Read about it in the Washington Post. I still don’t know what to think. Saddam must go, but does all out war need to be the answer? This fellow says we’re losing the propaganda war in a big way.
Update: It was one of the largest peace demonstrations in Philadelphia history. Protestors and anti-protestors, peaceful activism. What an amazing global event.
“God bless us all… . Be safe, stay connected and we will win.” Only by coming together can change happen. That runs against what many believe. Yesterday – people came together on both sides of the fence to be heard.
Both the US and UK are toning down their stands on Iraq in response. The protestors made a difference. That and the inspector’s report of course.
Can a person with the more nuanced views of Jonathon Delacour, like myself, be heard in the din? I believe Saddam has got to go. Unlike so many protestors, I recognize this is about more then oil. Far more. But I have issues with how, when, and what happens afterwards. I get pissed when people oversimplify the threats and causes. I get mad at the creeping anti-semitism (oh it’s there alright, read about it at Yourish.com), and the anti-Americanism. I’m proud of this country. I’m blessed to live here. I’m frustrated and confused at hearing new Bin Laden tapes being released. Why isn’t he dead? Why isn’t his organization wiped from the face of the earth? Why?!?! I tend to think people with Jonathon’s beliefs are in the majority – worldwide. They are amoungst many I know. Other webloggers who doesn’t shy from posting complex views are Oliver Willis and Dave Winer. Gotta participate in one of these protests to find out.
BTW, contrary to popular belief, Clinton was good for our armed forces. Thank you, yet again, President Clinton. We miss you.
Does Saddam need to go? Yes. He is a detriment to the region and his own country. Is he a dangerous dictator? Of course. While million in his own country starve, he sits poshly in his presidential palaces.
Do we need to go to war with Iraq? Absolutley not. How much of a threat is Saddam to us? Well, in 12 years, if the man had any sort of weapon he could have used or sold to a radical group for use against us, he would have done it. We spolied his plans to over run Kuwait and steal OUR oil. Now I ask you this. What makes us any different if we go there and do it to him? Just because he is an awful leader in his country and its people doesn’t give us or anyone else the right to wage war. If that was the case,m then why do we not go into central africa and get involved in these bloody wars between Congo and Zaire? How come we never invaed South Africa for their treatment of the country’s rightful inhabitants? Why did we not get involved in Chechnya? Where are we with the bitter feuds between the Irsh protestants and the Irsh catholics? How come we do not invade China for their abysmal record on human rights? The threat to us? North Korea is more of a threat. Al-Qeida is more of a threat. Why do we not turn out attention to them and fixate?
The answer is simple. Because Iraw has something Bush wants. Oil. Anyway you slice it, thats all it comes down to. Iraq has current oil reserve that would keep us good for the next century. Current models also show that oil fields exist there that dwarf the current reserves. Your looking at 300 – 400 years of oil. Quite a legacy to invest into for this country. Oil, above all else still makes for much of the list of the richest in the world. Look at the facts. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld are all oil men. At most, they will be in office 8 years. They want to live out their lives and make sure their legacy lives on strong for generatiosn to come. It takes money for that. They also may have a patriotic side as well. I don;t discount it. They feel America will only survive with money, Very true. I agree with that. Its a no-brainer. But at what price? Do we become the terrorists at the price to keep our country great? Then, is that truly greatness? Hitler thought so. He was damn near his objective too. Alexander the Great thought the same thing. Gehngis Kahn did too. So did Napolean. Are we to mee tthe same fate as they did? War is never an answer. It is never a solution. It is a self defense. It is a deterent. It is not a tool. It is not a right for this administration to use at its discretion.
Anyone who thinks that it is are no better than the Nazi’s and those that supported them.
You ask the hard questions that need answering – but I gotta disagree with the second paragraph – where you attempt to answer them.
The answers aren’t so simple. This is about much, much more then oil. Gulf War I. Yes, that was about oil. If we leave Saddam there – that would lead me to believe we cared more about oil then anything else. I have to believe the administration thinks that we are in a new age now that we need to pre-emptively seek out and attack those that are planning to attack us, before they attemp to.
Questiona to be answered are – is this the right path? If so.. is this the right way to go about it?
It’s here that I find myself at odds.
But this is what I ask – where is the proof that they say they have that says “He is a threat to us?” They haven’t proven squat so far. The UN inspectors are not finding anything, and I know that the AWACS E-3 Sentry’s are watching the region 24×7, the u-2’s are running sorites every day and the low-orbit satelites are peering at the region all of the time, so they can see movement and yet they will not show us any of it. Why? Because it doesn’t exist. Iraq is a country that was decimated during hr Gulf War in every sense of the word. They are in economic shambles. Saddam didn’t and doesn’t have the means to produce anything worth while.
