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 4/12
Go to page 1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
9 10 11
12
Michel Bastian, France
to Phil Karasick:
> Well, obviously, I disagree with that view. To begin with, the US
is not "imperialist".
You know, I actually thought so, too, until the Bush administration came
along. US foreign policy was never bent on acquiring an empire or ruling
other parts of the world. On the contrary, ever since the Monroe doctrin
(hope I spelled that right), US foreign policy used to be very reluctant
to intervene anywhere outside the US. Before Bush, people would probably
have called the US "isolationists" rather than "imperialists".
However, all this has changed since the Bush administration put forward
it´s preemptive strike doctrin. In essence, this doctrin means the
US can intervene militarily anywhere in the world if it thinks its interests,
particularly its security interests, are threatened, and even before any
actual attack on the US itself occurs. In these cases, it will not even
consult with other states (though it might inform some of them it considers
to be its allies beforehand, but that´s optional, too). It will
just strike, period. That, IMO, is imperialism, plain and simple, not
because the US want to rule over other states, but because they act in
flagrant disregard of any international laws and treaties. Basically,
they use the "might makes right" argument for that, and this
is a very dangerous development.
> The US did not liberate Iraq for the purposes of acquiring territory,
acquiring oil or acquiring anything else.
Hmm, given the american fuel consumption and the connection of Bush to
the texan oil business, I find it hard to believe that oil wasn´t
at least one of the motivations for the invasion (or liberation, if you
prefer ;-)), but I can´t prove that, so I´m prepared to run
with your assumption for argument´s sake.
> We liberated Iraq to eliminate the threat posed by Sadly Insane Saddam
Hussein. The threat posed by Saddam to other countries in the region is
factual and is a matter of historical record. <...>.
I´m not denying Saddam was a dictator and a criminal etc., but I
doubt very much that this was the prime motivation of the Bush administration
to go to war. There wasn´t any real threat to the US from Iraq.
Saddam Hussein didn´t have any WMD and he wasn´t the only
dictator seeking to build them. The threat posed by North Korea to the
US (and the rest of the world) is infinitely more real, yet the US haven´t
started an invasion there. Pakistan is a politically unstable country
with WMD. Why hasn´t Washington asked them (and India, while you´re
at it) to dismantle their nuclear arsenal if they´re so into preemptive
strategies? Mind you, I´m not saying the Bush administration invaded
Iraq for purely selfish reasons. It might well be that they genuinely
wanted to remove a dictator from power as a positive spin-off, but I doubt
very much this was their prime motivation.
> We in America waited patiently for the UN and the EU to remove Saddam
from power, which never happened.
No, that´s not quite true. The US didn´t "wait patiently".
Before 9/11 they were just as unwilling to go to war with Iraq as the
rest of the security council. They didn´t have a reason to. Only
when the administration felt that Iraq was a prime factor in the war against
terror (in other words: when they felt american security interests where
directly affected) did they push the UN, hard, to pass resolutions that
were tantamount to a declaration of war. For various reasons (many of
which were proven to be right afterwards), the UN (notably Russia, Germany,
France and China) didn´t want to do that. So the Bush administration
just ignored the UN and went ahead with the war anyway.
> Apparently the UN and the EU were indeed powerless to remove him.
Fortunately (in my view), we in America are not.
They were not "powerless", they were unwilling. We could open
up a whole new topic on the power or powerlessness of the UN, but that
would probably bust this board into oblivion :-).
> You also stated: "...We´re not living in the Dark Ages
anymore. There are no barbarian armies at the gates threatening to overrun
Washington (or Paris or Berlin or whatever). The terrorist menace causing
all this mess is diffuse, it´s not focused into a single army or
even a single nation you could attack and obliterate."
> My response to that is: I think that's a matter of perception. Afghanistan
under the horrific rule of the Taliban was indeed very much a country
that had been hurled back into the Dark Ages. The terrorist menace had
largely been focused and centered in a single nation, in Afghanistan,
with two separate armies or factions: the Taliban, which ruled the country
with Medieval-style terror according to a style of Islam not seen since
the 11th century or thereabouts, and Al-Qaeda, which used Afghanistan
as its primary HQ and which essentially turned the Taliban into a 40,000
man bodyguard. The terrorist threat indeed became more diffused as the
terrorists scattered and ran following our liberation of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan was the one exception. You are right in saying that the war
in Afghanistan was necessary. Not only because the Taliban had an inhumane
regime there (a couple of other countries aournd the world have that as
well), but mainly because there was irrefutable proof that Afghanistan
served as the base for Al Quaida and other terrorist organisations (not
all of them islamic, btw). You couldn´t talk to the Taliban and
there was no other way than brute force to eliminate this major terrorist
base. That, incidentally, is why all the other western states went along
with the US in the Afghanistan war. Neither the french nor the germans
nor the russians refused to send troops there. Why there and not in Iraq?
Because Iraq was a completely different ballgame. There was no reason
to invade Iraq other than removing an oppressive regime. Worse, there
were lots of sensible reasons not to go into Iraq. George Bush sen. summed
it up pretty well. When asked why he didn´t invade Iraq in the first
Gulf war, he replied that an invasion would have forced the american troops
to stay there as an occupation force for a long, long time. The situation
in Iraq now is exactly the kind of situation he wanted to avoid: enormous
cost in human lives (american and Iraqi) and in tax dollars, insurgency
all over the place and no likelihood that the country will gain a genuinely
stable democratic system in the foreseeable future. Bottom line: George
junior should have listened to his dad.
> You also stated: ..."That´s the main thing the Bush administration
fails to understand: military invasions of "axis-of-evil" states
will not help them or the world fight terrorism." Well, I partly
disagree with that. Al-Qaeda's operations have been seriously disrupted
by their forcible eviction from Afghanistan. That is likely one reason
why there have been no major attacks upon the US since 9/11. The reason
the terrorists are on the defensive is because we put them on the defensive,
by hunting them where they live.
Ok, I´ll grant you that: Afghanistan is the one exception where
an invasion made sense. See my above statements.
> Finally, you asked: "...Another point about Prof. Reynolds´
observations: he advocates strengthening the UN militarily so the US won´t
have to do the job all by themselves. On the other hand, he refuses to
give up one iota of US sovereignty to the UN. So how is a strong UN going
to work if the US refuse to participate in it?" My response is: Simple,
put the US and other Western or Western-oriented powers back in control
of and in charge of the UN. Include Russia, China, Israel, Egypt and India
in that group. Rebuild the UN's military capabilities from the ground
up using the forces of the nations on the Security Council.
Ok, sounds reasonable, so far....
> And abolish entirely the UN General Assembly, which has served as
a sympathetic forum to terrorism as far back as 1974 when it welcomed
a speech by a pistol-carrying Yasser Arafat just two years after the slaughter
of Israeli athletes at Munich.
So how would you have the UN take decisions then? You need some kind of
a democratic forum where all nations can have their say and you need some
kind of an executive with "teeth" to control the military. What
would you suggest?
