I'm worried about Iraq - don't get me wrong, we're going to

[American Kid]

First off, urban warfare. Yikes.

If they draw us (I guess this being an international community, I should specify, "America", and, maybe, Great Brittain- yes, Tony Blair's been doing some sabre-rattling of his own lately) into the streets of Baghdad (sic?) then that will change everything. As it's quite different from the open-desert routing which made up the majority of the ground war in 1990.

And this is the plan also. It's probably their best defensive tactic and they'll use it, more than likely very well. I've been reading in the paper that our boys are being properly trained for this. I'm sure it's basic stuff, like stay out of the streets, maintain the high-ground, etc......But still it's scary. This is THEIR turf, and the best maps in the world aren't going to help a soldier in the field past his own abilities and endurance. If you've seen Black Hawk Down, you know what I mean.

But all in all, it's got me worried. I predict it will be a long, drawn-out affair with heavy casualties on both sides, but more on the Iraqis. And also, obviously civillian casualties too. I wouldn't put it past the bastard Iraqi hiearchy to not let them leave the cities either, to use them as human shields.

Actually, I predict it will be costly, but probably not a loooong affair. It will be lightning-wuick maybe. In and out. Hopefully.

I'm worried about the sleepers that Saddam may have in my country. I remember hearing on a radio talk show a few years ago that Saddam had sleeper agents in the US, and their orders were to "awaken" and wreak havoc if anything was to happen to the gov't or Saddam in Iraq. I didn't believe before, but obviously after Sept. 11th I do.

I'm not so much worried about this so-called "coatlition", as I think after our victory many nations (Middle-eastern, wink, wink) will be tripping over each other offering sincere, passionate thanks for ridding the world of that fucking scumbag. It will be a fair-weather-fan festival. And frankly, I don't think we need anyone's help to do this, militarily.

It's all just politics.

And as far as the Israel/Palastine situation, when was the last time you saw in the news about a suicide bomber???? The Israelis are putting up a wall, they've significantly dimantled the terrorist networks (note, the absence of unfortunate individuals attaining "martyrdom" lately), basically it's still a hotbed, but it's not what it was a year ago. Nations who are screaming against aggression to Iraq and using that situation as a good example are just beating a dead horse.

And funny how the US has been suspiciously silent in condemning Israel for it's tactics lately, while the rest of the world throws their arms up in horror. Maybe it's not just us and England after all........And I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want the Israeli army to be cross with me. Just ask the Egyptians.

But those are my concerns. Do I think this action is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY? No. But do I think the American public has been told everything we need to know yet? Well, no either.

All I can do is all any of the rest of us can do: wait and watch.

-AK

[j]

This whole Iraq thing is completely out of control. Iraq is a soverign country and therefore we (the US) should not invade. People keep talking about regime change and so on. How is it our business to install a government that we like? If Sadam does not want to let in UN inspectors then it is up to INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY to decide what is right for Iraq if they are breaking international laws.

The US has weapons of mass destruction and has used them (Japan) towards civilians. Why is it OK for the US and not Iraq?

I don't think Sadam is great guy but how is it our responsibility to de-throne him? I believe that is the responsibility of the UN.

j

[American Kid]

This whole thing is very complicated.

I just hope they know what they're doing. I know this much, when it (if it) happens, I'm not going to be out protesting. I don't see any point in it. If they commit our troops to go over and do something, it's not going to do THEM any good for the rest of us back home here to be hurling bricks about it at police in riot gear.

We have to be a team here.

But I'm not stupid, I know about the UN and international law and, like I said, it's complicated and I'm confused over what we're doing.

But I'm not gonna be Lindburg circa 1939 either:

"The Luftwaffe, you wouldn't believe it, dude!!! Planes as far the eye can see!!!! It's amazing!!"

(asshole)

-AK

[vox]

"We have to be a team here."

Why?

vox

[munkey soup]

Bah

If you're against the war, then you should have every right to voice your opinions and concerns. I'm not saying go throw shit on returning soldiers and call them "babykillers" like some of the protesters did during vietnam. I'm not saying go out and violently confront the police either.

But to jump on the wagon even if you have valid concerns over whats goin on is unacceptable. Dissent is an absolute in a Democratic society.

To tell the truth, I'm not to sure why all of a sudden the Bush administration is doing all this sabre-rattling over Iraq. Maybe they see it as the right time to act (which I whole-heartedly disagree) or maybe they did find evidence of weapons of mass destruction (which I also belive is false). I do believe it is probably a mix of things, Bush saw his ratings dropping as the economy fell and is thinking a war might help things (his ratings and the economy), I also think they want a gov't in charge of Iraq that is friendly so they can have more control over the oil there.

I also think they (Bush, Cheney, and their administration) honestly believe ousting Saddam will be good for the Iraqi people. Which is absolutely true, but I do not believe the U.S. should initiate any sort of attack toward any country and not acknowledge that as an infringement on that countries sovereignty. I also believe that any U.S. backed war in that region will spark a massive turn against us (U.S.). Not necesarilly by the gov'ts, but by the people in these countries as these extremists point toward our agression and say "see, they want to destroy our culture and turn our country into their lapdog." I also question many/most of the Bush administrations true reasons for wanting a regime change in Iraq.

So, no, I am against war in Iraq, as I believe it will cause true change in the region to be even harder to obtain.

[STALINSOLDIERS]

i hope saddam has people here in the u$a with nukes ready to explode.....like places like new york, washington d.c you know very important places.....and i hope that the iraqi people blows your people heads off with rifles and stuff.........death to america death to capitalism.....

[Anonymous]

You sir, are an idiot.

