I rarely participate in political discussions on-line (too antagonistic for my taste, even though it's only cyber blood), but I would really like to know what points being made in the Congressman's questions are not valid.
posted on September 12, 2002 11:56:39 AM new
Some of those questions have been asked and the only retort I've heard about Iraq is the U.S. wants to stop him before he gets nuclear bombs. It has nothing to do with his army size, etc... that I've heard Irene.
posted on September 12, 2002 12:24:37 PM new
I wonder how long before some other countries that are public on having nuclear weapons start to worry that the long term goal of the US is to be the only nuclear power?
posted on September 12, 2002 12:55:57 PM new
Well, to be the devil's advocate:
2. The thinking is they might be able to use WMD against us sometime. (Yes, I know that so could any other country with such capability, but they're not in the AOE)
3. Seems to be one of those Pascal vs. Descartes questions, reason or emotion.
5. Need to know basis
14. While the constitutional power to declare war goes to Congress, the President has the sole power to wage it as CIC. Here is that info.
[quote]Whereas President George H.W. Bush, although initially stating publicly that he did not need congressional action, ultimately requested authorization from Congress, which was granted in January 1991, to use force against Iraq under circumstances similar to the present situation;[/quote]
Then there are the 3 UN resolutions from 90 and 91 that autorize use of force against Iraq to ensure compliance. Noe have been amended.
15. No, I wasn't aware of that.
17. .
23. Ah, there's the rub.
28. LMAO. Have those flabby hawks work a couple of shifts in the chemical warfare gear and they'll sweat off a few of those pounds. And make em wer boots that don't fit!!!!!!! Oh, wait, I'm supposed to be arguing the other side.
29. The arguement is to prevent increased loss of life when Iraq attacks.
31. Westphalia? Err, the Holy Roman Empire had a regime change.
The constitutional changes made by the treaty had far-reaching effects. For Germany, the settlement ended the century-long struggle between the monarchical tendencies of the Holy Roman emperors and the federalistic aspirations of the empire's German princes. The Peace of Westphalia recognized the full territorial sovereignty of the member states of the empire. They were empowered to contract treaties with one another and with foreign powers, provided that the emperor and the empire suffered no prejudice. By this and other changes the princes of the empire became absolute sovereigns in their own dominions. The Holy Roman emperor and the Diet were left with a mere shadow of their former power.
posted on September 12, 2002 02:00:42 PM new
snowyegret - I'll read those articles in a bit, trying to finish a project before getting dinner ready.
I know Ritter feels differently now. So does Clinton. I just don't feel real comfortable believing their new-found-stance. When Clinton was in office, he was speaking exactly the way Bush is now. All the issues Bush pointed out in his speech to the UN were issues then too. For me, I don't see that anything has changed. Except the fact that four more years of UN sanctioned inspections have not occurred. Now, if the UN had already stepped in [during this time frame] and done something about Iraq, that might make me think differently.
And I certainly don't feel bad about a dictator that has attempted to assassinate ANY US PRESIDENT being removed from power. I think that proved his intentions.
posted on September 12, 2002 03:25:58 PM new"And I certainly don't feel bad about a dictator that has attempted to assassinate ANY US PRESIDENT being removed from power. I think that proved his intentions.
Well, maybe you would feel bad about the death of 10,000 civilians?
....These "debates" are framed in such a way that Iraq is neither a country nor a community of 22 million human beings, but one man, Saddam Hussein. A picture of the fiendish tyrant almost always dominates the page. ("Should we go to war against this man?" asked last Sunday's Observer). To appreciate the power of this, replace the picture with a photograph of stricken Iraqi infants, and the headline with: "Should we go to war against these children?" Propaganda then becomes truth. Any attack on Iraq will be executed, we can rest assured, in the American way, with saturation cluster bombing and depleted uranium, and the victims will be the young, the old, the vulnerable, like the 5,000 civilians who are now reliably estimated to have been bombed to death in Afghanistan. As for the murderous Saddam Hussein, former friend of Bush Sr and Thatcher, his escape route is almost certainly assured.
posted on September 12, 2002 04:28:22 PM newWell, maybe you would feel bad about the death of 10,000 civilians?
