Its the eve of the State of the Union; perhaps Bush will throw up some amazing irrefutable evidence that Iraq is a threat to our sovereignty. I doubt it... my money is that he'll say 'Amarika' and 'Amarikan' 5x a piece however. We've been talking about Iraq for quite a while now. I recall conversations last summer in which some of us argued that we should see the 'compelling case against Iraq' already, while others argued that we needed to protect our sources. I question the type of information we have. We and our allies have the strongest satellites in the world... proof that would never be apologized for. More sensitive information could come from the Kurds, perhaps, but then again I assume the Kurds would hire Al Sharpton to accuse Sadaam of raping their sheep. Hell, this very delay argues that there is no proof that Al Qaeda and Iraq are in cahoots. When something is as morally compelling as self-defense (or my personal favorite... ass-kicking Kantian retribution), one doesn't ask their neighbors, ie "well, what do you think about Frank raping my daughter". You slaughter the criminal involved. If there was any proof that Iraq had anything to do with 09/11 the most dovish of us would be asking where we should put the glass desert. I can't remember how long we've been talking about this? What? 8 mos? 10 mos? 14 mos? What is this, Apocalypse Now? There should have been milestones along the way in this bog of war with Iraq. Who am I? What is going on? Where is the proof? This last September was a solemn moment for us. We used the time to proclaim to the world that Iraq was in cahoots with Al Qaeda, and that we were prepared to fight a war even if the UN was not. It was a great ploy to get republicans elected and to get inspectors back into Iraq, but what has happened since then? Bush has lost the faith of some in the security council by misrepresenting the utility of a few aluminum tubes. The UN has given Iraq a 'B' for its cooperation, a gpa probably better than Bush took from Yale, and yet the president still keeps war with Iraq on the front burner. Are we killing time... waiting for proof of Iraqi's wmd programs to emerge? Yesterday, the "most senior advisor of the Bush administration" was asked about Sadaam's wmd programs and he responded that Sadaam 'probably' had those programs. 'Probably'. 'Probably' ****ing 'probably'. Today as many Americans trust the UN to make the right decisions with Iraq as do the president of the United States. Mary, Mother of God. More than half of all Americans think that Bush has not laid out the case against Iraq, yet leaks from our one and only ally in the Balfour agreement, I mean the Iraq war, have claimed that our side had instructed the Brits to be ready for war mid to late February (the memorandum reminded the Brits to remember their toothbrushes... they always forget their toothbrushes!!). Tony Blair does not have the support in his own country for this war. Luckily however, it appears that a turtle in the Galapagos is still on our side, as are the Italians. Americans don't understand the rational for war. Who the hell else does? The peace movement is growing by leaps and bounds... and every missed opportunity to explain to me why this is a just war is a missed opportunity to also explain to some random militant Saudi, w/ all of the money in the world behind him, why we're not evil assholes. Well, good luck Mr. President. It'd better be a helllll of a speech. I'd rather not have Amaraka attacked anymore.
Bush will use the State of the Union to change the American Anthem which will be sung to the tune of "If you're happy and you know it" to this.................................. If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq. If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq. If the terrorists are frisky, Pakistan is looking shifty, North Korea is too risky, Bomb Iraq. If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq. If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq. So to hell with the inspections, Let's look tough for the elections, Close your mind and take directions, Bomb Iraq. It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq. Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq. They've got weapons we can't see, And that's good enough for me 'Cos it's all the proof I need Bomb Iraq. If you never were elected, bomb Iraq. If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq. If you think Saddam's gone mad, With the weapons that he had, (And he tried to kill your dad), Bomb Iraq. If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq. If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq. If your politics are sleazy, And hiding that ain't easy, And your manhood's getting queasy, Bomb Iraq. Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq. For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq. Disagree? We'll call it treason, Let's make war not love this season, Even if we have no reason, Bomb Iraq.
I disagree, and I disagree. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html U.S. planning to release intelligence on Iraq Pentagon: Military could be ready for war by mid-February Monday, January 27, 2003 Posted: 11:36 PM WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration is likely to declassify intelligence as early as next week that it says shows that senior Iraqi officials have been working to conceal weapons and evidence of weapons programs from United Nations weapons inspectors, administration officials said late Monday.
I'm confused about the argument again. Remind me, Ron... are we fighting because Sadaam has weapons or because he has joined forces with Osama?
Achebe, wasn't it a few days ago that we were seeing a third reason on this board for the war-- that we love those little Iraqi's so much that we just have to liberate them.
This is the sort of thing people said about those imaginary Kuwaiti babies the made up Iraqis kicked out of the liar liar pants on fire incubators. When the guys who are so hot for this war turn to cynical excuses like liberation they can expect the same cynicism from the patriotic opposition. Great post, Achebe.
Look for some pretty harsh talk about the links between the Al-Qaida network and Saddam Hussain tonight. The key word for tonights speech will not be smoking gun, but harboring. Wether it's chemical weapons or terrorists, look for President Bush to point out that Saddam has his hands on or in both.