Robert Clancy, Dublin, Ireland
Hello all,
I've been reading this thread with interest. As an Irishman with family
living in the US (they emigrated to New York in the 1960s like so many
others when things looked pretty bleak here) my views on the so-called
US-European schism are somewhat mixed. I have visited the US many times
and I have also spent time in 'old Europe'. I feel that, despite the polarised
viewpoints expressed in this thread, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I think if people would come down from their respective soap boxes and
thought about it they would have to admit that neither Europe nor the
US is on the road to hell. As was expressed by someone earlier in this
thread, you can find idiots everywhere but most people are fundamentally
decent. One particular debate rages on in Ireland: who are we spiritally
closer to - Boston or Berlin? Given the current international climate
many people would say Berlin. Personally I think we take the best of both
worlds. And there's nothing wrong with that! As for Bush, he's on the
way out in less than four years. And if the Democrats really want the
White House back, they'll have to put up a better fight than last time
round.
Kai, China
dont konw why bush administration is so stubborn and sdtupid
,they really impress the world terrible and bring shame on american .
Scott Loranger, American (European at heart)
I would suggest that Europe ask nothing of George W. Bush
or the United States, because your questions will fall on deaf ears. The
results of the election demonstrate how much the American public values
the opinion of Europe (or the rest of the free world for that matter).
I understand Europe had the best interests of itself and America in mind
when urged Americans to toss Bush out, but ignorant, biggoted, homophobic,
racist, flag waving, Bible-thumping Christian Americans wouldn't listen.
I give Europe and liberal America my deepest apologies. I will suggest
something the European Union's Lead Commissioner, Jose Manuel Barroso,
can do: make the European Union stronger. Stimulate the euro-economy,
build up a military for the EU, politically integrate the member-states
further. And for God's sake, fix your two biggest social crises: slow
population growth and the welfare system. Start having babies again and
make the lazy free-loaders get a job. The EU should not be so quick to
align itself with the US if the US is not acting responibly. The EU is
a powerful political entity in its own right now, it is capable of independent
actions and shouldn't just role over for the US as is has in the past.
I applaud Chirac and Shrodder for being courageous enough to take a stand
against the US hegemony in world affairs.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
To Michel Bastian:
You stated correctly that "US foreign policy was never bent on acquiring
an empire or ruling other parts of the world." It still isn't. You
also stated that "On the contrary, ever since the Monroe doctrine,
US foreign policy used to be very reluctant to intervene anywhere outside
the US. Before Bush, people would probably have called the US "isolationists"
rather than "imperialists"." That is still the case. When
Bush was first elected in 2000, Europeans were immediately alarmed at
what they saw as a willingness by Bush and the US to withdraw from foreign
affairs. And once again, Europeans labeled the US as "isolationist".
You further stated: "In essence, this doctrine means the US can intervene
militarily anywhere in the world if it thinks its interests, particularly
its security interests, are threatened, and even before any actual attack
on the US itself occurs." That, in my opinion, is exactly how it
should be. Nations have not "merely" the Right, but furthermore
the Obligation, to protect and defend their national interests. After
Sept. 11 2001, I am no longer willing to patiently wait until the actual
attack on the US itself occurs and thousands more Americans die, merely
so that I could say that we were "in the moral 'Right' ". I
don't care about being Morally Right. I care about saving Americans' lives.
If that makes me "morally in the Wrong" for not patiently waiting
for thousands more Americans to be slaughtered a'la 9/11 merely so that
we could say "ok, we were attacked, it's now 'acceptable' for us
to respond", so be it. I can live with that. I don't want to be "morally
Right", I want to WIN. I don't want to wait for someone to kill my
family so that I'm "morally justified" in responding. I want
live Americans, not dead martyrs to "international law". I'm
not interested in me or my family becoming "noble victims who died
for international law". I want to kill the Enemy BEFORE they can
kill me or my family. I want to attack them BEFORE they can attack us,
and by doing so thereby PREVENT them from attacking us. If Clinton had
been thinking with the correct "head" and had attacked and invaded
Afghanistan in the 1990s, as I believe he rightfully should have, 3,000
people in New York City and Washington, D.C. might still be alive.
You also wrote: "In these cases, it will not even consult with other
states (though it might inform some of them it considers to be its allies
beforehand, but that´s optional, too)." Informing allies IS
consulting, in my opinion. "Consulting" does not mean in any
way, shape or form that we have to "ask your permission or consent"
before we carry out actions deemed vital to our national security. What
you want is the "right" to have a veto over our policies. And
that's not going to happen -- not now, not ever. You want to have a "right"
to tell us that we can't do what we feel we need to do in order to protect
our country. And that's completely unacceptable.
You also wrote: "That, IMO, is imperialism, plain and simple, not
because the US wants to rule over other states, but because they act in
flagrant disregard of any international laws and treaties." IMO,
Any "international law or treaty" that "requires"
us in America to wait until we have 3,000 more dead bodies before the
"international community" gives us the "Official Okey-Dokey"
to defend ourselves, is an "international law or treaty" that
we should be abrogating and withdrawing from immediately.
We now live in a much more dangerous world than existed pre-9/11, a world
in which terrorists and the rogue regimes that nurtured or tolerated them
(Libya and East Germany in the 1980s, for example) openly aspire to obtain
and use weapons of mass destruction. With all due respect to our easily-kerfuffled
"allies", I am not interested in patiently waiting and refraining
from military action until a mushroom cloud is rising over an American
city (to be followed, no doubt, by yet another French Looney-Toon "conspiracy
theorist" writing a book and making a million dollars by arguing
that the nuclear holocaust was "engineered by the CIA", as has
already happened in post-9/11 France and on these very bulletin boards).
Carol Lucena, Brazil
What else does he needs to continue the war?In my point
of view he is a terorist.You dont´n need money, what do you want
more?
Mary, UK
I think that the policy of bush administration will not
change towards arab and muslim world...he want to be the master and we
are just slaves..
John Dickason, USA
I applaud Toby of Berlin for hinting at what many Americans
will ever realize: that terrorism will never be eradicated through military
means. George W. Bush is the chief recruiter for Al Qaida and all other
radical Islamist terrorist organizations. His arrogance, bravado, and
self-assured fundamentalist religious beliefs make that a done deal. Idealistic
arguments for overthrowing Saddam Hussein just don't hold water. If the
Bush administration really believed the stuff about weapons of mass destruction,
then they were seriously paranoid. I personally believe that it was all
a smokescreen for GW to try to avenge his good old Daddy and to try to
finish the job started during the Gulf War. And what have we accomplished?
We have brought a nation to the brink of civil war and created a huge
training ground for budding terrorists. If G.W. is such a good christian,
he really should pay attention to the words of Jesus Christ a little more
(not the old testament, which reads like a blood and guts horror novel).