Helen, I understand that you are against war....ANY war.
Here we go again. Didn't you say the same thing was going to happen when we decided to go into Afghanistan [huge numbers of civilians being killed]? And that didn't turn out to be the case.
But I will say, that unlike those terrorists who don't have a problem with killing any infidel/westerner/jew be they man, women or child, our country doesn't set out to kill civilians. At least we work hard towards avoiding civilians as much as possible. Kind of hard to do so when these terrorists hide behind the skirts of their women and children though.
posted on September 12, 2002 04:42:09 PM new
Actually, approximately 5,000 civilians were killed in Afghanistan.
And Osama bin Laden is still missing. The country is destroyed and just today, I read that the fighting has begun again.
We aren't really in this war with Iraq because of fear of weapons of mass destruction. We want some other more cooperative thug running the second most fertile oil producing nation.
posted on September 12, 2002 04:58:04 PM new
Helen - I will ask you to show proof of those stats. I know I've seen that stated in here before [that large number] but I've read several times that those numbers where not what the UN people verified to be true.
I don't have a problem at all that you oppose war. What I have a problem with is the way that a lot of these leaders treat their own people [keeping them in poverty, while they enjoy the high life] and that never seems to bother you at all. It's only what you preceive we're going to be doing to them. How about what their leaders and cleric are doing to them?
"more cooperative thug" - No Helen, I don't think that's it. We want a leader that will be more open to democracy and to following the rules they were ordered to by the UN [inspections] and agreed to. Someone a little more trust worthy than your madman.
When you speak of the poor, don't you ever think maybe if all that 'oil' money Iraq has received were going to it's citizens they would be living in better conditions? That I can recall reading, you've never voiced your opposition that. Maybe you have, and I've just missed it.
posted on September 12, 2002 05:59:54 PM new
Linda
It's difficult to find a reliable number. I have read numbers between over 3,000 to 5,000. The most reliable link is below, listing 3,000.
"Last December, the University of New Hampshire released the results of a study which found that US bombers had killed in excess of 3,000 Afghan civilians." http://zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2140 Of course this is an unacceptable number.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban terrorists have been replaced by the Jihadi terrorist of the "Northern Alliance and there's not much difference between these fundamentalist groups.. Foreign bodyguards have to protect the President of the country. The country was bombed into oblivion but drugs and warlords remain and there is no peace or stability. In other words, nothing was accomplished. Terrorists are still all over the world.
You say, "your madman?" I know that Saddam is one of the most evil men in the world. He invaded Iran and gassed the Kurds. (with our support). He has engaged in barbaric torture. He is a madman...not "my" madman.
Under President George Bush's administration we were selling him technology that could be applied to the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. There have been articles posted here from the New York Times indicating that we knew about the plans to gas the kurds and there is also information that we actually gave him chemical weapons. The article is titled "What the New York Times left Out. I'll find a link to that one after dinner.
About the poverty...Do you believe that we can go to war with every country "whose citizens should be living in better conditions"? I believe that we should care and that we should help but dropping bombs on their heads is not the answer.
According to a Senate Committee Report of 1994 [1]: From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow, agonizing deaths, were: Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax. Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin. Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart. Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs. Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness. Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic. Also, Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human and bacterial DNA. Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped to Iraq during the 1980s.
The Senate Report pointed out: "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction." [2] "It was later learned," the committee revealed, "that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[3]
These exports continued to at least November 28, 1989 despite the fact that Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical warfare and possibly biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds, and Shiites since the early 80s.
posted on September 12, 2002 09:51:59 PM new
A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan: A Comprehensive Accounting [revised, back in March]
Departments of Economics and Women's Studies
McConnell Hall
Whittemore School of Business & Economics
University of New Hampshire
Durham, N.H. 03824, U.S.A.
http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
[i]"way that a lot of these leaders treat their own people [keeping them in poverty,
while they enjoy the high life]"[/i]
LOL! And how many millions has bush accumulated through manipulation of the taxpayer funds?
posted on September 13, 2002 09:30:25 AM new
And these are the number of killed people. Think about the number of casualties who are alive but would be better off dead...so wounded physically and psychologically that they can no longer function as human beings.