Do I beleive in a pre-emptive strike on a country that threatens us? Sure. Show me proof first. Proof is there for North Korea. Where is the proof for iraq?
Bush is more fixated on Iraq and yet will not show any proof (because it doesn’t exist). That is what leads me to beleive it is only about those Oil fields.
Herman Goering, Hitlers leader of the Gestapo, and I quote:
Why of course the people don’t want war…It is the leaders…who determine policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along…all you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
(Herman Goering, Nazi Gestapo Chief)
How is Bush and Rumsfeld any different than Hitler and Goering in this matter?
I also want to point ou that your sure not what to think. With that being said, then, you don’t go to or want war.
War is like an execution. a) it better be your final and only option left b) you better be damn sure on what you are about to do. There is no turning back once the first bomb is dropped, the first bullet is fired and the first life is lost. There is no coalition on this one. Dire consequences are to follow if we attack. If our own strongest allies oppose it so vehemothly, what do you think the Arabs and Muslims feel about this. This will surley look like an attack on the Arab/Muslim world to them.
Back to the orignal question, what to think if your not sure? Don’t go to war.
Bush and Rumsfeld are different because of what they are defending, if not their tactics. And it is their tactics that cause me plenty of worry. Their motivations seem less and less worrisome to me as time goes on. They seem to be idealists at heart.
The United States wanted to vote in the anti-Clinton ideal. Political idealists. You can see these three coming for a mile away. Rumsfeld can’t seem to keep his mouth shut and says the most asnine shit that just enrages people and countries. Wait a minute.. so does Bush!
No slick willies here. No sirrie.
Man we’re the dumb fucks that voted them in. The anti-Clintons.
Moving on…
Saddam is a threat. He is a liar. He has been pulling the UN’s chain for over ten years now. His continued existance shows us to be weak in the eyes of the terrorist threat. Bin Laden uses the Gulf War as an example of our weakness.
We should have took him out back then. Leaving him in made us all the more cynical and gave the terrorist threat cause to further believe what they believe. It made us look weak to the entire Arab world. Leaving him in still would continue to keep that wound open.
He must go. You can’t keep kicking a dog and cornering him and not expect that dog to sooner or later chew your leg off.
My concerns have to do with how, when, and the aftermath. Not the why.
I would support the protestors if they knocked there the hardest.
Instead, many (luckily not all), are over simplifying things.
Think Steve – the reason why you would want to remove Saddam is so that they don’t BECOME like N. Korea. The last thing you want is another N. Korea. If the inspectors find nukes …
Then it’s already too late.
We can’t attack N. Korea. To do so now would invite catastrophe. In fact I think the administration is trying to do the right thing with them – to try and defuse the situation. Can they do it though?
I thought quite hard about this and I am defending my position on this. Let me paraphrase:
“Bush and Rumsfeld are different because of what they are defending, if not their tactics.”
Hitler, Goering, Hess, and company defended a pure race. They defended an anger they built up for their failures on a still despised and ridiculed group. They defended a way of thinking that was barbaric. But for them, it was normal. For their country, the majority agreed. Hitler and Goering were cunning and knew how propagate views as righteous in their people’s eyes.
Sure, Bush and Rumsfeld are different, but the concept remains the same. They seek redempetion (just as you spke of in the context of making the arabs see we are not weak from the first gulf war). But I still say the first thing on their mind are those oil fields. The government is still justa big business. It doesnt flagrantly spend money without getting a return on investment. If a 300 billion war can render 200 years of oil, the ROI is going to be huge.
But I will get off of that pulpit and stick to what you are saying.
“And it is their tactics that cause me plenty of worry.”
I agree. They are not smart. As you said earlier, Rumsfeld has a big mouth, shoots it off way too much and is completely arrogant with how he says it. he is no diplomat.
“Their motivations seem less and less worrisome to me as time goes on. They seem to be idealists at heart.”
The motivations are the thing that worries me the most. Oil. At what costs? Human blood? Tje region is already unstable, they will wind up bringing a nuclear war to the area.
“Man we’re the dumb fucks that voted them in. The anti-Clintons.”
I am not sure how to take your last few words before this about “slick willie.” I am not sure what side of that you are on. However, I did not vote for Bush (nor would I vote for any republican ever again after how they handled the Clinton scandal). All I know, is for the 8 years CLinton was in office, life for me and mahy others was pretty damn good. Life for most of the world was pretty damn good. There was even a sense of peace brewing in the middle east. Now, I don;t want to be told Osama was brewing because lets be honest, there was nothing high tech about the 9-11 attacks. It didn’t take years to plan. They could have pulled that off at any time they wanted. You csannot blame Clinton for not getting him or Saddam because it was Bush Sr. who started that fire and didn’t finish the job.