[Guest]

The US has withdrawn from more international treaties since Bush came to power, than the rest of the world put together for the last 20 years. Why would they start bowing to international pressure now?
They sabbotaged the International Criminal Court and got a years abstention, they are not going to waste that year in which they are free to commit any war crimes they wish.

[Pinko]

Ooops, that guest was me.

[munkey soup]

Piss off SS

[Anonymous]

The U.S. is a sovereign nation that has the ability and right to act unilaterally in order to protect itself from malevolent forces. Iraq being one of them.

[munkey soup]

But Iraq has made no agressive movement toward the U.S. (besides Saddams rhetoric). If any other State were to do what the U.S. is doing (except the members of the security council) the U.S. and most of the U.N. would have a fit and call it infringement on a State's sovereignty.

[KickMcCann]

To J

I agree that it is wrong to pre-emptivly attack a soverign nation. But I have a question. Can you really consider Iraq, or any other dictatorship for that matter, a soverign nation?
A soverign nation, by definition, is a nation free of unwanted, outside control. That would presumably mean that the people of a nation control their nation. But this is not so in Iraq or any other dictatorship. These countries are controlled by small groups of elitists how hold themselves above the people of a nation, as if they are superior to them, ignore international law, and are answerable only to themselves. The people of the nation do not decide what actions the nation takes. And if the people question the actions of their oppressors, they are tortured, killed, or watch their families suffer the same fate. Therefore, these "soverign nations" are more like hostage situations than actual countries. So, is it wrong to end a hostage situation and give people control of their lives? In this couch-potato society, it has become taboo to take any action whatsoever. Though I think the US must gain approval from the UN for commencing this war of liberation, I don't think it should be looked at as if we are bullying some innocent leader. We are going after a bad person.

[munkey soup]

You make an interesting point, KM, if a State does not act within the norms of International relations, can we consider them a part of the International community and subject to its laws? and I realize Saddam is not a good person by any stretch of the imagination.

But I still do not agree with a war against Iraq, for reasons already stated.

[queen of diamonds]

That's fair enough, but how many people in Saudi Arabia actually have a say in their leaders? There are other states in which the people have little or no say in their leaders. It's only because the Americans consider Iraq a threat to them that they're considering a war. Which is also fair - if they do actually have any evidence that Iraq has weapons and poses a serious threat to them. If they do, they're doing a really good job of keep their existence in the dark....I don't expect them to get on national TV and detail everything that's been found, but seriously!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Iraq is developing WMD's

The UN can't even scratch its own fucking ass without a lengthy resolution process, and they have no immediate plans to do anything about Iraq.

Saddam has not made any immediate threats, but that doesn't mean anything. As soon as saddam has deployable WMD, the US or one of its allies could be a target.

The US will not stand by idly and watch another sept 11th happen again.

[vox]

"Saddam has not made any immediate threats, but that doesn't mean anything."

Hmm, either has Canada, and I know that they have a bigger and better military than Iraq. And they DO have WMD. So does Israel. They haven't made any threats, either.

Which one should the US attack next, CI? The only criteria you present for the necessity of an attack by the US is the possession of WMD, not any evidence that anyone is planning to use them against the US.

Though you mention September 11, you know that there is absolutely no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with that. None at all. Nothing.

I'm still waiting for the administration to make a case against Iraq. I've been waiting for a while, now, and I will continue to wait.

vox

[Capitalist Imperial]

We have a historically unstable and adversarial relationship with Iraq. That is they key difference between our relationship with them, and that of canada or israel. Also, most reasonable people, even those that oppose a US attack, can concede that iraq is an unstable nation in an already unstable region, and would benefit from regime change.

As for evidence, there is talk of it being disseminated on capitol hill this month:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,61996,00.html

[Felicia]

I'm certainly not an expert on this whole 'conflict' but from what I've heard, the US is demanding that Iraq's 'weapons of mass destruction' be handed over (I saw this on the news yesterday).
On a lighter note, if I were Saddam, I'd be like "eh, if you want me to 'and over my weapons a maaz deestruction's eh, dan you 'ave to gimmie urs, eh, and if ya wont compromise dan why da fuck are 'ou bodderin' me? Ya 'osers!" (minus the french canadian accent of course) :biggrin:


(Edited by felicia at 11:28 am on Sep. 4, 2002)

[suffianr]

CI, you talk of Iraq as if it is a cancerous limb in dire need of amputation. Sorry, but I find that sort of attitude to be quite sickening.

Mentioning weapons of mass destruction, are you talking about ICBM's? If so, What type of ICBM's? Nukes? The same type of nukes stowed away in bunkers on American soil? Ah, and those ones are the safe ones and the Iraqi ones are the dangerous ones, yes? :)

[vox]

"We have a historically unstable and adversarial relationship with Iraq."

We do? Did we during the Eighties when we gave aid to Iraq?

As for stability, Hussein has been in control since 1968. That doesn't sound unstable to me. However, we do know that an unprovoked attack by the USA may very well lead to increased destabilization in the region as a whole. There's been a lot written about this, and I've linked some of it from this page.

As for your news story, it tells me nothing. I'm still waiting for the evidence, which is something I asked you for quite some time ago and you said you'd look into it, as I recall.

Still waiting.

vox

[mentalbunny]

Didn't Hussein say he was gonna let weapon inspectors in again? So what's the big problem? Bush just wants to throw his weight around, stupid fuck. And Blair's doing nothing to stop him!! Well I guess that's what you would expect of him. I just bloody hope the UN doesn't let Bush attack.

