[NRSracer]

Can't GWB just come out and say he wants oil? Iraq really poses no threat to us. as for the crap about saving all the Iraqi people he gassed, why didn't he do something about it earlier?

why don't we focus on the country firing up another nuke program that would make missiles with the capability to hit california?

and whatever happened to Bin Laden?

 

[LordOpie]

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by NRSracer
Can't GWB just come out and say he wants oil? Iraq really poses no threat to us. as for the crap about saving all the Iraqi people he gassed, why didn't he do something about it earlier?

why don't we focus on the country firing up another nuke program that would make missiles with the capability to hit california?

and whatever happened to Bin Laden?

I'll say it before and i'll say it again, this war's aim is not about oil.

If we wanted the oil, we could simply purchase it for less than the cost of a full on invasion, without the waste of human lives. While there may be some underlying cause we're not aware of, i think we can safely say that oil is not it.
There is a full on hunt for Osama bin Laden by many government agencies. He didnt just get off the hook, but its bad morale for our country to be constantly reminded of our failures to capture the international terrorist.

Finally, we have aircraft in place and naval gunfire within range to deal w/ North Korea if they attempt something. We are covering our fronts particularly well. Do some research.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I'll say it before and i'll say it again, this war's aim is not about oil.

If we wanted the oil, we could simply purchase it for less than the cost of a full on invasion

For the last time! (well, no, I'll say it again if I have to), it IS about the OIL, but not in the conspiracy theory "so Bush can get rich" or "our oil companies can get rich" sense. And the explanation you give for why it isn't about oil (purchasing it for less than the cost of invading) makes it seem like our only goal is to have an abundance of cheap oil in the US. No, our goals are further reaching than that. Read this, tell me what you think: (I've posted this before, the whole article is a great read, but this is the most relevent part. It was written a few months ago, so some of it's a bit dated, esp with Germany/France's actions......)

http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/commentary/2003/0301warreasons.html

"First, on U.S. dependence on Persian Gulf oil and the Carter Doctrine. Ever since World War II, when American policymakers first acknowledged that the United States would someday become dependent on Middle Eastern petroleum, it has been American policy to ensure that the United States would always have unrestrained access to Persian Gulf oil. At first, the United States relied on Great Britain to protect American access to the Gulf, and then, when Britain pulled out of the area in 1971, the U.S. chose to rely on the Shah of Iran. But when, in 1979, the Shah was overthrown by Islamic militants loyal to the Ayatollah Khomeini, Washington decided that it would have to assume responsibility on its own to protect the oil flow. The result was the Carter Doctrine of January 23, 1980, which states that unrestricted access to Persian Gulf is a vital interest of the United States and that, in protection of that interest, the United States will employ "any means necessary, including military force."

This principle was first invoked in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq War, when Iranian gunboats fired on Kuwaiti oil tankers and the U.S. Navy began escorting Kuwaiti tankers through the Gulf. It was next invoked in August 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait and posed an implied threat to Saudi Arabia. President Bush the elder responded to that threat by driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait, in Operation Desert Storm; he did not, however, continue the war into Iraq proper and remove Saddam Hussein himself. Instead, the U.S. engaged in the "containment" of Iraq, entailing an air and sea blockade.

Now, President Bush the younger seeks to abandon containment and pick up Operation Desert Storm where it left off in 1991. The reason being given for this is that Saddam is making more progress in the development of WMD, but the underlying principle is still the Carter Doctrine: Iraq under Saddam poses an implied threat to U.S. access to Persian Gulf oil, and so must be removed. As noted by Vice President Dick Cheney on August 26, 2002, in his important speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, "Armed with these weapons of terror and a seat at the top of 10% of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail." Stripped to its essence, this is a direct invocation of the Carter Doctrine.

To underscore this, it is useful to compare Cheney's VFW speech to his comments 12 years earlier, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, before the Senate Armed Services Committee: "Iraq controlled 10% of the world's reserves prior to the invasion of Kuwait. Once Saddam Hussein took Kuwait, he doubled that to approximately 20% of the world's known oil reserves.... Once he acquired Kuwait and deployed an army as large as the one he possesses [on the border of Saudi Arabia], he was clearly in a position to dictate the future of worldwide energy policy, and that gave him a stranglehold on our economy and on that of most of the other nations of the world as well." The atmospherics may have changed since 1990, but we are still dealing with the Carter Doctrine: Saddam must be removed because of the potential threat he poses to the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to the U.S. and its allies.

The second administration objective springs from the language employed by Cheney in his 1990 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee: whoever controls the flow of Persian Gulf oil has a "stranglehold" not only on our economy but also "on that of most of that of the other nations of the world as well." This is a powerful image, and perfectly describes the administration's thinking about the Gulf area, except in reverse: by serving as the dominant power in the Gulf, WE maintain a "stranglehold" over the economies of other nations. This gives us extraordinary leverage in world affairs, and explains to some degree why states like Japan, Britain, France, and Germany--states that are even more dependent on Persian Gulf oil than we are--defer to Washington on major international issues (like Iraq) even when they disagree with us.