Form the link by Ken...
Herold reported that 3,767 civilians were killed from October 7 to December 6; the updated numbers now stand at 4,000 to 4,100 deaths. (For the full report, see " An Average Day: 65 Afghan Civilians Killed by U.S. Bombs on December 20th" -- and for a complete accounting of civilian casualties, see " Appendix 4: Daily Casualty Count of Afghan Civilians Killed in U.S. Bombing Attacks, October 7 Until Present Day."
"I think this [the numbers] really flies in the face of the message directed to the American public, which was that we had these precision-guided munitions and there would be some collateral damage, but we shouldn't worry too much about it because we have these precision-guided weapons," Herold has said.
"In fact the figure I came up with is a very, very conservative estimate," he told a radio interviewer. "I think that a much more realistic figure would be around 5,000. You know for Afghanistan, 3,700 to 5,000 is a really substantial number." Herold told WorkingForChange that if anything, he errs on the side of being conservative about his estimates of the number killed.
posted on September 13, 2002 09:49:57 AM new
Well...let's see. As usual we can find links to support our statements.
10,000 stated... now down to 3,000 - 5,000.
Then Marc Herold, who doesn't hide his political agenda, does a study which is being quoted. The results of his study were said to be flawed, by human rights groups because they relied on 2nd and 3rd hand reporting. There were no statistics kept...so all are making their 'educated' guesses.
The 7-21 edition of the New York Times took a look at the "hundreds of civilian casualties....not thousands.
From The Progressive Media 7-24 "Estimates of civilian casualties in Afghanistan vary - The Associated Press estimates some 600 civilian have been killed."
Global Exchange confirmed 812 civilian deaths.
And this is what I was referring to everytime we'd hear any reports of civilian casualties that were then reported to have been much much higher than what actually happened. "Afghan journalists told the Associated Press news service that "Taleban officials systematically doctored reports on civilian deaths to push their estimate to fifteen-hundred in the first three weeks of the war." Mohammed Ismail, an Afghan reporter, told the Associated Press that in one typical instance, he went to the scene of an air strike in the Khair Khana section of Kabul. He saw eight bodies. The Taleban changed that figure to twenty. When the story was broadcast on the Taleban-run radio, the figure grew to thirty.
Civilian casualties are a part of any war. It's my opinion that we go out of our way to avoid these deaths...sometimes to the detriment of our own soldiers safety.
The trouble is, the journalists with the guts and means to go in country aren’t doing their job. Maybe they’ll all try to get visas when the bombing begins, and report from the Rasheed Hotel at the point when informing Americans will mean snagging footage of dead civilians -- instead of asking Cheney why isn’t he more worried about nukes in Pakistan -- where the jihadis are actually in the army and intelligence?
The bombing of Afghanistan has been treated as if human beings are of little consequence. It was been portrayed as a "war on terrorism," not a war on men, women, children. The few press reports of "accidents" were quickly followed with denials, excuses, justifications. There has been some bandying about of numbers of Afghan civilian deaths--but always numbers.
Only rarely has the human story, with names and images, come through as more than a flash of truth, as one day when I read of a ten-year old boy, named Noor Mohammed, lying on a hospital bed on the Pakistani border, his eyes gone, his hands blown off, a victim of American bombs.
Surely, we must discuss the political issues. We note that an attack on Iraq would be a flagrant violation of international law. We note that the mere possession of dangerous weapons is not grounds for war--else we would have to make war on dozens of countries. We point out that the country that possesses by far the most "weapons of mass destruction" is our country, which has used them more often and with more deadly results than any nation on Earth. We can point to our national history of expansion and aggression. We have powerful evidence of deception and hypocrisy at the highest levels of our government.
Howard Zinn, a columnist for The Progressive, is the author of "A People's History of the United States."
(This column will be part of the upcoming October 2002 issue of The Progressive magazine.)
