posted on March 20, 2003 08:26:58 AM new
Some people believe that after war begins, the appropriate response is to shut up and support our country, no matter what it does. While I do support our troops and would bring them home if it were my decision to make, I do not support the Bush administration's long range goal of controlling the world by violent force.
The most powerful state in history has proclaimed that it intends to control the world by force, the dimension in which it reigns supreme.
President Bush and his cohorts evidently believe that the means of violence in their hands are so extraordinary that they can dismiss anyone who stands in their way.
The consequences could be catastrophic in Iraq and around the world. The United States may reap a whirlwind of terrorist retaliation -- and step up the possibility of nuclear Armageddon.
Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and company are committed to an "imperial ambition," as G. John Ikenberry wrote in the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs -- "a unipolar world in which the United States has no peer competitor" and in which "no state or coalition could ever challenge it as global leader, protector and enforcer."
That ambition surely includes much expanded control over Persian Gulf resources and military bases to impose a preferred form of order in the region.
Even before the administration began beating the war drums against Iraq, there were plenty of warnings that U.S. adventurism would lead to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as well as terror, for deterrence or revenge.
Right now, Washington is teaching the world a dangerous lesson: If you want to defend yourself from us, you had better mimic North Korea and pose a credible threat. Otherwise we will demolish you.
There is good reason to believe that the war with Iraq is intended, in part, to demonstrate what lies ahead when the empire decides to strike a blow -- though "war" is hardly the proper term, given the gross mismatch of forces.
A flood of propaganda warns that if we do not stop Saddam Hussein today he will destroy us tomorrow.
Last October, when Congress granted the president the authority to go to war, it was "to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."
But no country in Iraq's neighborhood seems overly concerned about Saddam, much as they may hate the murderous tyrant.
Perhaps that is because the neighbors know that Iraq's people are at the edge of survival. Iraq has become one of the weakest states in the region. As a report from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences points out, Iraq's economy and military expenditures are a fraction of some of its neighbors'.
Indeed, in recent years, countries nearby have sought to reintegrate Iraq into the region, including Iran and Kuwait, both invaded by Iraq.
Saddam benefited from U.S. support through the war with Iran and beyond, up to the day of the invasion of Kuwait. Those responsible are largely back at the helm in Washington today.
President Ronald Reagan and the previous Bush administration provided aid to Saddam, along with the means to develop weapons of mass destruction, back when he was far more dangerous than he is now, and had already committed his worst crimes, like murdering thousands of Kurds with poison gas.
An end to Saddam's rule would lift a horrible burden from the people of Iraq. There is good reason to believe that he would suffer the fate of Nicolae Ceausescu and other vicious tyrants if Iraqi society were not devastated by harsh sanctions that force the population to rely on Saddam for survival while strengthening him and his clique.
Saddam remains a terrible threat to those within his reach. Today, his reach does not extend beyond his own domains, though it is likely that U.S. aggression could inspire a new generation of terrorists bent on revenge, and might induce Iraq to carry out terrorist actions suspected to be already in place.
Right now Saddam has every reason to keep under tight control any chemical and biological weapons that Iraq may have. He wouldn't provide such weapons to the Osama bin Ladens of the world, who represent a terrible threat to Saddam himself.
And administration hawks understand that, except as a last resort if attacked, Iraq is highly unlikely to use any weapons of mass destruction that it has -- and risk instant incineration.
Under attack, however, Iraqi society would collapse, including the controls over the weapons of mass destruction. These could be "privatized," as international security specialist Daniel Benjamin warns, and offered to the huge "market for unconventional weapons, where they will have no trouble finding buyers." That really is "a nightmare scenario," he says.
As for the fate of the people of Iraq in war, no one can predict with any confidence: not the CIA, not Rumsfeld, not those who claim to be experts on Iraq, no one.
But international relief agencies are preparing for the worst.
Studies by respected medical organizations estimate that the death toll could rise to the hundreds of thousands. Confidential U.N. documents warn that a war could trigger a "humanitarian emergency of exceptional scale" -- including the possibility that 30 percent of Iraqi children could die from malnutrition.
Today the administration doesn't seem to be heeding the international relief agency warnings about an attack's horrendous aftermath.
The potential disasters are among the many reasons why decent human beings do not contemplate the threat or use of violence, whether in personal life or international affairs, unless reasons have been offered that have overwhelming force. And surely nothing remotely like that justification has come forward.
