Tidbit on Iraq and Chemical Weapons

[Merryprankster]

It's been bandied about here--"Did Saddam gas his own people?"

Many have said yes.

Others have said its inconclusive or flat out no.

Tell that to the Kurds.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62260-2003Feb24.html

[Liokault]

Their is no doubt that the iraqi kurds have been gassed on a large scale but any thing sadam is doing tyo them is only slightly worse than what the Turks atre doing to their kurds and the turks are on our side right?

[Merryprankster]

This wasn't really about the Turks and the Kurds. I was specifically addressing those that seem to think Saddam didn't gas his own people.

That's it, I'm afraid. I'm not interested in a moral comparison between the Turkish government and Saddam at the moment. Maybe later.

[count]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
This wasn't really about the Turks and the Kurds. I was specifically addressing those that seem to think Saddam didn't gas his own people.

That's it, I'm afraid. I'm not interested in a moral comparison between the Turkish government and Saddam at the moment. Maybe later.
You mean later, after we pay them 30 billion in grants and *cough* loans, build their military infrastructure, leave behind our own weapons of mass destruction, and demolish their neighbors so they have no more competition in the area?

[Merryprankster]

Count, see above post re: Turkey.

[Waidan]

Is the Kurd-gassing really in question? I doubt Sadaam would even deny gassing the Kurds if he was asked.

"Of course I gassed the Kurds. I took out the trash today too...what's your point?"

Man that guy (and seemingly most everyone else in the region, if not the world) hates Kurds. Even we've screwed over the Kurds. If anyone figures out how the Kurdish people became perhaps the most despised, abused people on the planet, let me know.

[Ford Prefect]

Because they are one letter away from being Turds.

[firepalm]

A hole

[Ford Prefect]

A ditch

[@PLUGO]

Looks like Winston Churchill (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980202/debtext/80202-08.htm) gased some Kurds back in the 20's as well . . .


Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Kelvin):
The first to use chemical weapons in Iraq was the Royal Air Force,

2 Feb 1998 : Column 728
under the command of Winston Churchill in the 1920s...

yikes . . . :eek:

Closest thing to an official source thus far... a fair amount of articles on the subject are floating about with quotes like "I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes."

[Laughing Cow]

When using something to back up your points, STOP using editorials and opinion columns. DO use original source documentation and expert testimony.

MP.

Aren't you violating your own rule here by your first post??

Newspaper articles are neither original source nor expert testimony.

cheers.

[joedoe]

LOL! :D

[GLW]

Actually, few people WANT other points of view. It means they have to deal with the possiblity that they may have been fooled at some point by someone.

For example, Colin Powell presented his evidence on Iraq and then Tony Blair followed suit. A Cambridge professor - expert in the area - then took apart Blair's informatin (that had also been used by the US) by pointing out where much of it had been plagarized from a grad. sutdent's dissertation...and the dissertation was from over 10 years ago. This did NOT get much air time in the US...but the BBC DID carry it.

Similarly, the charges of many things such as stalling the inspectors and moving things out the back door while the inspectors were going in the front - as accused by the US, was instance by instance denied by the chief UN Inspector, Hans Blick. Again, this got little play.

No one has denied that Hussein is bad. What is the point of contention is if war is warranted....and if so, who ELSE deserves to be taken down...and THAT list includes a number of our "friends".

If the ground you are standing on is firm, you do not have to fear presenting all sides of the story...your justification will be there.

You only need to guide the discussion in these ways if there is something not solid with your position.

Like it matters...we are now preparing to pay off Turkey...poised to go in...and it would be a major loss of face and a very hard deficit to explain if nothing happened.//sort of an "all dressed up and no place to go" scenario if the war doesn't happen.

[joedoe]

I have a few questions:

1) Has Saddam used WMD or bio weapons on the Kurds or other minorities recently?

2) Has he done it since the end of the last Gulf War?

3) If not, why after 12 years is it such a big issue?

It seems to me that we knew Saddam had done these things back in 1991, yet we left him in power. In the 12 years since we have still left him in power. Why is it suddenly such a big deal?