Maintenance of a stranglehold over Persian Gulf oil is also consistent with the administration's declared goal of attaining permanent military superiority over all other nations. If you read administration statements on U.S. national security policy, you will find that one theme stands out above all others: the United States must prevent any potential rival from ever reaching the point where it could compete with the United States on something resembling equal standing. As articulated in "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America" (released by President Bush in September 2002), this principle holds that American forces must be "strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States."

One way to accomplish this, of course, is to pursue advances in technology that allow the United States to remain ahead of all potential rivals in military systems--which is what the administration hopes to accomplish by adding tens of billions of dollars to the Department of Defense budget. Another way to do this is maintain a stranglehold on the economy of potential rivals, so that they will refrain from challenging us out of fear of being choked to death through the denial of vital energy supplies. Japan and the European countries are already in this vulnerable position, and will remain so for the foreseeable future; but now China is also moving into this position, as it becomes increasingly dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf. Like the U.S., China is running out of oil, and, like us, it has nowhere to go to make up the difference except the Gulf. But since WE control access to the Gulf, and China lacks the power to break our stranglehold, we can keep China in a vulnerable, subordinate position indefinitely. As I see it, then, the removal of Saddam Hussein and his replacement by someone beholden to the United States is a key part of a broader U.S. strategy aimed at assuring permanent American global dominance. Or, as Michael Ignatieff put it in his seminal essay on America's emerging empire, the concentration of so much oil in the Gulf "makes it what a military strategist would call the empire's center of gravity" ("The Burden," The New York Times Magazine, January 5, 2003).

And finally, there is the issue of America's long-term energy dilemma. The problem is as follows: The United States relies on oil to supply about 40% of its energy requirements, more than any other source. At one time, this country relied almost entirely on domestic oil to supply its needs; but our need for oil is growing all the time and our domestic fields--among the oldest in the world--are rapidly being exhausted. So our need for imported oil will grow with each passing year. And the more we turn to foreign sources for our oil, the more we will have to turn to the Persian Gulf, because most of the world's untapped oil--at least two-thirds of it--is located in the Gulf area. We can of course rip up Alaska and extract every drop of oil there, but that would reduce our dependence on imported oil by only about 1-2 percentage points--an insignificant amount. We could also rely for a share of our oil on non-Gulf suppliers like Russia, Venezuela, the Caspian Sea states, and Africa, but they have much less oil than the Persian Gulf countries and they are using it up faster. So, the more you look into the future, the greater will become our dependence on the Gulf.

Now, at the current time, U.S. dependence on Persian Gulf oil means, in all practical terms, American dependence on Saudi Arabia, because Saudi Arabia has more oil than everyone else--about 250 billion barrels, or one-fourth of world reserves. That gives Saudi Arabia a lot of indirect influence over our economy and our way of life. And, as you know, there are many people in this country who are resentful of the Saudis because of their financial ties to charities linked to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. More to the point, Saudi Arabia is a major backer of OPEC and tends to control the global availability of oil--something that makes American officials very nervous, especially when the Saudis use their power to put pressure on the United States to alter some of its policies, for example with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

[patconnole]

For all of these reasons, American leaders would like to reduce America's dependence on Saudi Arabia. But there is only ONE way to permanently reduce America's reliance on Saudi Arabia: by taking over Iraq and using it as an alternative source of petroleum. Iraq is the ONLY country in the world with sufficient reserves to balance Saudi Arabia: at least 112 billion barrels in proven reserves, and as much as 200-300 billion barrels of potential reserves. By occupying Iraq and controlling its government, the United States will solve its long-term oil-dependency dilemma for a decade or more. And this, I believe, is a major consideration in the administration's decisionmaking about Iraq.

It is this set of factors, I believe, that explain the Bush administration's determination to go to war with Iraq--not concern over WMD, terrorism, or the spread of democracy. But having said this, we need to ask: do these objectives, assuming they're the correct ones, still justify a war on Iraq? Some Americans may think so. There are, indeed, advantages to being positioned on the inside of a powerful empire with control over the world's second-largest supply of untapped petroleum. If nothing else, American motorists will be able to afford the gas for their SUVs, vans, and pick-up trucks for another decade, and maybe longer. There will also be lots of jobs in the military and in the military-industrial complex, or as representatives of American multinational corporations (although, with respect to the latter, I would not advise traveling in most of the rest of the world unless accompanied by a small army of bodyguards). But there will also be a price to pay. Empires tend to require the militarization of society, and that will entail putting more people into uniform, one way or another. It will also mean increased spending on war, and reduced spending on education and other domestic needs. It will entail more secrecy and intrusion into our private lives. All of this has to be entered into the equation. And if you ask me, empire is not worth the price.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by patconnole
But there is only ONE way to permanently reduce America's reliance on Saudi Arabia: by taking over Iraq and using it as an alternative source of petroleum.

