletive deleted) Saddam. We’re taking him out.” General Tommy Franks, Chief of Central Command in Iraq, commented that Iraqi tactics would only surprise him if he had not had a year to prepare. For all of these see http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1048313198029.
I’ll add to this slumgullion various other bits of meat culled from here and there.
The assertion by some in Israel that the US is going to add Iran and Syria to the conflict (or they will add themselves, I’m sure it doesn’t matter to Israel precisely how it occurs) and now Rumsfeld’s belligerent warning to Syria.
The slowly accumulating opinion that a significant part of the motive behind the US’s planning and execution of this conflict has to do with maintaining the US dollar as the international currency in oil. See http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout4.php&id=795&blz=1
Add the http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html and the near verbatim repetition of its aims in currently available policy articulations at http://www.state.gov (although it can take some searching to find them, they seem to move around).
Here’s the thing, the nub, and the crux:
I have come to believe that the Bush administration assertions that the war is going to plan are absolutely correct. I believe this because I no longer think that this war is about Iraq. I’ve come to the frightening conclusion that it’s about the domination of the entire Middle East. Furthermore it’s now too late to do anything about it. The pin is out of the grenade and we’ve got another bloody century to look forward to.
If I am right what should our foreign policy response be? Can we afford, either culturally or economically to sit the whole thing out? Would we be able to, even if we wanted to?
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Deidden
Date: 2003-03-29 21:44:41
Personally, I'm not surprised at all. I foresaw war as soon as Bush stepped up to the presidential podium. I have my suspicions that Bush allowed pre 9/11 warnings to be unnoticed in order to consolidate the nation into war. War and hatred, as we’ve seen in the past, is an incredible irrational political vice, with incredible psychological provocations.
While I am not saddened at the thought of having Saddam off the political landscape, I believe fundamental questions must be asked by the public at large. Why Iraq and not other countries who have perennially violated human rights in a much more severe way than Saddam’s regime? Why attack a country with dubious WMDs and ignore countries that have both admitted possessing WMDs and expressed contempt for the U.S.? Can we permit the U.S. to make such blatant aggressions against sovereign states without provocation, something the U.N. has sought to prevent since WWII?
In other words, I’d like to have the public properly informed of such issues. It should be mandatory in high schools to educate students over American Foreign Policy, especially in the Middle East. If people are going to protest either in favour for war, or against it, they should at the very least be informed. There is nothing worse than having a great number of people gregariously huddled together and acting out of sequacity.
Anyways, I’ve read somewhere that the war on Iraq was contemplated sometime in 1997, prior to the expulsion of inspectors in 1997 and 1998, as Iraqi officials claimed that some of the inspectors were “American spies”. Makes you wonder.
I do not doubt that many at the White House aspire to a certain ideology of dominating the Middle East. If it were to be ‘secured’ it would enable the country to profit for years, maintaining its supremacy over the rest of the world. That is no doubt the main reason why they did not ratify the Kyoto Accord and endorce the International Criminal Court.
Regardless, the events are in motion. As you’ve said, the pin is pulled and the grenade has been tossed into an ammunitions building.
Out of principle, in regards to the U.N., we should not participate whatsoever with the coalition forces. It is clearly an illegal operation. While I do not hold any particular affinity with Saddam Hussein, I feel that, like any other ‘survivor’, he will do ‘whatever it takes’ in order to preserve himself. In other words, he’ll cause as much damage to his country to win a political war. Aside principles, the cost of the war is too much in order to facilitate a ‘regime change’. Not only will immediate casualties be terribly enormous, but also the region will be destabilized. This is where I differ in opinion. I do not believe that Rumsfeld et al. can foresee the future. I do not believe that they’ve anticipated certain factors in the war (otherwise, they wouldn’t have altered/stalled their war plan as we have seen).
While they can delude themselves into thinking that the Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq view the U.S. as liberators, they will find the country fragmented into bitter, quarreling factions, bent for supremacy of the country. Iraq will be pulled into a regional war that may last decades, leaving the coalition forces in the middle. Sound familiar? I hope so.
This was a tremendous gamble made by the U.S. senior administration. However, they have failed. They have failed because they underestimated their opponents, and relied on a best scenario as being an inevitable outcome.
On a different matter, our lack of military support does not mean that we should ignore foreign matters entirely. I believe we should be generous with foreign aid. However, that does not mean that we should be blind and frivolous with such programs. I believe that we must research where our aid would be of the most benefit. We should also send in specialists to monitor how effective the funding is (i.e. doctors, engineers, anthropologists, etc.). Lastly, we should also incorporate 'follow-up' programs months and years down the road to be able to detect the differences the aid has made. That way, we can determine what works and what doesn't, and develop better strategies in the future.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-29 21:47:24
I was hoping it was my paranoia that was leading me along the same lines. Not sure if I am ready to look for more proof. I keep remembering an article I read several months ago. It was revealed that Thomas Edison predicted the war of all wars to end the world in 2040. It was noted, that this was strange as he was not one to be tied to a date. I don't usually pay attention to these doomsday predictors but somehow that one has stuck in my mind.
