I was interested in the comments made about Americans having the right to nuclear weapons and no one else. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the right comes from American military and economic power. Thankfully, ur leaders, and the people that elected them, are better educated than most of the rest of the world. Americans have shown more concern with the affairs of the world's nations and people than any other nation in history. The generousity of American people in individual donations, as well as contributions by you through government spending in aid packages to other nations is unprecedented. When a natural disater strikes India, American volunteers are there helping. Russians are eating bread made from grain grown in America. Our soldiers are preventing wars from taking place in Eastern Europe and East Timor. When we destroyed Germany and Japan, American money rebuilt their cities.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dannyboy:
You can tell me that Americans need to mind their own business, not worry about people and happenings on the other side of the world

---

has anyone voiced that sentiment? if so, I hadn't noticed.

at any rate, I think that the US is more isolationist that it ought to be. danny, you're definitely right that the US does spend a lot of money on humanitarian efforts around the world. but I think we should do more. as the most powerful single country in the world, a country that espouses freedom and democracy, I think the US has an ethical obligation to try to improve the lot of all humans, regardless of nationality...and regardless of the downstream perks that the US may get from such actions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by winterlight:
How the hell do we think we can solve the resentments of hundreds of years when "civilized" nations like Ireland, like Spain, can't even solve their not-so-old problems...The christians/jews/muslims have been triangle-bashing for ages now...and so the warring parties have changed a little bit, but we still have a massive conflict of interest...How can we wage war on xenophobic ideologies? How can any bombing fix that?

I know from my country...A lot of old Finns still really resent the Russians...and they might have friends who are Russians and they are OK, but jeezus you'll get them cursing and spitting if you mention 'russian' to them...and this is a mild case. Just imagine what the average muslim in palestine will have to say about a jew, or vice versa?
You can't erase the hatred and aggression of generations with more attacks....and you have to be so careful that nothing you do even makes it seem like there could be an attack against them...all this talking of attack is already doing too much harm...

Oh, yeah...and while we are on so nobly about 'cleaning the world of dictators and 'bad' leaders' - why not dispose of Sharon and Arafat? Why not dispose of Mugabe? Why not dispose of the entirety of aggressive governing parts of India and Pakistan? Where the hell do you stop? And who decides what is 'good' and 'bad' leadership? Do you measure it by the happiness of people in a country? By the availability of 'freedom'? By the happiness of neighboring countries? And what *does* make Israel so much more 'entitled' to it's place than Palestinia? Who decides? The UN? And what, please, will the UN do about *anything*? Tell the US to go warring for them? To what end...

---

Winterlight, I don't know how much of this history you already know, so I hope you won't mind if I go over a few salient points. And everyone else, I'm sorry if this seems tangential, but I have trouble letting this go without addressing it.

As far as I understand it, the conflict between Muslims and Jews is fairly new. Historically Islam has been much more friendly towards the Jews than Christianity has been; it is only recently that the roles have reversed. A crystal clear example of this is in Spain, where the period in which Jews lived under Muslim rule is known as "the Golden Age" in Jewish history. Jews had freedom of religion and opportunity, and some served in high positions in court. It was followed immediately by the Christian conquest of Spain, which was followed by the Inquisition, forced conversions and torture, and finally expulsion of the Jews from Spain.

Likewise, my anecdotal impression is that there were friendly relationships between Jewish and Arab families in Israel just a few decades ago. I can't speak for Muslims, because I don't know any, but the Israeli families I know do not do a lot of cursing and spitting. They are more sad, frightened, and worn out than anything else. As Golda Meir famously said, "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children."

As for the question of why Israel has more of a right to exist than Palestine: They both do. When Israel was established by the UN in 1947, the plan was known as "Partition." It stated that the land was to be divided in two, half to become an Israeli state, and half an Arab one. The land allotted to the Arabs included what is now called the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and more. But the Arab world, both inside and outside Israel, rejected those terms and the UN resolution, and declared war on Israel. In other words, they would not agree to share: they wanted an Arab state that covered all the land, and no Israeli state at all. In that war, Israel was able to defend the land designated for it by the UN. So the Israelis and Palestinians each had a slice of land for the next two decades. In 1967 Israel's Arab neighbors again gathered for attack, effectively saying that this partition was still not acceptable to them: they wanted the Israeli land back. In that war, they not only failed to capture the Israeli land, but they lost the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

So what is going on now, sadly, is that the Palestinians are struggling to regain control of land they could have had free and clear since 1947, had they only recognized Israel's right to exist too.

If your question is really, what right does Israel have to exist, this is a very emotional one for me. I do indeed see it as something of a miracle that the world recognized Israel's right to exist, but they did, as represented by a majority vote in the UN. I have religious reasons for believing that Israel is the intended homeland of the Jews, but that does not mean the world is compelled to hand it over right now. Except for one thing.

