Gulf War II

Iraq War discussion, part 1.
For the newest messages, look here.

  • 2/20 8:47am People often ask why we shouldn't just accept on faith the unsubstantiated links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I just ran across a CBS News story from last September that gives us a good reason - Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11. ``Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq - even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.'' Rumsfeld's notes should alarm anyone trying to make sense of this sitaution. The truth is, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others have been looking for a pretext top invade Iraq since 1992.
    - DAF
    ["Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not." - Rumsfeld, as quoted in the article. - Wm.]

  • 2/20 12:07am Because in that nasty little cell he has the means to destroy you - you saw it there yesterday - he admitted he had but today he's hidden it and won't tell you where it is and not only that today he's blaming you for putting him in the cell in the first place for no good reason. Time to go in shake out his mattress and find what he's hidden and destroy it.
    - WD

  • 2/19 6:35pm Re: Tony Blair speech: Yes, the man does have a way with words, and quite a cynical aptitude for statistics, but he does dodge the question - all he says is that Hussein is a bad man.
    Well, he was a bad man when he was our best buddy, and attacked Iran for us. But why does this particular loathsome despot, out of dozens of loathsome despots the world over, merit an invasion, when the current international sanctions regime has kept him securely contained for the last dozen years? Why the expensive, dangerous war when maintaining, even intensifying sanctions would cost much less and be less risky?
    Hussein is in a prison of sanctions and inspections. The US wants to step into his cell and execute him. Why?
    - AR

  • 2/19 3:30pm Just call the Prime Minister of Britain WINSTON BLAIR. I would vote for him if I could, regardless of his otherwise suspect politics because his speeches are as magnificent and as brave as this one:
    Yes, there are consequences of war. If we remove Saddam by force, people will die and some will be innocent. And we must live with the consequences of our actions, even the unintended ones.

    But there are also consequences of "stop the war".

    If I took that advice, and did not insist on disarmament, yes, there would be no war. But there would still be Saddam. Many of the people marching will say they hate Saddam. But the consequences of taking their advice is that he stays in charge of Iraq, ruling the Iraqi people. A country that in 1978, the year before he seized power, was richer than Malaysia or Portugal. A country where today, 135 out of every 1000 Iraqi children die before the age of five - 70% of these deaths are from diarrhoea and respiratory infections that are easily preventable. Where almost a third of children born in the centre and south of Iraq have chronic malnutrition.

    Where 60% of the people depend on Food Aid.

    Where half the population of rural areas have no safe water.

    Where every year and now, as we speak, tens of thousands of political prisoners languish in appalling conditions in Saddam's jails and are routinely executed.

    Where in the past 15 years over 150,000 Shia Moslems in Southern Iraq and Moslem Kurds in Northern Iraq have been butchered; with up to four million Iraqis in exile round the world, including 350,000 now in Britain.

    [Continued ...]
    Something about Britain seems to bring the leaders they need when crisis beckons and nerves fail. Churchill - too late but just in time. Thatcher - way before her time. Blair - the Gladstone of the new century. See C-SPAN. They might still be running the speech in its entirety. Also see andrewsullivan.com for superb commentary on the politics and substance of the debate on Iraq. (Full disclosure: all the above but for this paragraph is from andrewsullivan.com.)
    - RG

  • 2/19 10:12am A friend forwarded this link to pictures of last weekend's anti-war protests from around the world. My favorite is the group from Antarctica. This outporing of public sentiment is very similar to the vigils and demonstrations of solidarity we saw around the world after the attacks of 9/11/2001. What a pity that our government is squandering the support the world showed us. The citizens of the world do not hate us, as some would have us believe. The protestors are not all socialists, communists, Islamists, or America-haters. They are most often the same people who wept for the innocents murdered on 9/11/2001. They will weep again if the US military chooses war and the inevitable murder of innocent people before all diplomatic means are exhausted.
    -DAF

  • 2/17 9:42am MD: Thanks for your thoughtful response. You raise very good points, but I don't endorse "doing nothing". I think the administration has chosen the wrong course of action. I would rather see two different initiatives taken:
    The first would be to focus more of our military power on rooting out terrorist networks, especially al Qaeda and bin Laden. Afghanistan remains unstable. Pakistan clearly is not free of strong terrorist sympathies. SE Asia appears to be very much a festering hot bed.
    Rather than military action in Iraq, I would rather see us more actively supporting governments in those countries/areas to reduce the risk of the cancer spreading. This would necessitate diplomatic activities that could realistically include military support or actions.
    The network that has already attacked us at home at least twice (both WTC attacks) and countless other times abroad, and has stated they will attack again appears to be receiving less attention than the enemy that we think might someday possibly... For me it is a matter a prioritization.
    The second is to deal with Saddam by building a coalition to remove him. This requires extensive diplomatic work and not what I believe to be the bullying tactics employed to date. I do support the removal of Saddam, just with a consensus rather than as a Lone Ranger. Acting by ourselves raises even more risks than it prevents in the short term. Working with alliances may take a little longer but reduces short and long term risks. The goal should remain the same.
    As an aside, I happened to catch Meet the Press this morning. There was a retired US General (Clark?) and he had some very insightful comments. I believe he led the NATO forces during their actions in Kosavo. Now, discounting that he seems interested in engaging in a political career, he seemed to echo these same sentiments. It was interesting to hear him say that in leading that coalition he learned the problem with allies is that you have to listen to them. If you expect cooperation, then they must have a voice. And he theorized that part of what we are seeing with our allies in Europe today is a bit of pay back for our policies toward them the past two years.
    - TMB

  • 2/16 7:50pm Re: Turkey [is] screaming for U.S. protection: actually, Turkey must feel pretty comfortable with its position. According to the Washington Post, we are trying to purchase Turkey's assistance in our war effort with a multi-billion dollar aid package, and the Turks, clever traders that they are, are holding out for more. If those rich eccentric Americans want to fight, sure thing, they'll sell us a good fight. Doesn't seem like the actions of those worried for their own welfare, though.
    - AR

  • 2/16 4:58pm TMB: Re: 2/13 4:48pm "Just to clarify, my interest in gaining enough proof to establish a coalition is to minimize the sure to follow chaos and call to arms of all Muslim nations against the US. If there is a coalition it will reduce the accusation that we, the US, are acting alone just for oil or in a war against Islam."
    I understand the fear that drives remarks such as these but in effect you are holding yourself hostage to the Islamic world. "Your interest in gaining enough proof ... to minimize ... the call to arms of all Muslim nations against the US" is what seems to be behind so much of the reluctance to go after Iraq.
    Since when does the fear that Muslims will be angry about a US decision drive our foreign policy - this holds us hostage to a potential fear that others may not like a decision that we make.
    What happens down the line - every time we make a decision in the future re: a Muslim country do we have to be fearful about whether or not their may be a "call to arms of all Muslim nations against the US" - you're setting yourself up for a foreign policy that needs approval by non-US nations - a big mistake - you're holding us hostage to the perceptions of others.
    All agree Hussein is "The Butcher of Baghdad" - so let's leave him alone otherwise Muslims will get upset?? How about when they get upset for our support for Israel? How about if they demand less US support for the Israeli government... or else Muslims may be called to arms?
    Isn't that in effect what Osama Bin Laden is already doing?
    Bottom line is I'm no going to continually duct tape my doors and windows out of a potentially, on-going fear of chem/bio warfare launched by a variety of international sources - I'm going after one of the sources - one that won't even demonstrate what they've done with previously documented quantities of these materials. Iraq is only one of these sources but it is a know, documented source - we've got to be in this for the long haul folks - we can't hide our heads in the sand from what - if it isn't now - soon will be - clear and present danger.
    - WD

  • 2/16 8:37am To DAF and WJB: The point of the Wall Street Journal's editorial was to inform the public of the horrific scenario published by the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies in the event of a small pox outbreak and to decry the health-care unions' delay and demand for more compensation (in addition to the compensation they already receive) from the federal government to implement President Bush's smallpox vaccination program. While the article appears in the editorial section, it is not mere opinion or speculation. Let's give Johns Hopkins the benefit of the their proven medical expertise, please.
    And to WJB, we are awaiting the next terrorist attack apparently because Bin Laden and his organization have not been eliminated. And if there is NO connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq as the foreign minister of Belgium mistakenly maintains, why should a hard stance against Iraq irritate Bin Laden? Especially if Bin Laden dislikes Hussein as you have discussed?
    There is a political and socialist factor to consider in all of this, as was mentioned in Bin Laden's recent tape. And it is no accident that the Leftist factions at home and abroad are demonstrating. As was mentioned before, the anti-war rally organized in Washington recently was orchestrated by a San Francisco based group called International ANSWER. ANSWER is closely affiliated with the Workers World Party which spends much of its energy supporting Iraq and North Korea. It is no accident that ANWSER has barred any pro-Israeli speakers from their rallies. The Leftist demonstrators abroad are of the same ilk. These are socialist/leftist and radical groups, which want to label the current world situation as American warmongering. But the fact is the U.S. is pushing for DEFENSE.defense of itself, it's people and the defense of the world authority and equilibrium NATO must uphold.
    It is we who are under assault. It is the U.S. which must defend itself against the criminal use of terrorist and bio-warfare. The culture, history or size of Iraq or Al Qaeda is not the deciding factor, but the effectiveness of their deliberate effort to undermine and disrupt our society. This is not a typical war situation of big gun against big gun. It is more insidious than that. These aggressive forces, meaning Bin Laden and Hussein, know they cannot defeat the U.S. on the usual playing field of conventional warfare, so they have taken their aggression to a new level of terrorist warfare and international political manipulation. To delay America now from defending itself is to play right into their hands.
    - MS

  • 2/14 2:22pm Rhetorical questions posed by the foreign minister of Belgium, as quoted by AP News:
    `"Why attack Iraq and not North Korea?" he said last month. "Why link Iraq to the fight against terrorism while (the Americans) know full well Iraq has no links to al-Qaida? Why say a war is needed to protect yourself while Iraq's military power is ridiculously small?" Michel said.'
    - AR

  • 2/14 2:14pm MS: Good article. This demonstrates that we are vulnerable to terrorism, and must do all we can do to counter the threat of terrorism. Attacking Iraq increases the threat of terrorism, because it will almost certainly swell the ranks and motivation of the terrorists. Our belligerence toward Iraq is the probable reason why the nation is now holding its breath waiting for the next attack.
    - WJB

  • 2/14 11:16am WJB: I don't know if you subscribe the Wall Street Journal - I do for business reasons. The quoted piece on Dark Winter was an editorial - it runs on their subscription-based Web site under their "Review and Outlook" heading. It is not an objective piece of reporting (it doesn't intend to be).
    - DAF

  • 2/14 11:11am Just finished listening to Blix present to the UN. To me, it sounded like he was saying that they're making good progress, that they've found no major violations, that they couldn't find violations which were pointed out to them by the British, and that at least some of the evidence Powell presented as "proof" of Iraqi non-compliance (moving the decontamination vehicle) was bogus.
    What I can't understand is why the inspectors object to tape recodrings of the interviews they intend to conduct. Apparently it's not that Hussein does not allow the scientists to be interviewed, but that the scientists themselves wish to retain a record of the interview - and the inspectors are refusing!
    - AR

  • 2/14 10:59am This is an example of why some of us fear that our approach toward Iraq is short sighted. For centuries rebels, terrorists, and insurrectionists have known that "the people" will follow those who demonstrate (or claim) they have the people's interest in mind. It is why the people of Afghanistan rejoiced to have the Taliban thrown out. But once again we appear to be squandering an opportunity to build stability and allegiance, while "the people" look for someone who will lead them.
    "On February 12th, American combat jets dropped bombs on hostile militants in Afghanistan's Baghran Valley, reportedly killing several fighters and at least 17 civilians. The air assault came in response to an increase in attacks in southern Afghanistan by groups linked to the ousted Taliban regime and al-Qaeda. This is a stark reminder that, though the Taliban no longer rule in Kabul, the Afghan capital, they still hold sway in outlying parts of the country, despite the presence of around 10,000 American-led troops who continue to hunt them down."

