What should we ask of Bush II.2?
When George W Bush was reelected
President of the United States on 2 November 2004, much of the rest
of the world let out a collective groan. What can we expect of his
second administration? As important: what should we demand of it?
See TGA's Guardian columns on this
subject |
|
|
Debate - Page 10/12
Go to page 1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
9 10 11
12
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> Michel Bastian responded: "Nice word, a bit like 'friendly fire'.
Tell that to the families of the 'collateral damage'."
I am quite willing to do that, Michel. How about you?
I´m not american, so I´m not the one who should do the telling.
> I wrote: The latter is a Crime. When the Former occurs (accidental
death, that is), we duly express our regrets, and then everyone duly forgets
about it and goes on with their lives.
Michel Bastian responded: "Nope, YOU forget about it. The families
of the victims will definitely not forget. And don´t be surprised
if they don´t exactly worship Americans in the future." I don't
expect them to 'worship Americans in the future', but I do think I can
reasonably expect them to understand the difference between Accidental
Death and Deliberate Murder, just as I think I can reasonably expect you
to understand that difference, too.
Sure, I do. I didn´t say anything about deliberate murder (although
with the fresh reports on homicide in american prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan,
I might).
> Death by accident, while regrettable, does not equate to and is not
at all the same as Conscious and Deliberate Murder.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Well, no, Phil, Ray doesn´t need law
courses, you do. When somebody runs over another person in a car, albeit
by accident, he also gets booked and put in prison if he´s criminally
negligent. And 'criminal negligence' could well be the motto for most
every aspect of the Iraq war."
Well, No, Michel, Ray does need law classes, and so do you. When somebody
runs over another person in a car, albeit by accident, he DOESN'T get
booked. He DOESN'T get put in prison.
Sure he does. It´s called "Manslaughter", and you can
bet he´d be put into prison. But you´re right, we´re
digressing.
> Put quite simply, Michel, servicemen and women who are risking or
potentially risking their lives on behalf of the nation, are rightly and
correctly accorded more leeway than ordinary civilians whose lives are
seldom, if ever, at risk. And behavior that occurs in Wartime, when fighting
men are at constant risk of death or injury and have to make instantaneous
kill-or-be-killed decisions, is correctly not treated the same as behavior
in Peacetime where the constant risk of death or injury is not present
and where people are not under the same life-or-death stresses.
Sure, but one has to ask oneself: who put those military personel in the
war situation, thereby also endangering innocent civilians? Bush and his
administration did.
> As an example of this, during the first Gulf War (1990-1991), the
worst air-to-ground "friendly fire" incident of the war occurred
when two US A-10 pilots, confident they were over the Iraqi armored column
they were to attack, <...> However, such things happen in the "fog
of war", and can be expected to unfortunately continue to happen.
Fog of war, eh? Let me give you a counterexample: On 03-24-2003, an american
A-10 (ground attack plane) attacked a british Household Cavalry column
near Basra in spite of the fact the british were displaying enormous Union
Jacks on their vehicles and had special thermal identification aids on
them. There were civilians around the vehicles and the A-10 made not one
but TWO attack passes in spite of frantic waving by the non-injured british
on the second pass. 1 british soldier died (on the second attack pass),
three others were badly injured. Comment by one of the injured soldiers:
"Combat is what I've been trained for. I can command my vehicle.
I can keep it from being attacked. What I have not been trained to do
is look over my shoulder to see whether an American is shooting at me."
The A-10 wasn´t under attack, there was no threat whatsoever to
it by either the vehicle column or anybody else, there was no urgency
about the whole situation. The pilot hadn´t been given an order
to shoot, failed to turn on his thermal sight to identify the brits, overlooked
the union jacks and failed to get radio confirmation for the attack from
his base. So much for criminal negligence. Nothing "fog-of-war"-ish
about it. Don´t know what happened to the pilot, but in the french
air force he would have been court martialed and probably jailed for life.
However, you´re right in one respect: in war, things like that happen
more easily. That´s exactly why we didn´t want to go to war
unnecessarily in the first place.
Nick, USA
Whether we call it New Europe or Old Europe,
we Americans
have an expression:
It's a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> Now, those were some interesting and eyebrow-raising comments by
Michel. And frankly I'd like Michel to explain himself a bit.
(a) To begin with, Michel: Just precisely how do you "know"
that the Sunnis "will not accept the elections"?
Bombings everywhere. Just look at the situation. Also, even the so-called
"democratic" forces (Kurds and Shi´ites) are having trouble
electing a government.
> Furthermore, just precisely how do you "know" that "they
won´t accept democracy as a whole"? What special insight or
"connection" to the Sunnis do you possess that makes you so
self-assured in proclaiming that democracy in Iraq is "doomed"
to failure?
It´s not necessarily doomed to failure, I didn´t say that.
I just said it´s off to a bad start and it´s going to take
an enormously long time for the Iraqi people to adapt to a western-style
democracy, much longer than the Bush administration would have us believe.
The problem is that Iraqis are predominantly traditional muslims and have
been raised in a totalitarian state and culture. You can´t just
tell people like that "right, from now on you´re democrats".
They won´t understand what you´re talking about because they´ve
never experienced what democracy really means. And even if they do understand
what you mean, many of them will see it as just another ploy by "the
great satan" (meaning the US, but also all the other western nations)
to kill off their way of life and impose their own "western decadence".
Now I know that´s not true (mostly) and you know that´s not
true. But imagine you´re an Iraqi, brought up on a daily diet of
fundamental islam since you were born, never even having heard of things
like separation of powers, rule of the people etc. etc. How would you
react? Right, you´d see the whole thing as a crusade against what
the prophet told you was the only way of life permissible. And if some
mullah or other tells you, you´ll start planting bombs and sniping
at supply columns without even a second thought.
> After all, several Sunni Muslim parties did, in fact, run for office
in the Iraqi elections. And they did receive some votes. Which, I might
add, clearly indicates that some Sunni Muslims did, in fact, vote.
In fact, about the only things that I think you can say with any certainty
about the Sunnis' participation in elections, are
(1) Some Sunni Muslim parties did run for office and did participate in
elections.
(2) Some Sunni Muslims did vote.
(3) Some Sunni Muslims did not vote because due to the threat of violence,
polling places never opened in their areas.
(4) Some Sunni Muslims did not vote because due to the threat of violence,
polling stations in their areas did open but closed early.
(5) Some Sunni Muslims did not vote because due to the threat of violence,
they were afraid to venture to the polling places for fear of being targeted
or attacked.
(6) Some Sunni Muslims did not vote, even though they wanted to, because
they are waiting for their local religious leader(s) to say it's okay
for them to vote.
and finally...
(7) Some Sunni Muslims did not vote because they don't believe in democracy.