“Saddam is a threat. He is a liar. He has been pulling the UN’s chain for over ten years now. His continued existance shows us to be weak in the eyes of the terrorist threat. Bin Laden uses the Gulf War as an example of our weakness. “
Saddam is a liar. He has been pulling the UN’s chain. But I don’t see him as a threat. He is a weak man in a weak country. I can name 5 other countries that are more of a threat than he is that we can turn our attention to (not our guns mind you). Hius continued existence only shows we are weak because we choose to make it an issue. If he is a world problem, let the word deal with him. Let the UN keep the inspectors in there. Let them install a peacekeeping force. But let the people of Iraq decide Saddams fate. After all, isn;t that supposed to be what democarcy is? Otherwise, again I say, if we keep this up, it proives more that we are only about getting that oil.
“We should have took him out back then. Leaving him in made us all the more cynical and gave the terrorist threat cause to further believe what they believe. It made us look weak to the entire Arab world. Leaving him in still would continue to keep that wound open.”
Yes, we should have. Had the chance and Bush Sr. didn’t take it. The terrorist threat beleives in what they beleive in not due to what happened in 91. They have been at war with the Jews and then latyer the Christians long before there was a USA. These radicals turn their attention to whomever doesn’t agree with their ideals. Most of the muslim world teeters on the edge of what these radicals beleive and by the US continuing their foreign policy the way it has been in the middle-east osuhes them ever so close to perhps agreeing with the radicals. Attacking Iraq would push a good number of these muslims to those beleifs. We will never look good to the Arab word no matter what because they have a very deeply rooted religions that goes against msotly everything we Judea-Christians beleive in the west is contradictive to their way of life. To them, rooted in the very beleifs of their relgion, is not only a sin, but they feel it is their duty to rid the world of these types of people. Luckily most of the muslims in this day and age think of this symbolicly and choose to elminate it in their lives, but in their hearts, I am sure they wouldn;t mind seeing us gone.
“He must go. You can’t keep kicking a dog and cornering him and not expect that dog to sooner or later chew your leg off.”
Ok, he must go. Then who takes his place? Very conveinent of us to help “install” a new government. Oh gee, ook there, Oil fields! Wow, you midn of bum a few billion barrels, thanks! I just don’t buy into this ideal that it is so complex, when it stinks of oil.
“My concerns have to do with how, when, and the aftermath. Not the why.”
As are mine. EVen more so than being pissed that they are gusing this thing in the shadow of 9-11 all for oil. They have such a wonderful plan to attack, but what is their long term commitment to this? Where are the plans in case this thing blows up in ther face? What relations are they going to have in the middle east afterwards? Blah blah blah. There is no planning for the aftermath.
“I would support the protestors if they knocked there the hardest. “
I think they have. In the form of many of the g7 nations saying “whoa, hold up, where are we going with this?”
“Instead, many (luckily not all), are over simplifying things.”
Well, if it is not simple like you say, Bush and Rumsfled and co. ar certainly not doing a good job at making it seem otherwise. They say they have overwhelming eveidence of weapons of mass destruction yet they don’t show anyone anything. Kind of makes people see without blinders peering at what seems to be a honeypot of oil.
“Think Steve – the reason why you would want to remove Saddam is so that they don’t BECOME like N. Korea. The last thing you want is another N. Korea. If the inspectors find nukes …”
Luckily, the arab nations are a victim of their own circumstance. Imagine how dangerous they would be if they produced educated scientists. Skilled workers, etc. They could make technology, they could sell it. They could become economically sound nations. Then they could make nukes, chems and bios. Of course then, these people would see past the bullshit their leaders are feeding them. They wouldnt be a big threat then, perhaps. As it is now, Iraq cannot sustain a real economy. I thinl the pressure the Un sanctions has put on them for 12 years has kept them at bay. So, as far as Iraq being a threat? I just cannot see it. North Korea is a threat because of their reasoning behind developing nukes and what they would pna to do with them. 1) They want South Korea for themselves. If we weren;t there, they would have taken it. 2) What is mors acry, if they have nukes, they will sell it to whoever wants to buy. Including arabs. This is why they are the largest threat to us as it stands. Do we need to attack. No. We can defuse that situation again with better foreign policy. Clinton was getting there until the cowboy for austin stepped in. (I could go on all night with this subject, but I will cut it there).