Don't get me wrong, I think the guy is a madman and Iraq would probably be better off without him. I am just puzzled about the timing.

[diego]

Originally posted by joedoe
I have a few questions:

1) Has Saddam used WMD or bio weapons on the Kurds or other minorities recently?

2) Has he done it since the end of the last Gulf War?

3) If not, why after 12 years is it such a big issue?

It seems to me that we knew Saddam had done these things back in 1991, yet we left him in power. In the 12 years since we have still left him in power. Why is it suddenly such a big deal?

Don't get me wrong, I think the guy is a madman and Iraq would probably be better off without him. I am just puzzled about the timing.

dam that has to hurt, so watchyagon say now uh?
:D

[Merryprankster]

LC,

Touche. On the other hand, taking something to logical absurdity is a bit pointless--Not that that's ever stopped you before.

Reporting is news bud--it's the first draft of history. It's NOT opinion. It's like findings of fact in a trial--however--it does need to be cross referenced to ensure you're getting the full story with an eye for the source. I once wrote a paper on the Confederate Raider Alabama. Do you really think I took Raphael Semme's memoirs at face value? Would I ever take the Washington Times seriously on the subject of John McCain?

When making a point, don't use opinions, editorials, or pundit columns to justify what you have to say. It's that simple. They're good for exposing people to alternative points of view or raising new questions. They have no weight in an argument beyond "See, HE agrees with me!"

For the record, some of the folks running around here seem to think I'm a warmonger--and that's not exactly true. I've argued vehemently against what I see as the shortsighted, poorly reasoned stance that "it's all about oil," and against the U.S. somehow being responsible for every little problem the world has. I've also made a case, politically, about the legitimacy problem the U.N. faces here.

How that translates to kill and burn, I don't know.

[Liokault]

Merryprankster




That's it, I'm afraid. I'm not interested in a moral comparison between the Turkish government and Saddam at the moment. Maybe later.


Is that due to the Turks being on our side?



So Saddam uses gas onn his own people, the kurds proberly dont think of them selfs as Saddams people and vice versa.

the turks routinly kill and tourture kurds but they are on our sire and so thats ok.


(BTW I have a friend who works for amnisty international mostly on human rights in Turkey who gets police dogs set on him in tourkey EVERY time he tries to talk to a kurd)

[Merryprankster]

No,

It's because I wasn't talking about Turkey and the Kurds. You wanted to bait me into a different issue--which wasn't my point.

I was addressing a specific thing I have seen raised on this board--where is the evidence that Saddam gassed his own people.

Well, here's some. There's probably some more out there. There's probably also some other reporting floating around.

I happen to personally believe that the way Turkey treats the Kurds is atrocious. I did some reading up, thanks to your comments. However, it does appear that the PKK is something of a terrorist organization, and not just "freedom fighters." I define terrorism as attacking non-governmental targets. Freedom fighters don't blow up buses full of civilians, for example (not suggesting that PKK does that, just giving an example.)

[Liokault]

I fully acept and condem any real terrisist action ...I was mearly trying to point out that the whole war situation as it stands now is not a black and white argument with clear cut reasons and that every argument put so far has a counter argument.



Having said that I also fully back the removal of Saddam even if it means the use of force but I feel that we should stop messing about and skirting tne issue and call a spade a spade.


I also belive that right after we remove Saddam from power that we should free Saudi Arabia (the home land and birth place of bin Laden) from its dictators.

Of course that is not going to happen as no matter how bad the human rights record is in Saudi they are close friends of America.

[Merryprankster]

Liokault,

I don't mean this to be as catty as it sounds, and it's not actually directed at you: I'm well aware of the fact that this isn't a black and white issue, and I'm tired of people assuming that because I've argued against the U.S. being the big blue meanie in every situation that automatically means I support everything we do or want to blow **** up. :D

Ideals are great...but if we only acted when everything was idealistic, we'd never get anything done.

Why are we paying Turkey? Because it's a great idea, militarily. Why are they demanding money? Because they lost a lot last time we did this.

