Welcome to "Hawk Tawk"
August 26, 2002 7:48 PM Subscribe
Welcome to "Hawk Tawk", with your host, Dick Cheney. The Vice President spoke to members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Tennessee today, and unequivocally stated that the United States must preemptively strike Iraq, since there is "no doubt" Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and plans on using them against the US and its allies (excerpt of speech here). In other news, Qatar, a proposed launching off point by US forces, announced its opposition to any attacks on Iraq. In addition, National Reservists will continue to be on active duty for another year, the first time that has happened since Vietnam, and the US Army has been gearing up for new action. What's that Chinese proverb about living in interesting times? (And I know people are sick of Iraq talk, but these are fairly significant events)
According to the U.S. State Dept. and Time Magazine several other countries also possess weapons of mass destruction. So...are they next? Maybe we should preemptively strike those pesky French first. Then move on to Iraq. Or the Chinese? Surely, with all of their weapons, they must be taken out. Who knows what their up to over there? Best take 'em out first, and ask questions later.
"Under the spreading chestnut tree..."
posted by damnitkage at 8:12 PM on August 26, 2002
"Under the spreading chestnut tree..."
posted by damnitkage at 8:12 PM on August 26, 2002
So many dellusionists on Mefi. I wonder what clever, witty arguments you would have tendered to appease Hitler.
We're going in to Iraq within six months. Whether or not you like it.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:20 PM on August 26, 2002
We're going in to Iraq within six months. Whether or not you like it.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:20 PM on August 26, 2002
No, dumbass... this isn't a war on weapons of mass destruction... it isn't a war on the fucking "concept" of terrorism, wherever it rears it's ugly metaphorical head... Al Queda is a threat to us. Iraq is a threat to us. Do i have to spell it out for you morons? it's a war on threats to us. motherfucking DUH.
posted by techgnollogic at 8:28 PM on August 26, 2002
posted by techgnollogic at 8:28 PM on August 26, 2002
ParisParamus: You hit the nail on the head. Best comment I have read all day!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:31 PM on August 26, 2002
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:31 PM on August 26, 2002
Spell it for me techgnollogic. Spell it for me so I can know when to hide from the invading Iraqi hordes. Or when the evil Al Qaida villains are looting and pillaging through my hometown.
Spell it for me in all of your myopic glory. Spell, baby, spell.
And by the way, just so you don't get on some kind of another assholish band wagon, yes my father and grandfather served our country to fight for our freedoms. A real enemy not a politcal manuever or a mop up job for daddy. So I'm sure you'll regal us with your years of military service, medals won, towel heads iced, gooks wasted and commies hosed. Can't wait for that.
Just curious have you signed up to fight? Your daughter? Sons? Hmmmm? '
Spell it on out.
posted by damnitkage at 8:44 PM on August 26, 2002
Spell it for me in all of your myopic glory. Spell, baby, spell.
And by the way, just so you don't get on some kind of another assholish band wagon, yes my father and grandfather served our country to fight for our freedoms. A real enemy not a politcal manuever or a mop up job for daddy. So I'm sure you'll regal us with your years of military service, medals won, towel heads iced, gooks wasted and commies hosed. Can't wait for that.
Just curious have you signed up to fight? Your daughter? Sons? Hmmmm? '
Spell it on out.
posted by damnitkage at 8:44 PM on August 26, 2002
We're going in to Iraq within six months. Whether or not you like it.
Perhaps you should rephrase it like this:
"We're going in to Iraq within six months. Whether or not it's justifiable."
posted by hotdoughnutsnow at 8:44 PM on August 26, 2002
Perhaps you should rephrase it like this:
"We're going in to Iraq within six months. Whether or not it's justifiable."
posted by hotdoughnutsnow at 8:44 PM on August 26, 2002
it isn't a war on the fucking "concept" of terrorism, wherever it rears it's ugly metaphorical head... Al Queda is a threat to us. Iraq is a threat to us. Do i have to spell it out for you morons? it's a war on threats to us. motherfucking DUH.
A war on terrorist threats to America should target terrorists who kill Americans.
Iraqi terrorists have never killed Americans.
A war on Iraq will not fight terrorist threats to America.
QED
Maybe there's a good reason to blow the shit out of Iraq, if you're President Bush. But keeping the U.S. safe from Iraqi terror ain't it.
posted by sacre_bleu at 8:52 PM on August 26, 2002
A war on terrorist threats to America should target terrorists who kill Americans.
Iraqi terrorists have never killed Americans.
A war on Iraq will not fight terrorist threats to America.
QED
Maybe there's a good reason to blow the shit out of Iraq, if you're President Bush. But keeping the U.S. safe from Iraqi terror ain't it.
posted by sacre_bleu at 8:52 PM on August 26, 2002
Cheney: "Yet if we did wait until that moment, Saddam would simply be emboldened and it would become even harder for us to gather friends and allies to oppose him."
So when he invaded Kuwait, we had a tough time convincing the world that we were good and Iraq was evil? (rolls eyes) Like it or not, the world wants us to wait and have a reason to attack people. A percieved threat just won't cut it.
posted by jragon at 8:53 PM on August 26, 2002
So when he invaded Kuwait, we had a tough time convincing the world that we were good and Iraq was evil? (rolls eyes) Like it or not, the world wants us to wait and have a reason to attack people. A percieved threat just won't cut it.
posted by jragon at 8:53 PM on August 26, 2002
"Hawk Tawk?" I think you mean "Chicken Hawk Tawk."
posted by homunculus at 9:14 PM on August 26, 2002
posted by homunculus at 9:14 PM on August 26, 2002
damnitkage -- you're so right! what's sad, though, is that the more talking Bush and Cheney (and war-trolls) do, the more it becomes inevitable that we're going in bigtime. I wouldn't be surprised if they say next that Saddam's the one who's been abducting our children...
posted by amberglow at 9:32 PM on August 26, 2002
posted by amberglow at 9:32 PM on August 26, 2002
So many dellusionists on Mefi. I wonder what clever, witty arguments you would have tendered to appease Hitler.
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask our leaders for some verifiable proof before sending troops into action. Especially since that action will undoubtedly result in the deaths of many American servicemen, Iraqi civilians, and certainly adversely effect people the world over. I don't keep my eyes glued looking news on Iraq but I have yet to hear of anything resembling proof.
It's absolutely amazing to me how cavalier people are about war. Have you ever watched someone bleed or suffer -- it's nothing to take so lightly.
posted by cmacleod at 9:33 PM on August 26, 2002
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask our leaders for some verifiable proof before sending troops into action. Especially since that action will undoubtedly result in the deaths of many American servicemen, Iraqi civilians, and certainly adversely effect people the world over. I don't keep my eyes glued looking news on Iraq but I have yet to hear of anything resembling proof.
It's absolutely amazing to me how cavalier people are about war. Have you ever watched someone bleed or suffer -- it's nothing to take so lightly.
posted by cmacleod at 9:33 PM on August 26, 2002
it takes only three replies to envoke Godwin's Law.
New record for Mefi? :)
posted by RobbieFal at 9:44 PM on August 26, 2002
New record for Mefi? :)
posted by RobbieFal at 9:44 PM on August 26, 2002
I hope the coming war in Iraq spawns some good folksy anti-war music like Vietnam did. It'd be a pity to fight a war and not get anything out of it.
Then again, it's not like we have any say in the matter.
posted by fatbobsmith at 9:44 PM on August 26, 2002
Then again, it's not like we have any say in the matter.
posted by fatbobsmith at 9:44 PM on August 26, 2002
"and the young can grow up free of the conditions that breed despair, hatred and violence." ....... what a crock of s**t.
posted by specialk420 at 9:45 PM on August 26, 2002
posted by specialk420 at 9:45 PM on August 26, 2002
No, dumbass... this isn't a war on weapons of mass destruction... it isn't a war on the fucking "concept" of terrorism, wherever it rears it's ugly metaphorical head... Al Queda is a threat to us. Iraq is a threat to us. Do i have to spell it out for you morons? it's a war on threats to us. motherfucking DUH.
It's really neat how the skilful use of profanity really drives your points home in a convincing manner.. ahem.
I've pointed out previously: Saddam basically invaded Kuwait after the US told him they didn't have any opinion on "Arab-Arab" conflicts. (My guess - and it's only a guess - is that Bush manoeuvred Saddam so that he could make political hay out of coming to Kuwait's defense). Overall, Saddam has shown himself to be basically interested in his own survival. His previous actions don't suggest that he's after revenge at any cost. In other words, there's no evidence that the containment strategy used so far can't continue to work. Every single claim I've seen that Saddam is a threat to the US is just a claim - there's never any evidence presented to back it up. And there is still no evidence that he's got any connection to Bin Laden - the fact that he's strongly secular makes it a pretty unlikely connection. It's not like Bin Laden is lacking potential allies, that he has to start courting infidels.
posted by slipperywhenwet at 9:47 PM on August 26, 2002
It's really neat how the skilful use of profanity really drives your points home in a convincing manner.. ahem.
I've pointed out previously: Saddam basically invaded Kuwait after the US told him they didn't have any opinion on "Arab-Arab" conflicts. (My guess - and it's only a guess - is that Bush manoeuvred Saddam so that he could make political hay out of coming to Kuwait's defense). Overall, Saddam has shown himself to be basically interested in his own survival. His previous actions don't suggest that he's after revenge at any cost. In other words, there's no evidence that the containment strategy used so far can't continue to work. Every single claim I've seen that Saddam is a threat to the US is just a claim - there's never any evidence presented to back it up. And there is still no evidence that he's got any connection to Bin Laden - the fact that he's strongly secular makes it a pretty unlikely connection. It's not like Bin Laden is lacking potential allies, that he has to start courting infidels.
posted by slipperywhenwet at 9:47 PM on August 26, 2002
Oh.. additionally: there's the issue of Jose Bustani who's unilateral removal as head of Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons was one of the most enraging moves by the current administration. The consensus is that he was removed because it looked like he might have been able to convince Iraq to sign onto the OPCW's chemical weapons convention, which would have removed any pretext for attacking Iraq.
posted by slipperywhenwet at 10:05 PM on August 26, 2002
posted by slipperywhenwet at 10:05 PM on August 26, 2002
So many dellusionists on Mefi. I wonder what clever, witty arguments you would have tendered to appease Hitler.
Let's be consistent, eh? If the rule is: we demand the right to militarily remove any regimes which possess WMD, or invade other countries, the list starts with the conquerors of Tibet, surely? Or are they too big for us? At least we hav eevidence of their wrongdoing. Ref. appeasement, by 1939 we had evidence of the terror which the Third Reich inflicted on it's own and other peoples. That was what was required. Kindly furnish some - some - evidence connecting Iraq to terror in the USA. That's all we ask, if requests like that make you come over all aggressive, why not go take it out somewhere else: this is a discussion board! A place where bold type and capitals are considered rude - there's just no need to embarass yourself with breaches of etiquette like the above.
What is it that you are hiding behind your bluster, scoundrel?
posted by dash_slot- at 10:29 PM on August 26, 2002
Let's be consistent, eh? If the rule is: we demand the right to militarily remove any regimes which possess WMD, or invade other countries, the list starts with the conquerors of Tibet, surely? Or are they too big for us? At least we hav eevidence of their wrongdoing. Ref. appeasement, by 1939 we had evidence of the terror which the Third Reich inflicted on it's own and other peoples. That was what was required. Kindly furnish some - some - evidence connecting Iraq to terror in the USA. That's all we ask, if requests like that make you come over all aggressive, why not go take it out somewhere else: this is a discussion board! A place where bold type and capitals are considered rude - there's just no need to embarass yourself with breaches of etiquette like the above.