I would be supportive of Bush if he put some of the energy int toeh NK situation, a good amount of the energy into the Al-Qeida situation at home, and some of the energy into getting bin laden. Instead, he is absolutley infatuated and fixated on Saddam. The fact that he is so focused on this one thing, just fills my entire being with the stench of that goddamn oil. I ask, is it worth it to risk so much so that a handful of people get and stay filthy stinking rich for 200 years? Is any life worth it?
I guess my biggest problem with this whole thing is the lack of evidence, or the lack of the administration’s willingness to show the American people the evidence that Iraq is such a threat. If it is there, but they don;t have it yet, ;et the inspectors find it. As an American, I demand evidence before we send our troops in to die for it. The eivdence was obvious in 91. Saddam invaded a peacful country, proceeded to take OUR oil, launched attacks on Israel. Even his arab neighbors condemned his actions. It was as clear as day and I was as supportive of Bush Sr. as anyone. But today, until I see hard evidence, I am against any attack in Iraq, especially when world opposition is so great.
Karl, it gets harder and harder for me to accept this subject and agree to disagree. 🙂
What you say in your original post is you seem tot hink there is this complex need to rid the world of saddam. While I agree saddam needs to go, I need to point out that this country doesn’t do things just for the sake of doing them. It does things if there is a monetary interest involved. Remember, corporate america is the real controlers here. The government is really just a puppet the major coproations are in control of. If the US government truly acted on ideals of freedom and democarcy, we would have invaded China a long time ago as well as other communist or I should say “anti-democratic” countries. We do not, however, acts on idealism. Even in the face of a major attack or catastrophy. There has to eb a monetary gain for us to get involved in a war. Even Pearl harbor had its doubts. We didn’t attack immediatly after we were bombed. There had to be an economical reason to wage war. Ideals have always been stuck in there to make it seem “right” and “moral.” Contrary to popular beleife we are still a very relgious society. We still have extreme reseervations about sending our young men and women to war. Imagine the fallout that wpuld occur if Bush came right out and said “We want the oil there.” Hell, he won;t even admitt that when we do take over iraq, we will claim the oil fields. He dosen’t even want to talk about it. He uses the ideals that we are trying to rid the world of a menace. I would buy that if it applied to every menace. Bin Laden needs to be gone. Kim Jong II needs to be gone. Why we didn’t clear out Milosovich early on baffles me. Why did we allow Hitler and Mussolini to reign as long as they did?
I just do not and will not buy into this thought that we are doing this for the good of the world. The only good this government does for is th good of the deep pockets to make them deeper.
* “this country doesn’t do things just for the sake of doing them.”
– Yes of course! There is a strong isolationist vein in America that was established by the founding fathers for good reasons.
“It does things if there is a monetary interest involved.”
– When Bush Sr. didn’t go all the way to Bagdhad last time – yes – that was about oil. We’ve gotten cheap oil by keeping Saddam in place. It’s why he was left in place. It’s why he’s still there. The past ten years we’ve enjoyed one of the greatest economies ever in the history of this country – partially by keeping that bastard in place. By isolating him. By controlling him. We own him. He has had no ability to import or export anything without our say so. This has went a great way to earning the hatred of the Arab world. Our hypocracy has been on full display. We are for democracy yet helped a dictator in power, Saddam in the 80s, and left him their – against our ideals – when we had a chance.
There are great reasons to argue against this war, but the sole particular argument you are using – that this is just about oil, isn’t logical. If all we cared about was cheap oil – we’d continue keep him there.
* “I just do not and will not buy into this thought that we are doing this for the good of the world.”
You are correct at being suspicious. We aren’t doing this for the “good of the world” – but our own safety. If successful, and freedom, democracy, secularlism, takes root in the middle east, then we have dodged a much bigger bullet headed our way – the so called “clash of civilizations”. And THAT, I’m pretty damn sure, is the goal here. No one will win the “clash” if it comes about. No one. It will be too late for humanity. It’s the big end game man. The question is – is it already in play? And is this the right focal point to focus on? I tend to think not.
Find and read Samuel P. Huntington’s “The Clash Of Civilizations” Foreign Policy Review article. I can’t seem to find my link.
This paper, written ten years ago, has greatly influenced all sides in what’s going on right now. It made a number of predictions that appear to be in play right now. I would be suspicious of it’s own generalizations however.
“The only good this government does for is the good of the deep pockets to make them deeper.”
– Sometimes yes. Most times (yes it’s true), most times no. And I can give you a list so long it would make your head spin. But remember – all generalizations are false.
