Gulf War II
For the older messages, look here.
This page contains the comments about the impending Second Gulf War that have appeared on Norfolknet. The thread was moved off the main page because of the sustained large volume of traffic that was getting repetitious. To add your own comments, write to discussion@norfolknet.com.
3/14 6:44pm SW: let's not quibble. The overwhelming majority of the people of Europe (and the rest of this blue planet of ours) oppose a pre-empotive invasion of Iraq at this time. I think AR's statement was close enough and didn't require your adminshment "Do remember, you can't believe everything you read in the media." Say, could someobdoy explain to me why we aren't having an investigation of Vice President Dick Cheney's continued ties to oil company Halliburton? Why aren't we seeing the uproar we saw about TravelGate and WhiteWater? First we learned that Halliburton was doing business with Iraq while Cheney was in charge (June 2001 UPI story). First he said it didn't happen and then he said he didn't know about it. Now we learn that he is still getting paid by them even though they just received a US government contract to put out potential oil-field fires in Iraq and they are now bidding for postwar construction contracts (Guardian story). That first story, from back in June 2001, has the eerie final line: "Cheney has long criticized unilateral U.S. sanctions, which he says penalize American companies. He has pushed for a review of policy toward Iraq, Iran and Libya." review of policy, eh? I don't expect that meant lifting the sanctions on Saddam Hussein. Do you? -DAF
3/14 4:28pm A Schedule Change from WGBH-TV: WGBH-TV is changing the TV schedule on Monday, March 17 to offer viewers a special night of in-depth programming that examines the impending war with Iraq and the growing international pressure to avoid confrontation.THE LONG ROAD TO WAR: A FRONTLINE SPECIAL REPORT Monday, March 17 from 8-10pm on WGBH 2 Once again, the U.S. finds itself about to battle Iraq, although this time it will likely not be part of a grand international coalition. How did the nation come to the brink of another war with Saddam Hussein? This Frontline Special Report draws on the series' extensive archives of more than 12 years of reporting on Iraq to tell the history of the US confrontation with Saddam. [...]
WHAT'S NEXT WITH IRAQ: A NOW WITH BILL MOYERS SPECIAL EDITION Monday, March 17 from 10-11pm on WGBH 2 This Bill Moyers Special Edition addresses the crucial issues facing the nation with the "drums of war" beating. As plans are being debated in the Bush Administration, some proposals for post-war reconstruction have caused division among Iraqi dissidents who have made a moral case for America to overthrow Saddam Hussein and bring democracy to Iraq. Will the U.S. let them down? The broadcast includes satellite reports on the ground situation in the Middle East and an analysis of the American media and the drums of war. Find extensive background material not in the program at http://membership.wgbh.org/UM/T.asp?A2.82.1122.2.132254
- AN
3/14 2:40pm DAF... OK, so I should have said 'Europe doesn't object... just Belgium, Germany, Greece, France, Luxembourg, Austria, and Finland.' Regardless, that cannot be considered all of Europe. Other European nations who are waiting for UN support cannot be counted on as steadfastly opposed until we know the outcome of the UN Security Council's final decision. - SW
3/14 12:36pm Just a small observation on the cost of a gulf war - paying just $10 extra per barrel of crude oil for our 20 million daily barrels is $200 million dollars per day that we spend needlessly. That's $6 billion a month. Another way of looking at it is that every cruise missile of the hundreds slated to rain down on Baghdad could buy us a new high school, or several new library buildings. This much ``dedication,'' spent on eg. fuel cell research, could eliminate our dependecy on oil altogether. Ah, what am I thinking? There's a lot of money invested in the status quo, and a lot of wealth and reputations depend on it remaining so. Mr. Oil Jr. and Mr. Enron surely will think of a more appropriate solution to our energy needs. - AR
3/14 12:36pm There's interesting essay about the unforseen risks of war on the UPI service. Quite informative about how World War I came about and completely changed the world. - AR
3/11 10:26pm SW - I think you are incorrect about Europe. According to polls, the vast majority of the people of Europe (and the rest of the world) are against Bush's expressed intention to launch a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. The governments generally reflect this, too. The European Union is currently made up of 15 countries. The majority of these countries oppose an invasion without UN security council approval, which is as good as being opposed conisdering the stance of the permanent members of the council. Here is where each country's official government stand is vis a vis a pre-emptive strike against Iraq as of today. - DAF
- Belgium - strongly opposed
- Denmark - opposed to an attack without UN support
- Germany - strongly opposed
- Greece - opposed
- Spain - supportive
- France - strongly opposed
- Ireland - opposed to an attack without UN support
- Italy - supportive