There must be a place in the world where Jews can be sure of a safe haven if some country gets it into its head to try and take over the world, and exterminate the Jews along the way, as happened just sixty years ago during World War II. If there is some other country that can guarantee that it will open its doors, and not send boatloads of Jews back to die because its quotas are already filled, I might be willing to wait for a Jewish state. But I don't believe there is. Frankly, I don't believe any country wants to be compelled to accept unlimited numbers of immigrants, except Israel. I believe this was a large part of what motivated the world to recognize Israel's right to exist.

And now back to our regularly scheduled program. I am not sure how tangential all this really is, since many of you seem to feel that America's policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is closely related to the question of whether we should bomb Iraq. But if it was too off-topic, thanks for bearing with me.

I'm also not in any way saying anything bad about the US (I have family there for one thing). I think it's a great country but I wouldn't live anywhere but Australia. I imagine most people feel this way or we'd move. But I try not to be go over the top with being patriotic - extreme US patriotism is the just the other side of the coin to extreme anti-US sentiments. And then it's them against us paradigm. Saying the US is the most economically powerful nation is realistic saying it has the most informed, educated, enlightened, whatever people isn't. Getting over that includes accepting that other people also feel strongly about their homeland getting attacked. They will as violated being bombed as people in the US felt about 9/11 when it's there sons and daughters dying.

I can understand the urge to 'do something'. It a very common sentimeny when you feel grief and helplessness "I just wish there was something I could do" "Let me know if theres anything we can do" "I hate not being able to do anything". But there aren't any easy solutions or actions that make you feel better. The issues in the middle east were not started in a couple of months and they won't finish in a couple of months.

quote:

---

Originally posted by yam:
Something I find very upsetting is that a lot of the current suffering of the iraqi people is brought on by the US sanctions in place. Bush talking about how Iraq has x y and z weapons says to me: "these sanctions have accomplished nothing. ten years of iraqi children starving to death for nothing, nothing, nothing." well, nothing except stirring up anti-US sentiment in iraq, exacerbating the current situation. augh.

---

I feel it necessary to point out that these are UN Sanctions, Yam, not US. And the UN has done sweet f@$&-all to enforce them. Iraq has been allowed to sell oil for food and medicine, and it is Saddam Hussein who has decided to starve his people while building monuments to and palces for himself--and new weapons and uniforms for his hired thugs, the Repubican Guards.

When I was president of the GSU at Troinity, I had the privilege of helping an Iraqi Kurdish refugee join the graduate program in medicine. If anyone has any doubts about why Saddam Hussein needs to be removed from power, I suggest they talk to someone who saw her friends raped and killed by Saddam's Rep[ublican Guards and was then forced to flee her home for no other reason than their ethnicity.

Are there other regimes in this world that need to be sanctioned and brought down? Yes. Can we take care of them all? Not in three lifetimes of either constant warfare or enlightened programs of tolerance, aid, and education.

Should the US play a greater role in the world? Gosh, it'd sure be nice, wouldn't it? It'd be great, but the US cannot be all things to all nations.

Ginsu, you have painted an ideal picture, and I hope to God that someday it will come about--the US able to give freely of its abundance and working with its neighbors and allies to ensure world peace and prosperity.

In the meantime, this is the real world and not a civics course. We give more than anybody. What good does it do to say "we should give more" when the people we are giving it to want to blow us up? We could drop money from planes and catatpult grain sacks into Damascus and the evil people would still want to murder us.

Make no mistakes--the people who flew planes into the WTC are EVIL. The people who want to murder me and my family are EVIL. There is no room for moral relativism. Anyone who suggests that they may have a justification is almost as bad as they are.

In the meantime, when we do provide aid or lend support to UN initiatives, we get criticized that it's not enough. Or that it's too hamfisted, and we end up having to listen to condescension from a bunch of has-been world powers that couldn't defend themselves or handle a crisis if their nationhoods depended on it.

When we decide not to get involved in something, we're criticized for not being responsible, for not playing nice with others (think Kuyoto Accords).

My personal favorite is when we get hamstrung by our "allies" because their leaders are so busy worrying about not looking bad to their perliaments or because they live in some fantasy world like Chretien does. I've never said "F@$& Canada" before, but I did the day Chretien and his toadies suggested that "The West" was responsible for evil lunatics deciding to kill more than 3000 innocents. F@$& Chretien. This isn't a philiosophy class--this is the real world. How do you bring peace through aid and educatuion to a group of people who have OUTLAWED EDUCATION?!?!?