[IzmSchism]

Two things concern me over the potential war in Iraq,

1. For all intents and purpose, this is exactly what Bin Laden and his associates were waging for eversince they began planning terrorist attacks on US occupied land. As much as they may not be liked by their own middle eastern neighbours, an attack on another Middle East country is exactly what Bin Laden wants, so other middle easterners gain a strong distate for the US as well. And have no doubt there are just as many bin Ladens on the West's side as there is in the East. All this will do will escalate the level of violence and hatred. Question, what did Israel do when terrorists killed members of the Israelie olympic team at the Munich Olympic games, Answer; The Mossad went to work on those RESPONSIBLE, they didn't go full force and rip apart Palestine, they took action on those who took action against them.

The second issue that troubles me about the potential attack,appears from what I have seen on news and read, that many of the G7 countries and others to boot are against a military strike on Iraq. Yet, the US appears to be a superpower who answers to no one. To me it seems that they don't need any type of unilateral support, that war is on their terms, and their terms only. To me this is a terrible disintegration in the global house of democracy.

[queen of diamonds]

Okay, so unless I'm missing something, that article is about the government thinking about releasing evidence....

As for not watching 9/11 happen again, there's only one way you're going to ensure that doesn't happen, and that's by taking away the desire to do something like that. If you destroy Afghanistan, and the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein and Iraq now maybe tomorrow it'll be the Palestinians, or if you're not careful, maybe it'll even be the Canadians. There are far too many fanatics in the world for you to kill them all, so I think bombing Iraq to prevent another 9/11 will have the effect only of delaying it, and building up resentment towards the US, thus making it more likely.

[marxistdisciple]

I would be for small scale military operations in Iraq to purely remove WMDs if that was all the US was going to do, and they had evidence they existed (And they bothered to show the public.) Up until then it's just rhettoric.

Not only that, but a war will destablise all the Middle East relationships built up over the last 10 years. Iraq are now trading with lebanon, cyria, kuwait, and trying to strike a deal with russia. Acording to the guardian, the only few states that have even possibly pledged support are Israel (complete support, predictably) the UK, (although most of the population are against it and Blair is gonna have a HARD time convincing us and parliment), Italy (possibly) and I think one other Arab state. Even Canada haven't pledged support. And I think Saudia Arabia won't even allow attacks launched from their land.

If there is a war, we all know what will happen (with the great tactics the US always use). They'll take out anti-aircraft guns and then bomb the shit out of everything. That's what they always do. Of course all of this with a minimum of 'collateral damage' (if it wasn't bad publicity, they might not actually care about that either.)

It's always the 'hollier than thou' attitute that the US tries to take. If there was such thing as a worldly moral high ground, it wouldn't be the country with the biggest military, and the most money that possesed it.

Regime change is not a democratic act. But then, we all know the US knows little about democracy. It's unnecessary when you have the biggest guns and the most bombs.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from vox on 3:52 pm on Sep. 4, 2002


"We have a historically unstable and adversarial relationship with Iraq."

We do? Did we during the Eighties when we gave aid to Iraq?

As for stability, Hussein has been in control since 1968. That doesn't sound unstable to me. However, we do know that an unprovoked attack by the USA may very well lead to increased destabilization in the region as a whole. There's been a lot written about this, and I've linked some of it from this page.

"As for your news story, it tells me nothing. I'm still waiting for the evidence, which is something I asked you for quite some time ago and you said you'd look into it, as I recall.

Still waiting."



vox


]"We have a historically unstable and adversarial relationship with Iraq."

We do? Did we during the Eighties when we gave aid to Iraq?



That is a moot point. A lot can happen in the world over 20 years

"As for stability, Hussein has been in control since 1968. That doesn't sound unstable to me."

Maybe the Kurds or the Kuwaitis among others would disagree with you. And if you mean "control" by force and fearm you have me there.

"However, we do know that an unprovoked attack by the USA may very well lead to increased destabilization in the region as a whole. There's been a lot written about this, and I've linked some of it from this page."

The net benefit of preventing a WMD attack in the next 5 years seems to be a good yield in exchange for a temporary shake-up.

"As for your news story, it tells me nothing. I'm still waiting for the evidence, which is something I asked you for quite some time ago and you said you'd look into it, as I recall.

Still waiting."

apparently most people on this site have little opinion of saddam hussein developing WMD's, but have a big problem with the US going into iraq, for everyon'es benefit, and eradicationg the regime that wishes to develop such weapons, perhaps to use against more "diddidents" (kurds, anyone?)

I'll get it when its available

The only proof anyone needs is that iraq continues to refuse to allow weapons inspectors into iraq to audit their weapons' programs

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from suffianr on 3:23 pm on Sep. 4, 2002
CI, you talk of Iraq as if it is a cancerous limb in dire need of amputation. Sorry, but I find that sort of attitude to be quite sickening.

Mentioning weapons of mass destruction, are you talking about ICBM's? If so, What type of ICBM's? Nukes? The same type of nukes stowed away in bunkers on American soil? Ah, and those ones are the safe ones and the Iraqi ones are the dangerous ones, yes? :)



US nuclear proliferation was a result of a need to end WWII and fight the cold war.

The US has proven its responsiblity as a nuclear power, unleashing the weapons only 2 times, almost 50 years ago, to end a world conflict.

Comparing US ICBM'S to iraqi WMD's is a simple comparison at best.

No one is afraid the US will fire a nuke off out of spite or delusions of grandeur.

No reasonable person can be sure saddam won't do the same. He has proven with the kurds and the kuwaitis that he will go to extreme measures to extend his influence

[Pinko]

There is no evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
The US does though, maybe we should bomb them back into the stone-age and install a puppet government.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Hey, if you feel froggy, jump cowboy.

Maybe the UK would like to lead the charge, we'd love to kick the living shit out of you for the 3rd time in history.


