African locust infestation
6701. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 10:59:30 AM
Not that I'm entirely for the war yet... I'm still waiting for the large quantities of chemical weapons. I consider the removal of Saddam to be a consolation price. Without the chemical and biological weapons proof, we will not have vindicated ourselves against the criticisms of the world. Once we find WMD, we can basically tell those people to talk to the hand.
It is very hard to make a case to defend the current (as of yesterday anyway--I haven't turned on CNN yet) Iraqi regime. Bank's realpolitik justifications carry a great deal of weight.
The problem I have is how it was done, and the prospect for how it is gonna be done. Picking rationales that bore some resemblence to the truth would have been a little reassuring. Working with the international community to take action based on true rationales would have been even more reassuring. Planning to hand the administration of the state to the neocons is downright scary.
6702. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 11:04:52 AM
And it still irks me no end that the adminstration has successfully conflated mustard gas artillery shells and canisters that used to hold pesticides with nuclear bombs.
6703. judithathome - 4/8/2003 11:07:09 AM
Planning to hand the administration of the state to the neocons is downright scary.
Don't forget that we are going to try officials for crimes against humanity in our own military courts. No World Court BS for us!
6704. alistairConnor - 4/8/2003 11:29:30 AM
Any cites on that war-crimes stuff?
6705. judithathome - 4/8/2003 11:34:10 AM
I can cut and paste it...
6706. judithathome - 4/8/2003 11:38:39 AM
From Intel Dump
America plans to try Iraqis for war crimes
In a briefing today, Pentagon and State Department officials said they have decided to try Iraqi officials whom they believe to be guilty of various war crimes, once the war is complete. Significantly, the officials said they would not turn to an international body, such as the International Criminal Court, to adjudicate these cases. Also, the U.S. said it would not pursue an ad hoc tribunal, like the International Criminal Tribunal-Yugoslavia, that's currently trying Slobodan Milosevic, for use in this situation.
W. Hays Parks, special assistant to the Army Judge Advocate General, said trials could be handled by U.S. military commissions, military courts martial, or in civilian federal courts. Parks accused Iraq's government of three specific violations of the Geneva Conventions and related laws of war, and said others were being investigated.
Pierre-Richard Prosper, U.S. ambassador for war crime issues, said possible punishments for those convicted range from incarceration to the death penalty.
(cont'd)
6707. judithathome - 4/8/2003 11:39:03 AM
(cont'd)
``The current abuses, the crimes particularly against U.S. personnel, we believe that we have the sovereign ability and right to prosecute these cases,'' Prosper said. ``We are of the view that an international tribunal for the current abuses is not necessary.'' U.S. allies in the war, including Britain, have the same right to prosecute suspected war criminals, he said.
The only international tribunal in existence, Prosper said, is the permanent International Criminal Court. But that court lacks jurisdiction over this war because neither America nor Iraq are parties to the treaty creating the court, he said.
Prosper said an Iraqi judiciary process slated to be established following the war could handle trials relating to ``past abuses'' by members of Saddam's government. Officials said Iraqi exiles are being consulted about the matter.
``We have begun to catalog the numerous abuses, both past and present, that have been committed by the Iraqi regime. Our troops have been given the additional mission of securing and preserving evidence of war crimes and atrocities that they uncover,'' Prosper said.
Prosper said U.S. officials have been investigating the actions of the Iraqi leadership, including Saddam, his sons Qusay and Uday, and military leaders like Ali Hassan al-Majid, nicknamed ``Chemical Ali.'' He added that ``by the nature of the regime, we do understand that a lot of the orders for the atrocities came from the top.''
6708. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 12:26:51 PM
Here is the Reuters piece quoted by intel dump.
BTW, what happened to the NPR story about chemical weapons found?
6709. judithathome - 4/8/2003 12:46:35 PM
Last I heard they were field testing samples and sending trace amounts to the US for comprehensive testing.
6710. vonKreedon - 4/8/2003 12:49:21 PM
The apologists for the US administration's war on Iraq are now using the Liberation of Iraq as a smoke screen for this war's lack of legitimacy. They cry crocodile tears for the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam and decry those who would let mere international niceties of national sovereignty get in the way of such a noble purpose.
But when it comes to any whiff of potential infringement by the international community on US national sovereignty, well we are having none of that. So we are not part of the the International Criminal Court. We are not part of the Kyoto Accords. We are not part of Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Even treaties that we have adopted we ignore when they appear to restrict our national sovereignty. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty requires us to, "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament...", but the recent January 2002 Nuclear Posture Review calls for the maintenance of large and modernized nuclear forces for the indefinite future. Of course, in spite of our disregard of our obligations under the NPT, we have taken on the role of punishing other countries that are or may be in violation of their NPT obligations. Under the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention we are obligated to meet reporting and inspection regimes, but consistently fail to do so for reasons of National Sovereignty.
But we are the worlds only superpower and should not be bound by the international requirements of lesser nations. After all, we are doing it all for the children.
6711. judithathome - 4/8/2003 12:49:40 PM
No, that was the chemicals in the drums, sorry.
A general on CNN last night said it would be very difficult to field test the weapons reported on by NPR because they woukd have to be boken down and transporting then intact would be unweildly. So that's all I've heard...
6712. vonKreedon - 4/8/2003 12:51:19 PM
Regarding any finding of WMD in Iraq, if the US does not submit the sites and primary samples to international review it is unlikely, given the administration's abysmal record of verification to date, that the international community will accord much faith to our claims.
6713. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 12:53:39 PM
But, re 6710, that doesn't seem to matter, does it?
6714. vonKreedon - 4/8/2003 12:56:47 PM
Jay - What doesn't seem to matter, and to whom?
6715. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 1:00:01 PM
However, vK, the military guy in charge of the testing (or in charge of talking about it) did speak credibly, pointing out that false positives are common in such testing, and that since the stuff they found was in an agricultural facility, it might not be possible to rule out the claim that the find was "just" pesticides. (Sorry, but to me neuro-toxins are neuro-toxins, and not the kinds of things one wants to have around. Bugs are better.)
He didn't point out that barrels were empty, but they certainly looked that way on TV.
Moreover, he made it clear that there was no sign of weaponizing of the stuff. So, while I agree that someone independent should confirm any finds, they are working to build credibility in this area.
6716. vonKreedon - 4/8/2003 1:03:23 PM
The US militaries words and actions in this war have been excellent nearly accross the board.
6717. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 1:06:44 PM
vK
In 6710, you said that the US, or I should say, this administration doesn't care much about whether the international community will accord much faith to our claims.
Not in so many words, but I thought that was the intent of 6710.
6718. thoughtful - 4/8/2003 1:15:32 PM
Bugs are better? I think not.
African locust infestation
6719. AceofSpades - 4/8/2003 1:20:36 PM
Jailed Iraqi children run free as marines roll into Baghdad suburbs
46 minutes ago Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo!
BAGHDAD (AFP) - More than 100 children held in a prison celebrated their freedom as US marines rolled into northeast Baghdad amid chaotic scenes which saw civilians loot weapons from an army compound, a US officer said.
Around 150 children spilled out of the jail after the gates were opened as a US military Humvee vehicle approached, Lieutenant Colonel Fred Padilla told an AFP correspondent travelling with the Marines 5th Regiment.
"Hundreds of kids were swarming us and kissing us," Padilla said.
"There were parents running up, so happy to have their kids back."
"The children had been imprisoned because they had not joined the youth branch of the Baath party," he alleged. "Some of these kids had been in there for five years."
The children, who were wearing threadbare clothes and looked under-nourished, walked on the streets crossing their hands as if to mimic handcuffs, before giving the thumbs up sign and shouting their thanks.
It was not clear who had opened the doors of the prison.
...
At one stage the marines opened fire after coming under attack from snipers, leaving at least two civilians wounded.
One man needed treatment for gunshot wounds to his stomach and left arm.
But his friend, Abdul Amir Jaffa, said he did not resent the Americans despite the shooting.
"Americans are coming to free us," he told AFP.
...
How long should we have "given diplomacy a chance to work"?
For how many more years, precisely, would you have condemned these children to political prison?
6720. AceofSpades - 4/8/2003 1:22:31 PM
vK--
Your kneejerk recitation of "sovereignty" is a joke, considering you're all in favor of the denigration of American sovereignty. It's only the sovereignties of foreign dictators you champion.
Odd, that.
One would almost think you were rooting for the other side.
6721. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 1:23:38 PM
6718
Pesticides are a short-sighted, ultimately doomed solution. The more effective they are, the quicker they breed resistant strains.
6722. thoughtful - 4/8/2003 1:25:48 PM
vonK, the military has been believable, the administration has not, especially when seeking excuses to attack Iraq. See recent article in the NYer on how fake the documents were around the supposed purchase of aluminum tubes by Iraq. The dearth of WMDs found so far and the floating of the rumor that Iraq already shipped them to Syria suggests the credibility gap is large. Rapid moves by Halliburton and the Carlyle Group to "clean up on Iraq" only make that credibility gap larger.
The real test will be when the fighting is over...will we get a more democratic iraq? Or will we preside over fake elections as in Afghanistan and install someone of our own choosing whom we view as more tractable.
To paraphrase deep throat, follow the oil.
6723. thoughtful - 4/8/2003 1:27:52 PM
Jay, starvation is even shorter-sighted than pesticide resistance.
6724. Wombat - 4/8/2003 1:28:32 PM
If the best Ace can offer is talk radio smears, perhaps the Perfect World is the best place for him. (Incidentally, I support the war, just in case you are tempted to smear me.)
Anyone notice the language on the chemical drums that were uncovered near Karbala? Yep...French.
6725. AceofSpades - 4/8/2003 1:29:17 PM
Piously instruct these children about Saddam's "sovereign right" to imprison similar children.
6726. thoughtful - 4/8/2003 1:42:39 PM
Gee, Ace, Didn't know you cared so much for the Iraqi people. How about helping these folks:
"Torture and ill-treatment in prisons and jails...
Abuses, including excessive force and misuse of stun weapons, chemical sprays and restraints, were reported in various adult and juvenile facilities. At least three people died after being placed in restraint chairs. More than 20,000 prisoners continued to be held in conditions of extreme isolation in supermaximum security prisons..."
"There were allegations that girls held ... were tortured and ill-treated. Allegations levelled against the authorities included rape...pressure on girls to have abortions; sexual abuse and assault...; beatings; punitive solitary confinement; and lack of adequate medical care."
Oops...those people are Americans in American prisons, data courtesy of Amnesty International. Guess we'll have to attack ourselves next and install a democratic government.
You really ought to check out their annual report and see how many countries are NOT listed. We'd have to attack most of the world including ourselves, if that's all it takes to justify war.
Now why do you suppose we are pushing for regime change in Iraq and not, say, Colombia, Sri Lanka or Zimbabwe? Are these people any less deserving of our altruistic desire to free the peoples of the world?
6727. Wombat - 4/8/2003 2:22:56 PM
Thoughtful:
Have you read the chapter on Iraq in the Report? Compare it to that of the United States. There are a few minor differences that you should be able to recognize, before you come up with peurile moral equivalencies.
6728. PelleNilsson - 4/8/2003 2:26:17 PM
Thomas Friedman on post-war Iraq:
... the ideologues within the Bush team who have been dealing with the Iraqi exile leaders and will try to install one of them, like Ahmad Chalabi, to run Iraq. I don't know any of these exiles, and I have nothing against them. But anyone who thinks they can simply be installed by America and take root in Iraqi soil is out of his mind.
I couldn't agree more. Chalabi hasn't set foot in Iraq for decades. He was the head of Jordan's second largest back, the Petra Bank, when it had to be rescued by the government in 1989. He fled the country but was tried in absentia and sentenced to 22 years in jail for embezzlement. The idea to have a chap like that in a leading role in a future Iraqi administration is indeed madness.
6729. Wombat - 4/8/2003 3:08:50 PM
I see Kanan Makiya as the potential Vaclav Havel of Iraq.
6730. Edmund Dantes - 4/8/2003 3:13:15 PM
"There were allegations that girls held ... were tortured and ill-treated. Allegations levelled against the authorities included rape...pressure on girls to have abortions; sexual abuse and assault...; beatings; punitive solitary confinement; and lack of adequate medical care."