You didn't say it but if one comes to that belief; that the USA administration has hopes to control the middle east; can Canada or the rest of the world be far behind. It is my fear, now that they are the only super power; some leader could go too far.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-30 04:33:59
"...Department that this war has been in the works since July 2002. "
I think it all depends from who's perspective, no? If the Pentangon created a scenario on the invasion of Iraq, it does not cause me much problems, as their job is to create scenarios of wars... But if this scenario was created after an order which came from the white house, then yes, the opinion of people who said the war would happen no matter what were right.
My personal opinion is that they want to remodel the middle-east as well as having a strong military presence in the area...
I don't think Canada can do anything, it should be up to the UN to do something, i had some hope someone would present a resolution against this war, there is nothing, zilch... The UN , as most countries have not passed the test... The wolrd is an utter failure.
And if this war spreads throughout the middle-east, the worst part, contrary to World War II, it will not be a war good vs evil, but more like WWI, bad vs bad...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-30 18:36:54
I was reading an article this morning that said just that; that GW Bush did say that he was going to take care of Saddam soon after he took office; he was advised to hold off for a year. I must start documenting my sources better. I do remember Rice was mentioned as being present. Will try to verify source
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-30 05:50:12
You know, i now have real pity for Tony Blair, since he has also lost this war. He wanted to make sure the US would go through multilateral institutions for rebuilding Iraq, and this does not seem to be case.... Even though i did not agree at all with Mr. Blair's opinion, he does believe in what he is doing, and I'm sure he's not there for geo-strategic reasons...
A Quote from the Guardian
(www.guardian.co.uk):
"Jay Garner, the retired US general who will oversee humanitarian relief and reconstruction in postwar Iraq, is president of an arms company ..."
The US government is *COMPLETELY* crazy!!! Its like they actually wanted an Arab population revolt!!! Their reasoning is childlike and destructive... I simply cannot believe this...!!! You don't name the president of a weapons company as rebuilder of Iraq! I'm usually moderate in my criticism but now i must say that the US is going to their own destruction, and fast, if they don't change attitudes... I just hope its not true.
We'll see if the roadmap regarding the Palestinian State is actually published (it was supposed to be published when
the palestinian prime minister was appointed, that was two weeks ago..)
p.s : This is bad... I'm becoming more and more biased...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: jwitt
Date: 2003-03-30 17:45:09
Your not alone, I'm having a hard time staying unbiased and even keeled as well. Certain indications suggest to me that Banquos theory may have some merits, but I'm comforted by the fact that current US troop deployments don't suggest a pending move on Syria or Iran. It seems they have seriously under estimated the force required to subdue Saddam, let alone take on Syria and Iran as well. However, my sense is that things could easily escalate beyond the borders of Iraq.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-30 05:56:20
Regarding, my last post, I'm quite confused, since on the other hand, Mr. Blair has just indicated that all oil from Iraq will be under UN supervision.... We'll see if this is true or not.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-30 16:26:28
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html
Here's a link to Josh Marshall's article about what he has come to believe about his country's plans vis a vis the Middle East. He also can be read daily at http://talkingpointsmemo.com/ and is worth the time.
The US is going to have to borrow massive amounts of money to finance this war. From whom? Essentially from the countries who have declined to participate in "the coalition of the willing" that's who.
Any room to maneuver there?
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-31 03:40:26
Thanks!! That was a very good article, and this article scares me even more! Everything could go wrong so quickly!
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: jwitt
Date: 2003-03-31 19:49:49
That article is an interesting read. I don't know how the US will finance this. The last Gulf War was bankrolled by Japan, Germany and the House of Saud. This could easily precipitate an economic as well as an humanitarian catastrophe.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-01 22:46:03
Thanks for the link, banquosghost. Sad but not shocking. I have read a lot of Ramsey Clark's views. Very much like this. Since the war is happening whether we like it or not; I wish I could believe that the coalition knew what they are doing and that it will bring peace to Iraq or diminish threats of terrorism or accomplish anything good; but I just cannot see anything positive coming out of this war.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-30 16:58:49
Tony is finished. He's increasingly seen at home as having been gamed by the Bush administration. The Labour Party will have to either jettison him or convince him to a very public mea culpa and bring the troops home. Which is what Robin Cook, former Foreign Sec'y is saying today, bring them home and stop participating in this bllody and unjustified war.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-30 21:22:20
..."It has been revealed by Richard Haass, policy-planning chief at the US State Department that this war has been in the works since July 2002"...
banquosghost, Just to clear up one point, the planning for Saddam’s removal did not start with Bush Jr. in 2002, it started with Clinton in 1998 when weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq. Regime change was already a goal of U.S. policy at that point; Bush is merely continuing that policy and 9/11 has become an incentive not to procrastinate on Saddam's removal.
