War discussion
What it says on the tin
Most normal people tend to take a position on something like the War based on their unspoken values or prejudices, then try to rationalise that position post-facto. Most normal people, unfortunately, also take rational criticism of such a position as a direct attack on their egos. And in fairness, most normal people also get a kick out of insulting their opponents, especially in an anonymous forum such as this (mea culpa). This article is not meant to start a pissing contest between pro- and ant-war people; I would genuinely like these topics argued about intelligently and honestly by all.
(Sources at bottom):
1. The US administration actively aided and abetted Saddam & Co. during the '80s - is it not a contradiction to now be moralising antiwar people about being "soft" on Saddam, especially when many of these people (myself included) were being ignored or being accused of being "soft" on Iran when we spoke of this during the 80's?
Yes, you can argue that we should now therefore be supporting his ouster militarily anyway, but only if you honestly accept that your "side" was aiding and abetting this tyrant for years.
2. Iraq's administration did indeed launch a war of agression against Kuwait. But, this was with the apparent acceptance of a US ambassador in conversation with an Iraqi official who raised the possibility, before the war began.
3. The Axis power of Japan committed a first strike, and thence initiated agression against, the United States during WWII. That situation is not analogous to that of Iraq.
4. The US administration has supported, and continues to support, many regimes with Human Rights' records as dubious as that of Saddam's. We are not talking about accepting them neutrally; we are talking about active aid and support.
5. The United States has a venerable Constitution whose entire philosophy and attitude embodies a skepticism of Government coercion as a means of achieving social good; which clearly shows a justifiable fear of military power as a danger to the Common Good domestically. To paraphrase Mark Twain: How can America maintain an Empire abroad, yet remain a Republic at home?
6. Containment was NOT working, at least in the form of sanctions, which mainly seemed to just kill children.
7. The justifications for this War seem to be as mercurial as Irish weather: Surely, if you are going to kill lots of people, you ought to be absolutely sure of why you are doing it?
8. Many of the arguments seem to revolve around an unspoken axis (no pun intended) of "left-Liberal" vs. "Neoconservative" or "pro-Bush" vs. "anti-Bush", or even, regrettably "America the Beautiful!" vs. "Imperialist pigs!". Instead of circling the ideological wagons, please let's try to communicate with the other uncivilsed tribes, in their own languages.
9. The "Jew thing": Yes, some anti-jewish types are using this conflict for there own ends, however:
a) Criticism of the Israeli administration, or its apologists and war-hawks in Washington DC, is not equivalent to anti-semitism - any more than criticism of the US administration constitutes disloyalty for Americans.
b) There is a difference between the world religion of Judaism, which is 5000 years old, and Right-wing or extreme-zionism, which dates from the 20th century - a time when survival itself became the ultimate value for some Jews, to the detriment perhaps of their total humanist morality.
c) "Semite" also generally refers to the arabic-speaking-peoples (not all of whom are muslim, either). Worth bearing in mind when we make condenscending remarks about "liberating" the arabs who are "incapable" of doing it themselves - are we "Taking up the White Man's burden" once more?
10. Oil is important in this war (honestly, would it be happening if Iraq's main national resource was turnips?) However, it is an over simplification and a detraction of the anti-war argument to focus excessively on it. More is going on here than Oil.
a) Do not underestimate the shocking, horrifying effect that 9/11 had on many Americans' sense of national-esteem. The desire to strike out at an identifiable enemy - any enemy - and defeat it, and then remake it in America's "image" is a powerful psychological motivation for attacking Iraq. Iraq was the (latest) stand in. You don't regain your super-power's sense of self-worth by defeating a bunch of ragged tribesmen.
b) The Neoconservative Ascendency in the US, displays a Spartan-like attachment to military "leadership" and intervention, almost as a civic-virtue in itself. The "Neocons" - which include many of Bush's administration - have been waiting for this opportunity for years. They don't simply see it as a way to dominate (in their parlance: "to show leadership" in) the rest of the world, *but to remake their own Republic*.
c) With reference to a) and b), the language and motivation of the Neocons is similar to that of a Mafia Don: We must show them who's who, we must not appear weak - force is the only thing these people understand, We must not appear to be indecisive. The very things that are supposed to be indicative of Civilisation - self-reflection, debate and criticism, the use of minimal-force - are to them vices and weaknesses.