I think we may differ on what the spade actually is.

Why do you think the U.S. administration wants to go in so badly?

[Ford Prefect]

Merry,

There is a wealth of evidence concerning Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. It's not in dispute anywhere in the world. It wasn't widely condemned at the time because Sadam was still an ally and US/UK pressure prevented any UN action.

However,

UN reports condemned his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds.

Human rights groups had eveidence of this.

The Secretary of State at the time, George Shultz, conceded the US had evidence of it.

In 1988, Senate Foreign Relations Comittee found "overwhelming evidence of the use chemical weapons against civilians".

The chair of the comittee, Clairborne Pell, introduced the "Prevention of Genocide Act" in reaction to what was happenning in Iraq.

Etc etc. There is no question.

Don't get me wrong. I support the current war. I believe it is in the US's best interests both at home and abroad to remove Saddam and put in place an Arab democracy. There are great security/economic benefits as well as good moral benfits (a la freeing an opressed people). I'm not naive enough to believe that morality and idealism are the reasons we are entering in the conflict (or WMD). All this emotional play on morality on both sides of the fence is amusing. Nations act in their own best interests; nothing more.

[joedoe]

No one has answered my questions yet :)

[count]

Originally posted by joedoe
No one has answered my questions yet :)
Umm, the oil pipeline Dick Cheney's company was building through Afghanistan is ready to be extended across Iran and into Iraq. Duh! :p

LOL PS you can only say **** if you spell it like this(Dick) What a joke.

[joedoe]

LOL :D

[Merryprankster]

Diego,

No, it doesn't hurt. This is an internet forum, where topics of conversation are debated so when somebody brings a counterproposal that's fine. Treating it like a "boy, shut him up!" was pretty silly though.

joedoe--I don't think your points are that important, really, except the last one, and I think THAT'S the crux of the issue. I'm curious about the timing as well. It DOES seem odd, doesn't it?

[PLCrane]

MP,

I can't seem to get to the article you referenced. I don't suppose this is the story that says civilians got caught between the Iraqi and Iranian forces battling each other with gas, and the wind shifted, giving them a big dose of Iranian cyanide. (I do recall seeing pictures of blue bodies back in the 80's at some point, but I don't know if this was the same incident.)

joedoe,

Here's an article about the history of the Washington Post's coverage of Iraq using gas, and how that coverage changed over time. Maybe it'll answer some of your quesitons, or maybe it'll just generate more questions.
http://www.fair.org/extra/0209/iraq-gas.html


FP,

If you support unprovoked pre-emptive attacks for the purpose of regime change, does that mean that if some other country (N. Korea, for example, or maybe even EU) feels that Bush is a threat that they have a right to attack us and impose a regime change? I think we're setting a dangerous precedent.


PLC

[GLW]

The timing IS the main reason people are asking questions.

Saddam Hussein was a lunatic back in the 1960's. His Bath party essentially took power in an election coup. From there, it got really bloody. Saddam systematically eliminated any political opponent to his party. When that was pretty much accomplished, he turned his sights to his personal political opponents until they were gone and he was the main power center.

All the while, the US supported him. We sold him weapons, sponsored his chemical and biological weapons programs, - in short he was our friend.

We helped him fight against Iran during their war. He used the same battle tactics, gas, etc... against them. We also looked the other way when he did it to his own people, the Kurds, etc...

All of this is OLD OLD news and was going on pre-1990.

With the Gulf War, we re-labeled him as an enemy. Just before the Gulf War, his military might was at its peak. He had what was listed as the 4th most powerful military in the world (US, Russia, and China were in the the top 3 spots). The Gulf War was essentially won in one or two days and all of the rest was emphasizing the point to force a surrender (some folks have to be hit in the head with a hammer multiple times before they admit it doesn't feel good).

We did NOT take out Saddam in the Gulf War. We DID have the UN craft a set of requirements for Iraq.

Now is where the fun begins. Iraq agreed to one set of requirements. Afterwards, the set of requirements was changed, and changed again... In their mind, they are seeing a moving target and are complaining that what they are being told now is NOT what they originally agreed to after the war. This IS arguable but it IS also their viewpoint.

