BTW, if anybody did not manage to catch Junior's now famous "Shame on...???" speech, Comedy Central's coverage of it can be viewed here:
High Speed:
http://www.comedycentral.com/include...eadline_300.rm
Low Speed:
http://www.comedycentral.com/include...headline_56.rm
Iraq is not a sovereign nation. It sacrificed its sovereignty in 1991 when it failed to win its war against the United Nations. It is now subject to U.N. Resolutions which amount to a direct violation of the principle of sovereignty, and will not regain its sovereignty until the United Nations says so, or it can restore it on the battlefield. Losers in wars only get their sovereignty back when a peace treaty is signed. It is a gift of the victors.
Pax,
Dave Krein '42
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on; nor all your Piety nor Wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, Nor all your Tears wash out a word of it." - Omar Khayyam.
Irrelevant. We're not just proposing violating sovereignty. We're proposing starting a war. Starting a war is a far more serious evil, and requires far stricter justification, than merely violating the sovereignty of a government.Iraq is not a sovereign nation.
We propose killing large numbers of Iraqis, civilian and military, and causing enormous amounts of damage. If Saddam Hussein's regime is judged to be illegitimate, and unentitled to sovereignty, the dead Iraqis will nonetheless remain dead, and the property destroyed.
"Traditionalist" (paleo-con) Charley Reese unleashes. The constituency is there if the Democrats will only sustain their opposition in the face of the massive propaganda machine.
reese.king-online.com/Reese_20020925/index.php
(For educ. and discussion)
The Mystique Of Iraq
by Charley Reese
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
For some reason unknown to me, Iraq casts a strange spell on the members of the Bush family when they occupy the White House. It seems to corrupt them so that they resort to lies and elaborate deceptions as their frenzy for war grows feverish.
The original Gulf War was based largely on lies. There was the outright lie that Iraqi soldiers had snatched Kuwaiti babies out of incubators to steal the incubators. The second big lie was the claim that Iraq was massing troops for an invasion of Saudi Arabia. Totally false.
Now, another Bush is misleading the American people in order to dupe them into a war with Iraq. Let me trace the deceptions of the Bush team. In the first place, Republican campaign advisers argued that war was better for Republican chances in November than trying to campaign on domestic issues. It's quite clear that Mr. Bush was in somewhat of a fog prior to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. He has blossomed into a war leader and seems determined to make sure he never runs out of wars.
The first ploy used to justify war was the claim that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction and therefore posed an imminent threat to the United States and, indeed, the world itself. It's important to understand that in the past, a policy of containment worked with an enemy that had thousands of weapons of mass destruction and, unlike Iraq, the means of delivering them. Yet Bush claims that Iraq, with one or two nuclear warheads, could blackmail the world. That, of course, is patent nonsense. It couldn't even blackmail Israel, which has a nuclear force of 200 warheads and the rockets and the planes with which to deliver them.
That aside, however, Bush was unable to produce any new evidence that would support the claim that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction. Everything the administration tossed out as "evidence" was old stuff. It was flatly unable to prove that Iraq was on the verge of some new, dangerous venture. So the strategy shifted.
Bush goes to the United Nations. He has to, since it was obvious no country except Great Britain was going to support a unilateral invasion by the United States. Here the ploy is that Saddam Hussein, by failing to obey U.N. resolutions, has put the world body in the position of either enforcing its resolutions or becoming "irrelevant." What Bush really is saying is, give me a U.N. cover to attack Iraq, or I'll call you a League of Nations.
There is one flaw in this strategy, which most Americans have swallowed whole. The country that is the all-time world-class champion at failing to obey and at defying U.N. resolutions is Mr. Bush's favorite country, Israel. There is no way you can logically argue that failure to enforce about 70 resolutions against Israel does not jeopardize the United Nations, but failure to enforce 16 resolutions directed at Iraq would and is a just cause for war. The reason the United Nations has never tried to enforce its resolutions directed at Israel is that the United States prevents it from doing so.
Now, much to President Bush's discomfort, Iraq has said the weapons inspectors can come back without conditions. This throws a monkey wrench into Bush's war plans. True, it might be just a trick by Saddam Hussein, but nothing will be lost or threatened by giving peace a chance. The truth is that the original inspectors oversaw the destruction of 90 percent to 95 percent of Iraq's weapons. It is also true that the United States kept raising the bar and had furthermore corrupted the inspection process by using it as a cover for spying.