Whenever thoughtfree puts in ellipses, it's a good idea to determine what she's leaving out because she's basically a dishonest, misrepresentative poster: "There were allegations that girls held at the Chalkville Campus, a juvenile facility for girls operated by the Department of Youth Services in Alabama, were tortured and ill-treated."
So Amnesty International comes up with an example of abuse at one facility somewhere in the US where it is alleged these events occurred, and wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, thoughtfree posits it as general evidence the US treats prisoners just the same as Iraq does. One example from one juvenile facility where some girls alleged something--and of course those girls wouldn't lie, would they? More...
State fires workers for sexual misconduct at juvenile lockup
May-25-2001
Two employees have been fired and 14 more face dismissal for sexual misconduct at the Chalkville lockup for teen-age girls. Six girls complained of misconduct at the Chalkville campus, a lockup and high school for delinquents committed by the courts. The department placed 12 male staffers on leave with pay and moved the four girls still in custody out of Chalkville.
That's just what would happen in Iraq, too. Further...
A weeklong investigation revealed "inappropriate sexual comments and contact which violates department policy," according to the statement. Department spokesman Allen Peaton said Thursday the investigation found no evidence of sexual intercourse between staff and students.
6731. magoseph - 4/8/2003 7:39:30 PM
Robert Fisk: It seemed as if Baghdad would fall within hours. But the day was characterised by crazed normality, high farce and death
08 April 2003--The Independent
It started with a series of massive vibrations, a great "stomping" sound that shook my room. "Stomp, stomp, stomp," it went. I lay in bed trying to fathom the cause. It was like the moment in Jurassic Park when the tourists first hear footfalls of the dinosaur, an ever increasing, ever more frightening thunder of a regular, monstrous heartbeat.
From my window on the east bank of the Tigris, I saw an Iraqi anti-aircraft gun firing from the roof of a building half a mile away, shooting across the river at something. "Stomp, stomp," it went again, the sound so enormous it set off alarms in cars along the bank.
And it was only when I stood on the road at dawn that I knew what had happened. Not since the war in 1991 had I heard the sound of American artillery. And there, only a few hundred metres away on the far bank of the Tigris, I saw them. At first they looked like tiny, armoured centipedes, stopping and starting, dappled brown and grey, weird little creatures that had come to inspect an alien land and search for water.
6732. vonKreedon - 4/8/2003 8:01:09 PM
That appears to be a remarkably uninformed and poorly formed article, though the description of the Information Minister was very amusing. Fisk's insistence on the depraved barbarity of the US forces descredits is apparently accurate account of the state of the hospitals as the discipline and forbearance of the US forces has been on conspicuous display over the course of this war. But to read the article one would get the impression that the "Marines" are looking for opportunities to gun down reporters and other civilians and that the Iraqi defenders are all brave but overwhelmed; the Iraqis may be defeated but at least they have an honour that the "Marines" will never know. Bleah.
6733. vonKreedon - 4/8/2003 8:02:01 PM
Edit:
...descredits his apparently...
6734. arkymalarky - 4/8/2003 8:09:58 PM
Hey, Slate noticed the Hummer ads. They had an article about them this week.
6735. PincherMartin - 4/9/2003 9:06:21 PM
Jeepers, this place is as quiet as a tomb. From the sound of it, you'd think a few people here just had some dearly-held, precious delusions about their world shattered into pieces.
I wouldn't worry about it. There will be other reasons for you guys to hate the U.S. soon enough.
6736. Snowowl - 4/9/2003 9:13:20 PM
Don't be an idiot. The Mote has been down since before I went to bed last night until about 5 minutes ago.
6737. RickNelson - 4/9/2003 9:19:41 PM
Oh shit!
See what the downed server made me do.
I didn't check the dates when I signed on. It seemed that Poetry was hanging around on top. Sigh...
And Pincher is being pious stating things about U.S. haters.
6738. PincherMartin - 4/9/2003 9:27:16 PM
Don't be an idiot. The Mote has been down since before I went to bed last night until about 5 minutes ago.
If I were as suspicious of The Mote's management team's motives as, say, Alistair is of U.S. motives in Iraq, I guess I would think that this forum's outage over the last few hours was planned.
Should we expect The Mote to be down quite a bit over the next few weeks if the good news keeps coming in?
And Pincher is being pious stating things about U.S. haters.
No piety, Rick. Just good old-fashion gloating.
6739. PincherMartin - 4/9/2003 9:31:08 PM
Anyway, I sympathize with you guys. I know it's a horrible day for you to see Saddam kicked out of Baghdad with Iraqis welcoming U.S. troops as liberators. It's got to be hard to take.
6740. Snowowl - 4/9/2003 9:33:16 PM
What do you have to gloat about? That you overran Iraq without much difficulty? That's surely only what almost everybody expected, and indeed hoped, would happen once invasion was decided on.
The childish equation of opposition to some US policy decisions and hatred of the US is tiresome and not worthy of comment.
6741. arkymalarky - 4/9/2003 9:35:48 PM
We're great with it. If it's still that way a month from now and we're not being cursed and sniped at for everything from slow transition to a new government to lack of order to supply shortages I'll be shocked and awed.
6742. RickNelson - 4/9/2003 9:36:27 PM
That's not exactly gloating. More like baiting.
But, as I've said a few times, so that I can make mention of this fine country, I tear up when I see a flag and soldiers together. When I think of the U.S. I feel proud, I don't have to like everything, that's something to be proud of, I CAN not like something.
As for now, I'm not against much. There are budget issues, and if they try to drill for oil in the Alaskan tundra again I'll be very against that.
What's not to like about the U.S.?
Damn, we've got members of all the worlds ethnicities, we're managed better than most countries (at least we are in Metropolitan, Minnesota). [This is not to invite comparison]
6743. arkymalarky - 4/9/2003 9:43:44 PM
Those Americans who can't, without ad hominem ridicule, tolerate other Americans exercising their duty as citizens to criticize government actions they disagree with and try to influence policies of their elected representatives need to explain to me exactly what they think they're defending. Or is this just an "I'm right. Nanny-boo-boo," thing? If so, let's wait until the troops are all home before we play that.
6744. PincherMartin - 4/9/2003 9:46:13 PM
Snowowl --
What do you have to gloat about? That you overran Iraq without much difficulty? That's surely only what almost everybody expected, and indeed hoped, would happen once invasion was decided on.
Oh come on, sweetie. It certainly was hoped for by you and some others here on this site. You had dreams of quagmire and Vietnam on the brain. You certainly were willing to sacrifice the Iraqi people in order to see the U.S. discredited.
The childish equation of opposition to some US policy decisions and hatred of the US is tiresome and not worthy of comment.
There is childishness here, but not by me. You had not a single fucking good reason to oppose the fall of this dictator, except to mindlessly -- and childishly --oppose the U.S.
The Iraqi people would be better off.
The U.S. would be better off (ah, there's the rub).
And even the international environment would be healthier with appeasement not being the natural fallback position of the major power whose military does most of the enforcement around the globe.
6745. arkymalarky - 4/9/2003 10:02:11 PM
6746. PincherMartin - 4/9/2003 10:06:10 PM
Arky --
Those Americans who can't, without ad hominem ridicule, tolerate other Americans exercising their duty as citizens to criticize government actions they disagree with and try to influence policies of their elected representatives need to explain to me exactly what they think they're defending.
Ideally, the point of free speech should be more than just a chance to hear a multitude of voices; it should be more than mindless criticism of U.S. government policy. Freedom of speech should be a lubricant to help with finding the best possible policy and the most effective way to implement it. By allowing people to speak out, to helpfully criticize their government, ideally the nation should be able to find a better, more effective policy.
Of course, in the U.S., people even have the right to be unhelpful to their government, because it's often hard to tell, beforehand, what's a helpful or unhelpful suggestion. Better to take a chance that they might be wrong than to quell a voice that has something helpful to add to the debate. And in the end, the people will decide --through their votes -- what works.
But the shitty thing about so many of you is that you were motivated by nothing more than malice towards the Bush administration. You refused to seriously look at the evidence against the Iraqi regime. You refused to consider the very good arguments for moving against it. And you did so, not because you were ennobled by high motives, but because you hate Bush. And now that Saddam has been shown to be a naked emperor, you refuse to admit you were wrong.
One can respect serious disagreement among people who are genuinely looking for the best way to move forward on some issue. But your dishonesty in addressing these issues of war and peace -- which is obviously motivated by your hatred for Bush -- makes a mockery of your claim that you were just disagreeing with his policy in good faith.
6747. arkymalarky - 4/9/2003 10:18:14 PM
A simple rule would make these "discussions" so much more productive: Read before you write.
Criticism that disagrees with yours isn't mindless, and neither is the fact that you haven't bothered to pay attention to the details of that criticism. Some, like I have, were not opposed to an invasion of Iraq but intensely dislike Bush's inept handling of the international community and his penchant for leaning on people who have a vested interest in the region that has nothing to do with the American values we're so fond of publicly promoting.
As far as evidence, I'm still waiting on the verdict of that. Unless you're talking about our second motive for this invasion.
But the shitty thing about so many of you is that you were motivated by nothing more than malice towards the Bush administration.
I think Bush is an idiot. I am not stupid and narrow enough to wish my country ill because of my perception of him--or the world, or Iraq, or even Bush himself, for that matter). Handily, my link above makes just that point (just change the president's name).
6748. PincherMartin - 4/9/2003 10:40:17 PM
Arky --
A simple rule would make these "discussions" so much more productive: Read before you write.
You need to follow your own advice. See below.
Criticism that disagrees with yours isn't mindless, and neither is the fact that you haven't bothered to pay attention to the details of that criticism.
I never said that criticism which doesn't agree with mine is mindless. (I, in fact, made the opposite argument.) I said that the criticism of the war here on this forum is mindless. I specifically said in #6746 that there can be serious disagreement among people who are genuinely looking for the best policy.
Some, like I have, were not opposed to an invasion of Iraq but intensely dislike Bush's inept handling of the international community and his penchant for leaning on people who have a vested interest in the region that has nothing to do with the American values we're so fond of publicly promoting.
Yes, but you --and others as well -- said much more.
As for Bush's handling of the international community, do you think that amorphous entity was putty in his hands? Does the international community have any responsibility for their own decisions or are they just Bush's pets, waiting for the proper incentives to perform whatever tricks we want them to do?
I can't stand Bush's dealings with the Saudis either, but to be fair, every other U.S. administration from FDR on forward have dealt with them in much the same way. After 9-11, I'm all for changing that, and believe Bush should.
continued ...
6749. PincherMartin - 4/9/2003 10:43:00 PM
As far as evidence, I'm still waiting on the verdict of that. Unless you're talking about our second motive for this invasion.
Really? You're waiting on it? You want to make any bets about whether we find WMD? And if you don't want to make that bet, I guess I can infer that you're pretty sure we had good cause to believe they are in there. In other words, we had good cause to go to war.
I think Bush is an idiot.
Yes, Arky, we know that. Bush is an idiot. Just look at his conduct of this war, when so many smarter people were counseling we do this and that. He's plainly just a dumbass for not following their suggestions. Thank God we have Cheney and Rove in there to wipe his chin off when he's drooling.
If you truly think Bush is an idiot, you must also think he's the luckiest man alive. He must be the Forrest Gump of U.S. Presidents, stumbling from one fortunate incident to another.
6750. arkymalarky - 4/9/2003 10:55:09 PM
I said that the criticism of the war here on this forum is mindless.
Yes. And that's what I was referring to. The discussion was in the context of what's been said here.
Yes, but you -- and others as well -- said much more.
Provide me with the "much more" I said that fits your description and I'll be satisfied. I abhor the propaganda and the attempts to shame people out of their right to speak in criticism of the government's actions (any=all as far as most are concerned--you're either for or against), but I have said from the beginning that I didn't disagree with using force on Hussein.
As for Bush's handling of the international community, do you think that amorphous entity was putty in his hands?
I never said Bush could manipulate the international community--yet another all-or-nothing straw man. Maybe my problem is that I can't construct my arguments simply enough to fit your characterization of them.
Do you know what "waiting on it" means?
We have a brilliant military machine and I think our soldiers have been our best PR people internationally thus far. I no more believe Bush is orchestrating this war than I believe he writes his own speeches. And no, he's stumbled on one fortunate incident. I'd hardly call his domestic accomplishments a riotous success, and Afghanistan would have happened no other way, despite the ludicrous projections of what Gore would have done. In fact, Bush is losing a significant part of the GOP on his ridiculous tax proposal.
