President Bush - about bush

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-27 21:20:28

Security Panel Talks on Iraq End Bitterly

UNITED NATIONS - A Security Council meeting on Iraq ended in bitter disagreement Thursday with council members unable to agree on basic issues such as a timetable for weapons inspectors to report next to the council.

Source.

The US seems to be quite unwilling to compromise, and the majority of security council members are not in their favor. I seem to recall Bush saying back in his campaign that he was a ?uniter not a divider,? I guess he's shown the opposite.

soph · 2003-02-27 21:24:25

The same can be said for France. Or Germany. Or Belgium.

But then there's Poland, Spain, England, and our other allies that support the war. They just don't try to bully their European neighbors like some *cough*other*cough* countries.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-27 21:27:32

Yeah, the US just bribes countries, no one is without their deals, soph.

It's all good, though. The real point of my comment is that the majority is in favor of peace, and the minority is the one who would be dividing, because they would be expected to have some reasonable compromises.

clark · 2003-02-28 10:31:53

I am sorry, but I couldn't miss this one:

Josh, it's plain English, I don't think I'm the one who's trying to twist a source here.

Don't they speak arabic? LOL.

Anyway, i might imagine that Iraq wants to be very sure they have to destroy these missiles- most nations are not in the habit of destroying their military hardware before a very real and looming conflict.

I alsom migt imagine that given all the hoopla over missing evidence of compliance with the destruction of WMD stock, Iraq wants to make sure they destroy and record the destruction under explicit direction of the UN, to better avoid not having the evidence to prove their compliance...

But this is all a game now. We pretending we have an international coalition- never mind that it consists of former communist nations, all poor, and little more than third or second world countries.

The majority of the world isn't for peace- indeed, the majority of the world has absolutely no say in what is happening. The real power belongs to the five security members with the veto- everyone else is just there to make the world feel like they do have a say.

The entire world body could be for the removal of Saddam through violent means, but France can veto it- which then implies that the UN wants a peaceful solution... see, it is about apperance and rhetoric, not reality and ideology.

This is all a sham, and Saddam must go.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-28 14:23:24

clark, yeah, that's what Iwassaying when I said that it's ?more related to classification and oversight by UNMOVIC rather than an inablity to really dismantle the weapons.? Saddam once ?destroyed? weapons which were repairable, so they wern't really destroyed, they were just disabled.

But of course, I take issue with your dumbing down of UN members. Just because they're ?bribable? doesn't make their position wrong, because no one is siding with Saddam here, everyone says he must go.

You have two sides. Those who want war and couldn't give a crap about the civilian population. And those who don't want war, and do care about the civilian population. It's that simple. Shall I run down a list of atrocities commited on civilian populations by the US? I can only think of one exception that may have been remotely justified, but that's about it.

It's going to be twisted. People are going to suggests that trying to protect innocents is the same as siding with a dictator. We're getting the same kind of banal language in this very thread. We get the same kind of ridiculous sentiment on the FOX News station. But it's very far from the truth, because there are very few people who side with Saddam. Indeed, America's number one enemy, the person who was responsible for the worst terrorist attacks in our history, bin Laden, doesn't even side with Saddam.

The UN isn't a sham, people just see what they want to see.

soph · 2003-02-28 14:30:36

The UN isn't a sham, people just see what they want to see.

Kind of like you. But I disagree, as I have said and shown, the UN is just a parade ground for European power-mongers. Sure the US is "Big Brother," but the world expects us to be, and when we don't go in to countries to help, we're portrayed as "evil." So its a lose-lose for America anyway.

Those who want war and couldn't give a crap about the civilian population.

How about those who want war because, to a certain extent, Saddam is a dictator who oppresses his people while giving his friends and family palatial homes and palaces?

You chastise everyone for seeing it as black and white, but that's what you're reducing it to, and your claims are completely off the mark.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-28 15:00:21

No, you haven't shown that at all, soph. We're on the race track and we're having another go, it seems! Just because nations take a peaceful route which could prove profitable in the future doesn't mean that they're insincere (especially, that, again, their position doesn't sway far from the USs). You've failed to show that magically they were. If you want to bring in sources (since you love your sources so much) where, say, France has said that they weren't going to go to war with Iraq for any reason, then certainly, I'll change my position, but that has not occured, and France would jump on the war bandwagon as soon as they felt it was necessary. I don't need to get sources, because for anyone who reads the news, and understands it, would know this.

