« oh, my beloved revolutionary sweetheart i can see your newsprint face turn yellow in the gutter | Main | bad news: and so this is christmas, for weak and for strong, the rich and the poor ones, the road is so long »
Whether you like it or not, war is imminent. George W. Bush is hell-bent on toppling Saddam and nothing short of assassination will deter him. The war will be a short, violent affair with U.S. forces prevailing in a route. It matters not whether any token allies tag along. Most likely they'd just get in the way.
The world's secon-largest oil reserve will then be ours for the drilling. Don't think for a second that we'll allow some new tyrant to rise up and take Saddam's place either. But here's where things get interesting on the War on Muslim Terrorism front. (Don't kid yourselves. Irish, Columbian or Israeli terrorists are of no concern to us.)
Here's the plan: Annex Iraq and make it our 51st state. Grant full citizenship rights to all the bickering factions therein. There's a precedent for U.S. states and territories overseas. Think Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawaii and California.
As for those Iraqis-cum-Americans, they'll be so thrilled with their newfound freedoms that they'll scarcely notice we've hoodwinked them out of their oil industry. They'll be dancing in the streets like those worthless Palestinian street urchins Sept 12, 2001.
Why do you suppose Arab fanatics despise us so? What, you might ask, are their beefs with us? Well, they want American troops out of sacred Muslim lands. They deeply resent our alliance with Israel. They want us to stop propping up corrupt Arab regimes like the one in control of Egypt. And they resent our culture, which they view as lewd and pernicious.
So cut off all foreign aid, including the $6 billion Egypt and Israel divvy up each year. Move all those U.S. troops to Iraqi America. Summarily decree that it is no longer an Arab or Muslim state. Stop exporting our music, movies and TV shows. Quit the U.N. In effect, slam the door in the namby-pamby international community's face forevermore. As Jerry Garcia once sang, we will get by. We will survive. In a pinch, we can spend that $6 billion + whatever we shell out in U.N. dues on extravagences for ourselves. I'll take a Hummer. Ha!
Forcibly wresting other people's territory away from them has gotten a bum rap in recent times. But how do you think we forged this great nation? We snatched it from Brits, Spaniards, Frenchmen, Mexicans and Indians under one shaky premise or another, that's how. Manifest destiny, baby!
Its rich bounty is rightfully ours solely because we were stronger militarily and more tenacious to boot. How has that changed here in the 21st & final century? Did someone change the rules in midstream?
What about poor little Israel and its alleged right to exist, you ask? First of all, Israelis are terrorists too, only armed with tanks, bulldozers and nukes. Secondly, it has no oil and thus doesn't matter. Thirdly, it has shown a remarkable ability to defend itself from aggression on its own. So let it.
The ingrates of Kuwait are another matter altogether. A poll showed that 80% of Kuwaitis deemed Sept 11 morally justified. Yes, the same bums we shed blood to protect! So we march in there and sieze their oil fields too. Call it American Iraquwait. Black gold, Texas tea!
Now in control of the world's largest oil reserves, our options are limitless. Saudi Arabia is just a hop, skip and a jump away. O sure, you laugh now but just watch.
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
Hmmm. Thought I'd @ least get a rise out of MG with this one. Maybe he's @ class. And all the other folk who enjoy discussing W's coming warlet are over @ Little Green Footballs. I'll have to check.
by Anna at March 15, 2003 2:12 PM
I was at class. And I'm not really riled up, because I can't imagine you're serious. This is such a preposterous presumption of the results of the war it must be a joke. Still, this is exactly the kind of black / white sequence of events that shows how really ridiculous the anti-war movement is. We don't want Iraq's oil. We could have rolled in there in '91 and France wouldn't have batted an eye. This is about safety. There is no evidence that Iraq has anything to do with Al Queda, but it isn't in doubt that Iraq does support other terrorist groups. If Bush was really hell-bent on going in there, why has it been a year since talk of hitting Iraq has been in public debate? If Bush was really going to go in without any global support, why would he have waited nearly 6 months now since the latest round of resolutions at the U.N.?
What I really don't understand about most of the anti-war types is that there arguements aren't based on any sort of reality or logic. Bush has a different opinion than them, and therefore he must be a lying, murderous, thug. Huh? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them evil.
If anything, Bush and co. have been played a brilliant political game. Every time Bush announced we'd go in, no matter what, he's won ground in the global debate. All these "threats" and no military action. Is that a rush to war? Seems more to me like using the threat of action to bring about a peaceful change. Call him a bully, but if he ends up with Saddam's lunch money without having to throw a punch, I think everyone wins.
by mg at March 15, 2003 5:40 PM
Let me just say that in times like these, it's important to trust our leaders---however secretive they may be. Which only makes MG's lunch money analogy all the more funny. Now please spew forth with witty commentary.
by Anna at March 15, 2003 10:18 PM
Oh and I forgot to mention that w/ gas @ $2 a gallon I'm game for any strategy.
by Anna at March 15, 2003 10:21 PM
Actually, with gas $2.00 per gallon here, Europe and much of the world is insanely jealous.
by douchenation at March 16, 2003 12:57 AM
What I really don't understand about most of the anti-war types is that there arguements aren't based on any sort of reality or logic. Bush has a different opinion than them, and therefore he must be a lying, murderous, thug. Huh? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them evil.
