Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Well, how does one comment without knowing what Zarqawi means when he uses the term “evil principle of democracy”. Democracy has many principles in its definition as well as others in practice. If he were trying to make a rational convincing argument to any other than his blind and loyal followers, he would be pretty inept.

Note however, the similarity between his blind and loyal followers who never question his rhetoric and Americans who do the same with their President, whether it be Clinton or GW Bush. The danger is not Zarqawi, the danger is the people who unquestioningly accept and follow their words. It is a danger here as much as in Iraq.

From a public relations standpoint, I think the statement was a real misstep for Zarqawi. If he and his goons are going to maintain credibility as a legitimate option to the American-sponsored state, they have to present themselves as willing participants in the international community. However, this is far from the case - the truth shows through that they are rejectionist and unwilling to share power with either Shia or Kurds.

The difference between the Shia rebellion quelled in Najaf and the Sunni anti-election movement is striking. My greatest fear now has become the risk of a further splintering between Sunni and Shia if the election propels an all-Shia government into power and causes Shia to turn toward Zarqawi and other rejectionists.

As we did with the Pashtuns in Afghanistan, we need to make sure that the Sunnis have a place at the table and a piece of the pie; if we don’t, we’re going to find ourselves embroiled in an ugly religious war in which we have no interest on any level.

Also, Zarqawi’s rejectionism shows the urgent need for other Sunni figures to step in. The Saudi, Jordanian, Egyptian, etc, leadership should have a media blitz in the three days before the election to urge their fellow Shia to get out and vote. Shia need to find a middle way between the U.S. and Zarqawi; our allies need to supply that or risk living in the same neighborhood as a troubled Iraq for years to come.

I am not sure what he means either, but given his behavior I am not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and will take him at his word in this case.

I could be wrong. But does this read as an American psy-op thing to any one else. Maybe my tin foil hat is running thin, but the whole statement just fits a little to perfectly into Bush admin. rhetoric.

Any way, fake or not, if any one needed this to know that Zarqawi is a bad person, you should flip on a TV now and again.

justin, with the Bush admin, it is difficult to know what is truth and what is propaganda. However, in this case, Zarqawi’s statement appears believably to be one of desperation. It may, in fact, signal Zarqawi’s acceptance of the fact that there can be no victory for his cause in Iraq, hence, the desperation of the statement. If he is seeing the writing on the wall, he will likely be exiting Iraq if he has not already.

You may be correct David. But I’m not sure I see that he has anything to be deperate about. I mean elections are going forward, but then what. If Afghanistan has shown us something, its that even after an election there are masive issues of compitence, control and legitimacy. Karzi has completly lost control of everything but Kabul. He can’t collect taxes, he ensure saftey he can’t even ensure his own officials aren’t part of the problem.

I think post election Iraq will be ripe for all sorts of people looking to destablize it further.

I was bitterly opposed to the US going into Iraq and was correct that the result would be to destabilize the country and destroy its infrastructure. We have not even returned that infrastructure to its pre-invasion integrity yet, although I believe we are trying hard to do so in the face of opposition by a large militant faction supported at least passively by the local civilians and surely by neighboring Sunnis. Allawi seems to be the front-runner to the driver’s seat, and appears to be a goon along the lines of Saddam. Even so, if they could just get back to where they were with Saddam under Allawi that would be good (remember when Saddam was our boy to hold off the Iranians?). At this point I don’t even care about whether the democracy there is any better than the mockery it was under Saddam; I just want to see that poor country out from under the ravages it now faces, at least half of which comes from US bombing of suspected terrorist hideouts. Any thin pretext for us to get the hell out and let them control their own destiny is fine with me. Without us there to provoke the resistance, with a brutal guy like Allawi to wield an iron fist, and with US economic assistance they just might be OK. That is, back to square one before the US came in. All those lives, all that money…

It’s no surprise that there is resistance from the Sunni minority to democratic elections. And no surprise that Bush has no particular plan to handle the issue. We can hope, and I do hope, that the election will improve things, but we have no real reason to expect it will.

Now that we’re in Iraq, we have to do our best to finish the job. So I understand why we keep fighting, and I agree with the statement that we should keep fighting. Which doesn’t affect at all my opinion that going there in the first place was a huge, huge mistake, compounded by any number of additional mistakes. And the worst mistake was re-electing the architect of those mistakes.

Iraq is a bloody mess. If we can bring the troops home in the next five years and have the situation be no worse than it was before, we’ll be lucky. And if we get thru the next four years without another foreign policy disaster, we’ll be super-lucky.

Justin,
I have to admit, when it comes to ‘statements’ by al-Zarqawi, I’ve wondered the same thing more than once; was it was put out by him, or us? On the one hand, one would be a fool to believe everything put out there… on the other hand, how can one know what’s for real, and what’s fake?

Zarqawi is not well-educated. He self-consciously emulates historical Islamic leaders… He is obviously a violent man, yet a charismatic leader. It’s worth noting no one has betrayed him by turning him over to the US. He is violently anti-Shia. He is also violently anti-Western and anti-US. But sometimes it’s hard to wholeheartedly believe everything I read, especially if it sounds a little too much like what I’d like to hear.