Personally, there a lot of days when I think the rest of the world should go to Hell for the way they treat the US. I have an a friend living in France and she was actually subjected to jokes about 9/11. Scumbags. I read that more than 50% of Germans and more than 65% of the French believe that the US is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Gee, the French and Germans never brought war or oppressed Arabs, did they? We're responsible because some evil lunatics want to murder me and my family because they don't like who we are and what we stand for? Because we don't think women should have to live wrapped in a coccoon and get beaten if someone hears them speak? Because we happen to have nice homes while other people live in shacks or caves? Because we are rich and powerful? Because I can watch a Vickys Secret Fashoion Show on TV?

There is EVIL in the world, and sometimes you just have to remove it like a tumor. You can't educate a tumor--it is intent on growing and growing and destroying not only what tries to stop it, but also the stuff on which it feeds. Saddam Hussein is a tumor that feeds off of his own people and off of the hate and fear he can whip up in the people who already hate the Western way of life. Will someone worse take over? Possibley. But sometimes you have to cut out the tumor even if it might come back again.

[/end semi-drunken rant]

Edited to add: Techicnally, the fact that Iraqs have fired on US planes enforcing the DMZs and no-fly zones is legall reason enough for the US to invade. Any action the US takes against Iraq may be condemned in the court of world opinion, but it couldn't be condemned in the World Court.

[/end semi-drunken "and-another-thing" argument so I can log off and not risjk picking a fight in the Digs MEnsroom]

Why not? Wealth means the luxury to study history, politics and social sciences instead of getting a job. I know a ton of Americans that go from BA, to MBA, to PHd without ever needing to get a job. For many, education is not a necessity, but a hobby. The wealth of America means that more can afford this hobby. I think this is a realistic assumption. Granted there are plenty of uneducated, ignorant and prejudiced Americans, but the resources are certainly available in greater amounts.
Therefore I offer the theory that when speaking of a society, education is proportionate to wealth. Someone out there has got to be able to drum up some statistics, though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dannyboy:
We've been at war with IRAQ for ten years. We signed a ceasefire, they violated the terms. Incidentally, we bomb the Iraqis about once a month, and have been doing it for the last decade, and you can read about it on page 18 of your newspaper occasionally.

---

Yeah, but I believe the proposed military action would be on a slightly larger scale than anything that's occured in the last 10 years (in Iraq).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epicurus:
Make no mistakes--the people who flew planes into the WTC are EVIL. The people who want to murder me and my family are EVIL. There is no room for moral relativism. Anyone who suggests that they may have a justification is almost as bad as they are.

---

There is room, however for people to examine the issue with open minds about ourselves as well. The problem I have with fitting things into little boxes of "good" and "evil" is that it can never overcome or accomplish anything. (Unless of course we want to remove the evil tumor and have some kind of genocide or something. Geez.) In any conflict there is usually responsibility in all involoved parties. The way to overcome conflict is for all those involoved to recognize that fact and to accept their own responsibilty. Yeah, that probably only happens in la-la-land and in "the real world" it usually comes down to who is the dominant force. That doesn't make it any better though. So you can think I'm a bad person, almost as bad as Hussein or the terrorists, if you like, but I'm pretty confident I'm nothing like them. Just because I see a different path to resolution than you do? Wow, amazing interpretation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epicurus:
There is EVIL in the world, and sometimes you just have to remove it like a tumor. You can't educate a tumor--it is intent on growing and growing and destroying not only what tries to stop it, but also the stuff on which it feeds. Saddam Hussein is a tumor that feeds off of his own people and off of the hate and fear he can whip up in the people who already hate the Western way of life. Will someone worse take over? Possibley. But sometimes you have to cut out the tumor even if it might come back again.

---

That is so frightening. That's the kind of language that has been used to justify hatred and atrocities of all kinds. I'm not saying the world wouldn't benefit if Sadaam Hussein were booted from power, but that's some scary shit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dannyboy:
Wealth means the luxury to study history, politics and social sciences instead of getting a job.

---

Um, what percentage of Americans have the kind of wealth where they don't have to get a job? And wealth and luxury (even if you are so unfortunate as to have to work) also mean you can live in a dream world and vacation and drink martinis and not give a crap about anything except your own entertainment. On a more realistic level, having your basic needs met and then some means you can sit your ass in front of the TV for 3 hours everyday, hang out with your buddies at a bar, slobber over a new pair of shoes, or whatever. None of those things are bad or evil, and I do my share of trivial daily stuff that serves only to make me happy. To imply that Americans are all out expanding their minds is kind of silly. I know a whooooooole lotta people that could care less. Some of us do, but those luxuries that give us that freedom of choice also inevitable place us in a cocoon where we can't possibly understand the motivations of those that are extremely different from us, because we just can't relate.

That having been said, I reread my post this evening. I can safely say that while my grammar and clarity were atrocious, my sentiments remain unchanged. That I did not present them clearly perhaps accounts for the obvious ruffling of feathers which has ensued.

quote:

---

BionicGirl Wrote:
There is room, however for people to examine the issue with open minds about ourselves as well.