- Luxembourg - opposed
- the Netherlands - supportive
- Austria - opposed
- Portugal - supportive
- Finland - opposed
- Sweden - opposed to an attack without UN support
- United Kingdom - supportive
3/10 11:31pm AR... 'Europe' doesn't object. France and Germany do at the moment. Do remember, you can't believe everything you read in the media. - SW
3/6 10:07pm The conquest of Iraq has been in the planning for over 30 years, according to this article by Robert Dreyfuss in the March/April 2003 Mother Jones magazine. For the past 30 years, the Gulf has been in the crosshairs of an influential group of Washington foreign-policy strategists, who believe that in order to ensure its global dominance, the United States must seize control of the region and its oil. [...] [T]his approach is finding its boldest expression yet in the Bush administration - which, with its plan to invade Iraq and install a regime beholden to Washington, has moved closer than any of its predecessors to transforming the Gulf into an American protectorate.No wonder Europe and China object.In the geopolitical vision driving current U.S. policy toward Iraq, the key to national security is global hegemony. [...] ``Control over the Persian Gulf translates into control over Europe, Japan, and China. It's having our hand on the spigot.'' - AR
3/3 12:03pm A report in today's Observer claims to have a copy of an NSA email indicating the US government has launched an aggressive telephone and email bugging operation on UN Security Council delegates whose votes will be critical to international support for a US-led war on Iraq. If this is true, it is another sad day for US diplomacy. -DAF
[3:19pm Corrected the article's URL - Wm.]
[3/4 10:54am Interesting, this was the Observer's lead story on Sunday, but it took until Monday afternoon for the AP news service to pick it up. - Wm.]
3/1 2:44pm MS: Once again you appear to be heralding largely emotional and unfounded claims, indirect associations, imagined alliances, and grossly inaccurate parallels in order to justify the wrong war, with the wrong country, at the wrong time. It seems to me that the universally acknowledged and frightening inexperience of "Dubya" in international diplomacy and foreign affairs is confirming what many feared - especially after he appointed, immediately after his inauguration, that small group of seasoned, self-serving, oil-driven hawks. With each depressing development it becomes painfully obvious that this Administration has never had any intention of considering options re Iraq and will continue to ignore any reasonable warnings from a variety of sources of the potential horrors, disadvantages, and dangers of an Iraqi War (no matter how quickly we unilaterally decide to stop the senseless bombing and declare "victory"). What possesses these people (and their supporters) to blatantly ignore the terrifying and resulting insoluble mess a prolonged occupation of that country will do to us, other Arab nations, and our allies? Strangely enough, one could answer that question with a brilliantly worded quote from your 2/28 post that seems more appropriate for Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et. al. rather than in the context you used it: "But like a sleight of hand trick, the way to fool the audience is to draw attention away from what is really going on." - TEM
2/28 1:09pm MS: could you maybe say in one or two sentences what your main thesis is? I could be misunderstanding your post, but it appears that you are saying that "the Arab states," are working in concert with North Korea and "socialists" to open a division in the US citizenry that somehow creates investor apathy and wrecks our economy? Let's assume for the sake of argument that all of these factions are in cahoots - there is no proof that they are, but let's just say that there is some special Internet chat room or backyard tree house they all meet in on a quarterly basis to make plans for the destruction of the US. You may recall that the last presidential election in this country was quite close. The fellow in the white house won in the electoral colleague by a hair (and he lost the popular vote). The nation was split down the middle. Are you saying that this division in the citizenry was caused by the Axis of Evil and Socialism? The split in our nation today is similar to the division we've had since that election - not 100% along party lines, (there are plenty pro-invasion Dems and anti-invasion Repubs), but close enough. You may also recall that investor confidence was shaken well before the current crisis and before the 9/11 attacks. The economy had just gone through one of the periodic bubbles that crop up in capitalist economies. It has happened before and it will happen again, I'm afraid. In addition, there was a wave of corporate scandals that added more weight to the downward-spiraling economy. Even if the Axis of Evil and Socialism existed, how did they this anti-American kabal create the irrational exuberance and overinvestment in Internet technology and, on a parallel track, convinced leaders at Enron, WorldCom, ImClone, Tyco, Global Crossing, Halliburton (Dick Cheney's firm), Qwest, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Xerox, Kmart, and others? No, I'd say that the sad state of our economy is our own fault. I might add that in my business we experienced a modest uptick in sales in December and January. -DAF