    "American officials like to point to their spending in Afghanistan: $840m since October 2001, with plans to spend at a similar rate this year. That might sound like a lot, but it is little more than Iran, an impoverished country, has promised to its neighbour. In one astonishing oversight, the Bush administration failed to request funds for humanitarian aid and reconstruction in Afghanistan in the latest budget, prompting Congress to step in and allocate $300m on February 13th. Much of America's spending has gone on achieving its military objectives, rather than on aid or construction programmes."

    See article: Don't start what you can't finish
    - TMB
    [This line caught my eye - ``The consensus is that, having changed the Afghan regime, America has lost interest before finishing the job.'' - Wm.]

  • 2/14 8:19am To WJB: For your information.
    Dark Smallpox Winter, The Wall Street Journal, February 11, 2003, p. A26:
    - MS

  • 2/13   4:48pm WD: just to clarify, my interest in gaining enough proof to establish a coalition is to minimize the sure to follow chaos and call to arms of all Muslim nations against the US. If there is a coalition it will reduce the accusation that we, the US, are acting alone just for oil or in a war against Islam. Since the consequences of making the wrong decision, which ever that is, can be horrific, I believe a well thought out consensus should be a guiding principle.
    MS: I agree with much of your last post, especially that the US should not be blamed at this stage. However, I part company in the accusation that our attacking Iraq is the same as hunting down terrorists. Let me answer, from my perspective, the question that DAF put to you. "What experience or credible information might shift your current view on the invasion of Iraq?" If there was enough proof of serious weapons violations that our allies agreed with us that war is the best alternative. I choose those words carefully. Quite frankly, I don't know if six 4+year old mustard gas shells is "proof" or "serious." Apparently some governments think it is not and ours thinks it is. The same can be said of yesterday's missile find - I am not qualified to judge. And since those who I think are qualified can't agree, I favor caution.
    And I completely agree with your statement "the U.S. and the NATO forces must also prove to the world that they have the morality and conviction..." However, to me part of that morale concern regards waging a war on imprisoned civilians if there is an alternative. I don't think we have reached the point of determining there is no alternative regarding Iraq. To be clear, if you were to ask me the same question about al Qaeda, my answer would be very different.
    - TMB

  • 2/13   3:44pm MS: I am getting more and more confused by your posts. You said "Al Qaeda has indeed used bio-warfare, as the anthrax in our postal system proves." FYI, the anthrax in our postal system is believed to have a domestic source.
    You said "Hussein, Al Qaeda and North Korea do their best to attack the U.S...." Surely you know that only one of those three have attacked the U.S., and Hussein in fact is the only one of the three that has not even threatened to attack the U.S.
    You said "Iraq has been in violation of NATO for years." I don't know what you're referring to here. How does one become in violation of NATO?
    You say that we are not demonstrating "an irrational exuberance for a war" because it has been almost a year and a half since three thousand Americans were killed on 9/11. I hope you are aware that not even President Bush accuses Hussein and Iraq of being involved in that attack. If there was the merest thread of evidence that Iraq was involved, you can be sure that the accusation would be made.
    You said "It falls to the U.S. to repel this aggression..." What aggression? The whole issue that many of us have with this pending war is the fact that Iraq has not committed any aggression since 1991, and shows no signs of doing so.
    Not to worry, I don't blame you for torturing a few facts, since that is now so popular in Washington. Even the formerly esteemed Colin Powell joined the party yesterday by alleging that the latest Bin Laden tape demonstrates a "partnership" between Hussein and Bin Laden. This was an odd comment, since the tape in no way suggests that Bin Laden is being assisted by Hussein, and the tape in fact repeatedly insults Hussein and his political party. This was just another example of members of the Bush administation demonstrating a willingness to say anything, regardless of accuracy, to support their case for war. That doesn't buy my support.
    - WJB

  • 2/13   2:38pm There's some question about the legality of Bush waging war on Iraq just yet - a lawsuit has been filed in federal court seeking an injunction to prevent an invasion. According to the Constitution, only Congress may declare war, which it has not done so. The resolution passed in October giving Bush liberty to wage war if he so chooses may have been an illegal delegation of authority. Read details in this AP News story.
    - AR

  • 2/13   2:31pm ``...If we can identify enough "proof" to win a coalition of support, then an invasion may be the only recourse...''
    We are either right in our convictions or wrong - we don't need to wait for France's approval - yes all that is nice to have but remember France was still trying to make up their minds about whether Hitler was containable or not, while Nazis were crossing their borders.
    France and Germany are deeply tied to economic interests in Iraq they'll jump on the US band wagon but only after the barn door is closed.
    - WD

  • 2/13   2:29pm Outstanding and timely post by TMB. Timely regarding both the larger question before us all as well as the carefully thought-out suggestions related to the tone and quality of our NorfolkNet debate. Although I am clearly on the side of one of the major "combatants," just like TMB I have learned from both. And one can learn even more by visiting www.unitedforpeace.org Apparently, those nasty "social democrats" are up to no good again by insisting on facts and information from more than one source. Rapidly swelling anti-war demonstrations are on in over 500 cities worldwide this Saturday, the 15th
    - TEM

  • 2/13   2:28pm MS: I'm done. If I read your answer correctly, there is no possible experience or credible information that, if you encountered it, might shift your current view on the invasion of Iraq. As such, your view on this subject is an article of faith, not logic. As St. Augustine observed 1,700 years ago: "Faith is believing what you do not see; the reward of faith is to see what you believe." Faith is probably the wrong word to use in this instance. Doctrine is probably more correct. As Tony Benn once said: "A faith is something you die for, a doctrine is something you kill for. There is all the difference in the world." Yes, I know Tony Benn was a Labour member of parliament, so I'll do you a favor and note that this quotation is probably just the elderly ravings of a socialist British politician.
    TMB: thank you for your kind words of support. You have debunked MS's arguments expertly. The idea that MS seems to have that any of us want to negotiate with bin Laden or do not care about loss of human life has an Alice in Wonderland quality to it.
    - DAF

  • 2/13   2:26pm To TMB: With all due respect, it is exasperating to be accused of, as you say, "continuing the same old drum beat of `do it to them before they do it to us.'" What I am trying to establish is that "they," meaning the terrorists have led the assault right from the start with 9/11. And the Al Qaeda has indeed used bio-warfare, as the anthrax in our postal system proves. The U.S. is not the leading cause in this conflict. We are desperately trying to end it legally, with the support of NATO, while Hussein, Al Qaeda, and North Korea do their best to attack the U.S. and the western order represented by NATO.

    You raise the question of whether we should be tolerant of people who are different from us and impose our order on those who disagree. I submit to you that NATO is THE order the U.S. has upheld and is trying to uphold here, not some private scheme. It has nothing to do with being intolerant of cultural differences, but it has everything to do with being intolerant of the criminal acts which hallmark the present situation. Iraq has been in violation of NATO for years. And I hardly need to prove why terrorism is a violation. North Korea has violated its arms agreement as well. What everyone has been reluctant to do for many years now, including the United States, and one might say, especially the U.S., is to confront these matters. We are living in a post-Cold War, post-socialism world (though the socialists are doing their best to prolong their demise), and the action we take now will illustrate for all time whether the United States and NATO can continue to maintain world equilibrium in the light of a proliferation of foreign nuclear arms programs and bio-warfare.

    I cannot agree with your statement that our government has been in a "rush to war from the beginning." We are talking about international violations which have festered for years. And it has been almost a year and a half since THREE THOUSAND Americans were killed in the 9/11 attack on New York and Washington. I hardly call that "an irrational exuberance for a war."

    Please allow me to make this plain with out insulting anyone's sensibilities. I do not think that the United States is to be shamed, faulted or blamed in this situation. These are cultural, diplomatic and economic factors which are converging in our place and time. It falls to the U.S. to repel this aggression because we are literally the only country in the world with the resources to do it. And even though some may not want to mention philosophical or religious beliefs in this discussion, the U.S. and the NATO forces must also prove to the world that they have the morality and conviction to maintain order as well.

    - MS

  • 2/13   9:36am To DAF: I am resubmitting Paragraph 4 of my answer because it was not included entirely in my last transmission
    - MS
    [During transcription, I must have somehow lost two sentences. The short paragraph beginning with "Paragraph 4" was missing - Wm.]

  • 2/13   8:57am MS: I've been paying close attention to this debate on Norfolknet the past couple of weeks and I have found it to be very educational as the "main combatants" clearly do their homework and for the most part articulate their arguments clearly. Let me say up front, in the spirit of full disclosure, that I have struggled with our government's rush to war from the beginning. Nonetheless, I have learned from the arguments presented by both sides. If we can identify enough "proof" to win a coalition of support, then an invasion may be the only recourse. But shouldn't that be where we apply our diplomatic efforts, to win that support? Are the governments of the most advanced and populated countries, excluding Tony Blair but including Parliament, blind to the dangers to their own countries? Or do they only see an irrational exuberance for a war that can be avoided w/o conceding to a vicious dictator. I believe the concern you are hearing from most of us is that not only has proof not been presented to us, but the international community seems to dismiss the proof that has been presented to them. Shouldn't we stop and ask why that is?

    But MS, please try to keep this civil! DAF continues to present well thought out logical arguments and questions. You continue the same old drum beat of "do it to them before they do it to us." It is old and clearly not supported by the vast majority of people on the planet. And now, you're going to start to cast questions about DAF's concern for humanity?? Once we start to believe that we are ordained by a higher authority to impose (enforce?) our "order" on those who disagree and we will not tolerate any question, are we no different than those we detest? Every one in this dialogue has stated that Saddam is an evil person and that the world would be a better place without him. (You seem to be almost using "Saddam" and "bin Laden" interchangeably.) I fear there is a relationship between the two, but I have seen no evidence to convince me. And at best, the latest bin Laden tape would seem to support that he tolerates the government of Iraq and certainly doesn't endorse it. (And if we were threatening more forceful inspections or increased economic sanctions what do you suppose this latest tape from bin Laden would have said? Have we not played right into his hands and given his followers even more reason to believe he is right?)

