| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/12 |
| 2004/12/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35446 Activity:low |
12/26 Blast From The Past:
http://www.minimumeffort.com/nutshell.html
\_ Reason why we invaded Iraq: Because Bush doesn't like Saddam
Hussein. Duh.
\_ Here is a better one:
http://www.aaiusa.org/news/aainews031803.htm |
| 7/12 |
|
| www.minimumeffort.com/nutshell.html A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK By Anonymous PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq? WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security co uncil resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security c ouncil resolutions. PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun c ould well be a mushroom cloud over NY. But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons. WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue. PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons. WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists net works that Iraq could sell the weapons to. PN: But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materi als? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we? Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hung ry lunatic murderer. PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic m urderer? WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuw ait? As of today, Iraq could sell i ts biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama BinLaden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two. WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on t he tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily b e a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act. PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a sec ular infidel? WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in I raq. PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq c ontrolled by the Kurdish opposition? PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate studen t paper? WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors.. PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Han s Blix? WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be reveal ed because it would compromise our security. PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruc tion in Iraq? WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidenc e You're missing the point. WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 t hreatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society. PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council? WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq. WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters. PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billi ons of dollars. PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions. PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is impo rtant? PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not pa triotic? WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass d estruction that threaten us and our allies. PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons. WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are stil l unaccounted for. PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years. PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, w e must invade? PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biolog ical, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the we st coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire. PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow th e inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving , and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millio ns. PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sen timents against us, and decrease our security? WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we l ive. PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color- coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen? PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations? PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council? PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security C ouncil? WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto. PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at al l? WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council. Or maybe France, wit h all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott th eir wine and cheese, no doubt about that. |
| www.aaiusa.org/news/aainews031803.htm Zogby: Iraq War a Mistake on Many Levels By Martin Sieff UPI Senior News Analyst March 18, 2003 WASHINGTON -- The United States is basing its Iraq policy on a set of mis taken assumptions, says James Zogby, head of the Arab American Institute in Washington. UPI Chief News Analyst Martin Sieff interviewed Zogby, a prominent and re spected leader of the Arab-American community, about his criticisms of t he administration's war policy toward Iraq, the possible negative conseq uences of war and the intellectual assumptions on which the policy is ba sed. Zogby: I have argued from the outset that President Bush has not made a c ase for this war. He and Secretary of State Colin Powell have made the c ase that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is evil but not why this would m ake a case for a unilateral and pre-emptive American war. The president has not talked about the costs of this war and he has offer ed different rationales for it to different audiences. To the American p eople, this war has been presented as part of our compassionate and divi nely ordained mission to free people. To the United Nations, it has been sold as a war to disarm Saddam. Also, the president has not told the American people what the human and e conomic costs of the war may be, or the long-term burdens and consequenc es that may flow from it. UPI: You have made clear that you do not share the optimistic assessments of the civilian war planners in the Pentagon and their supporters in th e media that this will be a quick, effective war with many positive stra tegic benefits for the United States coming out of it. Zogby: The neoconservative infantile fantasy that the war will last only mere days, that evil will be defeated and that democracy will reign supr eme and American influence