QED. That´s exactly what I mean.
> (b) Just precisely how do you "know", Michel, that there
are "large parts of the Kurds and all the rest of the population
that don´t like democracy and don´t want democracy"?
Kurdish political parties did in fact participate in elections and swept
the northern regions of Iraq.
See above.
(c) If you seriously believe that I "don´t even make the slightest
effort to understand their culture and mentality", then what qualifies
you to presume to speak as an 'expert'on "their culture and mentality"?
What bugs me is that the Bush administration makes no effort (or no sufficient
effort) to understand these people and thinks it´s enough just to
transplant western political systems into Iraq and the people will welcome
it with open arms, hugs and kisses. That´s dangerously naive. Some
of them will, but not all of them by far and those who don´t will
be on the barricades (literally) disrupting any possibility of a normal,
functioning civilian society.
> (d) If you actually believe that you are qualified to speak as an
'expert' with regard to the Sunnis' "culture and mentality",
perhaps you'd like to explain what that 'culture and mentality" is,
and why it would supposedly "preclude" them from accepting democracy?
See above. It doesn´t preclude them from accepting democracy, but
it´ll take a few years (or even decades) for them to get used to
it, to see that it´s not an attack on their way of life or their
beliefs, and also to iron out the conflicts that are bound to occur between
basic fundamentalist islamic tenets and basic tenets of a democratic system.
> (e) And finally.... Since you seem to consider yourself to be something
of an 'expert' on everything that we in America are supposedly doing 'wrong'
in Iraq, and since you seem to claim expertise in stating that the Sunnis
don't want and will not accept Democracy.... perhaps, then, you will deign
to enlighten us with your proposed "solution" for Iraq?
I am particularly interested in reading your proposed 'solution' for satisfying
the "culture and mentality" of Iraqi Sunni community.
And I am especially curious to see if your proposed "solution"
amounts to saying "Let's just repeal the whole thing; let's just
give the Sunnis back their 'leader' Dictator; let's let Saddam out of
jail and put him back in charge; and above all, let's assure the Sunnis
that they'll soon be able to get back to dominating everyone else in Iraq,
as they always did when Saddam was in power".
Nope, that´s not my solution at all, and had you read all my other
posts you wouldn´t be posting this nonsense. My solution is quite
simply: keep the US military presence in Iraq, be prepared to stay on
a few years or even a few decades (so forget about any exit strategy as
of yet). I´d even say send in some european troops as well, even
if it´s just a token force, but unfortunately nobody important ever
listens to me ;-). Try to get the security situation stabilized over time
(and cross your fingers it won´t get worse) by preventing terrorism
as far as possible. In the meantime, get the europeans to build up the
civilian side of things so basic commodities (like food, housing, medical
care etc.) can be provided on a regular basis (people who are well fed
and taken care of will be less prone to plant IEDs on roadsides). Build
schools, staff them with western-educated iraqi teachers who understand
their way of life AND the western political culture if at all possible.
Work with moderate mullahs and imams on that so you won´t be seen
as imposing your own, western rule on education. Then educate the young
Iraqis so they won´t be prone to listen to fundamentalist mullahs
anymore. For the adult Iraqis, show them through example what a democratic
society can do. Try to integrate all parties into the political process,
even those that are now fuelling the insurrection. Sounds like a fond
dream that´ll never happen? It probably is, but I can´t see
any other possibility to get out of this nightmare.
> Last but not least... Michel Bastian wrote: "It´ll take
a lot of time for democratic principles to catch on in Iraq.".
My response is: It'll take an especially long time if we allow ourselves
to be so deceived and taken in by supposed "experts" claiming
that Iraqis "don't really want democracy", that we do not even
"start" planting the roots of those democratic principles.
Like I said, I´ve never advocated "doing nothing". However,
dreaming up that "Iraq is a democracy now" and the "mission
is accomplished" will ultimately lead to a catastrophe, especially
if the Bush administration should decide to pull out of Iraq in the next
two or three years or if they neglect to build up a civilian society over
time. You wanted to bring democracy to the middle-east? Well now you should
darn well deliver, eventhough it´s going to cost you (and us) .....
a lot more than you think.
Mike, London
The way I see it- the Sunnis were the ruling
minority before the topple of Saddam. Democracy for them, therefore, means
losing their political voice as, contrary to the democracies of the countries
in which we are typing from, voters place ethnic loyalties before political
ideology as we do. You'll hate me for saying it, but at least Saddam more-or-less
united Iraq. Now it's all very messy, and is going to take a long, long
time to sort out (look at the Balkans in the past 100 years). I think
it suited the politicians in galvanising public to support for the war
to give the impression that it was just a case of rolling in, installing
democracy, and making everyone happy. Democracy in Iraq is likely to be
the rule of the many, but also the marginalisation of a great many. I'd
love to be able to suggest a neat solution, but all I can imagine is a
lengthy damage-limitation exercise in which foreign powers will have to
do their co-operative best to try and hold Iraq together for the next
few generations. I'm afraid I'm quite cynical about Iraq's direction and
conceive of a long cyclical future of violence in Iraq.
Charles Warren, USA
Tom from Poland/USA wrote...
"When Poles tried to revolt from communism in mid 19th century, [apparently
against General Secretary Tsar Alexander II] American stood by doing nothing."
and then goes on to say that I don't know anything about Polish history.
He whines about America not invading Russia to liberate Poland. Well,
Tom, do you think the French and Germans would have supported us if we
did ? Could we have attacked Russia without total allied support ? Be
realistic.
In the 80s it was Reagan who confronted the Soviet Union. Your precious
Europeans were perfectly willing to accept a peace that permanently consigned
you to Soviet rule. How many Europeans supported Solidarity ? Weren't
the Europeans doing their best to avoid doing anything that might upset
Russia ? Didn't they look upon Solidarity as troublemakers ? And you think
they would risk "a new stone age" to protect you ?
One amusing point that Bastian keeps insisting on is that America somehow
pressures India, Japan, and most of Asia to not join the "rest of
the world" in that European abomination the ICC, as if they haven't
the strength and will to define their interests for themselves (typical
European arrogance). Gee, we sure must be absolutely omnipotent if we
can bully all those strong military and economic regional powers supposedly
clamoring for the wisdom of Europe to be bestowed upon them. Maybe they,
like we, take sovereignty seriously and see nothing to be gained from
subordinating our laws to anyone. We're not forcibly preventing them from
joining the ICC. We can't. We would only anger them if we tried. And fail
at that. They just don't want to join and we have no reason to urge them
to do so. So don't blame us for the fact that the Asians can look out
for themselves.