2/28 11:28am To DAF: Could it be that we agree? Yes, we are not clear here on what to debate. And that is part of the geo-political situation in front of us. Think out of the ABC/CBS media box for just a few moments. Suppose just for a moment that the Arab states have communicated in some way during the past twelve years concerning their hatred for the West. If you do not believe in conspiracy, then would you at least concede that they have common interests in seeing the West falter? We're talking here about an awful lot of hatred for the West. Would it make a pattern? If we are already dealing with a criminal despot (Hussein), and a criminal religious zealot (Bin Laden), what role could Libya or Iran play? Libya and Iran may seem improbable to you, but if we suppose for just a moment that these or other Arab nations are cooperating, even implicitly, then the events we have endured to the present make an interesting picture. The hypothesis I am proposing is that DELAY is the key here. These small belligerent maniacs know that they cannot damage the U.S. individually. But they can make a great deal of economic and political damage by playing Western factions against each other if they tap the weaknesses of each. So what do we have? - Three thousand American civilians killed thanks to Bin Laden. - The UN paralyzed thanks to partisan politics and Hussein's political lies and media maneuverings. - A warning to Hussein and other Muslims against the SOCIALISTS from Bin Laden's most recent tape. Let's assume the Socialists DO want to hobble the U.S. - Let's not forget Korea. Korea has been trading in nuclear arms and in serious material breach of the UN accord for years, presumably for their own arsenal but also in the resale of materials to other nations. I don't think they would be too particular, do you? Now they want to nuke Japan and California. What a bonus for Hussein! But like a slight of hand card trick, the way to fool the audience is to draw it's attention away from what is really going on. Question: What is our most threatening problem right now? (Besides North Korea, dirty bombs/smallpox and France? Answer: A divided America. Do you realize that ALL investment activity has completely stopped in Massachusetts? With no new capital being sent into business, what do you think is happening to the JOBS of the PEOPLE in this state? We have had a year and half of political stalling and squabbling while investors wait and play it safe. What do you think that does to our ability to generate employment and sustain salaries in both the public and private sectors? Let's debate another hypothetical. We give the UN all the time in the world to try one inspection after another of Iraq and ignore the violations which Iraq has committed. We listen to the Leftists demonstrating for "peace" and do nothing but talk about the murder and crimes committed against us. We sit and watch while every belligerent country under the sun makes and acquires nuclear arms so they can blackmail their enemies and sell even more nuclear material to their allies, - all of whom, by the way, could care less about the UN. And worst of all, we accept the restrictions placed on our freedom and economic activity, i.e. live with the bombings, the anthrax/smallpox and an economy which slowly looses its ability to generate jobs. We wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, giving our enemies and detractors ample time to form political alliances and strategies against us. We wait while we become a weaker nation. Where do you think that leaves the U.S. in another year or two? - MS
2/27 3:00pm I've been thinking (uh-oh): it seems to me that a main reason that this pre-emptive invasion of Iraq is so endlessly debatable and brings to mind the image of the serpent swallowing its own tail, is that we still don't have any clarity from the pro-invasion leadership (or anyone else) as to why the invasion is necessary. We here many different arguments. Once a particular line of reasoning is questioned, we move on to another reason, once that one is questioned, we move on to another. Eventually we end up where we began. For example, my understanding of MS' last post is that we should pre-emptively invade Iraq in order to punish those who conducted or aided the 9/11 attacks. Other reasons presented at one time or another by the Bush administration include: No wonder we can't have a reasonable debate - we aren't clear on just what it is we are debating.
- Enforcing UN resolution 1441
- Enforcing previous UN resolutions
- Destroying existing weapons of mass destruction
- Disabling Iraq's ability to obtain or create weapons of mass destruction (this argument assumes that these WMD's currently do not exist or are insignificant in size and number)
- Protecting the citizens of the US from a terrorist attack from Saddam Hussein (directly or indirectly through various Islamic extremist groups)
- Liberating the people of Iraq from an evil dictator
- Protecting our allies in the region
- Liberating 30% of th world's oil and natural gas from the clutches of a madman
- Installing a democratic regime (a.k.a. regime change).