spread happily throughout the Middle East, is a dangerous notion. It come s from people who do not know the region and most of whom have never ser ved in the region. But those who have served in the Middle East -- senio r diplomats and military officials especially -- paint a very different picture. They warn that this war could very easily -- indeed very probab ly -- lead to internalized anger and resentment against the United State s, regional instability, increased international terrorism, especially a gainst Americans and a greater threat to our traditional allies. Far fro m bringing democracy to the Middle East, the consequences of a US war with Iraq are likely to destroy and delay the real islands of democracy and prospects for it that already exist there. Governments traditionally friendly to the United States will likely have to resort far more to re pression of popular opinion. Therefore this war looks likely to generate more repression and less demo cracy in the region rather than the other way around. Zogby: It appears at times that the president and his team have an obsess ion about Iraq, and a desire to use this moment and opportunity to achie ve neoconservative-driven military and political strategies. UPI: What do you think the probable consequences even of a rapid US vic tory will be? Zogby: I believe the initial military battle will probably be very quick but the consequences of even a quick victory will be with us for a long time. We have the superior might but we do not understand Iraq and we do not understand the likely long-term consequences of our involvement the re. My best sense is that the al-Qaida terrorist organization is neither a disciplined nor highly organized military force. It is a network of varying degrees of cohesio n and competence among its composite groups and supporters. This war will only fuel their anger and increase their ability to recruit new groups into their network. It will also increase the likelihood that groups not already in their netw ork will splinter off from previous associations and affiliate with them . Therefore we will see a rise in acts of terrorism that will be nothing more than a continuation of this war. The danger is that the coalition that we need to work with us to deal wit h al-Qaida will be weakened. Some of the nations that have worked with u s in this coalition may withdraw from it or be weakened in their commitm ent to it. It is likely that our allies in the region, feeling the pressure from the ir population, will become more repressive and not less. It is much less likely that as a consequence of this war, civil society will flourish a nd democracy will bloom! Therefore the dangers of what has been termed "Blowback" -- the destabili zation of our allies in the region even if the war rapidly proves succes sful -- is a very real concern. UPI: What then do you anticipate will be the diplomatic, strategic and se curity fall-out from this war at home and abroad? This is going to be a war that will create new problems, In the short term -- the next 6 to 12 months -- there will also probably b e a sharp spike in the international oil price as a consequence of this war -- enough to cause serious domestic hardship within the United State s and undermine hopes of an economic recovery. UPI: Do you believe that the onset of war will increase anti-Arab prejudi ce within the United States? Zogby: We are already seeing a spike in anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudi ce. This happened before on a number of occasions: during the Iran hosta ge crisis, during the first Gulf War, and after the Oklahoma City bombin g, and right after the terrorist attacks of Sept. In each inst ance, the number of hate crimes against Arab and Muslim Americans went u p rapidly. I fear there will again be an increase in such incidents, especially rela ted to the instances of Arab-Americans speaking out against the war. UPI: The administration appears determined to go ahead with the war even if it must do so unilaterally and without even Britain as an ally. But s upporters of the war argue that the determination to prosecute is essent ial to maintaining US global leadership and prestige. Zogby: This war has already internationally isolated America. Significant damage has already been done before a shot has been fired. When polls s how that people in allied countries believe in equal degree that Preside nt George W Bush poses as much of a threat to world peace as does Sadda m Hussein then America has a problem. It may be that the political vision of the civilians who are currently ad vising the president is that we exercise unilateral military might to es tablish unrivalled American hegemony. But I do not think such a policy i s sustainable in the long term. UPI: What do you believe the consequences of the current US policy will be? Zogby: When I look at the group currently shaping US policy they are li terally destroying the relationships that the United States has long enj oyed as the leader of the Free World. They are dismantling the structure s of international diplomacy. They are dismembering our democratic found ations and they are doing immeasurable harm to the image and reputation of America around the world. Leadership means you have moral authority and legitimacy so that people j oin you to pursue common goals. But we have taken a different course and have surrendered leadership to the Russians, the French and the Germans . UPI: Do your concerns about the drive towards war extend to the financial planning for it? Zogby: There is certainly a degree of boldness and recklessness in even t he financial preparations for this war. Note the audacity of the adminis tration in presenting a budget for $300 billion deficit and not having t he indirect costs of the war factored into it. Yet we have already spent $50 billion before a bullet has been fired. The re will also be a direct cost in paying for the troops, the logistical c osts and the long-term costs of rebuilding Iraq. The indirect costs are what will happen to our economy and to the Middle East and the ripple effects these will have. None of that was factored i n to the administration's budget. Zogby: I do not think that the administration's argument for war is credi ble and I greatly doubt it has truly convinced the American public. It i s true that polls show a significant majority of American public ... |