11.) What exactly, WOULD the antiwar people suggest as a solution to this sort of challenge? Are you always anti-war? In all situations? What would be your justification for war, and is it actually sensible?
12.) Since the Pro-war people are in favour of "Liberation", may we take it they will offer their support the Palestinians' desire for Self-determination now? (Among others?)
Can the pro-war people actually make a morally-consistent, historically-noncontradictory argument? Can they *ever* admit that their favourite leaders were/are clearly, morally wrong to support people like Saddam?
And can the anti-war people show a little more imagination than the persistent mantra of anti-capitalism, and even anti-Americanism?
Must we all stay rooted in our own little valleys, worshipping always our own political totem-leaders?
Sources/Notes:
=====================================
1.)
U.S. forces in Baghdad might now be searching high and low for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but in the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials.
Saddam key in early CIA plot
Richard Sale
UPI Intelligence Correspondent
April 10, 2003
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r
In the 1980s, Saddam Hussein was a U.S. ally, largely because he was at war with Iran, a U.S. enemy. Washington chose to see Hussein then as a potential force for good in the Middle East. Ronald Reagan thus took Iraq off the terrorism list. That made it possible for Reagan and his successor, George H.W. Bush, to authorize American corporations to sell Hussein materials for his early chemical and biological weapons, such as the anthrax virus. Bush's son, George W. Bush, now says these weapons are among the prime reasons our armed forces must besiege and occupy Iraq.
Monsters of the Moment - From Saddam to Osama, America Creates Its Own Nightmares
Sydney Schanberg
March 12 - 18, 2003
THE VILLAGE VOICE
URL: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0311/schanberg.php
Back in the 1980s Ronald Reagan recruited Rumsfeld, who had by then served as Gerald Ford's secretary of defense and was chair of the powerful international pharmaceutical firm G.D. Searle & Co., to be his special envoy to Saddam Hussein. The accounts of these visits suggest that Rummy got along famously with Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister, and cozied up to Saddam himself, whom the U.S. was encouraging to make a good show against the Iranians. In reports of Rummy's chats with Saddam, the special envoy makes no mention of torture. There are no ruminations about an unhappy, suppressed populace.
Rummy's Love Affair With Iraq - Big Buddies With 'Many Common Interests'
by James Ridgeway
March 11th, 2003
THE VILLAGE VOICE
URL: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0311/mondo2.php
DECLASSIFIED U.S. DOCUMENTS have revealed the extent to which Washington did not merely look away but actually provided intelligence and logistical support to Iraq at a time when it was giving shelter to wanted terrorists and using weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Sinister irony
THE HINDU
Tuesday, Jan 07, 2003
URL: http://www.hinduonnet.com/2003/01/07/stories/2003010700581000.htm
U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s
DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
February 25, 2003
2.)
Still searching for the source. Will update.
3.)
You really need a source for this one?
4.)
E.g.
Powell Regrets 1973 U.S. Actions in Chile
Associate Press
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Powell-Chile.html
U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s
DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
February 25, 2003
5.)
See e.g.
American Civil Liberties Union
http://www.aclu.org
"Guilty until proven innocent"
Declan McCullogh
C|Net
http://news.com.com/2010-1071-996625.html
"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. "
-- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Charles Hammond [1821]
"Of all the enemies to liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people."
-- James Madison, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865)
6.)
Murderous 'Containment'
John Balzar
LA Times
March 30, 2003
"But in the heat of battle, can we spare a sober moment for self-doubt? Many of those who have taken to the streets in angry demonstrations argue that the U.S. was immoral in choosing invasion over "containment" and weapons inspections. Implicit in this contention is that things were working, so why choose to kill? Forgotten in the argument is that the world was killing Iraqis all along, just without the bang of cordite."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suncommentary/la-war-oebalzar30mar30,1,6043508.column?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dsuncomment
7.)
"..after three weeks of war, after the capture of Baghdad and the collapse of the Iraqi government, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction those weapons that President Bush, on the eve of hostilities, said were a direct threat to the people of the United States have still to be identified...