And I don't think you're making a fair example. This isn't a lose-lose for America. America needs to understand that they need world support to go in, and that unilateralism is a thing of the past. If America had world support (like they did in Kuwait), we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

And like I've said before, even those who want to get rid of Saddam, for the civilian population, aren't doing any good to cause a war. There are a hundred variables that could go wrong. And there is no evidence that a diplomatic route wouldn't be able to get rid of Saddam.

soph · 2003-02-28 16:59:20

No, you haven't shown that at all, soph. We're on the race track and we're having another go, it seems! Just because nations take a peaceful route which could prove profitable in the future doesn't mean that they're insincere (especially, that, again, their position doesn't sway far from the USs). You've failed to show that magically they were. If you want to bring in sources (since you love your sources so much) where, say, France has said that they weren't going to go to war with Iraq for any reason, then certainly, I'll change my position, but that has not occured, and France would jump on the war bandwagon as soon as they felt it was necessary. I don't need to get sources, because for anyone who reads the news, and understands it, would know this.

Obviosly you hadn't seen the NYT articles I had sourced, but we don't want to actually call you on what you say.

No, France has only tried harder to divide the EU against the pro-war countries, harder than Bush has tried to promote the war. This was clearly shown in the articles I sourced, whether or not you want to continue to deny it.

The US is always deemed insincere when there's a profit to be made, so why is this any different? Europe is always held to a different standard. The North Korean conflict should bring this to a head-the treaty they claim we violated was in fact fulfilled by America. We built our reactor, Europe never built its reactor. Who gets blamed? I'll give you three guesses.

And I don't think you're making a fair example. This isn't a lose-lose for America. America needs to understand that they need world support to go in, and that unilateralism is a thing of the past. If America had world support (like they did in Kuwait), we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

It's not? America goes into Bosnia, they're demonized for their actions. They don't go into Sierra-Lione, and theyre demonized for that. They go into Somalia, to help distribute food for God's sake, and we can see what that led to.

If we go to war, we're wrong, but we'll be wrong if we don't go in either. Everybody wants us to be the world's cop, but they love to slam us when we don't meet their desires. We are a sovereign country, too. I don't see UN support for Chechnya.

And like I've said before, even those who want to get rid of Saddam, for the civilian population, aren't doing any good to cause a war. There are a hundred variables that could go wrong. And there is no evidence that a diplomatic route wouldn't be able to get rid of Saddam.

Saddam's toying around with the UN have shown exactly that any diplomatic route is gone. With war on the doorstep, Saddam continues to poke at the UN whenever he gets the chance. He hasn't complied with UN resolutions for the past 12 years, why should he step down as leader?

There were 100 variables that could go wrong in Gulf War I, but did they? No. The only variable that we failed to address was putting an end to Saddam.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-28 18:17:31

Um, you yourself admited that the articles you sourced were op eds, and passed it off to your membership or whatever. So don't pretend they're the final say, here.

Indeed, relying on one source is quite naive, especially if that source is mostly journalistic opinion. One should note that I've already replied to your ?damning? NYT articles (to which you had no rebuttal). And funnily, your own articles showed that the majority of the EU (including potentials) is in favor of a more peaceful solution (of course, you'll dumb it down with rhetoric like they were ?threatened? and so on- which as I pointed out, only occured after the fact, and of course, you failed to respond to).

Really, we've been over all of this before, it's just circular, as it always is with you.

No one is saying the US is always wrong (even though on many ocassions the US has done stupid shit which isn't exactly diplomatic), but that's your wildcard when you're cornered and need to make the US look ?good.? ?Waa waa, damned if we do, damned if we don't!?

I don't care about past problems with the US, and personally I don't find them relevant at all- we could get in to American atrocities, but I do try my damndest not to bash America on those grounds (go ahead, though you may be self delusional, if you actually read my posts, I don't ?throw out? American atrocities as a wildcard!).