I dont think anyone has even mentioned the idea of "taking over Iraq"

Thats not our goal. I know you'll fire back with some "puppet government" argument, but the fact of the matter is it would still be cheaper for us to simply purchase the oil than to carry out an entire WAR.
Why not just pay some south American country 36 billion dollars for Oil if we just have money to blow? Face it, disarming Saddam is the primary factor. Surely the government left in charge would be interested in trading oil with us, and why shouldnt they be, as we allowed them to take power, but it would still be managed by the OPEC, and we'd be paying precisely the same amount as we would oil from Saudi Arabia............right?
I know all we hear about is anti- U.S. this and that on the news, but stop and think for a moment. There are countries that support our cause. How would Great Britain benefit from keeping the US as the lone superpower? How would Denmark benefit?

What we're doing makes sense. Leaving a madman in power does not.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by patconnole
For the last time! (well, no, I'll say it again if I have to), it IS about the OIL, but not in the conspiracy theory "so Bush can get rich" or "our oil companies can get rich" sense. And the explanation you give for why it isn't about oil (purchasing it for less than the cost of invading) makes it seem like our only goal is to have an abundance of cheap oil in the US. No, our goals are further reaching than that.

It also seems as if you have had a change of heart from before, as you were originally on the "Bush just wants oil because he's greedy" Bandwagon.

Why'd you change your mind?

What makes you so sure now?

 

[Damn True]

Pat,

That is interesting stuff. Though, it is an interpretation and like any other is effected by subjectivity.

Brings a question to mind:

What if as a nation we enacted a ten year plan to cut our oil consumption by no less than 50%. Electric vehicles, non-petro electircal generation, reduced use of plastics etc etc.

I wonder what the the effect would be in terms of our relations with the Mid-East region? You think they hate us now? Imagine if their economy had its influx of Yankee dollars cut by 50%.

A bit of a double edged sword, no? Of course we want to use less oil, but what is the effect of using less oil?

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I dont think anyone has even mentioned the idea of "taking over Iraq"

Thats not our goal. I know you'll fire back with some "puppet government" argument, but the fact of the matter is it would still be cheaper for us to simply purchase the oil than to carry out an entire WAR.
Why not just pay some south American country 36 billion dollars for Oil if we just have money to blow? Face it, disarming Saddam is the primary factor. Surely the government left in charge would be interested in trading oil with us, and why shouldnt they be, as we allowed them to take power, but it would still be managed by the OPEC, and we'd be paying precisely the same amount as we would oil from Saudi Arabia............right?
I know all we hear about is anti- U.S. this and that on the news, but stop and think for a moment. There are countries that support our cause. How would Great Britain benefit from keeping the US as the lone superpower? How would Denmark benefit?

What we're doing makes sense. Leaving a madman in power does not.

You're right, I am still heading to puppet government argument.... The essay's point (IMO), is that this isn't really a monetary pursuit, it's a power pursuit. That's why the idea of buying oil from somewhere else (South A.), or lifting sanctions and buying it straight from Iraq isn't a competing answer...... it's not about us having oil at cheap prices (it is, a bit), it's about having control over the tap-- power! The world is too small, there would be too many repercussions, for us to blow up the Iraqi regime and plant a new US state over there (pure imperialism), so we go about it in an underhanded way, the puppet-government argument.

I'm not entirely sure about why certain governments align themselves with us, if our goal is to be the lone-superpower. But I imagine the ones with similar idealogies would, and those without, won't. (UK vs. China). There's so much that goes into it, who knows? But overall, I think it makes sense. Denmark and the UK could benefit from us being the lone-superpower.... (guessing here), because they've got really no chance of being one themselves, so they'd better be friendly.... There's so many reasons like that.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
It also seems as if you have had a change of heart from before, as you were originally on the "Bush just wants oil because he's greedy" Bandwagon.

Why'd you change your mind?

What makes you so sure now?

I may have been on that bandwagon, I can't remember. I should go through my old posts.... Before I found this essay, I was still thinking "Bush = Oil", but, hopefully I wasn't set on "Bush wants oil for personal gain".

Yeah, we're all looking for a combination of truth, and something to pat our egos--- and the essay does both for me. For whatever reason, I haven't bought the WMD argument-- We want this war more than we want Saddam disarmed, and the essay provides an explanation that's easier for me to swallow.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by Damn True
Pat,

That is interesting stuff. Though, it is an interpretation and like any other is effected by subjectivity.

Brings a question to mind:

What if as a nation we enacted a ten year plan to cut our oil consumption by no less than 50%. Electric vehicles, non-petro electircal generation, reduced use of plastics etc etc.