And I wasn't aware that "counterrevolution" was a specifically
communist term. The English Cavaliers and American Tories and French emigres
were "counterrevolutionaries", weren't they, so your comment
was silly. The Iraqi insurgency is a counterrevolution of Sunni domination
against religious liberty for Shiites. A counterrevolution of the old
Baathist state security apparatus trying to get its BMW and Rolex lifestyle
back against the new democracy. A counterrevolution of the Sunni Triangle
against wealth and power flowing to the Kurdish and Shiite areas now instead
of everything being sucked into Baghdad. Since the allocation of power
and resources has been so grossly unfair for so long in Iraq (a ton to
Tikritis and everything in general to Sunnis), in any fair allocation
the Sunnis will lose most of what they were used to. So fairness will
create counterrevolution and "insurgency". So does that make
"fairness" a bad thing ? Of course not. It just means that if
the Iraqi people mean to be free, the price of their freedom, and freedom
always has a price, is to beat the insurgency. And given their total failure
to derail the political process, they have no hope of victory.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "As for your "envy"
theory: why should France envy the US? Because of 9/11? Because the US
are now the official target of choice of every suicide-bombing idiot in
the world?"
And that is different from before 9/11? How? You don't remember the Hezbollah
suicide/homicide bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut that killed
241 Marines -- in 1983? You don't recall the murder of the CIA station
chief in Beirut in 1983, a murder so horrific it would have made even
a German puke? He was tortured to death. You don't remember the bombings
of US Embassies in Africa in 1998 that killed hundreds of people and injured
thousands more? How about the suicide-bombing of the USS Cole which killed
17 sailors and nearly blew a billion-dollar vessel in half? And of course,
let's not forget 9/11 itself - 3,000 more deaths. ALL of these horrific
events took place BEFORE we Liberated Iraq. And you're claiming that Iraq
made things WORSE? For God's sake, how much "worse" could it
possibly be?
WAKE UP, MICHEL. Iraq DIDN'T make the Islamic extremists hate us. THEY
HATED US ALREADY. They had considered themselves to be at war with us
for years before we Liberated Iraq. DECADES, in fact. The difference now
is, WE AGREE THAT WE'RE AT WAR and WE'RE GOING TO KILL THEM.
Because the US are about as popular as a kick in the teeth in most parts
of the world nowadays? Believe you me, we´re quite satisfied with
our role in global politics without all that, thank you very much.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "Wow, Phil, all
you neo-con americans definitely have a knack for alienating your former
friends and allies. "Anti-American socialist in Soviet Canuckistan",
is it? Well, if the Canadians weren´t anti-american before, they
sure will be now, and I can´t say I blame them." Well, Michel,
if you had spent as much time living in Canada as I have, you'd understand
that Canadians have always been anti-American to a certain extent. The
intensity of it waxes and wanes, but it's always been there and is still
there. It's a constant, and it's a 'given'. Canadians are forever making
smarmy, smug, self-satisified, self-congratulating comments to themselves
about how supposedly superior Canada is in comparison to the US (tactfully
ignoring the thousands of Canadians who emigrate to the US every year).
Sometimes we actually get annoyed enough to be bothered responding and
referring to them as "anti-American socialists in Soviet Canuckistan".
Usually we just ignore them, just as we usually ignore Canada in general,
which makes them even crazier because it makes it obvious to them that
we don 't care if they hate us or not. We're benevolently and good-naturedly
ignorant about Canada, while Canadians are malevolently well-informed
about the U.S. The day that we become magnificently well-informed about
Canada will probably be the day that U.S.-Canada relations plunge into
the toilet, because we'll know (and dislike) enough about them to be a
whole lot less benevolently-minded.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "Yes, there are
Ba´athist elements in the insurgents, but they´re not the
driving force at all. The driving force are Muslim fanatics, both Shi´ites
and Sunni, partly supported by al Quaida, and many of them non-Iraqis."
Wrong, again. The insurgency is almost entirely made up of resentful Sunni
Muslims, almost all of whom are Iraqis. The Shi'ites not only do not make
up much of the insurgency, they're actively opposed to it. They stand
to benefit the most from Saddam's overthrow. They're not interested in
bringing Saddam back into power, whereas the Sunnis ARE interested in
that. There's a few non-Iraqi al-Qaida members involved, too, but they're
a tiny minority, and they don't even have much support of their own in
Iraq. In fact there are an awful lot of Iraqis who'd like to kill the
al-Qaida fanatics, and some have actually done so. Iraqis are Muslims,
but they'relargely secular in their outlook, whereas the al-Qaida nutcases
are Islamic fanatics a'la the Taliban.
Oh BTW Michel, try looking under the following link:
REPORT: BRITISH AGENTS SAW LITTLE ABUSE
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "I am fully aware
that US troops didn´t commit the bombings. That´s not the
point. The point is they should have stayed out of Iraq in the first place,
then there wouldn´t have been any bombings, there wouldn´t
have been any Fallujah, there wouldn´t have been any dead American
soldiers or civilian war casualties, there wouldn´t have been death
by disease and hunger due to failing infrastructure etc. etc". And
if we had stayed out of Iraq, there would have been continuing mass murders
of Kurds and Shi'ites by the minority-but-in-power Sunni/Tikriti Muslims,
there would have been continuing arrests and electric-shock and water
torture and amputations carried out by Saddam's secret police, Uday's
people-shredding machines would have kept gleefully grinding away. Instead
of dead American soldiers, there would merely be more dead Iraqi non-soldiers.
Instead of civilian war casualties, there merely would have been still
more civilian non-war casualties. Instead of death by disease and hunger
due to failing infrastructure, there would merely have been still more
death by deliberate brutality on the part of Saddam's minions. The murderous
"infrastructure" of Saddam's regime would have remained firmly
in place. And that's something that you have already tacitly acknowledged,
or at least accorded a high degree of probability. And those deaths under
Saddam's regime, are apparently something you are okay and comfortable
with. You might morally disapprove of them, but it isn't like you'd actually
"DO" anything to stop those deaths -- would you? After all,
you have yourself acknowledged that "Yes, probably [those slaughters
by Saddam's forces would have continued] but it doesn't justify the invasion,
does it?". It raises an interesting question for you, Michel: What
level of internal beastiality against its own citizens does a murderous
regime have to rise to before an external invasion and liberation can
be considered "justifiable" to you? What is the threshhold of
slaughter that has to be crossed before you are morally okay with invading?
If, for example, Hitler had confined his slaughter of humanity to people
"inside" Germany's borders, if he hadn't invaded any other country,
would that have been alright with you? Would you have left him safely
in power?
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
I previously wrote: "In fact Saddam's
track record in having previously ordered his commanders to slaughter
Kurds and Shi'ites in the 1980s and 1990s (both before AND after the 1990-1991
Gulf War) virtually guarantees that Saddam would have resumed murdering
Kurds and Shi'ites as soon as the opportunity presented itself. The leopard
doesn't change his spots, Michel. Ever."