---

I agree. Anyone who knew me before 9/11/01 would have told you that I was not in the habit of criticizing the US Government in any great way. My friends would tell you now that we generally can't have a conversation without me slamming GWB and John Ashcroft and their toadies for being near-fascists and of questionable intellect.

Nor was I in the habit of seriously questioning US Foreign Policy. I have done that constantly over the last year. You may remember a very thoughtful post I made recently after the attacks and how I called for reason and restraint. In fact, the piece I wrote bordered on downright pacifism.

(Unless of course we want to remove the evil tumor and have some kind of genocide or something. Geez.)

Pardon me: I never advocated genocide. I didn't couch my response in terms of needing to kill Iraqis or any ethnic population at all, and I resent the fact that you are drawing me in that light. I referred specifically to an evil dictator who would be another Hitler if he had the wherewithal. I referred to a beast who preys on his own people and laughs in the face of the world. I referred to an animal that orders the torture, rape and murder of people who disagree with him.

So you can think I'm a bad person, almost as bad as Hussein or the terrorists, if you like, but I'm pretty confident I'm nothing like them. Just because I see a different path to resolution than you do? Wow, amazing interpretation.

OK, easy on the sarcasm, BG. You and I have disagreed in the past without vitriol and I find it odd that you would take that tone with me now. Additionally, you have seen me argue vehemently in the past that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I wrote nothing above despite my bluntness and inebriation that implied otherwise.

Read what I said, please. I did not say, "anyone who doesn't want war with Iraq is a as bad as the terrorists." Nor did I say, "anyone who disagrees with me is as bad as the terrorists." Nor did I say "people who took the opportunity over the last year to reflect upon US foreign policy and whether or not we have made mistakes in the past are as bad as the terrorists."

I said “anyone who suggests that they may have a justification is almost as bad as they are.” I believe anyone who says the terrorists were justified in killing more than 3000 civilians are almost as bad as the terrorists themselves. Just because you want to understand what they did and why they did it, that doesn’t mean you should justify it.

Do you think that they were justified, BG, or do you think they simply had a reason? Having a reason is not the same as being justified, and it is necessary to draw that semantic difference. Yes--they had reasons. They hate America, and US foreign policy makes them angry and the US can be clumsy when it tries to deal with different cultures. Those are reasons--not justifications. By saying they had justification you are saying their cause was just. I don't think anyone here really wants to say that.

I will offer this as a potential excuse for your misconstrual of my statements: I started in on the quest for Al Qaeda when I should have stuck solely to the topic of war with Iraq. I think you read my feelings on people who attempt to justify what the terrorists did as part of my view that people who expect a peaceful solution to the Iraq problem are being unrealistic, even if admirable in their dedication to peace. I think in my drunkeness I did not place a suitable transition between the two thoughts.

That is so frightening. That's the kind of language that has been used to justify hatred and atrocities of all kinds. I'm not saying the world wouldn't benefit if Sadaam Hussein were booted from power, but that's some scary shit.

I think you're being more than a little melodramtic. How can removing Saddam Hussein be construed as an atrocity? I didn't say we should be hunting Arabs, I didn't suggest turning Iraq into a glass pancake, and I didn't say we should sow their fields with salt. I said that Saddam Hussein is like a tumor--and I stand by that. He is. He is a mass murderer and a mass rapist. He is an unhealthy parasitic growth on his people and on the Middle East and he should be removed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by becca11:
I'm not being unbearably naff and/or culturally relative. I had a friend killed and a cousin critical injured in a bomb attack Jerusalem. Saddam pays suicide bombers, that affects me personally. But I made a decision that for me personally that shit would stop hear, with me, so I don't get eaten up by hate.

---

And I had an uncle in the second tower, who made it out thank God, and I saw my brother cry for the first time in my life on the anniversary because of the friends he lost. You can be against fear and hate and still be angry and still want to see the people responsible brought to justice.

I commend you on your decision, Becca--and I say that without condescension. I wish you the best of luck, and I think it would be great if everyone in the world would decide to be a pacifist at the same time.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that anyone can afford to be a passivist as long as there is a single agressor in the world.

While I would not say that I hate any particular race or ethnic background, but I get so angry sometimes. So angry. Chretien made me angry. Some idiots I heard in the bar made me angry. George W. Bush and his idiotic plan to have neighbors spy on neighbors makes me angry.

I apologize again for my uncouth display last night. I should have presented myself better or not at all. I do stand by my sentiments, however.

It was more along the lines of suggesting the west shared responsibility for a climate of poverty and anger. His big deal lately is aid to africa, so he's all about the poverty issue. The quote was actually from july, so he wasn't trying to have such spectacularly insensitive timing, but the CBC didn't air it until the 11th.