Funny, that's the exactly argument I see coming out of the pro-war side, except it's reversed. You have a different opinion than Bush, and so you must be a disloyal traitor.
There are plenty of logical, realistic reasons not to go to war. The fact that Iraq is and has been a whipped dog for 12 years. The fact that any such military action, while it will be a total victory in the short term, will breed more terrorist strikes against the US since it will prove to those who hate us that only terrorism can work in confronting US power. The fact that we will be forced to occupy Iraq for years, breeding more resentment and serving as targets in an orgiastic explosion of attacks that will make the Beirut Marine Barracks attack of the 80's look like a camping accident. The fact that we already have troops on the ground in Afghanistan and we will probably be forced to take some kind of action in North Korea, leading to a three-front war in our near future. The fact that our pre-emptive strike doctrine is immoral and unjustified (try it this way...imagine if I decided that my neighbor's criminal record meant that I was justified in shooting him) and smacks of 1930's Germany. The fact that our economy is already hurting and threatens to go tumbling down the rabbit hole if and when we attack. The fact that we will be gutting our future relations with half the world by appearing to be unreasonable, when we could well be reminding them that we paid the price for the past decade + of Iraqi containment and if they wanted it to continue they could well foot the bill...in short, we have thrown away all the goodwill we had earned in the wake of 9/11 and become seen worldwide as rabid maniacs who want to bomb the shit out of a nation which couldn't successfully wage war on a Boy Scout troupe just to either seize their oil or perhaps merely to settle a grudge. The fact that the hunt for bin Laden has revealed that he's more or less somewhere between Pakistan and Afghanistan, not in Iraq, and so the Administration's constant attempt to link him to Iraq is bullshit.
Lots of logical, realistic reasons to throttle back on the rhetoric. Lots of logical, realistic reasons not to want this war.
by Ezrael at March 16, 2003 8:40 PM
Um, they already won the war, the Iraqis and the Terroristas. The war is over guys. You really think you'll see Nasdaq 5000 again? Not even a precious Ivy League education will get you job in this nation of America anymore. Better standard of living selling water pipes in the Muslim Quarter of Old Jerusalem. Figures.
by LOCKHEED at March 16, 2003 10:20 PM
This may be hard to believe, but I don't think someone against this war is necessarily un-American. Some people might, but I don't. Yet, I've never heard or read someone argue the anti-war side without making ridiculous claims about George Bush, calling into question America's motivation, and stating opinion as if it were fact. You are not an exception Ezrael.
The fact that Iraq is and has been a whipped dog for 12 years.
As Tony Blair stated again just today, not a single member nation of the U.N. security council believes that Iraq has been forthcoming with information about its weapons programs, or is in compliance with its agreement to disarm. How is that being a whipped dog? It seems as if Iraq has gotten to do whatever it wanted without fear of repercussion. The unfortunate thing here is that those in power in Iraq aren't the ones getting hurt by the sanctions. The average citizen in Iraq is living in abject poverty, with an estimated 60,000 deaths a year related to the sanctions. Yet the Iraqi leaders don't seem to care enough about their people to simply destroy some missiles, account for the missing anthrax, and fully disclose their WMD programs. For failure to comply Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for each of those 60,000 deaths each year. Killing 60,000 people a year is no being whipped.
The fact that any such military action, while it will be a total victory in the short term, will breed more terrorist strikes against the US since it will prove to those who hate us that only terrorism can work in confronting US power.
Military action may or may not result in victory. Terrorists may or may not retaliate. How are either of those things a fact? Do you know the future? This is really just your speculation about what might happen. Sure, it is probably that a U.S. led attack would be victorious, but I don't agree that it will encourage more terrorist attacks. Did the invasion in Afghanistan lead to more terrorist attacks? Besides, as you point out later on in your comments, there has been no proven link between Iraq and Al Queda. In fact, Osama bin Laden, in his most recently released video, urges his followers to not attack if the U.S. invades Iraq.
The fact that we will be forced to occupy Iraq for years, breeding more resentment and serving as targets in an orgiastic explosion of attacks that will make the Beirut Marine Barracks attack of the 80's look like a camping accident.
Unless you have a time machine, how is this prophecy of yours a fact? If the U.N., as the Azures summit today suggest, are the ones occupying Iraq, do you think that will that still lead to resentment? Similar U.N. actions in Kosovo, Rawanda, East Timor, Haiti and the score of other nations the U.N. has occupied, in one form or another, over the last several years has not lead to resentment. Don't assume, just for the sake of your argument, that people are going to react negatively to the U.N., when, historically their presence has been greeted happily by the citizens of occupied nations.
The fact that we already have troops on the ground in Afghanistan and we will probably be forced to take some kind of action in North Korea, leading to a three-front war in our near future.