Pinko would rather just get gassed by some sarin, or maybe a good-old botulism bomb would convince him. His last word will be "the damn yanks were right again!"

But he's right, there is no proof, besides the fact that saddam has gone back on his word and refused weapons inspectors access to his military installations and factories.

I wonder why.

[Pinko]

"But he's right, there is no proof, besides the fact that saddam has gone back on his word and refused weapons inspectors access to his military installations and factories.

I wonder why."

Perhaps because the US was using the weapons inspections as an excuse to spy on Iraq, finding out the disposition of Iraqs armed forces and finding out Sadam's movements. This is why Iraq threw them out.

It appeared in your countries press! It was the head of the weapons inspection team that accused the US of deliberately causing trouble on the mission and made it impossible to continue. He also said the Iraq didn't have the capability to make efficiently dispersed biological agents and that their chemical weapons were more than likely past their use-by date.

Being a UN weapons inspector, I doubt he is some leftwing commie that is intent on making the US look bad for the sake of it. I am quite ready to believe his views, as they are backed up by the majority of the inspection team and other weapons experts that were not involved in the inspection.
If you had the motivation to actually find out the truth in these matters, rather than believing any old shit that CNN and the government throw at you, you might well change your mind. But how could a politician lie to you, it is inconceivable. :angry:

[I Bow 4 Che]

http://www.salon.com/politics/comics/2002/...ions/index.html (http://www.salon.com/politics/comics/2002/08/08/corrections/index.html)

(Edited by I Bow 4 Che at 4:31 am on Sep. 5, 2002)

[bluerev002]

i have a couple of quesions and i think i want to have them answered before i post here.

firs off what is the WRD (i know i know i am stupid)?

second: i have resived many definitions on "imperialist" one of them includes, "a stupid person." I am confused and as stupid as i may soud i would like to know as much as possible on a topic before i go and argue about it

[Action]

Aaah! It said on the news last night that Iraq have the nuke. That asswipe tony blair is sucking up to the US, which means that London might get bombed, which means that I'm gonna get caught in the blast, cuz I only live 18 miles away.

[Felicia]

IB4C, that was hilarious!!

[queen of diamonds]

That's great!!!

Since when did America have the right to play world policeman?

Rephrase.....why does America have that right?

[Pinko]

They don't have the right. They Just Do It.

[munkey soup]

Hee hee, I like that one Pinko. :)

[Tkinter1]

"They don't have the right. They Just Do It."

and there is nothing you can do about it.

Nukes in an unstable region have no place. I don't care what kind of freedom they think they deserve.

Heres a corny story that makes sense to me but might not to you...
Lets say you look outside the window and you see this guy beating people up. Like the outstanding citizen you are, you go out and try and stop the man. You badly bruise him and you save a lot of innocents. Then one day you look outside your window again and you see the same guy standing outside. he looks disgruntled and revengeful. He pulls out a gun shoots you and maybe takes some other people with him.

If only you had made sure that the guy didn't get a weapon to use against you and others. You never would of died. And lives would have been saved

The US wants Iraqs gun before it shoots it.

[Capitalist Imperial]

[quote]Quote: from queen of diamonds on 2:38 am on Sep. 8, 2002
That's great!!!

"Since when did America have the right to play world policeman?"

Since we've been asked to a number of times.

"Rephrase.....why does America have that right?

because otherwise worse things would hapen nowadays than already are.

[Red Revolution]

Firstly IB4C - very good cartoon

secondly CI - You yourself personify everythings wrong with your country, you for some reason hate the UK even though they are the only ones sticking by you over most things.
The US have not suffered any hardship in the last century unlike most of the rest of the world.
TB is helping you (the idiot) so you can go marching your soldiers in yet another country and kill a few civilians and hey probobly a few more ALLIED troops as well, and know one will argue because its america, the good old US of bloody A who are preserving world fucking peace. If you don't like someone you take them out or bully others to do the dirty work for you theres a definition for that - Bullying. You recon that democracy is for every country and so use your influence to overthrow governments with which a country is quite happy with. You take, but you do not give back. If I have kids and they ask why the US are in the news again killing more people I will honestly tell them oh thats just the Us its their job to fuck everything up. People are getting wary CI and I for one would love to see another Vietnam in Iraq. Many comrades on che lives may agree or may disagree but I know a lot of people who disagree will be from the US unless of corse they are true socialists. My advice to the US leave other countries alone and with all your money that you uslessly put into your military. Home your homeless and employ your unemployed. The worker is sronger than you think.
Please comrades enforce your feelings


(Edited by Red Revolution at 9:33 pm on Sep. 8, 2002)

[bluerev002]

The US wants Iraqs gun before it shoots it.


[/quote]


thats kind of like ches idea of killing your enemy before he kills you

[Bear]

I'm With Monkey Soup, people today fail to see how powerful it is to see a group of people marching down a street in protest against something. Here in New Zealand, tecahers have gone on strike over pay and work hours, maybe it was payed attention to because there was an election but still people began to see their point and get behind their cause. You must strike against war, esp. in Iraq or for that matter Afganistan. I sure that most soldierf wives dont wont their husband coming back with 'gulf war syndrom' would you?

Protest, if nothing else protest and if you really want to let people know, make stencils and spraypaint sidewalks, i do. One idea:
War ON Terrorism?
War IS Terroism!

[Anonymous]

I have enough VHS tapes so I think I might record the upcoming conflict with Iraq.

All thanks to my econ teacher for showing me those tapes of Persian Gulf 1, and giving me the idea! :biggrin:


Anyway, I agree with Tkinter1 on this. We need to take care of saddam now before he has the oppurtunity, in the future, to enact revenge upon the U.S.


