posted on September 13, 2002 12:21:18 AM newThe US isn't really a super power. The US doesn't impose its will without a series of checks and balances any more than any other democratic country does.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Doesn't take a whole lot of research to discover just how much "imposing" our government has done. They just haven't done it overtly in the past, preferring to operate behind the scenes as it were. But the regimes they wanted in power stayed in power or attained power just the same. Which is a big reason folks in so many countries are teed off with us...
posted on September 13, 2002 01:28:53 AM new"Either way we have to go in and get them."
That is exactly the problem. We could have taken Saddam out during the Gulf War. But we balked at overthrowing Baghdad. Our compassion got the better of us. We figured Saddam was a whipped dog.
Now we're faced with cleaning up the mess we left last time. If we don't finish it, the consequences WILL be much worse ... for America and the world.
Bush made his policy clear. We must pursue countries that sponsor terrorism. Nothing has changed since 9/11. Lack of support by Arab nations is irrelevant. When the war begins, they will scurry away like rats. The Saudis will not engage America. That is not their method.
Eventually we will have to remove Saddam. He is too dangerous. We can do it now, or wait until he has nuclear weapons. As Bush noted in his speech, remember who started it, and who was the first to fall.
posted on September 13, 2002 06:01:31 AM new IF WEAPONS WERE FOUND
September 13, 2002
Scott Burchill
This article makes a good case that even if Saddam has weapons of mass destruction that like Israel, England and the United States, he would use them for deterrance. In fact, he could be less threatening to the world than the United States is right now.
Exerpt
First, many states, including the US, the UK and Israel, use these weapons for deterrence against external attack. Why can't Iraq legitimately use them for this purpose? As neo-realist Kenneth Waltz argues, "North Korea, Iraq, Iran and others know that the United States can be held at bay only by deterrence. Weapons of mass destruction are the only means by which they can hope to deter the United States. They cannot hope to do so by relying on conventional weapons."
Secondly, Iraq had chemical and biological weapons during the Gulf War in 1991 and chose not to use them. Why would Saddam Hussein be more inclined to use them now knowing the horrendous consequences (as they were explained to him by Brent Scowcroft in 1991), unless his very personal survival was at stake and he had nothing left to lose?
Thirdly, it is true that Saddam Hussein has used these weapons before, against Iranian soldiers and perhaps most infamously on 17 March 1988 against "his own people" in the Kurdish city of Halabja. Within half an hour of this attack over 5000 men, women and children were dead from chemical weapons containing mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX which were dropped upon them.
Having used them before, is he more likely to use them again? This is presumed, implied and sometimes stated in Western capitals, but the logic of the argument would suggest that the US is likely to use nuclear weapons because it is the only state to have previously dropped them upon civilians. Is this credible?
Fourthly, just how concerned is the West about Saddam Hussein's use of WMD?
After the Halabja attack, Washington appeared untroubled by Saddam's use of chemical weapons. Initially, the US blamed Iran for the attack, a particularly cynical ploy given Saddam had also used chemical weapons against Teheran's forces during their nine-year conflict. In fact Washington continued to treat Saddam as an ally and trading partner long after the attack on Halabja was exposed as his handiwork.
The Reagan Administration even tried to prevent criticism of Saddam's chemical attack on the Kurds in the Congress, and in December 1989 George Bush's father authorised new loans to Saddam in order to achieve the "goal of increasing US exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights recordŠ ."
In February 1989, eleven months after the attack on Halabja, John Kelly, US Assistant Secretary of State, went to Baghdad and told Saddam Hussein that "you are a source for moderation in the region, and the United States wants to broaden her relationship with Iraq." Providing Iraq continued to counter Iran's alleged efforts to export revolutionary Islam throughout the region, it could rely on Washington to avert its gaze from Saddam's worst crimes.
According to William Blum, the Iraqi leader was regarded as so moderate the US Department of Commerce kept licensing the export of biological materials - including a range of pathogenic agents - as well as plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities and chemical-warhead filling equipment - to Iraq until December 1989, twenty months after the Halabja massacre.
posted on September 13, 2002 08:55:25 AM new
I'm always surprised when the argument comes up, "what if he uses chemical weapons against U.S. troops? " A pragmatic approach, I suppose. Although, it seems to me this kind of thinking already places America hostage to Iraq.
First the article suggests Hussein might use the weapons only for self-defense, then goes on to illustrate how he used chemical weapons against his own nation. Mistakes of past U.S. administrations have no bearing on our position today.
Hussein has already attacked Israel. He openly supports terrorism against Israel. Does that mean that Israel's fights are America's fights also? No. But you should understand that in the Middle East, Israel IS America. Don't think for a minute that Islamic Jihad stops with the destruction of Israel.
It would be naive to think that even if Hussein did not attack America openly, he would not support anti-American terror. Once Hussein has nuclear weapons, every two-bit dictatorship and terrorist regime would be armed with nuclear capability. If we run from Saddam, he will come back stronger and more dangerous than ever. Hiding from him will not make him go away.
posted on September 13, 2002 10:06:09 AM newIt IS a battle of cultures...