I look at the headline and my first thought is: How’s this news? My second thought is this somewhat plays into Bush’s hands, but only over here. Over where it ultimately counts, it might have the opposite effect. who knows. Seems to me to be a non story, just like Osama’s acceptance of his offer of fealty.

The real story is that we made this guy more powerful by not having our act together when we invaded. Our object in invading Iraq was political control, which we failed to assert. This guy would not have the power he does now, if we hadn’t gone in so light as to leave so much of the nation out of our control. If you look back at the Neocon’s plans, it was supposed to be a head transplant of sorts, with the rest of the body staying as it was- police, army, infrastructure. The Neocons counted on cooperation, submission, and cohesion that did not turn out to be the case. They actually initially set reconstruction costs at 1 billion dollars, with the anticipation that oil revenues would pay the rest. A few months later, Americans would be handed a ninety billion dollar budget supplemental where thirty billion was set aside for reconstruction.

They violated a crucial rule of strategy- hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

As I’ve said before, they also made a strategic mistake in resting the success of our military mission on the attitudes and feelings of the Iraqi people.

Are you Republicans out there prepared for worst here? Do your leaders have a back-up plan? Why are we once again depending on the hearts and minds of a people to win the war where our military cannot?

Zarqawi is a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists believe that all law should come from God and only God. God’s law is unchanging.

Democracy means law made by humans. Humans make mistakes and change their minds. Laws change in democracy

It is no surprise that Islamic fundamentalists hate democracy. Democracy subverts God’s law, according to them. We fool ourselves to think otherwise. It is the whole organizing principle of fundamentalist Islam that God’s law rules on earth and in heaven.

When an Islamic fundamentalist lets the mask drop, we should be surprised only that he let the mask drop, not at the ugly face that is behind it.

Well. Bush is asking for another $80 Billion to fund the Republican’s Iraq War so I assume the troops will soon have the matter in hand. If not, $100 Billion a year is a small price to pay for keeping America safe. I just wish you don’t have those troop shortages now. I am sure the Draft will solve that problem too. Zarqawi’s Days are numbered indeed.

The Hubble Telescope, despite it doing some of its best work ever, currently, is being decommissioned and brought back to earth due to budget cuts. Housing and Urban Development is about be to radically cut, budget cuts. GOP look to Soc. Sec. and other entitlement programs to reduce deficits - a headline just in the last two days.

The cost of Iraq is far more than the dollars spent there. There are the opportunity costs, as well. Every dollar spent there is a dollar that an American paid but will get nothing back from their government for. We ought to be taxing Iraqis for all the welfare we are giving them. This is transfer of wealth from American tax payers to foreigners, and Bush buddy corporations pure and simple.

David, don’t forget about the $55 billion in cuts that Bush is forcing the Navy and Air Force to make. So much for a next-generation military…

As for Zarqawi, Jack, your last post is the first thing you’ve written in a long time that I totally concur with. :)

My prediction for Iraq is a decisive victory for the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and a constitution based solely on Sharia law.

Where Ayatollah Khomeini had to work hard for his Islamic revolution, Bush handed Ayatollah Sistani an Islamic revolution on a plate by expending of hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars and tens of thousands of US military casualties.

Congrats, President Bush.

Jack, while I agree with your fundamentalist remarks, you could just as easily have substituted Pat Robertson and Christian Fundamentalism and had every sentence be just as true. Yet, in America, the Fundamentalists already have partial power in Government via GW Bush and the GOP. How else could American tax dollars be placed into the hands of religious groups given our Constitution and precedential laws based on the establishment clause?

What works here should be fine there, right?

I disagree about Pat Robertson etc. I don’t know what their true intentions would be if left alone, but in the U.S. religion is tamed. There have been weirdoes who bomb clinics but mainstream churches swiftly condemn them.

Fundamentalists in the U.S. also act within democracy. If Zarqawi was organizing get out the vote drives and would abide by the result of the election, we wouldn’t have any trouble with him at all.

There really is no comparison. It is like saying that one man stole a pen from his place of work, while another embezzled a million dollars. They are both thieves, but the quantity is so different that there is also a difference in quality.

People have the right to believe that you are going to hell. They have a right to tell you that you are going to hell, as unpleasant as that may be. They may even be right that you are on the road to hell. But they don’t have the right to hasten your journey.

To all of those who think that we have freed the Iraqi people:

No slave is ever free, save that he free himself.

When a people are ready to be free, they free themselves. If you do it for them, you’ll be doing it for them forever. Just look at Korea. I’m okay with removing Saddam, because he was a danger to us. But now that he’s gone, let those people root, hog, or die. If they’re ready to be a country then they will be. If not, then not. Either way, it’s really none of our business.

Why We Fight… And Why We Should Stop

People love to talk about the ‘war effort’ and how much we’re ‘helping’ the Iraqi and Afghani people but they don’t ever talk about the price of that. A few of the above posts are about why we fight. This post is about why we should stop.