    I don't think I'm overly simplifying when I say some of the facts are: Everyone of us wants to see Al Qaeda wiped out. Attacking Iraq, according to the CIA, will most likely strengthen al Qaeda and increase the probability of terrorist attacks. Iraq, at this time, is incapable of launching a direct attack on the US (unless it is at US forces thrust into his country.) There is no evidence of mutual support between Iraq and al Qaeda.

    If this is true, (and I know some can be debated but I am looking for evidence, and not concern, conjecture, innuendo, etc.) then have we not placed our priority of action in the wrong place? Everything I've read indicates there are more al Qaeda in Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Philippines and maybe even the US than there are in Iraq. As of today we 150,000 troop perched ready to attack Iraq but the most threatening enemy seems to be elsewhere. Don't you think we are owed an explanation that goes beyond "he's murdered his own people, he'll do it to us too."? As for international support, I have traveled extensively throughout Europe. (Although not for the past few months as I am unemployed in one of the worst economic environments since the depression. And I believe partly as a result of the administrations fixation on Iraq as opposed to terrorism, the economy, healthcare, etc. but that's probably a different web discussion...) I only read one international publication, The Economist, but I think it pretty objective. From my travels in the UK, Holland, Germany, France and Italy I can tell you that the sentiment I consistently see is that "America" has squandered a wonderful gift. All of its success has gone to the heads of its leaders and they now seem to believe they can bully anyone into "their way." When ever ANY of us have been faced with a bully, I believe human nature is to resist and even fight back if provoked enough. And we do this without thinking about whether the bully is right or not, because we are protesting the method not the result.

    In this case, our methods are those of a bully. We refuse to consult with or lend credence to our allies. We dismiss as poor judgment or "weakness" any voice that dares to ask us to answer direct questions about proof or alternatives.

    (There are some inconsistencies in the data you've presented, but since I know there will be sentences above that won't stand the light of day and I too can also only quote a media prone to exaggeration and errors I'm supposing some are just "enthusiasm." But a few points: we can't invade or occupy al Qaeda; apparently the CIA has known about the N Korean missile for a couple of years, and it has never been tested so no one is quite certain it actually works; al Qaeda has never used biological weapons, etc.; Turkey's concern is based on its self interest in the tribal make-up of the next regime; Iraq scientists can not leave Iraq - and you can not legally go to Iraq either.)

    - TMB

  • 2/12   10:47pm To DAF: Since you have difficulty, I will use your paragraph outline to answer.

    Paragraph 1: To answer your question: "What experience or credible information might shift your current view on the invasion of Iraq?" To whit, this: If Hussein had never used bio-warfare in his bloody regime, I might consider that he would practice restraint now. But the FACT is that he, and Al Qaeda, have used, and are more than willing to use these criminal weapons again, i.e. nerve gas, anthrax, poison, and smallpox. Hussein has even gassed his own people. So we are not just talking about conventional warfare here, even if you find carpet bombing the worst of all possible methods. We face consequences beyond bombing and nuking. I submit that bio-warfare is what we face now, because that is the most effective weapon available to Al Qaeda and Hussein. And oh what fun THAT will be.

    Paragraph 2: Do you really think that arms destroyed in 1998 could not be replaced? Three to four years is a lot of time to buy new (or used), make or dig up something which has been hidden.

    Paragraph 3: Can you prove that these sessions, even with out a "minder" present, weren't bugged? And why aren't any Iraqi scientists allowed to leave Iraq? And are you telling me that ABC News has better surveillance and intelligence than the U.S. and/or the UN? I ask you.

    Paragraph 4: DAF, are you certain we read the same text? Bin Laden doesn't call Hussein an infidel. Here's the paragraph cut straight from your footnote:

    Bin Laden: "Regardless of the removal or the survival of the socialist party OR Saddam, Muslims in general and the Iraqis in particular must brace themselves for jihad against this unjust campaign and acquire ammunition and weapons. "

    Regardless of the survival of the socialist party OR Saddam. Sounds to me like Bin Laden has had some encounter with both and perhaps has enjoyed support from one or the other. And it certainly sounds like he considers Saddam his associate in the jihad. But now that the chips are down, and one or both might fall, Bin Laden wants to assure his followers that his and their activity will go on.

    And the following, taken straight from the footnote you provide, sounds like Bin Laden would like to cover his bets even though he considers the socialists a bunch of infidels.

    Bin Laden: "Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists. "

    Gee, DAF, how do you like being referred to as a "crusader." If he can carry a grudge for a thousand years, do you think he will stop to negotiate with ANYbody?

    Paragraph 5: The poll you mention was taken before France and Germany moved to dump Turkey's UN option for protection. Turkey's government found that serious enough to petition the UN for the fulfillment of the code of alliance. If they didn't care, do you think that they would have bothered? Perhaps it is because they don't want to be sacrificed like Czechoslovakia before WWII?

    And as for the Saudi plan to topple Hussein, where are the results? After all their talk for all these years, what have they done? I think they have been cheering him on.

    Paragraph 6: No, I am NOT saying we should attack Iraq because of Al Qaeda. What I am saying is that they are both criminal and both warrant invasion and occupation because both are in violation of NATO. Nor will either honor NATO, the U.S. or any other political body wishing to negotiate and so thereby pose an immediate and serious threat to other nations - our nation, particular.

    I've been meaning to ask, why isn't you first consideration the safety of innocent people here at home? We are, at present, directly threatened with yet another round of bio-chemical weapons courtesy of Al Qaeda. The West Coast is within range of North Korea's illegal nuclear missiles. And Hussein has been found guilty of possessing a missile system which violates NATO range restrictions. Can't you now admit that we are dealing with criminals? Can't you now admit that the use of force in this situation is unavoidable? Be honest, do you really think that Hussein and Al Qaeda will settle down and SERIOUSLY negotiate? They think that we are dirt, and spineless at that.

    - MS
    [2/13 8:54am Correction: Due to a transcription error, the first two sentences of Paragraph 4 were previously omitted; my apologies - Wm.]

  • 2/12   2:45pm MS: This discussion feels like trying to nail Jell-o to a wall. Each time I raise a substantiated fact that contradicts your view, you change the focus. After a string of these, you end up where you began and we start all over again. I'll answer your latest post, but I'd appreciate it if you could answer this question: What experience or credible information might shift your current view on the invasion of Iraq? If you can't answer this question, then I have no desire to continue the conversation. If you cannot accept the possibility that you might be wrong, then you are arguing from faith, not logic, and discussion is pointless.

    "The arms they have recovered are most likely what he [Hussein] wishes to divulge."
    Do you have any evidence for this statement? There are UN Inspectors, like Scott Ritter, who claim that when the UN pulled out the inspectors in 1998, Iraq was left with no weapons of mass destruction capabilities. The Guardian reported that UNSCOM had destroyed or made unusable 48 long range missiles, 14 conventional missile warheads, 30 chemical warheads, "supergun" components, close to 40,000 chemical munitions, 690 tons of chemical weapons agents and the al-Hakam biological weapons plant.

    Iraqi scientists are not allowed to speak to inspectors with out a "minder" present.
    That was true early on, but is no longer true. See the ABC News story.

    If you listened to the most recent Al Qaeda missive supposedly from Bin Laden, you would see why depending on the Arabs to disarm the situation is a pipe dream. It is clear that Iraq and Al Qaeda will not be stopped without a full American invasion and occupation.
    I read the transcript of the tape. Not only does it not establish any connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda, but bin Laden refers to Hussein as an "infidel." The "socialists" bin Laden refers to with such vitriol are Saddam Hussein and Iraqi government. He says "Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or Aden." Apparently bin Laden hates socialism and socialists as much as you do. Who would have thought you'd have anything in common?

    And what of the other Muslim nations? The liberal ones like Turkey are screaming for U.S. protection and the conservative ones are sitting pat and planning to reduce and resist American intervention once the assault is over.
    Turkey According to the Times, a recent poll of the Turkish people found 94 per cent opposed to US military intervention in Iraq. The Turkish government itself only reluctantly agreed to allow American forces to come to their country. See the Reuters/ABC News story. That's hardly "screaming for US protection." I urge you to read the Time article on the Saudi plan to topple Hussein without murdering innocent civilians in a war. This is not "sitting pat."

    And to put it bluntly, if we must risk human life it is because the Moslem extremists have forced it upon the world. THEY are the ones determined to kill.
    In 1997, the population of Iraq was estimated at 22.2 million people. Estimates of the number of Al Qaeda members worldwide range from several hundred to at the most several thousand (Council on Foreign Relations). Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the largest estimates of the number of Al Qaeda are correct -- 9,000. And let's assume, for the sake of argument, that every single living member of Al Qaeda is in Iraq (obviously not the case). You're telling me that the world (which is mostly against attacking Iraq at the moment) is being forced by 0.004% of the population of Iraq to attack the other 22,191,000 people? I thought that we were stronger than that.