(I can understand if you didn't quite get that from his words, though. I love this quote from the newspaper:

"The wonderful thing about Canada and the United States is we probably have two of the most inarticulate leaders in the western world, so figuring out what either of them is trying to say is a challenge," said Chris Sand of the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

Heh.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by yam:
The quote was actually from july, so he wasn't trying to have such spectacularly insensitive timing, but the CBC didn't air it until the 11th.

---

Fair enough, Yam--if I had heard it in July, I wouldn't have been so angry. I'll start a separate thread some day about why The Press generally sucks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twistergirl:
What I've been trying to figure out is what President Bush's ulterior motive might be. From my perspective, he seems to be stubbornly insisting that we must attack Iraq, regardless of what the U.N. or the rest of the world thinks.

---

Huh? It seems pretty obvious to me that petrol plays an important role in the equation... And most economical and political analysts I've heard seem to think the same thing...

Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but history shows that the US has always been prompt to protect its economical hegemony.

Whenever a country with important natural ressources decided to nationalize their exploitations (and thus kick American industrials out), the US has found reasons to be "threatened". It was the case in Chile in the 70's, when the CIA helped Pinochet, a pro-American dictator, reverse (is that the right term?...) a democratically elected socialist goverment (who had tried to nationalize a large American energy company).

The same thing happened in Guatemala and several South American countries. Irak nationalized its petrol exploitations in the 70's, and since then prohibits American oil companies from installing themselves in Irak. Anybody seeing a pattern there?

MAYBE it's different this time. And Irak probably presents a real threat to the US. But my paranoid self just can't believe that economical motives have nothing to do with the situation. Add that to Bush's tremendous popularity increase during the post 9/11 bombings (a pretty good incensitive to find somebody else to bomb), and you get a pretty explosive situation...

I realize that this sounds a lot like an anti-American post. Please don't assume it is. I just think the situation is too complex to be reduced to a "Good against Evil" crusade. My high school history teacher taught me that in any international or civil conflict, there are political and economical issues involved, and that you can't have a clear view of the situation if you don't analyze them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epicurus:
Pardon me: I never advocated genocide. I didn't couch my response in terms of needing to kill Iraqis or any ethnic population at all, and I resent the fact that you are drawing me in that light. I referred specifically to an evil dictator who would be another Hitler if he had the wherewithal. I referred to a beast who preys on his own people and laughs in the face of the world. I referred to an animal that orders the torture, rape and murder of people who disagree with him.

---

Yeah, I know you weren't advocating genocide. I think I know you well enough you would never come anywhere near that. I think I was getting ahead of myself in referring to the "evil tumor" comments you made. I'll come back to this later.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epicurus:
OK, easy on the sarcasm, BG. You and I have disagreed in the past without vitriol and I find it odd that you would take that tone with me now. Additionally, you have seen me argue vehemently in the past that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I wrote nothing above despite my bluntness and inebriation that implied otherwise.

Read what I said, please. I did not say, "anyone who doesn't want war with Iraq is a as bad as the terrorists." Nor did I say, "anyone who disagrees with me is as bad as the terrorists." Nor did I say "people who took the opportunity over the last year to reflect upon US foreign policy and whether or not we have made mistakes in the past are as bad as the terrorists."

I said “anyone who suggests that they may have a justification is almost as bad as they are.” I believe anyone who says the terrorists were justified in killing more than 3000 civilians are almost as bad as the terrorists themselves. Just because you want to understand what they did and why they did it, that doesn’t mean you should justify it.

Do you think that they were justified, BG, or do you think they simply had a reason? Having a reason is not the same as being justified, and it is necessary to draw that semantic difference. Yes--they had reasons. They hate America, and US foreign policy makes them angry and the US can be clumsy when it tries to deal with different cultures. Those are reasons--not justifications. By saying they had justification you are saying their cause was just. I don't think anyone here really wants to say that.

---

Thanks for clarifying (and no of course I don't think they were justified, just that they had a reason). Rereading your first post I actaully still see how I got the impression I did from it. Your tone was very out of character, and thus the reason mine... which came first, the chicken or the egg? Ha. Let's not get into that. I have enough of those discussions with my husband.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epicurus:
I will offer this as a potential excuse for your misconstrual of my statements: I started in on the quest for Al Qaeda when I should have stuck solely to the topic of war with Iraq. I think you read my feelings on people who attempt to justify what the terrorists did as part of my view that people who expect a peaceful solution to the Iraq problem are being unrealistic, even if admirable in their dedication to peace. I think in my drunkeness I did not place a suitable transition between the two thoughts...

I think your being more than a little melodramtic. How can removing Saddam Hussein be construed as an atrocity? I didn't say we should be hunting Arabs, I didn't suggest turning Iraq into a glass pancake, and I didn't say we should sow their fields with salt. I said that Saddam Hussein is like a tumor--and I stand by that. He is. He is a mass murderer and a mass rapist. He is an unhealthy parasitic growth on his people and on the Middle East and he should be removed.