All I care about is a peaceful resolution to a horrible problem (and so does a majority of the world). You are quite delusional when you say things like the first Gulf War didn't hurt anyone, considering that a huge majority of all Gulf War vetrerans have Gulf War syndrome (I can't recall if its due to uranium in our shells or what). And god knows how many Iraqi's died. To what ends? The annexation of the Rumaila oil field? Oh goodie! We certainly didn't instill any sort of democracy there, all we did is get a bunch of people killed, screwed over our rebel allies, and perhaps even created some terrorists in the process. Yay for us, I'm proud.

Is it wrong of me and the majority of the world to want peace? I don't see why. Especially since no one has really qualified why that is a bad thing. No one has come out with damning evidence saying, ?Hey, tomorrow Saddam is going to blow up some country.? At least when JFK talked of the Cuban missile threat, it was legitimate.

Oh, and to rub it in your face, since you seem to think you know everything. Iraq is going to destroy their missiles in 24 hours. I was right.

Oh, and there was a recent poll in the US that asked whether or not people would be for an Iraq war if they destroyed their missiles. A majority said no. Since you read the NYT you should know this, but I'll provide a source for you anyway.

soph · 2003-02-28 18:28:29

Um, you yourself admited that the articles you sourced were op eds, and passed it off to your membership or whatever. So don't pretend they're the final say, here.
Indeed, relying on one source is quite naive, especially if that source is mostly journalistic opinion. One should note that I've already replied to your ?damning? NYT articles (to which you had no rebuttal). And funnily, your own articles showed that the majority of the EU (including potentials) is in favor of a more peaceful solution (of course, you'll dumb it down with rhetoric like they were ?threatened? and so on- which as I pointed out, only occured after the fact, and of course, you failed to respond to).

Yes, and you had no real argument that in any way proved them to be off the mark, except to yourself. You can try to pass yourself off as some genius diplomat, it ain't working.

So, I've got it. You're willing to support a dictator as long as the United States doesn't support them. I see.

And you can't drag up Gulf War I if you aren't willing to address that any past action of the U.S. is viewed in the most critical light possible, even Kosovo. It's rather funny.

All I care about is a peaceful resolution to a horrible problem (and so does a majority of the world). You are quite delusional when you say things like the first Gulf War didn't hurt anyone, considering that a huge majority of all Gulf War vetrerans have Gulf War syndrome (I can't recall if its due to uranium in our shells or what). And god knows how many Iraqi's died. To what ends? The annexation of the Rumaila oil field? Oh goodie! We certainly didn't instill any sort of democracy there, all we did is get a bunch of people killed, screwed over our rebel allies, and perhaps even created some terrorists in the process. Yay for us, I'm proud.

The "Gulf War Syndrome" was caused by Iraqi biological weapons, not uranium weapons, as some would try to proselytize. Saddam has used biological weapons against us in the past, too.

The war lasted a few weeks. I never said it didn't hurt anyone, don't put words in my mouth. It was a light war, and the U.S. steamrolled Iraq.

Really, we've been over all of this before, it's just circular, as it always is with you.

I guess you are under the impressions that "insults are a genuine contribution to a conversation."

Cobra Commander · 2003-02-28 18:30:13

America needs to understand that they need world support to go in, and that unilateralism is a thing of the past. If America had world support (like they did in Kuwait), we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

On the other hand, if America had been a bit more unilateral twelve years ago we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-28 18:52:03

Well, since you didn't provide a rebuttal before, how could I? I rely on others arguments to question my own. Without an opposing argument, I can't get anywhere. You didn't say where I was wrong with my generalization of the France articles!

So, I've got it. You're willing to support a dictator as long as the United States doesn't support them. I see.

No, I'm just saying that the US is hypocritical when they pretend that dictators are the reason they go around trying to ?democratize? the world. That's always the justification for US policing of the world, that they're trying to spread democracy and so on. This is just dishonest, if not repulsive. If the US didn't like dictators, they wouldn't put them in, and they wouldn't be friends with them. Period.