...On day two of the war, Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, said finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction was the invading force's number two priority after toppling Saddam Hussein itself a reversal of the argument presented at the UN Security Council.
A week later, Victoria Clarke, the Pentagon spokeswoman, pushed the issue further down the list, behind capturing and evicting "terrorists sheltered in Iraq" and collecting intelligence on "terrorist networks". Now we are told that hunting for weapons is something we can expect once the fighting is over, and that it might go on for months before yielding significant results. "It's hard work," a plaintive Ms Clarke said last week...
In his State of the Union address in early February, President Bush was quite specific about the materials he believed Saddam was hiding...These days, he does not mention weapons of mass destruction at all, focusing instead on the liberation of the Iraqi people as if liberation, not disarmament, had been the project all along."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=396733
America targeted 14,000 sites. So where are the weapons of mass destruction?
By Andrew Gumbel
13 April 2003
8.)
For mixed arguments - including Liberals in favour of war:
The New republic
http://www.tnr.com
A devout Christian from Texas, against the war:
"...Our Founding Fathers... knew that the history of humanity is replete with the rotting carcasses of world empires.
Yet America now has military forces stationed in more than 100 countries. Our military budget is more than those of the next 27 countries combined...
We go where we are not invited, or we go where one side invites us to join their civil war against another. And when we fight, we descend as far down the ladder of human decency as necessary to win.
...this is not just about Iraq -- it is about Sand Creek, the Philippines of 1909, Dresden, Nagasaki, unnumbered villages in Vietnam, and buses and hospitals and apartment buildings in Serbia.
Yes, the reasons are always good... for all of history's expanding empires as they dragged their trusting subjects into central government domination, confiscatory taxation, moral breakdown, multiplied foreign enemies and, finally, slaughter and sorrow and widowhood and orphanhood."
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/editorial/5577465.htm
Mon, Apr. 07, 2003
How can this be a just war?
John J. Dwyer
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
Norman Mailer (Left-wing Novelist and former Anarchist-candidate for Mayor of New York) in dialogue with Antiwar US Conservatives:
* "I Am Not For World Empire"
A conversation with Norman Mailer about Iraq, Israel, the perils of technology and why he is a Left-Conservative.
Taki, Kara Hopkins, and Scott McConnell
The American Conservative
[Norman Mailer:] "We are going to occupy Iraq and occupy it for a long time. Then it all does begin to make its own kind of sense. Because that means we are inaugurating the commencement of the American World Empire. Right there is the subtext. Incidentally, the political seat from which I speak is as a Left-Conservative...
... Until the Left and that part of the Right loyal to its old values can come to recognize that with all their differences, they also have one profound value they might look to protect in common - the vulnerable dignity of the human creation - we are all obliged to travel passively into the vain and surrealistic land of corporate hegemony with its basic notion that democracy is a nutrient to be injected into any country anywhere-a totally oppressive misconception of the delicate promise of democracy which relies on the organic need to grow out of itself and learn from its own human errors."
URL: http://www.amconmag.com/12_2/mailer.html
9.)
See "The Tikkun Community"
http://www.tikkun.org
Rabbi Michael Lerner, one of the founders of this group, has written a very balanced book called
"Healing Israel/Palestine"
10.)
"An introduction to Neocon Doublethink"
Airstripone.com
http://www.airstripone.com
The Wraps Come Off Bush's Colonialist Agenda
Right-wing hawks have been calling the shots all along.
Robert Scheer
LA Times
25 March 2003
"The post-Hussein strategy, formed by a neoconservative clique close to the White House, is another indicator that this is in no way a war "to disarm Iraq."
... there is ample evidence that "regime change" and redrawing the map of the Mideast were the goals of the Bush administration's neoconservative core all along.
The Carnegie Endowment (www.ceip.org) last week published "Origins of Regime Change in Iraq," a thorough portrait of this "textbook case of how a small, organized group can determine policy in a large nation, even when the majority of officials and experts originally scorned their views."