Michel Bastian responded: "Didn´t say that. He was a mass murderer,
but he didn´t commit mass murder on the scale of the Kurd or Shi´ite
massacres every day, you know." Ah,I see, yes, that's so much better.
he didn't commit mass murder on the scale of the Kurd or Shi´ite
massacres every day. Maybe just days that ended in 'Y' during a month
that ended in 'T' and on a date that ended in a '4'or a '5'. He wasn't
a CONSTANT mass-murderer, he was just an OCCASIONAL mass murderer. Once
every so often, especially when his mistress was having 'that time of
the month'. Yes, that makes me feel so much better.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Charles Warren had written: Had there been
no invasion they would be happily filling mass graves and Uday's people
shredder would be grinding away.
Michel Bastian responded: "*Sigh*. Yes, true, but does that justify
the invasions? No, it doesn´t. See all the above posts."
Charles Warren had also written: Instead of carbombs there would be the
usual disappearances, torture, and mass executions.
To which Michel Bastian responded: "Probably. I ask again: did that
justify invasion? The answer, as always, is no. It didn´t."
Ahhh, I see. Saddam's minions filling mass graves with perceived "enemies".
Uday's people-shredder happily grinding away. Disappearances, torture,
and mass executions -- all "unfortunate but no reason to invade".
"No reason to get involved". "Deplorable" and all,
but not sufficiently "deplorable" to actually "DO ANYTHING"
to stop it. Ah, I see your logic, Michel. I understand. Really, I do.
Regime launches unprovoked attack against a foreign country -- action
against that regime is possibly justified. Regime does not launch attacks
against any foreign country, but merely calmly slaughters hundreds of
thousands of its own citizens -- no action against that regime is "justified"
or "legal", the regime's behavior is "deplorable"
but it's still "none of our business". Ergo: "Let them
Die". Thank you, Michel, I now have an excellent understanding of
how the Holocaust was allowed to occur.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Another group rightly perceived as enemies
by Saddam were the Kurds, who also threatened his totalitarian rule."
BS. The Kurds never once "threatened" Saddam's rule. They never
had the military force or cohesion to pose any serious "threat"
to Saddam. Unfortunately.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
I´m not going to respond in detail to your posts, since I haven´t
got the time (and, no doubt, all the other people on this board are starting
to get bored). Suffice it to say that no, you don´t understand anything,
especially not my arguments. For the hundreth time: was there a reason
for the Bush administration to invade Iraq before all the other countries
run by a murderous dictator? Yes, there was: self-interest, greed for
power and oil, a desire to show the world "who the boss is"
after France, Germany and Russia had the cheek to oppose him and a need
to save face once it became apparent the reasons given for going to war
were erroneous. Stop this fairy tale about Bush being "the great
liberator of the Iraqi people" and the "bringer of freedom and
democracy". If Bush was so keen on bringing the light of democracy
to the world, all right, what is he going to do about all those other
countries where injustice, poverty and totalitarism run rampant? Nothing?
Surprise, surprise.
Bush is a callous power politician who is mainly interested in one thing:
maintaining power and status for a. himself and b. the US, in that order.
All the non-american rest of the world is completely irrelevant to him.
He wouldn´t have invaded Iraq just to "liberate the Iraqis
from oppression" in a million years. He wouldn´t have sacrificed
even one single american life for that. He had other reasons, the reasons
I´ve given above. The Iraq war had nothing to do with humanitarian
reasons, and if you honestly believe that, you´re more naive than
I thought.
Just a word about those holocaust and nazi Germany remarks of yours, though:
if you had even the faintest inkling of what impact the holocaust and
the war had on the german psyche and on Europe in general you´d
be red in the face with shame right now. The current mindset in the central
european population is due in great part to the aftermath of the holocaust.
It´s the main reason why we´re running riot against the Bush
administration´s prison camps and torture orders. Too many bad memories.
However, knowing you, you couldn´t be bothered. After all, all this
stuff is going on outside the US, isn´t it?
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mike in London wrote: "The way I see
it- the Sunnis were the ruling minority before the topple of Saddam. Democracy
for them, therefore, means losing their political voice as, contrary to
the democracies of the countries in which we are typing from, voters place
ethnic loyalties before political ideology as we do. You'll hate me for
saying it, but at least Saddam more-or-less united Iraq."
Iraq had been ruled by the Ottoman Turks for hundreds of years until the
defeat of the Ottoman Empire. The (formerly secret) Sykes-Picot treaty
(signed in 1916) revealed that France and Britain divided the Arab territories
between themselves. The French, Germans, British (who were basically responsible
for drawing up Iraq's present-day boundaries) and other European colonialists
had a habit of haphazardly slamming together dissimilar and often-mutually-hostile
communities and groups to form "nations", and Iraq is one example
of this. Forcibly slamming together Kurds, Shi'ites, Sunnis, Turkomen
etc. against their will and calling the result a "nation" is
a recipe for trouble, in my opinion.
To me, saying Iraq was "united" by Saddam Hussein is an awul
lot like saying the USSR was "united" by Stalin. He "united"
the USSR by invading and forcibly "welcoming" countries and
peoples (the Baltic nations, Ukraine) into the USSR against their will,
and by using starvation, brutality, etc. to enforce the "unity".
It was a "unity" that was imposed, but never "desired".
And as soon as the threat of military force against would-be 'defector'
nations vanished, most of the former Soviet republics chose to go their
own way. Especially the ones who had been incorporated into the USSR by
force and never 'wanted' to be 'united' into the USSR in the first place,
like the Baltic nations (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia).
The way I see it, any supposed "nation" that could only be "united"
by brutal military force probably shouldn't be "united" in the
first place. And to me, claiming that "at least Saddam more-or-less
united Iraq" is like claiming that despite the 20 million or so deaths
that can be laid directly at his door, Josef Stalin "more or less
united the USSR". It's not an 'achievement' to be proud of. It never
should have been 'united' in the first place.
Jan Paul, USA
But Saddam did invade another country and
that was why he had to comply with inspectors who to the day they left
prior to the U.S. entry thought he was "hiding" something."
Saddam Hussein who plotted to assassinate the first Bush President.
Saddam Hussein who was firing on British and U.S. military planes in violation
of the agreement that ended Desert Storm.
Saddam Hussein, who was harboring Zarqawi after having several warnings
and chances to turn him over.
Saddam Hussein, who troops dump WMD (in at least some quantities) into
the River as troops arrived.
Saddam Hussein who smuggled truck loads of who knows what into Syria at
the beginning of the war. Money? WMD? Records? Who knows but the shipments
were documented and kept secret to this day. Why, if innocent, does Syria
need to keep them secret since Saddam is no longer in power?