Again, you make it seem like I support anyone, when in fact I support very few foreign governments. All I'm doing is saying war is not always the answer.

And you can't drag up Gulf War I if you aren't willing to address that any past action of the U.S. is viewed in the most critical light possible, even Kosovo. It's rather funny.

Of course I can. It's specifically related to Iraq. I can bring up other past US atrocities, if I want, but that's irrelevant. We're trying to argue the merits of an Iraqi war, not demonize US foreign policy as a whole (I find doing this is often counter intuitive- this is why I don't do it, even though that's what you're trying to get me to do).

And also, I don't have the energy to argue the merits of every single atrocity commited to the US, especially since it would lead to rhetoric about me ?defending? certain policies, like Stalin and so on (this is how these flame wars always go).

The "Gulf War Syndrome" was caused by Iraqi biological weapons, not uranium weapons, as some would try to proselytize. Saddam has used biological weapons against us in the past, too.

Oh, well, that doesn't mean the urainum tipped shells don't cause harm to foreign environments. As far as I've been reading, there were lots of causes of the Gulf War Syndrom. But no biological contaminates have been shown to be a cause (it seems to have been most likely chemical- US or Iraqi nerve agents, etc- the anthrax vaccine, which every soldier was given, was another speculated cause).

The war lasted a few weeks. I never said it didn't hurt anyone, don't put words in my mouth. It was a light war, and the U.S. steamrolled Iraq.

Sorry, I meant that when you suggested that no variables went wrong (ie, everything was fine, opposite of not-fine or hurt), you weren't really being fair. Over 100k veterans were affected by the Gulf War.

I guess you are under the impressions that "insults are a genuine contribution to a conversation."

Nope, it wasn't. But since it wasn't the gist of my whole post (one sentence compared to many paragraphs), I at least out-weighed its lack of contribution with a meaningful reply.

And plus, it's not like it was unwarrented, or even dishonest.

Anyway, I'm gone for the day. Have fun.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-28 18:54:19

On the other hand, if America had been a bit more unilateral twelve years ago we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Well, I agree somewhat. The US had the mandate then, though so it wouldn't have been exactly unilateral. If you read this whole thread (which has become quite the mess), you'll see where I argued that we should have gone in, and the only reason we didn't was because it wasn't politically smart for Bush Sr.

soph would say that EU support was droping and all that, but that's irrelevant, we were already there. We had the mandate. Pulling out was just stupid.

Anyway, later.

Cobra Commander · 2003-02-28 19:15:13

On the other hand, if America had been a bit more unilateral twelve years ago we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Well, I agree somewhat. The US had the mandate then, though so it wouldn't have been exactly unilateral. If you read this whole thread (which has become quite the mess), you'll see where I argued that we should have gone in, and the only reason we didn't was because it wasn't politically smart for Bush Sr.
soph would say that EU support was droping and all that, but that's irrelevant, we were already there. We had the mandate. Pulling out was just stupid.
Anyway, later.

Admittedley I just skimmed through the last week's worth of this mess, so I'll take your for it.

It seems we have another of those rare instances of agreement, then

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-01 04:55:18

Hey! We don't agree! I wouldn't have considered it unilateral, even though nations would have backed out.

Anyway, lots of interesting stuff happened since I last posted here, so let's get to todays daily propaganda.

soph, check this out, I think the guy does a fairly good rebuttal of Powells ?damning? UN appearence. The guy certainly has a lot more time on his hands than anyone I know.

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/powell030205.html

Also, Thursday, it came to light that the same person who the US was citing for certain damning evidence against Iraq, also said that their bioweapons were ordered to be destroyed.

Personally, I like the previous guys' overview of the issue myself: http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html

But I can link you to the MSNBC article which discusses the Newsweek exclusive: http://www.msnbc.com/news/876128.asp

Oh, and here's the FAIR.org link, just to annoy those who hate FAIR for whatever reason: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html

In any case, it looks like the US used things a defector said when it was in our favor, but conveniently ignored some things when it was not.

Looks like the Bush admin is going to have one heck of a mess to deal with come Monday... (especially since Iraq has begun to destroy the missiles today).