Where I’m from, the grocery stores have to keep twice the normal amount of motorized carts for the disabled soldiers home from Iraq.

Where I’m from, the highlight of a children’s birthday party is not the clown but the expensive, long-distance call from Iraq or Korea.

Where I’m from, the divorce rate is four out of every five.

I knew that things were bad here in our country when I saw men who aren’t old enough to drink going to the mall in wheelchairs. Try chasing after your toddler then. Fun, really.

My daughter brought me some Barbies a few weeks ago. The leg had broken off of one male Barbie and the arm from another. To her, these Barbies were not broken, they were soldiers. My three-year-old smilingly explained to me that they had been injured ‘in the war’.

Are we ready to stop yet, everyone?

Rose:

Interesting you should mention the Divorce Rate. For all the Republican Talk about the “Sanctity of Marriage”, they never mention that nearly everyone gets divorced. We should ban Divorce altogether but nobody will vote for you then. Like the Blacks in the 60’s, Gays are today’s rallying cry for the Hategroups.

As for Iraq, America must fix what they broke. The Republicans have the responsibility to do the moral thing and go for it alone without international help. Your either with us or against us and clearly the World is against us so I say bring it on. The United States of America will rebuild Iraq all by itself while eating Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast!!! Besides, President Bush has already said that US Soldiers in Iraq are keeping Terrorists from coming to the USA. So those GI’s are dying to keep America safe!!! Let them stay in Iraq, the Terrorists will go after them and 9/11 will never happen again!!!

Zarqawi, in that qoute, demonstrates once again while I believe that the US needed to liberate Iraq. People such as him were running that country, men who opposed democracy and its fundamental concepts of liberty, equality, and freedom. They are instead motivated by the want for power and the hatred of Western culture. Men such as Zarqawi attract easily persuaded followers and their false ideologies spread. As Alexis de Tocqueville put it, the world is drifting towards total democracy and man, whether or not he supports or opposes its inevitable change to democracy, can do nothing to stop it. Zarqawi can spend his lifetime opposing the freedom that democracy brings, but it will ultimately be to no avail.

The often-quoted statistic is that half of all marriages end in divorce. But that does not mean that half of all people who get married get divorced. Many people are repeat offenders. Elizabeth Taylor, for example, was married seven times. She alone balances seven people who don?t get divorced at all. So nearly everybody does not get divorced.

Re breaking Iraq, you might want to read ">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5312-2005Jan12.html”> this article

While I agree with Aldous about the divorce rate in the country, I think I need to clarify my statment. Jack, I’m talking about the city and state that I live in when I say four out of every five. And I have to tell you; It would be more if the gov’t allowed people to divorce thier spouses while they’re overseas.

I live in Lawton/Ft. Sill, OK. Not the Lawton/Ft. Sill area, but a town that depends so much on the military that we actually changed the name to Lawton/Ft. Sill for accuracy.

On a slightly different topic, I don’t see how we ‘broke’ Iraq. We certainly broke Saddam’s regime but that’s the risk that he ran. If you consider Iraq ‘broken’ then it should be considered ‘broken’ from the time Saddam got ahold of it, not when we took him out. They let him gain power, so let them rebuild what’s left of thier country after their leader screwed it up. Or pay us to do it for them.

Why am I paying billions of dollars to fix thier country? Don’t we buy gas at elevated prices from them? Where is that money going? Let them pay to rebuild. Or better yet, let us go home and they can hire someone else to do it.

America is only responsible for America and we have alot of work to do before we can responsibly try and ‘fix’ other countries.

We’re trying to tell other people how to run a democracy when we can’t even run a republic??? Ha!

And once again I reiterate, no slave is ever freed save that he free himself. Let them fix thier own country, if they can.

All this talk is pointless as the US is already committed to at least 120,000 troops for two years. As I said, the troops are there so that Al Queda will attack them instead US Civilians so their presence serve the purpose of protecting the US. Take note that only a small fraction of the money is being used to rebuild Iraq. Most of the $100,000,000,000 is being spent on the troops. Money well spent, I say!!! Who needs Medicaid or Student Loans anyway? I say they should give even more money to the Military Industrial Companies like Halliburton and Boeing!!! That should improve the economy and make more jobs!!!

The only thing I am worried about is the danger of the Draft being imposed. I don’t understand why. You would think the 51,000,000 Bush Voters would volunteer to do the Moral thing and go to Iraq but they aren’t. I suppose they are following Bush and Cheney’s example and let other people fight the war while they do “something else” at home.

Bush won 60,608,582 votes.

Like War? Send YOUR Kids To The Frontline.

And yet none of these 60,000,000 Bush Voters seem willing to join the Armed Forces…

As for my children going to war, I choose peace, multilateralism, tolerance, equality, secularism, understanding and fiscal responsibility over Bush and his ideals. Ergo, supporting this war goes against my opposition to Bush so I am NOT sending my kids anywhere.