Again, not a fact. You are assuming military action in North Korea. If such an action were to take place, I guarantee it wouldn't happen until the fighting in Iraq was over. And you may find it hard to believe, but the U.S. military, especially if the U.N. comes around, is large enough to be in more than two places at the same time. In fact, the United Nations currently has nearly a dozen active peacekeeping missions around the world.
The fact that our pre-emptive strike doctrine is immoral and unjustified (try it this way...imagine if I decided that my neighbor's criminal record meant that I was justified in shooting him) and smacks of 1930's Germany.
This is not a pre-emptive strike. Technically speaking, the original Gulf War never ended. The agreement that was reached by Iraq and the U.N. was based on the condition that Iraq would disarm willingly. Considering it is universally acknowledged that Iraq has failed to live up to their end of that agreement, this would be a continuation of the 1991 war. That's totally a cheap and semantic argument on my part, but this is a statement of fact: Military action in Iraq is not pre-emptive. The more appropriate analogy would be to say Iraq is a criminal released on parole. There are certain conditions that Iraq must continually meet in order to maintain that parole, and they have failed to meet the most basic of those conditions (voluntary disarmament). Just as such a criminal would be placed in jail were it proven it had violated it's parole, we are well within the rights of international law to resume military action against Iraq for its failure to comply with U.N. resolutions.
The fact that our economy is already hurting and threatens to go tumbling down the rabbit hole if and when we attack.
You are making another assumption entirely unfounded on historical evidence. Traditionally, war has boosted an economy. It did during the two world wars, and it did during the Gulf War. If we are going to project the future, why would you choose to ignore those facts about the past? What is different here that would suggest a war would hurt the economy instead of help it?
The fact that we will be gutting our future relations with half the world by appearing to be unreasonable, when we could well be reminding them that we paid the price for the past decade + of Iraqi containment and if they wanted it to continue they could well foot the bill...in short, we have thrown away all the goodwill we had earned in the wake of 9/11 and become seen worldwide as rabid maniacs who want to bomb the shit out of a nation which couldn't successfully wage war on a Boy Scout troupe just to either seize their oil or perhaps merely to settle a grudge.
Oh, I was wondering when you were going to get to the part where you said this was all about oil and/or George Bush settling a grudge. First, this is not about settling a grudge. Why do I say that? Well, most of the major players are the same here as they were during the Gulf War. Of course, Saddam is still in power. There is still a Bush in the White House, and Powell, Rumselfd and Cheney all still hold positions of power within the administration. Now, if this was about a grudge, what exactly do these people have to prove? The Iraqi military was destroyed during the Gulf War. No one could possibly say the United States didn't kick some serious ass. Why would someone who won a war hold a grudge? It's just silly to suggest that. Second, this is not about oil. In 1991 the U.S. administration, one very similar to the U.S. administration in 2003, decided not to take the war into Iraq. If we wanted their oil, why wouldn't we have just taken it then with the world's support on our side? If we just wanted to attack someone for oil, why not go into Saudi Arabia? They have the world's largest reserve, and with the connection between many of the 9/11 terrorists and Saudi Arabia, it'd have been a much easier sell to the American people and the world at large to hit them, especially if it were suggested two years ago.
The fact that the hunt for bin Laden has revealed that he's more or less somewhere between Pakistan and Afghanistan, not in Iraq, and so the Administration's constant attempt to link him to Iraq is bullshit.
What does the fact we haven't found bin Laden yet have anything to do with tying Iraq to terrorism? No one has ever suggested that Osama bin Laden was physically in Iraq. Many ignorant Americans believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. They also would probably have a hard time placing Iraq on a world map. But do you think those are the kinds of people making decisions? While there is no direct relationship between Saddam and Osama, its pretty well documented that Iraq has funneled money and provided training to various terrorist groups. Just because one of those groups doesn't happen to be Al Quaeda doesn't mean Iraq shouldn't have to answer for sponsoring terrorism.
by mg at March 17, 2003 12:10 AM
Okay, first off, both Colin Powell and Ari Fleischer *directly attempted to link Osama bin Laden to Iraq.* Remember the Audio Tape debacle? It's disengenous to now say they didn't. Secondly, what does vague intimations of funnelling money to support terrorism prove? We sponsored death squads and terrorist groups (including Al Qaeda): do *we* have to answer for supporting terrorism? Does our support for the School of the Americas (complete with textbooks that teach how to torture and murder) mean we're going to get attacked?
Secondly, as to my saying this war was about Oil and or a grudge...look again. I said We have become seen as. Not that it is the case. I think we're invading Iraq to send a message, to deal with a perceived threat (because I'm not stupid enough to think Saddam's a cute and fuzzy bunny) and to strengthen our position in future negotiations. But what we think we're doing and what others think we're doing are two seperate ideas, and a whole lot of the world thinks we're doing this about oil. Ignoring that perception will lead to difficulties down the road we need to take into account. I won't even mention the idea many have that taking out Iraq is a first step to taking out Saudi Arabia...okay, I will mention it.