Saddam Hussein who was financing terrorism with $25,000 payments to suicide
bomber families and repeatedly warned to stop.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "Should the US
turn into an oppressive regime because of 9/11?". An 'oppressive
regime'? No, not an 'oppressive' regime. But reasonable people can disagree
on the definition of 'oppressive'. Certainly we in America should have
a government that is careful, vigilant and which recognizes that it is
operating on a wartime footing, not a peacetime footing. And while respect
for civil liberties is certainly always desirable, the War On Terrorism
is not the first conflict in which the U.S. has felt it necessary to temporarily
curtail some civil liberties in order to prosecute a war. Pres. Abraham
Lincoln suspended some civil liberties during the American Civil War.
And when Nazi German agents (spies, terrorists, saboteurs) operating clandestinely
in the U.S. were uncovered during World War II, nobody particularly cared
about their civil rights; the Nazi agents were put before a military tribunal,
not a civilian trial, and most of them were executed.
See the following:
Amazon.com: Books: Saboteurs: The Nazi Raid on America
http://www.amazon.com/
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
I previously wrote: The Lebanese mobilized
public protests and demonstrations that brought down a pro-Syrian puppet
government. The Saudis organized and allowed the first democratic elections
in their entire History --limited, municipal-level elections, but elections
nonetheless.
Michel Bastian responded: "(a) The Lebanese didn´t need Bush
to tell them they wanted the Syrians out of Lebanon.....(b) The Palestinians
were lucky in that Arafat died. Now the Israelis talk to them again, and
they can talk to the Israelis. Nothing to do with Iraq. (c) As for the
"democratic" elections in Saudi-Arabia, they were neither democratic
(next to no women voters turned out due to traditionalist views in saudi
society) nor were they a result of the Iraq war."
Yeah, sure. Riiiiiiiiight. (a) If the Lebanese didn´t need Bush
to tell them they wanted the Syrians out of Lebanon, why did it take the
Lebanese almost 20 years for them to get the courage to say so out loud?
Couldn't have had 'anything' to do with the Lebanese people tuning in
on their satellite TV systems, seeing peaceful political demonstrations
and people in Iraq choosing who will build their new political and electoral
system, and deciding they wanted that for themselves, could it. (b) Yeah,
riiiiiiiiight. The Palestinians "didn't" rise up and demonstrate
demanding democratic reforms and the ouster of Arafat's sleazy cronies.
It was all faked on a sound stage somewhere, huh? (c) Yeah, riiiiiiiiight.
The Saudis have secret-ballot elections for the first time in their history,
but it "can't" be considered to be democratic because the Saudis
didn't violate their cultural traditions, yet, by allowing women to vote.
And of course "You're" the ultimate Decider of what constitutes
Democracy now, huh? So I guess this also means you want us to throw out
the results of every single election in U.S. history prior to August 1920
(when the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, allowing
women to vote) because they "weren't actually democratic", huh?
Mike, London
Phil-
If you are justifying the invasion of Iraq because some Iraqis (probably)
exhibit an affiliation for extremist Islamic terrorism, I'm sure that
you would agree that Britain should have bombed the USA because of the
support some of it's citizens and politicians showed for the IRA?
Furthermore, the fact that the USA has killed far more civilians that
Saddam could have dreamed of killing all over the world by way of furthering
it's own national interests, would mean you would agree with 'regime change'
in the USA?
Or could it be you are a racist who cannot conceive of the lives of foreigners
as having any worth?
The fact is the world is full of difficult problems and problem governments.
Blowing them up is not a solution for any government any more than it
is for terrorists- it just shows a lack of imagination on behalf of those
who swallow the propaganda whilst blinding themeselves to any aspect that
doesn't make them feel good about their country/ cause (and, by extension,
themeselves).
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michael Bastian wrote: (a) "The insurgency
wouldn´t be there if there weren´t any US troops in Iraq."
(b) "Nobody was allied to Saddam at that time...". (c) "Repeal
the war? How should that be done? By pulling out the troops? Bad idea.
The effects of the war are there, and they would lead to an instant civil
war if the US pulled out." (d) "You can´t "uninvade"
Iraq, and you can´t do anything about the insurgency except trying
to ferret out the persons responsible for it and buying time for the people
to get used to a democratic system." (e) "It´s creating
ripples allright. Ripples that even someone as obtuse as I am can see.
Ripples of pan-Arabism. Ripples of Muslim fanaticism." (f) "Democracy
is contagious. And the so-called "Arab Street" wants Democracy.
Does it? Most Middle-East scholars contest that, but hey, Bush says so,
so it has to be right." (g) "I wasn´t asleep. Nor did
I see any "government" being elected. I saw a provisional government
being elected that has to work out the basics of an Iraqi constitution.
Let´s see how the different factions react to that." (h) "Haven´t
seen you apologize for insulting people on this board, so take it like
a man." (i) "Actually, I´m Satan in person. I must be
because I´m agnostic, liberal, European, half French and, god help
us, half German. Does the word "prejudice" mean anything to
you, Phil?" (j) "Nope, your responses aren´t haughtily
condescending. That would imply a certain degree of sophistication."
My responses: (a) That's because the 'insurgency' would still be in power
and running Uday and Qusai's people-grinding machines if there weren't
any US troops in Iraq. (b) Except for the Palestinians, of course, who
have a track record of never missing an opportunity to back the wrong
side. (c) Well, I hate to agree with Michel on anything ;-) But in this
case, we're in full agreement. (d) Gadzooks, we agree again. (3) As opposed
to the Muslim fanaticism that's been around for the last 30 or so years?
Pan-Arabism is nothing new. It's a 60's concept. (f) "Most Middle
East scholars"? What are their names? Fareed Zakaria isn't one of
them, BTW. (g) So, you did see a government being elected, or you did
not see a government being elected. Which is it? 'Provisional' or not,
it's still a government. The different factions are reacting by wheeling
and dealing and negotiating. It's called politicking. (h) I haven't insulted
others much, if at all. Maybe your perception on that is a bit off. (i)
Well, no, you're not Satan, Michel. Calling yourself Satan would be predicated
on your first believing in the existence of Satan and, as you indicated,
you're an agnostic. And yes, the word 'prejudice' means a great deal to
me, especially with all the prejudicial incidents of harassment of Jews
happening in Europe these days. (j) I was referring to 'your' responses,
dude. And you haven't seen 'rude' from me, yet.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: (a) (Phil): When somebody
runs over another person in a car, albeit by accident, he DOESN'T get
booked. He DOESN'T get put in prison. (Michel): "Sure he does. It´s
called "Manslaughter", and you can bet he´d be put into
prison. But you´re right, we´re digressing." (b) "Fog
of war, eh? Let me give you a counterexample.....<> Nothing "fog-of-war"-ish
about it. Don´t know what happened to the pilot, but in the french
air force he would have been court martialed and probably jailed for life."