Noam Chomsky is a political activist, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author of the bestseller "9-11." He wrote this article for the New York Times Syndicate
posted on March 20, 2003 08:54:14 AM new
The Arab Coalition
From Iraq's neighbors, reason to hope for peace and reform.
BY DENNIS ROSS Thursday, March 20, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
While many European leaders remain deeply fearful of the fallout from a war with Iraq, many Arab leaders in the Middle East began several weeks ago to adjust to what they perceive to be a new reality. They stopped trying to prevent the war and instead began signaling that they wanted neither to be on the wrong side of the conflict nor on the wrong side of the U.S.--or our broader agenda in the region.
Consider Egypt's press, which has been emphasizing that Saddam Hussein is bringing the conflict on himself. In his trip to Berlin, Hosni Mubarak emphasized to his hosts that it was time to get the conflict over and remove Saddam. In Washington, a high-level Egyptian delegation made it clear recently that they would not oppose us and, in anticipation of our emphasis after the war, also suggested that Egypt did have a serious, if measured, approach to internal reform.
The Saudis, though more circumspect on the war, have also indicated a greater willingness to permit U.S. operations out of the kingdom during the conflict. Crown Prince Abdullah is now openly calling for a new charter on reform to be adopted by the Arab League. Both the Egyptians and Saudis seem to have anticipated President Bush's speech in which he proclaimed that the liberation of Iraq might be a springboard to broader transformations in the region. And both seem to see the way the wind is blowing in the area--and they intend, at least tactically, to be on the right side of those winds.
They are not the only ones. Jordan publicly announced that an American contingent would come to the country to man Patriot missile batteries. Can anyone doubt that the Jordanian government was making a statement about where it was lining up in the event of war with Iraq? Contrast this posture with Jordan's posture during the Gulf War 12 years ago.
Syria's behavior is even more surprising. Not only has it been restraining Hezbollah of late, but as if to convey that it will not be a problem, Syria has withdrawn 4,000 troops from Lebanon.
What is going on? The political culture in the region has always put a premium on power and adjusted to it. The Arab leaders in the Middle East have accepted that we will go to war and that Saddam will be removed. For them, it is a given.
Does that mean that we don't face hostility from the so-called Arab street? No, but it means that no one is out there defending Saddam. And it also means that the anger--though genuine--was bound in some ways to become more pronounced at the point when our buildup to war was increasing, when the anticipation of the Iraqi people paying a terrible price was most acute, and yet when the results of the war could only be an abstraction.
Assuming the war goes well, anger among Arab publics is going to abate once Saddam has fallen and pictures of Iraqis rejoicing over their liberation are beamed throughout the Arab world. Who in the Arab world will say that President Bush was wrong as images of a people released from the enduring hell of Saddam's rule are appearing on their television screens? Similarly, who will say war was a mistake when Iraqi scientists and technicians emerge from the woodwork after Saddam's demise to reveal the chemical and biological agents he has denied having?
But anger abating is not the same as the anger going away. The liberation of Iraq will create a window for us and for the region. If our liberation begins to look like an occupation, if our use of democracy continues to look like a slogan to be used against those we don't like, but never against those we do, and if we continue to appear to be indifferent to the sourness created by the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, we will find that regime adjustments are temporary and hostility toward us is more permanent.
To avoid that eventuality, we must act in several ways.
First, with regard to postwar Iraq, we must move quickly to internationalize our peacekeeping responsibilities. If we are to look like liberators, not occupiers, Tommy Franks must not become the new governor of Iraq. To meet our responsibilities for law and order and the provision of services in an environment in which the administrative structure in Iraq has collapsed, we must prepare the ground for others to join us, perhaps with different roles and responsibilities in different regions of Iraq, relatively quickly after the war. We will want to help set up an international administration for dealing with the civil needs of Iraq. And we will want to establish an inclusive Iraqi institution--an executive council--representing all groups, including the returning exiles, that will work in tandem with the peacekeepers and the international administration. Thus we will demonstrate that we are working with others and the Iraqi people to create a stable transition to a broad-based, representative government.
Second, we must be advocates for reform in the region. We must be humble, acknowledging that one size does not fit all and that we don't have a blueprint that we are trying to impose. But we must also be true to our values, making clear that tolerance, the rule of law and inclusion of women are the best pathways to progress. We must also be clear that we will not remain silent when reformers are suppressed or jailed--even if our friends are doing the suppression. Finally, we must emphasize that expanding the scope for political and economic participation is the best prescription for restoring hope and competing with those who prey on despair.
