<< NEW READERS REQUIRED ~ MAIN ~ "I BELIEVE IN DEATH" >>
THREE FACTS ASSERTED
Editorial in the New York Times:
To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:
The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11.
I don’t think we need bother with the other two.
UPDATE. Osama bin Laden in his 1998 fatwa calling for the killing of Americans:
No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone.
All three are about Iraq. Via reader Heather.
UPDATE II: “You have to be worried when a guy with too much mascara and a snake wrapped around his neck has a keener grasp of basic new millennium geopolitics than so many leading lights of the Democratic Party.” And the New York Times.
Without looking at the actual editorial, I’d wager the next are:
It’s all about the oil.
Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction.
For an idiot clown of incompetence incapable of doing anything right or understanding anything, Chimpy McBushitlerburton has been amazingly successful.
But then, 1,000 monkeys typing on 1,000 typewriters…
Posted by William Young on 2005 06 25 at 02:13 PM • permalinkA favorite charge of the left has been that Bush had planned this war before he took office.
So?
It is reasonable that the incoming administration would identify Saddam’s Iraq as a festering problem that would have to be dealt with. Unfinished business from the first Gulf war, agreements broken. And yes, WMD’s. Something would have to be done with the physco Hussien.
9/11 happened first. When we entered Afghanistan, I remember the general sentiment of many of us as being “Iraq next!” Saddam certainly was funding and abetting the 9/11 hijackers and other terrorists, and taking credit for it in the Muslim world. But we’d have had to go into Iraq anyway, eventually.
“It’s because he tried to kill his Daaaaaddddyyyyy!!!” Well… yeah! That too! An assassination attempt on an ex-president is an act of war. An act of war which Clinton didn’t have the balls to address. (Bill. Hillary might turn out to have balls after all. She’s still wrong, but she’ not the coward Bill is.)
Next: Syria? North Korea?
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 25 at 02:18 PM • permalinkI made the mistake of looking, William, and I’m not sure what the other 2 are.
But I’m well known as stuuuuuuupid.
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2005 06 25 at 02:24 PM • permalinkGreat! The NYT is cause-effect challenged.
The editorial page might as well be saying smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer, and drunk-driving has no effects on other motorists.
I guess the NYT also maintains that Democrat losses at the ballot box have nothing to do with their policies and message.
More fresh meat for Karl Rove to devour.
-SteveMr. Bingley-
You’re right. They never do get around to saying what the other two “facts” are.
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 25 at 02:35 PM • permalink... and fighting the Nazis had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. Whatever.
Posted by lewisinnyc on 2005 06 25 at 04:14 PM • permalinkThe war in Iraq has EVERYTHING TO DO with 9/11.
Damn it, it’s one thing to read this ignorant crap on Tim Dunlop’s blog (where I’ve tried explaining what President Bush and the coalition are trying to do—answer: save our collective asses from more terrorist attacks). It’s an entirely different thing to read it as a NYT editorial. Aren’t they supposed to be written by intelligent and informed persons?
Come on liberals, this is not that hard an issue to understand. But the first step in understanding it is to pull your heads out of your asses—excuse me, arses—and read conservative blogs. Starting with this one.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 06 25 at 04:38 PM • permalinkRather than leaving it to your comments section to do the drudge work, Tim, perhaps you could spell it out for those idiots who are too ‘stuuupid’ to keep up. What did the invasion of Iraq have to do with 9/11?
People like them need more from such elevated members of the ‘conservative’ commentariat as you than glib one-liners vaguely pointing out the errors of their thinking. We all really appreciate your wisdom and humour, Tim, but sometimes the less intuitive amongst us are left a little in doubt as to what your more obtuse comments are really trying to say.
Although the high calibre of your readers is without doubt, sometimes their elucidation of your ‘hinted at’ deeper meanings leaves me in doubt as to whether ‘the group’ are all thinking along the same lines as you.
I think it’s time for you to give us some more thorough analysis. Some supplemental questions I’d like to hear someone of your prodigious intellect and logical powers address are:
Why was the invasion of Iraq the best next step in the war on terror after Afghanistan?
Why doesn’t it matter that most of the reasons given for going to war with Iraq have turned out to be unfounded?
How do you defend the Bush administration against those silly attacks that it had pre-determined the need to invade Iraq and simply ‘fixed’ the intelligence around that plan to convince Americans and the world that it was justified? (I’m not ignoring you, nofixedabode, but I’d like to hear Tim’s view)?
What is the moral argument for a government (while clearly acting in the best interests of its people and the world) not being entirely open about what its real intentions and motivations are?
I realise you’re a busy man, Tim, so I’ll stop there, but I think the time is right for someone to put these issues to bed and you are the man for the job.
Sincerely (but confusedly) yours
Loadedog—well, you can point out the sheer brilliance Bush showed in loading the intelligence in 1998 when the Congress voted to remove Saddam and Clinton signed off on it…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 25 at 04:48 PM • permalink"I don’t think we need bother with the other two.”
As Mr. Bingley and others note, apparently neither does the NYT, unless they’re saving them for future editorials. Don’t they have editors to help them with their editorials?
And note how loadedog subtly changes the Times’ position to, “Why was the invasion of Iraq the best next step in the war on terror after Afghanistan,” hence tacitly admitting that removing Saddam was related to terror and hence 9/11.
For starters:
Because it was well established that Saddam financed and harbored terrorists, and it has been official policy since the Clinton administration to change the regime in Baghdad.
Because every major intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD, including both the French and Russians, and because Saddam has used them, even on his own people.
Because until the rotten mess of tyranny in the Middle East is cleaned up, we will continue having to deal with terrorism on a worldwide scale, and sooner or later they will kill tens or hundreds of thousands, not just the few thousand murdered on 9/11.
I could go on, but it’s not like this hasn’t been hashed and rehashed for the last three plus years.
Posted by Bruce Rheinstein on 2005 06 25 at 04:51 PM • permalinkA sober discussion? Whoever met a sober NYT editorialist?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 25 at 05:09 PM • permalinkRichard, please don’t make the mistake of thinking that anyone who questions the Bush administration would like to suck Clinton’s cock. In the polarised world of US politics, that may be a valid assumption and I pity those whose only alternatives are Tweedledum and Tweedledee, as they say.
From my (obviously brain addled) point of view, American foreign policy has been, shall we say, not exactly beneficial to world peace and stability for many a year, regardless of which Party or President was at the helm.
What does seem to be different about Bush et al, as opposed to Clinton and others, is that their arrogance and incompetence has exposed America to much valid criticism. If I truly believed in America’s right to ‘clean up’ the Middle East, as Mr Rheinstein so succinctly put it, I’d be sorely disappointed with Bush’s ham-fisted, poorly planned (I’ll stop short of disastrous) invasion of Iraq as a starting point.
Interestingly, Pat Buchanan has a rather jaundiced view of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I was surprised, to say the least, to see his assessment of the state of play in Iraq. Supporters of Bush and the invasion might be feeling a little hemmed in, with loonies on the right now joining the left-wing moon-bat chorus questioning the neo-con agenda.
Oh well.
From my (obviously brain addled) point of view, American foreign policy has been, shall we say, not exactly beneficial to world peace and stability for many a year, regardless of which Party or President was at the helm.