My responses: (a) Nope. It's an Accident, and we DON'T put anyone in prison.
And yes, we are digressing. (b) The pilot didn't NEED to ask for 'permission'
to fire, didn't 'need' to be under attack first. He shouldn't have mistaken
the Brits for Iraqis, but if you claim he "failed to turn on his
thermal sights" then it obviously happened at night. Clear "fog
of war" case if ever there was one. And nothing happened to the pilot.
Nor should it. It was an accident. And that's why I thank God that we
don't serve in the French Air Force. You volunteer to serve your country,
for which alone they should give you a medal, and then if you make a mistake
in the French Air Force they jail you for life. Small wonder no one wants
to volunteer for the French military eh?
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> My responses: (a) Nope. It's an Accident, and we DON'T put anyone
in prison. And yes, we are digressing.
.. which is why I won´t push the issue any further. Never mind.
> (b) The pilot didn't NEED to ask for 'permission' to fire, didn't
'need' to be under attack first. He shouldn't have mistaken the Brits
for Iraqis, but if you claim he "failed to turn on his thermal sights"
then it obviously happened at night.
It happened in plain daylight, which is probably why the thermal sight
was off, I´ll grant you that (though given the thermal identification
marks, the pilot was probably under orders to switch on his thermal sight
for ID). However, I´ve seen pictures of those Union Jacks. You´d
have to be drunk to miss those.
> Clear "fog of war" case if ever there was one. And nothing
happened to the pilot.
Why am I not surprised.
> Nor should it. It was an accident.
Well, that´s why there are rules of engagement which the pilot broke:
you don´t shoot at a target unless you have clearly identified it
as enemy or the target starts shooting at you. If you´re not sure,
you ask for confirmation. That´s what they have radio for in those
planes, you know.
> And that's why I thank God that we don't serve in the French Air
Force.
You didn´t serve in anything afaik, did you now? So who´s
"we"?
> You volunteer to serve your country, for which alone they should
give you a medal,
Well, I happen to have been a reserve officer of the french air force
for the better part of the last fifteen years, so tell me about it, Phil,
since you´re such a specialist on military matters. Hint: don´t
take your knowledge from Tom Clancy novels.
> and then if you make a mistake in the French Air Force they jail
you for life.
No, they jail you for criminal behaviour, as well they should in the US
air force, too.
> Small wonder no one wants to volunteer for the French military eh?
No shortage of applications, to my knowledge. Different from the US military
nowadays I gather.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> (a) If the Lebanese didn´t need Bush to tell them they wanted
the Syrians out of Lebanon, why did it take the Lebanese almost 20 years
for them to get the courage to say so out loud? Couldn't have had 'anything'
to do with the Lebanese people tuning in on their satellite TV systems,
seeing peaceful political demonstrations and people in Iraq choosing who
will build their new political and electoral system, and deciding they
wanted that for themselves, could it.
No, it couldn´t. It probably had to do with the fact they´ve
been building up resentment against syrian occupation for twenty-odd years
and with the fact Hariri got murdered. You did hear about that?
> (b) The Palestinians "didn't" rise up and demonstrate demanding
democratic reforms and the ouster of Arafat's sleazy cronies. It was all
faked on a sound stage somewhere, huh?
I´m afraid I don´t understand your argument here. What´s
the bearing on Israel and the Palestinians talking to each other again?
> (c) The Saudis have secret-ballot elections for the first time in
their history, but it "can't" be considered to be democratic
because the Saudis didn't violate their cultural traditions, yet, by allowing
women to vote.
Yes, that´s the gist of it. Democracy means rule by the people which
includes women regardless of religion. So no, the saudi elections weren´t
democratic. And this is a perfect example for my argument: the middle-eastern
population has a lot of difficulty accepting basic tenets of democracy
because they clash whith their traditional beliefs. Case in point: the
saudi elections.
> And of course "You're" the ultimate Decider of what constitutes
Democracy now, huh?
No, I didn´t invent democracy and, no, unlike the Bush administration
I don´t pretend to be the ultimate judge on what is democratic and
what is not. However, there are basic notions tied to the term "democracy"
that even the Bush administration has to accept if it doesn´t want
to loose what little credibility it has left in the world.
> So I guess this also means you want us to throw out the results of
every single election in U.S. history prior to August 1920 (when the 19th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, allowing women to vote)
because they "weren't actually democratic", huh?
By the contemporary definition of democracy, no, those elections weren´t
democratic. That´s why the suffragettes had to take to the streets.
You can´t "throw" these elections "out", of
course, but that doesn´t mean you can´t learn from history.
Michel Bastian, France
text: To Phil Karasick:
> No, not an 'oppressive' regime. But reasonable people can disagree
on the definition of 'oppressive'. <....> nobody particularly cared
about their civil rights; the Nazi agents were put before a military tribunal,
not a civilian trial, and most of them were executed.
See the following:
Amazon.com: Books: Saboteurs: The Nazi Raid on America
All this had nothing to do with breaking international and US law, condoning
torture, imprisoning people without due process etc.
Michel Bastian, France
To Jan Paul:
> But Saddam did invade another country and that was why he had to
comply with inspectors who to the day they left prior to the U.S. entry
thought he was "hiding" something." Saddam Hussein who
plotted to assassinate the first Bush President.
Saddam Hussein who was firing on British and U.S. military planes in violation
of the agreement that ended Desert Storm.
Saddam Hussein, who was harboring Zarqawi after having several warnings
and chances to turn him over.
Saddam Hussein, who troops dump WMD (in at least some quantities) into
the River as troops arrived.
Oh, so where are these WMD now? Surely if the US knew where they were
dumped, they´d have gotten them out of the river by now, wouldn´t
they?
> Saddam Hussein who smuggled truck loads of who knows what into Syria
at the beginning of the war. Money? WMD? Records? Who knows but the shipments
were documented and kept secret to this day. Why, if innocent, does Syria
need to keep them secret since Saddam is no longer in power?
Saddam Hussein who was financing terrorism with $25,000 payments to suicide
bomber families and repeatedly warned to stop.
Again, Saddam wasn´t innocent. It´s a good riddance he´s
gone. Three cheers for Bush. However, that doesn´t make the invasion
right.\
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> My responses: (a) That's because the 'insurgency' would still be
in power and running <....>
Still missing the point.
> (b) Except for the Palestinians, of course, who have a track record
of never missing an opportunity to back the wrong side.
Well, they´ve been trying to survive, just like the Israelis, for
the last fifty-odd years. So they´ve mostly been backing their own
side.