What is it that you are hiding behind your bluster, scoundrel?
posted by dash_slot- at 10:29 PM on August 26, 2002
Well, obviously, I've confused PP & Techno, but if the error can be forgiven... I apolgise.
Now, if either of you could respond to the substantives in my comment...
posted by dash_slot- at 10:31 PM on August 26, 2002
Now, if either of you could respond to the substantives in my comment...
posted by dash_slot- at 10:31 PM on August 26, 2002
We're going in to Iraq within six months. Whether or not you like it.
Actually, I'll have other priorities. That's okay, isn't it?
posted by riviera at 10:44 PM on August 26, 2002
Actually, I'll have other priorities. That's okay, isn't it?
posted by riviera at 10:44 PM on August 26, 2002
"We are all familiar with the recent history of the Persian Gulf. During the 1970s, the Western allies armed the Shah of Iran as a counterforce to the perceived threat from Russia. Then, when the political climate changed, Iran itself was considered a threat to Western interest. So the allies began to arm Iraq against Iran. But then, when times changed yet again, these weapons were used against the West's other allies in the Gulf (Kuwait). As a result, the [arms] manufacturing countries found themselves going to war with their own clients."-- Ethics for a New Millenium - The Dalai Lama.
There have been quite a few Iraq invasion posts here on MetaFilter over the past few days. For those of you joining our program in progress, let's summarize: Iraqi children must die in the name of arms and oil profits....must die because they never threw off the yoke of Saddam even after we helpfully increased malnutrition and infant mortality among them....must die to insure that the U.$ is never again threatened by terrorists wielding weapons of mass destruction like boxcutters.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:05 AM on August 27, 2002
There have been quite a few Iraq invasion posts here on MetaFilter over the past few days. For those of you joining our program in progress, let's summarize: Iraqi children must die in the name of arms and oil profits....must die because they never threw off the yoke of Saddam even after we helpfully increased malnutrition and infant mortality among them....must die to insure that the U.$ is never again threatened by terrorists wielding weapons of mass destruction like boxcutters.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:05 AM on August 27, 2002
it's always a good time to revist suck. chickenhawk down
posted by lescour at 12:11 AM on August 27, 2002
posted by lescour at 12:11 AM on August 27, 2002
Spell it for me techgnollogic. Spell it for me so I can know when to hide from the invading Iraqi hordes. Or when the evil Al Qaida villains are looting and pillaging through my hometown.
Spell it for me in all of your myopic glory. Spell, baby, spell.
N.e.w. Y.o.r.k. C.i.t.y., S.e.p.t.e.m.b.e.r. 1.1., 2.0.0.1.
My, we have a short memory. Or maybe that doesn't that count as 'looting and pillaging' because Al Qaida didn't actually take anything. So, it's okay then!
stick to Iraq, you're on safer ground.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 12:11 AM on August 27, 2002
Spell it for me in all of your myopic glory. Spell, baby, spell.
N.e.w. Y.o.r.k. C.i.t.y., S.e.p.t.e.m.b.e.r. 1.1., 2.0.0.1.
My, we have a short memory. Or maybe that doesn't that count as 'looting and pillaging' because Al Qaida didn't actually take anything. So, it's okay then!
stick to Iraq, you're on safer ground.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 12:11 AM on August 27, 2002
"Hawk Tawk?" I think you mean "Chicken Hawk Tawk."
The link's in the story you referenced, but I think The Chickenhawk Database deserves its own link here on MetaFilter.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:12 AM on August 27, 2002
The link's in the story you referenced, but I think The Chickenhawk Database deserves its own link here on MetaFilter.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:12 AM on August 27, 2002
N.e.w. Y.o.r.k. C.i.t.y., S.e.p.t.e.m.b.e.r. 1.1., 2.0.0.1.
And that spelling reads "the Iraqi people invaded New York"?
This new phonics is tough.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:16 AM on August 27, 2002
And that spelling reads "the Iraqi people invaded New York"?
This new phonics is tough.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:16 AM on August 27, 2002
foldy, what part of 'Al Qaida' didn't you understand?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 12:24 AM on August 27, 2002
posted by Slithy_Tove at 12:24 AM on August 27, 2002
Hey Slithy could you amend your spelling lesson just a bit? Add S..a...u...d...i A...r...a...b...i...a.
As in where all of the hijackers were from. So I'm assuming you're in favor of a massive invasion there to rid the world of that oppressive regime. Right?
I'm not undermining what happened in New York, however, how long are you (and I use "you" in the generic here, old buddy) going to go around excusing the latest American military show?
posted by damnitkage at 12:50 AM on August 27, 2002
As in where all of the hijackers were from. So I'm assuming you're in favor of a massive invasion there to rid the world of that oppressive regime. Right?
I'm not undermining what happened in New York, however, how long are you (and I use "you" in the generic here, old buddy) going to go around excusing the latest American military show?
posted by damnitkage at 12:50 AM on August 27, 2002
...and I use "you" in the generic here, old buddy...
"No, that was wonderful. I love being reduced to a cultural stereotype."
I truly have no clue what 'me in the generic' might be. A lower price, reverse-engineered version of me, once the patent's expired?
I am against Al Qaida. Not a very controversial position, I would hope. I have not expressed an opinion on Iraq in this thread, and my feelings about invading it are mixed.
The 'latest American military show' was our intervention in the Afghanistan civil war, which successfully deposed the Taliban, arguably the world's most brutal and repressive regime, and gave Afghans at least the chance for something better. I think that was very excusable.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 1:27 AM on August 27, 2002
"No, that was wonderful. I love being reduced to a cultural stereotype."
I truly have no clue what 'me in the generic' might be. A lower price, reverse-engineered version of me, once the patent's expired?
I am against Al Qaida. Not a very controversial position, I would hope. I have not expressed an opinion on Iraq in this thread, and my feelings about invading it are mixed.
The 'latest American military show' was our intervention in the Afghanistan civil war, which successfully deposed the Taliban, arguably the world's most brutal and repressive regime, and gave Afghans at least the chance for something better. I think that was very excusable.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 1:27 AM on August 27, 2002
Go, foldy, go!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:56 AM on August 27, 2002
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:56 AM on August 27, 2002
Cheney put it like this (I'm paraphrasing) A known vicious killer has a gun to your head. You have two choices. You can shoot him first, or close your eyes and will him to disappear.
Not exactly a difficult choice.
posted by hama7 at 2:43 AM on August 27, 2002
Not exactly a difficult choice.
posted by hama7 at 2:43 AM on August 27, 2002
So many dellusionists on Mefi
Paris, you're cocksure arrogance must also override the opinions of many who have far more experience of 'war' and terrorism than you and the chickenhawks you put your faith in. But then how could you trust such yellow bellies as,
James Baker and Brent Scowcroft (and therefore possibly George Bush Senior?), Lawrence Eagleburger, Wesley Clark, Hans Blix (chief UN weapons inspector), Henry Kissinger, not to mention key strategic allies: The Saudis, The Turks and Quatar.
Get your war on, we're all wrong.
posted by niceness at 2:43 AM on August 27, 2002
Paris, you're cocksure arrogance must also override the opinions of many who have far more experience of 'war' and terrorism than you and the chickenhawks you put your faith in. But then how could you trust such yellow bellies as,
James Baker and Brent Scowcroft (and therefore possibly George Bush Senior?), Lawrence Eagleburger, Wesley Clark, Hans Blix (chief UN weapons inspector), Henry Kissinger, not to mention key strategic allies: The Saudis, The Turks and Quatar.
Get your war on, we're all wrong.
posted by niceness at 2:43 AM on August 27, 2002
Henry Kissinger ? You mean the guy who said in the New York Times:
"The imminence of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the huge dangers it involves, the rejection of a viable inspection system, the demonstrated hostility of Saddam combine to produce an imperative for pre-emptive action."
posted by alrob at 3:43 AM on August 27, 2002
"The imminence of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the huge dangers it involves, the rejection of a viable inspection system, the demonstrated hostility of Saddam combine to produce an imperative for pre-emptive action."
posted by alrob at 3:43 AM on August 27, 2002
A known vicious killer has a gun to your head. You have two choices. You can shoot him first, or close your eyes and will him to disappear.
Have you seen this gun, hama7?
posted by ToothpickVic at 4:01 AM on August 27, 2002
Have you seen this gun, hama7?
posted by ToothpickVic at 4:01 AM on August 27, 2002
I know this joke! Shoot the lawyer twice, right?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:05 AM on August 27, 2002
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:05 AM on August 27, 2002
Alrob: Since that Washington Post piece Kissinger, while not going as far as some appears to have questioned Bush's methods which in this case is anything but an endorsement of Bush's plans - not least because he doesn't appear to have any - I'd imagine even Kissinger needs more meaningful strategy than the unilateral - he's evil, we're tougher, let's get him.
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Gulf War hero General Norman Schwarzkopf recognized the importance of ousting Saddam, but cautioned against the U.S. acting alone.
posted by niceness at 4:05 AM on August 27, 2002
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Gulf War hero General Norman Schwarzkopf recognized the importance of ousting Saddam, but cautioned against the U.S. acting alone.
posted by niceness at 4:05 AM on August 27, 2002
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask our leaders for some verifiable proof before sending troops into action.
I suspect there will be an a presentation of more evidence, but it makes sense not to do it far in advance.
Things missing from this thread:
1. Do you really think the Bush administration, or any administration, is making public all it knows about Iraq?
2. There's no real incentive for the Bush administration to go to war as a distraction. The President's father lost his reelection bid despite a nearly casualty-free parade.
3. It would be more lucrative for "Big Oil" not to have sanctions against Iraq.
4. You can't rewind; "CTRL-Z" a nuclear or biological detonation. Not in the most literal sense; and not in the sense of everyone else wanting nuclear weapons, and trading for them (or their components). For better or worse, the time has come to preemptively wage wage a war against an evil, fascist regime. Our money has enabled SH to have, or be on the verge of having nuclear weapons, and its our responsibility to take him out.
5. How lost do you have to be to believe that the Iraqi people would treat us as liberators? Or that an instability created by taking SH out would be a positive thing? Even if we were to take out the regime, and its weapons and walk away, the place would be in better shape.
The question isn't if to wage war against Iraq, its when.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:33 AM on August 27, 2002
I suspect there will be an a presentation of more evidence, but it makes sense not to do it far in advance.
Things missing from this thread:
1. Do you really think the Bush administration, or any administration, is making public all it knows about Iraq?
2. There's no real incentive for the Bush administration to go to war as a distraction. The President's father lost his reelection bid despite a nearly casualty-free parade.
3. It would be more lucrative for "Big Oil" not to have sanctions against Iraq.
4. You can't rewind; "CTRL-Z" a nuclear or biological detonation. Not in the most literal sense; and not in the sense of everyone else wanting nuclear weapons, and trading for them (or their components). For better or worse, the time has come to preemptively wage wage a war against an evil, fascist regime. Our money has enabled SH to have, or be on the verge of having nuclear weapons, and its our responsibility to take him out.
5. How lost do you have to be to believe that the Iraqi people would treat us as liberators? Or that an instability created by taking SH out would be a positive thing? Even if we were to take out the regime, and its weapons and walk away, the place would be in better shape.
The question isn't if to wage war against Iraq, its when.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:33 AM on August 27, 2002
5. (not treat us as liberators).
posted by ParisParamus at 4:34 AM on August 27, 2002
posted by ParisParamus at 4:34 AM on August 27, 2002
5. How lost do you have to be to believe that the Iraqi people would not treat us as liberators? Or that an instability created by taking SH out would be a positive thing? Even if we were to take out the regime, and its weapons and walk away, the place would be in better shape.