6751. arkymalarky - 4/9/2003 10:57:15 PM
Really? You're waiting on it?
is what my "What do you think 'waiting on it' means?" referred to. Neglected to c&p it.
6752. arkymalarky - 4/9/2003 10:58:39 PM
Well, I'm going to pull a Hussein and head for my bunker and poke my head out tomorrow afternoon to see if I'm still standing.
Nite.
6753. PincherMartin - 4/9/2003 11:40:18 PM
Arky --
Do you know what "waiting on it" means?
I assumed when I read it in this context...
As far as evidence, I'm still waiting on the verdict of that. Unless you're talking about our second motive for this invasion.
... that it meant you were waiting to make a verdict depending on whether we found WMD. Wasn't that our other motiviation -- really our primary motivation -- for going to war?
If not, what did you mean?
As for your support of the invasion, I find that hard to believe. Please point out wherever you made that argument, and I'll retract my charge against you. Perhaps you made it somewhere and I missed it. What I've seen from you, however, is ironic comments on the war that have found support from your fellow leftists, such as the comment you made last week about regime change being a good thing, and asking where the U.S. was going to next. (Snowowl applauded your sentiment.)
6754. PelleNilsson - 4/10/2003 2:56:30 AM
Yesterday I watched BBC's webcast of events in Baghdad and provided a running commentary in RI (because the Mote was down). Here it is, anyhow. Times are a.m. and, I think, PDT.
5.53
The US army is conducting what amounts to a military parade in front of the Palestine hotel where all the media are. A fantastic PR coup.
6.03
It's extraordinary, absolutely surreal. The Americans are sending out patrols to secure the area. They have to make their way among cheering civilians and are followed by TV cameramen.
6.08
The crowd is now trying to topple a statue of Saddam while a US Marine is being interviewed by BBC.
6.19
It's turning into a family outing. Families are bringing their kids to look at the Americans and their fantastic vehicles.
6.31
They've now got a ladder and rope up to the statue. More and more people are arriving.
6.45
The rope is in place. It looks vaguely as a noose.
7.11
An APC has come up to the statue.
7.23
First attempt failed.
7.41
The marines are attaching a steel chain instead of the rope.
7.50
The statue is down
7.52
Rapturous scenes follow.
6755. alistairConnor - 4/10/2003 4:53:57 AM
If I were as suspicious of The Mote's management team's motives as, say, Alistair is of U.S. motives in Iraq, I guess I would think that this forum's outage over the last few hours was planned.
Well, I was going to make a jokey post about how those damn librals were so upset about their idol Saddam losing, they pulled the plug on the server. But you beat me to it. Thank you Pinscher.
6756. alistairConnor - 4/10/2003 5:03:21 AM
Vindictive, spiteful pettiness in victory is surely the true stamp of meanness of spirit.
I said that the criticism of the war here on this forum is mindless. Well, Pinscher, I had enjoyed our earlier discussions, in large part because you managed to lift your game. But you seem to be returning to form.
6757. alistairConnor - 4/10/2003 5:11:29 AM
Are we seeing the true face of Pinscher? He identifies pretty closely with the current US foreign policy; here he seems to be talking about free speech in the US (some paranoid fools on the left suspect the Bush administration of wanting to stifle dissent).
By allowing people to speak out, to helpfully criticize their government, ideally the nation should be able to find a better, more effective policy.
Of course, in the U.S., people even have the right to be unhelpful to their government, because it's often hard to tell, beforehand, what's a helpful or unhelpful suggestion. Better to take a chance that they might be wrong than to quell a voice that has something helpful to add to the debate.
Understood? Allowing free speech is generally a good policy, which ideally improves governance.
In Pinscher's world, free speech is a privilege, not a right. Use it wisely. Or else. (hint : mindless opposition is unwise).
6758. PelleNilsson - 4/10/2003 5:46:22 AM
Churchill on Montgomery:
In defeat unbeatable, in victory unbearable.
6759. Dubai Vol - 4/10/2003 7:40:25 AM
Hahaha!
You anti-war pukes are pathetic! Three weeks, less than a hundred US combat deaths, less than a thousand Iraqi civilian deaths, and Baghdad is taken. CHILDREN let out of prison, torture chambers found, crowds cheering and throwing flowers, humanitarian aid flowing. Nothing but good news for Iraqis and the world.
And take it to the bank: the proof of WMDs is soon to follow.
Face it: you were wrong on every count.
6760. alistairConnor - 4/10/2003 8:25:37 AM
Well, Dube, I fervently hoped for a quick and complete US victory, so I'm pleased with the result in that respect. On the other hand, that in no way invalidates my opposition to the war, which was certainly not predicated on the expected number of deaths in the US military.
I agree with Pinscher when he says [We] have a brilliant military machine and I think our soldiers have been our best PR people internationally thus far. (... what does that say about your PR people? I think your soldiers have been your best diplomats too...)
6761. Macnas - 4/10/2003 8:39:39 AM
I think that everyone here that opposed this war, and I am one of those, once it started hoped for a swift conclusion. Though the rotund gal has yet to sing, it seems that the assault stage is coming to an end.
And do not get me wrong here, and do not think that I am backtraking or justifying anything when I say that I am relived that the Iraqi forces, in Baghdad especially, saw sense and, as I said sometime back, stowed their rifles, went home and sat it out.
Have another beer, you deserve it.
6762. Wombat - 4/10/2003 9:19:06 AM
Now it starts to get interesting. Turkey is sending observers to Kirkuk, presumably to ensure that their various interests are protected.
I would expect to see large U.S. units in the north--particularly near Syria--once Tikrit falls.
Amusing Christopher Hitchens piece in Slate.
6763. RickNelson - 4/10/2003 9:26:36 AM
Opposing war does not equate total left leaning liberal.
Opposing war may be Ghandian in form, such that if non-violence would reach the end result, then that would be the effective plan. Iraq was hardly a case for Ghandian strategy. This was a difficult case for war opposers. It is never easy to find the niche of ones hope and the realities one is forced to face. It takes certain events and persons in the positions of leadership to steer the course.
Bush did that. His steering as it were forced the war opposition to decide where it might fit into, stay out of, vehemently oppose or change their minds. I was appalled at vehement opposition. I am always appalled at mob violence and ignorant blind disobediance. Some causes may occur to justify it, but I cannot see that war opposition is one of them. Mass demonstrate, mobilize voting, petition, meet, talk, debate, vote, vote, be a damn voter!!
Anyway, I'm one who looked at the face of reality, saw I couldn't do a thing to change the inevitable event of war, chose to oppose the principle of war, but supported the troops in whatever method available. That turned out to be a letter and money to give troops goodies and toiletries. I'll thank all I see on the streets when that chance arises. I do that anyway. Same for Vets day and Memorial day.
Soon they'll be coming home.
I'm still thinking about what to do with this new take on Imperialism and the bald face of policing wars. So, we're the world's police? hmmm... I don't like it, can't change it, might be able to vote about it. It might be a train we can't get off of, racing down the tracks, no end to the track.
Who's next, what's next?
6764. Wombat - 4/10/2003 10:01:34 AM
The Republicans who voiciferously opposed Clinton's military ventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Kosovo could hardly be called "leftists."
6765. magoseph - 4/10/2003 10:21:19 AM
The war critics were right—not in the way they expected.
So it turns out that all the slogans of the anti-war movement were right after all. And their demands were just. "No War on Iraq," they said—and there wasn't a war on Iraq. Indeed, there was barely a "war" at all. "No Blood for Oil," they cried, and the oil wealth of Iraq has been duly rescued from attempted sabotage with scarcely a drop spilled. Of the nine oil wells set ablaze by the few desperadoes who obeyed the order, only one is still burning and the rest have been capped and doused without casualties. "Stop the War" was the call. And the "war" is indeed stopping. That's not such a bad record. An earlier anti-war demand—"Give the Inspectors More Time"—was also very prescient and is also about to be fulfilled in exquisite detail
6766. magoseph - 4/10/2003 10:22:28 AM
I just couldn't resist the impulse, Wombat!
6767. marjoribanks - 4/10/2003 10:41:18 AM
The flood of images yesterday brought home the realization that a new day had indeed arrived. It also brought home some lessons that underlie the new 'new world order', the primary one being that the US military is indeed the most fearsome, yet precise, fighting force in the history of mankind. I will not grudge the mindless hawks one or two weeks of basking in received glory because they do in fact sit on an almost inconceivably powerful change-making machine.
A half-memory came back yesterday, of an article written by the poet James Fenton about the collapse and looting of the Marcos power centers. Fenton wandered into one of the biggest palaces, undisturbedly played an etude on an abandones piano and then aimlessly collected souvenirs from the detritus left behind. A lesson for the strongmen of the world may be that you should not amass riches in the sight of your own desperate, that you should not erect massive statues of yourself because they too will be powder.
I read yesterday's events as an unmistakeable writing on the wall for some. The Korean strongman must have shuddered as the giant statue fell and as the giant boulevards sounded with the voices of the formerly silenced. In the Arab world, the silence of the elite can only be read as indicator of stark fear. Who can dismiss the slapping of Saddam's metal face with shoes as another trick of American propaganda? The rabble are coming, the rabble are coming.
6768. Wombat - 4/10/2003 10:46:26 AM
Marj:
I am sure that some Arabs will find a way to present it as American propaganda.
Interesting Jack Shaefer piece in Slate on how the camerament in the Palestine Hotel may have drawn U.S. tank fire.
6769. Wombat - 4/10/2003 10:50:05 AM
I wonder about North Korea. Their system has been in place for over 50 years; there is literally no one who remembers life before the Kims; the media is far more tightly controlled. If/when North Korea falls, the most important task may be to import cult deprogrammers to deal with the population.
6770. AceofSpades - 4/10/2003 10:50:18 AM
THE PLAYBOOK. After listening to a lot of NPR for a couple of days (Q: why oh why do I do this? A: because otherwise I'd have to listen to AM radio for news), I have managed to reverse engineer their general guidelines for commentators who hate Bush and the war (i.e., most of them) as they come to grips with the infuriating triumph of their foes:
Make clear that it was obvious all along what the military outcome would be, and that skepticism about it formed no part of your opposition to the war. Give the aural equivalent of a shrug and make references to the world's largest military machine, etc.
State that of course you are happy for the Iraqi people -- those who weren't killed in the invasion -- but be careful never to end a sentence that way. Instead, always follow that sentiment with another that begins "but," or "; I only wish..." or "I only hope..." and then segue into other concerns -- the "diplomatic mess" we've created, or the "long term" picture, or "winning the peace," and so forth.
Talk a lot about things that "aren't clear" or that "remain to be seen." These sorts of assertion are good because they are hard to falsify. E.g.: "it's not clear how much of the excitement the Iraqis are showing is because Saddam is gone and how much of it is because of all the looting they are able to do." Or: "it remains to be seen whether the factions in the country can be governed in anything like the way the administration is imagining."
6771. AceofSpades - 4/10/2003 10:50:27 AM
Be forward-looking. Or past-looking. The point is to de-emphasize the present. Dwell on what hasn't been done, not what has been done. The sudden liberation of millions of people from tyranny is not, repeat not, the most important thing. Say that what counts is what comes next, that all this will only be meaningful if it ends up leading to true democracy and prosperity for Iraq. (Set the bar as high as you plausibly can.) Say that the real work lies ahead; say that the real test will be whether we can keep the country under control. Again, set the bar high so that if there is disorder six weeks from now -- fighting between factions, etc. -- you will be able to announce that the celebrations of early April were premature.
Remember: you haven't been proven wrong about anything, and the neocons haven't been proven right about anything.
-- From the Volokh Conspiracy
6772. marjoribanks - 4/10/2003 10:51:00 AM
Yesterday, I remembered with a start the face of a Chinese man who was in charge of minding me as I went about my state-related business in Beijing.
On one of my last days, after an exhausting several weeks, I arranged for some extra money to be paid him and went to his hotel room to make sure he was happy. After thanking me, and reminding me wordlessly again that there might be listening devices around, he sat quite helplessly on his bed. I talked away, about this and that, and then he lifted his head and I saw in his eyes something so hopeless that I have try not to think of it when reminded.