---

I think you're totally right in the first paragraph above. The lack of transition probably played a role in how I interpreted your comments about removing the evil tumor as well. No, I don't think I was being melodramatic AT ALL. I've heard that language used to justify mass hatred enough times that it raises an immediate red flag. While I know you personally don't harbor that kind of hatred it was the delivery I found disturbing. And this is a discussion that screams for cool heads and very clear language (which also blows my sarcasm out the door).

Anyhow, your comments didn't make me mad at all since I know you are not that kind of person. Any sarcasm I directed at you was a friendly jab at your drunken state (and the resulting "uncouth display"). Oh, and have I mentioned that preganacy hormones have turned me into a sarcastic snit? They have, rest assured. No excuse, but it's the truth.

Anyhow, aside from all that, I watched Colin Powell on "Meet the Press" tonight, and he always calms my fears. Not that the whole thing isn't still totally frightening. He's just so calm-headed and well-spoken and knowledgable... makes me glad he's there doing the job he's doing (why can't he be our president? He knows how to pronounce "nuclear" darn it!)

quote:

---

Originally posted by yam:
"The wonderful thing about Canada and the United States is we probably have two of the most inarticulate leaders in the western world, so figuring out what either of them is trying to say is a challenge," said Chris Sand of the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

---

My favorite quote on that topic is "Jean Chrétien is the only Canadian who truly embodies Canadian bilingual policy: he's the only human being with two second languages."

quote:

---

Originally posted by kena:
And Irak probably presents a real threat to the US.

---

It is statements like these from Europe and elsewhere abroad that really get me frustrated. Iraq doesn't just represent a threat to the US. Iraq under Saddam Hussein represents a threat at the very least to the entire Middle East (ask Kuwait and Israel) and at the very worst to the entire world.

Even if there are economic reasons why the US and other nations would like to see Iraq more stable and West-friendly (and there are, no doubt about it), what the heck do any of them matter when the other cases against him are so incontrovertible?

Has he not gassed his own people?
Has he not starved his own people?
Has he not ordered murder, torture, and rape?
Has he not encouraged suicide bombings in Israel?
Has he not fired upon UN peacekeeping aircraft in the no-fly zones?

Why does the fact that the US and countless other nations dependant on OPEC will benefit if he is removed matter at all when his list of atrocities alone is enough to warrant his immediate removal from power?

As far as I am concerned, the vast majority of the blame for the current situation lies squarely with the Middle Eastern nations themselves. They asked the US and the UN to come in and impose order on the region when Iraq invaded Kuwait. At the same time, to protect their own weak power bases and draw attention away from dissatisfaction among their populace--most of whom are dirt poor while the oil barons have disposable BMWs--they allowed radical elements to fundraise and preach hate and violence. The one rule was--we will let you operate as long as you don't oprerate or speak out against us. That left only one way to go--West. The Sauds, the Jordanians, the Syrians, the lot of them struck a devils deal with the radical elements they feared would overthrow them--and now they have to scramble to figure out how to save themselves now that the sleeping giant has been woken up again.

The United States is the first nation in the history of the world, and the only nation at present, that has the economic and military might to impose our order where we will and when we must. It is our duty to use that power wisely and justly. However, we need help. We cannot afford to be passive. If petty third world dictators are going to allow and encourage these hatemongers and terrorists to antagonize us, then they cannot legitimately tear their shirts and cry "Poor us!" when we park a carrier group off their coastline and start winging cruise missles at training camps and weapons plants. Their other alternative is to take responsible action themselves. So far Jordan and Pakistan seem to be the only countries willing to do that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BionicGirl:
Anyhow, your comments didn't make me mad at all since I know you are not that kind of person.

---

Good, I'm happy. Now come here and let your male lesbian lover give you a big sloppy kiss **MWAH**

quote:

---

Originally posted by suzette:
Bush's speech was pretty clever, actually. The UN must now choose whether it's resolutions worth are worth the paper they're written on. It'll be interesting to see what the UN does now - and what these "air tight" resolutions will look like, and the consequences will be.

He has thumbed his nose at the UN for years and continues to do so. I highly doubt that he will agree to any new "last chance" resolutions. What will the UN do then?

[This message has been edited by suzette (edited 09-13-2002).]

---

As I've pointed out in the Israel and Palestine thread, according to the BBC World Service, Israel is actually in breach of more UN resolutions than Iraq is.

With regards to seeing the consequences of war Abraham Lincoln has a quote to the effect of getting what you want is one third knowing what you want, two third knowing what the other party wants. (But I'm sure he said it a damn sight more elegantly than me ). It's not unrealistic to try and forecast what the results of your action will be and my point (not sure how it came across) is that it's not just war with Iraq but what the other consequences of war with Iraq will be that needs to be considered. In that, how it will effect the Iraqi people and likely outcomes on their leadership. Everyone has different opinions on this, I just gave mine. I think everyone wants resolution not tit-for-tat fighting.