> (3) As opposed to the Muslim fanaticism that's been around for the
last 30 or so years? Pan-Arabism is nothing new. It's a 60's concept.
Yes, true.
> (f) "Most Middle East scholars"? What are their names?
Fareed Zakaria isn't one of them, BTW.
Take Prof. Avi Shlaim (Iraqi-born israeli), for example. Quote: "This
is one of the great contradictions in the neocon outlook on the Middle
East: the belief that democracy would lead to pro-Western and pro-Israeli
governments in the Arab world. In fact, the reverse is true. The Arab
ruling elites are much more pro-American in their attitude to Israel than
the Arab street. The rulers are better informed and more pragmatic. The
Arabs and the wider Muslim world are bitterly hostile to Israel because
of the oppression of the Palestinians; therefore this is a misconception
of the neoconservatives, to think that Arab democracies would be friendlier
toward the West and Israel."
(g) So, you did see a government being elected, or you did not see a government
being elected. Which is it? 'Provisional' or not, it's still a government.
The different factions are reacting by wheeling and dealing and negotiating.
It's called politicking.
Yup, except that iraqi politics still seem to be tied in with violence
to a certain degree.
> (h) I haven't insulted others much, if at all. Maybe your perception
on that is a bit off.
I´ll let all the other posters on this site be the judge of that.
> (i) Well, no, you're not Satan, Michel. Calling yourself Satan would
be predicated on your first believing in the existence of Satan and, as
you indicated, you're an agnostic.
Indeed. Ok, I confess: I´m not Satan :-).
> And yes, the word 'prejudice' means a great deal to me, especially
with all the prejudicial incidents of harassment of Jews happening in
Europe these days.
Yeah, we´re all decadent anti-semites around here. And you´re
all uncultured KKK rednecks.
> (j) I was referring to 'your' responses, dude. And you haven't seen
'rude' from me, yet.
Well, I think I can live without that.
Michel Bastian, France
To Mike, London:
> If you are justifying the invasion of Iraq because some Iraqis (probably)
exhibit an affiliation for extremist Islamic terrorism, I'm sure that
you would agree that Britain should have bombed the USA because of the
support some of it's citizens and politicians showed for the IRA?
Hehe, excellent point, Mike. Let´s drop the bomb on Chicago and
Boston. Too many IRA sympathizers there ;-).
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "I just said it´s
off to a bad start and it´s going to take an enormously long time
for the Iraqi people to adapt to a western-style democracy, much longer
than the Bush administration would have us believe."
I'm not disagreeing with that, Michel. In fact, I agree completely. I'm
just saying that considering where the Iraqi people started from, all
things considered, the Iraqis are off to a pretty good start in my opinion.
Sure, they're not a perfect democracy, yet. Neither was France when it
first got started. And an awful lot of people in France kinda lost their
heads over it (literally) before France got it sorted out. Okay, so the
Iraqis are at the initial stages of forming a government and drafting
a Constitution. Cut them some slack, Michel. the point I am making here
is not that life in Iraq is "perfect", because God knows, it
isn't, or that the country is a fully formed and functioning democracy,
because it isn't. It took us 200+ years to get to where we are with regard
to democracy, and God only knows, we've made mistakes along the way. The
point here, Michel, is that all of this difficult, dangerous, demanding
and less than pleasant task of converting a totalitarian state into a
fledgling democracy would have taken a lot longer, cost a lot more and
would have been infinitely bloodier if we and the Iraqi people had not
first made a "start" at it. You have to start somewhere, Michel.
For better or for worse, intentionally or otherwise, the start has been
made, and now we have to see it through.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "The problem is
that Iraqis are predominantly traditional muslims and have been raised
in a totalitarian state and culture. You can´t just tell people
like that "right, from now on you´re democrats". They
won´t understand what you´re talking about because they´ve
never experienced what democracy really means. And even if they do understand
what you mean, many of them will see it as just another ploy by "the
great satan" (meaning the US, but also all the other western nations)
to kill off their way of life and impose their own "western decadence".
Now I know that´s not true (mostly) and you know that´s not
true. But imagine you´re an Iraqi, brought up on a daily diet of
fundamental islam since you were born, never even having heard of things
like separation of powers, rule of the people etc. etc. How would you
react? Right, you´d see the whole thing as a crusade against what
the prophet told you was the only way of life permissible. And if some
mullah or other tells you, you´ll start planting bombs and sniping
at supply columns without even a second thought."
Yes, they've been raised in a totalitarian state and culture. Whether
or not they're "traditional Muslaims" depends on your viewpoint,
but I think you're being a bit simplistic. There's as much or more diversity
in the Muslim world as in the non-Muslim world, and what's considered
to be "traditional" very much depends on where you live. What's
"traditional" in Iraq is not the same as what's "traditional"
in Saudi Arabia, or Indonesia, or Turkey. What is the "daily diet
of fundamental Islam" that you think Iraqis have been raised with?
Sure, they're Muslims, but they're more worldly and secular than most
Arab states. They're not the Taliban. The Iraqis might not have experienced
democracy before, but they seem to be catching on quickly. They're quick
studies. And Rule Of The People seems to be something they are adapting
to very well. Give them some credit. They're making excellent progress.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "But the Guantanamo
inmates aren´t given even the benefit of court martial rules. They
have no access to a lawyer while getting interrogated, they are driven
to depositions under torture (or "stress inducing methods",
if you prefer), they are detained for years on end without charge or trial
and I could go on endlessly with all the breaches of procedure. Look who´s
"morally gyrating" now."
Yes Michel, I agree, let's look. Apparently the French government, which
has been so loud in its condemnation of American actions in Iraq and the
detaining of illegal combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan, has decded that
"it" likes the practice of detaining potential terrorists indefinitely,
too. You know what they say, Michel -- imitation is the sincerest form
of flattery.
PARIS -- A court ordered the imprisonment of a Frenchman who was released
this month from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, his
lawyer said Friday, three years after the man was caught trying to enter
Afghanistan at the height of the U.S. war there.
Ridouane Khalid, 36, had been free but under judicial watch in France
after returning home from Guantanamo on March 7. The court also ruled
that another former Guantanamo detainee, 33-year-old Khaled ben Mustafa,
must remain behind bars.
"The court decided to put Ridouane Khalid back in detention,"
said his attorney, Paul-Albert Iweins.
"In doing so, it adopted the prosecutor's position, which is that
Guantanamo did not exist, that 3 1/2 years of American investigations
under a regime condemned by the international community did not suffice,"
he added.
In a hearing Tuesday, the prosecution argued that both men pose a threat
to public order and should be jailed while their cases are investigated
by French authorities.