He said: "I can say nothing, completely nothing. And you can say everything, everything.
Today, the journalists and observers in some of Baghdad will be hearing the tumult of voices that have never been free to speak openly. And that alone is a great victory for the world. At a core level, I share the sentiments of one US soldier (Nasser something), an Arab immigrant, who admitted on TV a couple of days ago that he was and remains highly skeptical about US motivations for the war and dismayed by the administration's means of going about it - but after meeting the Iraqi's he encountered in the rush to Baghdad that whole bit of it did not matter as much. There is a genuine liberation underway, no matter how cynical your eye is. Like many such movements this one could end up being a disaster but you have to be a bit inhuman not to exult in the actual moment when tyranny is replaced, even if it may be with just anarchy.
6773. Wombat - 4/10/2003 10:53:43 AM
Orwell on Barcelona after the failure of the nationalist rising there remains one of the best accounts of a "liberated" city.
6774. marjoribanks - 4/10/2003 10:56:58 AM
I saw yesterday, again, one thing that shocked and impressed me and suddenly brought back the total optimism I harbored about this campaign before the Bushites went about it by kicking everyone not Brit in the balls repeatedly.
The Abud Dhabi TV anchor on CNN said that his channel is arranging a huge town hall meeting in Nasiriya to be broadcast live across the Arab world, and wants a hook-up with a US town hall meeting. That is a huge revolution in itself. Can you imagine?
Just as Blair convincingly spoke of the danger inherent in the convergence of rogue states, technological advances in WMD and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, there is another convergence underway that will shake up the world. That is of US-guaranteed security and freedom of speech, region-wide relatively free media, and the sudden and euphoric liberation of a portion of Arabs.
Watch this stuff, it is potent. I would not want to be young Assad, or even the young King of Jordan, in the coming months.
6775. AceofSpades - 4/10/2003 11:02:15 AM
I had a similar thought yesterday. In another couple of months, the Iraqis are going to have a constitutional convention, the first (I assume) in the Arab world. Assuming it's broadcast (and I have to imagine that it will be), I think it will be pretty well-watched in the Arab world, and a powerful message.
6776. Wombat - 4/10/2003 11:44:19 AM
While I share the optimism and aspirations expressed by Marj and Ace, there remains a large circle to be squared.
A constitutional convention taking place in a country that will most likely not yet be internally secure, in which prospective political leaders will either be returning exiles who are unknown and/or mistrusted, traditional tribal elders who have been tainted by their relationship with Saddam, and political functionaries who are at best implicated by association with the Baath party, does not sound like a recipe for a stable democratic system.
How then to "skip" a generation of leadership, how to rebuild a judicial system, recruit and train a depoliticized police force, and to de-Baathize Iraqi society and its education system, while ensuring that the infrastructure is able to provide services to all Iraqis?
6777. PelleNilsson - 4/10/2003 11:45:49 AM
No doubt, Iraqis will face a difficult time in the immediate future before a working civil administration can be re-established. But in my view it is worth it because now there is a future; there is hope for the Iraqi people where previously there was none. It is for this reason I supported the war. I never cared much about the WMD, the alleged links to Al Qaeda or Saddam's misdeeds in the past.
The events show the awesome power of the US (which has been applied judiciously) but it also shows that a regime that is based on repression and intimidation will crumble when real pressure is applied. As marj noted above, Syria's Assad may well be shitting his pants right now. His rule is a mirror image of Saddam's less the megalomaniac wars.
Of course the opposite also applies, as the Sharonistas have discovered at their cost when the Palestinians failed to crumble in spite of Israel's demonstrations of power in Jenin and elsewhere.
6778. PelleNilsson - 4/10/2003 11:53:04 AM
I heard on the news that Powell now says that the new regime in Iraq will be anointed by Defense whith some kind of nominal involvement of the UN. I seriously question the wisdom of that.
6779. concerned - 4/10/2003 12:33:54 PM
Chirac hails end of Iraqi dictatorship - rhetorically knifes 'good friend' Saddam in back after Coalition successfully resists Gallic obstructionism
Yurrupeon 'sophistication' at its most evolved = turgid perorations and bullying in the service of base venality & betrayal while u wait.
6780. concerned - 4/10/2003 12:40:01 PM
Re. 6774 -
Completely off base. Those who the Coalition 'kicked in the balls', as you so picturesquely put it, were particularly well chosen, as even you hopefully may eventually come to realize. IAC, considering the nature of most of the players involved, it's really more a matter of whose foot found its target than anything else.
6781. concerned - 4/10/2003 12:41:30 PM
Waiting for hysterical ad-hominems from marjoribanks.....
6782. PelleNilsson - 4/10/2003 12:52:10 PM
Sigh. Do you, perchance, have any opinion on the matter at hand? I guess not. It has not yet polarised to the extent that it allows a knee-jerk reaction.
By the way, you are emulating jexster's and vantheman's bad habit of adorning your link with opinions that are not present in the article you are linking to.
6783. Wombat - 4/10/2003 1:25:03 PM
I am not sure that I would allow the UN a role in helping form the government and political system in Iraq. Reforming the education system, training police and judicial officials, coordinating relief and infrastructure restoration, repatriation of refugees, yes.
6784. KuligintheHooligan - 4/10/2003 2:37:22 PM
I see only limited coverage of the war in Iraq, but one image has stuck soundly in my mind. Actually, two images which I bring together. The first is the statue of Saddam tumbling in Baghdad under the pull of American military vehicles. The second is the picture today I saw of Iraqis attempting to do the same thing in Kirkuk. Last I saw, they still hadn't pulled down the statue, but I assume they have by now. Still, there were some of them actually standing next to it, and "rocking" it with the hopes of it falling.
And it occurred to me. The Iraqis didn't have the might to topple Saddam, but the Americans did it for them.
6785. PelleNilsson - 4/10/2003 2:46:48 PM
Wombat
What I'm questioning is the dominant role of the defense department in the future governance of Iraq. I'd rather have the foreign office do it, or perhaps some kind of joint effort. What is your opinion?
6786. concerned - 4/10/2003 3:15:22 PM
re. 6782 -
I haven't read back far, bwrt 'rebuilding Iraq', I feel that, at least initially, Coalition nations should have the last word on infrastructure development with the UN focusing more on activities similar to its previous 'oil for food' program at which it has shown some facility. Once a robust enough constitutional Iraqi government having democratic institutions is established that can maintain itself and work in the Iraqi peoples' interests, then perhaps the UN can take a leading role in supporting Iraq.
One thing I don't see the UN being very effective at is in the initial stages of establishing a government or overseeing its acceptance by an effective majority of the individuals of a nation like Iraq, if for no other reason that the UN itself represents such a wide range of governmental paradigms that the decision process as to which institutions are implemented in Iraq risks, at best, either being the results of a series of toothless committee decisions, aka a 'clusterfuck', or will devolve into a power play between competing UN member nations with a wide range of almost entirely negative results for Iraq.
6787. concerned - 4/10/2003 3:18:58 PM
By the way, you are emulating jexster's and vantheman's bad habit of adorning your link with opinions that are not present in the article you are linking to.
It's not a bad habit and giving one's opinion is encouraged in forums such as the Mote, at least by those who can differentiate said comments from the editorial content of the link itself.
Keep in mind that I've seen quite a bit of criticism here of those who link without commenting. So, which is it?
6788. concerned - 4/10/2003 3:26:45 PM
I guess not.
I guess so. But, thanks, at least, for asking.
6789. concerned - 4/10/2003 3:37:03 PM
Re. 6785 -
There's no reason that the lessons learned during the Allied occupations of Japan and Germany couldn't be applied here to good effect. The Coalition military also has certainly gained the Iraqi peoples' attention and respect, and their continued visibility to the Iraqi people implicitly shows that cooperation between different nations (read: groups) is practical.
That being said, I see no problem with the State Department playing a role concentrating on Iraqi foreign relations, but any such 'joint effort' should always be structured so that there cannot be effective disagreement on what constitutes a common goal, or how it should be achieved wrt Iraq.
6790. concerned - 4/10/2003 3:46:39 PM
Re. 6759 -
I have to admit that I was worried about the possibility of significantly greater Iraqi civilian casualties in Baghdad and thankful they didn't occur. Looks like the coalition has shown that the best military in the world is also more PC than 99.99% of that world.
Sort of a scary thought, actually.
6791. concerned - 4/10/2003 3:50:51 PM
Re. 6760 -
There's the slight side effect of Saddam's tyranny being gone forever, but we won't dwell on that since we know how that deeply saddens Chirac, yourself and little Tommy Daschole, among others.
6792. concerned - 4/10/2003 4:03:52 PM
Re. 6763 -
Each 'adventure' like Iraq with its follow ons is an additional drain on US resources. It's not practical, IMO, to think of the US as the 'world's policeman' because the US is not attempting, after all, to police the world.
6793. alistairconnor - 4/10/2003 4:56:20 PM
Conjob:
The Coalition military also has certainly gained the Iraqi peoples' attention
BOOM!BOOM!BOOM!
Honey, I think there's someone at the door.
6794. alistairconnor - 4/10/2003 5:01:37 PM
Each 'adventure' like Iraq with its follow ons is an additional drain on US resources.
Indeed. And it doesn't look like the US has the wherewithal to pay for this/> adventure, let alone the next one.
The last Gulf War was paid for mostly by Saudi, Japan and Germany. And there wasn't the reconstruction to pay for that time.
I guess the Iraqis will just have to sit tight in their ruins for a few years until they've got some oil income.
6795. alistairconnor - 4/10/2003 5:03:12 PM
...How deep are your pockets, o ye Masters of the World?
6796. alistairconnor - 4/10/2003 5:03:48 PM
off again
6797. alistairconnor - 4/10/2003 5:05:41 PM
the US is not attempting, after all, to police the world.
...nor even Iraq, last time I looked. It's the first duty of the conqueror. What's the plan?
6798. robertjayb - 4/10/2003 5:35:36 PM
For fans of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf:
This site is a coalition effort of bloodthirsty hawks and ineffectual doves united in admiration for Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Minister of Information (currently on administrative leave).
..................
"In an age of spin, al-Sahaf offers feeling and authenticity. His message is consistent --unshakeable, in fact, no matter the evidence -- but he commands daily attention by his on-the-spot, invective-rich variations on the theme. His lunatic counterfactual art is more appealing than the banal awfulness of the Reliable Sources. He is a Method actor in a production that will close in a couple of days. He stands superior to truth."