(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 9:26 am on Sep. 10, 2002)

[IzmSchism]

By Noam Chomsky

Various questions are circulating among people worried about war. On Sept 1, 2002, Michael Albert put a dozen of these to Noam Chomsky, via email. Here are the first three questions and his responses...the whole interview will appear in the October issue of Z Magazine.

1. Has Saddam Hussein been as evil as mainstream media says? Domestically? Internationally?

He is as evil as they come, ranking with Suharto and other monsters of the modern era. No one would want to be within his reach. But fortunately, his reach does not extend very far.

Internationally, Saddam invaded Iran (with Western support), and when that war was going badly turned to chemical weapons (also with Western support). He invaded Kuwait and was quickly driven out.

A major concern in Washington right after the invasion was that Saddam would quickly withdraw, putting "his puppet in [and] everyone in the Arab world will be happy" (Colin Powell, then Chief of Staff). President Bush was concerned that Saudi Arabia might "bug out at the last minute and accept a puppet regime in Kuwait" unless the US prevented Iraqi withdrawal.

The concern, in brief, was that Saddam would pretty much duplicate what the US had just done in Panama (except that Latin Americans were anything but happy). From the first moment the US sought to avert this "nightmare scenario." A story that should be looked at with some care.

Saddam's worst crimes, by far, have been domestic, including the use of chemical weapons against Kurds and a huge slaughter of Kurds in the late 80s, barbaric torture, and every other ugly crime you can imagine. These are at the top of the list of terrible crimes for which he is now condemned, rightly. It's useful to ask how frequently the impassioned denunciations and eloquent expressions of outrage are accompanied by three little words: "with our help."

The crimes were well known at once, but of no particular concern to the West. Saddam received some mild reprimands; harsh congressional condemnation was considered too extreme by prominent commentators. The Reaganites and Bush #1 continued to welcome the monster as an ally and valued trading partner right through his worst atrocities and well beyond.

Bush authorized loan guarantees and sale of advanced technology with clear applications for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) right up to the day of the Kuwait invasion, sometimes overriding congressional efforts to prevent what he was doing. Britain was still authorizing export of military equipment and radioactive materials a few days after the invasion.

When ABC correspondent and now ZNet Commentator Charles Glass discovered biological weapons facilities (using commercial satellites and defector testimony), his revelations were immediately denied by the Pentagon and the story disappeared. It was resurrected when Saddam committed his first real crime, disobeying US orders (or perhaps misinterpreting them) by invading Kuwait, and switched instantly from friend to reincarnation of Attila the Hun.

The same facilities were then used to demonstrate his innately evil nature. When Bush #1 announced new gifts to his friend in December 1989 (also gifts to US agribusiness and industry), it was considered too insignificant even to report, though one could read about it in Z magazine at the time, maybe nowhere else.

A few months later, shortly before he invaded Kuwait, a high-level Senate delegation, headed by (later) Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole, visited Saddam, conveying the President's greetings and assuring the brutal mass murderer that he should disregard the criticism he hears from maverick reporters here.

Saddam had even been able to get away with attacking a US naval vessel, the USS Stark, killing several dozen crewmen. That is a mark of real esteem. The only other country to have been granted that privilege was Israel, in 1967. In deference to Saddam, the State Department banned all contacts with the Iraqi democratic opposition, maintaining this policy even after the Gulf war, while Washington effectively authorized Saddam to crush a Shi'ite rebellion that might well have overthrown him -- in the interest of preserving "stability," the press explained, nodding sagely.

That he's a major criminal is not in doubt. That's not changed by the fact that the US and Britain regarded his major atrocities as insignificant in the light of higher "reasons of state," before the Gulf war and even after -- facts best forgotten.

2. Looking into the future, is Saddam Hussein as dangerous as mainstream media says?

The world would be better off if he weren't there, no doubt about that. Surely Iraqis would. But he can't be anywhere near as dangerous as he was when the US and Britain were supporting him, even providing him with dual-use technology that he could use for nuclear and chemical weapons development, as he presumably did.

10 years ago the Senate Banking Committee hearings revealed that the Bush administration was granting licences for dual use technology and "materials which were later utilized by the Iraq regime for nuclear missile and chemical purposes." Later hearings added more, and there are press reports and a mainstream scholarly literature on the topic (as well as dissident literature).

The 1991 war was extremely destructive, and since then Iraq has been devastated by a decade of sanctions, which probably strengthened Saddam himself (by weakening possible resistance in a shattered society), but surely reduced very significantly his capacity for war-making or support for terror.

Furthermore, since 1991 his regime has been constrained by "no fly zones," regular overflights and bombing, and very tight surveillance. Chances are that the events of Sept. 11 weakened him still further. If there are any links between Saddam and al-Qaeda, they would be far more difficult to maintain now because of the sharply intensified surveillance and controls.

That aside, links are not very likely. Despite enormous efforts to tie Saddam to the 9-11 attacks, nothing has been found, which is not too surprising. Saddam and bin Laden were bitter enemies, and there's no particular reason to suppose that there have been any changes in that regard.

The rational conclusion is that Saddam is probably less of a danger now than before 9-11, and far less of a threat than when he was enjoying substantial support from the US-UK (and many others). That raises a few questions. If Saddam is such a threat to the survival of civilization today that the global enforcer has to resort to war, why wasn't that true a year ago? And much more dramatically, in early 1990?

3. How should the problem of the existence and use of weapons of mass destruction in the world today be dealt with?

They should be eliminated. The non-proliferation treaty commits countries with nuclear weapons to take steps towards eliminating them. The biological and chemical weapons treaties have the same goals. The main Security Council resolution concerning Iraq (687, 1991) calls for eliminating weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems from the Middle East, and working towards a global ban on chemical weapons. Good advice.