The funny thing about all this is when the Bush People start showing up in Canada and Mexico having “vacations” when the Draft starts. That would indeed be sweet.

Jack:

I just read that Newspaper article and I can’t escape the feeling that it’s a “This is not my fault. Not my Responsibility. I’m leaving.” kind of excuse. A convenient way to leave without liabilities or blame. There has been a growing call to just quit and get out lately. I certainly hope you aren’t calling for the abandonment of US allies? Allawi and his government will certainly fall without the US to prop him up. Bin Ladin will declare victory when that occurs. Will you let that happen?

The Iraq door swings both ways. We went to remove Hussein. Mission Accomplished. Exit the Door. If at some time in the future Iraq threatens the US again, we can always go back through that door again. We can let the Iraqis know that too! Elementary, my dear Bush. So, what is your mental malfunction, that instead you choose to continue to use our troops as bait and bankrupt our nation in the process?

Rose

I understand your concerns and can emphasize. My own son is considering joining the Marines and I would encourage him to do what he thinks best. Of course, I would worry and hope he can be as safe as possible. But it is his choice and he will make it within the next couple of months. We don’t send him. He chooses what he thinks is best. Life is nothing but choices and they all bring risks and consequences. Good people hate war. The use of force always brings destruction. But very often unwillingness to use force risks even more. Sometimes we just can’t choose not to participate and we can never completely predict the outcomes of a conflict.

The conflict in Afghanistan is generally acknowledged to have enhanced U.S. security. Now most of the opponents have forgotten their opposition. The people of Afghanistan benefited from U.S. intervention, but the U.S. also gained in security. The result in Iraq is still unknown. If it works out reasonably well, Iraqi will be the chief beneficiaries, but the U.S. will also gain in terms of security and if it begins a process of democratization in the Arab Middle East – the only region in the world where democracy has not yet made inroads – it will enhance the world’s security for generations.

Aldous

We should not abandon allies and I believe we (the U.S.) has owes a special debt to the Kurds. The question is what responsibility. Iraq was broken before the U.S. stepped in. Human rights organizations before the war claimed that 50,000 children were dying each year for lack of proper medicine and nutrition, as Saddam stole the money meant to alleviate this suffering. The economy was in shambles. Security forces regularly murdered people. Saddam had attacked four of his neighbors. He was helping fund terrorism. The list is so long I don’t have time to type it. You can argue that the U.S. had no business invading the country, but you can’t argue that Saddam’s Iraq was not a horrible, deadly place and one of the more broken places in the world.

Returning to allies in Iraq. This is the ironic part. Those working with the U.S. will probably benefit from the elections. The Shiites will assuredly win a majority. Kurdish parties will be well represented and the Kurds will continue to enjoy their semi-autonomous status. The ones who will suffer are those who aren’t cooperating. What responsibility do you have to people who are not only working against you, but also trying to sabotage the whole process? The decision is in their hands. Sunnis can come out and vote (and I believe many will) or give up all the power to the others. “Fixing” Iraq means handing over power to a reasonably representative government. I would also advocate U.S. support until that government gets on its feet. After that, Iraq belongs to the Iraqis and the future will be based on their decisions.

We should not abandon allies and I believe we (the U.S.) has owes a special debt to the Kurds.

I’m curious. Why doesn’t Bush tell Turkey and Iran to stuff it, and create an independent Kurdistan under US protection? Seems like they earned it.

I am a big supporter of the Kurds and I believe that they have earned the right to self-government. But I think if we jump too far ahead, we run the risk of having Turkey and Iran strangle Kurdistan as it is being born. We really can’t project enough power to ensure its survival in the long run. I also know that the U.S. would swiftly lose interest. That has been our disgraceful MO before. We have to know our own limitations in this case. I think Kurdish leaders have learned it the hard way.

Okay, then let’s stay. If Bush wants ‘em to stay and if the troops want to stay (Ha!) then fine. But damned if I’ll pay for it.

Iraq is not a poor, underprivleged country without any way to support itself. It’s rich in the oil that the rest if the world needs. We’re paying almost two dollars a gallon here in Oklahoma. What are people paying in New York and California and where is that money going??

We’re cutting Social Security and Medicare for Americans in order to provide these things to people in other countries? Huh?

If we’re going to be there, (And it’s obvious that we are despite the feelings of the American people.) then let them pay for it!

Is that too much to ask?

Rose
Iraq should help pay for its own reconstruction.

The problem is that oil revenues are not sufficient to pay the bills.

Those people who claimed that the war was about oil were numerically challenged. They gave the impression that this war was about profits and so the corollary that Iraq could pay for the operation. The war was not about oil, except to the extent that oil provided the money for Saddam’s power grabs. It is about security. Ours, the Iraqis’ and the world’s. The U.S. will get stuck with the bill and the blame. I don’t like that either, but that is the way it has been for a long time.

Jack,
I’m speaking hypotheticly here,

What will happen when the Iraqi’s install a government that;
1)Asks us to leave and/or
2)Is downright hostile toward the United States?