    -DAF

  • 2/12   11:55am To DAF: You choose to ignore how inspections have failed. The arms they have recovered are most likely what he wishes to divulge. The UN is in Iraq playing Hussein's game of deception on his home ground. Iraqi scientists are not allowed to speak to inspectors with out a "minder" present. Nor are Iraqi scientists and their families allowed to leave Iraq to speak with any UN-Western authoritative representatives and thus avoid reprisals from Hussein. Hussein murdered his own brother-in-law because of his alleged infidelity and contact with Westerners. How can you expect diplomacy and UN inspections to work in this criminal situation?
    If you listened to the most recent Al Qaeda missive supposedly from Bin Laden, you would see why depending on the Arabs to disarm the situation is a pipe dream. It is clear that Iraq and Al Qaeda will not be stopped without a full American invasion and occupation. And I will answer you for the third time, going into this dangerous situation with military force now will be far less costly in human lives than if we let it fester. And to put it bluntly, if we must risk human life it is because the Moslem extremists have forced it upon the world. THEY are the ones determined to kill.
    Bin Laden has urged his "Moslem brothers" in Iraq to strike at American urban centers because "that is what the Americans fear most ." He advised them that it is possible to withstand our military if they just pray to God and hold their position by "lying flat behind a mound of earth because the smart bombs cannot find their targets that way." Bin Laden also advised Iraq "not to listen to the Socialists because they are non-believers" and "not to take leadership from a Christian or a Jew."
    And what of the other Muslim nations? The liberal ones like Turkey are screaming for U.S. protection and the conservative ones are sitting pat and planning to reduce and resist American intervention once the assault is over.
    Once again, I must point out to you that the U.S. is the only nation which can neutralize today's political situation.
    - MS

  • 2/11   4:49pm MS: I'm not sure what my travel and reading habits have to do with the facts. This is sure to bore people, but the German elections were nearly won last time around by the conservative Christian Democrats. The Social Democrats won by a hair's breath and only by forming a coalition with the Greens. The Socialist Party (the PDS) received only 4% of the vote. I suppose one could interpret 4% of the total voting population as "many." Maybe you mean to imply that the Social Democrats are Socialists? As you must know from your extensive travel and reading, the social democrats broke with the socialist movement in the early 20th century. They reject the idea of socialist revolution and instead try to achieve progressive ideals through democratic means (you can see their most recent platform at cnn). They are akin to US Democrats (something tells me you think they are Socialists, too.)
    Iraq is not Hitler's Germany. We've spoken about this on this forum before. Hitler and God are best left out of debates on Iraq. Both are crutches used by too many on both sides of the argument.
    You say: "It is dangerously wrong to assume that the problem will 'go away' or die a natural death." I know of nobody who thinks that the problem will just go away. Nobody here is "turning a blind eye" to anything. We are debating whether or not bombing and invading Iraq is the way to protect America with the least loss of life.
    If the attack goes forward, the US Military planners say they intend to use a "Shock and Awe" campaign, dropping more bombs on Baghdad in the first day than were dropped in the entire 1991 Operation Desert Storm ( CBS News). In that 40-day war, the US and coalition forces killed thousands and thousands of civilians directly and tens of thousands indirectly from damage done to medical facilities, the electrical power grid, and the water system ( BusinessWeek. This destruction can only be assumed to be unintentional, but one can only imagine what the results of this new "Shock and Awe" bombing will be for civilians.
    I ask you for the third time, why go to war and risk the lives of our men and women in uniform and the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqis when inspections have destroyed more weapons of mass destruction than we ever destroyed by bombing? Why not let inspections continue and work with Arab allies to get Saddam out of power (the Saudis, for example, have provided the UN Security Council with a plan for ousting Saddam without war).
    -DAF

  • 2/11   1:59pm To DAF: Au contraire, mon ami. There are MANY socialists of every stripe in Germany and France. If you want the voting results, they are available. But more to the point, have you visited these countries lately? I have. Do you have any contact with foreign nationals abroad? I do. Do you read any foreign news journals. They are readily available on the Web. The anti-American animosity the Left has generated to serve their own end is considerable. Please be real.
    And as for disarmament, a complete disarmament is very possible. That is the purpose of an occupation, as Germany well remembers. It is dangerously wrong to assume that the problem will "go away" or die a natural death. Hussein's activity and Al Qaeda will only propagate. The time to stop them is now while they are still in development. If the U.S. doesn't stop them, who will? And if the U.S. doesn't intervene, it will send the message to every crackpot and criminal around the world that it is possible literally to get away with blackmail, bio-warfare and murder. Then the instability you fear the most, WILL happen. Just read Johns Hopkins University 's scenario for a smallpox outbreak. It's in today's (2/11/03) Wall Street Journal, page A26, Review & Outlook: Dark Smallpox Winter.
    - MS

  • 2/11   8:27am MS: Once again, Germany and France are not socialist countries and they are joined by the overwhelming majority of European Union countries in their opposition to an invasion of Iraq at this time. And that's what I mean by this word "war" you dislike. I mean "the bombing and invasion of Iraq." The poll was pretty straightforward: the question was "Should the US strike Iraq without UN Support" and only 37% said yes.
    I'm growing tired of this merry-go-round we're on. I never said there were no socialists. Can we agree that there a small number of them in the US and elsewhere and then move on? You mentioned the Ramsey Clark group that I specifically referred to in my 2/10, 9:21am post. There are plenty of wackos against the war, but the majority are mainstream people. This guilt by association nonsense is no good. The pro-war camp has its share of fringe groups and nut jobs: just yesterday I was listening to the radio on the way home from work and heard Libertarian Iraq invasion supporter Jay Severin advocating the "nuking" of Mecca during the Haj in order to solve our problems with terrorism.
    It's nice to agree with you again: I agree that Hussein is guilty of crimes against humanity and should be prosecuted. Technically, since we are not yet at war, he can't be guilty of a Geneva Convention infraction, I think. But it doesn't much matter - he is guilty of so many others.
    And so we are back to the question I asked: if we destroyed more weapons of mass destruction by inspections, why should we bomb?
    WJB: we're on the same side. I agree that complete disarmement is impossible (one can hide some of the biological and chemical agents in a dorm room refridgerator). But inspections and destruction of wmd's has been working and inspections are the answer. We're in agreement.
    - DAF

  • 2/11   8:23am To WJB: For the past twelve years, Hussein has been anything but "contained." On the contrary, turning a blind eye to his activities has only made matters worse. And given his beligerent record, he has proven that he will stop at nothing. Hussein has the people of Iraq in a vice grip much like Castro. "If we can keep him in his box and wait for the day when we can support the people of Irag in rising up against him" is a mighty big "IF." It's as nebulous as speculating what grief the world would have been saved "IF" it had been spared an Adolph Hitler.
    And Hussein has provided us with another big "IF." The UN inspectors have his permission to fly U-2 planes "IF" they only fly in his approved designated areas. How helpful! Just more proof of his contempt for the UN and the rest of the world.
    - MS

  • 2/10   5:51pm To DAF: Please don't twist words. What I have said, and what I am saying now, is that we are up against criminals (meaning Hussein and Al Qaeda), and are now receiving interference from socialist-based interests at the UN (meaning for the most part Germany and France). The socialist interests in these countries know they are in the final stages of their influence and are only prolonging the agony by slinging as much mud as they can at the U.S.
    If you quoted that 100% of Americans did not want a "war," as loosely defined as one can make it, I would not be dismayed. I do not want a "war," nor do I believe President Bush wants one either. What we must rectify are the social evils Hussein and Al Qaeda have perpetrated on world society. But they will not give up without further violence, and so it is on their head. The latest news is that Hussein has positioned his troops adjacent to civilian populated areas in direct violation of the Geneva Code. And as President Bush points out, Hussein is using his own people as a human shield.
    And if you doubt the existence of socialists in the United States, I refer you to an article published February 10, 2003 in the National Review by Byron York:
    ``The [antiwar demonstration in Washington on January 18th] was put together by a group called International ANSWER. ANSWER is an outgrowth of another group called the International Action Center [based in San Francisco]. Both ANSWER and the International Action Center are closely allied with a small but energetic Marxist-Leninist organization known as the Workers World Party, which has supported the Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Today the WWP devotes much of its energy to supporting the regimes in Iraq and North Korea.''
    - MS

  • 2/10   5:29pm DAF: Although we usually agree on the subject of the impending war, I don't agree with you that there is a genuine need to disarm Hussein. Let's be honest and admit that the inspectors are unlikely to achieve a complete disarmament - Hussein will always be able to hide something. The goal should be containment, not complete disarmament, and the history of the last 12 years shows how well it has worked. In the past 12 years, Hussein has not managed to do much of anything, expect survive. Certainly, his days of military adventures seem to be over. By all accounts, his nuclear program has gone nowhere. As long as large numbers of inspectors are in the country, it is going to be difficult to impossible for him to advance his weapons programs. Eventually, of course, he will be overthrown, as are virtually all repressive dictators. If we can keep him in his box and wait for the day when we can support the people of Iraq in rising up against him (as we spectacularly failed to do at the end of the Gulf War), the result will be far better for us, and far better for the world, than firing 300 cruise missiles at Baghdad and launching a unilateral invasion. All we are going to do is bring about the very things that we say we are trying to prevent. Some say that we run the risk that he will give weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda. While I cannot say absolutely that there is no risk of this, weighing against this risk are 1) the fact that he has not yet done so, despite the fact that he has had these weapons since the 1980's, 2) the knowledge that he certainly must have that using, or providing to others to use, his weapons of mass destruction will certainly result in an overwhelming U.S. military response. Above all, Hussein wants to survive, and 3) the potential logistical difficulty of uncovering and transporting these weapons while large numbers of inspectors are in the country, especially since those inspectors now have permission to use U-2 spy planes. Certainly, the Iraq-Al Qaeda "links" cited by Powell last week are tenuous at best, mostly involving an Al Qaeda operative based in an area Hussein does not control (and why haven't we bombed that camp yet?), and Al Qaeda operatives slipping in and out of Baghdad without government sanction (they're here in the U.S. too). Other allegations of links are based on testimony of captured terrorists - hardly reliable sources, and who knows what they really said. Germany, France and Russia know that containment is the way to go here, and the man who not too long ago proclaimed "I'm a patient man" should try proving it.
    - WJB

  • 2/10   4:22pm MS: In your 2/9 post you said that the impending war is about US-style capitalism against the evil Socialists and Communists. When the fact that very few socialist countries (Cuba) are on our list of terrorist-sponsors, you said "only the social-democrats at home here in the U.S. and abroad do not wish to proceed because they know that this will ruin their last hold on the political front." You've been shown that the facts disagree with this, too. You've been shown that 70% of Americans are against war without UN sponsorship and many of the people who have been the most outspoken against the war have spent the greater part of their lives fighting the communism and socialism you ascribe to them.
    So now you say that "northeast universities" are the socialists and have brainwashed our pouplation (including, I take it, Pat Buchanan, Norman Schwartzkopf, et al.)! Come on, you can do better than that. That's as tired as an armless old man in a room full of mosquitoes. Rumsfeld's attempts at painting the war debate as Old Europe vs. New Europe are just sad. Bush has the support of just eight of the 25 leaders of European Union member and candidate countries. I guess by "New Europe" he means Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic - the three countries we'll get into NATO. These "New Europe" countries are economically and militarily insignificant in comparison to Germany and France. And NATO, formed to fight the Cold War, is a dying organization, not "new."
    I was, however, happy to see that we are in agreement on one thing you said (although oddly you felt you had to "beg to differ" on this point). You said "there is a genuine need in the world today for the United States to disarm Hussein and end the Al Qaeda." I agree 100%. That doesn't mean bombing Iraq, however. I've mentioned here at least twice the fact that the UN has destroyed more weapons of mass destruction via inspections than we've managed to get by bombing. With such a difference in efficacy, why would we bomb? And that's the minimum level of logical analysis. TEM makes some great points about the likely additional negative results of a US invasion of Iraq.
    - DAF