Iraq is nowhere near the lead in this regard. We might recall the warning of General Lee Butler, head of Clinton's Strategic Command in the early 90s, that "it is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East, one nation has armed itself, ostensibly, with stockpiles of nuclear weapons, perhaps numbering in the hundreds, and that inspires other nations to do so."

He's talking about Israel of course. The Israeli military authorities claim to have air and armored forces that are larger and more advanced than those of any European NATO power (Yitzhak ben Israel, Ha'aretz, 4-16-02, Hebrew). They also announce that 12% of their bombers and fighter aircraft are permanently stationed in Eastern Turkey, along with comparable naval and submarine forces in Turkish bases, and armored forces as well, in case it becomes necessary to resort to extreme violence once again to subdue Turkey's Kurdish population, as in the Clinton years.

Israeli aircraft based in Turkey are reported to be flying reconnaisance flights along Iran's borders, part of a general US-Israel-Turkey policy of threatening Iran with attack and perhaps forceful partitioning. Israeli analysts also report that joint US-Israel-Turkey air exercises are intended as a threat and warning to Iran. And of course to Iraq (Robert Olson, Middle East Policy, June 2002). Israel is doubtless using the huge US air bases in Eastern Turkey, where the US bombers are presumably nuclear-armed. By now Israel is virtually an offshore US military base.

And the rest of the area is armed to the teeth as well. If Iraq were governed by Gandhi, it would be developing weapons systems if it could, probably well beyond what it can today. That would very likely continue, perhaps even accelerate, if the US takes control of Iraq. India and Pakistan are US allies, but are marching forward with the development of WMD and repeatedly have come agonizingly close to using nuclear weapons. The same is true of other US allies and clients.

That is likely to continue unless there is a general reduction of armaments in the area.

Would Saddam agree to that? Actually, we don't know. In early January 1991, Iraq apparently offered to withdraw from Kuwait in the context of regional negotiations on reduction of armaments, an offer that State Department officials described as serious and negotiable. But we know no more about it, because the US rejected it without response and the press reported virtually nothing.

It is, however, of some interest that at that time -- right before the bombing -- polls revealed that by 2-1 the US public supported the proposal that Saddam had apparently made, preferring it to bombing. Had people been allowed to know any of this, the majority would surely have been far greater. Suppressing the facts was an important service to the cause of state violence.

Could such negotiations have gotten anywhere? Only fanatical ideologues can be confident. Could such ideas be revived? Same answer. One way to find out is to try.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Red Revolution on 9:31 pm on Sep. 8, 2002
Firstly IB4C - very good cartoon

secondly CI - You yourself personify everythings wrong with your country, you for some reason hate the UK even though they are the only ones sticking by you over most things.
The US have not suffered any hardship in the last century unlike most of the rest of the world.
TB is helping you (the idiot) so you can go marching your soldiers in yet another country and kill a few civilians and hey probobly a few more ALLIED troops as well, and know one will argue because its america, the good old US of bloody A who are preserving world fucking peace. If you don't like someone you take them out or bully others to do the dirty work for you theres a definition for that - Bullying. You recon that democracy is for every country and so use your influence to overthrow governments with which a country is quite happy with. You take, but you do not give back. If I have kids and they ask why the US are in the news again killing more people I will honestly tell them oh thats just the Us its their job to fuck everything up. People are getting wary CI and I for one would love to see another Vietnam in Iraq. Many comrades on che lives may agree or may disagree but I know a lot of people who disagree will be from the US unless of corse they are true socialists. My advice to the US leave other countries alone and with all your money that you uslessly put into your military. Home your homeless and employ your unemployed. The worker is sronger than you think.
Please comrades enforce your feelings


(Edited by Red Revolution at 9:33 pm on Sep. 8, 2002)



"Firstly IB4C - very good cartoon"

I disagree, it was stupid

"secondly CI - You yourself personify everythings wrong with your country, you for some reason hate the UK even though they are the only ones sticking by you over most things. "

I don't hate the UK, I just like to joke with the pasty's cause its fun. I appreciate our alliance, and I would hope my humor is not misconstrued with hate or even any real negativity toward the UK.

"The US have not suffered any hardship in the last century unlike most of the rest of the world."

Are you aware of the great depression? WWII? 9/11?

"TB is helping you (the idiot) so you can go marching your soldiers in yet another country and kill a few civilians and hey probobly a few more ALLIED troops as well, and know one will argue because its america, the good old US of bloody A who are preserving world fucking peace."

You are being a bit dramatic. It is funny that when britain needed our help in WWI and WWII, we were there, sacrificing lives, US citizens at home were rationing food and energy to help the effort in europe, and even in WWII when we fought in the pacific by ourselves, we still helped in europe, and lead the allies to victory! Now that we are asking for britains help, you people have a problem with it. Incredible!

"If you don't like someone you take them out or bully others to do the dirty work for you theres a definition for that - Bullying."

This is an oversimpified blanket statement. You and I both know that it is not this simple.

"You recon that democracy is for every country and so use your influence to overthrow governments with which a country is quite happy with."

Not true. Our interdictions are done so with just cause and popular support.

"You take, but you do not give back."

The USA gives more $$$ in financial aid, debt releif, disaster relief, and humanitarian aid than any other nation on earth, bar none, so this statement couldn't be farther from untrue. Not to mention how our economy benefits the entire world. Next time there is a major disaster like an earthquake or flood in the world, observe what nation sends red cross and relief resources. It will be America, and no one else.

"If I have kids and they ask why the US are in the news again killing more people I will honestly tell them oh thats just the Us its their job to fuck everything up. People are getting wary CI and I for one would love to see another Vietnam in Iraq."