-- Jean-Pierre McGarrigle
6799. judithathome - 4/10/2003 5:38:42 PM
He seemed like he was trying out for 6800. judithathome - 4/10/2003 5:39:32 PM Okay, what the hell happpened to Saturday Night Live in that last post? 6801. iiibbb - 4/10/2003 6:20:47 PM Message # 6797 6802. iiibbb - 4/10/2003 6:41:51 PM Besides... it's not like there was law and order there before. There were death squads... And Saddam was stealing about everything he could from those people. It's unfortunate that they don't realize that when they steal from a hospital that they're only stealing from themselves... but whatever. 6803. vonKreedon - 4/10/2003 7:15:05 PM I think that the US military allowing the looting etc is exactly the right thing to do. The Iraqis certainly require some venting after what they've been through, both in the last three weeks and the last two-plus decades, so looting palaces and government offices is cheap. Also we might hope that they will take it into their own hands to deal with some of the Saddamite security apparatchiks who remain. Finally, we certainly do NOT want to be put in the situation of firing on Iraqi looters! 6804. arkymalarky - 4/10/2003 7:39:43 PM PM Message # 6753, 6805. arkymalarky - 4/10/2003 7:44:22 PM I agree with Pinscher when he says [We] have a brilliant military machine and I think our soldiers have been our best PR people internationally thus far. (... what does that say about your PR people? I think your soldiers have been your best diplomats too...) 6806. arkymalarky - 4/10/2003 7:57:07 PM Kinsley's Readme wasn't linked, I see. 6807. PincherMartin - 4/10/2003 10:50:57 PM Vindictive, spiteful pettiness in victory is surely the true stamp of meanness of spirit. 6808. PincherMartin - 4/10/2003 10:51:29 PM And is the liberator of Chechnya the kind of ally you really want to join up with in your moral crusade against the U.S.? A few week ago, you spoke of how the U.S. decision to go to war would adversely affect the international environment by encouraging strong states to take "pre-emptive" action against weaker ones. You gave a few silly examples, most involving China. 6809. vonKreedon - 4/10/2003 11:05:28 PM Russia is an excellent example of the dangers of setting the bar too high on preventive war in the pursuit of national security. What passed for diplomacy leading up to the current Iraq war helped set the standard that legitimizes such actions by Russia and others. Reason enought to be against the war given the lack of clear and present danger from Iraq; instead we opened up the door for Russia, for China, for India or Pakistan, for Turkey. Isreal is already telling the Palestinians to heed the lesson of Iraq, and it doesn't sound like they mean they are going to liberate the Pals and give them their country back. 6810. PincherMartin - 4/10/2003 11:07:14 PM Alistair -- 6811. PincherMartin - 4/10/2003 11:10:01 PM Pelle #6758 6812. PincherMartin - 4/10/2003 11:12:24 PM Alistair -- 6813. PincherMartin - 4/10/2003 11:17:40 PM Arky -- 6814. OhioSTOPAS - 4/11/2003 6:42:30 AM Only Fox News reported an allegation that "weapons-grade plutonium" may have been found in Al Tuwaitha, Iraq. (Okay, another reputable site, Newsmax.com, reported it too.) Fox repeated uncritically a story by a reporter from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Richard Mellon Scaife's rag. 6815. PincherMartin - 4/11/2003 7:32:11 AM Here's an assist for Alistair (who so plainly needs one): 6816. RickNelson - 4/11/2003 7:42:03 AM Let's consider what alistair and Pincher and partly VonKreedon are discussing. 6817. jayackroyd - 4/11/2003 7:53:14 AM 6809 6818. PincherMartin - 4/11/2003 8:05:50 AM Rick -- 6819. RickNelson - 4/11/2003 8:25:30 AM Pincher, 6820. Wombat - 4/11/2003 9:08:22 AM Rick: 6821. judithathome - 4/11/2003 9:54:47 AM From the Guardian: 6822. Wombat - 4/11/2003 10:08:25 AM The difference is that the Soviets were intervening in a civil war where their side was losing, and were prone to acting in a heavy-handed manner in support of their allied faction from the get-go. And of course, modernization along Soviet lines did not include much in the way of liberation. 6823. Dubai Vol - 4/11/2003 10:26:57 AM Seems like Iraq is no longer worthy of discussion here.... 6824. PincherMartin - 4/11/2003 10:38:44 AM Dubai Vol -- 6825. Macnas - 4/11/2003 10:55:03 AM If there were further discussions worth having about Iraq particularly then surely they would be: 6826. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 12:29:52 PM 6827. OhioSTOPAS - 4/11/2003 12:52:01 PM Well, that's just silly, isn't it? 6828. PincherMartin - 4/11/2003 12:55:38 PM Why is it silly? You may disagree with the numbers or the calculations, but the important point is that some sort of calculation of the consequences of American non-action should be a part of any calculus about the morality of the war. 6829. Wombat - 4/11/2003 12:57:58 PM Actually, the United States did not choose to fight World War II. If Doug was more aware of his country's history, he would note that the United States was attacked by Japan, and that Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. To have refused to fight under those circumstances would have been national suicide. 6830. PincherMartin - 4/11/2003 1:04:33 PM Wombat -- 6831. thoughtful - 4/11/2003 1:07:03 PM So I'm a dishonest poster for using ellipses, eh? Would seem to be dishonesty would consist of NOT using ellipses to indicate the quote was edited. Silly of me to expect someone of EdD's mingy intellect to understand my taking poetic license to make my point by leaving out the geography of the human rights violation cited…which I did add later. I won't even address the rest of the response he posted. Clearly he doesn't believe anyone is ever raped in prisons or detention centers anywhere in the US. Certainly the moral rectitude of the people in charge that either are the rapists or turn a blind eye to the rapes would never lie about it. But I digress. Down right ridiculous of me to think that EdD would get my point unless stated in monosyllabic words. 6832. thoughtful - 4/11/2003 1:07:28 PM The proof of this stated goal is at hand. Iraqis in many locations now have no security, no water, no food, no basic sanitation. How quickly will we stop the looting? (PM, it's not just palaces that are being looted…even schoolrooms have been stripped of black boards…a sign of lawlessness, desperation, not just an outpouring of emotion against saddam's regime.) What government will be put in its stead? 6833. Wombat - 4/11/2003 1:15:20 PM Pincher: 6834. PincherMartin - 4/11/2003 1:17:35 PM Thoughtful -- 6835. PincherMartin - 4/11/2003 1:18:12 PM Wombat -- 6836. thoughtful - 4/11/2003 1:22:01 PM Second, I'm suspicious that the reason we went into Iraq is because of the clear and present threat Saddam's WMD. I doubted it when the UN inspectors had trouble finding anything but marmalade. I was more doubtful when it came to light that "evidence" of purchases of aluminum tubes was manufactured. We are now all over that country and to date, the few, if any proven WMD uncovered would suggest that they were not a clear and present danger…certainly not enough, IMO, to justify an unprovoked attack. The fact that troops were attacking the heart of the regime and the weapons were not used suggests the danger was not "clear." The fact that cries of "he gassed his own people" referred to actions of nearly two decades ago suggests the danger wasn't "present." 6837. thoughtful - 4/11/2003 1:23:10 PM Third, oil has been intimately intertwined with money, power, politics and hegemony ever since it became an important source of energy in the US and in the world. Has anything happened in the last half century to change that? I don't think so. The US is currently importing 52% of its oil needs. 6838. OhioSTOPAS - 4/11/2003 1:25:24 PM Pincher: ". . . the important point is that some sort of calculation of the consequences of American non-action should be a part of any calculus about the morality of the war. . . ." 6839. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 2:04:28 PM 6840. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 2:07:03 PM 6841. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 2:41:37 PM 6842. Wombat - 4/11/2003 2:47:23 PM Even Ace must find it somewhat ironic that while bestowing the blessing of liberty on Iraq, the Bush administration is attempting to diminish liberty in the United States. 6843. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 2:48:32 PM 6844. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 2:48:36 PM 6845. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 2:51:19 PM 6846. judithathome - 4/11/2003 2:52:49 PM What's galling is that you fucking douchebags have been denying the obvious (rooting for American battle dead) for months. 6847. Wombat - 4/11/2003 2:56:22 PM Ace: 6848. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 2:57:16 PM 6849. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 2:59:21 PM 6850. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:04:24 PM 6851. judithathome - 4/11/2003 3:10:38 PM Saddam Is "Ace of Spades" in Card pack of Most Wanted in Iraq 6852. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:11:29 PM 6853. judithathome - 4/11/2003 3:11:40 PM You don't have a bushy mustache, do you, Ace? 6854. Wombat - 4/11/2003 3:11:58 PM Ace: 6855. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:15:39 PM 6856. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:17:03 PM 6857. judithathome - 4/11/2003 3:19:49 PM I have never called for the death of troops and you know it. But make yourself feel better by "not making fun of me". At least not to my face, correct? 6858. Wombat - 4/11/2003 3:21:04 PM Duh, Ace: 6859. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:21:18 PM 6860. Wombat - 4/11/2003 3:24:26 PM All these European countries had those laws on the books well before terrorism became a problem. 6861. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:28:01 PM 6862. Wombat - 4/11/2003 3:31:47 PM On the subject of partisan hackery, what were your thoughts when the Clinton Administration proposed increasing Federal power to monitor terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing? Did you agree with the Republican politicians who suddenly discovered the civil libertarian inside themselves, which disappeared again after a terrorist attack during a Republican administration? 6863. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:31:52 PM 6864. judithathome - 4/11/2003 3:32:25 PM Ace, I know you don't give a rat's ass about what I think or what position I took so I'll just leave you to your fuming at Wombat. 6865. judithathome - 4/11/2003 3:32:56 PM 6866. judithathome - 4/11/2003 3:33:32 PM 6867. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:40:16 PM 6868. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:40:24 PM 6869. judithathome - 4/11/2003 3:42:25 PM I will say this, though...I have more sympathy for what you and your pals went through when Clinton was in office, as much as you hated the man. It's not easy having a guy you can't stand dominate every newscast and headline and popularity poll. 6870. Wombat - 4/11/2003 3:46:01 PM Ace: 6871. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:46:46 PM 6872. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:50:46 PM 6873. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:51:37 PM 6874. Wombat - 4/11/2003 3:52:18 PM Ace: 6875. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:55:17 PM 6876. Wombat - 4/11/2003 3:56:47 PM Ace: 6877. angel-five - 4/11/2003 4:40:38 PM They say a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Emerson said it, actually, but a lot of people have repeated it since then. He said it because it's true. Principles are important to have; it is still the height of arrogance to assume that our powers of analysis and summation have been perfected to the point that we can craft a principle that will trump real world facts in all cases. That's the way this works; we craft principles and try to stick with them, because they're our best guess when it comes to charting a course for moral behavior. Yet people bend over backwards to pretend that their philosophical tenets have never been found wanting, even when they're forced to abandon those tenets. 6878. concerned - 4/11/2003 6:10:14 PM 6879. concerned - 4/11/2003 7:26:08 PM Why is it that I get the impression that Sakonige isn't likely come in here and gloat over her imagined worldwide Islamic insurrection any more? 6880. sakonige - 4/11/2003 8:23:00 PM Hi, Concerned. How sweet of you to think of me. 6881. arkymalarky - 4/11/2003 9:07:16 PM I'm headed to Wal-mart for colored copy paper and a gilt frame for Message # 6813. 6882. labwabbit - 4/11/2003 10:33:42 PM Even when the hawks of war were screaming, I was drawn to Aldouri. He speaks as honest as his profession was intended in the beginning. 6883. jayackroyd - 4/11/2003 10:49:21 PM Just one Ace note: 6884. judithathome - 4/11/2003 11:32:15 PM Groupies? 6885. Edmund Dantes - 4/12/2003 9:29:38 AM That's a pretty stupid comparison that makes me wonder about the intelligence of someone who would make it. 6886. jayackroyd - 4/12/2003 9:42:16 AM Count Eddy, or Indy, or whoever you are this week, Carnivore is an NSA operation. 6887. PincherMartin - 4/12/2003 7:16:13 PM Arky -- 6888. jayackroyd - 4/12/2003 7:36:05 PM You know, it seems to me that permitting the looting may be a postive harbinger. Saying "Look, this is not our problem. We are not going to shoot at civilians, period." seems like a way to force responsibility for civil order onto the Iraqis. This is way difficult; a totalitarian regime has no mechanism for doing this in the absence of the totalitarian. It also provides an opening for UN and Arab League peacekeepers having a role, which is also good. 6889. arkymalarky - 4/12/2003 8:09:43 PM PM, I have my flak jacket at the ready. 6890. jayackroyd - 4/12/2003 9:04:19 PM Yes, Arky, we're singing from the same hymnal. And the US should be working to help find the Iraqis, and protect the Iraqis who can restore basic services, imo. But letting anarchy reign for a day or two may not have been a bad thing--particularly because many of the most profitiable targets had to have been associated with the regime. 6891. RickNelson - 4/12/2003 9:05:18 PM IT took me a while to catch up. I skipped a lot of Ace. Too much Ace is bad for the psyche. 6892. RickNelson - 4/12/2003 9:16:23 PM "antiquities museuem" 6893. jayackroyd - 4/12/2003 11:46:12 PM Money. There are very valuable artifacts in that museum, whicn have now moved to the "private" marketplace. 6894. boohab - 4/13/2003 1:19:08 AM yes. what us westerners wouldn't pay for some original artifacts. archeology grad students all over america are gnashing their teeth. the baathists wouldn't let us foreign devils get passes to see the antiquities, so just when we were on the verge of christmas... kapoof! 6895. magoseph - 4/13/2003 6:16:06 AM My understanding of what happened a
If the conflict were actually over and we had total control of Baghdad that dig might be in order... as it is, it is premature. The war isn't over yet.
I also suppose it would be too much to expect Iraqis to perform informal policing of their own communities in the interim.
All this looting... I thought muslims were supposed to be so moral.
The US should be given more than 36 hours after they enter the city's center to establish meaningful law and order... particularly when they have less than half of the city secured.
Nope, shouldn't do that...wouldn't be prudent.
. Please point out wherever you made that argument, and I'll retract my charge against you.