The UN will not be the ones occupying Iraq. We will be. You can argue that the UN is involved in multiple peacekeeping operations worldwide and be correct, but you cannot argue that they'll be the ones involved in this one unless the Security Council does a major about face, which seems extremely unlikely at this point. Could it happen? Sure, it could. We may well bully them into it. But even if it does, I remember Somalia and I remember Beirut enough to know that action by the occupied can have devastating effect, and if we're the ones forced to carry the burden of the occupation than we'll be the ones forced to deal with it alone. If it's the UN, yes, the UN will have to deal with resenment...but right now the world hates and fears us and sees the UN as an impartial body. Right or wrong, these are the perceptions that must be dealt with.
I really don't have much to say on the semantics of your 'this is not a pre-emptive strike' argument, when Bush himself has said "We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge. And our security will require all Americans to be forward- looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives. " That quote comes from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june02/strikingfirst_7-01.html so it's hardly news. Whatever our pretext is, we've come right out and said in the past that this is a premptive strike. Pretending it isn't one now isn't fooling anyone.
You are correct that I assume action in North Korea. So we'll edit that statement down to facts only in evidence. In January we engaged in the largest military operation in Afghanistan since the invasion. We have been told by Tommy Franks himself that we will be in Afghanistan for quite some time. So, if we invade Iraq without UN support or mandate, we will be involved in a two front war over large distances, with 1/3 the troops of Desert Storm, without coaltion support. The Washington Post reports that we're buying battle axes and battering rams to prepare for urban combat on a scale undreamt of (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30774-2003Mar15.html) and even some of the minds behind recent US Military operations find this plan rife with disaster in the making. So even without North Korea, we may (always may, yes, but until it happens may is all we have) be stepping into a bear trap here.
Why do we hold a grudge? The fact that the President himself *said* he holds a grudge (and admittedly, an understandable one) at Saddam Hussein for the attempted assassination of his father aside, there's the fact that we perceive his continued rule of Iraq as a personal failure. Our massive victory during the Gulf War and our massive sanctions didn't dislodge him, and there he sits, spewing forth insane rantings about defeating us. We can't directly attack many of those who we'd like to, either because they hide effectively from us or are nominal allies (like the Saudi's, who we both know are hotbeds of anti-American sentiment and supporters of terrorist groups) but by smashing Iraq, we show our power. Having read the plan of attack, the raw force we're about to unleash should have a short term cowing effect on anyone who'd think of attacking us. But just as President Bush's own father has said (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html) going without UN support is a mistake. And right now it sure doesn't look like we have it.
by Ezrael at March 17, 2003 4:24 AM
I also forgot that it sure looks like somebody is willing to do anything and everything, including forge documents linking Iraq to Nigerian nuclear material (http://msnbc.com/news/884624.asp?0cv=CB10&cp1=1) or the experience of James Akins, former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/ma_273_01.html) to imply that this war is not being given to us as it was actually concieved. The very fact that the first plan to invade Iraq was created on September 17th, 2001 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43909-2003Jan11) doesn't do much to inspire confidence that the Bush Administration *isn't* lying to us.
Someone sure as hell is. I'm not unreasonable, here...there are certainly times when military force is required, and as I mentioned, it's fair for us to say to the UN that if we're not going to remove Hussein that they bear the burden of the cost of the containment policy...we shouldn't be forced to endure what we don't support. But in this case, I see plenty of manuevering towards war with no real, honest presentation of reasons why. We're doing it because we care about Iraqi liberty, we're told (when we sure as hell didn't care about Kurdish liberty, we've done little to promote Afghani liberty, and our Pakistani allies are ruled by a military junta that siezed power in a coup and which can edit and amend the constitution of that nation at any time...not to mention the expected massive casualties that the Iraqi people will undergo when this lighting strike of missiles and planes we have planned goes off) and I simply don't see any evidence that that's the case. We've been starving them for years and *now* we care?
We may disagree, but you're wrong in saying there's no logic or realism in what I say. I may not be right, but I have plenty of evidence to back up my conclusions.
by Ezrael at March 17, 2003 4:38 AM
Myself I think there's logic aplenty in both your arguments. However, I will say this about those pesky N Koreans: They do have nuclear capabilities, are crazy enough to use 'em and they have over a million soldiers under arms. They've got Howitzers galore, ballistic missiles etc. In short, a worthy opponent even for the US. Plus, like Israel, they don't have shit in the way of natural resources for us to exploit. I'd think long and hard B4 confronting them. Appreciate the comments.
by Anna at March 17, 2003 7:58 AM
Mg, apparently Ezrael isn't the only one with a time machine because isn't your whole argument based on seeing in our crystal ball that Iraq is going to do something bad if we don't do something bad first?