We have killed thousands of our own soldiers and maybe 100,000 Iraqis
because of paranoia and stupid choices by GW Bush and co. To stand up
and say that we are doing this in the name of God makes me want to vomit.
We will never win the "war of ideas" because GW and his administration
don't have any meaningful, culturally relevant ideas to pitch to any of
the middle eastern populations. I'd like to ask Iraqis on the street of
Baghdad if they feel "liberated." Do they feel free? They take
their lives in their hands by even going to a polling station. And even
if the election happens as scheduled, will that advance the current state
of affairs? It will likely only create a Shiite religious administration
that will further stoke the flames of Sunni on Shia enmity. By making
such a shambles of Iraq, Bush has poisoned any future potential gains
that could be made through diplomacy by his or any near-future administrations
in the middle east. You don't get people to see things your way by bombing
innocents (albeit unintentionally), allowing thugs to kidnap their children,
making them live in the dark, and depriving them of safe drinking water
and jobs. That's what we have effectively done in many parts of Iraq.
Saddam Hussein was despicable, but GW Bush is irresponsible and dangerous,
and has done far more evil, creating lasting damage, in the world in four
short years than Saddam did in his entire autocratic rein. A paradigm
shift is needed. I don't need any lectures by fundamentalists about how
the killing is justified because of some higher moral. It isn't. This
is the same argument used by Osama Bin Laden. Bush and he are alike in
many respects. We have blood on our hands and what our government has
done is shameful. What we need is to foster goodwill towards America through
helping those in need throughout the world, regardless of their race,
color, religion, or sexual orientation. We are quick to spend on missiles
and bombs but slow to spend effort and money on development projects without
an immediate and clear bottom line for big business.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Scott Loranger wrote: "The results of the election
demonstrate how much the American public values the opinion of Europe
(or the rest of the free world for that matter)." Exactly. I have
no problem with this at all. That's exactly how it should be. Just precisely
who the hell is Europe, anyway, to presume to "tell" us in America
who we in America should vote for? We in America don't feel a "need"
to interject ourselves into Europe's or Canada's elections. Quite frankly
and bluntly, most Americans probably could not care less, in my opinion,
who Europeans vote to elect. It's none of our business. Likewise, it is
none of Europeans' business whom we choose as our elected leader. The
idea that Europeans are somehow "affected" by our political
choices, and that this somehow translates to their having some "right"
to participate in U.S. elections, has been around for a long time, and
it is pure bunkum. Canada's political decisions affect the U.S. all the
time. Canada's government's decision in 1965 to seize control of the health
sector and to Communize their health insurance system led to layoffs and
job losses in U.S. health insurers who were evicted from Canada. Did Americans
delusionally rationalize that this fallout from Canada's policies gave
Americans some fictitious "right" to participate in Canadian
politics, to vote out the ruling Canadian government and to overturn those
policies we objected to? Not a chance. Scott Loranger also wrote: "I
understand Europe had the best interests of itself and America in mind
when urged Americans to toss Bush out.....". I disagree. Europe definitely
had its own best interests (and prejudices) in mind. Europe wanted America
to agree to elect a European-style leader with European-style values (more
Big Government social programs, confiscatory taxes, the socialization
of whole sectors of the economy). Those values are antithetical to the
values of many Americans. Those are Europe's values. They're not America's
values.
Scott Loranger further wrote: "....but ignorant, bigoted, homophobic,
racist, flag waving, Bible-thumping Christian Americans wouldn't listen."
For which I thank God. Yes, I wave the flag of America. I'm a flag-waver.
And I'm proud of it. If Scott has a problem with that, too bad. I'm going
to keep right on doing it. I won't stop. Yes, many Americans believe in
the Bible and base their lives and decisions on its rules. Again, if Scott
doesn't like that, too bad. He should go live somewhere else. Yes, many
Americans believe homosexuality is sinful and do not feel any "need"
to "accept" or "accommodate" the homosexual lifestyle.
Once again, if Scott doesn't like that, too bad. To accuse Bush supporters
of being mindless racists (with no evidence to support it) is the height
of ignorant bigotry on Scott's part. He is clearly bigoted and filled
with hatred toward any American who waves the flag proudly, who believes
in the Bible, who is a Christian, or who respectfully disagrees with the
homosexual agenda. No doubt he would gleefully politically disenfranchise
the targets of his hate if he could. How sadly ironic that Scott displays
the same ignorant bigotry that he accuses others of.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "Basically, they use the "might
makes right" argument for that, and this is a very dangerous development."
Well, I don't agree with that. It's not a matter of 'might makes right'.
It's a matter of having, and keeping, the sovereign right as Americans
to defend our national security interests, wherever those interests are
threatened. And that's not a new right that we are asserting. In the early
19th century, the U.S. government sent warships halfway around the world
to crush Barbary Coast pirates who were seizing and plundering American
ships and cargos and murdering American seamen. That's where the U.S.
Marines' anthem, "...to the shores of Tripoli" came from.
Michel Bastian wrote: "There wasn´t any real threat to the
US from Iraq. Saddam Hussein didn´t have any WMD and he wasn´t
the only dictator seeking to build them." Well, again, that's a matter
of opinion and perception. Saddam's regime was certainly a threat to his
neighbors, against whom he launched two unprovoked wars in two decades.
He was a threat to our friend and ally Israel, upon whom he rained unprovoked
death and destruction in 1991. His regime spent decades trying to build,
buy or steal WMD components, and there are still numerous politicians
on both sides of the Atlantic who believed at the time that it was certainly
plausible that Saddam's regime possessed WMDs. Michel Bastian wrote: "The
threat posed by North Korea to the US (and the rest of the world) is infinitely
more real, yet the US haven´t started an invasion there. Pakistan
is a politically unstable country with WMD. Why hasn´t Washington
asked them (and India, while you´re at it) to dismantle their nuclear
arsenal if they´re so into preemptive strategies?". A Liberation
of North Korea is long overdue. It's impractical because the North Korean
regime and Army (the only parts of North Korean society that aren't slowly
starving to death) maintain enough artillery near the DMZ to kill tens
of thousands of South Koreans who are (supposedly, and for the present
moment) supposedly our "allies". Pakistan is a vital ally in
the War On Terror, and we need Pakistan's cooperation if we are to have
a chance of defeating Al-Qaeda on the terrorists' own turf.
Michel Bastian wrote: "George Bush Senior summed it up pretty well.