We really can’t project enough power to ensure its survival in the long run.

Of course. They’ll eventually have to fend for themselves, like Israel. :)

I also know that the U.S. would swiftly lose interest.

Such pessimism. I think they’d be able to count on about ten years (US troops created the enclave for them in N Iraq, and we spent 10 years enforcing their no-fly zone). After that… [shrug]

Jack,
“but you can’t argue that Saddam’s Iraq was not a horrible, deadly place and one of the more broken places in the world.”

No, you can’t argue that. But you can argue WHY it became one of the most broken places.

Yes, we all know Saddam is a nasty guy. His government is well known for its human-rights abuses and for its invasion of Kuwait. What is not generally discussed, however, is that this same government had invested heavily in health, education, and social programs for two decades prior to the Persian Gulf War. While the treatment of ethnic minorities and political enemies has been abominable under Hussein, it is also the case that the well-being of the society at large improved dramatically.

Prior to the Persian Gulf War, Iraq was a rapidly developing country, with free education, ample electricity, modernized agriculture, and a robust middle class. The health care system was one of the best in the region, with all services and supplies readily available. According to the World Health Organization, 93 percent of the population had access to health care. This doesn’t mean Saddam was a swell guy. But, the situation is more complex than generally portrayed.

Yes, Saddam stole money. But, do you mean to tell me that the bombing campaign and sanctions had nothing to do with the destruction of this country? Bombs and sanctions are very potent weapons.

A Washington Post analysis published on June 23, 1991, noted that Pentagon officials admitted that, rather than concentrating solely on military targets, the U.S. bombing campaign “sought to achieve some of their military objectives in the Persian Gulf War by disabling Iraqi society at large” and “deliberately did great harm to Iraq’s ability to support itself as an industrial society.”

A United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) report in 1999 concluded that half a million Iraqi children had died in the previous eight years because of the SANCTIONS.

According to Anupama Rao Singh, Unicef’s senior representative in Iraq: “The change in 10 years is unparalleled, in my experience,”, told me. “In 1989, the literacy rate was 95%; and 93% of the population had free access to modern health facilities. Parents were fined for failing to send their children to school. The phenomenon of street children or children begging was unheard of. Iraq had reached a stage where the basic indicators we use to measure the overall well-being of human beings, including children, were some of the best in the world. Now it is among the bottom 20%. In 10 years, child mortality has gone from one of the lowest in the world, to the highest.”

I’m sorry, but the United States cannot be absolved of sharing responsibility in this.

Rose:

What is a “male Barbie”?

Ingrid:

And neither can the European and UN officials be absolved for their complicity in Saddam’s circumventing the Oil-for-Food Program. Money earmarked for food ended up lining the pockets of European and UN officials. Their actions contributed greatly to the deaths of those Iraqi children.

Kevin… just use your imagination since the Ken doll is not anatomically correct.

Kevin,

That does not matter to those who want to excuse or defend any country that is not the U.S. - there is a way to blame the U.S. for everything - all we have to do is exist.
Those countries, the U.N. and Saddam would not have been able to extract money from the Oil for Food program if the U.S. hadn’t helped implement it. It is our fault.
…and besides there are companies in the U.S. that sold things to Iraq under the program.
We helped Saddam in the past -

The list goes on and on.

Ingrid

Why are we always enamored with smiling dictators?

Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, Mao. They all have their supporters. The make the trains run on time, build superhighways, clean up the cities and make all their citizens happy.

Saddam was not all bad, just mostly bad. You argument helps make the case for the second war. Iraqi children were dying because of sanctions. Saddam was stealing the money that was supposed to go to help these children. Sanctions were breaking down. Without sanctions, Saddam would return to his old habits. That $ 21 billion dollars he diverted would have bought a lot of food an medicine.

The first Gulf War was UN sanctioned, the world against Saddam. What would you have us do? Let him take over Kuwait, followed by what?

Be careful with the statistics people give you. If literacy was really 95% in 1989, how did it drop to 39% in 2000, according to UNICEF. Even if nobody went to school at all from 1991 to 2000 you couldn’t account for that unless more than half the population just forgot how to read. Dictator statistics are not valid. And 93% access to hospital. It depends on what you mean by access and what you mean by hospital and what you mean by free. As for beggars on the streets, you may recall that was one of the things some people liked about Nazi Germany – no beggars. I am sure Saddam provided similar accommodations for them.

“there is a way to blame the U.S. for everything - all we have to do is exist”

or elect a Republican as President

kctim

Just do a google search on something like Kosovo, clinton criticism and follow some of the links. Try the same with clinton criticism somalia or Haiti. You don’t have to be Republican, just American. People’s memories are short.

Why We Fight? Good Intentions?