... Bush already refers to warlord-controlled Afghanistan as "democratic," so perhaps an Iraq run by an American general -- for the profit of Dick Cheney's old company Halliburton and other defense contractors -- will justify for Bush the war that spinmeisters are calling "Operation Iraqi Freedom." "
URL: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/
la-war-oescheer25mar25,1,1683587.story
"This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.
Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran."
[ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9/29/02 ]
The president's real goal in Iraq
Jay Bookman
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html
national |
miscellaneous |
news report
Monday April 21, 2003 13:49
by E. Goldstein - Airstripone.com
goldstein at SPAMKILLERairstripone dot com
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (7 of 7)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7I don't have time to wade through all that shite. When you're online you should be concise, more than a screeful is a turnoff. Why not publish your tome, I'm sure there's plenty of fringe political groups who'll stump up the funds.
I didn't realise this site was aimed at readers of "The Sun" (We luvvit!)
I will try to confine my writing to two-inch high one syllable word headlines from now on, and I will definitely not write anything that would require more than one neuron to fire at a time.
God Bless you, you beautiful human being.
i am quite extra ordinary, so Mr Goldstein I tend to take a different position on not only this war but people who build websites with the slogan "scientia est potencia" at the bottom.
you have wasted Bernard's time. He has to work this week, and like he said more than screen full can be a difficult to deal with.
You are thought quite right on loads of counts.
The USA is very big bad and ugly.
It is an empire, it fought its war, it got the oil, and it only pretends to be a defender of rights and democracy.
-¿have you heard about the boycott?
-people like you, (who live in the USA and think you're thoughts are so wonderful that they must be shared with everyone else have decided not to buy some things.
great.
are you doing the boycott?
I'm not ....
I don't have enough money.
I belong to a different economic class you see, the one that starves through war, that doesnt get treated by private doctors or dentists and doesnt look forward to retirement.
I dont drive a car oh but if I did, I promise you and your kind that I wouldn't buy a US built car and I would do my best to run it on vegetable oil.
I can't wait for your next serious article.
they tend to fire in groups.
this occurs in waves of electrical energy that spread in waves across the mid brain area.
I used to organise parties in London where people on lots of drugs could see a ECG scan of their noodle whilst busy firing off neurons.
- the "scientia est potencia" thing is a banner swiped from an orwellian US agency called the Total Information Awareness office, headed by a Reagan-era official who is a convicted criminal
- I am truly sorry I wasted Bernards time. I feel terrible about it.
- The USA can indeed be very big bad and ugly, but it can also be diverse, good, and wonderful
- I have heard of both boycotts. Some silly people in America think it's their patriotic duty to boycott French and German things.
- You shouldn't presume I'm from America, by the way
- I don't think my thoughts are inherently better than anyone elses, but I think that you and I and Bernard have every right to express them - wonderful or otherwise
- I have nothing to do with the boycotts either. It's not the fellows with million-dollar bonuses who will really suffer, but the ordinary workers who lose their jobs.
- I look forward to your next mind-expanding comments
- How exactly do people get invited to these parties? Where can I get this noodle-technology?
everyone was invited to the EEG parties, I wrongly wrote "ECG" above. The machine was borrowed from a university medical department, and didn't really excite as much interest as you would have thought.
I've been thinking more about what you wrote.
intitial point 10 (a)
that really is the best I reckon.
look at this picture/poster idea on Italy indymedia to know you are reflecting a global feeling.
http://italy.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/266788.php
But history did not begin with 9/11.
I presumed you were american 'coz you used several key/buzz words common in the USA at the moment.
....but i have a fair idea who you really are!
Mr Goldstein.
¿¿have you a fluffy cat??