Some here are blaming Bush for not connecting the dots on 9/11, well the dots are again assembling for Saddam and the U.S. is not going to let them connect this time.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-31 10:27:41
No. The US/WK moves at the UN are ethically vacant because the UN is an ethically vacant forum.
Tony Blair is not in the danger you think, Banquo.
Right now, the pro-Saddam lobby in Canada feels triumphant because they have kept Canada out of this war - but this won't last.
Our government's soundbites played so well on Iraqi TV that there is no doubt why Iraqi resistance is so strong: "Even Canada, the Great SAtan's neighbour hates the American bastards..."
Canada has attached itself to a model of the world that was false the minute it was built. When the UN applied sanctions to Iraq - the US bore the brunt of the blame. UN authorization would not have mollified the legion who hate US power. The US is in a lose-lose situation.
Canada assisted in creating this lose-lose situation and as such, assisted the propaganda war of Saddam.
We should have kept up with "containment"? Well, only 2 countries were actually doing the containing. Meanwhile, our new allies, France and Russia sell arms to Iraq to help the regime shoot its people down.
(What are the chances that two errant US missles happen to both hit markets? Pretty slim.)
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-31 13:18:02
"Tony Blair is not in the danger you think, Banquo. "
It depends on how the US will rebuild Iraq,if the US goes at it alone or if they don't reveal the quartet's palestinian-israel peace plan... Tony Blair will be in danger, several British analysts have said so, and i'm pretty sure they are right.
I won't comment the rest of your post since its an emotional response! :) But i also have emotional responses sometimes!
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-31 20:00:03
"Right now, the pro-Saddam lobby in Canada feels triumphant because they have kept Canada out of this war - but this won't last."
Pro-Saddam lobby, huh?
Up until now I hadn't thought you were being either deliberately obtuse or deliberately inflammatory but I've changed my mind. With the inclusion of that phrase I think you're being both.
However, if the world appears to you to be as simple mindedly black and white as your use of that phrase would indicate then I'll respond to you no more.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-01 11:51:29
I am a simple minded person, I admit that. My response is emotional, this I'll admit to as well. I am deliberately inflammatory. And I don't feel that you need answer me.
Here's black and white simplicity for you:
Before 9/11, the Bush administration walked out of Kyoto and developped their "continental" energy plan. the aim of the plan was, in their words, "to reduce our dependence on foreign oil supplies". The senate, only in the past month, voted down the proposal to drill in ANWAR.
Canadians decried the US unilateral withdrawel from Kyoto and the ANWAR plan. There was a lot of merit in our position.
But now, we say they are only in Iraq to control to make sure oil gets quoted in US dollars.
No matter what the US does, they will be accused of the most vile motives.
Even if our accusations have to contradict the accusations we were making a year and a half ago.
I find it simple-minded to decide, before the fact, that you dislike an administration and therefore, you will accuse them of any crimes you can dream up - regardless of whether those accusations contradict last week's accusations.
Please recall, this issue is very divisive. As Pollara indicated, not since free-trade has Canada been so divided.
People who disagree with your positions are as passionate about what they believe as you are. It is unfair to attack them with oil conspiracies and other hidden agendas instead of debating the issues they present to you.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: banquosghost
Date: 2003-04-01 21:07:15
"We" say this and "we" say that.
Virtually all of the links to stories relevant to these issues that I've posted have been links to US publications. The rest have been British. OK,one was I think a translation of a piece from Der Spiegel.
US citizens and US writers are saying these things themselves. *They're* scared of the New American Century Project implications. *They're* positing a link with oil and Euro-dollars. *They're* accusing their government of motives more vile than I could dream up. I don't disagree with them obviously but I didn't create the allegations or accusations. US citizens did. So trying to condemn me or condemn Canadians who agree with them is empty. Maybe you disagree with those US citizens and writers. Fine.
Elsewhere on this board I have repeatedly said that I would like to see Saddam gone even dead. I've also said I would rather see a more controlled and deliberate ground military operation with limited and local air support. I've said I had serious problems with the connections the Bush administration has tried to draw between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Bush himself has said there isn't one yet still over 50% of US citizens polled seem to think there is. I've said I have serious problems with the US presentations to the world community on why they felt this had to be done now and done this way. Without deflecting the conversation into why you have no faith in the UN can you tell me why you think repeated mistruths and distortions are legitimate grounds for a war? It makes no difference to me where the mistruths and distortions took place. Does it make a difference to you?
Are you familiar with the name John O'Neill? For six years he was the head of the FBI's counter-terrorism unit that was looking into Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. In 2001 he quit the FBI in complete frustration with the Bush administrations foot dragging and obstructionism. He took a job as Head of Security at the World Trade Center. His first day at his new job was Sept.11, 2001. Here. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/ http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5513/
Which fact do you refer to when you say I decided I didn't like this administration "before the fact"? The fact of the war? The fact of the repudiation of all multi-lateral treaties? The fact of the Supreme Court's awarding the Presidency to them? I don't like the Bush administration because of the way they're underfunding and undercutting the security of their cities. I don't like the Bush administration because of their education policies or lack thereof. I don't like the Bush administration for more reasons than this board will have room for me to list. Why do you like them?