It seems to me, religion has a history of masking itself in good intentions. Christianity has a long history of this. Christopher Columbus’s search for gold was a good intention until he decides converting the natives to Christianity should be a priority as well. Pilgrims wanting to escape religious persecution by coming to a newly discovered America was a good intention until they proceed to persecute the American Indians with the hope of converting them to Christianity. Flash forward a few hundred years. The United Nations (with the strong backing of Christian Nations) creating Israel to give the Jews a place where they can finally be free from persecution was a good intention, of course Christians know that this must happen for the prophecies in their scriptures to be realized. Now, America invading Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Ladin was a failed good intention and while there they eliminate religious law, Shariah, and install a Western style government. Next, America invading Iraq to remove the apparently nonexistent threat of weapons of mass destruction sounded like a good intention, except while there American corporations regain control of a Muslim countries source of wealth and possible power, oil. America is a Christian nation, lead by a devote Christian President. There are hundreds of examples before, between and after those mentioned, in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.

This is why President George W. Bush’s inauguration speech scares the hell out of me. He speaks of this Freedom Crusade. Freedom is the good intention used to disguise the real Crusade he wants us to embark on. The people fighting us in Iraq do it because we are occupying there country not because we are a Christian nation, that is secondary. Imagine America is taken over by an invading force of Buddhist; Americans would fight them not because they are Buddhist but because they are an invading force. Religions are quick to recognize aggression by other religions, in turn they respond by inciting their followers and taking advantage of the others aggression. The people are now given an additional motive to fight their invaders, God tells them to. Take all religion out of these situations and the people will still fight the invading forces, though most likely with out religion the invasion would not have occurred in the first place. The people fighting us in Iraq are not afraid of freedom, they are afraid of America’s Christian version of freedom. The same version of freedom a devote Christian President Bush has made a policy of the United States to spread to the world.

I am a Christian who loves his country and enjoys the freedoms America offers me. I will fight everyday to protect these freedoms for myself and my family. I will not fight a single day to give my version of freedom to someone who needs his own. Let them find their own version of freedom. Then, if necessary, fight and die for it as my fore fathers did.

One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. We as Americans need to understand that a good intention can sometimes mask an alterative motive. What if Great Britain and its allies had continually medaled in our politics, propped up dictators who were friendly with them to run our country and when ever possible had corporations gain control of our resources? Our founding fathers were at times called terrorist by the people of England for their refusal to stand and fight in the traditional standard of the day. Our interests in the Middle East are just that, our self interest. We can mask our motives in wonderful grandiose ideas, mislead, and when need be lie to Americans and the world but if you live in the Middle East you know whose interests America is looking out for. America is free partly because Great Britain chose to stop fighting us. It took courage on their part to concede. Someday we may need to find this same courage in the Middle East.

Ask yourself why America even gives a damn about the Middle East? There is only one true answer, OIL. Take the oil out of the equation and we are looking at a bunch of Muslims in a desert. Without oil they pose no threat, they have no power and America is nowhere to be found in the Middle East. Unfortunately the one thing at this date and time America can not function without is oil. The U.S. has a severe addiction to oil. As those in Alcoholics Anonymous point out, it’s not until you hit rock bottom that you realize how severe the addiction really is. Right now America is in the “I will do anything to get my fix” or the “give me that crack before I shoot you” stage. This, combined with a fear of the Muslim faith gaining any more strength, is leading us down a very scary road.

I suggest we take a page out of John F. Kennedy’s notebook. J.F.K. laid out an ambitious plan that years later put a man on the moon. America must again use its great potential, ingenuity, and will power to break our dependence on oil. We need leaders with the integrity to break their bonds with special interests and lead us. If we could put a man on the moon, thought to be impossible at the time of Kennedy’s speech, we can easily eliminate our dependence on oil, we know for a fact that it can be done. So what is stopping us? Are we just lazy or is it easier to take the oil at gun point.

Sorry… A male Barbie is a Mattel doll created to look like an adult male in flesh coloured underpants. The girl doll is actually named ‘Barbie’ so I wanted to make sure that people understood that I was talking about a male version of the original Barbie doll.

Back on the topic…
Maybe we screwed up by invading Iraq and bombing the hell out of thier country. Maybe not, I dunno and really, I don’t care. Let’s not compound that mistake by staying there and screwing it up some more. Let them rebuild it how they want by themselves. If they don’t have enough money to do it, so be it. Not our problem. Really, I don’t see how pouring money into every country that doesn’t have enough is going to do anything but make our country as poor as thiers.

Wait a second… Aren’t we already doing that?

Jack,
Nice job twisting my words.

I was responding to statements that refuse to see America’s role in this mess. For example, you said: “Human rights organizations before the war claimed that 50,000 children were dying each year for lack of proper medicine and nutrition, as Saddam stole the money meant to alleviate this suffering.”
Yes, I’ve seen this number quoted many times before. However, whenever I’ve seen it, the human rights organizations have attributed these deaths to the sanctions themselves.

According to many, the sanctions undercut the possibility of the kind of popular revolt that had overthrown other murderous tyrants who had been supported by the US up to the very end of their bloody rule: Marcos, Duvalier, Ceausescu, Mobutu, Suharto, and a long list of others, some of them easily as tyrannical as Saddam. Had it not been for the sanctions, Saddam may very well have gone the same way without, you know, all those deaths of innocent Iraqis.