Yo buss dis. What it says on de tin Mos normal folk ten' to take a position on somethin likes de War based on deir unspoken values or prejudices, den try to rationalise dat position post-facto. Mos normal people, unfortunately, also take rational criticism uh such a position as a direct attack on deir egos. An' in fairness, mos normal folk also git a kick out uh insultin deir opponents, especially in an anonymous forum such as dis (mea culpa). Dis article ain't meant to start a pissin contes between pro- an' ant-war people; I would genuinely likes dese topics argued 'boutintelligently an' honestly by all. (Sources at bottom): 1. De US adminiskration actively aided an' abetted Saddam & Co. durin de '80s - be it not a contradiction to now be moralisin antiwar folk 'boutbein "soft" on Saddam, especially when many uh dese folk (myself included) wuz bein iggd or bein accuset uh bein "soft" on Iran when we spoke uh dis durin de 80's? yeah, you can argue dat we should now derefo be supportin his oustuh militarily anyway, but only if you honestly accept dat yo "side" wuz aidin an' abettin dis tyrant fuh years. 2. Iraq's adminiskration did indeed launch a war uh agression a guens Kuwait. But, dis wuz wit de looks acceptance uh a US ambassador in conversation wit an Iraqi official who raised de possibility, befo de war began. 3. De Axis powuh uh Japan committed a firs skrike, an' dence initiated agression a guenst, de United States durin WWII. Dat situation ain't analogous to dat uh Iraq. 4. De US adminiskration has supported, an' continues to support, many regimes wit Human Rights' records as dubious as dat uh Saddam's. We ain't talkin 'boutacceptindem neutrally; we be talkin 'boutactive aid an' support. 5. De United States has a venerable Constitution whose entire philosophy an' 'tude embodies a skepticism uh guvernment coercion as a means uh achievin social good; which clearly shows a justifiable fear uh military powuh as a danguh to de Common bad assed domestically, an shit. To paragroup a wurd Mark Twain: How can America maintain an Empire abroad, yet remain a Republic at home? 6. Containment wuz NOT wukin, at leas in de form uh sanctions, which mainly seemed to jus kill children. 7. De justifications fuh dis War seem to be as mercurial as Irish weather: Surely, if you be goin to kill lots uh people, you ought to be absolutely sho uh why you be doin it? 8. Many uh de arguments seem to revolve 'roun an unspoken axis (no pun intended) uh "left-Liberal" vs. "Neoconservative" or "pro-Bush" vs. "anti-Bush", or even, regrettably "America de Beautiful!" vs. "Imperialis pigs!". Instead uh circlin de ideological wagons, please let's try to communicate wit de othuh uncivilsed tribes, in deir own languages. 9. De "Jew thin": yeah, some anti-jewish types be usin dis conflict fuh dere own ends, however: a) Criticism uh de Israeli adminiskration, or its apologists an' war-hawks in wuzhinton DC, ain't equivalent to anti-semitism - any mo than criticism uh de US adminiskration constitutes disloyalty fuh Americans. b) Dere be a difference between de world religion uh Judaism, which be 5000 years old, an' Right-win or extreme-zionism, which dates from de 20th century - a time when survival itself gets de ultimate value fuh some Jews, to de detriment perhaps uh deir total humanis morality. c) "Semite" also generally refers to de arabic-rappin-peoples (not all uh whom be muslim, either). Worth bearin in min' when we make condenscendin remarks 'bout"liberatin" de arabs who be "incapable" uh doin itdemselves - be we "Takin up de White Man's burden" once more? 10. Oil be important in dis war (honestly, would it be happenin if Iraq's main national resource wuz turnips?) Howevuh, it be an ovuh simplification an' a detraction uh de anti-war argument to focus excessively on it. Mo be goin on here than Oil. a) Do not underestimate de shockin, horrifyin effect dat 9/11 had on many Americans' sense uh national-esteem. De desire to skrike out at an identifiable enemy - any enemy - an' defeat it, an' den remake it in America's "image" be a powerful psychological motivation fuh attackin Iraq. Iraq wuz de (latest) stan' in. You ain't regain yo super-power's sense uh self-worth by defeatin a bunch uh ragged tribesmen. b) De Neoconservative Ascendency in de US, displays a Spartan-likes attachment to military "leadership" an' intervention, almos as a civic-virtue in itself. De "Neocons" - which include many uh Bush's adminiskration - be waitin fuh dis opportunity fuh years. Dey ain't simply see it as a way to dominate (in deir parlance: "to show leadership" in) de res uh de world, *but to remake deir own Republic*. c) wit reference to a) an' b), de language an' motivation uh de Neocons be similar to dat uh a Mafia Don: We mus showdem who's who, we mus not appear weak - force be de only thin dese folk understand, We mus not appear to be indecisive. De very thins dat be supposed to be indicative uh Civilisation - self-reflection, debate an' criticism, de use uh minimal-force - be todem vices an' weaknesses. 