When asked why he didn´t invade Iraq in the first Gulf war, he replied
that an invasion would have forced the american troops to stay there as
an occupation force for a long, long time. The situation in Iraq now is
exactly the kind of situation he wanted to avoid: enormous cost in human
lives (american and Iraqi) and in tax dollars, insurgency all over the
place and no likelihood that the country will gain a genuinely stable
democratic system in the foreseeable future. Bottom line: George junior
should have listened to his dad." And that decision in 1991 by former
Pres. George Bush Senior was totally, utterly, tragically wrong. Former
Pres. George Bush (Senior) was too worried in 1991 about "world public
opinion" and too frightened of the then-Coalition collapsing if the
U.S. decided to keep driving into Iraq and liberate the country. Instead,
he called upon untrained and virtually unarmed Kurds and Shi'ites to mount
an uprising against the remnants of Saddam's well-equipped forces. The
result was a horrific slaughter of the Kurds and Iraqi Shi'ites which
the US military, the most powerful force in the region, did nothing to
prevent. This in turn led to the imposition of U.N. sanctions which Saddam
skillfully used to deflect blame from his own inhuman regime and which
leftists and other anti-Americans labeled "barbaric" and blamed
for thousands of supposed Iraqi civilian deaths. All of which could have
been completely avoided if Pres. George Bush (Senior) had simply ignored
so-called "world public opinion" and ordered US troops to drive
on Baghdad. Pres. George Bush (Senior)'s decision in 1991 not to Liberate
Iraq allowed Saddam's murderous regime to survive for another 11 years
and to kill hundreds of thousands of people, principally Iraqi citizens.
Former Pres. George Bush (Senior)'s decision NOT to invade Iraq in the
first Gulf War was tragically, horrifically, totally, utterly wrong. Thirteen
years later, that tragically wrong decision has finally been corrected.
Michel Bastian wrote: "So how would you have the UN
take decisions then? You need some kind of a democratic forum where all
nations can have their say and you need some kind of an executive with
"teeth" to control the military. What would you suggest?"
I suggest that the Security Council alone can make the necessary decisions
and control the military. I don't believe "all" nations "need"
to have their say. I would completely ignore most of the Third World with
their ranting, rambling, anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-semitic,
anti-Israel, dictator-loving views. I would completely disenfranchise
them. Kick their butts out of the U.N. completely. Let them go set up
their own alternative forum where they can rant to their hearts' content.
And let them pay for it on their own. If they can. And if they can't pay
for it on their own -- then that's just Tough Luck For Them. Too Bad,
So Sad. Cry me a river.
Michel Bastian wrote: "The US didn´t "wait
patiently". Before 9/11 they were just as unwilling to go to war
with Iraq as the rest of the security council. They didn´t have
a reason to." I think it is more correct to say that "Bill Clinton"
was just as unwilling to go to war with Iraq as the rest of the Security
Council. Clinton's first military adventure in Somalia turned out to be
the utter disaster that he had been warned it would be. That, combined
with his inexperience with the military and his lack of credibility on
military matters, probably caused him to settle for keeping Saddam "penned
in" and playing the endless game of enforcing the "No-Fly"
Zones and bombing any Iraqis that fired at US or British aircraft.
Of course, that still enraged the anti-Americans / pro-Saddamists / Euro-leftists,
who couldn't have cared less if the Kurds, Kuwaitis and Shi'ites got slaughtered
by Saddam, who denounced the enforcement of the No-Fly Zones, who denounced
the bombing of the Iraqi gun and missile sites that fired at US/British
aircraft, and who labeled the U.N. economic sanctions as supposedly "murderous".
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> You stated correctly that "US foreign policy was never bent
on acquiring an empire or ruling other parts of the world." It still
isn't. You also stated that "On the contrary, ever since the Monroe
doctrine, US foreign policy used to be very reluctant to intervene anywhere
outside the US. Before Bush, people would probably have called the US
"isolationists" rather than "imperialists"."
That is still the case.
Beg to differ here, for the reasons given in my last post.
> When Bush was first elected in 2000, Europeans were immediately alarmed
at what they saw as a willingness by Bush and the US to withdraw from
foreign affairs. And once again, Europeans labeled the US as "isolationist".
There were voices in Europe (mainly in the press) that thought the US
under Bush might go back to their Monroe doctrin, yes.
> You further stated: "In essence, this doctrine means the US
can intervene militarily anywhere in the world if it thinks its interests,
particularly its security interests, are threatened, and even before any
actual attack on the US itself occurs." That, in my opinion, is exactly
how it should be. Nations have not "merely" the Right, but furthermore
the Obligation, to protect and defend their national interests.
Like I said, dangerous doctrin. That gives any nation, not just the US,
the right to launch attacks on other countries with the excuse of "preemptive"
action. And indeed, it gave the US an excuse to launch a completely unnecessary
and illegal war on Iraq.
> After Sept. 11 2001, I am no longer willing to patiently wait until
the actual attack on the US itself occurs and thousands more Americans
die, merely so that I could say that we were "in the moral 'Right'
". I don't care about being Morally Right. I care about saving Americans'
lives. If that makes me "morally in the Wrong" for not patiently
waiting for thousands more Americans to be slaughtered a'la 9/11 merely
so that we could say "ok, we were attacked, it's now 'acceptable'
for us to respond", so be it. I can live with that. I don't want
to be "morally Right", I want to WIN. I don't want to wait for
someone to kill my family so that I'm "morally justified" in
responding. I want live Americans, not dead martyrs to "international
law". I'm not interested in me or my family becoming "noble
victims who died for international law". I want to kill the Enemy
BEFORE they can kill me or my family. I want to attack them BEFORE they
can attack us, and by doing so thereby PREVENT them from attacking us.
In the light of 9/11, I can understand your argument, though I don´t
agree. Many, many americans were so shocked by 9/11 that they reacted
just like you did: kill them before they can kill us. Forget international
law if it endagers our own people.
The problem with that is that the preemptive strike doctrin can be used
to justify almost any war. It was used to justify Iraq, although there
was no actual threat against the US there.
There is a reason to international laws, and they´re not just the
"impediment to survival" the Bush administration make them out
to be. The war in Afghanistan is the best example: it went according to
international law and with a UN mandate. All the allies were with the
US and now you at least have a semblance of stability there due to the
underlying perception in the afghan population that this was a necessary
war backed by the international community rather than a crusade by the
US. US interests are preserved as well as the interests of the international
community. Iraq is the exact opposite: the war was completely unnecessary,
accordingly it did not pass the scrutiny of the international community
and promptly was taken to be an "imperialist crusade" by the
arab and muslim world. The result, predictably, is chaos.
> If Clinton had been thinking with the correct "head" and
had attacked and invaded Afghanistan in the 1990s, as I believe he rightfully
should have, 3,000 people in New York City and Washington, D.C. might
still be alive.
Clinton made a mistake. The mistake was not that he didn´t invade
Afghanistan, the mistake was that he didn´t focus on killing off
Al Quaida and particularly Bin Laden enough. I understand the CIA even
had Bin Laden in their sights at one point and could have killed him.
Why they didn´t is beyond me. After that, Al Quaida had a chance
to grow and develop in Afghanistan to a point that you couldn´t
do anything against them without first invading Afghanistan.
> You also wrote: "In these cases, it will not even consult with
other states (though it might inform some of them it considers to be its
allies beforehand, but that´s optional, too)." Informing allies
IS consulting, in my opinion. "Consulting" does not mean in
any way, shape or form that we have to "ask your permission or consent"
before we carry out actions deemed vital to our national security.