Hahaha! Rather than dig through all this myself, I think I'll just live with your doubt of my word (horreur!). You're obviously not a very careful reader of people you're not in direct debate with (a fact I've made note of in the past), and the context of my statements in the exchange with Snow the other day was the sudden shift of reasoning, illustrated with such intense emotion by Ace, to "Look at all the good we're doing the Iraqi people." It's a sentiment I have no dispute with whatsoever and was a great and forseeable effect of any invasion, but not remotely related to this administration's motives for taking action.
I also take note of your deft avoidance of the salient points in my posts. Deflection is the name of the game, after all.
It's probably linked here (I haven't read the new posts yet), but Michael Kinsley's "Readme" in Slate was a perfect response to the slap-happy foot-stomping over whupping Sadaam's butt so fast (I'd actually predicted that would occur sooner than this).
Ahem. Actually, Alistair, I said that. Pinko Liberal American Who Should Live Somewhere That Doesn't Allow Freedom And See How I Like It that I am.
And tell me, Alistair, what shall we call vindictive, spiteful pettiness in times of defeat?
Well, Pinscher, I had enjoyed our earlier discussions, in large part because you managed to lift your game. But you seem to be returning to form.
I lifted my game, but you did not. Calling the U.S. a colonial power, its leaders "madmen", and coming up with fanciful ideas of impossible scenarios for how the U.S. would suffer because of its decision to go to war required an answer from me. Calling them "mindless", I think, demonstrates my restraint. Either marriage or the fact I'm now in my late 30s -- I'm not sure which -- is mellowing me.
By the way, are you still dreaming of a Russian-European alliance to turn back the barbaric Americans? I noticed you found significance in the Russian decision, during the first week of the war, to shelve a nuclear warhead reduction treaty.
You might want to take a closer look at your ally. You're living in a dream world if you think that Russia's decision to shelve the treaty means anything; the move was only symnbolic.
The reason: Russia is too poor to maintain the nuclear arsenal they currently have. How can a country that has a lower GDP than Mexico compete with the U.S. in a nuclear arms race? The answer: It can't.
Russia wants -- and needs -- that treaty more than the U.S. needs it. And it will sign it. The U.S. wants the treaty, because, frankly, having thousands of nukes lying around is a waste of money. It's better to spend that money on more smart bombs and weapons the U.S. military will actually use.
continued ...
But at the time I was debating with you, the only examples I could come up with involved Russia. One of those examples is Russia's threat to move into -- invade -- Georgia because of Chechen terrorists operating in areas of the country outside the control of the Georgian government. While Moscow doesn't speak of regime change in Georgia, its action has some correspondence to what you worry about in U.S. policy.
Are we seeing the true face of Pinscher? He identifies pretty closely with the current US foreign policy...
Identify with it? Jesus Christ, man, I'm 110% behind it. If anything, I would accuse the administration of too much moderation in its implementation of that policy. What ever gave you cause to think otherwise?
...here he seems to be talking about free speech in the US (some paranoid fools on the left suspect the Bush administration of wanting to stifle dissent).
Actually, in the first line you quote from, I was talking about free speech in general, not freedom of speech anywhere in particular.
Countries can, in fact, curb or eliminate freedom of speech. When I used the word "allowing", it's a recognition of the well-observed fact that not all countries do allow it.
And yes, I believe there is an efficacy to not just freedom of speech, but freedom as well. I don't have a religious regard for it, that we should value it even in face of evidence that it doesn't work. It's something to be treasured because countries that have it seem to operate better than countries that don't.
Churchill on Montgomery:
In defeat unbeatable, in victory unbearable.
*****
As H.L. Mencken once said to FDR after the President roasted the journalist at a gridiron dinner: "Fair shooting."
"I agree with Pinscher when he says [We] have a brilliant military machine and I think our soldiers have been our best PR people internationally thus far. (... what does that say about your PR people? I think your soldiers have been your best diplomats too...)"
Did I say that? I mean, it's something I could have said, but I honestly don't remember saying this.
I humbly ask your forgiveness for misreading you. The fact Alistair could mistake your quote for something I said shows how much progress you have made in my absence ;-)
But as this AP story reports, it ain't necessarily so.
Would "Fair and Balanced" Fox rush to report this implausible story because the finding of weapons of mass destruction would bolster President Bush's political standing? Nah.
(Note to Fox: "Passing the smell test" means that if it stinks, you DON'T print it.)
Mulling Action, India Equates Iraq, Pakistan: Pre-Emption Cited in Kashmir Conflict
Asserting the same right of preemptive war that the United States used to justify its invasion of Iraq, Indian officials have accused Washington of failing to end Pakistan's support for guerrillas in Indian-controlled areas of Kashmir and warned that India may be forced to take limited military action against its nuclear-armed neighbor.
Personally, I don't think of this as a necessarily bad thing. I don't think this is a cooperative strategy between India and the U.S., but the result of it could be the same as playing good cop/bad cop.
I would like to sound off on China. Pincher I'm not trying to push anyone's button nor pull any chain.
I'm thinking about China as setting post WWII precedent for preemptive warfare. They swarmed into the Korean conflict without pause as we can recall. This was pre super power time. This was the beginning of the "Cold War", this was a time when "the bomb" was a big worry, who had it, who was making it. [still is a worry, isn't it?!]
What seems clear to me is that China was the first post WWII Imperialist. And stating that is to push a button and pull a chain, a Communist China chain. I would like them to think that an outsider thinks of them as Imperialist, that they've hardly changed their Imperial Chinese ways, just their labels for it. [Ok enough button pushing]
Then we can recall how Taiwan and Hong kong were and still are issues. And lest we ever forget South East Asia, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and the Chinese backed governments. Then what about Burma and Tibet and Naga Land and then what about the places we hear little about, or nothing about?
I'm thinking about China because it's their precedent, not ours. We did some heavy handed smaking around in the 19th and early 20th century, but look at the army and navy that was assembled at the time? Not Imperialist, not much really at all, until we had to make them something. Then as always a sleeping giant awakes with a vengence.[the U.S.]
So, look at China, consider China, we all wonder and worry about China anyway. Consider Marj's remark about his Chinese handler who cannot say anything. Consider what else China is doing out there? Rememeber Stalin and wonder about why China is still so closed. Hell Russia is an open book comparatively.
So, to remark that China might use U.S. policing as a ticket to perform like moves of its own is justified.
vK--
re: Isreal is already telling the Palestinians to heed the lesson of Iraq, and it doesn't sound like they mean they are going to liberate the Pals and give them their country back.
I was talking to yesterday, of all people, Manute Bol and his agent/manager/cousin/whatever. They are very pleased at the results of the war, and think it will give the US the leverage it needs to insist on a separation of the southern Sudan from the north. (I spent a year about 20 miles north of Manute's hometown, so we had some common subjects to talk about.)
Woolsey's speech was very scary, but in a double-edged way. I just wish I had the smallest bit of faith in this administration's ability to manage this aftermath.
wrt your point, the US willingness to commit armed forces to the campaign in Iraq, and do so successfully (so far--those pockets of resistance may be around for a while, having nowhere else to go) gives them the ability to say to both the Palestinians and the Israelis, "yes, this time we really mean it." But, to fly, that has to be a return to the Oslo deal, which Sharon will reject out of hand. Is the administration really willing to say that "we really mean it" to Sharon?
You make some good points. China's imperial past and its ambitions to make good on reuniting Taiwan with the mainland certainly provide Beijing with sufficient motivation to take unilateral action when it sees an opportunity.
But contrary to Alistair's point a couple of weeks ago in the International thread, the U.S. action in Iraq provides little in additional justification for Beijing to flex its muscles. Taiwan has almost no international standing (it's not a member of the U.N., for example), so issues of sovereignity do not apply. And Beijing has always made clear that it might resort to military action to reunite the island with the mainland.
As for China's imperial past, it is real, but for the most part the Communists sated most of China's imperial desires after WW2. Tibet was invaded and, in 1949, a Xinjiang rebellion crushed. As for other potential targets, China has not shown any interest in taking over Vietnam (even if it could) and Mongolia is not an attractive target because it would bring China into conflict with Russia. With those exceptions, China's current borders are pretty much the same as the furthest extension of its previous imperial claims.
There are a few contested islands in the South China Sea, and the East China Sea, as well as Taiwan, but all of those cases are little strengthened by what the U.S. does in Iraq.
I'm interested to know more about Chinese pseudo-satellites. I wouldn't consider China invading the countries I mentioned, with the exception of Taiwan, it's their interference and support with military and political tampering that I think is their current forte'. Espionage perhaps. I'm not tuned to the dark side.
I contemplate N.K. and perhaps Burma when I consider this.
China intervened in Korea after passing along specific warnings through intermediaries (India) that if UN forces tried to take over the North it would provoke a military response. These warnings were ignored by General MacArthur.
In the early 1960s, during a border dispute with India, China repeatedly warned India that continued Indian incursions into the disputed area would be met with force. India persisted, and the Chinese launched a large scale attack, routed the Indians, and halted at the existing border. Not exactly the actions of imperialist expansionist state.
Fears For The Future
...All these factors point to the need for a prolonged US and British presence, which opponents will characterise as "occupation", as the Syrian government did yesterday.
Attacks by mujahideen, and possibly underground Ba'athists, will seek to push the US and British towards repressive measures in order to justify the term "occupation" and encourage others to join the struggle against it.
The model here is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80s, and the resistance to it. This, in the eyes of Islamists, not only led to the creation of al-Qaida, but also brought about the collapse of a superpower. The strategy is clear, although it's much too early to judge whether it has any chance of succeeding in Iraq.
Much of the recent discussion has been on what effect the U.S.-led attack on Iraq will have on the international system. It's marginal to current events, but still on topic.
Kurdish vision of homeland, what will be the outcome wrt US intentions and Turkey's traditional animosity towards the Kurds.
Shiite separatism and faction discord, as evidenced by the stabbing of Majid Al-Khoei.
The remaining Iraqi forces in Baghdad and elsewhere.
The threat of suicide bombings and other urban terror machinations, where the US/UK forces are vulnerable while still in an assault phase, as opposed to a peace-keeping/policing mode.
The western desert, just what the hell is out there if anything?
It has been estimated that in 23 years Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of at least a million of his own citizens. I will save you the time of doing the math. It works out to 119 Iraqis per day.
War is hell. No one desires war, but sometimes war is necessary. War defeated Hitler and Tojo and Mussolini. If the United States had refused the fight, it is hard to imagine the oppressive conditions under which we would be living.
Thanks to the leadership of President Bush and the ultimate sacrifice of brave warriors whose debt can never be repaid, Iraqis will not only no longer live in fear of saying the wrong thing, but more of them will be able to live and have hope for the future.
Civilian deaths are always a tragedy in war, however, 119 people were not tortured and killed by Saddam Hussein today. In the first 21 days of the war, 2,499 were not tortured and killed by Saddam Hussein. Over the next year, 43,435 Iraqis will not be tortured and killed by Saddam Hussein. Over the next 23 years, 999,005 Iraqis will not be tortured and killed by Saddam Hussein.
-- Doug from Upland, a "wingnut" from FreeRepublic who is far more informed (and better at simple arithmetic) than all of the leftist faux-intellectuals here
Unless Doug believes that Saddam attacked the United States through Al Qaeda on September 11, or that the United States was in imminent danger from Iraqi WMD, then we chose this fight. This choice was one that I agree with--although I would have allowed more time for diplomacy--to bring on board more allies and isolate the French. The Bush administration downplayed the best reason for overthrowing Saddam, now justified ex post facto, in favor of tenuous and half-assed arguments that strained credulity.
Finally, assuming that the Bush administration--against its campaign criticisms of Clinton/Gore--shows the leadership that Doug praises, and rebuilds Iraq in the manner it should, will Doug be so favorable if it means forgoing part of Bush's domestic agenda, such as tax cuts?
Actually, the United States did not choose to fight World War II. If Doug was more aware of his country's history, he would note that the United States was attacked by Japan, and that Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. To have refused to fight under those circumstances would have been national suicide.
That is an incidental point to the piece. Even within that small context that you cite, his point is that war can have good consequences. It's obviously directed at the karmic pacifists who believe that war is always bad.