11.) What exactly, WOULD de antiwar folk sugges as a solution to dis sort uh challenge? Are you always anti-war? In all situations? What would be yo justification fuh war, an' be it actually sensible? 12.) Since de Pro-war folk be in favour uh "Liberation", may we take it dey will offuh deir support de Palestinians' desire fuh Self-determination now? (Among others?) Can de pro-war folk actually make a morally-consistent, historically-noncontradictory argument? Can dey *ever* admit dat deir favourite leaders wuz/are clearly, morally wrong to support folk likes Saddam? An' can de anti-war folk show a li'l mo imagination than de persistent mantra uh anti-capitalism, an' evun anti-Americanism? Mus we all stay rooted in our own li'l valleys, worshippin always our own political totem-leaders? Sources/Notes: ===================================== 1.) U.S. forces in Baghfaduh might now be searchin high an' low fuh Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but in de pas Saddam wuz seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark uh anti-communism an' dey uset him as deir inskrument fuh mo than 40 years, accordin to formuh U.S. intelligence diplomats an' intelligence officials. Saddam key in early CIA plot Richard Sale UPI Intelligence Coranswuznt April 10, 2003 http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r In de 1980s, Saddam Hussein wuz a U.S. ally, largely because he wuz at war wit Iran, a U.S. enemy, an shit. wuzhinton chose to see Hussein den as a potential force fuh bad assed in de Middle East. Ronald Reagan thus took Iraq off de terrorism list. Dat made it possible fuh Reagan an' his successor, George H.W. Bush, to authorize American corporations to sell Hussein materials fuh his early chemical an' biological gats, such as de anthrax virus. Bush's son, George W. Bush, now says dese gats be among de prime reasons our armed forces mus besiege an' occupy Iraq. Monsters uh de Moment - From Saddam to Osama, America Creates Its Own Nightmares Sydney Schanberg March 12 - 18, 2003 THE VILLAGE VOICE URL: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0311/schanberg.php Back in de 1980s Ronald Reagan recruited Rumsfeld, who had by den served as Gerald Ford's secretary uh defense an' wuz chair uh de powerful international pharmaceutical firm G.D. Searle & Co., to be his special envoy to Saddam Hussein. De accounts uh dese visits sugges dat Rummy gets along famously wit Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign ministuh, an' cozied up to Saddam himself, whom de U.S. wuz encouragin to make a bad assed show a guens de Iranians. In reports uh Rummy's chats wit Saddam, de special envoy makes no mention uh torture. Dere be no ruminations 'boutan unhappy, suppressed populace. Rummy's Love Affair wit Iraq - Big Buddies wit 'Many Common Interests' by James Ridgeway March 11th, 2003 THE VILLAGE VOICE URL: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0311/mondo2.php DECLASSIFIED U.S. DOCUMENTS has revealed de extent to which wuzhinton did not merely look away but actually give upd intelligence an' logistical support to Iraq at a time when it wuz givin sheltuh to wanted terrorists an' usin gats uh mass deskruction (WMD). Sinistuh irony THE HINDU Tuesday, Jan 07, 2003 URL: http://www.hinduonnet.com/2003/01/07/stories/2003010700581000.htm U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES wuzhinton, D.C., 25 February 2003 - De National Security Archive at George wuzhinton University today published on de Web a series uh declassified U.S. documents detailin de U.S. embrace uh Saddam Hussein in de early 1980's, includin de renewal uh diplomatic relations dat had been suspended since 1967. De documents show dat durin dis period uh renewed U.S. support fuh Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations dat would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear gat capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abuset de human rights uh his citizens, an' possessed an' uset chemical gats on Iranians an' his own people. De U.S. response wuz to renew ties, to give up intelligence an' aid to ensho Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, an' to sen' a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands wit Saddam (20 Decembuh 1983). http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm February 25, 2003 2.) Still searchin fuh de source. Will update. 