Hmmm, successful containment of the USSR, ending with its largely peaceful demise, was not beneficial? That may be the majority view in France, but they know better in Poland.
There’s plenty of peace and stability in a graveyard. Struggle and change are generally preferred, though.
Soros and loadedog say: "American foreign policy has been, shall we say, not exactly beneficial to world peace and stability for many a year."
I’m always amazed when folks tout “stability” as a foreign policy goal. When blackberry brambles took over my wife’s rose garden, rather than drop my Fosters and grab my hoe, I told her that in the interest of “peace and stability” I would remain in my hammock that afternoon.
When a rattlesnake crawls in loadedog’s kid’s playpen, I’m sure he’ll question his devotion to stability.
My last post for the day, sadly:
Loadedog… when you wandered in here you asked how we could justify Bush loading the evidence, when that evidence was accepted by bypartisan agreement two years before he ever reached office, here and around the world. Deal with it.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 25 at 05:59 PM • permalinkI agree Mitch. The people of Poland are, and should be, entirely grateful for American involvement.
Please don’t make the assumption that, if someone criticises US foreign policy generally, they have no ability to see whatever good has come of it.
There have been many winners out of the US’s involvement in the wider world, and I for one would be entirely against America adopting an isolationist policy. I believe America has a right (as do all countries) and, you might say, a responsibility to engage with the world.
I also agree that struggle and change are preferable to sitting on your hands. But having assumed the mantle of ‘world super-power’, I also believe that the US must at least attempt to fulfil that role with the highest standards of honesty and integrity and with the human rights of all the world’s citizens in mind.
As they say of corruption in Australia (and I’m sure in the US), there must not only be none of it, but also no perception of it (sorry, rather clumsily put). As to whether the US has the highest goals in the prosecution of the war on Iraq, I, as a private individual with no access to the corridors or power, could never realistically know. But the Bush administration has failed my test by too easily allowing the perception of corruption, self-interest, and the abandonment of the acknowledgement of the rights of all the world’s people to reign free.
When all the rest of you have finished doing my thinking for me, I’ll get back to you.
Mr McEnroe.
Just because Republican Party 1 and 2 agreed on the evidence doesn’t mean it was unanimously accepted in American or around the world. Also, the Democratic Party, like the Australian government and others around the world were responding to the evidence presented to them by the Bush Administration who had clearly muscled their security agencies into painting what could be passed off as a fairly presentable case.
Of course we now all know that at least the British were in on the sham from the start (and it wouldn’t surprise me if the Aussies were too).
I, for one, was not convinced, and everything I thought then (that it was basically a crock of s***) has been proven true.
Please understand. I don’t necessarily disagree that invading Iraq was an inevitable action. I don’t support tyrants. I abhor them. What I disagree with is going to war in a rush, with no planning for:
The safety and security of civilians
The safety and security of priceless cultural assets
The aftermath
Please understand. I don’t necessarily disagree that invading Iraq was an inevitable action. I don’t support tyrants. I abhor them.
BUT…
What I disagree with is going to war in a rush, with no planning for:
The safety and security of civilians
The safety and security of priceless cultural assets
The aftermath
In other words, the plan didn’t survive contact with the enemy so you declare it nonexistent. Sorry, but I am acquainted with people who were part of the postwar planning and there was a plan. There were problems that popped up after the invasion—like the Baath government evaporating like it was not supposed to. It happens from time to time.
Oh, and:
Supporters of Bush and the invasion might be feeling a little hemmed in, with loonies on the right now joining the left-wing moon-bat chorus questioning the neo-con agenda.
No, that would be your presumption of who exactly supports the Iraq campaign. Same thing happened when O’Reilly expressed disatisfaction with Iraq and moonbats like you jumped up and said “See, SEE?! O’REILLY SAYS ITS WRONG SO YOU MUST AGREE...” Except I don’t base my beliefs on what others say. Try another way of “convincing” people to jump on your “all is doomed, DOOOMED in Iraq” bandwagon. It’s not working.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 06 25 at 07:11 PM • permalinkMaybe it’s not a leftist power issue in the present case, more an ego issue.
In any case, all the arguments made are years old. They were already defeated. They are wrong in their claims as to the premisses. The war was not “rushed,” it was delayed. The reasons for the war consisted of a lot more than the evidence of WMD all suited up and ready to rumble. (Past threads at Tim’s earlier location http://timblair.spleenville.com are full of discussions of those reasons in the comments threads. One can also read the actual Congressional resolution authorizing the invasion.) The last time that any leftist even admitted that, it was in order to say that there were “too many reasons given” and that the pro-invasionists should “narrow the reasons down.” That was the collapse of the anti-war argument right there. What we’re hearing now is a tape recording of the past. Or a collection of anti-war handbills, shut away in a drawer, chanting to be let out, as if they had not failed at their agitprop the first time around. Be the handbill, whispers the leftist spirit. Next, you’re a used, faded handbill.
In both the USA and Australia, we have had elections; Bush and the GOP and Howard and the liberals were both decisively re-elected with increased majorities in their respective legislative branches. Their own elections matter more in the USA and in Australia than the vituperations of news organizations heavily staffed with admirers of Noam Chomsky, and more than opinions of the world press, the UN, NGOs, Mugabe’s dependable allies the French and Communist Chinese governments, etc.
I remember when the left was predicting much huger disaster in Iraq, just as they had in Afghanistan. There was considerable planning; considerable destruction was thereby avoided. Things would have gone even better if we had been able also to come down through Turkey. It didn’t work out. Shit happens. Now the left is trying to treat the things that HAVE happened as if they were like the humanitarian disasters which never materialized. Now that’s what I call “sticking to the script.”
Well thanks Gerry for recognising (at least) that any differing view doesn’t have to be entirely ‘left’. I didn’t realise, however, that there was a limit to how much you could comment, nor that this shop was closed to other than those singing the same tune.
I’m after intelligent debate (I await the chorus of snide remarks about my lack of smarts) and I guess if you don’t allow it here, I WILL have to go somewhere else. How many share Gerry’s view?
thought that after 3 years we could move past our disagreements about the invasion and agree about the importance of helping build Iraqi democracy. But unfortunately it seems that we are doomed to re-argue the case forever.
To me, all this junk about the Downing Street Memos and how they relate to the intelligence, WMD, UN inspections etc. is irrelevant.
9/11 had everything to do with Iraq! Root causes people!! The evidence is as clear as day. Osama said it himself repeatedly. Go read his Fatwas. Here is the first one from 1996.
It’s long, convoluted and full of stilted religious allusions with a weird mix of triumphalism and whining. null
There is a lot of sickening incitement to violence and the bellyaching about Kashmir, Chechnya (it should be noted that while some of these are legitimate grievances - Al Qaeda’s take on the problem is pure propaganda), East Timor (lefties were pretty uncomfortable with that one), the Philippeans, Spain (Andalus - yes, they are insane).Amidst all that, you can discern Osama’s 3 biggest grievances.
1) By far his biggest complaint is the presence of crusader armies in Saudi Arabia (the land of the 2 holy sites). Why were they there? Saddam.