In fact, it’s because of these hideous consequences that the highly respected international diplomats who administered the programs, Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, resigned in protest at what Halliday called the “genocidal” sanctions regime.

I just watch the Republican’s President give a Press Conference minutes after CNN announced the 31 Marines were killed in Iraq. Did anyone else see that? Bush STILL thinks Iraq did 9/11. He also avoided mentioning the word “Iraq” unless forced to. He liked to say “Afghanistan” though.

I am sure all this will be worked out by the time the Draft takes place. Good Thing Conservative Groups are already listed in the Boards…

Ingrid

The oil for food program was specifically designed to get food and medicine to the suffering Iraqi people who were being hurt by the sanctions. Instead of using the money as intended, Saddam and his cronies stole it and diverted it to luxury goods, palaces and weapons. Saddam controlled the whole show. It is as though you give me money for my sick child. I steal the money and buy beer. Then I blame you because my kid is still sick. Saddam created suffering in his people as an offensive weapon.

Sanctions were put in place in place of war. Opponents of war said sanctions were working. I agree that they were not. But without sanctions, the alternative is war or letting Saddam do whatever he wants.

“According to many the sanctions undercut popular rebellion” that must be many who don’t understand much. How did the sanctions undercut anything? Saddam controlled the Iraqi economy, the government and the military. Saddam ran a socialist economy. It was not like a market economy where there was some freedom. There were no sanctions from 1979-1991. Nobody managed to overthrow Saddam during those times, or even come close.

“Marcos, Duvalier, Ceausescu, Mobutu, Suharto, and a long list of others …” Supported by the U.S.? It depends on how you define support. Ceausescu was a member of the Warsaw Pact. The Soviet Empire, so he clearly doesn’t belong on that list. Marcos is probably the most appropriately on the list, although the U.S. was also instrumental on getting him out.

This whole idea of blaming the U.S. is arrogant. The people of other countries are so stupid and dependent that nothing can happen without the U.S. support? If that is true, why can’t we more easily get rid of them by withdrawing our support?

Nice Republican Spin, Jack. Anyone who bothers to do research can tell you that the VAST amount of money illegally obtained by Saddam came from Oil smuggled out of the country right thru the US Navy Blockade. At most, Saddam only got 1.5 Billion Dollars from Oil for Food. The rest is from the US allowing the smuggling to pass through.

I also noticed that you failed to mention SADDAM HUSSIEN when you listed Tyrants supported by the US. The CIA originally put Saddam in Power and supported Iraq even after Saddam used Chemical Weapons on the Kurds.

For Your Information.

Aldous

Some of that is plain silly. I’ve never even heard the conspiracy theories that the CIA put Saddam in power.

The second part about the smuggling doesn’t even make any internal sense. Even if you stipulate (which I do not) that Saddam got most of his money going through an American blockade, it is a real stretch to blame the U.S. for Saddam smuggling and misusing the money. It is like a criminal blaming the police for not catching him.

I did the research and wrote two fairly long posts in the entry on dissonance reduction re Saddam’s relation with the U.S.. I won’t repeat it all, but the bottom line is that among major countries the U.S. had the least to do with supporting Saddam. According to SIPRI, a Swedish (not American) disarmament group, that compiles data on arms sales, below are best estimates of the dollar amount of weapons sold to Iraq between 1973 and 1990.

Soviet Union- Over 25 billion dollars
France and China - at least five billion dollars each.
Czechoslovakia and Poland - about two billion dollars each
Brazil, Egypt and Romania - between $500 million and one billion dollars each.
Denmark- Over $200 million.
Libya and the United States, less than a quarter of a million dollars.

That is very poor support from the U.S., considering Brazil, Denmark and Romania (not exactly powerhouses) are ahead of us.

I explained the other intelligence links also in the other post and I won’t repeat them here. U.S. hands are not completely clean, but there are many much more culpable.

The idea that the U.S. created or significantly supported Saddam is just disinformation contradicted by fact and logic.

The simple question you have to ask is that if the U.S. was so much involved with Saddam, why were his arms mostly Soviet, French or Chinese and why does Iraq still owe so much money to Russian and France and almost nothing to the U.S.? Massive arms transfers leave trails. There is no trail that leads to the U.S. You are left only with inuendo and some pictures of Saddam with Americans. I have a picture of my kids with Jay Leno. It doesn’t mean Jay is a good friend.

Included below is when the US vetoed a UN Resolution to condemn Iraq’s use of WMD against the Kurds:

Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
By: John King, March 2003

What follows is an accurate chronology of United States involvement in the arming of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war 1980-88. It is a powerful indictment of the president Bush administration attempt to sell war as a component of his war on terrorism. It reveals US ambitions in Iraq to be just another chapter in the attempt to regain a foothold in the Mideast following the fall of the Shah of Iran.

rming Iraq and the Path to War
A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no exception. Below are some relevant dates.