FWIW, my POV:
First, I'm tired of all this talk about the reason we went into Iraq is because we wanted to free the Iraqi people of this terrible dictator saddam hussein. One need not go far from home and one can go almost anywhere in the world to find human rights violations. At what point does it become a moral imperative to invade another nation just to stop human rights abuses? One person? 10? 1,000? If so, then why were the violations in Iraq any more imperative to stop than the violations say, in the Sudan, where 2 million civilians have been killed and 2 million more displaced? I suspect it is because human rights violations are the PC excuse for war, but not the primary purpose. Perhaps some feel comfortable with that. I do not. My sincerest hopes are that the Iraqi people will enjoy more freedom and security as a result of this war, but I do not believe it was the primary reason the war was undertaken.
If we were to judge by the results in Afghanistan, then human rights are clearly not primary. The warlords are still in armed, the troops are still putting down Taliban fighters, and malnutrition rates of Afghan children in Kabul have doubled since we moved in. The bush admin ran the loya jirga making sure the Northern Alliance, though a minority ethnic group in the country, got the power as a thank you for the assist in ousting the Taliban. But remember the Afghan people themselves had chosen the Taliban over the Northern Alliance because life under them was so terrible. The Bush administration forgot to add money to the budget to rebuild Afghanistan until the last minute, but somehow found about $7B to contract with Halliburton over the next 2 years to rebuild Iraq's oil industry. Doesn't that suggest something?
The post was from Free Republic. At risk of being excessively snotty, I don't think one would go broke underestimating the intelligence of some of the people who post on it. Anyway it is so rare that I get a straw man to play with, that I would have hated myself if I hadn't taken advantage of it.
You're channeling Jexter.
Fair enough. Swing away.
I agree the 9/11 attack warranted a military response and have no problem with the military going after the perpetrators. But the evidence to date of any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda is slight...certainly far less than the links with, say Saudi Arabia or Pakistan whom we've chosen not to attack or to liberate from their oppressive regimes.
Don't take my word for it...hear what a key player said for why Iraq was the place to attack. From Woodward's paean BUSH AT WAR, as quoted in Brad deLong's web site, "Wolfowitz seized the opportunity. Attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain. He worried about 100,000 American troops bogged down in mountain fighting.... In contrast, Iraq was a brittle, oppressive regime.... It was doable. He estimated that there was a 10 to 50 percent chance Saddam was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks." He wanted to attack iraq because it would be a quick win… it was doable, even if it only had a small chance of having anything to do with 9/11.
The unbid contracts worth billions to Halliburton, the refusal to release names of attendees at energy policy meetings with Cheney, the focus on preserving Iraqi oil wells, controlling pipelines, the push for drilling in ANWAR, the favorable tax treatments passed for the energy industry and the money the Bush family made in Kuwait after Desert Storm suggest at a minimum, this administration cares about the oil industry. Clearly there is money to be made by the oil industry from a regime change in Iraq. Perhaps those of you who saw malice aforethought under every Clinton whitewater/cattle future transaction have a new-found naivete now that the administration comes from the other side of the aisle, but I do not
Absolutely. But the particular calculation Ace endorses is nonsense. Most of those deaths for which Saddam Hussein was responsible occurred in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980's, which says nothing about how many Iraqis would presently be tortured and killed per day if Saddam were still in power.
I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings.
Some of this is merely the result of pettiness -- ignoble resentment, partisan hackdom, the desire to be proved right and to prove the likes of Rumsfeld wrong, irritation with the sanitizing, myth-making American media. That part of it I feel guilty about, and disavow. But some of it is something trickier: It's a kind of moral bet-hedging, based on a pessimism not easy to discount, in which one's head and one's heart are at odds.
Gary Kamiya, admitting what I have long known, on Salon
Hey. It occurs to me that there are some self-declared "Aserious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war" here.
Anyone else want to confess to wishing for American & Iraqi civilian deaths in order to vindicate their partisan hackery and discredit BushHitler?
Fucking assholes.
What's galling is that you fucking douchebags have been denying the obvious (rooting for American battle dead) for months.
Gary Kamiya is a vicious punk, but at least he has the stones to admit he's a vicious punk.
He's outed you, you "Patriotic Americans."
Peace is Patriotic.
Yeah.
So is wishing for American battle dead.
More:
Many antiwar commentators have argued that once the war started, even those who oppose it must now wish for the quickest, least bloody victory followed by the maximum possible liberation of the Iraqi people. But there is one argument against this: What if you are convinced that an easy victory will ultimately result in a larger moral negative -- four more years of Bush, for example, with attendant disastrous policies, or the betrayal of the Palestinians to eternal occupation, or more imperialist meddling in the Middle East or elsewhere?
A ha.
It has long been charged that the left's opposition to this war was rooted entirely in partisanship and fears of a second Bush term.
It is now confirmed by one of your fellow-travellers.
It is interesting that the left considers a second Bush term more of a "moral negative" than tens of thousands of American and Iraqi battle dead, or than WMD, or than preventing terrorism, or than ending Saddam's torture-chambers and child-prisons.
But don't you think the left could have told us about these curious moral priorities before, so that we could properly evaluated their objections?
I am so sickened. I actually am physically nauseated.
You are a treasonous Fifth Column, just as was alleged.
You are the scum of the earth.
You are criminals.
You do not deserve to live in this country.
And no cute rejoinders from Ohio & Co will change that elemenmtary fact.
How
the fuck
do you live with yourselves?
Yes, yes, all of our "liberties" are going poof.
As Eddie Vedder said, we will no longer have the right to free speech next year.
Yes, yes, all of our "liberties" are going poof.
As Eddie Vedder said, we will no longer have the right to free speech next year.
You're a fucking partisan jerkoff, Wombat, but I expressly do not address the posts about treason to you. I know that you have been forthright and fair in your evaluation of war; and I know, from my experience in the Clinton years, that it is difficult to support a war being waged by a man you consider corrupt and bad for the country. So kudos to you on that score (and, actually, kudos to me too-- I never prayed for American deaths just so Clinton's poll numbers would go down).
But if do please tell me about all of your vanishing "liberites." I really want to know all of the cherished liberties you had pre- 9/11 that you no longer have. And I really want to know the "Wombat Plan" to aggressively hunt down terrorists without, you know, any actual aggressive law enforcement or investigation.
One person writes about wishing for things to go wrong and suddenly, all of us douchbags are cheering every American death in Iraq...and Ace suspected it of us all along.
So why bother to deny it? We are as well hung for sheep as lamb...the mighty Ace is here to deliver his verdict!
Jesus, what an ass.
Do you believe that American citizens can and should be held incommunicado in a military prison without access to a lawyer for indefinite periods of time?
As you know, I've read this place on occasion, and I was amused to see you and Idiot Number Two, Pelle, actually arguing with Champion Retard Jexster and his various idiotic minions about the war. It was kind of funny to find myself rooting for you.
But, that said, you're a moron. The non-treasonous liberal side of the spectrum is simultaneously imposing a very high burden on Bush (if another terrorist attack occurs, it's YOUR FAULT) while simultaneously seeking to deny him the tools necessary to put up something resembling a decent defense agaisnt terrorism.
That is dirty pool, Wombat. If you want less aggressive policework at the expense of the occasional loss of life due to terrorism (and the possible ENORMOUS loss of life due to terrorism), then go on the record and say so. Say, "I am willing to live with some dead Americans just so that my library records will never be searched consequent to the securing of a judge's order."
And then I'll say, fine. I'll disagree with you about the importance of the two things -- lives versus perfect privacy of library history -- but I will admit you to be a stand-up, honest guy who just really treasures "civil rights" at the expense of human life. An odd ranking of priorities, but hey-- it comes from the gut.
But you cannot sit there and demand to be protected against thousands of hateful, crazed homicidal maniacs schooled in the art of mingling in a civilian population without detection and then say you are willing to concede NO additional powers to the police. That will not wash. That is not honest. You can choose A or B but you can't have A and B simultaneously.
Do you believe that American citizens can and should be held incommunicado in a military prison without access to a lawyer for indefinite periods of time?
I'm uncomfortable with it, but ultimately, yes.
Having answered the question, let me reverse it:
If the evidence against Jose Padilla is strong enough to cause great suspicion (and legitimate suspicion), but it is not strong enough to actually convict him -- or, alternately, it is strong enough to convict him, but cannot be used in a court of law due the need to protect sources -- would you let a dangerous man, dedicated to killing Americans, back out on the streets?
One honest answer deserves another, Wombat.
And I will instruct you that the French only ended the problem of Algerian terrorism once they passed a law -- no doubt repugnant to you -- making mere close association with known terrorists a crime punishable in and of itself, with no need to prove actual conspiracy to commit any other crime.
Look, if a guy is Al Qaeda, I've got to say I don't really require a lot of evidence that he was "planning something." Res ipsa loquitor-- the thing speaks for itself. It is self-proving.
What the fuck you think he was in Al Qaeda for-- for the travel opportunities? Maybe to take advantage of their terrific deal with the credit union?
Give me a fucking break.
Saddam Hussein is the "ace of spades" in a 55-card deck of the Iraqi regime leaders "most wanted" by the U.S. government.
The U.S. Central Command has a most-wanted list of Iraqi leaders it wants "pursued, killed or captured," said Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, U.S. Central Command's deputy director of operations.
Coalition soldiers in the field have been given the in several forms, one of which is a flip-deck of cards with an image of the person's face and job description of each official "to ease identification when contact does occur," he said.
There is a delightful liberation about being out of power politically. You are free to act completely irresponsibly, and to urge, for example, that we "loosen up" with regards to investigation of suspected terrorists-- and you can do so without political consequences, because hey, you're not running the show.
So this is all a cute talking point. But let me ask you honestly-- do you mean it? If a Democrat were President, would you urge him to do anything less than use the full power of the state to investigate, detain, and yes occasionally harass supsected terrorists, knowing that if you didn't, you were gambling with American lives?
Would you REALLY?
Or would you say: Hey, you're the Commander in Chief. Your first and supreme responsibility is protecting the citizenry. So, do what you have to -- both to preserve human life and to protect your chances of staying in power.
Which would it be, Wombat?
Oh, wait, let me guess: We can both insure against all terrorist attacks while giving a generous reading to all claimed civil liberties.
Right?
If that's so: How? If the CIA and FBI can't do that under Bush, what makes you think they could do it under a Democrat? You think a Democrat will fire the entire staffs of both agencies and replace them with "smarter people"?
I actually don't have much of a problem with increasing the tools available to monitor cell phones and the internet. I have major problems with people being picked up and held incommunicado for months at a time without access to lawyers and with no information provided to their families. That is to be expected in countries like Iraq (minus the corpse turning up on the doorstep, of course), but not here.
I would hate to think that I would attract the attention of the authorities if I, in the course of learning more about Bin Laden by reading publications by organizations sympathetic to his form of Islam, turned up on a watch list.
Finally, much of what was passed was done so in an atmosphere of post-9/11 hysteria, which you personified on the Mote. The weaknesses exposed after 9/11 had little to do with the lack of information, and much to do with how it was processed. Oddly enough, these institutional weaknesses still exist, although without the complacency that existed before.
Please. A dodge. And I'm still waiting-- so let's let Jose Padilla out then, right?
Why do you refuse to say it? You're like Democrats who complain about the tax cut but won't call for an increase or repeal.
If you don't like Poor Innocent Jose being held-- then say the words: "I want him released."
JudiththeCrone:
I'd make fun of you, but I know how depressed you are that thousands of American soldiers aren't dead. The left is on a collective suicide watch that children are being released from Saddam's prisons and that his torture chambers have been shuttered.
You either charge him or release him and then monitor his movements and contacts. Either that or you cut a deal with him, as the Feds did with Jonathan Lind when the bulk of their case against him collapsed.
Most European countries that have had terrorism problems also have laws against belonging to banned organizations. If the Bush Administration wishes to get into tinkering with freedom of association, then they are welcome to try. However, the stink about that will come not only from liberals and left-wingers, but from the right as well.
I'm sure you were popping open the champagne corks at seeing Baghdad liberated, Judith.
Not in your name, right?
Right.
You had nothing to do with it. So, actually, you don't have a right to celebrate, even if you were inclined to do so.
Which you are not. Seeing that statue come down ruined your whole goddamned day. Why don't you just admit it?
"You either charge him or release him and then monitor his movements and contacts. "
And if he flees the country?