2) Infidel-Crusader support for Zionst occupiers and defilers of Palestine. Not related to Saddam but Saddam certainly wasn’t helping in this area - he was an obstacle (one of many) to finding a peaceful solution for the Palestinians.
3) Crusader sanctions starving Iraqi babies and impoverishing the people of Iraq. Saddam. This is one of the tragedies of the Oil-for-Food corruption. Thanks Kofi! There is a long list of shameful apologists among Western Leftists who spent a decade pushing Baathist propaganda that this was not Saddam’s fault but ours. Special dishonorable mention to CBS and 60 Minutes who ran a story and distorted a quote from Madeline Albright to make it look as if the U.S. Government was complicit in the Humanitarian Disaster. In the Muslim world, this Big Lie was trumpeted for 10 years in their state-controlled media and from the Friday Sermons at all Wahhabi mosques. More than anything else, this is “why they hate us.”What is it with amnesia-affected anti-warons like loadedpuppy? Do they go into some sort of life-preserving sealed coffin for six months out of the year, and have to be brought up to speed on everything during their brief times out, or is it just all the drug abuse? I love it when they smugly assert that we have to convince them, because—what, are you going to turn off the sun if we don’t? I don’t have to convince you of anything, loady: you go right on ahead believing your fantasies. It’s no skin off my nose if you prefer to be stupid.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 06 25 at 08:57 PM • permalinkOh guinsPen, I wouldn’t ban loady for the world. I’ve been needing a laugh.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 06 25 at 08:57 PM • permalinkForNow
The Iraq invasion and liberation process and the whole anti-terrorist war and the democratization policy, will have everything to do with 9/11/01 on the day that a Democrat becomes US President.
I suspect you’re right on that.
I’m comforted by the belief that should a Democrat regain the White House, they will handle national security responsibly (knowing that all eyes are upon) and all the second guessing and air conditioning horror stories we hear today will have been revealed as just a cynical lip-service, designed to get Soros and his ilk to cough up the dough.
Losing the White House to a Democrat would almost be worth it just to see the stunned look on a disillusioned lefty’s face when Hillary announces our intentions for Syria.
Almost.
Ha ha.
More “brave” “supporters” of “our” troops in Iraq.
You guys sure talk a big talk.
From the safety of your homes.
Hee hee.
Hoo hoo.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1450/499/1600/award3.jpg
Posted by NewAmericanPatriot on 2005 06 25 at 09:29 PM • permalinkWhere are those pesky trained terriors when you need them,I gotta ask?
Some programme recently where the fact that the second in command al quaeda attended an Islamic conference in Iraq and spent some time with Saddam before Sept 11.
Also that some of Bin Ladens large family visited Iraq and had sessions with Saddam.
SBS I think.You know, Saddam was right.
Dorito’s are tasty.Posted by papertiger on 2005 06 25 at 09:57 PM • permalinkOh.. and I do have my own blog, but it gets a bit lonely over there sometimes.
Gee..... wonder why?
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 25 at 09:58 PM • permalinkMore “brave” “supporters” of “our” troops in Iraq.
Bah, I can do more scare quotes than that.
“More” “Brave” “Supporters” of “Our” “Troops” in “Iraq”.
- from “New” “American” “Patriot”
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 06 25 at 10:19 PM • permalink"#45” “NewAmericanPatriot""-"
“It’s""past""your""bedtime""little""person""."
“(""And""you""have""no""clue""as""to""the""service""status""or""service""records"
“of""the""posters""here"”."")"Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 25 at 10:39 PM • permalinkManjiro
It’s possible, is it not, to disagree with the way the war was sold and waged, yet agree with you that helping rebuild Iraq is a priority? The ordinary citizens of Iraq have been at the root of all our concerns (I hope) and we all share the desire for them to live in peace and prosperity, free of the tyranny of Saddam and of any other despot. I’m not one of those suggesting the US should pull out any time soon.
All members of the coalition have a responsibility to stay the course and hopefully leave Iraq in a position to develop whatever system of government they choose. I think the hope of a stable peaceful society developing any time soon is rather vain given the divided nature of their society, and because it has been made the focus of much of the international discord between west and east.
But I can’t agree that we should just get over our disagreements about the invasion. I don’t see many on the right getting over their loathing of Clinton. We’re still prosecuting people for war crimes committed 60 years ago. A man was convicted the other day of a murder committed in the Missisippi Burning era.
Crimes/misdemeanours/errors of judgement (particularly of the order of waging war and resulting in tens of thousands of casualties) do not diminish in seriousness because of the passage of decades, let alone a few short years. It’s not ancient history. We’re talking about a serving president. Clinton was pursued for years for a sexual indiscretion. Do you compare a couple of blow jobs with waging war?
I’m curious about your 3 points. I’ll just address number one, cause I’m getting tired (been up since 4 AM and I’ve got other stuff to do). You suggest that Bin Laden’s ire was raised by the presence of US forces in Saudi Arabia, I presume during the first Gulf War. I’m guessing, but I think your logic is that it was Saddam’s fault that the US invaded Iraq, and had to use Saudi bases to do so.
Up to there I’m not prepared to argue the point. I’ll concede for the sake of expediency that Saddam brought the Gulf War on himself and is thus partially responsible, and I think you’d have to admit, rather indirectly so, for focussing Bin Laden’s anger on the US. Accordingly, to continue your line of reasoning, he assumes partial responsibility for 9/11.
He shares that responsibility with many agents, many events (as you yourself report), and if we are to draw such long bows, doesn’t the US also have some responsibility for having supported Saddam up till 1990, having armed him, having stood by as he used chemical weapons on the Iranian people. Aren’t the US and Britain partially responsible for ‘creating’ a country called Iraq in the first place, as they divvied up the Middle East as the spoils of the Second World War.
Having invaded Iraq once, and coincidentally enraged Bin Laden, do you believe the US has done anything other than create more Bin Laden’s, more hatred and resentment, and dread the thought, the greater possibility of further atrocities at home? As we now know, Saddam, while a vicious dictator of the sort the world has seen far too many of, was safely contained within his borders, had no WMD’s, had no direct role in planning 9/11, gave no support to Bin Laden, was in fact hated by Bin Laden, was, in some ways, a secular barrier to the Islamification of the Middle East, and was possibly quite vulnerable to the sort of covert tactics so often used by the US to unseat unsavoury leaders in many countries around the world.
I’m not a practising Christian, but sometimes I ask myself ‘What would Jesus have done?’ Violence begets violence. I bring up my son, thankfully safe from rattlesnakes here in Canberra, to take the gentle path wherever possible. Turning the other cheek requires far more courage and character than replying, as my father used to say when I playfully threatened to hit him on the arm, twice and twice as hard. The US has killed the snake because the tiger bit it.
My partner just said ‘you don’t even kill the snake because it bit you. In Australia, most people who get bitten by snakes were stupidly trying to mess with or kill it for being in the wrong place at the wrong time’. The analogy is imperfect, I know, but in all I read here, I see naught but the seeds of America (a country that I love and admire) bringing about its own destruction.
Actually, I don’t think that most of the Dems currently angling for the Presidency would do a good job of leading the anti-terrorist war, the democratization policy, etc.
And maybe the 9/11/01 connection would not become validly immediately upon the Dem President’s taking the oath of office. But it would happen soon enough.