Palomar · 2003-03-01 10:24:42

(especially since Iraq has begun to destroy the missiles today).

*Or so they say. Proof please?

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-01 16:22:27

Hey Cindy.

You should have seen it on the news by now... but here's a source. Apparently they're tough to get rid of, no wonder the Iraqi's wanted UN supervision.

Interestingly, and this is quite a blow to the Bush admin, but Turky voted no on allowing US troops within their territory. This is pretty freaking huge, especially since Turkey was to be given billions if they allowed this to happen. I mean, man, wow, I can't think of a bigger statement.

Granted, it was a very close call, only missing by four votes, but this democracy we're talking about here, and their constitution called for it. Here ya go.

soph · 2003-03-01 20:00:38

Interestingly, and this is quite a blow to the Bush admin, but Turky voted no on allowing US troops within their territory. This is pretty freaking huge, especially since Turkey was to be given billions if they allowed this to happen. I mean, man, wow, I can't think of a bigger statement.

Actually, they didn't say no. It was voted "yes" by significantly more people than voted "no." It was the 19 people who couldn't decide that determined the election. A majority of those who took a side approved the measure.

This means we save $30 billion. Fantastic.

At this rate, I'd like to see inspections continue. I am thoroughly convinced Saddam has more. If we find it, I am also sure he will play the same wag-the-dog game as he has done this time.

But until then, let's show the world who the real "evil" ones are here.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-01 21:34:06

Um, I would hardly say that 14 votes was ?significantly more.? The vote didn't pass because it reqired a simple majority. They did say no, that simple.

And the more likely situation is that we'll just offer them more money. From what I'm reading Turkey may take a second vote next week.

Not going to rebutt Rangwala's presentation?

soph · 2003-03-01 21:37:34

Didn't read it.

Abstain doesn't mean "no" Josh. What I said is entirely accurate. The majority of people who took a side said "yes." 19 people were not convinced either way, but the anti-Bus, i mean anti-war side, or the pro-war side.

14 votes is significantly more, Josh, considering that another 19 didn't deicde, and only 4 would have tipped the scale.

What they said was, "We don't know," which, for all purposes, might as well have been no.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-01 21:58:35

Well, the vote has occured, so it doesn't matter what we want to ?think? about it's legitimacy (just hopeful speculation one makes to make themselves feel better). The vote is over.

Given that Turkey had a lot to gain from this, one would think that those abstaining had a no vote. But that's irrelevant. The vote didn't pass.

I'm glad you don't mind inspections now though, it's cute.

soph · 2003-03-01 22:01:17

Didn't I say if they destroyed them I would support another 6 weeks of inspections? Gee, that's right, I did.

Changing circumstances can change opinions.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-01 22:05:36

Well, I don't remember that, but if you said that, it's good that you're keeping to your word. It's just surprising that you'd think that they wouldn't destroy the weapons. They had no other choice...

And their arsnel is huge. Somewhere around 100 missiles. They would have certainly helped them in light of a war. Even if, obviously, they would have still lost.

Oh, and this crap about Turkey, I wanted to add one more thing. If the votes in parlement (or whatever they call their house) were representative of the Turkey public at large, it would have been something like 95% against the war. The only reason anyone voted for it is because US diplomatic attempts (ie, bribes). Dont think Turkey couldn't have used the money we were planning to hook them up with. Turkey isn't exactly doing great right now, economically.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-08 02:26:21

I liked this...

I'm losing patience with my neighbours, Mr Bush

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I!

For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0, … 26,00.html

Shaun Barrett · 2003-03-11 05:36:36

I found this article in the Sunday paper last weekend. As a former 'leftie' myself, I guess it struck a chord with me and expresses something of how I feel about the Iraq situation:-

BEGINNING OF ARTICLE.

"Confessions of a Former Leftie."

British historian and TV producer Phil Craig was a peace marcher long before September 11 and Bali. Now, he argues, President George Bush will be vindicated in his war on Iraq.