I wonder what the the effect would be in terms of our relations with the Mid-East region? You think they hate us now? Imagine if their economy had its influx of Yankee dollars cut by 50%.

A bit of a double edged sword, no? Of course we want to use less oil, but what is the effect of using less oil?

Thanks for reading it.

Are we being blackmailed then, into supporting their economies?
My impression is that everyone over there who isn't in power is poor and in poverty-- so, the people looking for solutions/answers (as a result of their lame situation-- possible terrorists/jihad folks) don't feel a dependence on us currently, so if we withdrew our dollars, the royalty would have to provide quite a convincing argument to shift the blame for their already lame situation into a lamer one.

This is a lame argument [EDIT: at this point, I was tired of hypothesizing.....MY conjecture is getting lame]. Anyway, I think the second edge on that sword is a lot smaller than the first.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by patconnole
Thanks for reading it.

Are we being blackmailed then, into supporting their economies?
My impression is that everyone over there who isn't in power is poor and in poverty-- so, the people looking for solutions/answers (as a result of their lame situation-- possible terrorists/jihad folks) don't feel a dependence on us currently, so if we withdrew our dollars, the royalty would have to provide quite a convincing argument to shift the blame for their already lame situation into a lamer one.

This is a lame argument. Anyway, I think the second edge on that sword is a lot smaller than the first.

It was pure conjecture over the possible ramifications of something that most likely won't happen unless we make a huge paradigm shift.
Further explaination since either I didn't get my point across or you are so use to me being contrrary that you assumed this was more of the same;
I mean, of course we want to be less dependant on foreign oil. Especially when that oil comes from a place as problematic as the Mid-East. So what if we weren't as dependant? What would the reprecussions of that be? Would we then be at fault for the tanking of their economies? We all know that there is a huge gap between the haves and have-nots in that region and it is the haves that fuel the hatred (by using fear) in the have-nots. So what if we were no longer a factor in the region? What would they have to use as a means of rallying the masses?

It wasn't an argument, just a hypothetical question. But thanks for tossing an insult at me just the same.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by Damn True
It was pure conjecture over the possible ramifications of something that most likely won't happen unless we make a huge paradigm shift.
Further explaination since either I didn't get my point across or you are so use to me being contrrary that you assumed this was more of the same;
I mean, of course we want to be less dependant on foreign oil. Especially when that oil comes from a place as problematic as the Mid-East. So what if we weren't as dependant? What would the reprecussions of that be? Would we then be at fault for the tanking of their economies? We all know that there is a huge gap between the haves and have-nots in that region and it is the haves that fuel the hatred (by using fear) in the have-nots. So what if we were no longer a factor in the region? What would they have to use as a means of rallying the masses?

It wasn't an argument, just a hypothetical question. But thanks for tossing an insult at me just the same.

Oh, sh!t!!! No, I was was saying MY argument was lame! I think we get each other. Your response (this one), I understand, and that's what I read into the first one.

edit: the lameness was regarding my argument starting with "thanks for reading it....". Probably shouldn't have called it an argument either, my lame conjecture.

 

[rbx]

its incredible how much technology can impact human history,wonder if the situation would be same if fuel cell or electric cars dominated the market and theres was no need for the internal combustion engine?(i know this war is not all about oil but it surelly plays a part)

 

[Eddie420]

How abouy the view that America is a war driven economy.
What would all those military people do if they couldn't be in the army. What about the people in factories making America's weapons do instead?? They'd be a much higher unemployment factor wouldn't there be????
Does this have any weight in helping the government decide to go to war??
Anybody???

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by patconnole

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Damn True
Pat,

That is interesting stuff. Though, it is an interpretation and like any other is effected by subjectivity.

Brings a question to mind:

What if as a nation we enacted a ten year plan to cut our oil consumption by no less than 50%. Electric vehicles, non-petro electircal generation, reduced use of plastics etc etc.

I wonder what the the effect would be in terms of our relations with the Mid-East region? You think they hate us now? Imagine if their economy had its influx of Yankee dollars cut by 50%.

A bit of a double edged sword, no? Of course we want to use less oil, but what is the effect of using less oil?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Thanks for reading it.

Are we being blackmailed then, into supporting their economies?
My impression is that everyone over there who isn't in power is poor and in poverty-- so, the people looking for solutions/answers (as a result of their lame situation-- possible terrorists/jihad folks) don't feel a dependence on us currently, so if we withdrew our dollars, the royalty would have to provide quite a convincing argument to shift the blame for their already lame situation into a lamer one.

This is a lame argument [EDIT: at this point, I was tired of hypothesizing.....MY conjecture is getting lame]. Anyway, I think the second edge on that sword is a lot smaller than the first.

Apologies for the double quote but I wanted to get both views in.