Achebe, We're going to war for three reasons. One, it is not possible to contain a rogue state that is hell bent on acquiring WMD - yes, we can make sure that his army does not cross the border (intact), but we cannot prevent him from transfering those WMD to smaller elements that cannot be stopped via conventional means - i.e., terrorists. Be they Al Qaeda, Hizbollah, Hamas, or the People's Front for the Wearing of Gay Sportswear. Whatever. We cannot contain that. The only way to stop it is to remove the source. Two, Saddam's primary ambition has always been to establish a Stalinist-type dictatorship over the Arab community. Now, we wouldn't really give a hoot about this if said community didn't sit astride a very large portion of the world's proven oil reserves. Yes, of course it is to a large extent about oil. We live in an energy dependent economy - your car runs on it, your lights go on because it, your computer works because of it - deal with it. It's a fact of current economic life, so deal with it. Saddam cannot be allowed to take over the ME, as he has always wanted to do - we must protect it. Or bust. Three, Saddam hates us. You cannot underestimate this emotional element when considering the resources that the man commands - billions of petrodollars, hundreds of thousands of troops, the love and adoration of millions in the Islamic world due simply to his defiance of us and the UN, etc. The man's history tells us that he has a thing for vengeance, and boy, have we given him some reasons to take some revenge - and he has a longstanding track record of supporting terrorists, *even when doing so would be strategically impractical or even stupid*. If Al Qaeda hates us - and can pull off 911 - then imagine what Saddam can do? His resources are tenfold Al Qaeda's. Such a threat cannot be allowed to exist. As I have said many times here, the decision has already been made anyway. It was made over a year ago. Deal with it. The world will be a better place when the dust settles - in every possible way. When the war is won, and it turns out that almost nobody died on either side, what will the so-called "peace" crowd say then? (I understand that's a longshot "if" in your mind, but knowing what I do I'd call it likely)... What will they say when Saddam is gone? They will have no one left to champion, and I predict that they will fall curiously silent - until the next phase in the war on terror. I don't really need to point out that Roc Paint is right.
I sure hope you're right, treeman. Did you predict that almost nobody would die on either side in 1991, too? I mean, you know, knowing what you do, you must have had an opinion. If so, you were half right and that's not bad odds! Gosh, I sure hope it's the same half this time! And since the world is about to be a better place in every possible way and since you know what you do, please help me understand why I shouldn't be worried that the guy who blew up those buildings right here in our own country is still saying mean things about us on the radio and the crazy man in North Korea is threatening to blow up our whole country. There must be some kind of Axis of Evil link where we kill the boss of a country who's not currently threatening us (he did promise to fight back though, and that's a threat, too!) but might be hiding some anthrax and all the other Axis of Evil guys and all their terrorist friends have to just give up, like fair and square. I'm sure our brave, honest president will explain it all in his speech tonight. Or, at least, I'm sure he'll promise to explain it eventually. Or, at least, I'm sure he'll tell us he has a darn good reason for worrying about the guy who wants nukes and wants to attack us (even if he won't come out and say it) more than the guy who has nukes and wants to attack us (even if he does come out and say it) or the guy who's already attacked us, even if he can't tell us exactly what the reason is. National security and all, you understand. Not being invited to the nouveau smoky rooms where the important meetings take place, I sometimes get scared that everybody else in the world might have a point about this war being a bad idea. I know it's just cause I'm not in the meetings (like I guess you are) and I should just shut up and be patriotic, but sometimes I forget. Please don't be angry with me. I really am patriotic and I buy war bonds twice a day. I guess I'm just not blessed to know what you know about the world getting better in every possible way, like, any minute now. Thanks for telling me about it. Now maybe I can get some sleep.
<b>achebe</b>: Who is saying that our sovereignty is being threatened. We just don't want Saddam to have the capability of a nuclear strike. Wouldn't that be bad enough? <b>Batman</b>: Since when is liberating people "cynical?"
So I suppose that you have a lot of empathy for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children killed by Gulf War I and the sanctions?
When it's liberating oil. Would you call the people of Afghanistan currently "liberated"? They're not. They've just gone from Taliban rule to Warlord rule by anarchy. The same anarchy will engulf Iraq once Junior overthrows Saddam. Meanwhile, terrorist attacks on America will ratchet up, and the economy will still tank. Junior obviously hasn't learned a thing from his Father, but at least his Father was elected.
Yes I do. Nobody is pro-War but some are willing-War for the greater and longer good. You reallyl can't just over-simplify thiese things you know. Which of our sanctions killed children?
So you're saying the Afghans are worse off now because of our eviction of the Taliban? R-e-a-l-l-y... Liberation is a process. Afghanistan was screwed up before the Taliban (I guess that's how they got in). It will take some time. Smack talking and sitting in judgement is neither here nor there. I won't deny that there is an oil motive, but you and your ilk make it seem that that is all that it's about. That <b>is</b> cynical. The U.S. will not be extending and exposing itself around the world with selfless motive. That is just not affordable. Sorry but that's the way it is. Myself, I'm more of an isolationist. That is my preferred status of being. Knocking over The Towers kind of removed that option for the time being.
So, you really believe it is absolutely no different than before in Afghanistan? Sure, it's not going to turn into a Utopia, but it's going to take some convincing for me to believe the people in Afghanistan have no more freedom than they had under Taliban rule.
The case for war does seem to be falling apart when General Schwartkopf the commanding general of Gulf War I is against the rush to war. Schwartkopf I know just another unpatriotic peacenick.
Nope, not saying they are worse off, but I am saying if they are better off, it is extremely marginal. And yes, liberation is a process. My problem is, I see no process taking place. All I see is chaos, and that's all I see in Iraq's future once the inevitable war is over. It just isn't worth the lives or the money.