Finally, let me point out another obvious fact: All over the world, the United States advocates dialogue as an alternative to war to settle disputes. Yet not one time since the Gulf War has the United States even attempted to conduct a diplomatic dialogue with Iraq. There is no justification for war with Iraq. The Bushes would waste every American life lost in an attempt to satisfy their sick obsession with Iraq.
Anyone ever notice how practically everything that Stonewall does on this board involved his abhorment of the President? He'd make the perfect newscaster.
1987 INTP
I had the exact same thought as the guy who wrote this article did. :-oOriginally Posted by Stonewall Patton
There's nothing like cranking up that song full blast as one is driving down the highway and thinking about what this country is about to get itself into. I highly recommend it.
In all fairness, I should also add that I had that song running through my head constantly when Bill Clinton first took office in 1993.
Never underestimate the power of the subconscious mind. :-o :-o
Well, Stonewall has also been known to hold forth at some length on the MBTI and Enneagram threads as well. ;-)Anyone ever notice how practically everything that Stonewall does on this board involved his abhorment of the President? He'd make the perfect newscaster.
Alex, many of us Xers, due to the history we grew up with, are deeply cynical about our national leadership. One of the sayings that was passed down to me by the Boom generation was "Question Authority." Our leaders must be held accountable for what they do. We, as the people who elected them, have an obligation to hold them accountable. They must not be allowed to run roughshod over the Constitution.
Stonewall can certainly add to this, I'm sure. ;-)
I concur strongly with this statement. Iraq's sovereignty is violated every day by maintanence of the "no-fly zones" and the economic sanctions. Anyone who argues that an invasion of Iraq would violate it's sovereignty shouldn't overlook that.
Iraq is not special because it has oil. Iraq is special because of the continued state of belligerency since 1991.
The issue of overthrowing Saddam was discussed during the election campaign in 2000 (and way back in 1998). Dubya did not just pull this issue out of thin air. If 9/11 never happened, we might still be debating an invasion, as we were in 1998.
There are many good arguments against invading Iraq, but "violating its sovereignty" is not among them. One could argue that overthrowing Saddam could be the quickest way to RESTORE Iraq's sovereignty, although I would never assume anything like that would neccessarily be quick and easy.
Maybe. Or maybe, we are proposing finally finishing an ongoing one.
Let me put it this way, Sanford. When American bombs and missiles start falling in Baghdad, and U.S. troops arrive to occupy the country, it will look very much like a new war to the Iraqis.
If there is an ongoing war against Iraq, it is a UN war, which is currently in cease-fire. If Mr. Bush carries out his threat to take action unilaterally, that will mean not a UN war but a U.S. war -- and that is new, legally as well as practically.
What bothers me most about this is the precedent it sets. I don't like Saddam Hussein. I wouldn't mind seeing him removed from power. But not at the price of giving the President of the United States carte blanche to make war anywhere, against any enemy, any time he wants.
The United States is not a dictatorship or a monarchy. The president should not have that power.
The United States is not a warmongering imperial power -- at least, not so overtly. We should not become one.
This is wrong.
BS. Iraq was nowhere in anybody's consciouness until August when bad economic news and White House scandals had taken over the headlines. Junior's handlers plainly pulled this out of thin air.
That seems a fair statement.
That also seems a fair statement. But, is that really the price, or is that a unfair representation of the situation?
Again, no argument here. Only Congress can authorize war.
Yet the U.S., as does any sovereign nation, retains to itself the right to wage war. In the U.S. case, we prefer to do so only when it can be argued that it is in self defense, and this is an admirable American tradition that should be continued forever.
What we have is a disagreement over whether the U.S. has legitimate security concerns with Saddam (and also, of course, whether we are in fact already at war and have just been spending ten years delaying the inevitable.)
Iraq may well have been involved with 9/11: I am continually surprised by how reticent the Bush administration has been in making this claim, considering the evidence.
I do not argue that the situation is clear-cut, but I do argue that there exist legitmate arguments that an invasion of Iraq would not be unprecedented, especially with U.N. backing.
For example, the comparision with the Cuban Missile Crisis is apt. Kennedy committed acts of war against Cuba to remove the security threat represented by the missiles. (And, yes, Kennedy was threatening an outright invasion, and may well have authorized one if the embargo hadn't worked.)
Your point of view is not without merit. Life is filled with tragic circumstances.
When Saddam expelled all of the weapons inspectors in 1998, major leaders of both parties, including Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Dick Gephardt, were calling for an invasion of Iraq. Of course, it was just talk back then.BS. Iraq was nowhere in anybody's consciouness until August when bad economic news and White House scandals had taken over the headlines. Junior's handlers plainly pulled this out of thin air.