The word "consent" means that you have to convince us (and not
just us, all the other allies as well) that the war you want to wage is
for a good reason if you want our participation. The US did that in Afghanistan.
They didn´t in Iraq because they couldn´t: it wasn´t
a necessary and just war. Instead, the US administration tried to pressure
and browbeat us into a war that was more than just "not necessary",
it was actually counterproductive. The results were, like I said, pretty
much predictable.
>What you want is the "right" to have a veto over our policies.
And that's not going to happen -- not now, not ever. You want to have
a "right" to tell us that we can't do what we feel we need to
do in order to protect our country. And that's completely unacceptable.
Again, you´re wrong. We don´t want to dictate your policies
to you. We want a right to have a veto over any action IF you want us
to participate. If you do not respect that right, fair enough, but you´ll
be on your own. We are not going to help you start wars all over the place
if it´s not an absolute necessity to your or our own security interests.
War is much too serious a matter for that. Also, I think the Bush administration
has a distinct tendency to only see american lives as important. Never
mind if hundreds of thousands of non-Americans get tortured, maimed or
killed in the process, the main thing is that no american is killed or
harmed. That´s saying an american life is worth more than a few
thousand foreign lives. Pure cynicism, if you ask me.
> You also wrote: "That, IMO, is imperialism, plain and simple,
not because the US wants to rule over other states, but because they act
in flagrant disregard of any international laws and treaties." IMO,
Any "international law or treaty" that "requires"
us in America to wait until we have 3,000 more dead bodies before the
"international community" gives us the "Official Okey-Dokey"
to defend ourselves, is an "international law or treaty" that
we should be abrogating and withdrawing from immediately.
The requirement is not that there be 3.000 dead americans before you can
start a war. The requirement is that you only engage in war as a last
resort AND if there is a necessity for war. Iraq failed on both counts.
> We now live in a much more dangerous world than existed pre-9/11,
a world in which terrorists and the rogue regimes that nurtured or tolerated
them (Libya and East Germany in the 1980s, for example) openly aspire
to obtain and use weapons of mass destruction.
Hmph, I wouldn´t know that East Germany openly aspires to WMD nowadays
:-). But I agree, the world is more dangerous, not mainly because of 9/11,
but because of Bush´s war in Iraq.
> With all due respect to our easily-kerfuffled "allies",
We´re not "easily kerfuffled". As most americans, you
seem to think we only disagreed on Iraq out of self-centredness, to prove
that "hey, we´re important, too". You´re very much
mistaken. That´s not the point. The point, however, is that we have
fundamentally different views on how the international community is going
to work in the next decades. We think it shouldn´t just be an extension
of the oval office, and Iraq is a classic example of why we hold that
view.
> I am not interested in patiently waiting and refraining from military
action until a mushroom cloud is rising over an American city
Unfortunately, you´re much more likely to see such a mushroom cloud
after the Iraq war.
> (to be followed, no doubt, by yet another French Looney-Toon "conspiracy
theorist" writing a book and making a million dollars by arguing
that the nuclear holocaust was "engineered by the CIA", as has
already happened in post-9/11 France and on these very bulletin boards).
Oh, please, spare me the anti-french rethoric. Shall I look at all the
yank crackpots that go around saying that "France is the actual enemy"
(and also making millions with books on that subject, incidentally)?
Michel Bastian, France
> Scott Loranger wrote: "The results of the election
demonstrate how much the American public values the opinion of Europe
(or the rest of the free world for that matter)." Exactly. I have
no problem with this at all. That's exactly how it should be. Just precisely
who the hell is Europe, anyway, to presume to "tell" us in America
who we in America should vote for?
There were indeed some unfortunate public attempts at influencing the
american presidential election (most notably the Guardian´s action
in Ohio), and I have to agree that they weren´t in order (though
I still am an avid Guardian reader, as you might imagine; I also read
the NY Times, the german Spiegel and Le Monde in France, so that probably
makes me a eurocommie in your book). America will make up its own mind
and has a right to do this, like any other country has. Of course, these
attempts backfired, as they would in Europe as well (try to tell a british,
german or french citizen how to vote and they´ll just shrug and
ignore you in the best of cases; in the worst of cases they´ll change
their vote AGAINST your favoured candidate, which is what happened quite
a few times in the US, I gather).
> We in America don't feel a "need" to interject ourselves
into Europe's or Canada's elections.
Americans as such, no, but the american government, yes. Before the last
german parliamentary elections, when Schröder had already stated
that he wasn´t going to participate in the Iraq war if he got reelected,
the american government made it quite clear that they endorsed his opponent.
And I´m pretty sure that Tony Blair´s largest support base
in the upcoming british elections will be the american government ;-).
> The idea that Europeans are somehow "affected" by our political
choices, and that this somehow translates to <...> to vote out the
ruling Canadian government and to overturn those policies we objected
to? Not a chance.
Everybody is affected by the current administration´s foreign policies,
not just the europeans. That´s the problem. The scope of Bush´s
foreign policy turns the US into an american elephant in the world´s
china store: you can´t expect the shop owner not to protest. That
doesn´t give the rest of the world a right to vote in the US, of
course, but us non-americans are sure going to continue to rant on against
Bush´s foreign policy. Sorry, mate, that´s our right too.
> Scott Loranger also wrote: "I understand Europe had the best
interests of itself and America in mind when urged Americans to toss Bush
out.....". I disagree. Europe definitely had its own best interests
(and prejudices) in mind. Europe wanted America to agree to elect a European-style
leader with European-style values (more Big Government social programs,
confiscatory taxes, the socialization of whole sectors of the economy).
You´re making three mistakes here: one: there is no such thing as
a "european style leader". If you actually examine all the european
political leaders you´ll see that they all have their distinctive
"style", if you want to call it that. Two: that bit about "big
social programs, confiscatory taxes" etc. is getting old. I´m
tired of repeating myself on this subject, so read my other posts (again).
And Three: you still didn´t get what Europe´s goals are because
you still do not understand the nature of the EU. You think of it as a
nation, like the US, that will always act in its own best interest and
the rest be damned. Again: the EU is not a nation, it is a union of nations,
with a common basic denominator, but other than that each nation has its
own agendas and goals. That´s why some of the EU members supported
Iraq while others didn´t. Due to the EU´s history, though,
it tends to use diplomatic action first before it starts considering military
options, which is what the Bush government apparently doesn´t do.
Latest case in point: Iran.
> Those values are antithetical to the values of many Americans. Those
are Europe's values. They're not America's values.
Oh, so you´re the voice of America now. I bet the 49% who didn´t
vote for Bush will have a word or two to say about that.
> Scott Loranger further wrote: "....but ignorant, bigoted, homophobic,
racist, flag waving, Bible-thumping Christian Americans wouldn't listen."
For which I thank God. Yes, I wave the flag of America. I'm a flag-waver.
And I'm proud of it. If Scott has a problem with that, too bad. I'm going
to keep right on doing it. I won't stop.