Khalid and ben Mustafa, among seven French nationals returned to France
from Guantanamo, were captured in December 2001 as they tried to enter
Afghanistan from Pakistan. Both are under investigation - one step short
of being formally charged - for "criminal association with a terrorist
enterprise."
Four of the French detainees returned to France in July and remain in
custody on similar accusations.
Please see:
FRANCE ORDERS JAILING OF EX-GITMO PRISONER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mike in London wrote: "Phil- If you are
justifying the invasion of Iraq because some Iraqis (probably) exhibit
an affiliation for extremist Islamic terrorism, I'm sure that you would
agree that Britain should have bombed the USA because of the support some
of it's citizens and politicians showed for the IRA?"
Well, Mike, first of all, I didn't justify the Liberation of Iraq on the
basis that some individual Iraqis exhibit an affection, support or affiliation
for extremist Islamic terrorism. I don't hold an entire government responsible
for the terrorist actions of a few of its individual citizens, or the
actions of citizens of other countries, unless that government is actually
not only aware of those terrorist actions but is actually also actively
supporting and abetting those actions. When a government does that, then
its actions cross a line demarcating acceptable behavior and veer into
the definition of State-Sponsored Terrorism. I justified the Liberation
of Iraq at least partially on the basis that the Saddamite regime was
actively involved -- in fact, very, very deeply involved -- in supporting,
promoting and abetting State-Sponsored Terrorism. And indeed, it was.
It is a well-documented fact that the Saddamite regime gave millions of
dollars to the families of Arab terrorists who had deliberately slaughtered
Israeli civilians. That's active aiding and promotion of Terrorism. Saddam's
funding of Arab Terrorism clearly rewarded terrorists who had murdered
civilians, and quite likely led to the commission of other Terrorist acts
that would not have occurred had the Terrorists not known that their families
would benefit financially from the committing of those acts of Terrorism.
That a few individuals and politicans in the US showed support for the
IRA is indeed deplorable, but once again, I don't hold an entire government
responsible for the terrorist actions or terrorist-supporting views of
a few of its individual citizens. That's not State-Sponsored or State-Supported
Terrorism. To the best of my knowledge, the US government has never officially
or unofficially supported the IRA; in fact, I think the US government
still officially regards the IRA as a Terrorist group.I also believe that
the US government has actively prosecuted and jailed individuals, including
US citizens, who have been involved in trying to smuggle or funnel cash
and/or weaponry to the IRA. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all
means, please feel free to present it.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mike in London wrote: "Or could it be
you are a racist who cannot conceive of the lives of foreigners as having
any worth?"
On the contrary, our Liberation of Iraq has SAVED the lives of hundreds
of thousands of Iraqis who (quite rightly and with justification) feared
being seized in the middle of the night by Saddam's secret police, being
beaten and tortured, being murdered (sometimes in very gruesome ways),
and ultimately ending up as unidentifiable clumps of bones in a mass grave
reserved for opponents of Saddam Hussein's regime. The lives of those
Iraqi Shi'ites, Kurds, Turkomen, dissidents and ordinary Iraqis have great
worth, in my view.
Now, Mike, could it be that you are a Dictatorist and Saddam-lover who
cannot conceive of the lives of people opposed to Saddam's regime as having
any worth? Where was your concern for the welfare of people in Iraq when
Saddam's secret police were murdering children? Certainly there are quite
a few of your countrymen and women who seem to be sullenly angry at Saddam's
having been deposed, and who seem willing to go to great lengths to lie,
propagandize and claim that Saddam "wasn't a bad guy", that
"Iraqis prefer living under Saddam's benevolent dictatorship"
and other similar rubbish. The Guardian even had the audacity and dictator-loving
gall to recently run an article entitled "Things were better under
Saddam". If you care so much about the Iraqi people (as you claim
to), then why are you so opposed to seeing them freed from a murderous
dictatorship and able to choose their own leaders? For all of Europeans'
claims to recognize how "unfortunate" life was under Saddam,
it's clear that to Europeans, that "misfortune" was not sufficient
for Europeans to justify actually "DOING DOMETHING" about it.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mike in London wrote: "Furthermore, the
fact that the USA has killed far more civilians that Saddam could have
dreamed of killing all over the world by way of furthering it's own national
interests, would mean you would agree with 'regime change' in the USA?"
That's the most absolutely outrageous rubbish and Lies I've ever heard.
Kindly 'prove' your allegation, or else withdraw it.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mike in London wrote: "The fact is the
world is full of difficult problems and problem governments." Well,
there's one less problem government in the world, now that Saddam Hussein
is in jail awaiting trial, which is where he belongs.
Mike in London also wrote: " Blowing them up is not a solution for
any government any more than it is for terrorists- it just shows a lack
of imagination on behalf of those who swallow the propaganda whilst blinding
themeselves to any aspect that doesn't make them feel good about their
country/ cause (and, by extension, themeselves)."
Well, Mike, here's the situation: Saddam Hussein was a Very, Very VERY
Bad Man. We wanted him to Go Away. He had to Go Away. He needed to Go
Away. But he didn't want to Go Away. And the rest of the world was not
willing to "make" him Go Away. Therefore, he wasn't going to
Go Away, now or anytime soon. That's the problem right there, Mike. That's
the problem in a nutshell. He wasn't going to Go Away.
Now, Mike, blowing up Saddam's government might not be a solution in "your"
opinion. But it certainly is a perfectly valid solution in "my"
opinion. And it certainly seems to be a perfectly valid solution in the
opinion of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis who were
oppressed under this man's brutal and despotic rule for the last 25+ years.
You claim that it's "not a solution for any government any more than
it is for terrorists". But in this case, we've toppled a brutal regime
that tortured and/or killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis over the last
25+ years. We got rid of Saddam. That was the solution, Mike. It sure
looks like the solution to me. And it sure looks like the solution to
all those millions of Iraqis who are overjoyed that Saddam Hussein is
out of power. They don't want him back, Mike. They really don't.
Is it a solution that shows a lack of imagination? Oh, probably. Yeah,
so what?!?!?? Do I care??? Nope. It worked. That's all that matters to
me.
So, in conclusion, Mike: if you want to sit around the pub, polish off
a few pints, and try to use your imagination to dream up some other, more
creative and imaginative way to have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein (hollering
out "Scotty! Lock transporters onto Saddam's coordinates and beam
him directly to the brig!!", perhaps, or maybe summoning Harry Potter
to "Magick" Saddam away)..... well, by all means, Mike, be my
guest. And if and when you come up with a solution, please do let us know.
In the meantime, we'll continue helping the new fledgling Iraq government
establish itself, continue building democracy in Iraq, and continue helping
the Iraqi people recover from the conflict and from the destructive 25-year
legacy of Saddam Hussein's brutal rule.
Go to page 1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
9 10 11
12
Page 10/12
|