During the election debates, Dubya stated that, if elected, he would work to see that Saddam was overthrown.
These are all matters of public record.
Sanford:
Yes, I believe it's a fair assessment of the price. This would be the first time that the U.S. has blatantly engaged in aggressive war against an enemy who is not even alleged to have attacked us.
There have been borderline cases before. There was the War of 1812, when British harassment of American seamen was used as a pretext, the real issue being British arming of the Indians in the west. There was the Mexican War, when U.S. troops provoked a very minor Mexican attack, and this was used as a casus belli, when our real aim was territorial expansion. There was Vietnam, in which the enemy attack was bogus, and President Johnson got a war resolution from Congress by fraud. But even in those cases, dubious though they were, the war was pursued ostensibly in self-defense.
Even when we have gone to war without the U.S. being attacked, as in the first Gulf War and in Kosovo, it was in defense of another country that was attacked, under international auspices.
The proposed Iraq war would set a new precedent. Not only has Iraq not attacked the U.S., this time around it hasn't attacked anybody else, either. (Or at least, no proof of such an attack has been presented.) Mr. Bush's arguments for war come down to this:
1. Saddam Hussein is a bad man who cannot be trusted.
2. Saddam Hussein is pursuing weapons of mass destruction.
3. Saddam Hussein, if he gets weapons of mass destruction, may use them against the U.S. through terrorist agents.
This means that Mr. Bush wants America to go to war with a country that has not attacked us, on the pretext that it some day might, and that its leadership doesn't like us much (and vice-versa).
The problem here is that the same arguments could be applied to an awful lot of other countries. In fact, they could be applied to almost any country. A considerable list of nations not only pursue WOMD but already have them, and some of these are not on the friendliest terms with us, e.g. China or France. On this pretext, either Bush or a future president could justify war against damned near anyone.
Rather than create that precedent, we should pursue any conceivable alternative.
We should ask ourselves this: why is Saddam not deterrable when Stalin, a bad man who didn't like us and possessed weapons of mass destruction, was?
In this day and age, the right to wage aggressive war is not generally recognized. The right to wage defensive war is -- mainly as a deterrent to aggressive war. The Gulf War occurred precisely because Saddam Hussein took it upon himself to wage aggressive war against a neighbor, which the international community condemned.Yet the U.S., as does any sovereign nation, retains to itself the right to wage war.
That is a change from circumstances a hundred years ago, true, but it is the general consensus nowadays, and I for one applaud the change. We should not abandon it.
Yet there is a difference between that security threat, which was present and actual, and the one alleged to Saddam Hussein, which is distant and hypothetical.For example, the comparision with the Cuban Missile Crisis is apt. Kennedy committed acts of war against Cuba to remove the security threat represented by the missiles.
Interesting that you bring this up. There were voices in the government at the time who urged air strikes and an invasion of Cuba to achieve regime change, with the Soviet missiles as a pretext. Kennedy wisely resisted these voices. It is technically correct that he committed acts of war, specifically a blockade, but in fact the only casualty was American (one pilot shot down over Cuba, if I recall correctly).
What actually transpired under the table is that Kennedy traded two things for the removal of the missiles. One was removal of our missiles in Turkey, which was meaningless as they were scheduled for retirement anyway. But the other was a pledge not to invade Cuba in the future.
In other words, Kennedy nullified the security threat by specifically renouncing the option of unilaterally pursuing regime change in a country that had not attacked us.
(It's also likely that the whole fiasco achieved "regime change" in the Soviet Union, i.e. it led to Kruschev's downfall, but that's another story.)
What evidence? You are certainly right that if he has any, Bush should present it. Iraqi participation in the 9/11 attack would silence all opposition to the war. I'd even shut up about it myself.Iraq may well have been involved with 9/11: I am continually surprised by how reticent the Bush administration has been in making this claim, considering the evidence.
brian, have youread vince lamb's recent posting in the "politics and economics" section for a potential explanation of bush's motives? most unnerving to say the least..
Heh. Maybe Bush should just demand that Saddam turn over Osama bin Laden, then invade Iraq and overthrow him when he doesn't, a la Afghanistan.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
When Saddam expelled all of the weapons inspectors in 1998, major leaders of both parties, including Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Dick Gephardt, were calling for an invasion of Iraq. Of course, it was just talk back then.BS. Iraq was nowhere in anybody's consciouness until August when bad economic news and White House scandals had taken over the headlines. Junior's handlers plainly pulled this out of thin air.