- DAF
2/27 10:38am To Wm. And WJB: Thank you for proving my point. If "no follow-ups to this post will be accepted," it is indeed censorship. But perhaps you will allow the questions which come from many Americans, if not the ones you've cited in the Win Without War coalition. For example, just what is to be done about the three thousand American cilvilians who were killed in the 9/11 attack on Washington and New York? Should their murder go unanswered? Is it moral to let these crimes pass? The individuals who committed this crime against our nation show no respect for international law. And there are other nations in violation of international law who would aid and abet even more destruction in our midst. Should we not invoke the international restrictions which govern this situation? Should we not defend ourselves? It is all well and good to argue about "winning without war," but it is foolhardy to believe that mere words and diplomacy will stop criminals who have a proven violent record and who have proven time and time again that they will not stop. - MS
["Most Americans" know that we're in Afghanistan to address the 9/11 tragedy; our "answer" was entering Afghanistan and going after Osama bin Laden. Saddam Hussein has not even a hint of a connection either to bin Laden or 9/11, in spite of Rumsfeld having tried for a year and a half now to find one. Attacking Hussein will not not "defend" us from anything, certainly not from Al Qaeda attacks. Hence the request to keep to this topic, which is the Iraq war - Wm.]
2/26 11:04pm So far, all of our discussion here has been about the merits of invading Iraq. But has anyone thought about the implications of our plans for the post-war era? Apparently, the Bush administration is planning a military occupation of Iraq for two years or longer. While this may actually be good for the Iraq people, it is likely to prove a disaster for the American people. Can you imagine anything inspiring Al Qaeda more than U.S. military occupation of a large Muslim Arab country? The experience of the Israeli people demonstrates what it is like to live in a country using military force to occupy a land inhabited by Muslim Arabs. Are we really prepared to live like the Israelis, facing weekly terrorist attacks? Also, have you looked at the Israeli economy lately? It makes our economy look like an economic boom! I don't think that American voters would put up with living like that very long. And what happens when the terrorists do get their hands on weapons of mass destruction? North Korea's development of nuclear weapons shows that you cannot stop the spread of deadly weapons, and the terrorists will surely have them eventually. The ONLY way to survive in the 21st century will be to get along with other nations, and be seen by the world body as a force for good and progress. Working together, the nations of the world, which must include the Muslim Arab nations, can isolate the terrorists, cut off their support, and ultimately eliminate them. But when we stop cooperating, and start going hellbent down a road that many of our allies will not follow, we put our citizens at risk. This is what is happening now, as we see on TV every time the UN discusses Iraq. All for the sake of restoring the "loss of face" of the Bush family and the first Bush administration. Not a far-seeing policy in my eyes. - WJB
2/26 1:51pm Re: [suggestion that anti-war protests are left-wingers] I think everyone would agree that some of the groups sponsoring anti-war events are, indeed, left-of-center. Especially the earliest organizers, like ANSWER. But the coalition of groups who oppose a pre-emptive invasion is broad and growing broader every day. The Win Without War coalition was formed by more moderate groups who oppose invasion and some of ANSWER's more spacey ideas. Win Without War includes groups like the American Friends Service Committee, Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, NAACP, National Council of Churches, National Organization for Women (NOW), Oxfam America, Pax Christi USA, Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), Sierra Club, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, Veterans for Common Sense, and Working Assets. These are generally more moderate groups. -DAF
2/26 12:20am The time has come for a reminder from the Webmaster. Folks, we're straying from the topic. We're not going to start questioning the personal motives of people who post. Opinions are just that, opinions. Let's stick to the issue at hand, and debate the merits of the statements, not the politics of the people. And some specific comments regarding the post below by MS: This post is all diatribe, and contributes no facts nor opinions to the topic. It personally impugns other posters, making snide remarks about their background, compassion, morals, patriotism. And invoking the victims of 9/11 in support of political arguments is tasteless and disrespectful - to the survivors, to the memory of the victims, and to the rest of us. With apologies to DAF, WD and WJB, I'm posting it anyway as an example of what NOT to write, and, unfortunately, to avoid being accused of censorship. No follow-ups to this post will be accepted, nor will any further messages of this nature be posted. - Wm.