This bickering has been going on for 12 years...but in the meantime, the Iraqi military might is NOT what it was at its height just before Desert Storm.

Are they stalling - yes.

Is the UN finding any problems - Not according to Hans Blick.

Is some of the US' 'proof' questionable - yes.

So...while Saddam IS a bad guy, and he does pose a threat to his citizens and others, this threat has been there before, during, and after the Gulf War.

I have to question why the rush...

But, it appears it will happen regardless of what anyone asks or does.

[Ford Prefect]

FP,

If you support unprovoked pre-emptive attacks for the purpose of regime change, does that mean that if some other country (N. Korea, for example, or maybe even EU) feels that Bush is a threat that they have a right to attack us and impose a regime change? I think we're setting a dangerous precedent.


That's the question isn't it? A lot of the tension coming from the UN over this is based on the fact that other countries are scared that if the US can do it to Iraq, then what would stop them from doing it to them? I think it comes down to the circumstances. To try to pretend that the US and N Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc are the same types of countries and should be treated the same would in a sense cancel out any argument since it would show a lack of any logical thinking and reasoning ability.

If the US
a) Attacked another country out of the sole purpose of seizing their land/assets, then
b) was forcefully removed from that country by an international coalition of forces, then
c) agreed to terms and UNSC resolutions as part of a cease-fire agreement, then
d) blatantly violated those terms/resolution (16 in total) for the 12 years following the cease-fire, while
e) playing a diplomatic game of hide and seek

then I'd say the world would have a right to impose a regime change. Now, let's see if such circumstances ever arise. I'm not an idiot. I'm well aware of all the flaws past and present in US foreign policy. However, Iraq poses a legitimate threat to that region and to the US, so not only would removing a hornets nest be benificial to global safety, but creating a democracy in that region might well set a new precedent. A new trade partner with a rich a oil-laden country would be a great benefit to the world as well. Have you ever seen Kuwait? They have better malls than here! A heavy hand with Iraq might well get other terrorist, rogue countries into compliance too.

Also, lets not kid ourselves. The whole of the EU couldn't begin to think of an offensive against the US. They have lived under the US's blanket of protection since the start of the cold war, so their militaries have dwindled to nonexistence to the point where they couldn't even handle the Balkans on their own. China is the only country that has the potential to match the US, but that is 10-20 years down the road. I think having 2 balancing superpowers again would be good for the US since it wouldn't catch all the heat in geo-political matters.

[Merryprankster]

Are people forgeting historical context here? Cold War, an Anti-US regime in Iran after the fall of the Shah, etc, etc. The Middle East was seen as a pawn in a game between the United States and the Soviet Union. Of COURSE we're going to back Iraq under those circumstance.

But times have changed. Asking for consistency in foreign policy spanning pre and post Cold War is like asking for consistency in navigation methods before and after the development of the chronometer.

[Ford Prefect]

Very true. Saddam was "our" guy in the middle east.

[Waidan]

It was the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking. Iraq needed our support to fight their war. We needed a proxy army in the region to combat the Iranians. Wallah. When Sadaam turned his guns on Kuwait (a valuable trade partner), that signaled the end of his good graces with the U.S.

This sort of thing happens all the time. If you look back far enough, we've been both friend and enemy to most every country you can think of. Except for Canada...but we're watching those socialist peacenicks closely ;)

Right now we're good buddies with the Israelies. We support them, give them M-16s, F-16s, and most anything else they need to beat the Palestinians into submission. Heck, we've given them nuclear weapons. But one day the political winds may shift, and suddenly Sharon's behavior will be viewed as tyrannical by the US. People will say, "how could you ever support that mad man? He's killing our good friends the democratic, westernized Iraqis! Israel could destabilize the region!"

[GLW]

Situational ethics ALL...

If the reason you give for going to war now is that you are liberating the people there, removing a dictator, removing a criminal, and exposing his attrocities...

AND...you helped put that person there, and you KNEW about and supported his attrocities in the past, then your "Moral" reasons for war are simply BS.