And ANWAR isn't gone by the way.http://www.msnbc.com/news/884132.asp?0dm=C24DN&cp1=1
<Have I mentioned how much I hate it when the board times out when you try to write something long? :-)>
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-02 02:35:28
I agree with banquosghost; my sources that most unnerve me; have come from the USA. Ramsey Clark was assistant attorney general for Kennedy and attorney general for Johnston. Many try to discredit him but his claims and ideas are backed up by others and by the way this war is proceeding. The USA will not pay their dues to the UN; they opt out of the banning of land mines, the Kyota accord and the International Criminal Court. There is several reports from various sources that claim they have used banned chemical weapons. I will use Bush's words and say to him on these UN programs he will not join: mr Bush if you are not with us you are against us.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-03 13:43:34
That your most disturbing sources come from the USA should be a source of comfort. It reminds us of what kind of country the USA is.
Regime change in the USA? That can be done every four years and is certainly done every 8 years.
Free Press in the USA? I think you are arguing that point eloquently.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-03 01:35:28
I resent you refering to those of us who do not support this war as being pro Saddam. You have not heard one person on this forum supporting Saddam. The people being attacked are not Saddam; this war is against a nation not one man. Do not be so insulting. The USA coalition were the minority to see Iraq as a threat; Iraq has not attacked any nation in the last 12 years. There was no proof of any illegal weapon in Iraq. Canada has not assisted Saddam propaganda; but you are falling for American propaganda. You can believe as you wish but don't put words or motives in our words that are not there
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-03 11:40:10
Our leaders have made statements that played very well on Iraqi TV. When Saddam wants to make the argument that the US/UK intentions are to conquer and control Iraq's oil, he played snippets, among others, of Canadian government officials admitting their "hatred" for Americans, etc.
"There was no proof of any illegal weapon in Iraq".
Hopefully, I'm wrong, but I think you'll regret saying that.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-03 16:58:08
So?? Iraq uses any propaganda weapon at his disposal, what is the problem with that? Are you trying to say, that everyone should agree with a country (in this case the US), so as not to provide any propaganda wapon to any opposed country (in this case Iraq)?
Wow! What a bland world that would be, everyone always saying the same thing!
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-03 23:27:43
Oh, I believe they will "find" these weapons. Will I feel guilty if Iraq uses them? No. The weapons inspectors were just getting on the issues of chemical weapon; Those of us who oppose this war do so because we wanted the weapons inspectors to continue to hunt for any weapons peacefully until that option was no longer viable. That time had not come. We wanted to work peacefully not send out young Americans to become possible victims if the USA's position was correct. We do not believe in condoning mass casualties on either side when there was no urgent need to do so.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-05 13:19:36
Fatmomma says..."Oh, I believe they will "find" these weapons. Will I feel guilty if Iraq uses them? No."....
I just wanted to highlight that statement of yours; In the event someone may have missed it.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-05 17:17:15
Barret; I think everyone could read between the lines; that these "finds" while they are probably forthcoming may not be completely honest. That the USA will cover its backside. Nearly any household has the ingredients to make a mustard gas. That any such find done by the USA coalition may be suspect.
Why should I feel guilty? You took that out of context. As I said; the UN was progressing to verifying whether Iraq had any such weapons, but was prevented to complete the investigation by the UN. Would I regret the loss of lives or possible ongoing health problems? Yes. Will the coalition regret all the senseless loss of lives if an independent investigation shows no such evidence of chemical weapons or for endangering their military by not allowing inspectors to turn up such weapons.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-05 17:57:38
Didn't we not already debate this issue? I would entirely understand Saddam if he used WMD's at this time, even though i would not agree with him. I think Fatmomma is saying the same thing (I hope?)...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-05 21:07:36
nor quite; I said they would probably find them if the Americans had to place them or by exaggerating existence of chemicals found as any household has the ingredients for mustard gas (similar) and my lack of guilt. But we are on same wave length. Barret was taking my words out of context purposely
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-05 23:14:06
..."Why should I feel guilty? You took that out of context.
Barret was taking my words out of context purposely."...
(Yes & No), what I was getting at, "If we could do something (anything) to stop the use of Chemical weapons, and we did nothing, should we feel "bad", "Guilty" for not doing anything? When we could have taken actions to save lives?"
I'm not being harsh on you; it is just food for thought.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-06 03:05:11
But the UN inspectors were trying to do just that and were still looking at Iraqi documentation. That was my reason. Will Bush and Blair feel guilty if they find nothing; I doubt it
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-08 13:22:10
They shouldn't feel guilty. They did the right thing.
Iraqi documentation - I have a question - did that documentation get prepared by the Ministry of Information?
If so, I think I know what I'd use that documentation for....
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-08 23:04:23
The documentation of the Americans was proven fraudulent several times. There is obviously no great store of WMD in Iraq. You like to ignore the obvious.