2/25 10:49pm To DAF: You and WD are using this website as an exclusive posting for your particular perspective. That is, you only want to hear from people who "oppose war." Judging from the way you refuse to recognize that the groups organizing the anti-war demonstrations are predominantly Left-wing, anti-American, and anti-Israel, I can only conclude that you are also coming from the discussion from the left of center. As for my 'hating socialists," I find it hilarious that you, given your proven sense of humor, continue to obfuscate what Leftist interest have to do with the current world situation. But you have already admitted that you don't know what your reading and travel habits, or lack thereof, could possible have to do with your perspective! If it weren't so sad, I could find it amusing that you and WD would just continue to sit back in your supposedly safe little corner of the world and admire each other's ramblings. But there ARE views differing from yours, much to your dismay I'm sure. And plastering the Norfolk web with your opinions exclusively will not justify you, no matter how much you try to marginalize any fact that disrupts your dreamworld. The three thousand Americans who died on 9/11 deserve better than your lukewarm, self-serving political platitudes designed to detract from the current presidential administration. - MS
2/25 9:30pm AR: you make a good point. It would be unexpected for Hussein to go ahead and destroy the missiles as Blix has ordered. Still, on a practical level, if Hussein does not destroy them, the tide will turn in the UN and we will be at war. I'm flabbergasted that the Bush administration is now pre-emptively (no pun intended) saying that even if Hussein destroys the missiles (which would be unprecedented) Bush is going to consider Iraq in breach of Resolution 1441 anyway and push on with his war. -DAF
2/25 4:23pm WD: In answer to your last question, yes I would rather see a Hussein-Bush debate. The idea of a duel wasn't too bad either. Finally, you should not be surprised that Hussein won't destroy his missiles. The U.S. has made clear that it will attack, regardless of whether he destroys his missiles. If you were the leader of Iraq, would you destroy your weapons right before you are about to be attacked, when your adversary says they will attack regardless of whether you destroy your weapons? Hussein may be evil, but he is not insane. - WJB
2/25 4:22pm DAF - war does not become ``more justifiable'' (it either is or isn't) because our declared enemy does not act the way one might wish him to. Of course he won't; our enemy's self-interests will rarely match ours. The missiles, like Resolution 1441, are red herrings - they're arbitrary lines drawn in the sand that can serve as pretexts for starting the war. If Hussein has 200 missiles, 25% of which, when lightly loaded, can fly an average of 10 miles longer than permitted - what difference does that really make? All this talk about who may legally attack when only serves as a distraction. The real question - not being addressed - is whether Hussein is currently capable of posing any threat. The only time war can be justified is if our national self-defense needs can be met no other way. Sure, we can shoot dead a neighbor for beating his wife, but we will have committed a greater evil than we prevented - there are other ways. War should a last resort, not a convenience. - AR
2/25 1:58pm WD: I agree that 20K U.S. soldiers will not die at the outset of an Iraqi war, and that could happen in North Korea. In the case of an Iraqi war, the victims will likely be U.S. civilians, courtesy of terrorist attacks. Why should we be deterred by the threat to our soldiers in North Korea, while not being deterred by the threat to our civilians as a result of attacking Iraq? Al Qaeda can kill us just as dead as North Korea, as we have already found out. These arguments about North Korea being more ripe for negotiation also do not stand up to scrutiny. We already did negotiate a deal with North Korea - they unilaterally abrogated it. They show no signs of backing down, and have continually ramped up the rhetoric, at the same time accelerating their nuclear program. The Bush Administration's claim that the situation should be resolved through negotiation is primarily driven by a desire not to get distracted from their passion for attacking Iraq. If they had the same passion for fighting terrorism, we'd all be safer now. - WJB
2/25 11:10am WJB Re: North Korea - Bush administration emphasizing diplomacy, apparently because they believe an attack would create a conflagration that would engulf the Korean peninsula - should we ignore this risk and attack anyway, because our policy should not be held hostage to consequences? It seems clear to me that we always have to consider consequences, and determine whether the benefits of our policy outweigh its costs. We have to be aware of consequences and react appropriately - dealing with North Korea is not identical to dealing with Iraq - neither are the consequences - an attack on NK would result in the death of approx 20K US soldiers at the demilitarized zone in a matter of hours. I don't see that as a consequence in Iraq. It is not in China's best interest to have a nuclearized NK on that peninsula - thus negotiations and having the Chinese play a role there is a more appropriate way to initiate a solution in that part of the world. Perhaps you would prefer a televised debate between Bush and Hussein - but with his now refusal to follow Blix's instructions to destroy the missiles is to me just further proof that he continues to drag the dance on and on. - WD