Judging by a 'hawk' on BBC Newsnight last week it seems that many are treating this as fact (although he neglected to provide one iota of reasoning), indeed this is one of their few documented (yet unsubstantiated) reasons why the war isn't sheer folly. The idea that the Iraqi public will just roll over and smile after ten years of sanctions seems to me to be wholly unrealistic - although "Smiling faces sometimes, pretend to be your friend".
Which other Arabic state has a secure 'pro-American' govt.? I've yet to see any substantiation (of this or virtually any other pro-war case) just today's usual right-wing answer to informed argument - throw it in the air and shout "I believe..." .
posted by niceness at 5:12 AM on August 27, 2002
Judging by a 'hawk' on BBC Newsnight last week it seems that many are treating this as fact (although he neglected to provide one iota of reasoning), indeed this is one of their few documented (yet unsubstantiated) reasons why the war isn't sheer folly. The idea that the Iraqi public will just roll over and smile after ten years of sanctions seems to me to be wholly unrealistic - although "Smiling faces sometimes, pretend to be your friend".
Which other Arabic state has a secure 'pro-American' govt.? I've yet to see any substantiation (of this or virtually any other pro-war case) just today's usual right-wing answer to informed argument - throw it in the air and shout "I believe..." .
posted by niceness at 5:12 AM on August 27, 2002
All right, Paris, one by one then.
1. No. Not really. But all the administration needs to do to get the majority of Iraq attack detractors off its back is give the public one little measly reason that is externally verifiable. "We have to do it, and we can't tell you why" simply doesn't cut it.
2. Eh? The economy's still in the shitter, and the corporate scandals the administration is intimately connected to are to blame for delaying recovery. War does great things for getting money to move around, and for taking people's minds off domestic issues.
3. Precisely. So we bomb all hell out of Iraq in order to not lose face by ending the oh-so-successful sanctions, install a friendly government and get those checks flowing to Unocal. Hell, I'd almost respect the Bushies if they just admitted they wanted to shore up their positions in the energy industry.
4. Almost a good point. Iraq may have nukes or anthrax or sarin or even just a really big tub of pepper spray. Then again, it may not. I've not yet seen convincing evidence that Iraq has WMDs, and if they do, that they'd be stupid enough to use them. And if America's foreign policy is to defend the world from evil, fascist regimes... maybe we should go in and clean Africa up, first. Added bonus: there's oil there too. Hell, if we're looking for a regime that holds WMDs in its arsenal, recognizes the soverignty of other nations only when it's convenient, sharply curtails the rights of its citizenry in the name of state security, and deifies its questionably capable executive.... nah, I'll stop. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
In short, until there is some actual, verifiable evidence, something more than Cheney getting up on Fox News Channel and saying "there's no doubt Saddam's a bastard", we simply do not have a case for war.
5. Okay, so we kill off a bunch of Iraqis, leave them in the hands of a manipulative madman, cut off Iraqi trade to starve them out, and then ten years later we drop bombs from 2,000 miles away until it's safe for us to drive our tanks into central Baghdad, we pop the hatch and they're supposed to shout Mom and Apple Pie? Why? Because they'll understand that now we'll open up trade with them and their economy will finally be open to the buggering the rest of the third world gets from the multinational machine? And the bloody power struggle that will ensue once we feel we've spent enough on Iraqi occupation is better? (on preview, me too Niceness)
There is no reason for war. There is no justification for war. A preemptive strike against Iraq and against the wishes of allies and foes alike is not a prescription for international goodwill and national security. It is a prescription for international mistrust and a further descent of American civilization into irrelevance.
posted by Vetinari at 5:49 AM on August 27, 2002
1. No. Not really. But all the administration needs to do to get the majority of Iraq attack detractors off its back is give the public one little measly reason that is externally verifiable. "We have to do it, and we can't tell you why" simply doesn't cut it.
2. Eh? The economy's still in the shitter, and the corporate scandals the administration is intimately connected to are to blame for delaying recovery. War does great things for getting money to move around, and for taking people's minds off domestic issues.
3. Precisely. So we bomb all hell out of Iraq in order to not lose face by ending the oh-so-successful sanctions, install a friendly government and get those checks flowing to Unocal. Hell, I'd almost respect the Bushies if they just admitted they wanted to shore up their positions in the energy industry.
4. Almost a good point. Iraq may have nukes or anthrax or sarin or even just a really big tub of pepper spray. Then again, it may not. I've not yet seen convincing evidence that Iraq has WMDs, and if they do, that they'd be stupid enough to use them. And if America's foreign policy is to defend the world from evil, fascist regimes... maybe we should go in and clean Africa up, first. Added bonus: there's oil there too. Hell, if we're looking for a regime that holds WMDs in its arsenal, recognizes the soverignty of other nations only when it's convenient, sharply curtails the rights of its citizenry in the name of state security, and deifies its questionably capable executive.... nah, I'll stop. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
In short, until there is some actual, verifiable evidence, something more than Cheney getting up on Fox News Channel and saying "there's no doubt Saddam's a bastard", we simply do not have a case for war.
5. Okay, so we kill off a bunch of Iraqis, leave them in the hands of a manipulative madman, cut off Iraqi trade to starve them out, and then ten years later we drop bombs from 2,000 miles away until it's safe for us to drive our tanks into central Baghdad, we pop the hatch and they're supposed to shout Mom and Apple Pie? Why? Because they'll understand that now we'll open up trade with them and their economy will finally be open to the buggering the rest of the third world gets from the multinational machine? And the bloody power struggle that will ensue once we feel we've spent enough on Iraqi occupation is better? (on preview, me too Niceness)
There is no reason for war. There is no justification for war. A preemptive strike against Iraq and against the wishes of allies and foes alike is not a prescription for international goodwill and national security. It is a prescription for international mistrust and a further descent of American civilization into irrelevance.
posted by Vetinari at 5:49 AM on August 27, 2002
I'm sure Cheney, Bush, et al would much rather have people discussing this issue than Enron, Halliburton, and Worldcom.
posted by Shike at 6:16 AM on August 27, 2002
posted by Shike at 6:16 AM on August 27, 2002
There is no reason for war. There is no justification for war.
First of all: screw the allies. They seem rather reluctantly content to have their discos bombed, their airplanes destroyed and their cultures compromised.
Second: If you would rather wait for "four million" casualties, including children, then more power to you.
I'd rather not.
posted by hama7 at 6:20 AM on August 27, 2002
First of all: screw the allies. They seem rather reluctantly content to have their discos bombed, their airplanes destroyed and their cultures compromised.
Second: If you would rather wait for "four million" casualties, including children, then more power to you.
I'd rather not.
posted by hama7 at 6:20 AM on August 27, 2002
is anyone else absolutely sure there will another grave act of terrorism on US soil if we decide to unilaterally attack iraq? and are they ready to sacrifice themselves or loved ones if/when that happens? lord knows dick and lynne will be safe and sound in thier bunker. finally. should anyone else in the world give a s**t when the reprisal does happen? - should dick and friends be granted his wish to attack his old buddy saddam, whom he met with prior to the iran/iraq war.
posted by specialk420 at 6:43 AM on August 27, 2002
posted by specialk420 at 6:43 AM on August 27, 2002
Cheney put it like this (I'm paraphrasing) A known vicious killer has a gun to your head. You have two choices. You can shoot him first, or close your eyes and will him to disappear.
But, wasn't that the premise for the MAD policy of the Cold War with the Soviets? The third option was to pull out your own even larger gun and point it back at the other one with a twitchy trigger that'll go off if you suddenly die. On the surface, MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was an odd policy, but there's no denying that it worked.
But, look at this way, back a desperate beast into a corner and even if it hasn't used WMD at this point, why wouldn't you as a last desperate 'fuck you' to your attacker before you're totally wiped out. If nothing else, you'd become a hero and martyr for a fairly large population around the world that also doesn't like your attacker.
The point shouldn't be to keep people from developing WMD, but rather to keep people from actually using them. Again, reference MAD. Isn't that what gun folks argue for? That everyone should have a gun? Fine, shouldn't everyone have WMD? How is the argument different on an abstract level?
posted by warhol at 6:56 AM on August 27, 2002
But, wasn't that the premise for the MAD policy of the Cold War with the Soviets? The third option was to pull out your own even larger gun and point it back at the other one with a twitchy trigger that'll go off if you suddenly die. On the surface, MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was an odd policy, but there's no denying that it worked.
But, look at this way, back a desperate beast into a corner and even if it hasn't used WMD at this point, why wouldn't you as a last desperate 'fuck you' to your attacker before you're totally wiped out. If nothing else, you'd become a hero and martyr for a fairly large population around the world that also doesn't like your attacker.
The point shouldn't be to keep people from developing WMD, but rather to keep people from actually using them. Again, reference MAD. Isn't that what gun folks argue for? That everyone should have a gun? Fine, shouldn't everyone have WMD? How is the argument different on an abstract level?
posted by warhol at 6:56 AM on August 27, 2002
Isn't this the same Dick Cheney that as CEO of Halliburton set up special foreign wholly owned subsidiaries so he could conduct business with Saddam right up until year 2000?
Pardon me folks if I'm a bit pessimistic about anything Cheney says regarding Iraq.
Yeah, yeah, I know expressing this makes me "someone with an axe to grind" and "a one trick pony" but I can live with that. But of course such monikers never seem to apply to those constantly advocating the goals of a corrupt regime, do they?
posted by nofundy at 7:20 AM on August 27, 2002
Pardon me folks if I'm a bit pessimistic about anything Cheney says regarding Iraq.
Yeah, yeah, I know expressing this makes me "someone with an axe to grind" and "a one trick pony" but I can live with that. But of course such monikers never seem to apply to those constantly advocating the goals of a corrupt regime, do they?
posted by nofundy at 7:20 AM on August 27, 2002
I know this joke! Shoot the lawyer twice, right?
No... shoot the hostage!
posted by kindall at 7:20 AM on August 27, 2002
No... shoot the hostage!
posted by kindall at 7:20 AM on August 27, 2002
we should have a national vote and anyone in favor of attacking the evil death machine of iraq should suit up and ship on out to the front lines since they're so convinced of the global threat he possess.
i might be wrong but this is how i understand the situation...
1. we live bloated, wasteful, excessive, "privileged" lives.
2. the negative impact our "standard of living" has on the world, both economically and environmentally, is massive (and sickening).
3. other countries, who get the short end of the economical/environmental stick, see us as big fat americans who prosper at their expense. they hate us.
4. they show opposition b/c their lives, families, countries, cultures, homes, forests, resources, etc... are being destroyed/pillaged.
5. "we" refuse to compromise our standard of living and continue on in our ways.
6. they hate us more and eventually do something drastic (terrorism), since it's the only thing they can do to get their voices heard.
7. we make them out to be evil people bent on destroying our homes and eating our babies.
8. we "suppress" them and return to our regular programming. "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive." -- G W Bush August 4, 2002, on violence in the Middle East... and his golf game
this all seems so twisted. am i wrong in my assumptions? i just can't imagine the middle east would give a shit about what we did if we kept to ourselves and were a more self sufficient nation rather than a global parasite. basically i feel like this is all just a war to support our lifestyles - it's not about national security, we're more secure than anyone and have the ability to retaliate if someone does attack us.
posted by ggggarret at 7:40 AM on August 27, 2002
i might be wrong but this is how i understand the situation...
1. we live bloated, wasteful, excessive, "privileged" lives.
2. the negative impact our "standard of living" has on the world, both economically and environmentally, is massive (and sickening).
3. other countries, who get the short end of the economical/environmental stick, see us as big fat americans who prosper at their expense. they hate us.
4. they show opposition b/c their lives, families, countries, cultures, homes, forests, resources, etc... are being destroyed/pillaged.