There was No valid reason for invading a disarming country. The Americans are using WMD on civillian targets. They even attacked the Palestinian Hotel that houses journalists with a tank because they THOUGHT there were snipers there. Probably saw glint of binoculars
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: jwitt
Date: 2003-03-31 18:21:40
Here is an interesting link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2899823.stm
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-31 20:31:23
http://www.buzzflash.com/ is another interesting link. These people just collate links throughout the news cycle. For instance, there's a link to Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article the BBC link you posted refers to.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-01 13:43:58
No link here. Just some JS Mill:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight; nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: banquosghost
Date: 2003-04-01 23:09:57
Link http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/ to this article. Note that this is an article in a US paper! San Francisco of course, home of all things suspect no doubt, but still a US paper!
BushCo Wants You Stupefied
Please remain mesmerized by grainy live footage, ignore appalling larger schemes. Thank you
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist Friday, March 28, 2003
This is not the time to get complacent and lazy and reactionary and wallow in ennui and sadness and bourbon-fueled fatalism, the sense that all is hurling down the road to hell in a hot Republican-drenched handbasket. Tempting as that is.
This is not the time to be all shrugging and dismissive and think whelp, that's it then, nothing we can really do anymore, just sit back and watch the carnage I guess, the switch has been thrown and the snarling war machine is churning in high gear and the mass herd is mewling and subdued and misled and aggro and stupefied.
And therefore you can only sit there and guzzle your scotch and go numb and sigh, flip around to see which frantic network has the best video of windblown reporters riding high on U.S. tanks and yelling about food shortages and lack of sleep as they rumble nobly through the desert.
This is not the time to get thoughtless and simpleminded. The trigger has indeed been tripped and we are right this minute slaughtering thousands in Iraq and dozens of US soldiers are being killed by Bush's "peaceful" order and ooh look, stray bullets and raging dust storms and bedraggled reporters tagging along, all wide-eyed and chaotic and no one really having any idea what, exactly, is really happening.
Shock and awe it ain't. Grunt and bluster and confuse and choke on dust and realize, bitterly, sadly, holy Christ with a Koran and a $300 billion national budget deficit, this is gonna be ugly, and violent, and long, and fruitless, it most definitely is.
The idea is that you will be more sympathetic. The idea is that by allowing all those stunned reporters such unprecedented access, by embedding them right smack in the middle of the action, amidst select squads of equally wide-eyed, barely-old-enough-to-drink soldiers, the reporters won't be able to help but be more pro-military, and goodly Americans will feel sympathy and support the troops and, by extension, the entire insane and unnecessary war. Is it working?
And thus Rummy and Shrub can smirk and nod to each other and, quite literally, get away with murder, their PR coup working beautifully, so far, because you don't see the real action. You no longer see the big picture. You are no longer paying attention.
And they most definitely do not want you to see. No actual dead bodies, no gutted buildings, no burned and decapitated children, no blood, no true bleak horrors of war, just tired soldiers and water trucks and big U.S. tanks rumbling patriotically through the dust toward Baghdad. Go team!
As meanwhile, just outside the purview of the reporter's grainy video phones, just beyond the jerky shots of video-game night skies and soldiers milling about, military supply contractors are gloating like leeches, Dick Cheney's old cronies over at Halliburton are cheering like pirates, as they shamelessly snag the multimillion-dollar gov't contracts to build big tent-cities for our troops and to put out all those nasty oil well fires in Iraq, just like they did in Iraq War I. Oh yes they did. Did you miss that little detail?
Or how about Bush's corporate pals, literally lining up at the trough for their share of nearly a billion dollars in semi-secret contracts (and as much as $25-100 billion, eventually) to "rebuild" Iraq, which you can hereby translate to mean: install nice puppet government, build a few thousand oil rigs, refurbish a few nice palaces for the twins. To begin with.
Then there's all those pesky CIA analysts, still grumbling aloud about how ShrubCo has been twisting intelligence reports on Iraq to bolster the war. Did you miss that one?
About how they were particularly mortified when Junior publicly claimed that Iraq was restarting its nuke program, trying to buy uranium from Niger? Claims which were based on, ahem, painfully bogus documents? Whoops. Can't have that making too many headlines. Hey look! Dust storms and cool tracer bullets over Baghdad! Look! Please?
What about the much-bandied term "coalition forces"? The networks love that term, and Bush loves them using it. Reminder: There are no coalition forces. It is the U.S., Britain, a handful of Aussies. That's it. That is not a coalition, that's a rogue clump. The only true coalition is on the anti-war side. Shhh.
This is exactly the time to watch very, very carefully. This is exactly the time to discuss further and passionately, with everyone and anyone, what it is you are really seeing, what it might mean, and, more importantly, what they are omitting.
This is the time to protest harder, to write letters and journals, to think deeply and carefully, to donate to Oxfam and Truthout and FAIR and the like, to rethink what it really means to be an American in the new draconian, power-mad, kill-em-all preemtive-death Bush world order.