Vietnam was a success as far as our military forces go, it was just poorly managed by our government. And apparently you were not around in '91 when we eradicated Iraqi forces that were 4x the size of ours, and we did so in 100 days,making it one of the most successful and 1-sided wars in world history. So, keep hoping for "another vietnam". We'll be sorry to disappoint you.

"Many comrades on che lives may agree or may disagree but I know a lot of people who disagree will be from the US unless of corse they are true socialists."

How perceptive of you.

"My advice to the US leave other countries alone and with all your money that you uslessly put into your military. Home your homeless and employ your unemployed. The worker is sronger than you think."

We will stop interdicting when other nations stop beging for our help.
American workers are the best in the world, and are for the most part happy with their lives.

"Please comrades enforce your feelings"

yes, please

[bluerev002]

ive heard that so many times. you make a good point. and i have been doing some reading to try and counter that ( cuz its the same thing every time) but i cant. atleast not now anyways.

you make so many good points and well ...... i have to respecta that.

thank you , you have made me want to read and finally get a defence good enough to finally counter that statement.

[pjhaynes]

Would america accept an iraqi wanting to inspect US weapons of mass destruction with the help of the UN or in fact if any country wanted to inspect US weapons, what do you really think the US reaction would be?

I think that whilst Sadam Husein may be commiting war crimes and violating treaties (I do not support sadam or the US) how many war crimes is america responsible for ie: cambodia, vietnam, and helping israel with weapons that are used to kill palestinians in their own homeland and how many treaties has the US violated, ie the anti ballistic missle treaty (although i do acknowledge that russia accepted this).

Dont you think that the United States is being a bit hypocrytical???

P J HAYNES

[Stormin Norman]

"To me it seems that they don't need any type of unilateral support, that war is on their terms, and their terms only. To me this is a terrible disintegration in the global house of democracy."-Ism Schism

Exactly what global house of democracy are you talking about? Most of the nations represented in the United Nations have undemocratic governments. Does Tiananmen Square ring a bell? China, the Middle Eastern countries, and African nation-states are far from democratic. Furthermore there are many transitional democracies whose success remains to be seen, like that of the former Soviet Union. Surely, you are not suggesting that the United States should compromise its own sovereignty to the will of these corrupt despots.

I applaud the speech given by President Bush before the United Nations that admonished their ability to enforce regulations with any real credibility. I hope this is a step towards the U.S. withdrawing from the U.N.. Hopefully the U.N.'s fate is similar to that of the League of Nations. They are a bunch of incompetent hypocrites drunk on the perception of their own false sense of power. They have proven themselves to be utterly useless time and time again. Why should we continue to sink money into a poor investment?



As far as the war goes, I back the Administration's decision to pursue aggressive actions against the current Iraqi regime. We have many enemies in that region of the world that must be dealt with one by one, if possible. Iraq is the most logical place to start, since they pose a clear and present danger to the institutions and values of my nation. He has the motive and the methods to disperse deadly weapons to Al Quida or other terrorist groups.

When they attacked our nation they perceived our willingness to debate and have political disagreements as a sign of weakness. I happen to believe that the terrorists miscalculated. That is why we must minimize our internal conflicts, back our president on the war effort, and focus our attention to ridding the world of those who pose such a dire threat. Historically, war times have produced an unimaginable consensus by the American people (with certain exceptions of subversive elements aside). If we fail to attack the current challenge with the vigor that was displayed during WWII then we may loose the things we value most, and could eventually be forced to speak an Arabic language and practice Islam. Our success depends upon a sane immigration policy, the militarization of the borders, the prosecution of the war overseas, and a component of introducing democratic ideals to people that have been warped by a religion intent on conquering the will of man. Afghanistan was a start, but there is much work to be done. Ousting from office, those who preach politically correctness and tell us that we must embrace our enemies, remains the critical role of the American voting public. The time for such trivial matters is over.

Europe is not immune to the worms that have cast their shadow over America. They face their own immigration problems. Due to their low birth rate and aging population the EU has largely allowed Muslim immigrant, viewing them as a necessity for economic growth. However, these people have been a complete drain on the welfare states that offer them asylum. If they feel secure, they should rethink that position. They could also become a target. This is the early stage of a worldwide conflict that could continue for years. The enemies of democracy are at it again, only this time they are Islamic instead of communist. Our enemies want to continue the crusades. Like many Christian fundamentalists, they believe worldwide conflict is necessary to carry out prophecy. This kind of zealotry has no basis in reality and you can not reason with these people. This is a kill or be killed situation. Given the choice in the matter, I choose the former rather than the latter. It is simple. We our acting out of self-defense. Since when did my nation relinquish its right to self-government, and start asking a corrupted body politic, such as the U.N, permission to do so?

[Stormin Norman]

All right, I am getting impatient. When are we going to knock Sodom off? Time is ticking. He knows we are going to kill him and is probably preparing contingency plans right now. Why are we giving him time to weigh his options? The longer we take, the greater the chances that we might see repercussions here at home. Come on guys, this plan should have been launched on the 11th. Imagine the morale boost our country would have enjoyed. That would have definitely drummed up support for this war, and been an excellent political move on the part of the administration. However, it is best we allow the experts to do their jobs. Many lives could be on the line. Hopefully the U.S. casualty rate is lower than the last Persian Gulf War. I am sure the competency of our generals will prevail once again.

[Pinko]

The only reason the UN is a toothless and decripit organisation is that some countries will not give up the out-dated and divisionary (not to mention anti-democratic) veto. They just like to wield power over the smaller nations that little bit too much. I would suggest that the UN would be wholy more effective if the veto was stripped.