Call a spade a spade. We WANT a permanent military presence in the Middle East. Control of Oil is the control of the world. We want to control that so no one else does. (This is not about money...but control and power). A dictator such as Saddam in power IS destabilizing. However, an occuplying force followed by an Arab Democratic Republic (Now, where does one of THOSE exist) is equally destabilizing.

There is an element of revenge here...We can't get Bin Laden but we CAN get Hussein. He is bad...there may be Al Qaeda cells in Iraq...so make a connection.

Honesty about motives is a good thing...but it may make people say "Hold up there Dubya..."

If you support a venomous snake...how can you complain that he is a snake.

We keep doing this. We topple reasonable regimes or go in and try to overly influence a weak but forward moving regime...and then topple or destabilize them (Columbia and the nationalization of land in the 1950's, El Salvador, Nicaraugua, etc...)

The end result has been repressive regimes in those countries. Human rights violations and attrocities, and when those regimes finally fall, the people HATE the US.

There MUST be a better way to do this.

It is neurotic.... (Definition - doing the same thing over and over again EXPECTING different results).

[Ford Prefect]

Waidan,


"It was the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking. "

That saying actually has its origins in the Middle East. Funny.


"Except for Canada..."

Actually they whooped our arse in th 1800's. There military still uses the same equipment I think though... :) Just kidding you Canadians! You guys can still whoop it up. Just not us.


"Heck, we've given them nuclear weapons."

Ummm... actually the French are the ones that gave Israel their nuclear weapons program in repayment for their help with the Suez crisis. When the US discovered the reactor facilities, it was a bone of contention between the two for some time, and Israel actually used it as a bargaining chip to ensure US conventional arms shipments. France and Germany have been as essential as the US in building Israel's military might. FYI :)



and suddenly Sharon's behavior will be viewed as tyrannical by the US. People will say, "how could you ever support that mad man? He's killing our good friends the democratic, westernized Iraqis! Israel could destabilize the region!"

Unlikely. Israel will abide by US policy for the most part. Israeli's would happily give the Palestinians their land if they would just stop the terrorist strikes to resume talks. Unfortunately the PLO wants Israel driven into the sea. Do you think it's odd that the PLO was founded 2 years BEFORE Israel entered the West Bank and Gaza? Heck, arabs/muslims (yet still Israeli citizens) hold gov't positions inside democratic Israel. (ie obviously voted in by the Israeli's) Do you think a jew would ever be close to any type of power in any other country in the region?

I'm not saying that there aren't bad guys on both sides of the fence or that the Israeli's haven't acted like terrorists on occasion themselves. I just don't want people to fool themselves about these "freedom fighters". What would happen if Mexicans were sneaking across the boarder and blowing up buses, shopping centers, night clubs on a regular basis?

[Ford Prefect]

GLW (G Dubbya?!) ;)


AND...you helped put that person there, and you KNEW about and supported his attrocities in the past, then your "Moral" reasons for war are simply BS.

I think the moral reasons for the war BS as countries operate in their own best interests and not morality. Same can be said of France, Germany, Russia, China... Think they are actually acting out of morality? However, does that mean that the "moral" reasons aren't real? Will we not be removing an opressive, abusive dictator? Will we not be freeing an opressed people and giving them a chance at freedom?


Call a spade a spade. We WANT a permanent military presence in the Middle East. Control of Oil is the control of the world. We want to control that so no one else does. (This is not about money...but control and power). A dictator such as Saddam in power IS destabilizing. However, an occuplying force followed by an Arab Democratic Republic (Now, where does one of THOSE exist) is equally destabilizing.

It's a lot more complicated than that. Trying to simplify geo-politics is impossible and usually only done to slant a view to suit ones needs. Oil is a factor. Having a democratic Arab country is a factor. Removing a regional and global threat is a factor. Making an example of a non-compliant country is a factor. Etc etc.


There is an element of revenge here...We can't get Bin Laden but we CAN get Hussein.