This is exactly the time to pay closer attention. To filter and stay infomed and get your info from more than, say, the uber-patriotic, holy goddamn but we love our Shrubster Fox News. Look around. The perspective is there. Activate the filters. Read up.
This is the time to fully feel those karmic blows, the ethical sucker punches, as the ShrubCo doens't even bother to try and hide the obvious cronyism, the White House actually having the smirking gall to deny that Cheney's Halliburton connection -- and his lovely $1 mil per-annum stipend for simply being a former Iraq-loving oil exec of the company -- had any bearing on the aforementioned oil-fire contract. Right. Believe that one, do you? I've got some prime downtown Baghdad condos to sell you, cheap.
Feel the bludgeoning. Because they figure you won't even notice. Or care. Look honey, poor hardscrabble Iraqi children looking desperate, and goodly U.S. soldiers delivering fresh water to them. Isn't that patriotic? Tanking U.S. economy? Deep recession? Intense, almost universal anti-American rage roiling all over the world like a bitter virus? Pay no heed. Just look at the startling pictures. Be mezmerized. Don't you support our troops? Of course you do. Genius PR, is what it is. One big reality-TV recruitment video.
Remember, this is an administration who truly believes you are insanely stupid. A full week into the war, and still no sign of WMDs? No sign of SCUD missiles, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, or chemical weapons? Oh well.
This is why you cannot be overwhelmed by montage images. The shock and awe is not for Iraq. It's for you. The shock of all those dusty violent videophone images, awe at how you are seeing a mere raw sliver of the real-time action, live, straight from on the front lines. Are you stupefied yet? Are you waving your flag? ShrubCo certainly hopes so. Because if not, you might actually see what's really happening.
And god -- Bush's reborn righteous Christian God, that is -- knows, they can't have that.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-02 08:53:22
The other question I have, "all this could be avoided if Saddam just left the country for awhile". The collation would investigate and all the Iraqi people would gladly elect Saddam back as president according to some here.
Note;------Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Saud, said Saddam should make a sacrifice for Iraq and step down if it would end the war. Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan responded with a rebuke: “Go to hell. ... You are too much of a nothing to say a word addressed to a leader of Iraq.”
----This is the type of response received from your man Saddam Hussein, banquosghost-----
Why doesn’t Saddam sacrifice for the lives of all the Innocent Iraqi people…. All Saddam has to do is leave the country for awhile? Even the most determined political leader in our countries would resign to save the lives of their countrymen. Why not Saddam?
If Saddam was to leave Iraq for 2 years, don’t you think Banquosghost that his departure would be worth the lives of thousands of Iraqi people?
IF Saddam left we could get the Red Cross in immediately and other human rights organizations into Iraq and stop this war!!!!
Do it now Banquo, tell Saddam to LEAVE and save the Iraqi people, for once in his life he has the chance to do something civilized.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: jwitt
Date: 2003-04-02 17:33:04
----This is the type of response received from your man Saddam Hussein, banquosghost-----
C'mon, absolutely nothing Banquo has said here or elsewhere in this dialogue suggest's a "pro-Saddam" positon, as you implicitly refer. One thing I think many don't realize is that those who were adamantly opposed to Saddam in Iraq were eliminated by him, or fled the country. Those that remain have probably learned to 'work around him', and would probably find the prospect of living the rest of their lives under Saddam's rule considerably more appealing than the prospect of having "the mother of all bombs", as the pentagon likes to refer to their latest bunker busting toy, dropped on their heads. Myself, I would certainly choose the former as opposed to the latter.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: banquosghost
Date: 2003-04-02 21:00:45
I'm getting fed up with being told my reponse is too long or finding that the board has timed out while I write.
He's not my Saddam.
This is foolish now.
Read this. Another State Department resignation. I agree with her. I guess that makes she and I both Saddam lovers.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0303/032103wright.htm
Would you rather I stopped posting?
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-03 10:29:53
Banquo asks, “Would you rather I stopped posting?”
“Please don’t do that Banquo”.
My relatives in WWII gave their lives so we could comfortably & safely express our opinions from our computers. I honor that and to shun you would be to disrespect what they bled for.
Today good people die around the world in struggle for those rights availed to you and I. I comprehend revulsion about war; Banquo may possibly have friends and relatives living in Iraq. He sees the sickening images of death on T.V. This is not lost on me.
I don’t have relatives living Iraq, but I did have friends and relatives living during the World War II and the Cold War in the Soviet Union, parts of my family tree don’t exist anymore because of communist regimes. The current images of murder chambers of Saddam’s régime and accounts of survivors hit home to my elderly relatives. Banquo and Jwit, I know that the two of you recognize that just because we don’t see daily images of Saddam’s regime brutality on T.V., doesn’t mean it has not been happening for the last 25+ years.
I’m going to be difficult to you banquo, not because I don’t understand where you are coming from, but because I do.