2/24 4:59pm MS: Mark Twain said "Humor is the good natured side of a truth." My apologies if you found my sense of humor uncivilized. I should point out a couple of things about the particular instances you note. + "Jack Nicholson's lunatics" - what I said, in a reply to WD, not to you was: "It reminds of that Jack Nicholson quote 'Go sell crazy somewhere else, we're full up here.'" The quote is not from the dark drama One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, but from the 1997 comedic film As Good As It Gets. The intent of the sentence is "Please, I am crazy and I have enough craziness of my own with you adding to my craziness." It was meant to be a bit of humor in my reply to WD. + "Bin Laden" - I'm assuming you are referring to my 2/12 post in which I wrote: "He [bin Laden] 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?" Implicit in this is the assumption that you and Bin Laden are diametrically opposed entities. Although you both say you detest socialists and socialism, nobody for a moment is saying that you are an Islamic extremist terrorist, a member of Al Qaeda, or in any way similar to bin Laden - except for your apparent hatred of socialists. + "Alice in Wonderland" - This is from my 2/13 post in which I wrote "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." This was a direct response to your 2/12 post which, among other things, suggests that I do not care about the safety of "innocent people here at home." I can think much less civil responses to your comment than a suggestion that it reminds me of a children's story in which a child enters a magic world where logic is turned on its head. I see now that you were not joking about barring me from the forum for incivility. That idea (warning: this is meant to be humorous, not insulting or uncivil), reminds me of the German expression "ein Esel den anderen Langohr schimpft" (translation, a donkey grumbles the other long ear). And so, I hope we can now return discussing the merits of an invasion of Iraq. A couple of thoughts for folks to kick around:
+ I read today that the cost to the US for an Iraqi invasion is estimated at over $200 billion. President Bush has committed us to $15 billion to help stem the extinction of the people of Africa due to the AIDS pandemic. Can you imagine what good we could do with $200 billion? Even if it were the case that invading Iraq and killing Hussein were the best thing for the approcimately 22 million Iraqis who would make it through the invasion without being killed, wouldn't that money be better used to end the AIDs crisis, root our terrorists, and provide a real defense for the US homeland? Couldn't we take $35 billion and help support the Iraqi opposition in overthrowing Hussein? $35 billion is a lot of money in Iraq. + Do other people who oppose the war feel as I do about Hans Blix's demand that Iraq destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles? That is, do they think that if Hussein will not do it, then an invasion becomes more justifiable? And if Hussein moves forward and does destroy them, then it an invasion becomes even less justifiable than it already is. -DAF
2/24 2:04pm To AR: In the hard world of international diplomacy, what you call "threats and bribes" it is not unusual. Russia has a well-known record of favoring its allies with arms. France recently has been quite "persuasive" with its African affiliates. If the countries at the UN were not leveraging for their respective positions, it would not be necessary for the U.S. to corral their support. And isn't that the purpose of NATO in the first place, to provide a forum for international political maneuverings? The adage borrowed from Theordore Roosevelt, "speak softly but carry a big stick," had morphed into "use a carrot but don't forget the stick." And I hardly think that the surviving family members of 9/11 are just "voting their pocketbook." Marxist philosophy simply doesn't work here. If it did, everyone would just take their payoff from the U.S. coffers and go home. If that were the solution, then the billions spent on the Middle East would have solved the conflict. And if our were a totalitarian society, as you seem to imply, then you would not be here contributing to this discussion. You wouldn't be here at all. - MS
2/24 2:02pm To DAF: You have suggested that my views are in your opinion on par with Bin Laden, Alice In Wonderland, and Jack Nicholson's lunatics. I hardly call that civil. - MS
2/23 5:57pm It seems the Bush administration is busy soliciting support for a pro-war vote in the UN Security Council [AP news article]. In this case, the methods seem to be threats and bribes. "The order from the White House was to use 'all diplomatic means necessary,'" another U.S. diplomat said. "And that really means everything." ... [Foreign d]iplomats described the visits as hostile in tone ... "[T]he pressure is very intense and the warnings are real," according to one Mexican diplomat'. Whatever it takes, eh? Ahh, the beauty of a capitalist democracy, where everyone votes their pocketbook - a bought vote counts just as much as an honest one! So much better than a totalitarian democracy, where a vote out of fear counts just as much as an honest one. Isn't it nice to know that we live in a country where things like that just don't happen? - AR