For decades now, the best politically interested Democrat minds have not been going into defense and security issues. If, say, a Dem hawk like Joe Lieberman had won the Presidency in 2004, he’d still be stuck with the foreign policy “establishment” which we saw during the Clinton years. And most of the major Dem pols have made foreign and defense policy too often an opportunity for domestic political tactics based on the 24/7 news cycle.
Clinton was pursued for years for a sexual indiscretion.
He was pursued for lying under oath in a sexual harrasment suit brought by a former employee of his.
When asked of his relationship with Monica Lewinski (that woman) so as to demonstrate a pattern, he lied in order to avoid losing the suit.
He was under oath and he lied, in a case that was indeed small potatos, wich almost makes it all worse.
That said, I for one am over Bill.
All the Michael Moore wannabes are always spouting the “America created/supported/armed Saddam” propaganda conveniently forget he was A SOVIET CLIENT SINCE 1959!
If the US “armed” the bastard, why the f*ck did we sell him Soviet equipment?
The exact same “chemical weapons” technology that he acquired from Germany, is now considered by critics (cynics, in reality) as “dual use” and NOT proof of WMD.
Interesting reading:
World’s largest WMD trial begins
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 06 25 at 11:17 PM • permalinkClinton was pursued for years for a sexual indiscretion.
Clinton was pursued for years first for alleged illegal financial transactions and then for lying under oath. His lie deprived a citizen of due process. For this, he was impeached and disbarred. Additionally, Clinton’s colleagues went to jail and/or fled the country in order to keep Clinton’s financial misdeeds from being fully explored.
I don’t see many on the right getting over their loathing of Clinton. We’re still prosecuting people for war crimes committed 60 years ago.
Huh?!?
I’m not a practising Christian, but sometimes I ask myself ‘What would Jesus have done?’
Again: Huh?!?
My partner just said ‘you don’t even kill the snake because it bit you. In Australia, most people who get bitten by snakes were stupidly trying to mess with or kill it for being in the wrong place at the wrong time’.
In the USA, we quite often kill snakes for “being in the wrong place at the wrong time.” We don’t consider it necessary to wait for the bite. In most cases killing is the preferred cure, though relocation is sometimes (rarely) attempted. We also kill rabid dogs, rabid raccoons, bats, rats and the like. Depending on the immediacy of the threat, we also may kill bears, lions, alligators, monkeys, apes, insects, arachnids and other assorted creatures.
I like our ways better.
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 25 at 11:32 PM • permalinkloadedog, I don’t count for much around here, but I for one welcome your continued posting precisely because you appear to be one of the rarest of endangered species: a confused liberal who nonetheless maintains some nominal coherency and maturity in your rhetoric.
Having said that, I have long since forgotten all the points you raised above, some of which were, as I say, nominally reasonable, others of which were fairly assinine.
If you wish to, feel free to ask one highly focused question, and I will do my best to answer.
In lieu of that, I will answer the question which seems to be at the root of this, I will remind you of one of the reasons why Iraq was crucial to the WoT, one of the reasons which rarely is expressed, strangely, but which really is one of the most important reasons.
Remember, please, that before 9/11 the U.S. had been attacked over and over again, without real response. Yes, all the way back to Reagan, the U.S. was guilty of “backing down” in the face of difficulty, of being something of a “paper tiger”. Al Q had declared war on us a long time ago; we simply hadn’t cared to respond.
Did you see _Blackhawk Down_? The man who taught the Somalis to target the rear rotor of our helicopters was named O.B.L, and the way we cut and ran from that difficulty was a crucial justification that O.B.L. had for pursuing 9/11. His lieutenants were worried about it, you see-- they thought it was a wee bit too much, but Osama told them not to worry-- the U.S. would respond in a tepid way at best. The U.S. might be drawn to enter Afghan, he told them, but there he and his warriors would have decades of glorious jihad to enjoy, at our expense. (Osama was and perhaps still is greatly enamored of the guerilla warfare he discovered while fighting the Sovs in Af. He imagined spending the rest of his days killing a couple U.S. soldiers a day in Afghan, just like he twisted the Sovs.)
So-- set your wayback machine for pre-war. What was the situation? The U.S. was spending incredible amounts of money and time patrolling the no-fly zone, being shot at every single day. Our ships were tied up there, giving force to the idea that we might attack, or could, which is the only thing that allowed inspectors to do even a mock-joke of a reasonable job there.
Meanwhile, pressure had been mounting in Europe, mainly, to forget all about the silly sanctions-- soon enough, the U.S. would have been diplomatically forced to “back down”, in some sense, even though Saddam was clearly playing infinite games with the ceasefire agreement. Europe was simply not interested in enforcing the terms of that surrender, not anymore than they are interested in a currently occurring genocide for which the U.S. can’t in any way be blamed.
So-- above and beyond all the other facts about how the entire world believed he had WMD’s, (more on that if you wish), above and beyond the necessity to establish democracy in the M.E, (ahem!), above and beyond the problem of Saddams buddying with various terrorists, the situation was one wherein the U.S. had the option of backing down, ergo begging Al Q to attack us again, or to enforce the terms of the ceasefire.
It really wasn’t a choice. There ya go. Now what I’m wondering is… Do you get it? Think before you answer-- your credibility here, (such as it is), is at stake.
Posted by zeppenwolf on 2005 06 26 at 12:27 AM • permalinkThanks Steppenwolf. Really thanks. No sarcasm, no smart-ass snideness. This really does deserve a considered response, and I have to go out now and buy some potting mix and stuff so, if you’ll accept my apology for the delay, I’m going to think about this deeply (while meandering around the garden shop) and come back to you before this (Australian) day is out.
Yours respecfully
loadedog
Loady, don’t sign your frickin’ posts, your sig is your name in the name field.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 06 26 at 12:47 AM • permalinkI remember an e-mail conversation where he dismissed any relationship between 11/9 and Iraq.
no-one believes this anymore.Not even Rummy.
It is important to note it was only the USA ,Oz & the UK with a few more exceptions that said Iraq posed a threat to World peace.
how they could do this with some of the oldest and slowest planes in that area, with tanks so old that some of them couldn’t be serviced. with an army though large had never really performed well in battle and with no battle hardened Generals to speak of was never really spoken of.to use WMDS you need a decent defence force. Iraq didn’t have one.
notice too WMDs was never defined. t was used in a generic way.
given that the best missiles Hussein had dropped out of the sky halfway to Israel which was confirmed by Blix was also never really explained.The reason put forward that WMDs might get into terrorists hands read AQ was also never really explained.
AQ never used sophisticated weapons.
for good reason.
They cost a lot, you need infrastructure and well educated people to use them. Contrary to popular fiction AQ never had a lot of cash which explains the CIA’s concerns about WMDs in Iraq was invaded.This explains the present triumphalism of Eagleburger, Scowcroft and the Cato institute, who unlike timbo and others, accurately forecast what would happen after the war.
It explains the McNamara ‘promotion’ of Wolfie who was consistent in getting almost everything wrong about the war and its aftermath.If Bush had wanted to merely get rid of Hussein without the consequences he was warned of he should have thought berlin wall.