When people talk about those that will die, what about the ones that have already died and the one's that will be killed by their own government in ways we can't imagine any human being put through by another human. We live in a country where we can say what we feel and not worry about being killed by it. The people that died during WWI & WWII to ensure that we have that right -- is it not true that in 2003 we must continue to fight with those without (representative) democracy when necessary?
I have spent too much time on this website; I’ll get back to it in awhile or so when I have less work going on.
Bye for now.
Steve
Peace.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-05 00:46:23
My reletives fought in world war !! to stop a country from invading country ag=fter country: Not for democracy otherwise we would not have had Communist Russia as a participant on our side. It was to stop wars; not to start them. The only way to stop Saddam from committing atrocities on his own people is for the Iraqi people to overthrow him.(Assistance could be offered if asked for.) This is the only way that Iraq can become a strong independent country. An outside attack can only damage and destroy this country; any government formed will be
controlled by distrusted foreigners (USA) or governed by another corrupt government. The chances for a smooth changeover to democracy is very remote
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-05 05:06:15
I absolutely agree with you!! You have exactly the same opinion as me, overthrowing a government is the work of the people of that country, not of foreigners, of course other countries can help secretly of course...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-05 13:44:05
Fatmomma Says, "The only way to stop Saddam from committing atrocities on his own people is for the Iraqi people to overthrow him.(Assistance could be offered if asked for.)"
The Kurd freedom fighters have asked and are now receiving help, I guess you support the war now?
As for WWII, people fought for freedom with/for their friends/family.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-05 17:22:35
What the USA coalition is giving is NOT help; it is control. The Kurds are not playing a large role; they are bit players and do not present a broad representation of Iraq.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-06 16:23:40
The Kurdish people are not a representation of the Iraqi people. They are non Arabic; represent approx 19% of Iraqi peopl. May 1988, many large and powerful Kurdish tribes and prominent Kurdish families (non tribal) supported the Central Iraq government.
The Kurdish people of Turkey are being attacked by that country. Turkey is still recieving money from America,
Interesting article on CBC News the other day; "Turkey's Kurds"
Supporting the Kurdish minority in this case would be like France sending troops to liberate Canada at Quebec's request.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-07 20:50:10
What can I say; you are comparing Saddam's Iraq to Canada???
I am not going to continue to debate you on ridiculous claims like that, it doesn't justify a response.
In time we will see how the people of Iraq fare.
"Yes, you can even have the last word. lol..."
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-07 23:15:03
I made no claims just saying that you cannot hand over control of a country to a minority and expect it to work.
That we wouldn't like or accept being controlled by a distinct minority and neither would the Iraq's.
How is that comparing Canada to Iraq; stop putting a completely different slant on what I say.
People all over the world react much the same. Just made the comparison because Canadians are aware how badly that would be rejected. It would have to be a government that can represent all culture and races of the country
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-08 13:24:47
1) Iraq's regime is a minority (Sunni). And you, fatmomma, wanted to see the regime survive. so, if the country cannot work with a minority running it, why do you think Saddam's Iraq was working?
2) Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien all hail from Quebec. Canada rolls along pretty well over the last 30 years of minority rule...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-09 03:19:54
1. I did not support any regime. Just believe if Iraqis don't want them they should lead the fight to remove them not some foreign country.
2. They were are Prime Minister; picked by party members country wide; not chosen by a minority or placed there by foreigners.
3.Trudeau and Cretien were federalists; Mulroney was American controlled a Canadian tragedy.
Canada needs another strong leader like Mr Trudeau. We may not have always agreed with his stand but we always knew what his stand was. Perhaps if we paid our Prime Ministers as much as we see hockey players being paid we would find a higher calibre of politician running for Prime Minister.
( ok, I would be screaming as much as anyone if they initiated such a raise)
It just shows where our priorities lie
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-11 21:55:48
Most Canadians agree with my view; he sold us out. He is the reason the Conservative party was almost wiped out in Canada.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-14 15:24:59
Yeah, but remember what Brian Tobin said at the Davos summit almost 4 years ago. He told Mr. Mulroney, who was in the audience at the time, that on free trade, Mr. Mulroney was right and the liberal party was wrong.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-16 01:52:15
That is Mr Tobin's opinion; it means nothing to me. I am sure there are SOME who think Mulroney did well for Canada; but I, like the majority of Canadians have not been impressed.
I have no strong political leanings. I make my decisions by judging the leader and candidates on the issues that I believe to be importants at the time. I do not support the idea of voting only to get rid of a party that is in power that seems to be prevalent these days.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-17 16:19:17
Well, I'm just happy with free trade. I wish the world could trade freely, but us rich countries don't want to share our grocery stores with poor countries (our subsidies, Canada, US, EU prevent third world food producers from competing on level ground).
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: 1173
Date: 2003-04-02 09:48:44
Actually, the world the US wants is detailed in the material available on the website of the PNAC (Plans for the New American Century at the website with the newamericancentury: www.newamericancentury.org .
There you would find the plans for the Iraq war that were discussed back in i997/98 and which is the script that the Bush Administration is following, including the erosion of the UN's role in the world.