I think DT's proposal would me the wisest course of action but that by no means would ensure it would be easily taken. There are many powerful people who would not benefit financially from a reduced dependence on oil (in the short term at least). It would also be very difficult to implement as it would means compromises in the lifestyle that the US citizen currently enjoys which would in turn make for an unpopular policy and government (who wish to retain power as a major priority after all).

And furthermore, and perhaps most importantly given the Carter doctrine viewpoint posted initally, whilst it may reduce the US dependence on the Gulf it would not position the US in such a great position to maintain world supremacy. This, IMO, is the key to the whole thing - power.

 

[$tinkle]

regarding these specific accusations from the supposed peaceniks against engagement in iraq:

• 
  1. Look who we were supporting in the 80s
  2. Bush is a cowboy -- we can't go to Iraq without a unified "international community" front
  3. Iraq is not an imminent threat
  4. There is no evidence of WMD in Iraq -- the UN has found nothing
  5. We talk with North Korea, so why not Iraq?
  6. This war is just about oil
  7. Prosecuting Iraq will invite escalated terrorist attacks

The Federalist makes sense of it all:
http://www.federalist.com/pub/03-07_Digest.htm

and this is another must see (interiews w/ peace protesters):
http://brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html

(even if they are cherry-picked, it's still pretty amazing, shocking, depressing, funny...)

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Damn True

I wonder what the the effect would be in terms of our relations with the Mid-East region? You think they hate us now? Imagine if their economy had its influx of Yankee dollars cut by 50%.

A bit of a double edged sword, no? Of course we want to use less oil, but what is the effect of using less oil?

I can't say whether they would be better or worse off (though most nations in the Middle East is well situated to build solar/hydrogen refineries with the oil money)... but I can say there would be a much smaller direct line of blame towards the US for their troubles. We intervene because we are dependent. If we stop intervening, there is a lot less to blame us for. There's lots of poor countries and poor people. They don't all blame the wealthy US for their situation.

 

[slein]

Doesn't most of US's oil come from CANADA (60% is the last figure I heard)? Yes, a regime change in IRAQ is necessary, yet war does seem a little... what's the word i'm looking for...

EXCESSIVE?

OVERKILL?

i'm sure that you'll drop bombs on us next for our oil, weed and hockey players.

If this situation wasn't about oil, then why didn't BOOSH ratify the Kyoto Protocol to do something about greenhouse gases? HE said it would damage the AMERICAN economy.

hmmmmm.... and some people say this war isn't about oil?

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by slein
i'm sure that you'll drop bombs on us next for our oil, weed and hockey players.

...a mean look would probably suffice.

Regarding your marketable products:

1) You happily sell us your oil for beer money
2) Your weed is good, but mostly derived from what was already perfected in CA and our Pacific NW
3) Your hockey players come voluntarily for our American women

 

[fluff]

Reproduced without permission from; http://www.geocities.com/Politica2003/internationaljustice1.htm

The Myth of International Justice

In the present hysteria about Iraq, there has been a lot of rhetoric concerning flouting of UN Security Council resolutions. If a country is to be judged by its flouting of UN resolutions, then a simple calculation should allow us to identify the worst rogue states of this world. For example, Israel has ignored over 30 security resolutions relating to serious and well-documented breached of human rights in Palestine since 1948, but not once has the UN taken action against this country (1). Not to mention that 32 other resolutions against Israel have been vetoed by the United States in the past (1). So flouting UN resolutions cannot be the reason we are considering bombing Iraq. It must have committed some other crime.

Well, it definitely did. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the Security Council passed a resolution asking it to withdraw. When it refused, the Council allowed the USA and allies to take remedial military action. However, no similar action was ever taken against the Israeli occupation of Palestine, or even the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. In fact, Turkey has ignored over 50 UN resolutions calling for an end to the occupation of Cyprus. Similarly, Indonesia was allowed to illegally occupy East Timor for over 20 years. Even more illogical was the way Serbia was reprimanded for its "occupation" of Kosovo, which according to international law is an integrated region of Serbia. Can you be guilty of occupying your own country? In any case, it seems we are once again looking at the wrong crime: according to the examples above, illegal occupation of foreign territory does not automatically justify the punishment of your own civilian population by western bombs.

The Bosnian war created huge numbers of refugees, based on religious rather than ethnic lines, and war crimes may have been committed in Kosovo, but as the trial of Milosevic has shown, the prosecution has very little evidence as to the ex President's involvement in these crimes. In the eyes of NATO, which had ignored the bitter civil war in Bosnia, the Kosovo crisis apparently justified the destructive bombing campaign of 1999, which caused the largest refugee crisis in Europe since the Second World War. Neighbouring Croatia was spared such a fate, despite well-documented massacres and ethnic cleansing of Serbian civilians in Krajina, for example. To this day, Croatia still refuses to hand over a general indicted of war crimes to the Hague tribunal, with no serious consequences. Similarly, the continued implantation of Israeli colonies deep inside Palestinian territories, the destruction of Palestinian houses, the massacres of Jenin in 2001 and those of Arabs by Israeli-supported militias in Lebanon in 1984 have led to nothing more than verbal criticism. In a similar way, Turkey has been importing farmers from Anatolia to Northern Cyprus since 1974, trying to alter the population balance on the island in its favour (many Turkish Cypriots were quite willing to reunite with their Greek neighbours to the South, which is not the case of the new arrivals). But of course, Turkey has never been punished for its demographic manipulations.