Third, we must show we are serious about promoting peace, or at least defusing the devastating conflict, between Israelis and Palestinians. After the war, Arab leaders are going to come to President Bush and declare that he proved what he could do in war now he must prove what he can do for peace. They will be right to say that we must invest seriously in peace efforts and not simply go through the motions. But so must they. The time for Arab leaders to offer slogans, but no serious investment, is past. Now they must be prepared to help Palestinian reformers delegitimize and confront those Palestinians who refuse to give up terror as their instrument. They must publicly endorse executive power being put in the hands of a Palestinian prime minister--practically reducing Chairman Yasser Arafat to a ceremonial figure only. They must provide real economic assistance to the Palestinian Authority. And they must reach out to the Israeli public by sending delegations to Israel to explain what Israel will gain in any peace and what they require in return.
I support any man that is willing to take the fight to them and show them that is not fruitful to strike at American citizens in our own country, I support the fact that President Bush has the leadership, despite International Cowardice, to stand up for what needs to be done and that is to protect American Citizens by taking the fight to them on their own soil and not allowing them time or material to strike us here at home.
I am against those that would not stand up for our rights to protect ourselves in a manner that shows we are serious about taking action if you attack us.
I support President Bush because he is taking action against a person that would do anything to cause the American people harm, our Troops are some of the best trained in the World, they will do the job before them and we will have the conclusion that should of been done 12 years ago.
Maybe we might get more attacks here at home, but by sitting back and doing nothing, you could almost gurantee it.
Now countries and terrorist will think hard and fast before coming to these shores and commiting murder.
Will you please do me a big favor? Will you go to the store for me and get a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, a five pound bag of sugar, and what was the last thing? Oh! Get me 19 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. We used up our last one last night. If you can get a good price on them, pick up a couple more.
posted on March 20, 2003 09:31:36 AM new
Frankly, I just don't get it.
If we could have preepmted 9/11 by taking out OBL & AQ, preventing the loss of life here in the US, we would have.
We are taking preemptive steps now to prevent another similar type of attack now.
Just today Iraq launched SCUD missiles at coalition troops. The same missiles they are not supposed to have and have denied having. Hans Blix's response today: "they must have lied to us".
posted on March 20, 2003 09:36:35 AM new
Why the Left Loves Osama [and Saddam]
by Daniel Pipes
New York Post
March 19, 2003
Has anyone noticed an indifference in the precincts of the far Left to the fatalities of 9/11 and the horrors of Saddam Hussein?
Right after the 9/11 attack, German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen called it "the greatest work of art for the whole cosmos." Eric Foner, an ornament of Columbia University's Marxist firmament, trivialized it by announcing himself unsure "which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." Norman Mailer called the suicide hijackers "brilliant."
More recently, it appears that none of the millions of antiwar demonstrators have a bad word to say about Saddam Hussein nor an iota of sympathy for those oppressed, tortured and murdered by his regime. Instead, they vent fury against the American president and British prime minister.
Why is the Left nonchalant about the outrages committed by al Qaeda and Baghdad?
Lee Harris, an Atlanta writer, offers an explanation in a recent issue of the Hoover Institution's journal, Policy Review. He does so by stepping way back and recalling Karl Marx's central thesis about the demise of capitalism resulting from an inevitable sequence of events:
* Business profits decline in the industrial countries;
* Bosses squeeze their workers;
* Workers become impoverished;
* Workers rebel against their bosses, and
* Workers establish a socialist order.
Everything here hangs on workers growing poorer over time - which, of course, did not happen. In fact, Western workers became richer (and increasingly un-revolutionary). By the roaring 1950s, most of the Left realized that Marx got it wrong.
But rather than give up on cherished expectations of socialist revolution, Harris notes, Marxists tweaked their theory. Abandoning the workers of advanced industrial countries, they looked instead to the entire populations of poor countries to carry out the revolution. Class analysis went out the window, replaced by geography.
This new approach, known as "dependencia theory," holds that the First World (and the United States above all) profits by forcefully exploiting the Third Word. The Left theorizes that the United States oppresses poor countries; thus Noam Chomsky's formulation that America is a "leading terrorist state."
For vindication of this claim, Marxists impatiently await the Third World's rising up against the West. Sadly for them, the only true revolution since the 1950s was Iran's in 1978-79. It ended with militant Islam in power and the Left in hiding.