[Cassius Clay]

Seriously now does anybody really believe that the U$ is even going to take more than a 100 casualties in this war? Iraq's military is a joke and can't threaten anybody (another reason not to invade). You would take far more casualties attacking Germany in 1939 even with all the modern tech.

As I have said before Iraq is actually one of the more 'liberal' regimes of the Arab/Muslim world, but for some reason (oil) Iraq's dictator has been sigalled out. You try to justify this war because of terriorism, when there is no evidence of any relation between Iraq and Bin Landen. Because of UN inspectors, well yes that was part of the originall cease fire agrement but how would you Americans feel if the UN demanded that Soviet inspectors 'Inspect' America's missilles in 1962?

[Red Revolution]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 5:49 pm on Sep. 13, 2002

Quote: from Red Revolution on 9:31 pm on Sep. 8, 2002
Firstly IB4C - very good cartoon

secondly CI - You yourself personify everythings wrong with your country, you for some reason hate the UK even though they are the only ones sticking by you over most things.
The US have not suffered any hardship in the last century unlike most of the rest of the world.
TB is helping you (the idiot) so you can go marching your soldiers in yet another country and kill a few civilians and hey probobly a few more ALLIED troops as well, and know one will argue because its america, the good old US of bloody A who are preserving world fucking peace. If you don't like someone you take them out or bully others to do the dirty work for you theres a definition for that - Bullying. You recon that democracy is for every country and so use your influence to overthrow governments with which a country is quite happy with. You take, but you do not give back. If I have kids and they ask why the US are in the news again killing more people I will honestly tell them oh thats just the Us its their job to fuck everything up. People are getting wary CI and I for one would love to see another Vietnam in Iraq. Many comrades on che lives may agree or may disagree but I know a lot of people who disagree will be from the US unless of corse they are true socialists. My advice to the US leave other countries alone and with all your money that you uslessly put into your military. Home your homeless and employ your unemployed. The worker is sronger than you think.
Please comrades enforce your feelings


(Edited by Red Revolution at 9:33 pm on Sep. 8, 2002)



"Firstly IB4C - very good cartoon"

I disagree, it was stupid

"secondly CI - You yourself personify everythings wrong with your country, you for some reason hate the UK even though they are the only ones sticking by you over most things. "

I don't hate the UK, I just like to joke with the pasty's cause its fun. I appreciate our alliance, and I would hope my humor is not misconstrued with hate or even any real negativity toward the UK.

"The US have not suffered any hardship in the last century unlike most of the rest of the world."

Are you aware of the great depression? WWII? 9/11?

"TB is helping you (the idiot) so you can go marching your soldiers in yet another country and kill a few civilians and hey probobly a few more ALLIED troops as well, and know one will argue because its america, the good old US of bloody A who are preserving world fucking peace."

You are being a bit dramatic. It is funny that when britain needed our help in WWI and WWII, we were there, sacrificing lives, US citizens at home were rationing food and energy to help the effort in europe, and even in WWII when we fought in the pacific by ourselves, we still helped in europe, and lead the allies to victory! Now that we are asking for britains help, you people have a problem with it. Incredible!

"If you don't like someone you take them out or bully others to do the dirty work for you theres a definition for that - Bullying."

This is an oversimpified blanket statement. You and I both know that it is not this simple.

"You recon that democracy is for every country and so use your influence to overthrow governments with which a country is quite happy with."

Not true. Our interdictions are done so with just cause and popular support.

"You take, but you do not give back."

The USA gives more $$$ in financial aid, debt releif, disaster relief, and humanitarian aid than any other nation on earth, bar none, so this statement couldn't be farther from untrue. Not to mention how our economy benefits the entire world. Next time there is a major disaster like an earthquake or flood in the world, observe what nation sends red cross and relief resources. It will be America, and no one else.

"If I have kids and they ask why the US are in the news again killing more people I will honestly tell them oh thats just the Us its their job to fuck everything up. People are getting wary CI and I for one would love to see another Vietnam in Iraq."

Vietnam was a success as far as our military forces go, it was just poorly managed by our government. And apparently you were not around in '91 when we eradicated Iraqi forces that were 4x the size of ours, and we did so in 100 days,making it one of the most successful and 1-sided wars in world history. So, keep hoping for "another vietnam". We'll be sorry to disappoint you.

"Many comrades on che lives may agree or may disagree but I know a lot of people who disagree will be from the US unless of corse they are true socialists."

How perceptive of you.

"My advice to the US leave other countries alone and with all your money that you uslessly put into your military. Home your homeless and employ your unemployed. The worker is sronger than you think."

We will stop interdicting when other nations stop beging for our help.
American workers are the best in the world, and are for the most part happy with their lives.

"Please comrades enforce your feelings"

yes, please



Thanks Ci for answering

A few points though

Britain was helping navaly and on the ground in the pacific in WW2 as well (Burma)

The Wall St Crash and resulting Deppresion had more affect on Germany than the US and had a large affect on most other western countries (the US had Hoover as president so it didn't clear up until Roosevelt came along).
What kind of trauma did the US civvys have during WW2?
They wern't bombed with rockets and waves of planes were they.

fact - more people died in Britain (mostly London) on the worst day of the blitz of WW2 than all Americans killed on 9-11 (sorry for bringing it up if anyones offended)

THE US LOST VIETNAM!!!!!!

Iraqi troops were so badly trained, scared and bombed into submission that most of them surrendered before firing a shot

name me a country where the US hasn't intervened if a communist revolution of takeover has happened.

Thank You

[Lefty]

ironically, stalinsoldiers and bush seem to be of the same intelligence level, and they both have similarly idiotic views. Hmmmmm...maybe bush=stalinsoldiers in another, alternate universe?