2/23 4:56pm MS: It was never my intention to insult you personally. And I have tried to keep my posts civil, despite my exasperation. When responding to your posts I have mostly been pointing out flaws in your logic, requesting evidence for your cliams, and providing factual evidence that contradicts your statements. If these activities are "insulting and uncivil," then I suppose that an apology is in order. Frankly, I find it a bit odd that someone who honors freedom and detests the repression of opposition voices in Iraq and elsewhere (let me know if I am misinterpreting your posts here) would be calling for the barring of a neighbor from a public forum. Perhaps you were being ironic? Anyway, I don't make any assumptions about you, your background, affiliations, or motivations. I am simply disagreeing with your opinion and providing evidence contrary to you statements. I might add that you have claimed that those who oppose a unilateral invasion of Iraq are socialists, marxists, or their dupes. You have implied that I do not care about the "safety of innocent people here at home." I do not take it persoanlly, however, and I would not think of requesting that your posts be censored. Rage on, neighbor, rage on. Wm.: thanks for the reality check. And thank you for the insight on Eastern Europe. I know so little of that region's history and history seems like a living, physical entity there. - DAF
2/23 2:08pm To DAF: Your responses to my contributions to this forum have been insulting and uncivil. If being civil is the only requirement in this forum as stated on the home page, you have ignored the boundaries of civility and should be barred from comment. - MS
[Now, that's not fair. The discussion so far has been polite, and for the most part surprisingly moderate and well-stated. Unlike some past discussions, this one has not degenerated to name-calling and personal attacks. Sure, there are differences of opinion, but I've noticed at most exasperation and rhetoric, not rudeness. - Wm.]
2/22 11:12am WD: I can't buy your argument that we should ignore the impact that an attack on Iraq will have on the terrorist threat we face. Would you make the same argument in regard to North Korea? I think it is quite apparent that North Korea represents a far greater threat to us today than does Iraq. North Korea is believed to have nukes, is working diligently to build more, has long range ballistic missiles, and is so cash-strapped that it is considered likely to consider selling its nukes to terrorists. This is truly frightening - a nuclear attack on a U.S. city may be in our near term future, courtesy of North Korea. However, the Bush administration is emphasizing diplomacy, apparently because they believe an attack would create a conflagration that would engulf the Korean peninsula. So, would you argue that we should ignore this risk and attack anyway, because our policy should not be held hostage to consequences? It seems clear to me that we always have to consider consequences, and determine whether the benefits of our policy outweigh its costs. I would argue that they do not in Iraq, because it has not been argued to my satisfaction that Iraq does represent a "clear and present danger" and terrorism does represent such a danger, and that danger is likely to be enhanced by an attack on Iraq. Regarding Israel, we could have a whole separate discussion, but I believe that if we went back to the role of serving as an honest broker in peace negotiations, rather than our current role of backing the Sharon government in everything they do, it would be better for us, better for the Palestinians, and better for the people of Israel. - WJB
2/21 6:53pm WD: First, there were two articles (actually one article and one opinion/editorial piece). My point in linking in the articles was not to debate everything in them, as you must know, but to substantiate my factual statement that one of the governments that is very much "on the side of war" is the leadership of a Socialist state - Hungary. This puts the lie to some people's continual attempts at painting this conflict as somehow about Socialism. The tactic of trying to disparage an argument against unilateral invasion of Iraq by painting one's adversaries as somehow communist or socialist is absurd. It's more pleasant - and fruitful - to argue on the merits of the case, not make personal attacks on the opposition. Since you ask, though, you may want to click on the New York Times link that I provided and read the first sentence of the article which states: "Behind the high wall of concrete slats and barbed wire that surrounds the Hungarian Air Force base in this small southwestern town, the first group of Iraqi volunteers is training to join an American army that may invade Iraq." I'd call that "troops." I suppose we could have a semantic argument about that. But isn't that boring? The Washington Post reported: "The trainees represent the first Iraqi military component of what U.S. officials hope will become a war coalition, but the trainees' role is limited to guiding invading troops and helping them communicate with the Iraqi people." Fine, let's call them trainees. Call them whatever you want.
As for Hungarian public sentiment, you may want to read the recent Reuters report: "A Gallup poll published on January 27 showed 82 percent of Hungarians opposed military action under any circumstances. The remaining 18 percent said they would support a war but of those, two thirds said that support would be conditional on U.N. approval."