Brian Whitaker from the Guardian replies to Bush's claim about Iraq that we cannot stand by and do nothing about Iraq: "But in the case of Israel, we not only can do nothing - we do nothing". This comment could easily also apply to Turkey in Cyprus, to Croatia in Krajina and to countless other injustices committed across the world. Iraq itself was allowed to use poison gas against its Kurdish population in the 1980s without raising eyebrows in Washington, for whom he was waging a proxy war against Iran (2). These disgusting breaches of the Geneva convention did not prevent Reagan to re-establish diplomatic relations with Baghdad, nor even American companies from exporting material to Iraq which had the potential to be used for biological weapons (2).

This brings us to the real issue, the real crime committed by Hussein: the accumulation of an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Surely, possession of these abhorrent arms should automatically lead to an automatic bombing campaign? Well, this could be a bit tricky. After all, we all know who possesses the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons on the planet, we all know which country is the only one ever to have used nuclear weapons in a war. This country happens to have a veto at the Security Council, as do four other nuclear powers. But it is obviously not the possession of weapons of mass destruction which makes places a nation on the axis of evil, otherwise we would see France, the UK, the USA, Russia and China on the list of the accused. As we know, these countries cannot be evil, so there must be some other factor that I have forgotten. This additional factor is clear: one needs not only to possess nukes, but also to be a dictator and to harbour terrorists. Now we begin to understand why Iraq should be bombed. Or do we? In that case, why is no war being considered against Pakistan? Doesn't Pakistan meet the required criteria for being bombed back into the Stone Age? Many Al-Qaeda members are said to be hiding out in Pakistan (a far more likely hypothesis than the recent statements by G. W. Bush concerning links between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein), Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal, it has a dictator, and yet it is our ally in the war against evil.

Of course, we are not advocating war or crippling sanctions against Turkey or Pakistan or Israel, for that would be futile, and would punish the populations for the crimes of their leaders. In a democracy, it may be argued that the people share some form of diluted responsibility for the actions of their elected leaders, but this premise can definitely not apply in the case of a dictatorship. In a dictatorship, the people are the victims. War and sanctions serve only to victimize them further. For example, the sanctions imposed against Iraq since the gulf war were misguided and inhuman. If, as Tony Blair's recent dossier about Iraq is correct, and the sanctions have not prevented Saddam Hussein from building a massive arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, then as Robert Fisk from the Independent asserts: "it means that our massive, obstructive, brutal policy of UN sanctions has totally failed. In other words, half a million Iraqi children were killed by us - for nothing." (3). If the dossier is just a series of unfounded assertions, then these Iraqi children once again died for no reason. In other words, for the sake of clarity, those Iraqi children died for nothing.

"Well, but we can't just do NOTHING" will repeat the Hawks, ignoring the fact that in most cases we do nothing anyway. In Noam Chomsky´s words (he was writing about the bombing of Yugoslavia, which accelerated the exodus of Albanians from Kosovo), "when you have a choice between doing nothing and making things worse, it is better to do nothing at all" (4). But if we really want to do something constructive, we should first begin by being fair in our criticism. If we detest dictatorship, then we should not ally with such brutal ruling dynasties as the Saudi Monarchs. If we detest weapons of mass destruction, then we should start by reducing our own arsenals. If we fear terrorism, then we should think twice before supporting, training and arming terrorist groups when it serves out interests (as was the case for Al-Qaeda during the cold war). If the USA believes in international law, in the principles of the United Nations, then it should begin by signing up to the International Criminal Court (ICC), leading by example. The USA, has nothing to fear from the ICC, since it claims to respect human rights and the Geneva Convention. The Economist recently expressed the wish that Saddam Hussein should join Milosevic to be tried for several serious crimes (5). This is a rather short wish list, and we hope the International Court will have many other "guests" such as Ariel Sharon, General Pinochet, and those responsible for the massive civilian casualties resulting from the bombing campaigns in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

References:

1- Whitaker, B. 2002. Nothing Doing. The Guardian, 24/09/02
2- Gresh, A. 2002. Objectif Baghdad. Le Monde Diplomatique, September 2002.
3- Fisk, R. 2002. The Dishonesty of this so-called dossier. Znet. 25/09/02. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2379
4- Chomsky, N. 1999. The New Military Humanism. Lessons from Kosovo. Conman Courage, USA.
5- Anonymous, 2002. Saddam under pressure. The Economist. 27/09/02

 

[ohio]

Great articl, fluff.