5. "we" refuse to compromise our standard of living and continue on in our ways.
6. they hate us more and eventually do something drastic (terrorism), since it's the only thing they can do to get their voices heard.
7. we make them out to be evil people bent on destroying our homes and eating our babies.
8. we "suppress" them and return to our regular programming. "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive." -- G W Bush August 4, 2002, on violence in the Middle East... and his golf game
this all seems so twisted. am i wrong in my assumptions? i just can't imagine the middle east would give a shit about what we did if we kept to ourselves and were a more self sufficient nation rather than a global parasite. basically i feel like this is all just a war to support our lifestyles - it's not about national security, we're more secure than anyone and have the ability to retaliate if someone does attack us.
posted by ggggarret at 7:40 AM on August 27, 2002
Second: If you would rather wait for "four million" casualties, including children, then more power to you.
Right on Hama7 but you forgot the puppies - how dare we risk the lives of US puppies because you mark my words, he'll kill them in cold blood, or gas them or anthrax or something - That's what I think anyway.
posted by niceness at 7:48 AM on August 27, 2002
Right on Hama7 but you forgot the puppies - how dare we risk the lives of US puppies because you mark my words, he'll kill them in cold blood, or gas them or anthrax or something - That's what I think anyway.
posted by niceness at 7:48 AM on August 27, 2002
ggggarret: That is not why they hate us.
That is why Michael Moore, Susan Sontag, and the Sierra Club hate us.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 8:12 AM on August 27, 2002
That is why Michael Moore, Susan Sontag, and the Sierra Club hate us.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 8:12 AM on August 27, 2002
I wonder what clever, witty arguments you would have tendered to appease Hitler.
Oh, and the two situations are SO similar. I mean, I sometimes think that Hussien speaks German because I can't keep the two scenarios straight.
Now let's help the child Paris out here:
Invoking Hitler is a great way to a) heat up the empty rhetoric b) attack by suggesting equivalence and sympathy c) prove yourself a dunderheaded troll or d) all of the above.
posted by holycola at 8:23 AM on August 27, 2002
Oh, and the two situations are SO similar. I mean, I sometimes think that Hussien speaks German because I can't keep the two scenarios straight.
Now let's help the child Paris out here:
Invoking Hitler is a great way to a) heat up the empty rhetoric b) attack by suggesting equivalence and sympathy c) prove yourself a dunderheaded troll or d) all of the above.
posted by holycola at 8:23 AM on August 27, 2002
ParisParamus: We're going in to Iraq within six months. Whether or not you like it.
Well, personally, I think it is rather splendid and heroic that Paris is going to Iraq. I had no idea, from contributions thus far, that he is a serving member of the armed forces and so willing to risk his life and limb for the rest of us.
In fact, given the personal cost of this brave cry and the example he sets to the rest of us, I for one cry "shame on you all!", and will now reflect inwardly awhile to see if I too can draw upon a well of bravery as deep as his...
posted by RichLyon at 8:26 AM on August 27, 2002
Well, personally, I think it is rather splendid and heroic that Paris is going to Iraq. I had no idea, from contributions thus far, that he is a serving member of the armed forces and so willing to risk his life and limb for the rest of us.
In fact, given the personal cost of this brave cry and the example he sets to the rest of us, I for one cry "shame on you all!", and will now reflect inwardly awhile to see if I too can draw upon a well of bravery as deep as his...
posted by RichLyon at 8:26 AM on August 27, 2002
With all this talk about invading Iraq, I wouldn't be too surprised if Iraq decides they're going to have to attack the US pre-emtively. The US thinks they might be a threat? Politicians in the US are openly discussing attacking them and the US definately has weapons of mass destruction.
A known vicious killer has a gun to your head. You have two choices. You can shoot him first, or close your eyes and will him to disappear.
So what do you think Iraq is going to do, seeing as they're in pretty much this situation.
posted by ODiV at 8:28 AM on August 27, 2002
A known vicious killer has a gun to your head. You have two choices. You can shoot him first, or close your eyes and will him to disappear.
So what do you think Iraq is going to do, seeing as they're in pretty much this situation.
posted by ODiV at 8:28 AM on August 27, 2002
Ah, fudge. I'm going to Iraq, aren't I? Or off the shore of Iraq. . . or something.
So, who else is with me? If I'm dying, I ain't dying alone.
Anyway, I'm not so sure that we should even invade Iraq with us able to maybe get the whole chemical conventions thing taken care of. And if we do, maybe we should clean up the whole region.
(To self: Man, that was the most imperialistic thing you even said. Ah, well, like I care.)
Given RichLyon's statement, I can say that, can't I? I mean, I am in the armed forces and whatnot.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:03 AM on August 27, 2002
So, who else is with me? If I'm dying, I ain't dying alone.
Anyway, I'm not so sure that we should even invade Iraq with us able to maybe get the whole chemical conventions thing taken care of. And if we do, maybe we should clean up the whole region.
(To self: Man, that was the most imperialistic thing you even said. Ah, well, like I care.)
Given RichLyon's statement, I can say that, can't I? I mean, I am in the armed forces and whatnot.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:03 AM on August 27, 2002
I wonder what clever, witty arguments you would have tendered to appease Hitler.
Wait, wait...I thought bin Laden was the new Hitler?...or was it Milosevic? No, that was a few years ago...okay, let's say Saddam is the new Hitler and bin Laden is the new Mussolini...or maybe bin Laden can be bread, and Saddam can be butter...or is Saddam bread and bin Laden butter? Okay, okay, bin Laden and Saddam are our various breads and various butters.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:11 AM on August 27, 2002
Wait, wait...I thought bin Laden was the new Hitler?...or was it Milosevic? No, that was a few years ago...okay, let's say Saddam is the new Hitler and bin Laden is the new Mussolini...or maybe bin Laden can be bread, and Saddam can be butter...or is Saddam bread and bin Laden butter? Okay, okay, bin Laden and Saddam are our various breads and various butters.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:11 AM on August 27, 2002
I wonder what clever, witty arguments you would have tendered to appease Hitler.
"That's a lovely moustache you've got there. Care for a cup of Sudetenland?"
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:14 AM on August 27, 2002
"That's a lovely moustache you've got there. Care for a cup of Sudetenland?"
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:14 AM on August 27, 2002
I hope the coming war in Iraq spawns some good folksy anti-war music like Vietnam did.
It did? This is news to me.
The link's in the story you referenced, but I think The Chickenhawk Database deserves its own link here on MetaFilter.
Ahem. For August, that is...
posted by y2karl at 9:25 AM on August 27, 2002
It did? This is news to me.
The link's in the story you referenced, but I think The Chickenhawk Database deserves its own link here on MetaFilter.
Ahem. For August, that is...
posted by y2karl at 9:25 AM on August 27, 2002
I hope the coming war in Iraq spawns some good folksy anti-war music like Vietnam did.
It did? This is news to me.
Have you been living under a stone?
posted by niceness at 9:30 AM on August 27, 2002
It did? This is news to me.
Have you been living under a stone?
posted by niceness at 9:30 AM on August 27, 2002
2. Eh? The economy's still in the shitter
Look I don't love thr Bush administration ("if only there was some viable alternative ready to go...), but this is not true. Unemployment isn't over 5%. I've made money in the stock market this year, overall. So get a grip. I'd still take American recessions over what they call "expansions" anywhere else in the world.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:52 AM on August 27, 2002
Look I don't love thr Bush administration ("if only there was some viable alternative ready to go...), but this is not true. Unemployment isn't over 5%. I've made money in the stock market this year, overall. So get a grip. I'd still take American recessions over what they call "expansions" anywhere else in the world.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:52 AM on August 27, 2002
sadly, i have to agree with paris that the US is sending troops to iraq for an attack within the year or so. However, i don't think this will
a) lead to a quick iraqi overthrow (it's looking like the only regions of invasion will be through turkey, and possibly illegally flying from the red sea, unless bush tells other countries that we own their land since we have bases there).
b) a defeat for terrorists. I feel it's more likely to anger the type of person who is a willing to become a terrorist (note: type by personality, not religion).
c) show the world that we are a leader. Leading involves having others follow you, this is more like pulling a fast one
d) get bush re-elected. If he has to force a war without congress's ok i think most people who understand the check and balance system would want him out. If the war lasts for a year i think most people want him out. Oh and if...
e) the economy will rebound. War's are expensive, we'll be going alone, i seriously doubt oil prices will stay low. Consumer confidence does not get enhanced by saying we're the toughest kid on the block.
On the bright side, we could be looking at a new president in a few years who may be able to change how we act outside our nation and possibly get us on track to not just being dumb humans.
posted by NGnerd at 9:59 AM on August 27, 2002
a) lead to a quick iraqi overthrow (it's looking like the only regions of invasion will be through turkey, and possibly illegally flying from the red sea, unless bush tells other countries that we own their land since we have bases there).
b) a defeat for terrorists. I feel it's more likely to anger the type of person who is a willing to become a terrorist (note: type by personality, not religion).
c) show the world that we are a leader. Leading involves having others follow you, this is more like pulling a fast one
d) get bush re-elected. If he has to force a war without congress's ok i think most people who understand the check and balance system would want him out. If the war lasts for a year i think most people want him out. Oh and if...
e) the economy will rebound. War's are expensive, we'll be going alone, i seriously doubt oil prices will stay low. Consumer confidence does not get enhanced by saying we're the toughest kid on the block.
On the bright side, we could be looking at a new president in a few years who may be able to change how we act outside our nation and possibly get us on track to not just being dumb humans.
posted by NGnerd at 9:59 AM on August 27, 2002
ggggarret - that is pretty much why 'we' hate 'you'. (in the us and them speak from a european perspective). The war on Iraq won't make it any better.
Right now in Copenhagen there is a small statue of Liberty spitting out smoke - symbolising the United States polluting ways. Shame I can't find a pic on the web. I'm glad to see so many sensible us-residing Mefites arguing for a legit reason before war. There are plenty of opressing regimes on this planet that need 'removing' but who asked you guys to police everyone? Did I miss a memo?
hama7 - do you really think we feel our cultures are compromised? Heck, if it hadn't been for arabic literature, we wouldn't even be reading greek tragedies.
posted by dabitch at 10:00 AM on August 27, 2002
Right now in Copenhagen there is a small statue of Liberty spitting out smoke - symbolising the United States polluting ways. Shame I can't find a pic on the web. I'm glad to see so many sensible us-residing Mefites arguing for a legit reason before war. There are plenty of opressing regimes on this planet that need 'removing' but who asked you guys to police everyone? Did I miss a memo?
hama7 - do you really think we feel our cultures are compromised? Heck, if it hadn't been for arabic literature, we wouldn't even be reading greek tragedies.
posted by dabitch at 10:00 AM on August 27, 2002
S_T: That is not why they hate us.
So why do you think they hate you/us?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 10:15 AM on August 27, 2002
So why do you think they hate you/us?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 10:15 AM on August 27, 2002
Comments from Anthony Zinni, the Bush Administration's special envoy to the Middle East:
``It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way,'' he said, ``and all the others who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war see it another way.''
posted by Ty Webb at 10:30 AM on August 27, 2002
``It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way,'' he said, ``and all the others who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war see it another way.''
posted by Ty Webb at 10:30 AM on August 27, 2002
First of all: screw the allies. They seem rather reluctantly content to have their discos bombed, their airplanes destroyed and their cultures compromised.