September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]

February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]

November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do “whatever was necessary and legal” to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]

November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq’s missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]

Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan’s Envoy- provided Iraq with
chemical & biological weapons
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of “dual-use” export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq’s use of these weapons. [10]

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the “Anfal” campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: “The US-Iraqi relationship is… important to our long-term political and economic objectives.” [15]

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]

July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush “wanted better and deeper relations”. Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]

August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8]

July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80’s using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]

August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta’s branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]

June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: “It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980’s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam’s Iraq into [an aggressive power].” [5]

July, 1992. “The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories… Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons.” Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. [18]

February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]

August, 2002. “The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern… We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose”. Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. [4]

This chronology of the United States’ sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam’s army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.

References:
Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
ABC Nightline. June9, 1992
Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
Timeline: A walk Through Iraq’s History. U.S. Department of State
Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
Bush’s Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986
Case Study: The Anfal Campaign. www.gendercide.com

Even if you stipulate (which I do not) that Saddam got most of his money going through an American blockade

That’s actually true, Jack. Except that most of the oil went through unmetered pipelines into Turkey, Syria, and Jordan, rather than through a naval blockade. I wrote about it here recently.

This blaming America first is getting out of hand.

AP and Aldous write good articles with some accurate information included. Even in the worst-case scenarios, the U.S. is a relatively small player in arming Saddam compared with the Soviet Union and France and even with places like Brazil or Czechoslovakia.

Then the U.S. is blamed for Saddam stealing money from oil revenues and subverting sanctions, because we were not effective or energetic enough to stop him.

Does the U.S. have completely clean hands, no. I wrote about this on the other side of the blog. If you were making a list of people responsible for Saddam would the U.S. be on the top of that list, also no.

It reminds me of the legal concept of joint and several liability, where lawyers go after NOT the person most responsible, but for the one who has the most money. If you park your car illegally and a drunk runs into it and injures himself, you could be maybe 5% responsible. But the drunk might turn around and sue you for the whole amount of his losses. Although he is 95% responsible, he can’t afford to pay himself, so he sticks you with the bill. It is a silly and unjust principle when applied to individuals and even sillier when applied to nations.

Does the U.S. have completely clean hands, no.

Jack, stop blaming America right this instant! :)

Seriously, I wasn’t blaming anybody for anything. Just pointing out that Aldous was right about the oil smuggling. Carry on.

How is America at fault for not stopping other countries for doing whatever it is that they want to do? It’s the country’s responsibility to do that, not ours.

The American people didn’t like what Clinton was doing, so we got rid of him. If they don’t like what Saddam was doing, they should have taken care of it. If they can’t take care of it, too damn bad for them.

Not that Clinton getting a blow job is anything like Saddam blowing his country, but the principle remains the same, if you pardon the crudity.

If you sell someone a car, and they run over someone with it, that is not your fault. If you sell someone a baseball bat, and he kills someone with it, that is not your fault. And if I sell someone a gun, and he shoots someone with it, that is not my fault.

Whatever happened to personal and national responsibility???

Once again, I reiterate…

AMERICA IS ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA.

Actually, America is NOT only responsible for America. Whether you like it or not, the United States Government started releasing Lists of Countries it deemed “Bad” in the 60’s and still does so today. This List and other Actions has enormous power in both domestic and international venues in other countries.

Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines is a perfect example. The Red Cross and Amnesty International has for YEARS condemned him for atrocities. But he was an American Ally so Washington turned a blind eye. The Philippine Opposition collapsed without support from other Organizations. It took DECADES for the Filipinos to overthrow Marcos. By that time, the Philippine Economy had almost collapsed.

I never said America was the sole bad guy here. I just oppose the Republican Delusion that America is “Good”. Iraq is a very gray area at best. Unfortunately, the Republicans are in some kind of “Mission from God” thing going. It would be funny if so many people weren’t dying pointlessly.

No slave is every free, save that he free himself.

I’m sorry that it took the Filipinos so long to overthrow thier gov’t. But that is not our fault. Not only is it not our fault, it is not the fault of those whom paid attention to our list and didn’t rush to support them. It was no more thier responsibility than it was ours, and the same thing goes for Iraq.

It is not any country’s job to help any country but thier own. Don’t blame us because the Filipinos couldn’t do it themselves. Don’t blame us because the Iraqis couldn’t do it by themselves. To be honest, it would have been better for the Iraqi people to do it by themselves. You ever hear the saying, ‘If you give a man a fish he will be fed for a day, but if you teach him to fish he will feed himself forever.’? Same principle applies here. Now, once we leave Iraq, they’ll probably get another asshole and we’ll have to bail them out yet again. That is, if we leave Iraq and don’t just spend God-only-knows how much money, time, and lives there, just like we’re currently doing in Korea and Afghanistan.

And it’s the perfect time for any other country with a grudge to strike, seeing as how we’re already fighting on three different fronts. If you ask me, the National Security issue isn’t with leaving, it’s with staying, esp. considering the fact that we’re once again cutting military budgets.

Makes you wonder whose side Bush is really on…