Come on. Now you are just letting emotions cloud your thinking. The concept of going after sadam as revenge for not getting Bin Laden is laughable. Personally, I think we'd be here even if 9/11 never happenned. This was inevitable.


If you support a venomous snake...how can you complain that he is a snake.

This is the funniest thing I hear anti-war people say. Not only was Sadam an important part of our Cold War allies, but because we supported him in the past now means that we can't do anything about it now. Please apply that logic the French and German support for US action...


We keep doing this. We topple reasonable regimes or go in and try to overly influence a weak but forward moving regime...and then topple or destabilize them (Columbia and the nationalization of land in the 1950's, El Salvador, Nicaraugua, etc...)

Wow. Talk about a reach. Did the US maintain an occupying force of 100,000's of troups to help build the gov't in those examples? Nope, but that is part of the Iraqi ost-war plan. They did with germany and japan and God knows how bad they turned out... BTW, I agree that US policy in Central/South America was BS. The only defense is that it was the Cold War battle against the Red's. Not justifying it though.

I've heard some good anti-war arguments, but most it is ruled by emotion rather than reason. Please explain a better way to do this. What hasn't been tried while Saddam broke 16 UNSC resolutions for the past 12 years?

[Waidan]

Thanks for the schooling ;)

Actually I was just using Israel as an example of changing political stances in dealing with foreign powers. I certainly don't condone the terrorist actions occuring there. OTOH, we (as a nation) tend to look past a lot of the causes of said terrorism (i.e. Jewish settlement efforts, strong anti-arab statements from Sharon and his political allies in the NRP, occupation and destruction of arab property). Anyway, I was just using them as an illustration.

The only point I was trying to make is that our friends/enemies status with other countries changes often, and for a variety of reasons. Some people like to hold our shifting alliances in the middle east (and with Hussein in particular) up as evidence of a conspiracy. I'm just pointing out that this is hardly a singular event in our nation's history, and shouldn't be viewed any more critically than any of our previous alliance shifts.

[Ford Prefect]

Hey Waidan,

Sorry. I knew that's what you were getting at. I was just correcting some of the factual information in your post, and then I got off on a rant. It's a slow day at work today. ;) My bad. I didn't mean it in any attacking way.

GLW,

Same with you. I'm pre-emptively striking and letting ya know it isn't an attack. Just a factual correction. ;) Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

[Waidan]

No worries FP, you're just keeping me honest :) . I just didn't want the point of my post lost thrown out with my inaccurate details, hehe.

[GLW]

First off, I was NOT saying that I personally had any part of that revenge motive. I was pointing out that a number of people in the US are operating on that bit of emotion.

I was also pointing out that the US foreign policy has been strewn with policies that seem a good idea in the short term would have been noted as a bad idea had a longer viewpoint been taken.

We keep betting on the bad horse. Strange thing is that the US was created by rebelling against a ruler that was viewed as a tyrant. We forget that one... and then expect others to NOT rebel against their own...and then remember who supported the tyrants.

My example WAS simplistic.

Read for the idea...

If we are taking a Moral stance for a war - "Saddam is a bad man...we are freeing the Iraqi people...yada yada yada" the reason is revealed for the hypocrisy that it is.

If we are acting in our own self-interests but they sort of coincide with other peoples self-interests...say so...or say nothing.

People can hate you for hypocrisy. They can also hate you for acting in your own interests. However, the difference is that they can understand self-interests and NOT hypocrisy...and self-interests CAN be defended logically.

and ...in Texas, there are those of us who refer to him as DUBYA...if you know you are referring to a bush...and you can use that Texanism...why not. That dog WILL hunt....

[Ford Prefect]

GL Dubbya,


First off, I was NOT saying that I personally had any part of that revenge motive. I was pointing out that a number of people in the US are operating on that bit of emotion.

I'm sure some people are. The gov't is not though.


I was also pointing out that the US foreign policy has been strewn with policies that seem a good idea in the short term would have been noted as a bad idea had a longer viewpoint been taken.

That's really a matter of POV. Our "bad" decisions in the past won us the Cold War. It's hard to say what the world would be like today without that policy in place. I'm not saying that the policy was morally just or even that I agree with it; it's just hard to criticize something on what-if's.