Ah, so now we begin to see what this is really about. The last disco was bombed in the 70's, the last plane was blown up in the 80's, but the culture being compromised... that is the real threat to people like Hama7. You see, this is not about rational reasons for going to war, it's about defeating an single, Hyrda-like enemy with multuple heads. Bin Laden, Hussein, Iranian Mullahs-- what do these men have in common? It's not facial hair, people, although that could be a part it. The enemy is not one or the other but all Arabs/Muslims who are comprimisng cultures wherever they go. If we do not stand up to the Islamic threat, who knows how far it could spread!? We're talking about the Green Peril, the Crescent Menace, people. Many dominoes have already fallen and if we don't strike now, we could be next!!!!!! Our very liberty and culture are on the line here, by massive swarthy hordes of culture-comprosming Agents of Evil. I for one do not want to wake up with a gun at my head being forced to recite the pledge of Allegiance... Under Allah!
posted by cell divide at 10:39 AM on August 27, 2002
Ah, so now we begin to see what this is really about. The last disco was bombed in the 70's, the last plane was blown up in the 80's, but the culture being compromised... that is the real threat to people like Hama7. You see, this is not about rational reasons for going to war, it's about defeating an single, Hyrda-like enemy with multuple heads. Bin Laden, Hussein, Iranian Mullahs-- what do these men have in common? It's not facial hair, people, although that could be a part it. The enemy is not one or the other but all Arabs/Muslims who are comprimisng cultures wherever they go. If we do not stand up to the Islamic threat, who knows how far it could spread!? We're talking about the Green Peril, the Crescent Menace, people. Many dominoes have already fallen and if we don't strike now, we could be next!!!!!! Our very liberty and culture are on the line here, by massive swarthy hordes of culture-comprosming Agents of Evil. I for one do not want to wake up with a gun at my head being forced to recite the pledge of Allegiance... Under Allah!
posted by cell divide at 10:39 AM on August 27, 2002
steady, dabitch - 'hate' as a word has been devalued recently and I believe there are few in Europe who feel it in its undevalued sense.
The more I follow this, the more I recognise what started as outrage sliding into pity. These are people who have/are being duped. They have a President who is not terribly able and who has been bullied into a position he can't back down from. He is leading them on a fool's errand, predicated on an unhelpful notion of "perfect defence" in the teeth of growing world opposition, and the nature of their society is such that they find it impossible to shout "STOP".
Senior military leaders believe this is going to be "messy". Last time, Iraq had an exit strategy. So although they had dreadful weapons, the Western coalition forces were spared their application because Hussein (rightly) calculated that he could lose that one and survive as long as he avoided using them.
Containment has been abandoned, diplomacy is ridiculed. Hussein has no such exit strategy this time, there is absolutely no restraint on him applying those weapons. And so, Hussein being Hussein, he will. This will be the first use of weapons of mass destruction on western troops (I'm mentally skipping over the possibility that devoting keystrokes to elicit sympathy from the majority of participants here for the thousands of locals who will die will be worth the effort).
The closest I get to 'hatred' is the disgust I feel at the mindless "we're going in" set - those who lust after warfare as some ghastly symbol of what it means to be An American, who will on the sacrifice of others without risking a hair on their own heads.
Exercise: (1) test in your mind your sense of the American nation's current propensity for unilateral, warlike action. (2) compare it with how that felt 5 years ago (3) using the same rate of deterioration, project that feeling forward 10 years. Question: want to bring your kids up in *that* world?
'sall.
posted by RichLyon at 10:45 AM on August 27, 2002
The more I follow this, the more I recognise what started as outrage sliding into pity. These are people who have/are being duped. They have a President who is not terribly able and who has been bullied into a position he can't back down from. He is leading them on a fool's errand, predicated on an unhelpful notion of "perfect defence" in the teeth of growing world opposition, and the nature of their society is such that they find it impossible to shout "STOP".
Senior military leaders believe this is going to be "messy". Last time, Iraq had an exit strategy. So although they had dreadful weapons, the Western coalition forces were spared their application because Hussein (rightly) calculated that he could lose that one and survive as long as he avoided using them.
Containment has been abandoned, diplomacy is ridiculed. Hussein has no such exit strategy this time, there is absolutely no restraint on him applying those weapons. And so, Hussein being Hussein, he will. This will be the first use of weapons of mass destruction on western troops (I'm mentally skipping over the possibility that devoting keystrokes to elicit sympathy from the majority of participants here for the thousands of locals who will die will be worth the effort).
The closest I get to 'hatred' is the disgust I feel at the mindless "we're going in" set - those who lust after warfare as some ghastly symbol of what it means to be An American, who will on the sacrifice of others without risking a hair on their own heads.
Exercise: (1) test in your mind your sense of the American nation's current propensity for unilateral, warlike action. (2) compare it with how that felt 5 years ago (3) using the same rate of deterioration, project that feeling forward 10 years. Question: want to bring your kids up in *that* world?
'sall.
posted by RichLyon at 10:45 AM on August 27, 2002
No, cell divide. It suffices that a wacko-facist, fueled with petro-dollars, has used WMD domestically, and is trying to get nukes. If North Korea had the money to be a real menace, we would go after them too. And we may have to go after Iran if things turn worse there. THe simple reality is that an attempt by a fascist to obtain nukes should be enough to take him out.
Of course, it doesn't help that Allah is invoked by these wackos, but that's really not the point.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:45 AM on August 27, 2002
Of course, it doesn't help that Allah is invoked by these wackos, but that's really not the point.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:45 AM on August 27, 2002
You know how Neville Chamberlain sat down and made nice with Hitler right before they invaded Poland, declaring peace in our time?
Yeah, sorta like that. Bush is a Saudi oil bitch. He's sold us all down the river, and the distraction of a war with Iraq is all about maintaining control of the House, and hopefully the Senate (and the fact that Osama is in an "undisclosed location" our f'ed up spy bureaucracy can't find).
The blood of American soldiers, and future American victims of Saudi-financed terror will be on his hands.
posted by owillis at 10:47 AM on August 27, 2002
Yeah, sorta like that. Bush is a Saudi oil bitch. He's sold us all down the river, and the distraction of a war with Iraq is all about maintaining control of the House, and hopefully the Senate (and the fact that Osama is in an "undisclosed location" our f'ed up spy bureaucracy can't find).
The blood of American soldiers, and future American victims of Saudi-financed terror will be on his hands.
posted by owillis at 10:47 AM on August 27, 2002
6. they hate us more and eventually do something drastic (terrorism), since it's the only thing they can do to get their voices heard.
Why won't you people listen to me? I need to have my militant Islamic voice heard! Well, I guess the only thing I can do is drive some jumbo jets into your skyscrapers and instantly create thousands of widows, widowers and orphans! Then maybe you'll listen to meeeeeeee!!!
Whatever.
...we're more secure than anyone and have the ability to retaliate if someone does attack us.
Wow, that's reassuring. "Eh. So what if they detonate a nuke in Central Park? Just think of what we'll do to 'em then!"
If we are truly about to be attacked with weapons of mass destruction, our government has a moral duty to prevent that attack. Questions of why our attackers would do such a thing aren't relevant. Nor would we be obligated to do nothing because we're "more secure than anyone" and "have the ability to retaliate."
But all that being said, in my opinion the U.S. government has not yet made its case with respect to Iraq, and I agree with those who demand something more than Dick Cheney's "word" that it's so. War -- particularly war initiated by us -- should be entered into only in the gravest of circumstances, and only after all other options have been exhausted.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:57 AM on August 27, 2002
Why won't you people listen to me? I need to have my militant Islamic voice heard! Well, I guess the only thing I can do is drive some jumbo jets into your skyscrapers and instantly create thousands of widows, widowers and orphans! Then maybe you'll listen to meeeeeeee!!!
Whatever.
...we're more secure than anyone and have the ability to retaliate if someone does attack us.
Wow, that's reassuring. "Eh. So what if they detonate a nuke in Central Park? Just think of what we'll do to 'em then!"
If we are truly about to be attacked with weapons of mass destruction, our government has a moral duty to prevent that attack. Questions of why our attackers would do such a thing aren't relevant. Nor would we be obligated to do nothing because we're "more secure than anyone" and "have the ability to retaliate."
But all that being said, in my opinion the U.S. government has not yet made its case with respect to Iraq, and I agree with those who demand something more than Dick Cheney's "word" that it's so. War -- particularly war initiated by us -- should be entered into only in the gravest of circumstances, and only after all other options have been exhausted.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:57 AM on August 27, 2002
we live bloated, wasteful, excessive, "privileged" lives
"we" refuse to compromise our standard of living and continue on in our ways
They hate us for those reasons, as well as the others you mentioned, but not perhaps for the reasons you think. I mean, if your religion railed against the sort of "decadence" and "indecent behavior" common in America, and declared that these sins would lead to the downfall of civilization, you might expect America to be a pariah nation.
Now imagine instead that America (the country that goes against everything you stand for, remember?) is the most powerful nation in the world, the "last remaining superpower." How would that make you feel?
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 11:00 AM on August 27, 2002
"we" refuse to compromise our standard of living and continue on in our ways
They hate us for those reasons, as well as the others you mentioned, but not perhaps for the reasons you think. I mean, if your religion railed against the sort of "decadence" and "indecent behavior" common in America, and declared that these sins would lead to the downfall of civilization, you might expect America to be a pariah nation.
Now imagine instead that America (the country that goes against everything you stand for, remember?) is the most powerful nation in the world, the "last remaining superpower." How would that make you feel?
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 11:00 AM on August 27, 2002
First of all: screw the allies. They seem rather reluctantly content to have their discos bombed, their airplanes destroyed and their cultures compromised.
Oh, so now we see what this is really really about. Hama7 is angry that discos were bombed. He doesn't want the party to stop!
It suffices that a wacko-facist, fueled with petro-dollars, has used WMD domestically, and is trying to get nukes. If North Korea had the money to be a real menace, we would go after them too.
Interesting that you brought up N. Korea. In both cases you have a dictator who is far more concerned with holding onto power than spreading evil, SPECTRE-like, across the globe. There's a great case for removal of both leaders, if only out of concern for their suffering populations, but that alone certainly doesn't make the case for "pre-emptive" invasion.
If Cheney has "no doubt" that Saddam has and is preparing to use WMD against the U.S., then actually producing that evidence might be a good move at this point.
Also, I have to laugh whenever I read some chickenhawk using Saddam's use of chemical weapons on the Kurds as a reason for invasion, considering that the U.S. supported him and gave him diplomatic cover when he was doing it, going as far as blaming Iran for the attacks.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:02 AM on August 27, 2002
Oh, so now we see what this is really really about. Hama7 is angry that discos were bombed. He doesn't want the party to stop!
It suffices that a wacko-facist, fueled with petro-dollars, has used WMD domestically, and is trying to get nukes. If North Korea had the money to be a real menace, we would go after them too.
Interesting that you brought up N. Korea. In both cases you have a dictator who is far more concerned with holding onto power than spreading evil, SPECTRE-like, across the globe. There's a great case for removal of both leaders, if only out of concern for their suffering populations, but that alone certainly doesn't make the case for "pre-emptive" invasion.
If Cheney has "no doubt" that Saddam has and is preparing to use WMD against the U.S., then actually producing that evidence might be a good move at this point.
Also, I have to laugh whenever I read some chickenhawk using Saddam's use of chemical weapons on the Kurds as a reason for invasion, considering that the U.S. supported him and gave him diplomatic cover when he was doing it, going as far as blaming Iran for the attacks.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:02 AM on August 27, 2002
inpHilltr8r: oh, god, where to start...
1. Osama bin Laden has been pretty clear that his motivations for hating and attacking the US are US support of Israel, and US troops in Saudi Arabia (which he perceives as defiling sacred ground). Those things aren't going to change. Without US support, Israel would likely be exterminated by the Arab/Moslem states. US troops are in Saudi Arabia at the invitation of its government because it was threatened by Iraq. Unless we get 'regime change' in Iraq, they'll remain there.