I personally have never heard any "the americans deserved 9/11" sentiments and would attack anyone who did voice them around me. But stats on this kind of thing are easy to manipulate...it depends on the exact wording of the questions I've found.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epicurus:
It is statements like these from Europe and elsewhere abroad that really get me frustrated. Iraq doesn't just represent a threat to the US. Iraq under Saddam Hussein represents a threat at the very least to the entire Middle East (ask Kuwait and Israel) and at the very worst to the entire world.

---

In that case, why act without the UN support?

Here's the way I see it:

case 1) Irak threatens the US directly (and only the US) --> the US is justified to be worried.

case 2) Irak attacks the US directly (which it hasn't done yet) --> The US is entitled to fight back by the Nuremburg treaty. Attacking a country which has not attacked you first is definitively against international law.

case 3) Irak presents a threat to the whole world, and that's the whole world's job to find a solution (military or non-military). The US just can't act without the other countries support.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epicurus:
Good, I'm happy. Now come here and let your male lesbian lover give you a big sloppy kiss **MWAH**

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epicurus:
First of all--I apologize for posting drunk last night. I was purposefully avoiding this topic and the 9/11 Anniversary topic because my feelings run so strongly as to be abrasive to those of you of less sanguine temperment. [This message has been edited by Epicurus (edited 09-15-2002).]

---

I for one am glad to have you back. I leave for a week and the board has bcm irrational chaos without your sweet voice of mostly reason. (note: I am not making a pass at Epicurus)

[i]edit: I unreservedly, sincerely, and wholeheartedly apologize to anyone who was offended by the above post. I do not actually believe that anyone who has positions other than my one is automatically irrational. Please accept my apologies.[i]

[This message has been edited by maxpower (edited 09-18-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BionicGirl:
Yeah... making a mental note that maxpower thinks everyone here but Epi is irrational. Double

---

International Law is great, but so is common sense. It's against the law to invade in the first place. If someone's hitting you, hit them back. Anyone comes gunning for us, we go gunning for them. Pre-emptive self defense is a word I've heard batted around.

1. I agree that GW sounds like a total dink every time he talks. I really pity his speechwriters, and hope that they'll still be able to get jobs after his presidency ends. And I really wish Colin Powell would give Rumsfeld and Cheney a full-on hip-check and get down to business.

2. I think "evil tumor" is a terrible analogy for Hussein. Tumors have no inherent morality, tumors don't even have to be malignant, and how can one person be a tumor? If some sort of biological analogy were to be made in this vein, I'd say that anti-west sentiments (perhaps largely among Islamic countries) have "metastocized." Thus "surgical removal" is not a viable option. Chemo is going to be tough on us all.

3. I agree that a regime change in Iraq would benefit its inhabitants and the world. However, I think that the MANNER by which that change occurs is of the utmost importance. A unilateral, "pre-emptive self defense" attack by the US seems like it would likely succeed in eliminating Hussein (although it didn't work for Bush the elder). BUT I think it would also seriously piss of extremists to perform more terror attacks on the US in retaliation, which could last for decades. I'd rather not have to live with a situation in the US like the Israelis and Palestinians have to live with.

4. Yes, my above post was idealistic...but I think I pretty clearly stated that they were my thoughts on what SHOULD be, not what is. Sure there's a limit to how far wishful thinking will get you, but I think it's a good idea to keep in mind the ideal situation so that our actions don't preclude it as a viable avenue to strive for.

I just don't believe that they want to get rid of Saddam for altruistic reasons - if anyone genuinely cared about the plight of Iraqi people there would have been more of an international call to revise the sanctions, as France suggested a couple of years ago. I think Ginsu is absolutely correct, that this is about the US domestic political landscape. One of the main reasons I think this is that there has been no clear statement on the sort of post-Saddam government the US would like to see. The idea that the US might bring democracy to Iraq is pretty much a crock - if you engage in an urban war (Saddam has said that this time he will not fight a war in the desert, but in the cities) and kill thousands of civilians, the surviving ones will democratically elect an even more radical Islamist anti-US government, given the chance to do so.

But I think this is a separate issue from whether going to war with Iraq is the right thing to do. There is such a thing as doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

This is not to suggest that I am sure what the right thing to do is; just that they are separable questions.

If you ask me, the US has never gotten involved in a war for purely altruistic reasons. They will always try to sell it that way, but it seems obvious that there will be economic and geopolitical motivations behind everything the US governement does in the international community.