3.) You really need a source fuh dis one? 4.) E.g. Powell Regrets 1973 U.S. Actions in Chile 'soshe-ate Press New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Powell-Chile.html U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES wuzhinton, D.C., 25 February 2003 - De National Security Archive at George wuzhinton University today published on de Web a series uh declassified U.S. documents detailin de U.S. embrace uh Saddam Hussein in de early 1980's, includin de renewal uh diplomatic relations dat had been suspended since 1967. De documents show dat durin dis period uh renewed U.S. support fuh Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations dat would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear gat capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abuset de human rights uh his citizens, an' possessed an' uset chemical gats on Iranians an' his own people. De U.S. response wuz to renew ties, to give up intelligence an' aid to ensho Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, an' to sen' a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands wit Saddam (20 Decembuh 1983). http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm February 25, 2003 5.) See e.g. American Civil Liberties Union http://www.aclu.org "Guilty until provun innocent" Declan McCullogh C|Net http://news.com.com/2010-1071-996625.html "When all guvernment, domestic an' foreign, in li'l as in great thins, shall be drawn to wuzhinton as de centuh uh all powuh, it will renduh powerless de checks give upd uh one guvernment on anothuh an' gonna become as venal an' oppressive as de guvernment from which we separated. " -- Thomas Jefferson, Lettuh to Charles Hammon' [1821] "uh all de enemies to liberty war is, perhaps, de mos to be dreaded, because it comprises an' develops de germ uh evary other. See what I'm sayin? War be de momma uh armies; from dese proceed debts an' taxes; an' armies, an' debts, an' taxes be de known inskruments fuh brinin de many unduh de domination uh de few. In war, too, de discretionary powuh uh de Executive be extended; its influence in dealin out offices, honors, an' emoluments be multiplied; an' all de means uh seducin de minds, be added to those uh subduin de force, uh de people." -- James Madison, Letters an' Othuh Writins uh James Madison (1865) 6.) Murderous 'Containment' John Balzar LA Times March 30, 2003 "But in de heat uh battle, can we spare a sobuh moment fuh self-doubt? Many uh those who has taken to de skreets in angry demonskrations argue dat de U.S. wuz immoral in choosin invasion ovuh "containment" an' gats inspections. Implicit in dis contention be dat thins wuz wukin, so why choose to kill? Forgetsten in de argument be dat de world wuz killin Iraqis all along, jus witout de bang uh cordite." http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suncommentary/la-war-oebalzar30mar30,1,6043508.column?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dsuncomment 7.) "..aftuh tree weeks uh war, aftuh de captua uh Baghfaduh an' de collapse uh de Iraqi guvernment, Saddam Hussein's gats uh mass deskruction those gats dat President Bush, on de eve uh hostilities, said wuz a direct treat to de folk uh de United States has still to be identified... ...On day two uh de war, Donald Rumsfeld, de Secretary uh Defence, said findin an' deskroyin gats uh mass deskruction wuz de invadin force's numbuh two priority aftuh topplin Saddam Hussein itself a reversal uh de argument presented at de UN Security Council. A week latuh, Victoria Clarke, de Pentagon spokeshoe, pushed de issue furthuh down de list, behin' capturin an' evictin "terrorists sheltard in Iraq" an' collectin intelligence on "terroris netwuks". Now we be told dat huntin fuh gats be somethin we can expect once de fightin be ovuh, an' dat it might go on fuh months befo yieldin significant results. "It's hard wuk," a plaintive Ms Clarke said las week... In his State uh de Union address in early February, President Bush wuz quite specific 'boutthe materials he believed Saddam wuz hidin...Dese days, he does not mention gats uh mass deskruction at all, focusin instead on de liberation uh de Iraqi folk as if liberation, not disarmament, had been de project all along." http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=396733 America targeted 14,000 sites. So where be de gats uh mass deskruction? By Andrew Gumbel 13 April 2003 8.) fuh mixed arguments - includin Liberals in favour uh war: De New republic http://www.tnr.com A devout Christian from Texas, a guens de war: "...Our Foundin Fathers... noed dat de history uh humanity be replete