Steve – don’t buy into the bullshit that we are the big bad here. We’re not.
I’m not saying that war with Iraq is the “right thing”. Far from it. But this has a lot less to do with oil and your focus is keeping you to the bigger – and much, much more frightening – reality taking place.
America just may become 18th century Britain. And it has little to do with money. Very little to do with it – but over trying to reduce chaos for safety’s sake. And THAT is what to worry about. Not oil.
I sware that oil issue is just propaganda to get people from thinking about the bigger issues at hand. Here we are arguing about oil instead of what it all this means. It neutralizes real activism from taking place since it’s a false thing that you’re fighting against. It makes you want to just scream and yell and do nothing else about it.
Tell me – when you think all of the government’s motivations are led by money why vote?
Beliefs such as this, spoon fed by so called rebellious publications, that get their funding from big ass corporations themselves, that feed into politician’s campaing accounts – has just made you inconsequential, because now you won’t vote.
Clinton won just 10 years ago. The government worked before him, and it does after him. People need to move past cynism to be effectual. Do you honestly think we’d be having this discussion if either Gore had won – or Clinton was still President? No. We would not.
Want to fight our dependency on oil? Tell your friends to stop being so damn greedy with their SUVs. Funny – in the 80s – people would have felt guilty to drive such things. And now people think it’s their right.
Want to tell the current administration you don’t like them? Vote them out of office.
But let me guess – all politicians are the same right, so why vote?
A book written by a dead professor (I will get his name later when I reutnr home from work), which was written in the 50’s outlines these “circles” of America, each composed of the 3 big institutions of America – Government, Military, and Corporations. (there is a 4th in the religious arean, but he tends to think it is primarily controlled by peices of the big 3). They operate in unison with one another and all started from localized-family controlled entities. Since the 50’s on, the paradigm shifted from the Rockefellers, Kennedy’s, etc. to were these institutions now live and breathe on their own without the family names. Of course, the various levels of inner circles of these institutions have their family cliques and many of these people are bred for the leadership at various levels. Basically, the book tries to make sense out of the how and why’s that such structured entities exists and thrive and what makes them continue to exist. It boils down to this – at all costs, they most continue to harbour their way of life and keep it going for generations to come. People in power want to keep their power even after death. You and I and most human beings can never understand that because we have never been in a position to taste such power. Its a tired cliche’ but its classic and true – Absolute power corrupts absolutley. Again, you and I can and will never understand it. It is what drives people to make very irrational decisions. It is what drives ceo’s to make decisions to layoff people at the cost it will adversely affect their lives. It is what makes presidents ans senators decide to go to war and legalize killing. Their way of life, their whole strucutre for being is based on that power. If that power is threatend, their way of life is threatend. They will stop at nothing to keep that way of life going. We, most americans, get the table scraps from their way of life and they pass it off as the “American Dream.” We are programmed into beleiving in that American Dream. Am I complaining? No, compared to a lot fo people, my life is pretty damn good. But it doesn’t mean I agree with how things are done and no way does it mean I think it is right. I don’t buy into this American Dream because of what it is based on and what it was built on. Much of it is corrupt and built on the sweat and blood of others who were never rewarded. My own hard work feeds the pockets of the rich, as does yours. Again, am I willing to keep doing it? yes. For many reasons that are selfish for my own. For some reasons to keep this country going. But above all, do I beleive we should go to war over it? No, especially not when so much is at risk. The irony here is I was 200% for the gulf war in 91. That war was all about oil. Our oil. Kuwait is a puppet government and our money was invsted there. What saddam trued to take was ours already. We had every right to defend that oil.
Againm you keep mentioning that this new initiative is more than that. Saddam is a threat. Sure he is a threat. Again, a threat to that way of life our “masters” are trying to defend. I will buy into this threat bullshit when I see evidence that he is a threat to me. When your government priduces some hard factual evidence for the public to see, I will support going after this man. Until then, if he is a threat to his own people, then let his own people oust him. It isn’t out job or even our right. THAT is where our foreign policy fails and why is so unpopyular not just in the arab world but the rest of the world. We go sticking our noses in other peoples business. Now, many people argue that because we lend them money, that gives us the right? So, my rubttle to that is – if I lend you money, does that mean I get to come over your house and try to defuse domestic disputes bewteen you and your wife, or your wife and her brother? Does it give me the right to say you cannot have a gun in your house because you want to protect yourself? Again THAT is where our foreign policy is wrong.
Lets be honest about things here. We are too arrogant and too egotistical as a country when we need to be more humble and practice a lot more humility. Flexing our war muscle is about the worst thing we can do right now.