  • 2/10   3:18pm To TEM: You can fear putting down Hussein and the Al Qaeda, but that is exactly the job before us. And quite frankly, no one else in the world can do it but us. The UN forces simply do not have the strength. And do you really believe that once the United States began the forced disarmament of Hussein and Al Qaeda that we would go mad with power? Do you really believe that the United States, which has kept the equilibrium in the West since WWII, not to mention cleaning up after both world wars, would lose control and invite random devastation? I don't call twelve years of diplomatic frustrations with Hussein, or so much negotiation with the UN after 9/11, as being trigger happy. The danger is in waiting too long and becoming bogged down in an international political dispute.
    The U.S. is precisely the country to lead right now because we have the experience and the technology. But most of all we have the morality to stop as soon as the situation is corrected. Hussein and the Al Qaeda have demonstrated that they will stop at nothing - the UN, the West or anything else.
    To DAF: The proof is in Colin Powell's report and Iraq's behavior. The proof is in the self-serving posturing France and Germany has pursued, even in the light of Hussein's atrocities. The proof is at Ground Zero. But the NBC poll you mention only reflects the reluctance of a civilized nation to use force. It does not answer the reality of what needs to be done to stop Hussein and the Al Qaeda.
    In answer to your second query, there is ample evidence of socialist belief here at home. Attend any university, especially in the northeast, and you will find it quite acceptable to propagate the social-democratic viewpoint. The tragedy is that this nonsense has seeped into the popular mindset.
    And if you had travelled through Germany and France recently as I have, you would have noted the rising anti-Americanism being mustered by the leftists there. The demonstrations in Germany for Rumsfeld benefit were organized by their leftist Labor parties and the religious community, two bastions of social democracy if there ever were any.
    But please also note the demonstrations organized in South Korea IN SUPPORT of the United States. And they have no illusions whatsoever about what a modern military action would involve.
    So I beg to differ, there is a genuine need in the world today for the United States to disarm Hussein and end the Al Qaeda. It will be an awesome (meaning soul-wrenching) undertaking, but it is the work placed before us much like the moral decisions we faced in entering the two World Wars.
    - MS

  • 2/10   9:25am To MS: "The issue is to... destroy an international ring of terrorists before an armageddon can start." This is exactly the fear many of us have (both here and abroad, and - with all due respect - has absolutely nothing to do with communism, socialism, "social-democrats," or God). If Bush, Rumsfeld, et. al., continue to press forward in the isolated, hawkish direction they seem hellbent on, yielding to a simplistic, ultimately tragic, trigger-happy solution to an enormously complex and dangerous problem, it could very well turn out to be the very impetus the armageddon you speak of requires. We will have swallowed the bait and placed ourselves and our allies precisely in the draining, precarious, and ultimately vulnerable position the fundamentalist extremists are praying for.
    - TEM

  • 2/10   9:21am MS: that's an interesting theory, but do you have any proof for what you are saying? Since polls show that only 60% of Americans support an invasion of Iraq, does that mean that the other 40% have socialist aspirations or are communist party members? Only 30% of Americans would currently support an attack without UN support (NBC Poll). Are the other 70% of us members of Marxist collectives?
    The Germans have one of the largest capitalist economies in the world. France has a presidential democracy. The US citizens who are against the war are not solely democrats (I don't know any social-democrats, unless you are using it in a way that defines socialists as a much larger group than they are). In fact, there are sadly few Democrats in Congress willing to speak out against the war.
    To be sure, there are certainly some fringe groups against the war (like Ramsey Clark's group), but there are plenty of maintsream organizations like the National Council of Churches speaking out against the war. And there are many, many individuals, too. One could hardly say that conservative "realists" such as the analysts of the CATO Institute; retired four-star generals Wesley Clark, Joseph Hoar, and Anthony Zinni are socialists or anti-capitalists. Dick Armey, Pat Buchanan, General Schwartzkopf, Brett Scowcroft, and Lawrence Eagleburger, have all come out against the war - these are Reagan/Bush Republicans, not anarchists or leftists or socialists. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
    You wouldn't be painting people in opposition to the war as communists, would you? That is, as President Bush says, a rerun of an old movie we don't want to see again.
    - DAF

  • 2/9   10:17pm To DAF: If the war between communism/socialism and capitalism is over, the social democrats and communists in Germany and France do not know it, nor do they care to admit it. And this suits Hussein just fine. While the West squabbles over the pecking order at the UN gate, it gives Iraq more time to plan its next move. And so Hussein,with Al Qaeda's help, will bait and bleed the West on and on and on. Everyone is so flustered about the issue of war when war is not the true issue. The issue is to disarm a dangerous despot and destroy an international ring of terrorists before an armageddon can start. Only the social-democrats at home here in the U.S. and abroad do not wish to proceed because they know that this will ruin their last hold on the political front. France and Germany would rather deal with a monster like Hussein who conducts experiments on his prisoners than allow the U.S. and the newer, post-socialist eastern European governments gain the upper hand. God help the civilized world if we learn to stomach criminals like Hussein and Bin Laden.
    - MS

  • 2/9   3:35pm MS: your thoughts are obviously heart-felt and very interesting, but I'm not sure what socialism has to do with the Middle East. Iraq proclaimed itself a "republic" in 1958, but in actuality a series of military strongmen have ruled the country since then, the latest being President Hussein. It is not a socialist or communist state. North Korea has an authoritarian socialist government in theory, but a totalitarian dictatorship in practice. Of the other nations the US refers to as "terrorist sponsors" (and hence, "against us") we find only two - Cuba and Libya - that have socialist or communist impulses. And Libya could best be described as a nut-ocracy, with Col. Muammar Qadhafi's 1969 military coup and his subsequent creation of his own political system - a combination of socialism and Islam - which he calls the Third International Theory. Al Qaeda has no known socialist or communist underpinnings. The war between communism and capitalism is essentially over. Capitalism won. Socialism is more of a continuum and even the Socialist Party recognizes that no true Socialist state could last surrounded by capitalist states.
    Back to Iraq: I was happy to see that Chief U.N. nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei, today said he was "beginning to see a change of heart on the part of Iraq."
    - DAF

  • 2/9   10:34am I am so very glad to see a free exchange about the world situation on Norfolk's website. It is evidence of a free society. So I am going to add my two cents.
    I hope the general public realizes that the basic cause of today's turmoil in not just politics, oil, or religion but philosophy. When we do not learn from history, we are forced to repeat it. Nothing further from the truth could be said about today's world events.
    I was dismayed to hear during a sermon last month a reference from a rabbi which called for the redistribution of wealth as one of the ways to address the terrible issues of the day. I hope people in general realize that this is a marxist-socialist principle which has been discredited by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the pathetic squalor of numerous other socialist societies.
    Capitalism can function without socialism, but socialism soon comes to a dismal end without the capital on which it feeds. Not because it bankrupts one's purse, but because socialism denies the soul. The philosophy of socialism stops at giving a hungry man a fish because that is how to keep him subservient to the State. If he is free, taught HOW to fish, and allowed to keep his fish, what need has he for assistance?
    The societies around the world which have been devastated by socialist principles now threaten the healthier economies not because charity was denied, - no country in the history of the earth has been more generous than the United States, - but because these socialist governments have starved their populations and deprived them of their individual autonomy. Socialists are taught NOT to support themselves and as a result become subservient to the government (read despots) on which they depend from cradle to grave. North Korea is a fine example; it supports its nuclear armament program with an illicit arms trade and by starving its population- a population which has been isolated from the world and fed nothing but propaganda of hate.
    That begs the question, what is capital? Is it monetary wealth? Hoarding? Greed? None of these. Capital is the physical manifestion of human endeavor and spirit. In other words, SOMEBODY had to work to make the profit. It is the concrete manifestation of human striving, talent, independence, and pride in one's work. And it is the right to be free to hold property and keep the profit of one's endeavor without being forced to give away one's wealth. It is also the freedom to sell one's labor without compromising one's beliefs.
    [c o n t i n u e d . . .]
    - MS

  • 2/8   11:02pm ``Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God.'' Matthew 5:9
    - DAF

  • 2/8   8:28am To all those into the debate about the war with Iraq, In my opinion, you all fail to see the much larger picture. This is not about Saddam or about Bush or administrations or oil. In addition, WWII was not about Hitler, the German people or the reluctant pacifist Americans. What WWII was really about was the attempted elimination of the Jewish people. And today's conflict between Iraq and America is just another Chapter in a long book concerning the destruction of God's chosen people. If you were to read Genesis chapter 16, You will see the beginning of what is the beginning of the Muslim religion. Ishmael, the illegitimate son of Abram, bore by his slave girl Hagar, is the genesis of the Muslim claim, that Allah' s chosen people are truly the Muslims, because Ishmael, was the first born son of Abram, whom God said would inherit the holy land. However, the key word here is "illegitimate". Both the Jews and the Catholics testify that the first legitimate son was Isaac, born to the wife of Abram, "Sarai", Therefore Isaac a true Jew, born of a Jewish mother (Hagar was an Egyptian woman) is the first born and rightful successor to Abram and the inheritor of God's promise of the holy land. Since this time, up until the present day, the Jews have been persecuted. The Christian religion has its roots in Judaism and therefore is allied with the Jewish people and the state of Israel.
    Current day radical Muslims have been waging war against the Jewish people for many, many years. They have not been able to destroy the Jews and their State, so now they blame the Christians and especially the strong Nation that they are a majority in, the United States Of America. They blame the US for supporting Israel. Remember they are the ones who have declared "holy War" against the US and Israel. The United States is a victim, just as Israel is a victim, of terrorists. It is the duty of the US to protect its citizens and all citizens of "the Free World" where people are free to choose their religion. We must not allow nation after nation to be run over by violence and terrorism, so that these extremists can kill all those, that choose any other religion other than theirs. It is true, that America is the policeman of the world, and sometimes even police must use force when necessary. If we don't put a stop to it now, it may be too late in the near future. The weapons that are around today are much worse and more readily available. We can see that from 9-11, the terrorists are bringing their holy war to America. Saddam is a terror and he supports these radical terrorists. In the Book of Revelation chapter 6, the souls under the altar cry out to the Lord "how long o' Lord, until you judge". Shall we allow Saddam and the radicals to martyr us and our children with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons or shall we engage in a justifiable war?
    - CSK

  • 2/6   7:42pm I just wanted to thank those participating on both sides the Iraq debate on our website. I am enjoying every post no matter what the viewpoint. I am glad to see a healthy, thoughtful and respectful debate about a very serious issue with huge consequences. Every time I have felt compelled to put up a post with my opinion, DAF and WJB do an excellent job of saying it for me (and perhaps others who feel the same). The knowledge that you and some of the others have definitely exceeds my own. Thank you for taking the time to make rational arguments on an issue that is indescribably costly emotionally, morally, diplomatically and ethically.
    In my opinion, war will breed more hatred against the US, not solve the world's problems. That is not to say we should ignore it and it will go away, but rather that we use alternate methods to prevent future terrorist attacks (i.e. CIA work, satellite surveillance, special operations troops, etc.). There are "bad guys" all over the world in every country, including our own. If British citizens were the ones that attacked the World Trade Center, we wouldn't go after Britain, but rather the cells of people responsible. Eliminating a country as it exists will not solve the problem. We may not agree even remotely with Hussein (or N. Korea) and how he runs things, and it is certainly irrefutable that he is a horrible man. However with our rush to war we are doing just what we would never allow anyone to do to us. We are imposing our (well, Bush's actually, not mine!) morals on others, we are attacking first and we are abusing our power in the world. I shudder to think of the diplomatic bridges that the Bush Administration has burned since being in office. Years or even decades-long alliances are now perilously fragile.
    I read a statistic in one of my magazines a couple of months ago - It said that 100 years ago, war casualties were 90% soldiers and 10% civilian. Modern war casualties are 90% civilian and 10% soldiers. I can't attest to its accuracy, however if even remotely true, it is a scary thought.
    I don't necessarily endorse the following in its entirety, but below is a portion of a message from a Green Party member in response to Bush's State of the Union address:
    America can wage peace, not war, by breaking the hold of the oil corporations on Congress and the White House. It's time to kick the oil addiction. Right now. America has the technological know-how and the renewable resources to make the break from fossil fuel dependence. We can and should build up our solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources now. America can wage peace, not war, by putting a stop to the global trade in weapons. We must stop it at its source. That's here, at home, in the United States. U.S.-based corporations are the prime suppliers of weapons to the world. It's time to beat swords into plowshares. It's time to put the arm profiteers out of business.