We keep betting on the bad horse. Strange thing is that the US was created by rebelling against a ruler that was viewed as a tyrant. We forget that one... and then expect others to NOT rebel against their own...and then remember who supported the tyrants.

Again, this is the POV thing. Where would the US be now if Saddam was in bed with the Soviets? Where would the US be now if Latin America was prodiminantly Communist? Actually, where would the USSR be now? All these what-if's make it hard to say that our foreign policy was bad as it most definately served our best interests. Did a lot of people suffer because of these decisions? Yes. I'm not disputing that. You seem to be implying that they would have been better off under communism, which is a huge assumption.


If we are taking a Moral stance for a war - "Saddam is a bad man...we are freeing the Iraqi people...yada yada yada" the reason is revealed for the hypocrisy that it is.

I agree it is hypocrisy. As is France's moral position. As is Germany's moral position... War has turned into a PR game and in general, the masses are so stupid and uninformed that the leaders have to talk to them like they are children. "We are going after him because he's a bad man. We don't like bad men, right?" (Masses shake their head while drooling) Try explaining geo-politics and the complexities of it to the average person, and you quickly see why EVERY gov't resorts to this type of rhetoric.


They can also hate you for acting in your own interests. However, the difference is that they can understand self-interests and NOT hypocrisy...and self-interests CAN be defended logically.

They can be defended logically. I agree. Would most people understand the logic? No. This is what it would look like.

USA: "We need to remove Saddam. He is threat to us getting oil from the region. He supports terrorism and may help terrorists attack our country... etc etc"

France: "Wait a second there, buster. The largest oil company in France (who also has the most gov't lobbyists) has billions invested in Iraq. If Saddam is ousted, that voids those existing contracts."

Russia: "We have contracts too! Wait a second!"

Now, do you think the masses buy into that? Do you think that the general public could intelligently look at the benefits and come to a reasonable conclusion. You think the gov'ts across the globe want people to see that money is the name of the game? Can you rally young men to the flag to fight for economic benefit and stability in a region? Heck no. You have to fight for freedom! Can you rally the people to oppose war because it may harm your economic interests in the region? Heck no. You have to oppose war because innocents may die!

I'd rather do the right thing for the wrong reasons though. I think removing Saddam and setting up an Arab democracy (just like we did in Japan and Germany) is the right thing. The benefits to the US and the international community are numerous. Leaving it alone is probably the most dangerous thing. That is hard to ignore.

[diego]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Diego,

No, it doesn't hurt. This is an internet forum, where topics of conversation are debated so when somebody brings a counterproposal that's fine. Treating it like a "boy, shut him up!" was pretty silly though.

joedoe--I don't think your points are that important, really, except the last one, and I think THAT'S the crux of the issue. I'm curious about the timing as well. It DOES seem odd, doesn't it?

it was a joke mp, just another facet of internet MESSAGING systems :)

[diego]

random question for anyone, besides n korea and saddam who was the third point in the axis of evil speach curious george made?.

does anyone have a copy of that speached?.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by diego
random question for anyone, besides n korea and saddam who was the third point in the axis of evil speach curious george made?.

does anyone have a copy of that speached?.

If memory serves right:

Iraq, Iran & N. Korea.

[Chang Style Novice]

Laughing Cow has it right. The speech in question was the 2002 State of the Union Address. CNN has a transcript of it here

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.speech.txt/

[diego]

thanks for the transcript, but i think it was pakistan but im not sure, gonna read that later.

you get that email?, havent had a chance to go through my lists as many of the cds i will pick from are my buddys and they never home! :).

[Chang Style Novice]

Oops, forgot to reply! Yeah, the discs you mentioned in the email sound good.

It was definitely Iran Iraq and North Korea - I skimmed the speech before I posted it (my first search link from google took me to a fake speech at whitehouse.org - an anti Bush site that is DEFINITELY not the same as whitehouse.gov.)

[Merryprankster]

Sorry diego, I didn't catch the inflection. My bad.