Then came 9/11, which Marxists interpreted as the Third World (finally!) striking back at its American oppressor. In the Left's imagination, Harris explains, this attack was nothing less than "world-historical in its significance: the dawn of a new revolutionary era."
Only a pedant would point out that the suicide hijackers hardly represented the wretched of the earth; and that their objectives had nothing at all to do with socialism and everything to do with - no, not again! - militant Islam.
So desperate is the Left for some sign of true socialism, it overlooks such pesky details. Instead, it warily admires al Qaeda, the Taliban and militant Islam in general for doing battle with the United States. The Left tries to overlook militant Islam's slightly un-socialist practices - such as its imposing religious law, excluding women from the workplace, banning the payment of interest, encouraging private property and persecuting atheists.
This admiring spirit explains the Left's nonchalant response to 9/11. Sure, it rued the loss of life, but not too much. Dario Fo, the Italian Marxist who won the 1997 Nobel Prize for literature, explains: "The great [Wall Street] speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty, so what is 20,000 dead in New York?"
The same goes for Saddam Hussein, whose gruesome qualities matter less to the Left than the fact of his confronting and defying the United States. In its view, anyone who does that can't be too bad - never mind that he brutalizes his subjects and invades his neighbors. The Left takes to the streets to assure his survival, indifferent both to the fate of Iraqis and even to their own safety, clutching instead at the hope that this monster will somehow bring socialism closer.
In sum: 9/11 and the prospect of war against Saddam Hussein have exposed the Left's political self-delusion, intellectual bankruptcy and moral turpitude.
posted on March 20, 2003 10:19:53 AM new
Reamond - I have to ask myself sometimes if you actually believe some of the muck that you post?
Do you honestly believe in your heart that people who believe more in the so called Left wing thought process SUPPORT Bin Laden and Saddam? Is the world really that black and white to you? Does the belief that it does not take 250,000 armed soldiers and accompaning artillery to take out a single man really mean that you must support the family in your mind?
If so, broaden your scope. LIfe is not that narrow.l
posted on March 20, 2003 10:24:35 AM new
The truth is narrow. You can not dispute any of Pipe's points. I hope people like you would get their heads out of the sand and face reality.
Can't stand the light of day focused on the anti-war protesters and the left? Can't accept that the groups organizing anti-war protests are directly and openly communist and socialist ?
You choose to see only what you want to see and ignore the facts in favor of your own dreamed up silliness.
posted on March 20, 2003 10:44:53 AM new
Can I just ask the pro-war people if you think the world will be a safer place to live in once Iraq is 'liberated'? Will you feel safer once Iran and NK are 'liberated' as well? Do you mind if the economy is affected in such a way that you'll never be able to pay for these wars and that your kids will inherit the debt?
posted on March 20, 2003 10:46:04 AM new
Reamond - get down off the horse. I defy you to find a single incident where I have said anything in support of Hussein. To find a single statement where I have denied that he needs to be taken out. Your arrogant, know it all, lump them into one group, attitude accomplished nothing but to make people desperately want you to shut up. You very well may have some valid and logical points and thoughts to share with people however they are sothickly wrapped in this "If you don't believe exactly as I do, you must be a terrorist supporting commie freak" attitude and rhetoric that you lose your audience.
posted on March 20, 2003 10:48:53 AM new
kraft, I'll feel better when the anti war people will let the 'normal Joe' if you will, ALLOW them to go to and from work, without losing time from their job from them blocking the streets, and creating hourly delays. So they will be able to go and do their job so they can pay their bills.
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on March 20, 2003 11:14:48 AM new
They are keeping people from getting to their jobs so they are able to pay their bills, you know, the light bill, the mortgage payments... food, those stupid things, things I guess we should do without Helen, I guess you can too? Oh and paying for your ISP or cable connection to the internet....
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on March 20, 2003 11:33:28 AM new
kraftdinner,
to answer a few of your questions...
I do think the world will be a safer place with a liberated Iraq. That's not to say there will not be any reprisal terrorist attacks for it. I feel a much more severe attack would be forthcoming if we left Iraq alone or to the UN.
Regarding NK & Iran, I'm not too worried about those countries; they don't give money to sponsor suicide bombers, nor have I seen any state-sponsored connection with them and AQ.
You are correct about the shape of the US economy, but that is still reeling from 9/11. I do think that a quick victory in Iraq will aid in the recovery though.