What strikes me about this debate is that unless one is a serious fence-sitter, no amount of theories, facts or substantiated evidence is going to sway you from your stance. It could easily have been predicted based on your worldview that you would agree with this war. Or based on my worldview, that I would not. Just as powerfully as I feel this is wrong-- to the point that I want to cry when I think about it too much-- you feel it is absolutely right. Amazing, isn't it?
by Linz at March 17, 2003 10:21 AM
Well, I don't believe that we should be going to Iraq because of what they may do in the future. If you read what I wrote, I say the reason we should go into Iraq is because they agreed to disarm and haven't. They may not ever use the weapons they have, but they aren't supposed to have any weapons, and that is the point.
I agree, no ammount of arguement one way or another is going to change the opinion of someone who has already made up their mind. The unfortunate thing is that people have made up their mind based on dubious facts. Which is why I always appreciate when someone points out some piece of information I've never heard before, I'll not shy away from anything that would call my stance into question. Which is why I'd like to thank Ezrael for being the first person around here to respond with a reasoned arguement filled with more than just vague allusions to how evil George Bush is. I want to respond to your comments a little later, Ez, after I've got time to read through the articles you've linked, so don't think I'm ignoring you.
by mg at March 17, 2003 11:07 AM
I always strive for objectivity (which is why I don't hate your guts), but I think we all tend towards our preformed ideologies.
And as a lazy-ass, I'd like to thank both of you for doing the work for me.
And as a smart-ass, why would we ever try to get anyone to disarm in the first place? Because we think they have the potential to do something bad. In the future.
by Linz at March 17, 2003 11:28 AM
"Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them evil. "
Yup, that's the only thing I'll comment on. It's not just cause he disagrees. It's cause he will KILL people. An NO there will be no safety benefits for U.S., I dont remeber sept11 being an attack with "secret biowhatever" weapons. The only weapon nobody really thought about was that the terrorist for some reason didnt give a fuck if he would die or not, as long as he'd kill lots of americans. Why?
CAUSE HE HAD OBVIOUSLY NOTHING TO LOSE. So, U.S. will now destroy Iraq (get money in various ways, oh yeah U.S. WILL get the oil all right!) and therefore make more people lose everything. Which means more people that have nothing to lose. Which means more people who'd LOVE to participate in a terorrist attack!
And saying "we don't give a fuck about U.N." is absolutely unlawful since U.S. are now stepping on mutual commitments all members (+U.S.) have signed to follow.
1) Bush just does what he likes, won't give a fuck about the rest of the world.
2) He does all to "free iraq from saddam" by killing some MILLIONS citizens. Whoooaaah that's smart!
3) He also will provide safety to the US. Right. I think I explained all that before. (+the UN ARE checking on the matter they REALLY are but who gives a fuck, bush MUST kill its quicker)
Don't mean to be aggressive, just my opinion. Sorry about bad english.
by necropethamenos at March 17, 2003 1:09 PM
I like oil. We should take it all. Ahhhhh. So dark. So rich. So sweet.
Next we should go to war with ALL of South America. America likes its cocaine, no? We should have it all.
Then, while we're at it, we should attack Italy. I shure would like to have one of those Lamborghini Murcielagos! http://www.fantasycars.com/1/2001/Murcielago_Frankfurt/murcielago_frankfurt.html
Mwahhahahah! *evil diabolical laughter*
by Ezy at March 17, 2003 3:55 PM
I think Ezy got my point.
by Anna at March 17, 2003 4:14 PM
I feel ya Anna.
by Ezy at March 17, 2003 4:46 PM
Can people stop reducing this war to a scramble for Iraqi resources? I mean, that notion is not even based on any material fact.
Furthermore, this idea of slaughtering "millions" of innocent Iraqi citizens is pure bullshit; nothing has happened and yet countless Americans are already touting the ruthlessness of American warfare. Christ, if you're that fundamentally opposed to U.S. policy, how can you live here in good conscience? Why not buy a one-way ticket to Baghdad and stand in front of an elementary school we'll never bomb? Fucking aye, folks--hundreds of civilizations have carried the "big stick" throughout history, and none have done it as progressively and rationally as the U.S. Now...bombard me with atrocities of centuries past so I can hang myself while listening to TOOL's "46 & 2." Maybe I should enlist...because I see no reason to carry on--"I've lost everything I had, starting over from scratch."
by douchenation at March 18, 2003 1:36 AM
"that notion is not even based on any material fact"
Ok, here you go: about a month ago Powell announced that Iraq will pay its reconstruction in OIL. For as long as there is an amercan control over its new government. This is not "european propaganda against war" this is CNN (yeah it's the only free foreign channel shown in greece :P )
"this idea of slaughtering "millions" of innocent Iraqi citizens is pure bullshit"
Really? So how exactly did Gulf war 1 kill 500.000 kids over there? This is official statistics too. Theres also an interview made back then with Olbright (I hope that's how it's spelled) where she answers to the question "was the war worth the death of 500.000 children?" by "well, it's tough but yeah it's worth it". So you still think it's bullshit?
"if you're that fundamentally opposed to U.S. policy, how can you live here in good conscience?"
Um, I'm not american! But even if I were, I wouldn not be responsible for everything Bush does!
"an elementary school we'll never bomb"
Are you blind? What do you think 48 hours of bombing (as planned) will do? You're talking about 3.000 bombs. Right, they'll just pick the bad guys...