Who's the author?

 

[$tinkle]

what else does Chomsky have to say?

According to Chomsky, in the first battle of the postwar struggle with the Soviet Empire, "the United States was picking up where the Nazis had left off."

According to Chomsky, during the Cold War, American operations behind the Iron Curtain included "a ‘secret army’ under US-Nazi auspices that sought to provide agents and military supplies to armies that had been established by Hitler and which were still operating inside the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe through the early 1950s."

According to Chomsky, in Latin America during the Cold War, U.S. support for legitimate governments against Communist subversion led to US complicity under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, in "the methods of Heinrich Himmler’s extermination squads."

According to Chomsky, there is "a close correlation worldwide between torture and U.S. aid."

According to Chomsky, America "invaded" Vietnam to slaughter its people, and even after America left in 1975, under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, "the major policy goal of the US has been to maximize repression and suffering in the countries that were devastated by our violence. The degree of the cruelty is quite astonishing."

According to Chomsky, "the pretext for Washington’s terrorist wars [i.e., in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Guatemala, Iraq, etc.] was self-defense, the standard official justification for just about any monstrous act, even the Nazi Holocaust."

In sum, according to Chomsky, "legally speaking, there’s a very solid case for impeaching every American president since the Second World War. They’ve all been either outright war criminals or involved in serious war crimes."



if you believe this, that is your perfect right - inalienably given to you by your creator. I acknowledge evidence to the contrary, and as such, regard Avram Noam as borderline irrelevant (but i will keep one eye peeled).

 

[rbx]

thanks for the article fluff

 

[slein]

that post kicked ass... i can hardly wait for the pro-bombing-death dudes to reply.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by slein
that post kicked ass... i can hardly wait for the pro-bombing-death dudes to reply.

...run so deep. Yeah...America sucks. We're just a bunch of war-mongers. We like bombing other countries for our jollies. Our citizens are mere sheep to the bleat of our government. Too bad we're not as enlightened as the French or Canadiens or other truly GREAT nations out there. It must be so warming to the heart to live in an impotent nation claiming to champion peace out of the inability to make war. It's really too bad that we must endure the constant second-guessing and criticism by weak nations who know that they need not bloody their own hands in time of peril because America will come to your defense no matter how much you hate and undermine us in the international community. If for only one year your pitiful countries had to stand on your own two feet without the crutch of U.S. aid and the protective umbrella of our armed forces, perhaps you might belatedly develop some sense of appreciation and gratitude for what the globe might look like without the U.S. as a friend, ally and promoter of democracy.

 

[$tinkle]

"Going to war without France is like going duck hunting without your accordion" - Jed Babbin, fmr undersecretary of defense

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by $tinkle
regarding these specific accusations from the supposed peaceniks against engagement in iraq:

• 
  1. Look who we were supporting in the 80s
  2. Bush is a cowboy -- we can't go to Iraq without a unified "international community" front
  3. Iraq is not an imminent threat
  4. There is no evidence of WMD in Iraq -- the UN has found nothing
  5. We talk with North Korea, so why not Iraq?
  6. This war is just about oil
  7. Prosecuting Iraq will invite escalated terrorist attacks

The Federalist makes sense of it all:
http://www.federalist.com/pub/03-07_Digest.htm

Hey, welcome aboard if you're new! Thanks for posting this.
Some responses I can think of

#1) Agreed, that "supporting murderous regimes then and now" doesn't make a right-- But no one on the left (IMO) is saying Saddam should be supported-- we're just not supporting an imperialist, oil driven war. The peace protests are anti-bush-policy, not pro-murderous-regime. The two aren't synonyms. With our "strange bedfellows", as a result of our national interests...... It's just strange that sometimes our "national interests" can easily conflict with the supposed humanitarian/democratizing interests that are being used to partly justify this war. It makes it harder to trust the administration's humanitarian justification when those interests are so easily superseded in the past.

#2) Bush is not a cowboy-- But he wants to be one. Anyway, most people would agree with the president's constitutional duties-- But this isn't an "imminent threat". Did Powell present a case of imminent threat at the UN? not in my opinion (He wouldn't have to if it actually was one). #3 addresses this, ...... "For the past 16 months, exposure of numerous connections between" saddam and al-quada. I would say these connections are more of an afterthought of the wish to invade Iraq-- less of an evidence trail that connects Iraq and Al-quada.

got to run. #6 is great.... I love the downplaying of the oil interest... "Well, there's a lot of oil in the mideast, so it probably has something to do with their stability. And that region's stability is, well, possibly related to our, uh, national security."

 

[slein]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
...run so deep. Yeah...America sucks.

AMERICA doesn't suck. however, it is really easy to make fun of.

Too bad we're not as enlightened as the French or Canadiens or other truly GREAT nations out there.

too bad. boo-hoo. and when you say CANADIENS, i guess you're speaking about the hockey team?