It seems to be a battle that is flourishing here in our own country too. But....free speech and freedom to practice one's choice of religion.
I don't know precisely what new immigrant schools taught when waves of Catholics or Jews first flocked to America. But I suspect they adopted and spread the basic American values — tolerance, freedom and patriotism. Surely not the hatred propagated in many Islamic studies classes.
posted on September 13, 2002 10:33:02 AM new
Sorry - I left out one # when posting the link.
Irene - I've never said our country is perfect. We've been a young growing country. As time has passed, the population/citizenship has worked towards change...making a lot of changes for the things that were discriminatory. It will be a non-ending job.
posted on September 13, 2002 03:28:51 PM new
Well, it's certinaly a surprize, Linda, to find that out. I wonder how it compares to all of the Hate being taught at "Christian" schools and churches here in America?
posted on September 14, 2002 04:14:22 PM new
Helen, its always the Rich, or those who control the resources that go to War. It's the poor who are used to fight the battles. Time was in Europe that War was a "gentleman's sport" played by the nobility. The poor peasants were driven to march to the battlefield, whereby the armored nobility could go have fun hacking up and slicing up poor people on the other side. The game was over when one nobleman decided that he didn't have enough peasants to bring in the crops and ran of the field of battle. What poor that could struggle behind did, but usually, the nobility rode them down as they fled. Poor peasants were usually killed in the defeated army, whereas, the noblemen were captured and ransomed back. How nice of them!
Things haven't changed, either. We fight for Bush Oil, we fight for Bush Oil, and now we're about to fight for Bush Oil again! Only now, we get to kill them a lot without really risking anyone on our side. That way, we get to cheer on the troops while not having to mourn our own dead - the poor. How Moral of us!
posted on September 16, 2002 02:24:23 AM new
Borillar, it's not a game. It's only incidentally about oil. It's about power. All Hussein has to do is allow unfettered U.N. access. If he prefers his nuclear program, then he chooses to live by the sword. He will pay the price.
I have many friends in the military, and I find your remarks flippant. No one wishes ill on the Iraqi people. I believe we will do everything possible to minimize causalties. But I don't want my kids growing up in a world where they fear nuclear terrorism on a daily basis, because of a handful of madmen.
In your limited world view, you can't conceive of a just war. Remember that while you are passing judgement here on this auction chat board, our kids will be laying their lives on the line to preserve your safety and freedom.
posted on September 16, 2002 08:54:01 AM new
You know, I begin to wonder.....
Who the hell are we to say who can and who can not have certain toys????
So Saddam is a madman, so what? We have tolerated worse, hell, even trained worse. Plus, We only THINK he might use them. He used the ONES HE BOUGHT FROM US on his own people with our foreknowledge AND BLESSING. But what the heck, we americans have injected our people with syphillus and other diseases, exposed them to nuclear radiation, test genetically altered food products, and constantly pollute our air and water to toxic levels JUST TO WATCH THEM DIE!!! Saddam should be the one asking the UN to have us dismantle our WOMD. We HAVE used them and CONTINUE to use them. Remember Agent Orange, PCP's. Plus we will sell them to other countries to make a buck and promote "stability"(read as "willing to be a puppet of the US" )
posted on September 16, 2002 03:28:40 PM new
I have been reading books.....
A good one you should read:
Blinded by the Right by David Brock.
He was a lead player in the attacks on the Clinton Administration. Fascinating book on how he and his cohorts did it with absolutely no evidence or facts and how all the dumb sheep sucked it up like manna from heaven. So of like a scene from BRAVE NEW WORLD, repeat a statement 4653 times and it becomes truth.
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
[ edited by mlecher on Sep 16, 2002 03:30 PM ]
posted on September 16, 2002 09:01:15 PM new
Ah! Blinded by the Light! That was the title that I couldn't recall! We had a thread on here this last spring when the book was being publicized. I wish a copy of it could be sent to every voter in the country. DuhSquirrel has been calling such information as revealed in that book as "conspiracy fantasies" and I couldn't recall the name of the book. I have meant to pick up a copy and after reading it, to pass it around.
posted on September 17, 2002 06:12:06 AM new
Typical of the Anthony Scaife sheep. David Brock was revered by the Right and held up as the Homosexual Poster Boy of the Conservative Movement....until he turned on them and exposed what he did(with names, dates and verifiable evidence). Now they say he can not tell the truth, but that means the articles and statements they based their movement on, is a lie....
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
posted on September 17, 2002 08:12:02 AM new
Notice how the book has gotten so little attention? You're right - what little attention that it has received has the right-wing calling it all baloney. But what else could you expect them to say of a tell-all book?
posted on September 17, 2002 09:41:03 AM new
Here is another one to try...
Stupid White Men by Michael Moore(of TV Nation, Downsize This, Roger & Me)
Funny Stuff, but kinda sad
What's the difference between Democrats and Republicans?
Democrats say one thing and do another - quietly holding hands with the bastards who make this world a meaner place.
Republicans just give the bastards an office in the White House
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