wit de rottin carcasses uh world empires. Yet America now has military forces stationed in mo than 100 countries. Our military budgit be mo than those uh de next 27 countries combined... We go where we ain't invited, or we go where one side invites us to join deir civil war a guens another. See what I'm sayin? An' when we fight, we descen' as far down de ladduh uh human decency as needed to win. ...this ain't jus 'boutIraq -- it be 'boutSan' Creek, de Philippines uh 1909, Dresden, Nagasaki, unnumbard villages in Vietnam, an' buses an' hospitals an' apartment buildins in Serbia. yeah, de reasons be always good... fuh all uh history's expandin empires as dey dragged deir trustin subjects into central guvernment domination, confiscatory taxation, moral breakdown, multiplied foreign enemies and, finally, slaughtuh an' sorrow an' widowhood an' orphanhood." http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/editorial/5577465.htm Mon, Apr. See what I'm sayin? 07, 2003 How can dis be a jus war? John J. Dwyer Fort Worth Star-Telegram Norman Mailuh (Left-win Novelis an' formuh Anarchist-candidate fuh Mayor uh New York) in dialogue wit Antiwar US Conservatives: * "I be Not fuh World Empire" A conversation wit Norman Mailuh 'boutIraq, Israel, de perils uh technology an' why he be a Left-Conservative. Taki, Kara Hopkins, an' Scott McConnell De American Conservative [Norman Mailer:] "We be goin to occupy Iraq an' occupy it fuh a long time. Den it all does begin to make its own kin' uh sense. Because dat means we be inauguratin de commencement uh de American World Empire. Right dere be de subtext. Incidentally, de political seat from which I rapp be as a Left-Conservative... ... Until de Left an' dat part uh de Right loyal to its old values can come to recognize dat wit all deir differences, dey also has one profoun' value dey might look to protect in common - de vulnerable dignity uh de human creation - we be all obliged to travel passively into de vain an' surrealistic lan' uh corporate hegemony wit its basic notion dat democracy be a nutrient to be injected into any country anywhere-a totally oppressive misconception uh de delicate promise uh democracy which relies on de organic need to grow out uh itself an' learn from its own human errors." URL: http://www.amconmag.com/12_2/mailer.html 9.) See "De Tikkun Community" http://www.tikkun.org Rabbi Michael Lernuh, one uh de founders uh dis group, has written a very balanced book called "Healin Israel/Palestine" 10.) "An introduction to Neocon Doublethink" Airskripone.com http://www.airskripone.com De Wraps Come Off Bush's Colonialis Agenda Right-win hawks be callin de shots all along. Robert Scheer LA Times 25 March 2003 "De post-Hussein skrategy, formed by a neoconservative clique close to de White House, be anothuh indicator dat dis be in no way a war "to disarm Iraq." ... dere be ample evidence dat "regime change" an' redrawin de map uh de Mideas wuz de goals uh de Bush adminiskration's neoconservative co all along. De Carnegie Endowment (www.ceip.org) las week published "Origins uh Regime fix in Iraq," a thorough portrait uh dis "textbook case uh how a small, organized group can determine policy in a large nation, evun when de majority uh officials an' experts originally scorned deir views." ... Bush already refers to warlord-controlled Afghanistan as "democratic," so perhaps an Iraq run by an American general -- fuh de profit uh Dick Cheney's old company Halliburton an' othuh defense contractors -- will justify fuh Bush de war dat spinmeisters be callin "Operation Iraqi Freedom." " URL: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/ la-war-oescheer25mar25,1,1683587.story "This war, should it come, be intended to mark de official emergence uh de United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizin sole duties an' authority as planetary policeman. It would be de culmination uh a plan 10 years or mo in de makin, carried out by those who believe de United States mus seize de opportunity fuh global domination, evun if it means becomin de "American imperialists" dat our enemies always claimed we wuz. Once dat be understood, othuh mysteries solvedemselves. fuh example, why does de adminiskration seem unconcerned 'boutan exit skrategy from Iraq once Saddam be toppled? Because we won't be leavin. Havin conquard Iraq, de United States will create permanent military bases in dat country from which to dominate de Middle East, includin neighborin Iran." [ De Alanna Journal-Constitution: 9/29/02 ] De president's real goal in Iraq Jay Bookman http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html related link: www.airskripone.com add yo comments Sheeit!