That doesn't smell like the fresh breeze of democracy wafted through the Eastern European air. I would think that proud anti-Socialists would be upset that a Socialist regime is engaging in military activity that is opposed by 94% of the people it is governing. Wouldn't you?
-DAF
[The thing to remember about Eastern Europeans is that their world view is very practical, derived from from the feudal system. They've had a dozen years of democracy, and went from kings to a rather similar Communist rulership, with the high-level government bureaucrats and party members lording over their little fiefdoms. Eastern European backing of the US position is not an expression of support, but a simple recognition of power. These supplicants are hoping to build up credit, and to be remembered favorably by the big lord once the sordid deed is done. Their personal opinions, as exemplified by the poll, would not carry over into their actions on which their livelihood depends. - Wm, a former Eastern European.]
2/21 2:49pm DAF What are you talking about - the article you reference does not mention training of "troops" or that this is "over the protests of the majority of the Hungarian people"?? Instead it [the Washington Times - Wm.] says: ``Mr. Simonyi's government is one of many in Eastern Europe that are supporting the United States and rejecting the position of France and Germany.Thanks for the quotes... the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary to crush an anti-communist revolt remains the fundamental event that shaped the lives of many Hungarians. Hungarians and other citizens of former Soviet bloc countries understand the plight of Iraqis under Saddam's brutal dictatorship. "Hungarians perhaps have a better understanding for why democracies might have to go to war," he said. "Look, in 1956, the international community, democracies failed to act ... [and] because of the inaction of democracies, Hungary got occupied by a foreign power ... Therefore, probably Hungarians have a pretty good understanding of what happens when democracies fail to move." Mr. Simonyi said Hungary is providing training facilities to Iraqi opposition members to train them to serve as interpreters and guides. - WD
2/21 11:54am TMB: MS is raising that socialist red herring again (no pun intended). I thought we put this to rest on our carousel earlier in the month? Hungary, one of the members of Rumsfeld's "New Europe" has a Socialist government (a real, live , Socialist state, not a liberal democracy that our friend can say is crypto-socialist). Hungary's government is so pro-war with Iraq that they are allowing the US military to train the Iraqi opposition troops there - over the protests of the majority of the Hungarian people. See the New York Times or the Washington Times (so that we aren't accused of linking only to the liberal media elites). As an aside: the Hungarian leadership seems to have learned a strange lesson from the Soviet invasion of their country in 1956. Instead of reacting to that injustice by saying that invasions should be avoided at all costs, they are saying that the experience has taught them that they must support an invasion. This is kind of like the child who is [...] abused who then grows up and becomes an abuser himself. Sad.
The countries of the world that are aligned against the US's unilateral invasion of Iraq (the majority of the nations of the Earth) are not led by socialist regimes. They are generally no more socialist than the United Kingdom is. Remember when Mr. Blair's Labour Party in Britain used to be called "socialist?" What a bunch of nonsense.
It reminds of that Jack Nicholson quote "Go sell crazy somewhere else, we're full up here."
- DAF
2/21 10:48am To WD: Thank you for your opinion about American foreign policy, NATO and Muslim terrorism. To TMB: We HAVE been actively supporting those governments recognized by NATO in the regions you describe. Some might say we have been supporting them TOO much and with too little supervision. It is well known how we have supported Hussein in the past. (And for the record, France also has supported Hussein's regime very well.) But it is an unfortunate fact that some countries have a talent for producing maniacal despots. What we are facing now is a disintegration of these diplomatic relations. And it is sheer myopia not to admit that the fundamental cause is political. We are not just talking about Afghanistan and Iraq here. We are viewing the mobilization of the Arab world against NATO and the traditional western coalition using Leftist/socialist sympathizers who would love to see democracies like the United States become unstable. What our "allies" in Europe are doing to us now is payback for what has been the presence of the United States in Europe and Asia since World War II. They would love to see a reorgainzation which gives less influence to the United States. TMB, it sounds like you have a political ax to grind by blaming it just on the events of the past two years. And I daresay your General (Clark?) has political ambitions. The political events occurring now reflect the changing position of socialist and post-socialist countries as they now challenge the democracies which have stabilized the West for the past fifty years. Bluntly put, that means John and Jane Doe in America have to ask themselves, "Why should we let these foreign interests take the freedom we have EARNED and enjoyed?" - MS
For the older messages, look here.