Fair enough, that´s your right, just remember that flag wavers tend
to get their vision obstructed by the flag they´re waving.
> Yes, many Americans believe in the Bible and base their lives and
decisions on its rules. Again, if Scott doesn't like that, too bad. He
should go live somewhere else. Yes, many Americans believe homosexuality
is sinful and do not feel any "need" to "accept" or
"accommodate" the homosexual lifestyle. Once again, if Scott
doesn't like that, too bad. To accuse Bush supporters of being mindless
racists (with no evidence to support it) is the height of ignorant bigotry
on Scott's part. He is clearly bigoted and filled with hatred toward any
American who waves the flag proudly, who believes in the Bible, who is
a Christian, or who respectfully disagrees with the homosexual agenda.
That´s good, you´re making progress. "Respectful disagreement"
is acceptable. Gay bashing, however, is not.
Michel Bastian, France
> Michel Bastian wrote: "There wasn´t any
real threat to the US from Iraq. Saddam Hussein didn´t have any
WMD and he wasn´t the only dictator seeking to build them."
Well, again, that's a matter of opinion and perception.
Nope, that´s a matter of fact. At the time of the invasion in 2003,
Saddam Hussein didn´t have any WMD nor any ties to Al Quaida or
other terrorist organisations, period. He was in no way a threat to american
security interests.
> Saddam's regime was certainly a threat to his neighbors, against
whom he launched two unprovoked wars in two decades.
One of which the US actively promoted, but that´s another story.
Actually, in 2003 his military was a threat to no one, as the subsequent
american invasion showed.
> He was a threat to our friend and ally Israel, upon whom he rained
unprovoked death and destruction in 1991.
Yes, he did that with Scud missiles. What are Scud missiles? WMD. Did
he have WMD in 2003? No. So where was the threat to Israel?
And even if there had been a threat, does the preemptive strike doctrine
extend to all the potential allies of the US, too? If it does, then you
have a huge danger of proliferation. What if Pakistan wants a preemptive
strike against India (or the other way round)? What if South Korea wants
a preemptive strike against North Korea? The preemptive strike doctrin
is bad enough as it is, but if you extend it to all your potential, perceived
or possible allies, it´s just an excuse for the US to start wars
wherever they want whenever they want, without even the pretense of a
threat to american security. Don´t tell me that´s not imperialism.
> His regime spent decades trying to build, buy or steal WMD components,
and there are still numerous politicians on both sides of the Atlantic
who believed at the time that it was certainly plausible that Saddam's
regime possessed WMDs.
Yes, and they´ve all been proven wrong, haven´t they. The
UN inspectors had stated pretty clearly that they didn´t find any
WMD before the war, so at the very least, the Bush administration should
have done its homework better. It should have investigated much more thoroughly
instead of sending Powell to the UN with dubious "evidence"
for WMD to justify an unjustifiable war. When Joschka Fischer made his
"I am not convinced" speech to Rumsfeld in Munich before the
war, he knew what he was talking about. > Michel Bastian wrote: "The
threat posed by North Korea <...> A Liberation of North Korea is
long overdue. It's impractical because the North Korean regime and Army
(the only parts of North Korean society that aren't slowly starving to
death) maintain enough artillery near the DMZ to kill tens of thousands
of South Koreans who are (supposedly, and for the present moment) supposedly
our "allies".
Why do you put that word in brackets? If I was a South Korean I´d
start to worry if the Bush administration used the term "supposedly
our allies". Fortunately, the Bush administration doesn´t (at
least not in public ;-)).
North Korea is indeed a threat (because of the nuclear technology they
have built up), but the Bush administration seems to have understood that
an invasion of North Korea wouldn´t be the right way to go. So much
for the preemptive strike doctrin.
>Pakistan is a vital ally in the War On Terror, and we need Pakistan's
cooperation if we are to have a chance of defeating Al-Qaeda on the terrorists'
own turf.
Well, it´s an ally now. That could change the moment Musharraf gets
moved out of office, either by elections or by gunshot. How many assassination
attempts did he survive again? If there´s ever a mullah regime in
Pakistan, the US´ll be sorry they didn´t negotiate with Pakistan
and India about scuttling the A-Bombs. Also, if Pakistan´s such
a good ally, why didn´t they catch Bin Laden yet?
> <..> And that decision in 1991 by former Pres. George Bush
Senior was totally, utterly, tragically wrong. Former Pres. George Bush
(Senior) was too worried in 1991 about "world public opinion"
and too frightened of the then-Coalition collapsing if the U.S. decided
to keep driving into Iraq and liberate the country.
Nope, he just wasn´t too keen on invading Iraq, destabilizing the
middle-east, alienating his european allies and having to maintain a massive
american military presence in Iraq for decades.
> Instead, he called upon untrained and virtually unarmed Kurds and
Shi'ites to mount an uprising against the remnants of Saddam's well-equipped
forces. The result was a horrific slaughter of the Kurds and Iraqi Shi'ites
which the US military, the most powerful force in the region, did nothing
to prevent.
You can´t blame Bush sen. for crimes Saddam committed, especially
since to my knowledge, he didn´t "call upon" the Kurds
and Shi´ites. He and his allies (UK and France) moved troops to
northern and southern Iraq to protect the Kurds and Shi´ites shortly
afterwards. So don´t blame the US for something the US didn´t
do.
> This in turn led to the imposition of U.N. sanctions which Saddam
skillfully used to deflect blame from his own inhuman regime and which
leftists and other anti-Americans labeled "barbaric" and blamed
for thousands of supposed Iraqi civilian deaths.
Smokescreening again. The UN sanctions (and the ensuing civilian deaths,
which, inicdentally, weren´t „supposed‰, they were real)
ultimately led to the oil-for-food programme, and no government ever blamed
the US for anything to do with the UN sanctions (except, perhaps, Saddam
himself). Nobody that mattered ever really believed Saddam´s propaganda.
Nobody ever really disputed that his regime was inhumane. I already stated
this, but it seems I have to repeat myself: I´m not denying that
Saddam´s regime was inhumane and criminal. That´s not the
issue.
> All of which could have been completely avoided if Pres. George Bush
(Senior) had simply ignored so-called "world public opinion"
and ordered US troops to drive on Baghdad. Pres. George Bush (Senior)'s
decision in 1991 not to Liberate Iraq allowed Saddam's murderous regime
to survive for another 11 years and to kill hundreds of thousands of people,
principally Iraqi citizens. Former Pres. George Bush (Senior)'s decision
NOT to invade Iraq in the first Gulf War was tragically, horrifically,
totally, utterly wrong.
Like I said, the one who´s totally, horrifically and utterly wrong
here is Bush junior, not Bush senior. Bush senior didn´t send thousands
of american troops and countless more Iraqis (military and civilians)
to their death for phoney reasons. He didn´t destabilize the whole
middle east for the next two or three decades, thereby provoking many
more casualties and much more destruction than Saddam could ever have.