Unfortunately, the only result from which the world would be best placed to recover isa definite US victory in this war with Iraq. A cease fire would leave things incomplete and Saddam and/or his supporters would retain their hold on Iraq.
Calvin Preddie
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-02 12:06:00
I agree with you, the US must win this war, but this war should never have occured in the first place, but the consequences in the middle-east will be far reaching... The arab people already feel humiliated by Israel, and now they will also feel even more so after Saddam's defeat...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-02 22:36:24
Thank you; Calvin Preddie
That is the letter I was looking for too.
:)
Steve
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: banquosghost
Date: 2003-04-03 11:21:15
http://www.ericblumrich.com/ but only if you have the stomach for it.
This will be my last post about this war.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-03 17:01:29
I understand, posting is getting useless, everyone is sticking to their positions (including myself), and the
discussions are getting endless and mostly useless...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: banquosghost
Date: 2003-04-06 01:56:49
Posting is never useless.
Further conversation on some particular subjects can prove to be less than fruitful.
And that's sometimes the best that we can hope for in the civic square.
That being said...you knew it was to good to hope for...
Does anyone have any strategic contributions to make that fall anywhere between "god bless america" "those damn americans"?
We really do have an international dilemma before us.
We have intimate historical connections with more than one nation embroiled in the current crapola.
Is there one path foraward or many?
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-06 20:51:36
Sometimes it seems we will have to wait and hope that the USA has a change of regime. Perhaps then, with a more conciliatory government we can rebuild and strengthen the UN. The UN without the support and participation of our only super power will not be adequate.
It seems while Mr. Bush is in office; he will carry on with his present agenda. Like this forum, he seems set in his ways and no amount of opposition to his policies from within America or foreign views will sway his views.
We can only hope, that the government he sets up in Iraq will be allowed to progress to become an independent Iraqi controlled government supported by the Iraqi people not just a Kurdish minority
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-06 22:44:47
Fatmomma, Have you ever considered not taking your lead from American Liberals?
Even your comments don't seem to be your own. So how can I take you sincerely?
Fatmomma, are you even a Canadian citizen?
---Look at this comparison---
Fatmomma says, "Sometimes it seems we will have to wait and hope that the USA has a change of regime."
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry may have been the first presidential candidate to publicly call for a "regime change" in Washington, but other pillars of the party have been indoctrinating the term for months, research shows.
At a fund-raising concert for House Democrats last October, ActressSingerMotherDirectorCitizenWifeProducer Barbra Streisand called for a "regime change" in Washington and said, "I find bringing the country to the brink of war unilaterally five weeks before an election questionable -- and very, very frightening."
Rev. Jesse Jackson: "We need a regime change in this country." [October 27, 2002]
Louis Farrakhan: "I am crying out to the American people to rise up because your president is the world's threat to peace. When you talk about a regime change in Iraq if this man continues like this there must be a regime change in America. Our president is drunk with the power of the United States of America." [October 9, 2002]
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI): "We need a regime change in the United States." [March 16, 2003]
Former LBJ Attorney General Ramsey Clark: "Regime change! George Bush has to go and we have the power to do it. The officials of the government shall be removed from office for crimes and misdemeanor; their crime against peace, and for use of torture in Iraq." [March 31, 2003]
Michael Moore: "The regime change ought to begin at home." [Nov. 10, 2002]
Actress Susan Sarandon: "I'd like a regime change in the United States, but I would really resent Iraq coming in, throwing out Bush and then telling us who to have." [Jan. 3, 2003] END
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-07 00:34:12
Maybe they are taking their lead from me; actually we are probably all responding to Mr Bush's demand for a "regime change". My views are my own but shared by other intelligent minds. I must admit I do admire Ramsey Clark but never read these words of his. Good to know he and I are on same wave length. As my mother's family can be traced to at least 8 generations born in Canada; yes, think I can safely say I AM CANADIAN. I want to keep Canada free; not some American satelite.
Tell me something. How can you admire and support a regime that produces fraudulent evidence of Iraq's WMD. That uses bribes and threats to try to sway countries to support its agenda. I have no strong political leanings. I only hope for a government that is fair and honest and listens to the wishes of the people. Mr Bush does not meet that criteria
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-07 18:21:53
There is no doubt about WMD in Iraq. Are you so jaded that you are willing to overlook Saddam because you don't like the U.S. administration.
As for bribes and threats, that is how the U.N. has always functioned; time to change it to a humanitarian organization and perhaps a place to debate.
Look at what processes work at the U.N., keeping those and scrap what hasn't worked. IMO.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-06 22:36:15
..."And that's sometimes the best that we can hope for in the civic square.
That being said...you knew it was to good to hope for... "...
The problem you are overlooking (banquo) is that it isn't always possible to disclose the "full picture" in a public forum.
Perhaps in years from now, our Prime Minister should publish his memoirs. :)
I know it would be enlightening. :)
Répondre à ce message
|
On se revoit à http://www.dialogue-politique-etrangere.ca
|