    America can wage peace, not war, only if we are consistent in our support for democracy. The foreign policy of supporting "our" dictators against "their" dictators has been a failure. Saddam Hussein is in power today because the U.S. government once supported him, just as it once supported bin Laden. Thank you, Mr. Rumsfeld.

    It is time to consistently support democracy. Perhaps it is unfair to expect George W. Bush to understand democracy, much less promote it, but that's the agenda that will win America trust and allies in an uncertain world. [ more... - read the entire excerpt here - Wm]

    - MD

  • 2/6   4:49pm WD: So for North Korea, we can station US troops on their border for 50 years (since the end of the Korean conflict in 1953), and still we need to deal with their threats and their clear and open violations of international treaties with sanctions and diplomacy. I'm with you. And how about the other nations which the state department has designated "state sponsors of terrorism:" Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, and Sudan? Diplomacy and sanctions? I'm with you.
    We have destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq via UN Inspections than we did via bombing over the past 12 years. Coud you explain to me why it is better to now bomb? I don't see the logic. If what we want is elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, then inspections are the only proven method. Is there some other reason we should bomb and, in so doing, forfeit the lives of hundreds of our young men and women in the military and murder more innocent civilians than were killed in the 9/11 attacks? Is it because Iraqi civilians are less valuable? Is it because the people in the US armed forces are somehow less valuable than you and I am? Please set me straight.
    -DAF

  • 2/6   4:49pm WD: So for North Korea, we can station US troops on their border for 50 years (since the end of the Korean conflict in 1953), and still we need to deal with their threats and their clear and open violations of international treaties with sanctions and diplomacy. I'm with you. And how about the other nations which the state department has designated "state sponsors of terrorism:" Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, and Sudan? Diplomacy and sanctions? I'm with you.
    We have destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq via UN Inspections than we did via bombing over the past 12 years. Coud you explain to me why it is better to now bomb? I don't see the logic. If what we want is elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, then inspections are the only proven method. Is there some other reason we should bomb and, in so doing, forfeit the lives of hundreds of our young men and women in the military and murder more innocent civilians than were killed in the 9/11 attacks? Is it because Iraqi civilians are less valuable? Is it because the people in the US armed forces are somehow less valuable than you and I am? Please set me straight.
    -DAF

  • 2/6   10:01am Yes we do have to address North Korea. It is another issue that does need to be dealt with - and with a real maniac there in control - but each situation is unique and there is no one simple solution to resolve each case. Something does need to be done but there are issues of timing, different ramifications re: the South, Japan and obviously our 37K troops as well. There is the potential use of China as a moderating factor (even though that might on the surface seem ludicrous - they are so heavily involved with us as a trading partner that it would be in their best interest to help keep a lid on this little dictator). Timing is everything and the time is right for Iraq now. North Korea we be dealt with too but in a different and unique way - first things first.
    - WD

  • 2/5   5:22pm PFD, thank you for the kind words. I agree with what you are implying - Bill Clinton and his administration have a lot of the blame on their hands for the current situation in Iraq. Since 9/11/2001 Clinton has made public statements trying to absolve himself of guilt in this matter. He says that they were just minutes away from taking out Bin Laden when he ordered the bombings on the purported Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan in 1998. Hogwash.
    My gut tells me that if his second administration had not spent so much time defending itself against allegations of sexual misconduct, and had spent more time focused on this known threat, we might be in a different place today. And by that, I don't mean to make an excuse for him - I actually felt that he should have stepped down when he was caught in his web of lies.
    There is plenty of blame to go around. For example, we often hear about Saddam Hussein's 1988 use of poison gas against the Kurds of Northern Iraq, killing 5,000 Kurds in the town of Halabja. The Kurds were being punished for their participation in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988 on the side of Iran. What the people fail to mention is that when Hussein gassed the Kurds at Halabja, the U.S. had friendly relations with Hussein, and 1988 was actually the peak year of U.S. military aid to Iraq. According to the New York Times, one of the deadly pathogens in Iraq's biological weapons arsenal was traced to the US army's center for germ research in Fort Detrick, Maryland.
    On inspections: when is enough enough? Well, since 1991 Hussein has not invaded another country nor, as far as we know, launched terrorist attacks. Inspections are working - especially now that we have inspectors back in Iraq. Again, we've destroyed more weapons of mass destruction via UN inspections than we did via the Gulf War.
    WD: do you feel the same way about North Korea? We know they want nukes, they have threatened us openly (Iraq has not), they have openly begun nuclear weapon preparations, we have had our soldiers staioned in the DMX my whole life. Is enough enough there as well? And Pakistan?
    MA: I trust George Bush more than I trust Saddam Hussein. Much more. I'm not sure what follows from that. Hussein is a brutal dictator who should be prosecuted in Internal Criminal Court. Bush is the wrong-headed chief executive of a democratic nation. Yes he is a cowboy and thinks he hit a triple when he was actually born on third base. But whether he likes it or not, he knows that his power is balanced by the other branches of government and by the will of the people as demonstrated in national elections every four years.
    - DAF

  • 2/5   4:26pm DAF, A simple question, I would like you to answer thoughtfully. Which leader would you have more faith and trust in, Saddam Hussein or George W. Bush? Also, I would like to commend you on your research. You certainly know your facts.
    - MA

  • 2/5   3:34pm Better to face the consequences of our actions against Iraq today than wait another 5 years and find out we have thousands more sleeper cells within our own borders - better armed with more advanced capabilities of spreading domestic terror via biological, chemical or other means. We can act now to start to stem the tide or wait complacently like Neville Chamberlains while surreptitious enemies devise further plans that make 9/11 pale in comparison. We don't live in an ideal world - wish we did, but we don't - we have got to be the one nation powerful enough to take action and do it now - before the ramifications are even greater. Inspecting luggage on airplanes isn't going to do it - millions of 40 foot metal container cargos carrying who knows what enter our ports daily, likewise thousands of individuals enter the country illegally every day - more than a few I'm sure with nefarious purposes - we've got to stop and take a stand - and the time is now - we must literally draw the line in the sand - enough is enough!
    - WD

  • 2/5   2:31pm To DAF. First let me commend you for being so passionate and knowledgeable about this subject. You are obviously very intelligent and have done your homework. I would like to ask you a couple of questions. You state "Even our President might have predicted it if he had given creedence to his intelligence briefings in the weeks before 9/11". What are you really trying to say here? Your own argument brings up the fact that intelligence as far back as 1994 predicted the 9/11 attacks (or something similar). I see no blame being put on the previous President/Administration for not giving credence to the reports.
    At what point do you say enough is enough, Hussein? U.N. resolutions have been in place since 1991. The U.N. has not acted on these resolutions until the U.S. brought focus on them. Resolution 1441 agreed to in November by the U.N. does not say to show us the smoking gun, it says to show us what has been done with chemicals and weapons that have been proven to be in Iraqi possession.
    I am in no means a proponent of war, I sincerely hope it does not happen. I spent four years in the Army and I still have friends in the military. I just do not want to see Hussein rise to the level of insanity and decide to use Nuclear, Biological or Chemical weapons on the U.S. or our allies. At what point do we say enough is enough? What happens in 6, 12, 18 months when Hussein and Iraq are still not cooperating with inspections, but are further ahead in their creation of weapons of mass destruction?
    - PFD

  • 2/5   2:28pm I am profoundly shocked that so few people are joining the discussion on Iraq on this board. I hope you all are aware that the decision that is taken by our government and the world community on how to deal with Iraq may have an enormous impact on our lives, extending to the very question of whether our lives will continue! This is the most important crisis we have faced in decades. Some have expressed the view that a failure to disarm Iraq will lead to Hussein providing weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, who will then use them against U.S. civilians, with potentially catastrophic consequences. I personally do not subscribe to that view, because I do not think it is supported by the facts, but anyone who does have such a concern should certainly be extremely concerned. Others, such as myself, believe that the greater risk lies in attacking Iraq, because 1) Hussein will undoubtedly make use of whatever deadly weapons he has, 2) terrorist recruiting will increase dramatically, and the terrorists will likely accelerate any plans they have for large scale attacks, and 3) our aggression may well lead to the overthrow of friendly Arab regimes aligned with the U.S. This latter risk is perhaps the most threatening. What will we do if a new, hostile Saudi regime embarks on an oil embargo, or if a new, hostile Pakistani regime threatens us with its nuclear weapons? Regardless of your view on the relative risks, it is clear that our lives are in danger like they haven't been since probably 1962, and the decision our government makes may determine our fate. This is not the time for apathy. SPEAK UP.
    - WJB