2. Islamic fundamentalism, both Sunni/Wahhabist and Shiite, has been on the rise in the Arab/Moslem states for a century, and especially for the last 25 years. Like religious fundamentalism of all kinds, it is highly intolerant. Moreover, it cultivates a rabid anti-Semitism, and the 'Arab street' (falsely) believes that 20% of Americans are Jews, and that Jews run America.
3. They believe those things because the Arab press is controlled by Arab governments, Arab governments are corrupt, and Arab governments (and the Iranian government, which is not 'Arab', I know) are heavily influenced by extremist Moslem clerics. There is no separation of church and state in Islamic states.
4. Arab/Moslem lands are poor. They did very well economically and intellectually during the Middle Ages, but fell behind Europe, and later North America, after the Renaissance. Why, is speculative, and answers may range from the way businesses in Moslem lands are structured, with no good way to build a business larger than a single family can own and manage; the economically problematic effects of believing that lending money at interest is sinful; the lack of emergence of democracies; and simple political corruption. Whatever the explanation, the fact remains that Arab/Moslem lands are poor relative to the west. And yet they are told by their clerics that they are are God's chosen people. This leaves many envious, bitter, and resentful.
5. US has certainly made mistakes in dealing with the Mideast, hasn't always done the right thing. However, we were not the area's major exploiters and colonizers; that would be the French and British. They're hated in the Mideast as well, but apparently not nearly as much as the US. The US has treated other nations far worse: Japan and Germany, for example, which we actually conquered. Japan was nuked! And they still don't hate us. The US's historical sins towards the Mideast are trivial by comparison, are not the real reason 'they hate us'.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 11:06 AM on August 27, 2002
1. Osama bin Laden has been pretty clear that his motivations for hating and attacking the US are US support of Israel, and US troops in Saudi Arabia (which he perceives as defiling sacred ground). Those things aren't going to change. Without US support, Israel would likely be exterminated by the Arab/Moslem states. US troops are in Saudi Arabia at the invitation of its government because it was threatened by Iraq. Unless we get 'regime change' in Iraq, they'll remain there.
2. Islamic fundamentalism, both Sunni/Wahhabist and Shiite, has been on the rise in the Arab/Moslem states for a century, and especially for the last 25 years. Like religious fundamentalism of all kinds, it is highly intolerant. Moreover, it cultivates a rabid anti-Semitism, and the 'Arab street' (falsely) believes that 20% of Americans are Jews, and that Jews run America.
3. They believe those things because the Arab press is controlled by Arab governments, Arab governments are corrupt, and Arab governments (and the Iranian government, which is not 'Arab', I know) are heavily influenced by extremist Moslem clerics. There is no separation of church and state in Islamic states.
4. Arab/Moslem lands are poor. They did very well economically and intellectually during the Middle Ages, but fell behind Europe, and later North America, after the Renaissance. Why, is speculative, and answers may range from the way businesses in Moslem lands are structured, with no good way to build a business larger than a single family can own and manage; the economically problematic effects of believing that lending money at interest is sinful; the lack of emergence of democracies; and simple political corruption. Whatever the explanation, the fact remains that Arab/Moslem lands are poor relative to the west. And yet they are told by their clerics that they are are God's chosen people. This leaves many envious, bitter, and resentful.
5. US has certainly made mistakes in dealing with the Mideast, hasn't always done the right thing. However, we were not the area's major exploiters and colonizers; that would be the French and British. They're hated in the Mideast as well, but apparently not nearly as much as the US. The US has treated other nations far worse: Japan and Germany, for example, which we actually conquered. Japan was nuked! And they still don't hate us. The US's historical sins towards the Mideast are trivial by comparison, are not the real reason 'they hate us'.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 11:06 AM on August 27, 2002
Slithy Tove, you make some good points, however I would ask you to consider this:
At the end of Word War II, America was generally hated in Japan and Germany, and generally liked and respected by all in the Mideast, who saw our ideals as superior to those of the colonial powers. In 20 years, that was completely reversed. Why?
Since that time, America has committed many crimes in the Middle East, directly and indirectly. They may be small historically to other battles, but they are recent and that is the key. But that also means they can be reversed by applying the same ideas that were put in place in Japan and Europe. Unfortunately, it will probably take a war to make that happen, but such is the history of humanity.
posted by cell divide at 11:17 AM on August 27, 2002
At the end of Word War II, America was generally hated in Japan and Germany, and generally liked and respected by all in the Mideast, who saw our ideals as superior to those of the colonial powers. In 20 years, that was completely reversed. Why?
Since that time, America has committed many crimes in the Middle East, directly and indirectly. They may be small historically to other battles, but they are recent and that is the key. But that also means they can be reversed by applying the same ideas that were put in place in Japan and Europe. Unfortunately, it will probably take a war to make that happen, but such is the history of humanity.
posted by cell divide at 11:17 AM on August 27, 2002
I'm sure Cheney, Bush, et al would much rather have people discussing this issue than Enron, Halliburton, and Worldcom.
Well, it's good that unlike Bush, most of us can focus on more than one thing at a time.
posted by slipperywhenwet at 11:23 AM on August 27, 2002
Well, it's good that unlike Bush, most of us can focus on more than one thing at a time.
posted by slipperywhenwet at 11:23 AM on August 27, 2002
Isn't that what gun folks argue for? That everyone should have a gun? Fine, shouldn't everyone have WMD? How is the argument different on an abstract level?
You're joking, right?
posted by David Dark at 12:01 PM on August 27, 2002
You're joking, right?
posted by David Dark at 12:01 PM on August 27, 2002
The blood of American soldiers, and future American victims of Saudi-financed terror will be on his hands.
How ironic that their blood will be on the hands of a man who never risked having his own blood spilled.
posted by homunculus at 1:05 PM on August 27, 2002
How ironic that their blood will be on the hands of a man who never risked having his own blood spilled.
posted by homunculus at 1:05 PM on August 27, 2002
How ironic that their blood will be on the hands of a man who never risked having his own blood spilled.
Does playing drunken golf cart-chicken count? If so, Dubya's a war hero.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:21 PM on August 27, 2002
Does playing drunken golf cart-chicken count? If so, Dubya's a war hero.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:21 PM on August 27, 2002
THe simple reality is that an attempt by a fascist -PP
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
Iraq may not be a fascist country (as you posit) now but soon will be... Exxon/Mobil, BP/Amoco, Big Oil Slick Cheney the chicken hawk leader of the US (from his "bunker of evil") will see to that.
Dammit, I just can't help grinding that damned axe!!!
posted by nofundy at 1:24 PM on August 27, 2002
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
Iraq may not be a fascist country (as you posit) now but soon will be... Exxon/Mobil, BP/Amoco, Big Oil Slick Cheney the chicken hawk leader of the US (from his "bunker of evil") will see to that.
Dammit, I just can't help grinding that damned axe!!!
posted by nofundy at 1:24 PM on August 27, 2002
Well, nofundy I would have to say that a fascist Iraq that you posit would be preferable to the Saddamist Iraq we have now, so it's not a very convincing argument against invasion. Although I do like the term "Bunker of Evil"
posted by cell divide at 1:57 PM on August 27, 2002
posted by cell divide at 1:57 PM on August 27, 2002
RichLyon - I realize now it was Slithy_Tove and not ggggarret that began using the word hate in this thread, a slip of the read, it happens. I also realize now that ' shall not be used instead of " at mefi as it might be misinterpreted, alternativly missed completly.
posted by dabitch at 2:22 PM on August 27, 2002
posted by dabitch at 2:22 PM on August 27, 2002
cell divide - Well, nofundy I would have to say that a fascist Iraq that you posit would be preferable to the Saddamist Iraq we have now, so it's not a very convincing argument against invasion.
And I've been trying so very hard to stay out of this. Why would a US Imperialist satellite, controlled by big oil interests, be preferable to the sovereign nation of Iraq? Has our fear turned us into such an aggressor state, that we think our business interests are preferable to the will of the people who live there? That is slave/master thinking, and I want no damn part of it.
Yes, Saddam is a monster (or whatever anybody wants to call him). We're not talking about invading Saddam (Bush's wet dream), we're talking about invading a nation simply because we can. If we start to prefer ourselves as an Imperialist power, than throw freedom right out the window. Identify the WMD construction sites, destroy them, move on. But the idea that we would occupy another nation for the greed of a few sickens me.
(cell divide, I know from your arguments here that you probably didn't mean to paint us in the light of Imperialist aggressor. But if we support an invasion of Iraq, with the idea that we will benefit from it and no damn proof that it is in self defense, than we support the idea that its okay to kill for Mobil/Exxon and Bush family profits.)
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:58 PM on August 27, 2002
And I've been trying so very hard to stay out of this. Why would a US Imperialist satellite, controlled by big oil interests, be preferable to the sovereign nation of Iraq? Has our fear turned us into such an aggressor state, that we think our business interests are preferable to the will of the people who live there? That is slave/master thinking, and I want no damn part of it.
Yes, Saddam is a monster (or whatever anybody wants to call him). We're not talking about invading Saddam (Bush's wet dream), we're talking about invading a nation simply because we can. If we start to prefer ourselves as an Imperialist power, than throw freedom right out the window. Identify the WMD construction sites, destroy them, move on. But the idea that we would occupy another nation for the greed of a few sickens me.
(cell divide, I know from your arguments here that you probably didn't mean to paint us in the light of Imperialist aggressor. But if we support an invasion of Iraq, with the idea that we will benefit from it and no damn proof that it is in self defense, than we support the idea that its okay to kill for Mobil/Exxon and Bush family profits.)
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:58 PM on August 27, 2002
yeah, what's troubling for me is like what dash_slot- and owillis suggest: the same case could be made for china (indeed it has) or saudi arabia, which suggests to me that iraq is uncomfortably close to becoming an enemy of convenience. whereas for whatever reason the US has chosen to engage china, a potentially hostile threat that has WoMD with an arguably despotic leadership given to brutally suppressing internal dissent, and whereas russia (an ally in the war against terrorism, also arguably despotic etc...) has chosen to engage iraq (and n.korea) in similar fashion, it seems like the US is making an exception in this case in order to flex its muscle and make an example of iraq -- perhaps all the more so because it demonstrates the US' willingness to act unilaterally, at whatever the cost and preemptively (minority report style :) -- regardless of any merit for war on the face of it.
in other words, i think it makes sense as a show of force and provocation first, removing the bad guy second and the moral case third. acting under the appearance of cover or pretense removes legitimacy from the action and i think hurts the cause in the long run. US soldiers need the support of the public, which isn't all too clear. the international community is wary and would rather proceed cautiously because either they're uncertain of US intentions (read hegemony) or simply fearful of the repercussions (read regional instability). justifiable or not, without taking these concerns into consideration, and addressing them satisfactorily, the US risks isolation needlessly.
to me this is dangerous because terrorism, as others have pointed out, exists more as an ideological threat than a military one, best dealt with by the likes of humint and interpol and stuff to root out cells and prevent money laundering and such. military action would serve to harden ideological resolve (on either side -- perhaps even where there were few "sides" to begin with) rather than soften it. and like specialk420 points out regime change, missile defense or however much you spend on new surveillance systems are unlikely to stop anyone suitably determined from parking a truck full of fertilizer or anthrax or whatever in front of some office building, apartment complex, gas station, water reservoir, chip foundry, etc...
i don't think it's about appeasement either, or as cheney would put it, "[giving in] to wishful thinking or willful blindness." framing it that way belies any number of times the US government has overlooked abhorrent practices in the name of "the greater good" or "the well-being of the american people." the US should pursue with extreme prejudice the safety and protection of its citizens. the point is that if there's little consensus within or without the US about the selection of external threats beyond al-quaeda (foundation!), it looks like the administration is just making it up out of political expediency and gain.