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 26 at 12:59 AM • permalinkdoesn’t the US also have some responsibility for . . . having armed [Saddam Hussein]
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute tracks international arms shipments. According to their figures, U.S. sourced arms constituted what percentage of the value of Iraqi arms imports from 1970-2004?
A) 47.01%
B) 41.70%
C) 17.40%
D) 14.07%
E) 4.17%
F) 1.47%
G) 0.74%
H) 0.47%The answer? H. Less than one half of one percent.
In contrast, the Soviet Union and satellites Poland and Czechoslovakia provided 69.98% of Iraq’s imported arms during the same time period; France provided 12.43%; China was responsible for 11.05%; Brazil sold 1.65%; Egypt sent 1.18%; and even the Danes managed to transfer more weapons than the U.S. with 0.52%. But the U.S. was well ahead of Britain’s 0.18% and Australia’s 0.00%
You complained earlier that people aren’t explaining things, just making quips. Well, there’s a reason—we’re tired of repeating our arguments to everybody who missed them the first fifteen thousand times. I personally have been pointing out the SIPRI data on arms transfers for some ten years now (it’s been basically the same the whole time, since the embargo from 1990-2003 pushed the trade underground)). I’ve written letters to newspapers, I’ve mentioned it on internet fora of a dozen types on hundreds of different hosts, I’ve seen it mentioned by others in blog after blog during the run-up to the Iraq War . . . and still people talk about the U.S. arming Iraq.
At some point, you want stop trying to educate ignorance and just make quips. Because it doesn’t seem like either actually does any good, but the latter at least is entertaining.
By the way, the Arabic posessions of the Ottoman Empire were divvied up after the First World War, not the Second, and by Britain and France, not the United States.
Oh, and yes, the U.S. did give Iraq some support during the Iran-Iraq War. It gave Iraq discount coupons for food.
When you see the references to millions of dollars in aid, the form of that aid was these coupons, called agricultural export credits. The U.S. government bought food from U.S. farmers as part of U.S. domestic price supports. It then sold this food on the world market for the market price. Agricultural export credits were granted to some countries in the U.S. foreign aid budget; such credits gave a discount over world market price to the buyer.
Posted by Warmongering Lunatic on 2005 06 26 at 01:25 AM • permalinkIf Bush had wanted to merely get rid of Hussein without the consequences he was warned of he should have thought berlin wall.
Homer, you really shouldn’t comment while drunk. Or whatever the hell is wrong with you.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 06 26 at 01:28 AM • permalinkOh, god, you know a comments thread has jumped the shark when Homer Paxton arrives.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 06 26 at 01:50 AM • permalinkLoadedog,
I notice that you (and most of your mates) who are always criticizing what others did never mention how they would resolve these type of problems.
For example:
1.What would you have done after 9/11?
2.OK, so when you did nothing and that did not fix the problem and the attacks increased, what would you do then? Still nothing?
3.What would you do about North Korea/Iran if you had “evidence” which suggested they were going to sell WMDs to terrorists?
4.When you did nothing and thousands were killed, what would you tell the survivors?
5.When you were finally forced into action, how would you capture the terrorists without any civilians being hurt or killed?Posted by FreddyFrog on 2005 06 26 at 01:50 AM • permalinkold Frddy son it is damned easy.
Bush should have used all the resources he used in Iraq in Afghanistan.no more warlords who merely switched sides, no letting go of Usama, completely destrying AQ in the meantime
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 26 at 01:57 AM • permalinkSo Homer, what are you saying, that the US should have killed anybody/everybody who they did not know?
The plan was to try and HELP the Afghanistan people to take back control for themselves, not take over the country.
No one seems to know it Usama was even in Afghanistan when the US was near enough to get to him.Posted by FreddyFrog on 2005 06 26 at 02:26 AM • permalinkHomer,
Osama and his AQ goons had bugged out of Afghanistan before the Iraq invasion run-up. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 06 26 at 02:31 AM • permalinkThe war has nothing to do with Sept. 11.
The decision to attack Iraq was based on (false) assumptions that Hussein was somehow related to or implicated in the 911 attacks and/or proliferating mass-casualty WMDs. Bush repudiated Hussein’s 911 connection before the war. And the UN sanctions against Iraq for violating constraints on its WMD program were in place well before 911. Yet in the lead up to the war, Bush continued to insinuate that Hussein and mass-casualty jihadists were connected. Here is the CS Monitor in March 2003
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was “personally involved” in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein’s regime.
So the New York Times is technically, and substantially, correct on the policy facts. Of course 911 changed the political atmosphere in the US, which made war in the ME a more acceptable option to the populus. But this is not something that the pro-war party are particularly keen to highlight.Wow! The trifecta of stupidity and wordy wankiness have arrived. Ladies and Gents I present to you - Homer ‘Iron Mark’ Paxton, Loaded ‘Folk music isnt just for stankey old bearded leftist blowhard disability pensioners’ Dog and Jack ‘Where are my underpants?’ Strocchi.
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 06 26 at 02:51 AM • permalinkI remember an e-mail conversation where he dismissed any relationship between 11/9 and Iraq.
Hey Homer, people who want to make sense generally don’t use a pronoun like “he” when there was no prior sentence and thus no subject or object that it can possibly refer to[/I], ya idjit.
to use WMDS you need a decent defence force. Iraq didn’t have one.
That has to be the most stunningly ignorant statement I’ve read all month.
AQ never used sophisticated weapons. for good reason.
Umm, that “good reason” was that so far, they haven’t managed to get their hands on any. Geez Homer, I usually try to keep the ad hominems to a relative minimum, but you’re making it extremely difficult not to call you an ignorant slut (as somebody did the last time you reared your head) when you post such asinine and self-contradicting crap.
Contrary to popular fiction AQ never had a lot of cash which explains the CIA’s concerns about WMDs in Iraq was invaded.
Your evidence for this assertion is? Pre-9/11 evidence only, please, since you stated they “never had” much cash, not just after the U.S. started going after terrorist funds more aggressively.
If Bush had wanted to merely get rid of Hussein without the consequences he was warned of he should have thought berlin wall.
What, take out Hussein and then build an 8 feet high wall between the Kurds, the Sunni and the Shia territories? Pray tell, what on Earth can you possibly have meant by that nonsensical comment?
Seriously, Homer, do you compose your posts like they make ransom letters in cheap crime novels...3 words from this website, 2 from that, 4 more from another, until you have what looks like a typical Homer Paxton post? The proverbial 1000 monkeys are able to stumble across more coherent posts than you do.
on 11/9 AQ made an unprecedented attack onthe US.
If bush was fair dinkum he would have pursued those forces until the ends of the earth.
He had the chance in Afghanistan to do something with most of the world’s agreement instead he dogged it.
most of the warlords in power under the Taliban are still there.
What message does that send?
They could have don something at tora Bora but again din’t. What message does that send?Then after doing that he again plays into AQ’s hand by invading Iraq.
Who is winning in Iraq. only AQ.the best friend AQ ever had is bush and the people who supported this insane policy.
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 26 at 02:59 AM • permalinkPW,
Before you comment perhaps you should attempt to read what the CIA has said to various senate committees.
It may assist your understanding of AQ.I’m afraid the berlin wall line has gone over everybody heads.