  • 2/5   10:16am EJ, that struck me as an odd comment as well. Remember the discussions here on Norfolknet about the senior center a while back?
    HMK, I interpreted the question mark at the end of you first sentence to mean that you were asking a question. I know many people were shocked, but plenty of others predicted something on the scale of 9/11 would happen. If you follow the link to the joint inquiry report, you'll see what I mean. Even our President might have predicted it if he had given creedence to his intelligence briefings in the weeks before 9/11 (see the CNN story. Back in 1994 the Defense Department, State Department, FEMA, intelligence agencies, and members of Congress received a report that predicted the attacks with chilling accuracy (see the Washington Times/UPI story).
    Carrying out terrorism - even Terrorism on the scale of 9/11 -- requires very little resources. Think of the Irish Republican Army, Tim McVeigh in Oklahoma, the Palestinian suicide bombers, and the Unabomber in his cabin (our version of a cave, I suppose). These aren't the James Bond movie terrorists we grew up with on the cinema screens. So, yes, I think Hussein (and almost anyone else who wants to) could execute a similar attack. But Hussein has not threatened to do so...until recently when the Iraqi's said that an attack on Iraq by the US would unleash a flood of Arab suicide bombers. The CIA predicted this in October 2002 in a declassified report (see CATO Institute). CIA Director George Tenet told Congress that should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack against his country could not be deterred, "he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action" (see USA Today report). Why do our leaders keep ignoring the predictions of our intelligence community?
    As for the other things you take issue with as ludicorous and figments of my imagination, it seems to me a matter of interpretation. The Department of Defense says that there will "not be a safe place in Baghdad" when they start their bombing and they intend to launch more missiles into Baghdad in one day than were launched in the entire Gulf War (see the previously linked-in CBS News report. You interpret that as caring for the civilians of Iraq. I interpret that as killing more people than were killed on 9/11/2001 in order to kill one evil man. That is unjustifiable when you recognize that the UN inspectors have destroyed more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq peacefully than the coalition forces destroyed in the Gulf War.
    Even if you don't value the lives of the Iraqi civilians, and you care only about preventing more terrorism against US citizens, the war is not a good choice. It will unleash more terrorism, not less. This is according to the CIA.
    I agree that Hussein probably has some chemical and biological weapons hidden in Iraq. I expect that is what we will hear from Colin Powell today. The CIA has known this for a long time, by the way (see their October 2002 detailed report).
    As for Chairman Mao: I take it you are joking. Mao Zedong and his successors were responsible for the deaths of 35 million people via imposed famine and direct killings. Mao is not someone to emulate.
    Inspection and destruction of weapons peacefully is the answer, not murder. Apologies again for my long-winded response,
    - DAF

  • 2/4   8:02pm To DAF - I did not ask questions, but rather expressed my views concerning the facts. My comment regarding Osama Bin Laden wasn't that he did not make threats, but rather the shock that this cave dweller was actually able to carry out his plans! You referred to Saddam Hussein as a "tin pot dictator" - as if he did not have the resources to organize and execute a similar attack... does THAT make sense? Your responses on this site are proof that you are very knowledgeable on this subject. But I do not believe all that you say here is fact. When you say the US will be "bombing a whole country," it seems to me a "figment of your imagination". Saying President Bush and his supporters "want to bomb the civilians of Baghdad" is ludicrous! Targets will be hit using satellite guided bombs. Unfortunately Hussein has intentionally placed, what he knows will be targets, in the midst of civilian population. The United States is not the evil-minded tyrant on the block - this war is not against the people of Iraq or even the Iraqi army, but rather the Iraqi leadership. The US would certainly devote necessary resources to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, maintain Iraq's territorial integrity, and invest in the reconstruction required to put Iraq on the path to greater economic prosperity once Hussein and his government are eradicated. The UN inspectors have given Iraq more than enough time to prove that they do NOT have chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. If they had nothing to hide then why would they not cooperate fully? Yesterday's discovery of a (albeit empty) warhead and missile molds makes one wonder! And perhaps Chairman Mao of China was correct in his statement... after all, you don't see anyone messing with China!
    - HMK

  • 2/3   12:45pm HMK, you ask some good questions. I'll try to answer them for you. Apologies for the wordiness, but I think this is important.
    Q: "Who would have ever imagined Osama bin Laden sitting on the dirt floor of his cave planning the horrific attack on America?"
    A: Osama bin Laden made public threats - no imagination was required. Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda group were known entities long before 9/11/2001. You may recall that the Clinton administration attempted to kill him by bombing a training camp in Afghanistan in 1998. The US Intelligence community - and anybody who heard press reports of Bin Laden's rhetoric and warnings prior to 9/11/2001 - knew that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were actively targeting the US for terrorist attacks. Remember the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia (which killed five U.S. military personnel), the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, (which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel), the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole? Most of these attacks are directly linked to Al Qaeda and indirectly to Bin Laden. As for the specific events of 9/11/2001, you can read the Findings of the House and Senate Joint Inquiry (requires PDF reader found in most browsers). No imagination required.
    We have been presented no evidence that the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein pose anything like the threat that Al Qaeda posed before 9/11/2001.
    Q:Remember that "Iraq's government openly praised the September 11th attacks?"
    A: No, I do not remember that. Unless you have evidence to the contrary - that is a figment of someone's imagination. On September 12, Hussein said "The United States reaps the thorns its rulers have planted in the world." That's not exactly praise. There were Americans who said very similar things (chickens come home to roost, etc.). The Iraqis even (I'm sure disingenuously) offered humanitarian assistance to New York. Iraq did oppose the US bombing in Afghanistan. Maybe that is what you are remembering. They felt that the attacks were outside international law, unsupported by evidence, and unfair. That's a far cry from praising the 9/11 attacks.
    According to ABC News: "Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz sent a letter of condolence to former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. 'On the elapse of one year after the tragic events of September 11, I express to you, and through you to the families of the victims my deep condolences,' Aziz said in the letter. But Baghdad was mostly quiet on the anniversary. The Iraqi government played down the attacks, although the government condemned them last year...."
    Q:Isn't Iraq harboring Al Qaeda operatives? A: There are Al Qaeda operatives in many countries - including the US and our allies - and the governments of those countries cannot be considering "harboring" them unless there is proof that the government is assisting them or is opposing the their extradition for prosecution. I see no evidence that Iraq is engaged in this kind of "aiding and abetting."
    Q:Doesn't Iraq have chemical weapons and aren't they planning on getting nukes and attacking the US with them?
    A:That is what the UN inspections are for. Let them run their course. So far, the UN has found nothing that indicates a current chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons program.
    I agree that Saddam Hussein's government has repressed, exploited, and murdered many of its citizens. Details of specific acts of pure evil can be found in a recent Human Rights Watch report. Like most humans, I'm appalled at the Iraqi government's actions against its own citizens. We must bring the perpetrators to justice - including Saddam Hussein. But bombing a whole country is not the answer.
    We should have an international tribunal and prosecute individual members of the Iraqi leadership for crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, our current US administration removed the US signature from the sixtieth ratification of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (ICC). There were 60 ratifying countries, but no US.
    President Bush and his supporters want to bomb the civilians of Baghdad instead of prosecuting the specific "evil-doers." Why? Now there is a question to which I have no answer. Every answer I come up with sounds too cynical, too cavalier about the lives of innocent people, or too fraught with psychobabble for me to believe it: it's for oil, it's to provide a US-controlled Iraq, it's to get back at Hussein for the April 1993 assassination attempt against Bush I (the one for which the US bombed the Iraqi intelligence service headquarters in downtown Baghdad in October 1993 - killing eight civilians).
    We can win without war.
    - DAF

  • 2/2   11:43am "[B]ut somehow today we can't contain a tin pot dictator in the desert who can't even provide basic necessities for his people" - Who would have ever imagined Osama Bin Laden sitting on the dirt floor of his cave planning the horrific attack on America? Let's remember that Iraq's government openly praised the September 11th attack that killed thousands of innocent people from 80 countries, and Iraq shelters and supports terrorists organizations including members of Al Qaeda who are known to have escaped from Afghanistan. Iraq has admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. If they do not presently possess nuclear weapons, it is not for a lack of trying. It will only be a matter of time before they have, and use nuclear weapons to inflict mass death and destruction. A very realistic threat to the United States! Unfortunately people die in war - a horrible fact of life. But innocent civilians are victims of Saddam Hussein's repression everyday. Iraq has executed thousands of political opponents and tens of thousands of citizens have been subjected to arrest, imprisonment, torture by beating and burning, starvation, mutilation and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents. Food and medicine that could have been made available to the general public, including children, have reportedly been stockpiled in warehouses or diverted for the personal use of government officials. Saddam Hussein is a danger to his own people and the whole world and someone needs to be "strong" enough to stand up to this mad man and put an end to his reign. I for one thank God I live in a democracy, where people, like yourselves, can voice their opinions and I thank God for the young men and women who are brave enough to stand up and "defend" this democracy. And I will be calling my congressional representative... to support our President and the United States of America!
    - HMK

  • 2/1   9:30am To PFD - if we could fight our war against Saddam Hussein only, I'm sure none of us would be arguing about it. Unfortunately, tens of thousands of Iraqis are almost certain to lose their lives in the crossfire, and we can expect to lose hundreds, and possibly thousands, of American lives. In order to justify this, we have to believe that Hussein is a realistic threat to the United States. It is clear now that he does not have nuclear weapons, so the threat of a large scale attack on us does not exist. Yes, he probably still has chemical and biological weapons, but he has had them since the 1980's, and has never attempted to use them against the United States, probably because he's not suicidal. Tell me, do you REALLY believe this war is about weapons of mass destruction? Finally, I hope that the last line of your post does not suggest that you believe in supporting our government's policies, right or wrong. Blind support for the government is the most un-American thing I can think of. Living in a democracy means that we have not just a right, but a duty to ask questions and oppose our government when we think the situation calls for it. Please do not suggest that anyone do otherwise.
    - WJB

  • 2/1   9:19pm PFD: rant? most of my post was a direct quote from a news source. Knowingly dropping bombs on many civilians to get at a single person is a war crime, no matter why it is done.
    I don't disagree with your assessment of Hussein. He is a despot, plain and simple. Let's discuss this without resorting to Hitler hyperbole. It's difficult to think of what anyone could do to make Hitler appear saintly - this is the man who led the extermination of six million Jews and others he considered "subhuman." The same fellow who led invasions of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Ukraine, and North Africa. Hussein is a ruthless dictator, but he you give him too much credit. He can't even feed his people.
    Which I suppose is the strangest part of the logic of this rush to war. Those in favor of bombing Baghdad claim that we cannot contain Hussein. He is too dangerous; poses to great a threat to the US. But, for 45 years or so, a country called the USSR had nuclear missiles aimed at American cities (unlike Hussein, who probably doesn't have nuclear weapons yet, according to even the most pro-war Bush administration officials). They had plenty of chemical and biological weapons as well. We were able to contain the Soviets - a nuclear power with open aspirations for international domination - but somehow today we can't contain a tin pot dictator in the desert who can't even provide basic necessities for his people. Does that make sense?
    I leave you with a quote from another former dictator with nukes and a hatred for the US whom we somehow also contained: "War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun." Who would have thought that our government (Bush and the silent Congress) would be in agreement with Chairman Mao of China?
    I think we're stronger than that.
    - DAF

  • 1/31   6:31pm To DAF: Take your rant elsewhere. You say "Bush will commit war crimes to "defend" the US from some possible future event he thinks will happen unless we bomb. Don't let him do it. Call and email your congressional reps." Will you be saying that when that Terrorist Hussein does do something? There is a simple solution to all of this, Hussein can fess up to what has happened with all the weapons and chemicals HE DOES HAVE. He is the only one that can stop this "possible future event". The US is the only country that was willing to step to the plate to stop this terrorist. He has committed crimes to his own people that make Hitler look like a Saint. What makes you think he will not do it elsewhere? I for one, do not want it to be here.
    Support our President and our United States of America.
    - PFD

  • 1/31  4:09pm   So I guess the US will be bombing the highly-populated city of Baghdad. In case you haven't seen it on the many news outlets - CBS News.
    If the Pentagon sticks to its current war plan, one day in March the Air Force and Navy will launch between 300 and 400 cruise missiles at targets in Iraq. As CBS News Correspondent David Martin reports, this is more than the number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War.
    On the second day, the plan calls for launching another 300 to 400 cruise missiles.
    "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.
    No safe place for civilians. Bush will commit war crimes to "defend" the US from some possible future event he thinks will happen unless we bomb. Don't let him do it. Call and email your congressional reps.
    -DAF
    [I don't see Congress standing up to voice on an opinion; they already carefully dodged their responsibility of having to declare War - Wm.]