it's like that aphorism, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof" and what almost everyone in the thread has been asking for! taking the extraordinary step of preemptive strikes against vocal military cousel and international opposition i think requires the administration to make a good enough case, at least before congress, and hopefully convincing enough for the american people and allies alike. not doing so i think would devalue not only the currency with which the nation can prosecute war as necessary, but also the US' leadership role on the world stage in general (like NGnerd sez :)
posted by kliuless at 4:01 PM on August 27, 2002
in other words, i think it makes sense as a show of force and provocation first, removing the bad guy second and the moral case third. acting under the appearance of cover or pretense removes legitimacy from the action and i think hurts the cause in the long run. US soldiers need the support of the public, which isn't all too clear. the international community is wary and would rather proceed cautiously because either they're uncertain of US intentions (read hegemony) or simply fearful of the repercussions (read regional instability). justifiable or not, without taking these concerns into consideration, and addressing them satisfactorily, the US risks isolation needlessly.
to me this is dangerous because terrorism, as others have pointed out, exists more as an ideological threat than a military one, best dealt with by the likes of humint and interpol and stuff to root out cells and prevent money laundering and such. military action would serve to harden ideological resolve (on either side -- perhaps even where there were few "sides" to begin with) rather than soften it. and like specialk420 points out regime change, missile defense or however much you spend on new surveillance systems are unlikely to stop anyone suitably determined from parking a truck full of fertilizer or anthrax or whatever in front of some office building, apartment complex, gas station, water reservoir, chip foundry, etc...
i don't think it's about appeasement either, or as cheney would put it, "[giving in] to wishful thinking or willful blindness." framing it that way belies any number of times the US government has overlooked abhorrent practices in the name of "the greater good" or "the well-being of the american people." the US should pursue with extreme prejudice the safety and protection of its citizens. the point is that if there's little consensus within or without the US about the selection of external threats beyond al-quaeda (foundation!), it looks like the administration is just making it up out of political expediency and gain.
it's like that aphorism, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof" and what almost everyone in the thread has been asking for! taking the extraordinary step of preemptive strikes against vocal military cousel and international opposition i think requires the administration to make a good enough case, at least before congress, and hopefully convincing enough for the american people and allies alike. not doing so i think would devalue not only the currency with which the nation can prosecute war as necessary, but also the US' leadership role on the world stage in general (like NGnerd sez :)
posted by kliuless at 4:01 PM on August 27, 2002
Otto von Bismarck said that the Balkans were not worth the blood of one Pomeranian grenadier. I say Iraq is not worth the blood of a Mississippi Marine.
posted by rdone at 6:23 PM on August 27, 2002
posted by rdone at 6:23 PM on August 27, 2002
Time was when the US demanded that its hegemony was acknowledged 'in our own back yard', ie the Western hemisphere. As the last man standing in the battle of the superpowers, some americans - exemplified by the current "presidents" adminstration - now seem to want the whole non-western world as it's back yard, and even it's allies must be strong-armed when divergent thinking appears. Ho-hum, pride before a fall, an'all that.
Thing is, it suits Saddam to look defiant in the face of intimidation: it will unite the Arab world behind the Iraqi nation (well, who do you think seems the victim, and who the bully: the nation which cannot trade freely, has lost many thousands [I won't play a numbers game, and denial of mass murder doesn't wash any more] of malnourished kids in the last 11 years, and has been bombed virtually non-stop in that same period; or, the nation that refuses to put evidence supporting its grievances on the table, ignores the professional opinion of Weapons Inspectors, and has no unalloyed support anywhere in the world for this adventure. Anywhere. Least of all, it seems, in the 'at-risk' neighbours of this regime.
[Update: the Foreign Minister of Qatar hugs Saddam on international TV broadcast - seemed kinda friendly..]
The point is, containment has worked: USAF & RAF jets are very successful in what they are doing [not that I necessarily support their aims, I simply observe that the previously continuous war machine of Iraq has had to take a break, or be bombed back to before Babylon].
Does that there brave man in the White House think that a Kosovo style 'no ground troops, no american bodybags
air campaign only', is gonna work? This is almost certainly gonna be long term, hand to hand, CNN-bankrupting scale. Just think what that will do for the Muslim masses, already disenfranchised - for many reasons - but sold a pup about Paradise and innumerable virgins. Prepare for the Thousand Year War. This attack will not make America safer: quite the reverse.
And all because of the economics of empires, and the need to distract the world from corruption, cronyism and 'counting. I hang my head in shame.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:23 PM on August 27, 2002
Thing is, it suits Saddam to look defiant in the face of intimidation: it will unite the Arab world behind the Iraqi nation (well, who do you think seems the victim, and who the bully: the nation which cannot trade freely, has lost many thousands [I won't play a numbers game, and denial of mass murder doesn't wash any more] of malnourished kids in the last 11 years, and has been bombed virtually non-stop in that same period; or, the nation that refuses to put evidence supporting its grievances on the table, ignores the professional opinion of Weapons Inspectors, and has no unalloyed support anywhere in the world for this adventure. Anywhere. Least of all, it seems, in the 'at-risk' neighbours of this regime.
[Update: the Foreign Minister of Qatar hugs Saddam on international TV broadcast - seemed kinda friendly..]
The point is, containment has worked: USAF & RAF jets are very successful in what they are doing [not that I necessarily support their aims, I simply observe that the previously continuous war machine of Iraq has had to take a break, or be bombed back to before Babylon].
Does that there brave man in the White House think that a Kosovo style 'no ground troops, no american bodybags
air campaign only', is gonna work? This is almost certainly gonna be long term, hand to hand, CNN-bankrupting scale. Just think what that will do for the Muslim masses, already disenfranchised - for many reasons - but sold a pup about Paradise and innumerable virgins. Prepare for the Thousand Year War. This attack will not make America safer: quite the reverse.
And all because of the economics of empires, and the need to distract the world from corruption, cronyism and 'counting. I hang my head in shame.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:23 PM on August 27, 2002
What's with the advent of the word 'crony' into today's political vocabulary? It's not like Bush is unique or anything, but crony stuck to his administration like no other.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 6:41 PM on August 27, 2002
posted by Lord Chancellor at 6:41 PM on August 27, 2002
Lord: well, maybe so, I didn't quite realise that. But crony, meaning "buddy, brother, chum, crony, pal, sidekick -- (a close friend who accompanies his buddies in their activities)" seems to sum up the unprofessional, circular, commercial government which we in the west are subjected to these days.
Plus, it was aliterative (",)
posted by dash_slot- at 7:01 PM on August 27, 2002
Plus, it was aliterative (",)
posted by dash_slot- at 7:01 PM on August 27, 2002
I understand your point.
Do you realize that you used crony to describe itself?
posted by Lord Chancellor at 7:03 PM on August 27, 2002
Do you realize that you used crony to describe itself?
posted by Lord Chancellor at 7:03 PM on August 27, 2002
"it's like that aphorism, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof" and what almost everyone in the thread has been asking for!"
Nicely put, kliuless. I think overall a number of us have clearly outlined the objections to American's planned attack: these are the issues that really need to be addressed to even make it possible for an attack on Iraq to be justifiable.
If North Korea had the money to be a real menace, we would go after them too.
North Korea does have the money to be a menace - they've got one of the largest armies in the world (I've heard claims that they're in fact second only to the US, but I couldn't google up a list. Nonetheless, they are massively militarised). The point is, there are lots of fuckers in the world, but right now it looks like targeting Saddam is way more of a political decision than based on any threat assessment. And the consequences of an attack could be very very ugly.
posted by slipperywhenwet at 7:09 PM on August 27, 2002
Nicely put, kliuless. I think overall a number of us have clearly outlined the objections to American's planned attack: these are the issues that really need to be addressed to even make it possible for an attack on Iraq to be justifiable.
If North Korea had the money to be a real menace, we would go after them too.
North Korea does have the money to be a menace - they've got one of the largest armies in the world (I've heard claims that they're in fact second only to the US, but I couldn't google up a list. Nonetheless, they are massively militarised). The point is, there are lots of fuckers in the world, but right now it looks like targeting Saddam is way more of a political decision than based on any threat assessment. And the consequences of an attack could be very very ugly.
posted by slipperywhenwet at 7:09 PM on August 27, 2002
Lord: it actually doesn't seem so tautological if you follow the link - the word crony is highlighted in the list, like Thesauruses do.
Also, I suspect that cronyism goes back to the earliest days of representative democracy, when the free press had yet to develop & governments handed out monopolies like franchises. It's just that these days we are alert & have learnt from recent mistakes (some), and the press know that scandals sell papers.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:19 PM on August 27, 2002
Also, I suspect that cronyism goes back to the earliest days of representative democracy, when the free press had yet to develop & governments handed out monopolies like franchises. It's just that these days we are alert & have learnt from recent mistakes (some), and the press know that scandals sell papers.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:19 PM on August 27, 2002
Have you been living under a stone?
Point taken. I never think of What's Going On as (just) an anti-war song, though it is one at that. Also, Bring The Boys Home by Brenda Payne and War by Edwin Starr--as I was just reminded in Greil Marcus's Real Life Top Ten today, the good anti-war songs were all by black R&B singers. Silly me, I was thinking of all the crappy folk rock when I wrote the above..
posted by y2karl at 4:59 AM on August 28, 2002
Point taken. I never think of What's Going On as (just) an anti-war song, though it is one at that. Also, Bring The Boys Home by Brenda Payne and War by Edwin Starr--as I was just reminded in Greil Marcus's Real Life Top Ten today, the good anti-war songs were all by black R&B singers. Silly me, I was thinking of all the crappy folk rock when I wrote the above..
posted by y2karl at 4:59 AM on August 28, 2002
North Korea's army is not a menace. It's a joke. Would fall faster than Iraq's. Unfortunately, a lot more Korean soldiers would die in the process, because North Korean propaganda is much more effective than Iraq's.
"extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof"
Disagree. Once there's a certain amount of proof, the amount needed should actually be LOWER than in other situations, because the stakes are so high. Once there is even minimal, unambiguous evidence of a nuclear weapons program orchestrated by a wacko, that should be enough to take him out.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:06 AM on August 28, 2002
"extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof"
Disagree. Once there's a certain amount of proof, the amount needed should actually be LOWER than in other situations, because the stakes are so high. Once there is even minimal, unambiguous evidence of a nuclear weapons program orchestrated by a wacko, that should be enough to take him out.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:06 AM on August 28, 2002
SH is not accountable to the Iraqi people. Accountability is the normal means by which a country's military is restrained from doing stupid, dangerous things. SH has killed enough of his own people to prove their deaths are no restraint on his activity.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:08 AM on August 28, 2002
posted by ParisParamus at 5:08 AM on August 28, 2002
" GWB is not accountable to the American people. Accountability is the normal means by which a country's military is restrained from doing stupid, dangerous things. GWB has killed enough of his own people to prove their deaths are no restraint on his activity."
posted by nofundy at 6:09 AM on August 28, 2002
posted by nofundy at 6:09 AM on August 28, 2002
SH is not accountable to the Iraqi people. Accountability is the normal means by which a country's military is restrained from doing stupid, dangerous things.
In case you haven't noticed, what folks here are worried about is how accountable the American president is going to be to us before he commits our military to stupid and dangerous things.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:23 AM on August 28, 2002
In case you haven't noticed, what folks here are worried about is how accountable the American president is going to be to us before he commits our military to stupid and dangerous things.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:23 AM on August 28, 2002
Where has GWB killed Americans? At the World Trade Center?