Think about why the berlin wall came down. It wasn’t because of an invading army and then think of the counties surrounding Iraq.
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 26 at 03:04 AM • permalinkIs it just me, or do Homer’s posts always read like satire?
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 06 26 at 03:11 AM • permalinkHomer, Jack, Loaddeddog: What we learned on September 11, 2001, is that you can’t safely contain murderous tyrants like Saddam Hussein or the Taliban. Both regimes were actively promoting and exporting terrorism, as well as brutally oppressing their own people. They couldn’t invade their neighbouring countries, so much is true, but that didn’t stop them seeking and finding other ways to murder people. And as Zeppenwolf pointed out, they were prepared to do this because they didn’t fear the consequences, because they didn’t believe there would be any consequences.
September 11 didn’t change the rules, rather it was an unmissable sign that the rules had already changed. George Bush changed American foreign policy by roughly 180 degrees in recognition of the fact that the world had changed.
Warmongering Lunatic
I’m sure anything I cite will be regarded as an unreliable source, but anyway, here’s a few links that support my claims re US support of Saddam Hussein. Bear in mind I made no claim about the level of support, the amount of cash, the types or origins of weapons
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
I realise they started this whole thread, but here’s the NYT
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20911FA38590C7B8DDDA10894DA404482
The Teicher affidavit discusses US support for Iraq under Reagan at
length.http://www.webcom.com/%7Elpease/collections/hidden/teicher.htm
If you’re not satisfied, I will find more.
Steppenwolf. I haven’t forgotten you. And Freddy, I’ll include some responses to your questions as well. It may take me a while.
And my apologies Andrea. I didn’t know the etiquette.
Heh, the NYT always brings out the moonbats. NewAmericanPatrIdiot ("The ChickenHawk Argument"), Homer Paxton ("Blogs with Scotch"), and Jack Strocchi ("History Revisionist Extraordinare").
Loadedog, you’re not a moonbat, but you lean socialist, are an awfully good tap dancer, and are a borderline goalpost mover.
Still, it’s clear that your arguments are based on the premise that American is at fault for everything, and thus must atone in a fashion to please all oppressed people of the world, rather than try to give them the freedoms we enjoy.
Granted, US foreign policy has not always been kind and gentle; one would be a fool to say otherwise. Still, if you use an objective accounting system to compare US foreign policy with other nations, I expect that we’ll rack up a better score than, say, the former Soviet Union, France, China, and other world powers. For example, WarMongering Lunatic (post #69) offers one aspect of that. Another would be our annual foreign aid, exclusive of the money we waste through the United Nations.
But I really don’t expect to accept these points. As I said, it’s clear that you are Anti-American (probably anti-West as well.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 26 at 03:38 AM • permalinkPixy, its all about the HYPOCRASYH!!!!!!111
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 06 26 at 03:57 AM • permalinkApologies for speaking out of turn here.
I came to this place because I am a disgruntles moderate. I was more left, but I have since grown up, and left wing sites tended to close ranks and insult those who dared to disagree with them.
I was hoping this would be different.
i enjoy reading Tims rantings and ravings. They are entertaining and even educational at times. However, to simple dismiss someone (I’m tlaking loadedog here) as a crackpot lefty for presenting an argument, which to me at least, is quite a moderate one is a little dissapointing.
I’m not seeking to start a major fight. Nor am I trying to change anything. It is just an observation.
And before anyone jumps on the “Lefty! Lefty!” chant let me just say that there is only one party I cannot stand in Australian politics and that is the greens. The others I merely dislike at times.
Think about why the berlin wall came down. It wasn’t because of an invading army and then think of the counties surrounding Iraq.
Umm, it came down because Reagan “arms-raced the Russians to death” (as one of my professors memorably said) and Gorbachev, unable and unwilling to support the USSR’s puppet/client states anymore, ever so gently leaned on them to reform or be left behind by history (it turned out to be the latter option in short order since 80 year old socialists didn’t make the greatest reformers). Now, unfortunately for you, that still makes no fuckin’ sense in the context of Iraq, so perhaps now that I’ve answered your post you’d like to explain your own thought processes behind bringing up the Berlin Wall?
Umm no it didn’t.
1000’s of east Germans were fleeing to Hungary.
The East Germans realised theirb time was up.Why are N Korea and Cuba still around then.
It was gorby who was the main character not Ronny!
no gorby No buttinPosted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 26 at 04:09 AM • permalinkGruntled, you’re right, but the problem (as others have already mentioned) is that we, as non-moonbats, face a constant barrage of moonbattery of every imaginable shape and size. Sometimes we’re too quick to return fire on something that turns out not to be a moonbat. This is regrettable, I guess.
But given the amount that has been written on the subject, given its ready availability to anyone with an internet connection, anyone like Loadeddog who has the inclination and the ability to learn could have learned long since.
Loadeddog, go visit USS Clueless and read everything there. If you have any questions after that, we’ll answer them as best we can.
However, to simple dismiss someone (I’m tlaking loadedog here) as a crackpot lefty for presenting an argument, which to me at least, is quite a moderate one is a little dissapointing.
He’s getting dismissed because he brings up the same collection of diversions, red herrings, and opinions-disguised-as-facts that others like him have brought up approximately 300 times before just on this blog, and which consequently have been shot down 300 times.
If you’d like to know why we’re tired of it, just look at that “fact” from the NYT editorial:
The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11.
Since they’re obviously not insane enough to mean the entire War on Terror, they obviously mean the Iraq War. Now look at the verb: has. The Iraq War itself has been over for nearly 15 months, fer chrissakes. That’s the reason nobody takes loadedog, the NYT et al. seriously - they’re still arguing against a war that isn’t even going on anymore, presumably because that’s easier than arguing against the reconstruction effort. It’s a drawn-out case of playing “gotcha”, not an attempt at serious discussion.
Supporters of the sentiments in the NYT editorial are fond of talking about ‘root causes’ but 9/11 and the War in Iraq are connected by a root cause - the oppression, corruption, economic stagnation and inequalities that exist in many Middle Eastern countries.
9/11 carried the religious and political pathologies breeding there to the United States itself and signalled that the problem was best addressed not with feeble ‘policing’ but by a determined attempt to address the despair that lies behind nihilist violence.
Clinton’s commitment to paralysing ‘multilateralism’ delayed this process too long.
The fate of Iraq is our fate. Those who feel they are punishing the US by hanging the Iraqis out to dry are being block-headed and perverse.
1000’s of east Germans were fleeing to Hungary. The East Germans realised theirb time was up. ... It was gorby who was the main character not Ronny! no gorby No buttin
Holy cow, you are an ignorant slut. Do you even realize why those 1000s of East Germans were able to flee all of a sudden? And they weren’t “fleeing to Hungary”, you idiot, travel between East Germany and Hungary wasn’t restricted. They were fleeing because the Hungarian government was the first toppled domino (sound familiar?) following Reagan’s economic strangling of the Eastern Bloc, and they had opened their border to Austria which was the actual target of those East Germans (and then onward to West Germany for most, naturally).
Homer, don’t argue about the history of East Germany with me. Really, don’t. You obviously don’t have clue one (as usual), and being born in East Germany, I’m losing my patience with you even more quickly than I usually do on this subject.