"none have done it as progressively and rationally as the U.S."
yeah read my previews posting, it's all about U.S. "rational" decisions.
"bombard me with atrocities of centuries past so I can hang myself "
I'm talking about NOW. We all are I think.
by necropethamenos at March 18, 2003 7:25 AM
Note: The 500.000 deaths of children were not the outcome of Gulf war 1 only, perhaps the main cause were the sanctions on iraq... (meaning simply : no money no hospitals no medicines).
by necropethamenos at March 18, 2003 8:21 AM
Paying for reconstruction for oil is very different than having your oil stolen. Rebuilding Iraq will invigorate their economy, providing millions of jobs to its citizens and redistributing the oil wealth beyond just the few in charge of the country. Secondly, listing the sanctions will help reinvigorate the world economy, allowing Iraq to pay back the more than US$100 billion it owes to countries like Russia and, with cheaper oil prices, will encourage new construction around the world.
Estimate from the first Gulf War put Iraqi casualties at between 35,000 and 200,000. Even based on the high end estimates, "millions of Iraqis" will not die during any war. Still, even just 35,000 would be a high number. But, based on the highest estimates for deaths via sanctions, that number comes out to something like 10,000 deaths a month. Even if the U.S. did nothing, and waited for another month of weapons inspections, as the U.N. Security Council was debating, 10,000 people would die. More people died in the 4 months since U.N. resolution 1441, more Iraqis died than during the entire Gulf War. Explain to me how waiting is better than ending things now?
by mg at March 18, 2003 8:41 AM
"Paying for reconstruction for oil is very different than having your oil stolen"
The fact that reconstruction will be needed BECAUSE of the damages U.S. will cause is no factor of the above argument?
I mean, I kick your ass and then make you pay me to make the asspain (ok there's no such word) go away.
That is NOT stealing?
"Rebuilding Iraq will invigorate their economy, providing millions of jobs to its citizens and redistributing the oil wealth beyond just the few in charge of the country."
Iraq used to be one of the richest countries worldwide before Gulf War 1. Yeah hey had a dictator (obviously I'm against that) but LOTS of money per citizen as well. Because of the oil of course! They now are absolutely poor because of the U.S. sanctions.
"Secondly, listing the sanctions will help reinvigorate the world economy, allowing Iraq to pay back the more than US$100 billion it owes to countries like Russia and, with cheaper oil prices, will encourage new construction around the world"
You're kidding, right? I mean, you actually consider U.S. is doing Iraq a favour by lifting the sanctions?
I kick your ass all the time. I then leave you alone. I want a nobel. That's reasonable...
"US$100 billion it owes to countries like Russia"
MANY countries have BILLIONS of debt to other countries. No reason to BOMB them though.
""millions of Iraqis" will not die during any war"
Highest estimates I heard were that IF U.S. use any nuclear weapons it will be about 3,000,000 deaths. In any case, even if it's only about 1000 deaths (in case my sources are biased due to european public opinion), remember you STILL mourn 5,000 deaths a year later.
"Explain to me how waiting is better than ending things now?"
I'm always kicking your ass. I want to end it. so I think I'll kill you.
(that's what I think anyway)
by necropethamenos at March 18, 2003 2:21 PM
I agree Necro. I really think that if each U.S. citizen were forced to go see the devastation after a bombing, and just see one child killed, just ONE, and WATCH it happen... or visit the overflowing hospitals after this all goes down... and if each of us had the sole responsibility of dropping the bomb that did this... I really think people would feel a lot differently about war. I really do.
I really think there's a reason that so many of the homeless people in this country are mentally ill veterans. War is a million lightyears beyond horrifying, and it is amazing that we talk about casualties of civilians--human LIFE-- like it's just a necessary offshoot of our kind and highly evolved justice.
None of us will see this though. We can just shake our fists from thousands of miles away. It's so easy for us. It's so worth it. It is worth ignoring the U.N., the Pope, and the Dixie Chicks.
Picture what I've said. Picture the people that will die. Could you do it Michael? Could you drop a bomb yourself? Knowing? Could you live with it? Could you, douche? Ezy? Maybe that's the difference between those in favor & those opposed. I could never, never live with that. Never. I'm sorry. You can call me naive. You can call me utopic. Maybe you're right. There are logical arguments outlined above, both pro & con.
My argument is more emotional. I just don't think anyone chooses where they were born, and I don't think anyone deserves what we are about to unleash.
by Linz at March 19, 2003 12:35 PM
P.S. Ezy, related to your post, I want to mention that a very close friend of mine has been called from the army reserves, and though he hopefully won't get beyond Fort Bragg, where he's replaced people who've gone to Iraq, I will damn sure welcome him back with open arms, whatever happens.
by Linz at March 19, 2003 1:11 PM
First - there was not a flood of mentally ill homeless following the Civil War, or World War II, or even Korea. The Vietnam War is a completely different beast when it comes to that. I speak from personal experience that the effects that war had on the people who were there comes more from the type of war it was, the way soldiers were treated when they returned home, and the abundance of drugs consumed by most of the soldiers over there and continuing when they returned.