See, you have a lot of glib "We can do both at once" type answers. But if he leaves the country, he is free to re enter at any time thereafter, all for the cost of a fake ID, which shouldn't be so hard to secure, given the fact that you can buy one at any college for $50.
And then what, dude?
You are fond of proposing have-your-cake-and-eat-it-to answers where nothing is lost were we to let him go. We get the virtues of both-- we let him go (yay!) but we keep tabs on him (yay too!).
You assume, incorrectly, that "monitoring" someone is easy. It is not. A friend of mine follows terrorist suspects for the FBI all day long, but only for part of the day, once or twice a week. There are simply not enough agents to follow them all 24/7.
Further, the very moment he leaves the US, surveillance ends, and cannot be picked up again once he re-enters through the Mexican border.
These are tough questions, asshole. And in your partisan zeal to knock Bush and "Trashcroft," you dishonestly pretend they're easy. They're no brainers. We can all have our cake and eat it too; yay, us!
If it were all that easy, dipshit, don't you think that Ashcroft would have thought of it already? Oh, wait, you claim this Harvard educated man is an "idiot." Very well-- don't you think a smart liberal Clinton holdover could have thought of it and told Ashcroft already?
There are issues of enormous consequences here, and I find your glib talking-points on the matter profoundly unserious. You are not seriously thinking about the issues that confront us; you are just trying to score cheap points, running down a list of infantile complaints you got from the Phil Fucking Donahue show.
If you want the US to risk the loss of human life at the gain of a more generous reading of "civil liberties," say so.
You refuse to.
Instead, you idiotically insist, like a partisan robot, that we can have both perfect security and perfect freedom from intrusive police measures simultaneously, if only we had "smarter people" running things.
Whatever. If that's your claim, tell me what these "smarter people" would be doing different. Don't fall back on vague platitudes; give me some concrete new procedures that this "smarter law enforcement regime" would follow.
What's that?
You don't know what they'd do differently? You're just sure, in you're heart, they'd do something differently that would allow them to better square the cirlce?
Wow. What a shock. I wasn't expecting that kind of a glib assertion from you of all people.
Toys, jerkwad.
???
On the subject of partisan hackery, what were your thoughts when the Clinton Administration proposed increasing Federal power to monitor terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing?
I favored them.
Did you agree with the Republican politicians who suddenly discovered the civil libertarian inside themselves,
Let's unpack this. This is a stupid partisan lie. Hopefully, you are well-read enough to know that there is a long tradition of zealous regard for civil liberties on the right. Not the entire right; but this is a very real, and very old, segment of the right. Scalia belongs to this tradition, which is where I often depart from him. (Rehnquist, on the other hand, is more willing to trounce on civil liberties (as are Souter and Breyer, too, on issues where liberals favor increased authoritarianism)).
So you are either uneducated or a liar; I will charitably assume you are merely ignorant.
which disappeared again after a terrorist attack during a Republican administration?
To answer the question now: I disagree with the Bob Barr/Dick Armey Conservative Civil Liberties Near-Absolutists just as much as I disagree with the Floyd Abrams/ACLU Liberal Civil Liberties Near-Absolutists. I find both to be idealistic, and I don't mean that in a good way. I think their voices are important, and I kind of like them offering their imput to keep the government in line, but usually I find them harmful, on the whole, to this nation's legitimate need to protect itself against crime and, especially, terrorism.
Now, on to the next cheap partisan lie: You make a big issue about these Republicans "forgetting" about Civil Liberties under Bush. Again, you're either lying or simply ignorant. Both Barr and Armey, for example, were, to my mind, a bit prickish and obstructionist when it came to passing the Patriot Act. I disagreed with them then; I disagree with them now.
And it is so ridiculous that you casually forget the rather large reason that Congressional Republicans might have eased up on their previous objections to intrusive counter-terrorist measures:
It was called 9-11. You might have seen it on TV. I think one of the network news shows did a special about it last year; maybe it was 60 Minutes. I forget all the details, but, if my memory serves, a couple of large buildings went missing one blue-skied morning.
Our system already assumes that risk with the presumption of innocence. I agree with that wholeheartedly. It is what makes the United States different from almost every other country in the world. I have lived in countries that do not have a legally-enshrined presumption of innocence and a right not to self-incriminate. I prefer the United States.
If you are so concerned about Americans dying, then I expect to see you at the forefront of moves to enforce seatbelt laws, banning SUVs, guns, and putting repeat drunk drivers in prison for life after a fatal accident. What say you? Do you really care about Americans dying?
Here's some more newsflashes:
I supported Clinton's roving wiretap law. Completely.
I actually supported Carnivore under Reno, and I'm annoyed that it is still, apparently, being blocked by civil-rights zealots.
From time to time I have thrown roving-wiretap and Carnivore in liberals' faces. But not because I disagreed with those measures-- I do not. I throw those measures in their faces because liberals can be awfully selective in their outrage about supposed compromises of "civil liberties." Liberals always love to pretend to be civil liberties absolutists when a Republican is in office; but they sure do have a lot more flexibility when a Democrat needs such measures to fight crime and terrorism, don't they?
So I've thrown roving wiretap and Carnivore in liberals' faces not because they violate my standards (they don't, again), but because were liberals being consistent and principled rather than partisan and hypocritical, those measrues SHOULD HAVE violated their standards, but, oddly, they did not.
Not all liberals are inconsistent on this issue, of course. Nat Hentoff (I guess not a liberal anymore, but he was once) was always all over Clinton's ass for these measures.
HE has a right to complain about civil liberties, because HE has been consistent about his zealous protection of them under both Republicans and Democrats.
Little partisan talking-points shitheads who only discover "civil liberties" when they're a convenient club to beat up on Republican Presidents, on the other hand, should just shut the fuck up and go back to listening to NPR.
Our system already assumes that risk with the presumption of innocence. I agree with that wholeheartedly.
Uhhhh, the math changes a little when one man is capable of killing hundreds or thousands in a morning, Wombat.
Let one hundred guilty men go free to spare one innocent man a false imprisonment? Well that works okay when those one hundred guilty men might only kill one or two more man apiece before being appreheneded again.
When nuclear weapons are involved -- and you liberals love to pooh-pooh this, and act as if it is some sort of Tom Clancy fantasy; I assure you, however, it is not a difficult feat to construct an atomic bomb given sufficeint time and money -- I'm not sure I do want 100 guilty fucking men going free.
Enough. I came here to gloat, not to argue.
Good. Then we are agreed. A pity that it was not passed under Clinton.
Judith,
That's funny. I would be more willing to laugh at a poignant little admission were I not so angry about the Kamiya piece and what it says about the partisan antiwar-for-Republicans-but-rah-rah-bomb-Saddam-for-Clinton left.
Good. Then we are agreed. A pity that it was not passed under Clinton.
You find this in, say, a Republican state governor who got elected on an anti-taxation platform, but is now facing the economic reality of 2003 and massive budget shortfalls for their home state and has to raise taxes. You find this, moreover, in our current President, who campaigned on a plank that was much more isolationist than interventionist, who campaigned for smaller government and less spending, who questioned our need to deploy US troops around the world and was oh so disparaging about nation-building. Yet sometime shortly after that blue-sky morning in September the Bush platform became the Al Gore platform, for some short instant, and then went far, far beyond it. And you know something? I can poke fun at the reversal, but I'd rather they changed when they were wrong than stick to their guns.
So consistency ought to be our watchword, but a foolish consistency isn't admirable at all. It's reprehensible when you're talking about something so momentous as American policies.
Actaully, I've moved beyond imagining worldwide Islamic insurrection. Now I'm tacitly advocating Woolsey's WWIV, because I believe the US will lose, and such a huge conflaguration is the only way political boundries will ever be redrawn so that no single nation can ever become a superpower.
He did his job well. That he did his job period was remarkable.
I wish him well. I hope he finds his family, and finds them well.
I hope his wisdom and dedication to his country earns him a place in history, (and its' future govt.), that honors his efforts to the people of Iraq.
Any vein of diplomacy severed, is a heart-attack in waiting to the life of the world.
I actually supported Carnivore under Reno, and I'm annoyed that it is still, apparently, being blocked by civil-rights zealots.
But he will not, under any circumstances, tolerate the publication of his own name in this forum. He won't post with it, and he won't permit publication of it. What's he afraid of?
The Mote created a contract with its membership by promulgating rules of engagement: in order to post here, you will obey these rules; you in turn will also be protected by these rules. Throughout its history the Mote has done a pretty piss-poor job of enforcing its own rules, but that's what the RoE were supposed to be.
In my function as Gatekeeper here, I learned many real-life identities. Would you be okay with it, Jay, if I took it upon myself to start publishing those names and violating one of the major duties of that office? Or would you favor that I be banned? Well, your answer doesn't particularly matter because you can't speak for everyone who ever entrusted that information under the presumption it would be protected.
Unlike the Mote, the FBI is a government organization that has been entrusted by the citizenry at large with the duties of law enforcement. Even so, it is highly regulated and limited in what it is empowered by the public to do. And when it falls down on the job, unlike the Mote, something actually happens to the people who abuse their authority.
Your silly analogy is akin to my saying, "Jay is okay with the government taking thousands of dollars of tax money from him, but he won't let me withdraw even a single penny out of his bank account. Why is that?"
You can rant as you will about rules here, but that was not the question I asked. The question I asked is why Ace is unwilling to voluntarily reveal his identity when he supports the government doing all it can to penetrate my private life, as it will.
As for legal protections, they have been routinely violated under old technological interventions, to put Japanese-Americans into a prison camp, to gain advantage over political opponents (meaning Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon), to blackmail politicians, and, in general, to serve narrow interests that were not public interests.
So my analogy is saying, not in a silly way at all, if you won't trust this little tiny community of well-meaning people with your real name, how can you trust John Ashcroft and the more spectral members of the NSA with your entire communication history? Especially given their history. And even more especially now, as an American citizen sits in jail, since June of last year, uncharged, without access to a lawyer or his family.
Hahaha! Enjoy your small victory; I'm already plotting my revenge.
It's clear, because of the looting, that someone needs to impose order, and it's been made clear by more than a few people, Iraqi, not-iraqi-arab and otherwise, that the US is the wrong force to do so. So it's time for these other agencies to step up with a plan.
Jay,
Looks like that's beginning to happen, but the US's intervention precipitated the instability, so they were naturally looked to to fill in the policing gap and restabilize invaded areas to the point of getting the basics back--water, electricity, medical care--by the Iraqi people. That isn't necessarily bad, it's just that the US toppled the regime. The same result would have occurred in any scenario that left the necessary power vacuum that goes with that. The thing is, it has to be as brief as possible, and I was beginning to be concerned that it not only would become extended, but that the US would lose gained PR ground (crucial, at this stage imo, not just within Iraq, but everywhere, including here in the US) because of the expectations that they be prepared to at least minimally manage such a predictable consequence of ending the regime.
Also, my MSNBC Breaking News Alert headline is encouraging--"US, Allies Endorse UN Resolution--G7 calls for Iraq rebuilding plan" but I can't open the blasted thing in a new window to c&p a link.
I do think they should have made an exception for the antiquities museuem.
However, I agree with Angel-five's post 6877. That makes a lot of sense regarding "That's the way this works; we craft principles and try to stick with them, because they're our best guess when it comes to charting a course for moral behavior.". Principles can change with evolving facts. Unlike Ace's stand and deliver, never look over both sides of the fence, McCarthyist fuck them who don't think like me mentality.
I'm always thinking things over, re-evaluating. I don't have the time that Ace must have to wade through all the endless details, and I wander around awhile waiting to find something that is meaningful. Ranting attack isn't meaningful! Ranting alone could be meaningful, to the person, but broad sweeping generalized attack is a waste of thread time.
Mistakes are made, corrections are made. Wombat in 6820 steered me a bit regarding China and the Korean and Indian conflicts. However, Wombat you didn't mention Tibet nor Nagaland. What can you help me learn about these? Also, is there any information as to the meddling in S.E. Asia?
What gave Iraqi's general population the idea to destroy artifacts? They weren't affiliated with Ba'ath. That curator's despair is moving. I've not heard much detail, was it as much looting as destruction? That meaning some things will turn up?
'tis a sad day for leakey wannabees. on the other hand, there's still time to save hasankeyf.
http://www.visioncircle.org/archive/000026.html