This certainly gives me pause; and I would certainly want to have some idea of what we were actually doing behind the scenes, before I would join the army and go off to kill people on the government's orders. But my cynicism about the gov't would not keep me from ever joining any war. There are some wars that need to be fought, although I do not have the key to which ones they are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by septembergirl:
If you ask me, the US has never gotten involved in a war for purely altruistic reasons. They will always try to sell it that way, but it seems obvious that there will be economic and geopolitical motivations behind everything the US governement does in the international community.

---

I actually think it's interesting to look at how the Gov't has tried to "sell" the wars of the 20th century -- it is only very recently that they started touting humanitarian reasons before economic or retaliatory ones.

The US was extremely isolationist in the first part of the century, and it was only once we had been attacked (WWII) or there had been enough civilian ships sunk (WWI) that the president was able to take the country to war without getting impeached. There *were* people trying to get the US into Europe to stop the elimination of the Jews, but Roosevelt would have been assasinated or kicked right out of office if he hadn't had a 'better' excuse for finally getting into the war. The US was hardly the least anti-semetic country in the world in 1939.

In the second part of the century we went to war to prevent the spread of communism, purely for reasons of self-interest -- there was fear that if Korea and Vietnam were communist, China, and thus the UUSR, would have increasing footholds, etc.

Finally, once we got to the last part of the century, we started going on the little humanitarian too-little-too-late trips into places like Bosnia, or saying we wanted to help the Kuwaitis when really all we wanted to to protect oil interests in the Middle East.

Just some food for thought. I think he's really spot-on. I agree with what Epi said earlier -- Saddam is a murderer, and a horrible person, and absolutely power hungry. But, as Friedman says, he hasn't threatened us for 10 years: why should we suddenly go on the offensive now? One of the best lines in the article, imho, is the point that "Saddam is homicidal, not suicidal" -- he knows he'd be pulverised if he fired a weapon of mass destruction at us or anyone else. So why should we invade purely to get rid of his ability to threaten us w/ w.o.m.d.? As Friedman says, we should invade only if it means there can be a deep societal change, resulting in an open islamic society that isn't breeding fundamentalists.

what what what? okay so iraq has said "we will allow inspectors" for like the first time in 10 years, right? response: time to blow them up! give me "maximum flexibility!" like, after demanding iraq allow inspectors, can't you even give them a CHANCE to comply with your requests?

is 2004 here yet? I'm hoping for a mother of a scandal maybe in mid-to-late 2003. preferably before he blows up the whole wide world. augh. I am both baffled and terrified by this man.

(edited to remove something that accidentally turned in to a smiley. hee.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by yam:
(from the globe and mail : )
what what what? okay so iraq has said "we will allow inspectors" for like the first time in 10 years, right? response: time to blow them up! give me "maximum flexibility!" like, after demanding iraq allow inspectors, can't you even give them a CHANCE to comply with your requests?
[This message has been edited by yam (edited 09-19-2002).]

---

I basically agree, but my question is what happens if we bring in inspectors (as has happened in the past) and then they complain about not being given the promised full access (as has happened in the past)? Do we attack right then, or will diplomats haggle for some months and then Iraq will later allow inspectors back in only to start the cycle again?

Anyway---There's all of this talk of patriotism today. I can't think of anything more patritotic than US Automakers building SOLAR or Renewable energy type cars and weaning ourselves from Middle East Oil. But how can that happen when the President and Vice President are EX-OIL EXECS????? People should stop buying those Super-Giant SUV's. I mean really, is it nessesary to have a Yukon to take 2.1 kids to soccer???

Well all of that won't matter when gas is rationed anyway.

Are Americans going to have the b#%%s when our fathers, sons, uncles and cousins start comming back in body bags? When they are POW, MIA????

I know I don't.

And if you think the Middle East is bad, don't forget the powder-keg that is Africa.
Did anyone see Bono on Oprah? I think he is so right about forgiving Third World debt. There are a thousand Afganastians waiting to happen. They need to have the debt forgiven, Aid and Trade---otherwise the radical fundamentalists will prey on the desparete.

Well---I know that's another issue---but I sort of got riled up......

quote:

---

Originally posted by PunkRockMom:
People should stop buying those Super-Giant SUV's.

---

This is a bit off-topic but I have to share because it made me laugh so hard. Last week, A and I were at his mom's house. She was talking about how she wanted to buy a Ford Expedition. A, his step-dad, and I were like, "Why? What do need with that?" She kept going on about her safety. We all pointed out that while she'd be safe from any accident, the poor souls in the other car would be toast and then she'd have to live with that guilt for the rest of her life. So she said, "Well, if I have my future grandchild in the car with me then they'll be safe." I responded, "What if your future grandchild is in the car with your son and his wife and you're following behind us, then you rear-end us because you're talking on the cell phone?" That actually ended the discussion... which is darn near impossible with my in-laws. They're tenacious about their point of view! Made me laugh.

/end hijack