Has everybody forgotten that the Iranian revolution involved the seizure of the US Embassy in Teheran? The staff were kept hostage for a year. Carter wimped out. This was an incredible Act of War (attention all those dicks who go on and on about international law!)and would have been sufficient cause bellicose for the USA to invade or otherwise blow away Iran then and there.
To harp on now about the supposed support for Iran’s neighbour Iraq in its endeavours to beat the crap out of Iran is to be eminently ignorable.
As for the rest of this current tripefest: the Middle East plays a particular game, and it is called (variously) Biggest Bastard Wins, Cleverest Liar Wins, Last Man Standing Wins. It is in the genes. They have been survivors for centuries by absorbing the rules (note: there are none!)and playing on.
You Wanna Play?
If not, just piss off and leave it to those who do.loadedog You said:"But the Bush administration has failed my test by too easily allowing the perception of corruption, self-interest, and the abandonment of the acknowledgement of the rights of all the world’s people to reign free”
When Margo says the Zionists control the media and her fan club believe her, is it then the Jews fault for easlily allowing this perception of trying to control the world? Is it Bush’s fault that all types of loonies with their own political/religious agendas come out with all kinds for conspiracy theories that create perceptions?
Perceptions are not facts but when they are repeated enough times, people like yourself believe them to be facts even though there is no evidence to back them up. There is however plenty of evidence to the contrary which so many people refuse to believe because they back up Bush’s claims."He’s getting dismissed because he brings up the same collection of diversions, red herrings, and opinions-disguised-as-facts that others like him have brought up approximately 300 times before just on this blog, and which consequently have been shot down 300 times."--PW(93)
yes!!!
loadedog continues the all to familiar patern incuding adding more and more calims untill replys become untenable.
Gruntled, the rest of the folks have it right. Loadedog is what I call a “moderate leftie”, one that doesn’t troll in stating their opinions, and generally operate from a set of given premises, refusing to budge from them, regardless of the counterarguments and facts.
In other words, they operate from a different reality, aren’t insulting about it, but are irritating because they don’t listen to what we say in return, or present the same old arguments over and over again (e.g.,"plastic turkey").
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 26 at 06:03 AM • permalinkInurbanus said: Supporters of the sentiments in the NYT editorial are fond of talking about ‘root causes’ but 9/11 and the War in Iraq are connected by a root cause - the oppression, corruption, economic stagnation and inequalities that exist in many Middle Eastern countries.
To expand on this point, research shows that virtually all terrorists come from countries that are not democracies (sorry Loadedog, I’m too tired to dig up the study but I’m sure one was done by Havard). They also found that poverty does not determine whether someone will become a terrorist.
The Bush plan in response to 9-11 was to free Iraq from tyranny and start the movement of other countries the Middle East towards democracy (with the subsequent dominoes starting to topple in Lebanon, Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia).
9-11 and Iraq are inextricably linked: foster democracy in the Middle East and improve your own security in the long term by stopping the creation of more terrorists and fundamentalists.
(Loadedog sorry for being somewhat inarticulate, I hope you can follow the argument)
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 06 26 at 06:50 AM • permalinkSteppenwolf. Part one.
I have heard similar arguments to the one that you propose before. Your logic has much to recommend it, if you agree with certain assumptions on which it is based. I’d even agree with you, if I also accepted the following:
1. That the Muslim world is largely composed of fanatical extremists bent on world domination.
2. That there were no other alternatives that could be more effective and less destructive.
3. That the reasons for Islamic hatred and distrust of America (and its allies) are irrational, and that there is no way to resolve the many issues that divide the Middle East and the ‘Western World’ without resorting to war.
4. That might equals right and therefore that the superior power of the US gives it the moral authority (and the necessary tactical skill) to pursue its agenda regardless of the objections of many countries and many of its own people and a substantial proportion of the citizens of the coalition.
It is with shock and great sadness that I have read comments on this site supporting assumption number one. One person (sorry, can’t remember who) said ‘… it reminds me of the myth of moderate Muslims’. That intelligent and civilised people could entertain such an idea (that all Muslims are religious extremists) is perhaps evidence of the hysteria that currently abounds, and it reflects a failure of the state (I mean, the government of the country from which the sayer originated) to officially and consistently reject such hateful notions.
That failure, in a civilised democracy, amounts to state sanctioned demonisation of an entire religion, a faith that is as much based on peace and love as any other. Even if it weren’t, the vast majority of its followers are clearly just ordinary people like you and I who want nothing more than to go about their lives in peace and dignity and couldn’t give a fig about dominating the world. To give Bush his due, I have heard him make moderating statements about Muslim people and the Islamic faith, but such statements have been subsumed in the deluge of negative imagery casting Muslims as hateful barbaric sub-humans bent on evil. How else could a literate person in your society maintain the view that there are no moderate Muslims?
Every culture, even that of the United States, has its extremists, people who, through personal experience of injustice and disempowerment, are driven to seek extreme and simplistic solutions to complex problems. What proportion of a society is made up of such disaffected elements has nothing to do with what religion is followed there. The main causative factors are:
Economic and geographical deprivation
The frequency of traumatic events such as deprivation of liberty and the loss of loved ones.
The prevalence of the sense of disempowerment and impotence in the face of perceived injustice and the prolonged failure to achieve any redress or resolution.
These factors are in play all over the world and the history of human civilisation is replete with examples of people taking extreme steps to attempt to upset the status quo. The example most pertinent, because it eventually garnered the support of the entire western world, is that of South Africa and Nelson Mandela who is almost universally and justifiably hailed as a ‘great man’ and whose life story gives inspiration to all who believe in universal human rights and the possibility of eventual justice.
Mandela began his career as a seeker of justice as a follower of Ghandi’s (another almost universally esteemed dissident) principles of non-violent resistance. As much time passed and he made no progress, Mandela came to realise that some regimes are so brutal and implacable that peaceful resistance would make no difference.
So he schooled himself in the tactics of guerrilla warfare and became a freedom fighter, an expression that we don’t hear much these days. Supported by a large enough proportion of his people who were willing to take extreme steps, risking death, even killing other people, Mandela was eventually able, with the support of much diplomatic and economic pressure from without, to force the regime to acknowledge the inevitable.
What did they acknowledge? That keeping an entire people in subjugation, without justice, without the fruits of their labour, and without hope, will eventually cause you nothing but grief and suffering: that justice for you and your kind means nothing if it is not also available to everyone around you.
Part two
I do not mean to make a direct comparison between Nelson Mandela and Osama bin Laden. The situation in South Africa was so clearly one of an unjust minority oppressor exploiting a dispossessed majority that eventually everyone got it, even the white South Africans. And to be honest, I have no idea what role Osama plays in the Middle East, or in the minds of suicide bombers and insurgents.
Let me make it clear, before the usual attacks of being an apologist for terrorists come in, I abhor violence. I do not think that 9/11 was justified. Mandela largely targeted security forces. The killing of innocent civilians cannot be justified for any political agenda. But let us not forget that 3,000 people died in the World Trade Centre. How many innocent civilians have so far died in Iraq?
The Middle East is complex, murky, and nowhere near as easy a problem to solve (not that it was easy) as the South African scenario. But what seems clear to me is that within the Middle East, for whatever reason, there exists the conditions that provide an excellent breeding ground for disaffected, hopeless (in the sense of having no hope) and extremist individuals who are ready, for example, to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up.