During the election debates, Dubya stated that, if elected, he would work to see that Saddam was overthrown.
These are all matters of public record.
Your deed is a matter of public record. So what? The point is that no American was cowering in fear that he might not live to see tomorrow because Saddam was still on the loose. Such claims were proven to be absolute BS 11-12 years ago when Saddam was left in power after all that Hitler rhetoric (unless you believe the US leadership is psychotic enough to leave an imminent "threat to mankind" in power, which I do not). This business about Saddam being an imminent "threat to mankind" was nowhere on anybody's radar screen. The BS about us not living to see tomorrow because of Saddam did not return to anybody's lexicon until about August when the bad economy and White House scandals took over the headlines. This BS is more transparent than any of Clinton's wags of the dog.
Well, Stonewall, people are funny. It's almost as if 9/11 made a lot of people take terrorist threats more seriously than before, and less likely to downplay the threats of terrorist-sponsoring regimes. Wierd, isn't it? If only everyone could be completely consistent, never wavering from positions taken decades before, never altering their strategies in response to recent events. Yup, life would be much better if we all just forgot about 9/11.
This is one of those posts I usually don't respond to, because to me, it seems like you are making my case.
Take "British harassment of American seamen". Compare that to Iraq's frequent firing on American warplanes and attempting to assasinate Bush Senior. Add in Iraq's failure to comply with the terms of the cease-fire.
I really don't see why you say the current situation is more dubious than the others you mentioned...
Actually, Sanford, the most significant difference is the way that Bush is treating it. Why doesn't he allege that we have a right to defensive war against Saddam for all of those reasons?
It seems to me that he is deliberately trying to set this precedent, to acquire for the president the power to make war aggressively. The recent national security document the administration has issued further bears this out.
The way I see it, he is. I do find myself wishing he communicated it better, however.
I really shouldn't comment on that document, as I haven't read enough about it to have an educated opinion. But from what I hear on media such as NPR, I don't understand why it's being taken in the ways you are taking it.
Because it's asserting a right to wage aggressive, pre-emptive war against any opponent that, in the judgment of the U.S. government, might someday pose a threat to American security, or might develop military capacity to compete with ours. It is putting the U.S. on a frankly imperialistic stance, and asserting our right and intent to rule the world by military force.
By taking this imperialistic stance, ostensibly in service to the ideals of democracy and freedom, Mr. Bush is following directly in the footsteps of Napoleon. (A much better comparison to him than Hitler, in that Hitler's ideology was openly repellent, where Napoleon's had some virtues, had he been sincere about it.) This is extremely scary.
http://www.creators.com/opinion_show...olumnsName=miv
Try this. It's Molly Ivins' take on the document.
Justin, that's simply brilliant. You should get a job with the adminstration :lol:Heh. Maybe Bush should just demand that Saddam turn over Osama bin Laden, then invade Iraq and overthrow him when he doesn't, a la Afghanistan.
But Iraq has nothing to do with 911, remember? Right after 911, Israeli intelligence was reporting that the hijackers required state backing and that Atta had met with the head of Iraqi intelligence in Prague. I posted foreign press reports recounting these Israeli claims numerous times in the wake of 911. However the Bush administration has EMPHATICALLY denied the veracity of these reports all along. And the CIA specifically denies that there is evidence of any link between Hussein and international terrorism. It seems clear that the Bush administration was discounting all claims which might have given them grounds to invade Iraq. Therefore it seems clear that they had no intention then of invading Iraq. But as of August, all that changed. And the only reason that changed is because the economy really began going downhill and Junior and Uncle Dick had been implicated in corporate scandals. There has never been a more unambiguous example of wag the dog in American history.
And, no, people are not taking terrorist threats more seriously after 911, at least not with respect to Iraq. No one -- I repeat, NO ONE -- was even talking about the danger of Saddam attacking them before August. All that Hitler rhetoric had been proven to be pure, unadulterated BS back in '91 when Saddam was left in power. NO ONE lived in morbid fear that Saddam was right around the corner waiting to take them out and the Bush administration was emphatically denying any claims that he was.
But all that changed in August. And the only reason it did was because the economy was really beginning to slide and Junior and Uncle Dick were embarrassed by the attention drawn to their corporate dealings. Back then, all we heard about was the economy tanking and the White House scandals. Now all we hear about is that imminent "threat to mankind" Saddam Hussein (guffaw) who may strike at any moment and take us out even though we heard all this long ago and everybody knows it is pure, unadulterated BS. What an absolute bunch of BS.