Exy was in the Army. I've thought about that for two years now, and if I hadn't gotten into grad school, the Army Guard was my second option. I've thought about it more over the past couple weeks, but a certain someone begged me just last night not to join up. Still, it is something I would do for my country, if they needed me.
Now, Linz, I don't think anyone anywhere is arguing "Let's go kill some people!" You ask whether I could see a child die in a bombing, could you watch one of the UNICEF estimated 5,000 children who die every month in Iraq as a result of the U.N. sanctions? I feel worse about those innocent children dying because no one in the world is willing to do something about it, than the people who will die in this short, but just war.
And, when it comes down to it there will be no war, no deaths at all in Iraq, if Saddam Hussein follows the rules he agreed to, or would agree now to just walk away. I happened to stumble on a Peace Rally in Union Square Park yesterday afternoon. One of the speakers said no American soldier will be justified in fighting in this war. Yet, not a single mention of the fact that if Saddam Hussein left his country willingly, this whole thing would be over.
If the entire rest of the world was camped in Canada and Mexico waiting to avoid the United States unless George Bush and the twins left the country, I hope to god they would do that for us. I hope to god if they didn't that someone on the inside would take a stand and say "For the betterment of all our people, you need to get the fuck out." We've given Iraq every chance. When this war does happen I will be dumfounded by anyone who can still say this is America's fault.
by mg at March 19, 2003 1:28 PM
in the last paragraph "avoid" should be "invade"
by mg at March 19, 2003 1:33 PM
Linz, it's not an emotional argument. It's a real argument. US still mourn cause death struck once a yar ago.
You know, iraqi parents love THEIR children (and whatever else) too.
"there will be no war, no deaths at all in Iraq, if Saddam Hussein follows the rules he agreed to, or would agree now to just walk away"
Ok, so by blaming saddam, you actually justify killing people?
US will bomb.
I dont understand how exactly this kind of thinking (blame them, we do it cause we have no other option) is valid for you. I mean, you do have MANY other options varying from not giving a fuck about iraq's dictatorship in general to letting UN take their time and do their job WITHOUT A WAR.
I mean it's easy. US can have "peace and safety" without a war. They want a war though.
Obviously (and if I'm wrong give me a real argument) cause they can't have money (as I think I explained some postings above) without war.
So the citizens of IRAQ:
1) Have had to deal with a monarchy (a dictatorship that is as close to it as possible)
2) Have had to deal with the sanctions for a decade.
3) Have to deal with a war (and many many deaths - as many as they are)
4) Will have to deal with americans pulling the strings in their country later on (who will of course get most of the wealth and it's kind of naive to think otherwise - I explained why above).
5) NEVER ASKED THE AMERICANS TO INTERVENE!!!!!!!!! I mean US just got there and started fucking them up as a godsent force or whatever.
Damn, THIS is terrorism you know!
How exactly is that rational?
"We've given Iraq every chance."
oh man, yeah, punish them MORE MORE MORE. It's good for them. You were somehow designed to rule and decide for the matters of other countries. Even better you are acting according to God's will. right.
EVERYTHING falls apart on the innocent civilians.
THEY pay for EVERYTHING.
by necropethamenos at March 19, 2003 1:56 PM
I didn't say you were saying "let's go kill some people." I know you would not want to hurt anyone! I know that you are thinking in principles, and you want things to be better, and people to be safer and happier. Everyone here does. We just have differing ideas of how.
My deal is I have trouble thinking in abstract principles and not thinking in terms of these horrible images in my head. I just can't stomach supporting something that will make them reality. I can't help but think anything would be better, that if we just thought harder and took more time, we could figure out a better way. If people just held off. If we just used our heads. Can't we stop this without bloodshed? All life should be treated as precious.
by Linz at March 19, 2003 1:59 PM
what does "dumfounded" mean by the way?
by necropethamenos at March 19, 2003 2:00 PM
Did I forget to mention US gives terrorists reason to exist?
Oh wait I already analyzed that in another posting...
by necropethamenos at March 19, 2003 2:16 PM
Thanks Linz. I'm sure he'll appreciate it.
On another note, I have seen, first hand, atrocities akin to the ones mentioned above and by UK, in other posts. My first week in Bosnia we went to a village that was one of the last Muslim strongholds, in the Tuzla area. The Serbs had shelled the entire village to hell then went in and executed anyone that was still there. I saw piles of bodies. Women, children, elderly men, elderly women. It was awful. We went there to stop this kind of massacre from continuing. I don't see much difference between Saddam Husein, his sons or Radovan Kradzic and Ratko Mladic. They've all, purposefully, commited atrocities against humanity and need to be stripped of power.
Could I drop a bomb, knowingly, on innocent people and children? No. And I don't think anyone wearing the uniform, of the United States, would either.
Could I drop it on the Republican Guard during a conflict? Yes.
Would it bother me for the rest of my life? No doubt.