He didn´t break up decade-old alliances and provoke a massive rift
with Europe and finally, he didn´t provide every muslim extremist
and his brother with an ideal rallying point.
> I suggest that the Security Council alone can make the necessary
decisions and control the military. I don't believe "all" nations
"need" to have their say. I would completely ignore most of
the Third World with their ranting, rambling, anti-American, anti-capitalist,
anti-semitic, anti-Israel, dictator-loving views.
Either you don´t know (and don´t care) a lot about third world
countries (which is what I suspect) or you´re being deliberately
polemic. Very democratic solution you´re proposing. Not acceptable,
really, especially if you put the military under UN command.
> I would completely disenfranchise them. Kick their butts out of the
U.N. completely. Let them go set up their own alternative forum where
they can rant to their hearts' content. And let them pay for it on their
own. If they can. And if they can't pay for it on their own -- then that's
just Tough Luck For Them. Too Bad, So Sad. Cry me a river.
So it´s ok to invade their countries and exploit their resources
but if they can´t pay their way into the UN and, worse, if they
dare to speak against the US, kick them out? Some humanitarian and democratically
minded citizen you are.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "The US didn´t "wait patiently".
Before 9/11 they were just as unwilling to go to war with Iraq as the
rest of the security council. They didn´t have a reason to."
I think it is more correct to say that "Bill Clinton" was just
as unwilling to go to war with Iraq as the rest of the Security Council.
Clinton's first military adventure in Somalia turned out to be the utter
disaster that he had been warned it would be. That, combined with his
inexperience with the military and his lack of credibility on military
matters, probably caused him to settle for keeping Saddam "penned
in" and playing the endless game of enforcing the "No-Fly"
Zones and bombing any Iraqis that fired at US or British aircraft.
Well Clinton wasn´t a military man, that´s true. He didn´t
have to be, because the strategy the US and its allies, as well as the
UN, were running in Iraq was completely ok and it worked: in ten years
Saddam couldn´t manage to build up his WMD stock and was a threat
to no one. There was no reason to invade it, just as there was no reason
to invade it after 9/11. Incidentally, Bush is far from being a military
genius himself.
> Of course, that still enraged the anti-Americans / pro-Saddamists
/ Euro-leftists, who couldn't have cared less if the Kurds, Kuwaitis and
Shi'ites got slaughtered by Saddam, who denounced the enforcement of the
No-Fly Zones, who denounced the bombing of the Iraqi gun and missile sites
that fired at US/British aircraft, and who labeled the U.N. economic sanctions
as supposedly "murderous".
That´s ridiculous, Phil, and you know it. Every time you´re
out of arguments, you start invoking anti-Americans, Euro-leftists and
god knows which other obscure group of evil-doers. You´re starting
to sound like Sen. McCarthy.
Nobody denounced the US/UK for defending themselves (incidentally, there
were other nations enforcing the no-fly zone as well, but you seem to
have conveniently forgotten about those). Some humanitarian groups argued
that the economic sanctions were hurting the population more than the
Iraqi government, and that´s what led to the oil for food programme.
But I don´t know of anyone who „couldn´t have cared
less‰ for the Kurds an Shi´ites (the Kuwaitis weren´t
getting „slaughtered‰ anymore by that time, coalition forces
had already kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, remember?).
Jonny F. Trahan, USA, Louisana
President Bush has done well under fire, Period. We have
two choices, 1. We allow the paper lion of the U.N. to dictate to us what
we will or will not do. There are even Morons in the United States government
who think there is some legitimacy within that organization. The only
thing legitimate about the U.N. is that it is almost wholly funded by
the United States. Lets be real, without the U.S. the world would have
nothing to complain about. There would be no convition, because everyone
else hates morality (right?) or at least they critize our citizens for
desiring a moral society. What Pigs! The would be no economy, no one would
have anyone to borrow money from. But, the UN can critize us for not giving
enough to Tusnami aid. Like we have not been paying the world's bills
for about 100 or so years. but i digress. 2. We can tell the UN to Shove
it and enforce its threats like they should be enforced. The United States
has brougth some since of reality to what the world fears in the UN.
Saddam did not have to have WMD's to deserve to go. He has been breaking
the rules for 13+years. Just because the EU puppet Billy Clinton did not
react on it does not mean the there are not still rules. Not to mention,
the scandal which is unfloding in the oil for food program. The UN and
its KA leadership simply wants as much money as the US so the lie, cheat,
and steal. Its becasue they hate morality, right? Bush did the right thing,
and the way you can tell is by the very people that do support him and
the ones who do not.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
To Michel Bastian:
RE: the ongoing discussion about the ICC, here is another piece of interesting
news...
German justices consider trying Rumsfeld
BERLIN, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- A German court spokesman said Friday no decision
had been made on whether to prosecute U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
for the Abu Ghraib prisoner scandal.
The daily Tagesspiegel reported German justice authorities would not act
on a criminal complaint filed by an international legal team in November
against Rumsfeld and other U.S. senior officials because no German nationals
were involved.
But a German court spokesman said: "We have yet to decide whether
or not to pursue the charge."
Tagesspiegel said German law prevents federal Prosecutor Kay Nehm from
taking legal action unless Germans were involved -- either as suspects
or victims.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1331005/posts
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
John Dickason wrote: "George W. Bush is the chief
recruiter for Al Qaida and all other radical Islamist terrorist organizations."
Perhaps you would explain something to me, Mr. Dickason: Who was the "chief
recruiter for Al Qaida and all other radical Islamist terrorist organizations"
back in 1998 when Al-Qaeda terrorists blew up US Embassies in Africa,
killing hundreds and wounding thousands? Who was the "chief recruiter
for Al Qaida and all other radical Islamist terrorist organizations"
back in 2000 when Al-Qaeda terrorists blew up the USS Cole, killing 17
American sailors? For that matter, who was the ""chief recruiter
for Al Qaida and all other radical Islamist terrorist organizations"
back in 1993 when Al-Qaeda terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in
NYC the FIRST time, killing 7 or so people and injuring over 1,000? I
don't suppose you remember who was President of the US during all those
attacks, would you -- someone named Bill Clinton?
John Dickason wrote: "If the Bush administration really believed
the stuff about weapons of mass destruction, then they were seriously
paranoid." Oh Really? Here's a few words on the subject by someone
who was there at the time and who is in a better position to answer that
question.Scientist: Gulf War stopped Iraqi weapons effort
OSLO, Norway - A scientist considered the father of Iraq‚s nuclear
program said Thursday that his nation would have developed atomic weapons
in the early 1990s had Saddam Hussein not ordered the invasion of Kuwait.
The invasion sparked the U.S.-led Operation Desert Storm in 1991, which
drove Iraq out of Kuwait and marked the end of Baghdad‚s nuclear
and biological weapons program, said Jafar Dhia Jafar, the scientific
head of Iraq‚s nuclear weapons program.