Many will contend that it is the religion of these people that makes them liable to take such actions. I’d agree that the inculcation of martyrdom mythology is a factor when impressionable young people decide to take this course. Remember, however, that Christianity has a strong history of martyrdom. I believe that what allows such teachings to take hold is the abandonment of any shred of hope for a better life by people who see no chance of gaining justice in their lifetime, no matter how long they live.
Ignoring this is a perilous course of action. As the white South Africans found, a perpetually subjugated people will perpetually revolt. Maintaining the status quo will eventually require more energy and cause more grief than any other course of action.
There are alternatives. I’m not an international political scientist, but it would seem to me that if the US gave the poor and the dispossessed and the oppressed people of the Muslim world hope that there was an intelligent and compassionate power in the world that would value their well-being and need for justice as much as their (the US’s) need for economic dominance and another tax cut for people who are stratospherically better off than them, then they might be a little less interested in blowing themselves up. Cutesy folksy little philosophy that it may be, it has got to have some currency when the only viable alternative, according to some, is to come in with all guns blazing and reduce a country to chaos, however temporarily.
Rather than being surprised at the US response to 9/11, I suspect that bin Laden predicted something of the sort and couldn’t believe his luck when, following a predictably brutal and callous response, the new recruits started rolling in. He couldn’t have counted that many chickens before they hatched if he tried.
But why direct anger at the US? Is it irrational? I think it is clear that the US has been fundamentally involved in creating and perpetuating situations where some Middle Eastern Muslims have become second-class citizens in what used to be their own country. But I suspect that I could never convince some of you of that. It is clear that the US supports Israel, both with aid, military and logistical support, and through the United Nations, where they have regularly used their diplomatic muscle to muzzle numerous attempts by the Palestinians and their supporters to seek redress.
It is clear that at least a few hypocritical stances are a part of that support. Israel can maintain a large arsenal of WMD’s but no other Middle Eastern nation can. Israel can invade and occupy neighbouring countries without sanction but Iraq must suffer invasion and crippling sanctions for doing the same. Israel can defy numerous United Nations resolutions; Iraq does so and this also justifies invasion.
Israel, for its part, maintains a system that very closely resembles apartheid. Without the support of the US, Israel would ultimately have to soften its treatment of a sizeable proportion of its citizens.
A clear case can be made for the US maintaining self-interest as its primary motivation for involvement in the Middle East. Its reliance on oil from the region is not speculation. It is fact. Regardless of what really goes on in George Bush’s brain, it is not the stuff of outrageous fantasy to suppose that the happiness and prosperity of the people of the Middle East is near the bottom of America’s priorities when deciding their position on pressing issues.
Av
the only problem with your theory is that the democtatic revolution has spread to the Ukraine and Kyrgastan!PW if you know your German history well you wil know the East Germans caved in after the Hungarian Pm said that would take any number of East Germans.
Imagine what would happen if Iraqis were given the opportunity to do the same.
Hussein and his cronies would have realised quick smart there was no future.
Hey presto A new Iraq without insurgents.The best and most prescient criticism of the invasion of Iraq were conservatives.
In the Us it was Eagleburger, Scowcroft and the Cato institute.
In Asutralia it was Owen Harries and the Sydney Anglican who demolished any attempt to use the Just war theory.Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 06 26 at 07:16 AM • permalinkPart three
America, apparently hypocritically, supports regimes in the Middle East that clearly do not spread the massive wealth they control amongst their citizens. Saudi Arabia is, to some, as oppressive and dictatorial as Saddam’s Iraq, yet they somehow remain hand-shaking, even cuddling, friends of George Bush.
I am not attempting to make a case against America. I am merely attempting to show that, to an average citizen living in relative squalor in many Muslim communities in the Middle East, looking at Israelis and of course the Muslim elites could easily, and not irrationally, form the opinion that America is part of the root of their problems.
Might does not equal right. The schoolyard taught me that. Might and right are not mutually exclusive, but its one of life’s little truisms that they are infrequently working together. America’s role in the Second World War is the classic exception to the (almost) rule. Once again, regardless of what’s going on in George Bush’s brain, it is far too easy for me, an ardent lover of America’s culture, political system and people, to believe that it is a country that has lost its way, has put self-interest ahead of just about everything it believes in, is pursuing those self-interests ruthlessly and with no regard for any lives other than its own citizen’s and is headed down a path that will drag it, and the rest of us, into God knows what awful extremities. How do you think those already pre-disposed to hatred of America perceive it?
So, to get back to your point, Mr Steppenwolf. I question your logic because I believe the assumptions on which it is based are incorrect. The Muslim people of the world are not, as a whole, as a majority, even as a significant minority, bent on world domination. Rather it appears to me that it is the United States that has the greater claim to that ambition. There are other alternatives that are both more effective and less destructive. Muslim hatred of the US is not irrational, and though it may be misguided, it cannot be ignored, and America’s pre-eminence as a world power does not gild its every action with moral authority.
1. That the Muslim world is largely composed of fanatical extremists bent on world domination.
No-one here suggested that, nor is it relevant.
2. That there were no other alternatives that could be more effective and less destructive.
There aren’t.
3. That the reasons for Islamic hatred and distrust of America (and its allies) are irrational
They are.
and that there is no way to resolve the many issues that divide the Middle East and the ‘Western World’ without resorting to war.
Well, if you have a better idea, we’re listening.
No?
4. That might equals right
No-one suggested any such thing.
and therefore that the superior power of the US gives it the moral authority (and the necessary tactical skill) to pursue its agenda regardless of the objections of many countries and many of its own people and a substantial proportion of the citizens of the coalition.
What utter mindless worthless cretinous tripe.
The people of Iraq and Afghanistan were systematically brutalised by their own governments.
Over the objections of those governments (duh) and the idiot left, America freed 50 million people from tyranny.
America’s moral authority comes from doing the right thing. Their military power allows them to do the right thing - but their moral authority comes from the way they choose to exercise that power.
That failure, in a civilised democracy, amounts to state sanctioned demonisation of an entire religion, a faith that is as much based on peace and love as any other.
Have you been hiding under a glacier in Antarctica for the past fifty years? Haven’t you been paying any attention at all to the incessant stream of hatred pouring out of mosques across the Arab world, and indeed around the rest of the world?
Oh, you’re a New York Times reader. You’d be better off stuck in a glacier, because you’d have fewer misconceptions to discard.
How many innocent civilians have so far died in Iraq?
At least 300,000 at the hands of Saddam Hussein. That doesn’t include the million dead, military and civilian, during the Iran/Iraq war (that Hussein started), or the thousands killed by the Ba’athist and Islamist insurgents.
The Muslim people of the world are not, as a whole, as a majority, even as a significant minority, bent on world domination.
Many of their religious leaders are. And the people who oppose them tend to get shot.
Rather it appears to me that it is the United States that has the greater claim to that ambition.
Ugh. That is so incredibly stupid it’s hard to even begin to tell you why.
Look, here’s a clue: What did America do in Germany and Japan and South Korea and Afghani
Nope, much like we don’t need to bother with the NYT.