  • 1/24  1:59pm   A funny parody of the Nigerian bank fraud letter has turned up on the web, poking fun at our current hostility toward Iraq. It's pretty funny, especially if you've been spammed by the original, but it also does stop and make you think - read it here.
    - Wm.

  • 1/23  11:18am   AN: thank you for your thoughtful post (and for your prior service in the armed forces). I hadn't thought much about the congressional angle. If he hasn't already, I'll bet Bush would argue that since the 1991 war was authorized by Congress, and it hasn't ever officially ended, that he can do whatever he damn well pleases. Unfortunately for all of us, he never really served his country (despite his Clintonesque statements to the contrary). Maybe if George W. Bush had served, instead of going AWOL from the Air National Guard and being booted out as a pilot for refusing to take a drug test, he, too, would understand what you know all too well - war is hell.
    Although we agree in opposing the rush to war, a fundamental point that I think you, WD, and I will have to agree to disagree on is that our country can do "whatever it takes" to win a war on foreign soil. According to several studies, the way the US military has most recently been using bombing is actually creating a higher civilian kill ratio than we saw in Cambodia. It hasn't received a lot of press coverage (despite the supposed left-wing bias of the news media), but if we were a different country, the UN might be prosecuting our military planners for war crimes in Afghanistan (see the 12/2002 Human Rights Watch report).
    ....We now return to the fire hydrants discussion already in progress....
    I'm now convinced that people will collect anything. There are fire hydrant collectors out there. I can't wait until the first time I see one of these collections show up on the Antiques Road Show.
    - DAF

  • 1/22  11:35pm   To DAF, re: 1/22 6:37pm (bombing, etc.)
    I too question this headlong rush to war and destruction. I fault the U.S. Congress for giving up its duty and responsibility under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution to declare war. Now apparently President Bush can assemble forces and attack the sovereign nation of Iraq when he, and he alone, decides. I agree that Saddam Hussein is dangerous and a threat to the region. But war? At what cost, in American, and foreign, lives? Certainly we hope that no attack will take place unless and until the United Nations organization concurs. But the amount of power that has been turned over to the President is disturbing, and the fact that it has been turned over to this President is frightening.
    You stated: "To me it doesn't matter that our military says it tries harder than any other to avoid civilian casualties. We also bomb a hell of a lot more than any other nation on Earth. This simple fact overwhelms the best intentions of our young men and women in uniform."
    When I was in uniform, my main and best intention was to stay alive. If that intention can be achieved or furthered by decisions of the military planners to inflict damage on the enemy by bombing, thus sparing the lives of US Army and Marine troops on the ground who would otherwise have to engage in infantry or armored fighting, bombing is the best way to go. And now as a parent I agree even more. War is hell, but the fact remains that the winner is the one who gains control of the most land and inflicts the most damage to enemy forces.
    I hate war, but losing is unacceptable. The United States has developed smart bombs, with low circular error probabilities, not only to hit the targets but also to avoid damage to surrounding structures, since in Iraq the military has placed targets in populated areas. Now any bomb can be made a precision bomb with a JDAM kit which steers the fins. (A JDAM kit is a low-cost guidance kit that converts existing unguided free-fall bombs into accurately guided "smart" weapons. The JDAM kit consists of a new tail section that contains an Inertial Navigation System updated by a Global Positioning System receiver.)
    So the days of "carpet" bombing may soon be over. I sincerely hope that the days of war will also soon be over.
    - AN

  • 1/22  6:37pm   WD: Now I'm confused. The US armed forces has carpet bombed as recently as last year - that is established. The US has carpet bombed in populated areas - that is established. In the past 50 years US B-52's have carpet bombed in Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia (including the use of napalm in all three countries). US forces have carpet bombed in Iraq, Kosovo, and Afghanistan.
    Is your point that the locations bombed were not "major?" I can't dispute that since it is a totally subjective assessment. Most of the aforementioned countries are set up differently than the US and Europe. There are a couple of "major" cities in Iraq - everything else is towns and villages. During the 1991 gulf war, Basra and most of southern Iraq and Kuwait (where Iraqi forces were deployed) were treated by U.S. military planners as a single area or to use McPeak's phrase "a low density target." People lived there - they were the Norfolks to Baghdad's Boston.
    To me it doesn't matter that our military says it tries harder than any other to avoid civilian casualties. We also bomb a hell of a lot more than any other nation on Earth. This simple fact overwhelms the best intentions of our young men and women in uniform. If you bomb 10 times and avoid civilians 90% of the time, then you only hit civilians once (like our accidental bombing of Chinese embassy in Belgrade). If you bomb 100 times and avoid civilians 90% of the time, the you hit civilians 10 times. In the 42-day Operation Desert Storm, the US and allied forces ran over 50,000 bombing sorties, dropping 210,000 non-precision "dumb" bombs. [...]
    Perhaps my words seemed inflammatory, but the truth should anger us. It should make us question this headlong rush to war and destruction. -DAF

  • 1/22  4:27pm   DAF, my point was that your saying that we would carpet bomb a city full of innocent civilians is inflammatory - obviously I know you didn't really mean to say that - just wanted to point that out in case anyone was naive enough to accept it on face value. As you quote, "The targets we are going after are widespread. They are brigades, and divisions and battalions on the battlefield."
    I'm not aware that the US has ever carpet bombed a major city or population center - within the last 50 years. I don't believe that even in Desert Storm any brigades, divisions or battalions on the battlefield were massing in cities or areas containing a concentration of large civilians that we then bombed.
    Certainly there are always mistakes and errors in any human endeavor and War is Hell - I believe that our military tries harder than any other to avoid civilian casulties when and if they can - that's all I'm pointing out.
    - WD

  • 1/22  9:20am   WD: So we agree that our military continues to use the tactic of carpet bombing - the dropping of hundreds of imprecise "dumb" bombs. And we agree that civilians have died and will die in this time of bombing. You concern is just with my mention of the specific city of Baghdad? That's a pretty small point of contention, if you ask me. You mention Kabul. You are right - the US did not carpet bomb Kabul proper, although some of the carpet bombing occurred just 25 miles north of that city.
    People more knowledgeable about international law than I am would probably point our that Additional Protocol 1, Articles 50-53 of the Geneva Convention explicitly bans area bombardment of cities, towns, villages, or other areas containing a concentration of civilians. Launching such an attack in the knowledge that it will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects is considered a grave breach. This protocol went into effect in 1978 - after the carpet-bombing the US carried out during the Vietnam conflict.
    Unfortunately, it is written in such a way as to allow countries to quibble over definitions. What is excessive loss of civilian life? 2,000 people? 200? 10,000? And what is a "concentration" of civilians? Norfolk has 688 people per square mile. The city of Boston has 12,784 people per square mile. So, would it be ok to carpet bomb Norfolk, but not Boston? How about our neighbors in Sherborn? They have a measly 243 people per square mile. That wouldn't be a concentration of civilians, would it?
    The essence of air war - especially carpet bombing - is terror: planes appear suddenly, and nobody in their path knows their intended target. I guarantee that if a foreign nation's air force carpet bombed (or even precision-bombed) Sherborn, I wouldn't feel safe here in Norfolk.
    - DAF

  • 1/21  5:35pm   To DAF: My only point is that just as in Afghanistan the B52s did not carpet bomb Kabul - population 1.781M - likewise they would not target Baghdad, endangering the civilian population and flattening the city. Targets in and around Baghdad would be chosen selectively - not a blanket leveling of the city, wiping out a population of 4.835M or so. We both agree some civilians would be involved in any case - that's always true, but certainly a lot less than if the air forces were reversed.
    - WD

  • 1/21  3:27pm   To WD: I don't want to get hung up on semantics, but I didn't say that our armed forces would intentionally carpet bomb civilians. But, intentional or not, "precision bombing" is only one tactic our military has been using. In fact, the US Air Force used carpet bombing in Afghanistan during our recent actions there. (See U.S. carpet-bombs Taliban lines CNN, 10/31/2001).
    The last time the US fought Iraq, B-52s were used from the first night of the war to the last. B-52s fly at 40,000 feet and release 40 - 60 bombs of 500 to 750 pounds each. According to Air Force documents, the US Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps dropped 210,800 "dumb" bombs - nearly 77,000 tons - during Desert Storm (see McPeak on the War Air Force Magazine, 5/1991.
    General McPeak told Defense Week, "The targets we are going after are widespread. They are brigades, and divisions and battalions on the battlefield. It's a rather low density target. So to spread the bombs - carpet bombing is not my favorite expression - is proportionate to the target. Now is it a terrible thing? Yes. Does it kill people? Yes."
    Call it what you will, but dropping tons and tons of non-precise explosive devices will devastate civilians just as surely as flying a plane into the side of a skyscraper. The 9-11 hijackers did not care about the civilians they murdered that day. I'm sure that 99% of our young military men and women care very deeply about avoiding civilians. Nevertheless, carpet bombing (and precision bombing gone astray) will kill non-military men, women, and children.
    Please don't misunderstand me. The direct civilian death toll of allied military action during the Gulf War, Kosovo, and Afghanistan combined is still much smaller than the estimated 30,000 who died during Hussein's repression of the 1991 uprisings (after the US pulled out), or by the estimated 100,000 Kurds killed in his genocidal Al Anfal campaign in the late 1980s.
    Carpet bombing is not the answer.
    - DAF

  • 1/21  11:08am   To DAF To insinuate that if there is an Iraq war the US would engage in "carpet bombing civilians in Baghdad" defies your other reference to "obvious logic" - although there most certainly would be unfortunate collateral damage, as they say, from any precision bombing because it's inherent in any bombing - no matter how precise, pin point or otherwise - it certainly would not be comparable to the widespread havoc and devastation to civilians that carpet bombing would obviously have. The reference to that kind of carpet bombing doesn't help your case for the anti war stance.
    - WD

    • Home