„By the end of 1990, about 8,000 people were involved directly or
indirectly in the nuclear program,‰ said Jafar, presenting his new
Norwegian-language book, „Oppdraget‰, which means The Assignment,
describing the program.
„We were three years away, give or take a year,‰ said Jafar,
who fled Iraq during the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
In the book, Jafar describes being picked up in 1981 after 18 months in
jail and brought to see Saddam, who, standing behind a desk in military
uniform, instructed him to build an atomic bomb.
„From today, that is our goal,‰ Jafar recalled Hussein saying.
The British-educated scientist, with a doctorate in physics from the University
of Birmingham, said the quest for nuclear weapons began with Israeli warplanes
bombing the legal Iraqi nuclear reactor at Tuwaitha, near Baghdad, where
he had worked, in June 1981.
„It was not illegal because it did not violate the NPT (the nonproliferation
of nuclear weapons treaty),‰ he said. He said the program became
top secret in 1986, when nuclear efforts moved beyond the terms of the
treaty.
Jafar said Iraq sought to build all industrial and technological equipment
needed to develop weapons on its own, sometimes importing equipment through
oil or other industries.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6878997/
John Dickason wrote: "I personally believe that it
was all a smokescreen for GW to try to avenge his good old Daddy and to
try to finish the job started during the Gulf War.' Sounds great to me.
If George H.W. Bush had finished the job started in 1990-1991 in the first
Gulf War and had removed Saddam Hussein from power by force, thousands
and thousands of Iraqis would still be alive today.
John Dickason wrote: "I'd like to ask Iraqis on the street of Baghdad
if they feel "liberated." Do they feel free?" I believe
I have an answer for Mr. Dickason.
Iraqi family‚s journey inspires hope
From Baghdad to San Diego and back
BAGHDAD - It has been said you can't go home again. The Naama family is
trying to prove otherwise ˜ though their journey home has not been
an easy one.
Ten years and 12,000 miles later, just days before Iraq's first competitive
election, Abbas Naama and his daughter Esra are learning that arriving
home in Iraq may have been the easy part.
Iraq had always been home to the Naama family. But it wasn't always liveable.
In fact, in 1991, the father, Abbas, was in the resistance, against Saddam.
It was a dangerous move back then.
At the height of Saddam's power it became clear to the family that their
home was no longer safe. They couldn't stay here in Iraq. And so, like
many threatened by Saddam's reign, they fled. Daughter Esra was only 11
years old.
"We saw some people being taken away and slaughtered," recalls
Esra. "I remember seeing two guys hung in a palm tree."
When NBC News first met up with the Naama family, they were living their
new life ˜ far from home, safe in San Diego. Iraq seemed gone, forever.
"It gave us a new life, a new beginning," says Esra. "America
has fulfilled our dreams."
Then, unimaginably, Baghdad fell in April 2003. When it was clear that
Saddam was no longer in power, when beloved icons of his ˜ like his
Baath party headquarters ˜ were in ruins, that was the family's cue
that it was safe to come home again.
We joined them for their emotional journey home, and saw that things would
not be so simple.
"I feel a part of me wants to stay here and lend a hand to the people
of my country," Esra told us. "But I still have my job and my
life. I have to go back."
Now, the Naamas have become a portrait of a changing Iraq. The story lacks
a tidy ending. Esra has traveled back and forth, unable to turn her back
on an unsettled and violent homeland. But unwilling to settle here. Her
brother, Mahmoud, returned to California to go to college, and on Friday,
he actually voted in Iraq's election.
"We have to fight for what we want," he says.
Remarkably, one of the candidates he voted for was his own mother, Sabria.
She's trying democracy on first hand, running for Parliament. The family
fears for her safety. Like many here, she's campaigning quietly.
"It's not fair that we might lose my mom in this whole transition
to democracy in Iraq," says Esra.
Meanwhile, their old house, destroyed years ago as punishment for leaving
Saddam's Iraq, remains in ruins ˜ though the family patriarch remains
hopeful.
"We will win freedom," says Abbas Naama. "We will win democracy
in Iraq."
"This is our country," echoes his daughter. "These are
our people. We owe it to them."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6881490/
John Dickason wrote: "And even if the election happens
as scheduled, will that advance the current state of affairs? It will
likely only create a Shiite religious administration that will further
stoke the flames of Sunni on Shia enmity." So, are you saying that
we "can't afford" to allow" the first free and democratic
elections in Iraq for the first time in decades because the "wrong
people" (the Shi'ites, a majority in Iraq who were savagely and gruesomely
repressed by Saddam Hussein's Sunni Muslims), might win?
John Dickason wrote: " Saddam Hussein was despicable, but GW Bush
is irresponsible and dangerous, and has done far more evil, creating lasting
damage, in the world in four short years than Saddam did in his entire
autocratic rein." What utter rubbish, in my opinion. Perhaps Mr.
Dickason was otherwise occupied when television sets around the world
showed the footage of gaunt, emaciated, tortured Iraqi political prisoners
(some as young as 10-years old) emerging at long last from Saddam's barbaric
and sadistic prisons. The US killed far fewer people accidentally, than
Saddam Hussein and his evil inhuman regime killed on purpose. Millions
of Iraqi Shi'ites, Iraqi Kurds, political dissenters, Kuwaitis, Iranians,
Israelis and others perished during Saddam's reign because of systematic
torture, brutality or wars which Saddam started.
Michel Bastian, France
I wrote:
> And I´m sure you and I´ll agree that getting everybody
to sign such a treaty is about as likely as snow in the Sahara by christmas.
Well, it wasn´t "by christmas", but according to latest
news, there IS actually snow in the Sahara as of today (01-30-2005), so
perhaps there is still hope for Kyoto yet ;-).
Charles Warren, USA
To Bastian > "There was no reason for the US to
pull out of that one other than the fact it wouldn´t have been an
american court controlled only by americans and run according to american
rules." So clearly such a massive infringement on American sovereigny
as the ICC would cost us much while giving us nothing at all. It would
entail risks to which you have only responded, "You will just have
to trust the political culture of Europe". Why should we ? You mean
like the Belgian judges who were so eager to try Sharon but couldn't spare
the time to try Marc Dutroux ?
Hey, we Americans live in a country where a vast number of citizens, probably
a majority, believe that the federal government has no right to control
their possession of firearms. Do you seriously believe that such a people
would tamely subordinate their legal system to foreign judges for no better
reason than that the European chattering classes think it's a good idea
? Do you believe that such a nation would violate the principles of a
constitution that has served it well for two centuries merely in order
to accomodate your latest Big Idea to make the world perfect ? To the
American people the ICC is a European abomination that the Democratic
Party has had the political good sense to not touch with a ten foot pole.
Never at any time during the election did Kerry or any leading Democrat
say that he would enter the ICC or sign the Kyoto Treaty and their is
no way any American Senate would ever ratify either of those abominations.
Go to page 1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
9 10 11
12
Page 4/12
|