It must be so warming to the heart to live in an impotent nation claiming to champion peace out of the inability to make war. It's really too bad that we must endure the constant second-guessing and criticism by weak nations who know that they need not bloody their own hands in time of peril because America will come to your defense no matter how much you hate and undermine us in the international community.

do you really believe dropping bombs is going to have an encouraging effect? dropping bombs means making more bombs to stop one guy who has made bombs. this rocket science stuff really gets weirder by the minute. and who are you kidding? everyone loves canucks, including texans.

If for only one year your pitiful countries had to stand on your own two feet without the crutch of U.S. aid and the protective umbrella of our armed forces, perhaps you might belatedly develop some sense of appreciation and gratitude for what the globe might look like without the U.S. as a friend, ally and promoter of democracy.

if only for one year CANADA could impose a 29% percent tariff on the fresh water, oil, natural gas, marijuana and hydro we supplied AMERICA each year - in consideration to the tariff you put on our softwood lumber. i bet that would really put your titties in a knot. without the rest of the world, the US is nothing. so come to my defense. i'm waiting. still waiting... AS IF anyone would ever invade CANADA.

your bad manners are only exceeded by my bad manners.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
...run so deep. Yeah...America sucks. We're just a bunch of war-mongers. We like bombing other countries for our jollies. Our citizens are mere sheep to the bleat of our government. Too bad we're not as enlightened as the French or Canadiens or other truly GREAT nations out there. It must be so warming to the heart to live in an impotent nation claiming to champion peace out of the inability to make war. It's really too bad that we must endure the constant second-guessing and criticism by weak nations who know that they need not bloody their own hands in time of peril because America will come to your defense no matter how much you hate and undermine us in the international community. If for only one year your pitiful countries had to stand on your own two feet without the crutch of U.S. aid and the protective umbrella of our armed forces, perhaps you might belatedly develop some sense of appreciation and gratitude for what the globe might look like without the U.S. as a friend, ally and promoter of democracy.

Yes,

that was quite a retort!

 

[ChrisRobin]

Maybe I'm a little slow, but yeah, what happened to Afganistan and Bin Laden? You mean to tell me that Canadian troops went there for nothing, got blown up by mistake, got sent back home and that's it? Then the party shifted to Iraq all of a sudden?? Sounds weird.

Second, I've always found it strange that Tony Blair has been supporting George W. from day one. While all the other countries either showed reservations, or flat out rejected the notion of conflict, the UK has been ready. It's a little strange to me.

As far as these UN 'inspections' go, George W. and Tony Blair BOTH say their intelligence agencies have proof, or compelling evidence proving Iraq is up to no good. Well, what are they waiting for?!??! Show it to the UN!!!

North Korea...ummm..who cares if they're researching nuclear weapons! I don't think North America is the target. Doesn't Russia and the US have nukes hidden somewhere??? I'm sure other countries have them too...Pakistan, India?? Who says North Korea is going to use them if they ever make any.

Speaking on Canada's behalf, I hope we don't send troops over, we're boke as a joke and we have too many in-country problems to deal with first. Hehehe...even then, a report was released saying that in order for Canada's Armed Forces to be modernized, brought up to date and re-organized, the CDN gov't would have to recall every single member of the forces back home for retraining for 2 full years! That means, no war, no conflicts, no peacekeeping, no helping 3rd world countries...nothing but training at home.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by slein
your bad manners are only exceeded by my bad manners.

Regarding hockey, I am partial to the underachieving Washington Capitals. I would have taken you for a Maple Leafs fan. And I welcome a 29% tariff on marijuana supplied to the U.S. It would be legal then to import and possess and I could pick some up on the way home from work. That or it might stimulate domestic production.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
If for only one year your pitiful countries had to stand on your own two feet without the crutch of U.S. aid and the protective umbrella of our armed forces

The US will never let that happen, as long as we can still afford the DOD as it currently exists. To much co-dependency and infrastructure between industry and governemnt to start downsizing

But, why would any country ever waste their money on defense, BEFORE we start trimming ours? How can we complain nobody else will do our job, when there's no reason for them to? I have no plans to start hauling my bags of trash all the way to the dump until the garbage man stops picking it up from the curb...

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ChrisRobin


North Korea...ummm..who cares if they're researching nuclear weapons! I don't think North America is the target. Doesn't Russia and the US have nukes hidden somewhere??? I'm sure other countries have them too...Pakistan, India?? Who says North Korea is going to use them if they ever make any.

WTF

Are you serious?

 

[slein]

I would have taken you for a Maple Leafs fan.

there's only one thing i hate more than the TO maple leafs, and that's TO maple leafs fans




i only wish my country could step up a formidable military force. i guess that's why i left the army in the first place. now i'm a passifist - but i ain't no hippie.

here's something to lighten the mood:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2003/02/12/fiorealerts.DTL