Could I live with it? I'd have to. What's my choice? Do I wish that we could have a war with no innocent casualties? Yes.
Are we, technologically, there yet? No.
War is a horrible, horrible thing. Unfortunately, it is still a necessary evil, in our world today, because some cultures only understand overwhelming force. If Saddam Hussein is such a peaceful diplomat, why hasn't he complied with UN resolutions? If he is so worried about the Iraqi people, why hasn't he left the country? If he wants a peaceful existance for the Iraqi people, why did he invade Kuwait, attack Iran? He's playing the victim but it's his actions that have brought us to this point. Saddam Hussein is a lying manipulator. He knows how to work the political angles to his advantage. He has had 11 years and some change to comply with UN demands, for deeds he commited with no instigation, and he hasn't. How much more diplomacy would it take? Another 11 years? What if he found a way to build a nuclear device in that time? Would this escalate to a nuclear confrontation instead of a conventional one. What do you do? Do you take that chance?
by Ezy at March 19, 2003 2:48 PM
All true and all about to become a moot point. There's something really creepy about a scheduled war. Well, down in my bunker I go.
by Anna at March 19, 2003 6:08 PM
Dude, the poster of this I know well, but truly, the guy is just pretty much nuts. Onto the oil though, what would be right but oil-gaining would be to make a deal with a newly created democratic nation to force them to give us oil in trade for making the nation free.
by Ian at March 19, 2003 8:01 PM
Ezy, by blaming an asshole you can't prove your actions are justified.
Hussein doesen't give a shit. NOBODY said he was any better than the US.
but that is not the problem.
The problem is that kicking his ass is not worth killing civilians.
And since Iraqis themselves have not tried to revolt against him I find it even less justified for the US to start a war.
I mean, it's good to help someone. But only if he asks for help, or else it's not help, it's a self-decided action. In this case the motives are obvious.
I know everybody in here has only good in their minds, I just believe the US government doesen't.
Once again, sorry for bad spelling.
by necropethamenos at March 19, 2003 8:02 PM
That's my boy. Go Ian.
by Anna at March 19, 2003 8:05 PM
The Iraqi people have tried to revolt. Twice. Unfortunately at the time, the U.S. wasn't ready to support those revolts, mainly because of stupid political reasons (we were helping our friends the Turks, who didn't want a free Kurdish nation). Both of those results occured shortly after the first Gulf War. The reason there haven't been any additional attempts is because the Iraqi government crushed them mercilessly. Their is evidence that there will be groups within the country who will fight on the side of the Americans during this war, just like their were groups in Afghanistan fighting with the U.N. against the Taliban.
And, if we want to talk about the murder of innocent civilians, lets talk about the Iraqis who purposefully targeted Kurdish refugees fleeing their homes. Or, lets talk about the Iraqi military making credible threats to burn their own oil fields, blow up dams, and gas their own people just to drag the war out longer and make it look worse for America. While there is no doubt innocents will die during this war, America is going out of its way to avoid these deaths, while Iraq is making things as messy and destructive as possible.
by mg at March 19, 2003 8:23 PM
I still can't get this as an argument. Reminding what Saddam has done, no matter how utterly evil it might be, is not an argument FOR the US. It's an argument AGAINST Saddam.
We all know what HE is. But in this case it's not him starting the war.
Saddam is a person. His military assholes that govern that country are persons.
But US is going to bomb a country. Not persons. A country. Thus killing all kinds of persons among which MAYBE the right persons too.
Wiping out half the planet would have the same effect (killing the right persons along with everybody).
" While there is no doubt innocents will die during this war, America is going out of its way to avoid these deaths"
Um, starting a war is a way of avoiding deaths? Especially when AT LAST after all these years (and with the right pressure of course) UN decided to PEACEFULLY make sure Iraq wasnt dangerous?
You dont avoid deaths by starting wars.
by necropethamenos at March 19, 2003 8:45 PM
Necro, today all of this is definately a moot debate. All we can do now is pray, if you're religious, or hope for quick peace and minimum civilian casualties.
We may not be justified or maybe we are. Who knows? I do believe, with all of my heart, that we're not there just for oil, world domination, or any of the other ridiculous reasons I have heard. We're. at least, trying to make the world a safer place for our children and those of other countries. This is more than I can say for a now irrelevant UN.
by Ezy at March 20, 2003 9:19 AM
The debate isn't moot. If you look at the strikes last night, they were doing exactly what you asked for Necropethamenos. We attacked Saddam, his sons, and the leaders of Iraq specifically. No civilian targets were hit. None of the "shock and awe." Last night was all about removing the only real problem in Iraq, not the average citizen, but it's leadership. I am so happy that this is the way things have begun, and hope it works so we can avoid the loss of innocent lives.
by mg at March 20, 2003 9:48 AM
Good point MG. I'm glad this is how we've begun things also but if the intelligence network fails us, we'll be moving on to plan B soon. He's going to be hard to bring down with just missle strikes. God, I hope we get him that way though. It'll save a lot of lives.
by Ezy at March 20, 2003 10:50 AM