In Afghanistan? Comon, no need to be cryptic about your wacky, juvenile, Chomsky-esquet view of reality.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:53 AM on August 28, 2002
In Afghanistan? Comon, no need to be cryptic about your wacky, juvenile, Chomsky-esquet view of reality.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:53 AM on August 28, 2002
dabitch: for the record, it was ggggarret who first used the word 'hate'. See his point '3'. But 'why they hate us' has been a standard formulation in talking about relations between the Arab and Moslem world and the west, post 9-11.
cell divide: I don't know, but I imagine that Germany and Japan don't hate us because we proved to be fair, we helped them get back on their feet instead of taking revenge (as the French took revenge on Germany after WWI), and we were profitable trading partners.
The hatred for the west in the Arab world seems rather recent, and it seems to have accelerated since the Camp David Accords, which many Arabs and Moslems considered a betrayal.
The US has also been on the side of modernity. For example, we supported the Shah of Iran. Despite his shortcomings, and his poor human rights record towards his political opponents, he liberalized Iranian life, including the status of women. But the Moslem world at this time was sliding backward into religious fundamentalism. The US has been supporting the losing side of history in the Mideast, at least in the short run.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 8:11 AM on August 28, 2002
cell divide: I don't know, but I imagine that Germany and Japan don't hate us because we proved to be fair, we helped them get back on their feet instead of taking revenge (as the French took revenge on Germany after WWI), and we were profitable trading partners.
The hatred for the west in the Arab world seems rather recent, and it seems to have accelerated since the Camp David Accords, which many Arabs and Moslems considered a betrayal.
The US has also been on the side of modernity. For example, we supported the Shah of Iran. Despite his shortcomings, and his poor human rights record towards his political opponents, he liberalized Iranian life, including the status of women. But the Moslem world at this time was sliding backward into religious fundamentalism. The US has been supporting the losing side of history in the Mideast, at least in the short run.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 8:11 AM on August 28, 2002
Those Arabs who hate us do so because their take on existence is not consistent with modernity. The fault is not in us, and not in the stars. And if we need to resort to war to keep the reprecussions(sp?) of their outlook, so, unfortunately, be it. Better their heads than ours.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:32 AM on August 28, 2002
posted by ParisParamus at 8:32 AM on August 28, 2002
Once there is even minimal, unambiguous evidence of a nuclear weapons program orchestrated by a wacko, that should be enough to take him out.
It seems that this is the point we keep dancing around. The Bush Admin. obviously wants to invade Iraq, the general consensus (as far as I can tell) is that they have not as yet made an effective case for preemptive attack. Don't you think that if the Bush gang has minimal, unambiguous evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program that they would produce it?
posted by Ty Webb at 8:56 AM on August 28, 2002
It seems that this is the point we keep dancing around. The Bush Admin. obviously wants to invade Iraq, the general consensus (as far as I can tell) is that they have not as yet made an effective case for preemptive attack. Don't you think that if the Bush gang has minimal, unambiguous evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program that they would produce it?
posted by Ty Webb at 8:56 AM on August 28, 2002
They would probably produce it at the point where enough troops/weapons were stationed in the area, but not so many that an attack looked imminent. Remember, most of the infrastructure at issue is movable and/or dual use. So Iraq will, obviously, attempt claim that there's nothing going on. Just like they did during the UN inspections.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:13 AM on August 28, 2002
posted by ParisParamus at 9:13 AM on August 28, 2002
If they have the evidence, why would Bush wait to produce it? If Iraq has, as Cheney claims, the ability and inclination to attack the U.S. right now, isn't it irresponsible to wait?
Remember, most of the infrastructure at issue is movable and/or dual use. So Iraq will, obviously, attempt claim that there's nothing going on. Just like they did during the UN inspections.
I understand that, but I think that's a hurdle the Bush admin needs to get over to justify a preemptive invasion.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:55 AM on August 28, 2002
Remember, most of the infrastructure at issue is movable and/or dual use. So Iraq will, obviously, attempt claim that there's nothing going on. Just like they did during the UN inspections.
I understand that, but I think that's a hurdle the Bush admin needs to get over to justify a preemptive invasion.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:55 AM on August 28, 2002
Ty: again, I don't think that highly of the Bush Administration; I just think much higher of them, at least in the military/foreign policy sphere than Iraq.
I'm sure they'll be an airing of proof. It's just that you don't do it until the time is right. And the proof won't consist of a satelllite photo of activities taking place 10, or 500 feet underground. But they will certainly produce more than what's known now.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:05 AM on August 28, 2002
I'm sure they'll be an airing of proof. It's just that you don't do it until the time is right. And the proof won't consist of a satelllite photo of activities taking place 10, or 500 feet underground. But they will certainly produce more than what's known now.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:05 AM on August 28, 2002
Slithy_Tove - yes the 'why they hate us' from a european point of view is what i was offering when.. argh, nevermind, i'll just dig this misunderstanding hole deeper and it wasn't a very good comment. The big old Statue of liberty spewing smoke in Copenhagen though, is cool looking. A war against Iraq will not make the GW more popular with the allies ovah here. bya.
posted by dabitch at 11:00 AM on August 28, 2002
posted by dabitch at 11:00 AM on August 28, 2002
Curious. I find the smoke spewing from the cigarettes in the mouths of Europeans to be more noxious. Should be have a statute of the Little Mermaid with a Gauloise? You know, there's a time to be fixated on liberal sex, and a time to realize you may wake up to a big flash of light on New York Harbor if you're not vigilant. MAybe the Danes do sex better than Americans, but...
posted by ParisParamus at 11:09 AM on August 28, 2002
posted by ParisParamus at 11:09 AM on August 28, 2002
You know, there's a time to be fixated on liberal sex, and a time to realize you may wake up to a big flash of light on New York Harbor if you're not vigilant. MAybe the Danes do sex better than Americans, but...
ParisP, there's a time to be fixated on your own delusions, and a time to put up the facts. Your fear-mongering doesn't now, has never, and will never address the issues. Please, for the love of god (or any other heroic being you choose), show how 19 men, of mostly Saudi extraction and trained in Pakistan and the US, who have bought a nuclear device (with Saudi oil money) that was smuggled through Canada, via North Korean brokers, can be prevented from exploding it in New York harbor (or Nantucket, or off of Galviston, or outside New Orleans, or San Franscico Bay, or ...) by attacking Iraq. Yes, I know that was a convoluted sentence, and you think simply. So simply in fact, that you miss the fact that nothing has been presented which proves that Iraq is a serious threat to the US. Terrorists are a threat, trained in Pakistan, fostered in any number of countries, and supplied by the very money we pay to any number of nations which don't like us because we pollute, attempt to control them, and act like an aggressor state. Be as vigilant as you want. But making enemies will have repurcusions. Whether you like GW Bush or not doesn't matter if you support him in making those enemies, and laud him as he turns friends into combatants.
If you worry about that flash in New York harbor, I posit that your rhetoric is making it happen.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:56 PM on August 28, 2002
ParisP, there's a time to be fixated on your own delusions, and a time to put up the facts. Your fear-mongering doesn't now, has never, and will never address the issues. Please, for the love of god (or any other heroic being you choose), show how 19 men, of mostly Saudi extraction and trained in Pakistan and the US, who have bought a nuclear device (with Saudi oil money) that was smuggled through Canada, via North Korean brokers, can be prevented from exploding it in New York harbor (or Nantucket, or off of Galviston, or outside New Orleans, or San Franscico Bay, or ...) by attacking Iraq. Yes, I know that was a convoluted sentence, and you think simply. So simply in fact, that you miss the fact that nothing has been presented which proves that Iraq is a serious threat to the US. Terrorists are a threat, trained in Pakistan, fostered in any number of countries, and supplied by the very money we pay to any number of nations which don't like us because we pollute, attempt to control them, and act like an aggressor state. Be as vigilant as you want. But making enemies will have repurcusions. Whether you like GW Bush or not doesn't matter if you support him in making those enemies, and laud him as he turns friends into combatants.
If you worry about that flash in New York harbor, I posit that your rhetoric is making it happen.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:56 PM on August 28, 2002
You know, there's a time to be fixated on liberal sex...
Finally, the real motivation for PP's Europhobia rears its ugly head.
posted by riviera at 3:12 PM on August 28, 2002
Finally, the real motivation for PP's Europhobia rears its ugly head.
posted by riviera at 3:12 PM on August 28, 2002
Its a whole lot worse than all o that.
If: the US is at risk of further terrorist attacks, the worst of which could be nuclear;
and : the FBI, the CIA and all other investigators are being directed to look in one location in particular;
and: that location is known by the highest gov't. officials to have a low likelihood of connection to future terrorist attacks;
then: the opportunity cost of looking in the wrong place - and not discovering the conspirators - will be massive & unpredictable, and the tragic impact will be partly the responsibility of the government itself.
It all looks so inevitable that after the fact, the people will ask: what were you doing when you bwere supposed to be protecting us?
posted by dash_slot- at 5:39 PM on August 28, 2002
If: the US is at risk of further terrorist attacks, the worst of which could be nuclear;
and : the FBI, the CIA and all other investigators are being directed to look in one location in particular;
and: that location is known by the highest gov't. officials to have a low likelihood of connection to future terrorist attacks;
then: the opportunity cost of looking in the wrong place - and not discovering the conspirators - will be massive & unpredictable, and the tragic impact will be partly the responsibility of the government itself.
It all looks so inevitable that after the fact, the people will ask: what were you doing when you bwere supposed to be protecting us?
posted by dash_slot- at 5:39 PM on August 28, 2002
*were
posted by dash_slot- at 5:40 PM on August 28, 2002
posted by dash_slot- at 5:40 PM on August 28, 2002
parisp - loooooow blow. Cigarette smoke in my lungs and in the poor sods sitting next to me isn't even remotely comparable with amount of pollution your cars, factories etc spew out over the entire planets eco-system and you know it.
I found an english article about the statue. Posters depicting the statue of liberty in a landscape similar to the planet of the apes with the words "Freedom to pollute" are all over town too. I'm jus' saying that the US has a pretty tarnished image right now and a war on iraq without proof is not the way to make that image go away. Thats all.
posted by dabitch at 5:10 AM on August 29, 2002
I found an english article about the statue. Posters depicting the statue of liberty in a landscape similar to the planet of the apes with the words "Freedom to pollute" are all over town too. I'm jus' saying that the US has a pretty tarnished image right now and a war on iraq without proof is not the way to make that image go away. Thats all.
posted by dabitch at 5:10 AM on August 29, 2002
But, at least give me credit for colorful turns of phrase.
I keep hearing of Qeda(sp) training in Iraq and Iran. On the border, but still in these places.
Look. I would not accept, either, the current level of disclosure as a predicate for invading Iraq. But I suspect more will be revealed. The Bush administration is not going to blow its credibility on not attacking Iraq at this point. And, rhetoric notwithstanding, it's not going to go in without presenting more to Congress (and the UN, however much a charade that place is). And if it does, it loses my support on this issue (the only one it has it on).
posted by ParisParamus at 3:36 PM on August 29, 2002
I keep hearing of Qeda(sp) training in Iraq and Iran. On the border, but still in these places.
Look. I would not accept, either, the current level of disclosure as a predicate for invading Iraq. But I suspect more will be revealed. The Bush administration is not going to blow its credibility on not attacking Iraq at this point. And, rhetoric notwithstanding, it's not going to go in without presenting more to Congress (and the UN, however much a charade that place is). And if it does, it loses my support on this issue (the only one it has it on).
posted by ParisParamus at 3:36 PM on August 29, 2002
« Older Topato would never ask his lesbian fans not to... | Lobsters, caviar and brandy for MPs at summit on... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by HTuttle at 8:03 PM on August 26, 2002