And finally, while I support the decision to remove Saddam, I don't feel I am "pro-war" even though I am in the US military.
v/r
Deuce
[ edited by deuce on Mar 20, 2003 11:33 AM ]
posted on March 20, 2003 11:57:21 AM newYes, I do support the US in these actions for all the above reasons others have stated.
deuce - Thank you for serving our country. And GREAT point you made on the SCUD missiles. Sad so many chose to believe the statements made by Iraq that they didn't have them, rather than believing what their own government was saying.
posted on March 20, 2003 12:15:43 PM new
Coming from someone in the military, I REALLY appreciate your post deuce, and BTW, it's nice to hear someone explain their views calmly.
I do hope you're right and the world becomes safer. In this case, I'd love to be wrong! My one problem is the timing. If Hussein has been on notice for 12 years, and in that time he's been buying weapons and nuclear components from North Korea, why in a time when there's so much unrest, would the U.S. choose to attack them now? In my mind, this will only accelerate unrest and retaliation because tensions are so high from 9/11.
As far as the U.S. economy, it started slowing down at the end of Clinton's term and has been in poor shape since Bush's been in office. Economy is based on faith in your country, so until that faith is renewed, the economy will be stay the same. Don't forget that Bush is after the Axis of Evil, not just Iraq, so with ongoing wars against evil, I don't see a bright future for the U.S. economy.
posted on March 20, 2003 12:18:58 PM new
You mean you actually stop NeartheSea? I won't ( they are planning something here to)
They only have the right of way in crossing, not trying to block the street... if that doesn't work, I do have a crowbar in my tool box and will not hesitate...
posted on March 20, 2003 12:45:00 PM new
All 9 of them.
I was just wondering where the left gets all of these "theories".
Like being mauled by Republican Guard divisions (AKA "the lions of the desert".
Like fighting "hand to hand" in downtown Bagdad. Has anyone heard a US General mention this?? Not being a military genius, I would just cut off water and power and tell them to come out when they felt the need.
Like the "highway of death" massacre. 567 dead out of how many tens of thousands is a "massacre".
Like the "thousands" of civilian casualties. I certainly hope that after the conflict, we fund expeditions to find all these dead civilians.
posted on March 20, 2003 02:34:50 PM new
Not only are the protesters making things difficult for those trying to get back and forth to work, but in a San Francisco newspaper today it said the following:
The roving protesters also stalled firefighters trying to respond to emergencies.
There's NO excuse for that. If anyone who needed to get to a hosptial or needed immediate care to save their life dies, it will be on the heads of those who are blocking the PUBLIC roads.
posted on March 20, 2003 03:15:14 PM new
Yeah neo, more people on here and the USA favor my posts over yours. I don't subscribe to commie socialist crap. If you can't stand being painted with the broad brush, why don't you renounce the commies and socialists that are leading YOUR political position.
posted on March 20, 2003 03:24:05 PM new
KD, you're right about the need for faith in the US economy, but I strongly feel it will be renewed with the end of this war. Not to the point it was when stocks were over-inflated, but way up from here.
Another point about the others in the "axis", NK & Iran....I feel/hope these situations could be squelched with diplomacy.
You also said ...in that time he's been buying weapons and nuclear components from North Korea, why in a time when there's so much unrest, would the U.S. choose to attack them now?, IMO, the US couldn't wait any longer. If he could build a nuke, he'd use it or provide it to someone who would (BTW, I don't think Iraq has any nukes, but do indeed have Chem/Bio weapons). As well, while "on notice" it was only backed up with the UN, which has absolutely no way of enforcing their edicts. And his removal was not a point in the 1991 war (hindsight, eh?), and I don't think he ever felt threatened after Desert Storm.
And with regards to Helen's link, if you read the responses, you'll notice that there are many vets and non-vets alike who DO support the war.
posted on March 20, 2003 03:30:46 PM new
Thank you Deuce for those comments.
I am not 'Pro war' but I do support our troops, and the President.
I also feel and believe, that the Pres. and his administration know a little more than even the press or media can get a hold of, and have a lot of legit reasons for this conflict
I know Helen, you're laughing. You probably are privy to all the intelligence the U.S. receives right ?
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on March 20, 2003 03:35:24 PM new
If you support the troops, then you support the commander and chief ( Bush ). You can't just support just part of the troops & wish death on the rest. Yes, I do support Bush in this action, because anything less would give aid & comfort to the enemy, which could cost lives of those in the field.
I don,t mine people protesting. but, when they disrupt, use people ( troops ), to further their belief, I say get lost. You, support ALL OR NONE..
Fred
This topic is 7 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new
.