We were there for peace. We were there to confront the American cowboy warmonger. We were there to watch actor Emma Thompson on a truck.
Actually, of the day I marched in Britain against cruise and Pershing missiles, what I remember best is the bemused look on the faces of a group of miners as Emma performed her mobile political cabaret.
Anyone remember cruise and Pershing? Or the Greenham Common missile base protests? You only catch them on UK television archive shows now, but back in the early 1980s stopping NATO deploying those American missiles was the great anti-war cause. It was what you did if you were young, decent and liberal.
And how we decent young people hated Ronald Reagan. We all had that poster of him as Rhett Butler with Margaret Thatcher as Scarlett O'Hara: "She promised to follow him to the ends of the Earth. He promised to organise it."
No, he wasn't funny - he was dangerous. He wanted to tear up detente, he wanted to confront what he naively called "the Evil Empire". For Christ's sake, he even went to Berlin and shouted: "Tear down that wall!"
We'd all read Animal Farm and none of us was that keen on the Soviets, but at least they'd given their people decent healthcare, hadn't they, and a fantastic underground system? Oh, and jobs for life, unlike the evil Thatcher. What was the point of provoking them?
Like a lot of lefties, I ended up in the current affairs department of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Eight years after protesting, I found myself in Eastern Europe.
Amazingly, the Wall had, indeed, been torn down. My assistant producer had family in the old East Germany and he wasn't too pleased to hear of my peacenik past. Did I have any idea how much people like him had hated people like me?
Did I know how crushingly miserable life had been in Eastern Europe, that the image of healthcare and jobs for life was strictly for the consumption of visiting left-wing reporters, and that the reality was grey, oppressive and corrupt?
And, most of all, did I not know how much it had meant when Reagan challenged the Soviet overlords, matching their SS-20s with his own missiles, inviting them into a spending race that they could not win?
And that's why I didn't march this time around. Because America, even with a cowboy in charge, isn't always wrong.
Two paragraphs, both true:-
~ The United States has bankrolled and armed vicious regimes, refused to pressure Israel into making substantial territorial concessions in the West Bank, and has wilfully undermined international efforts to secure fair trade and environmental protections.
Bad America, very bad.
~ For three generations the people of Europe have benefited hugely from the military and economic power of the United States. That power disposed of first the Nazis and then the Soviets. In the last decade it has chased a fascist dictator out of the Balkans and a reactionary death cult from its laboratories in Afghanistan.
Good America, yes, very good America indeed, especially when you consider what the multilateral United Nations' decent and liberal approach to problems has given us in recent years: Rwanda, Srebrenica and a 12-year game of hide-and-seek in Iraq.
I like to imagine peace protesters sitting in a cafe in Jerusalem, Baghdad or Damascus one day, in a revitalised, democratised and peaceful Middle East, and realising that the turning point was the removal of Saddam Hussein.
Optimistic? Naive? I suppose so. But some good will come out of a regime change in Iraq. Reformers in Iran will be inspired, the violent Islamic group Hamas will lose its major paymaster, and the Saudi oligarchs will think twice before funding more jihad fanatics.
I'd say the optimists have as good a chance of being right as the naysayers, whose relentlessly negative predictions about recent Western military actions have been equally relentlessly wrong.
Liberal British columnist Madeleine Bunting wrote a few days into the bombing of the Taliban that Afghanistan was America's new Vietnam. Last week she attempted to discount any cheering crowds that we might see in Iraq as "a few days jubilation staged for the TV cameras."
Well, Afghanistan wasn't Vietnam, and CNN will not need to stage any jubilations in Baghdad.
Why would a liberal want to dismiss the liberation of the Iraqi people? Because anti-Americanism trumps all her other instincts.
From my experience, mainstream left-liberal opinion remains resolutely opposed to the war, however many nasties chief UN arms inspector Hans Blix and his team can dig up in Saddam's back garden. It's also very much inclined to believe anyone but Bush or Powell when it comes to evidence about the nasties.
"Still not proven ... no clear risk" is the consensus, even after Colin Powell's tape recordings, and even after British TV reporter Jane Corbin's excellent documentary showed just how the inspectors get the run-around.
I've made enough current affairs programs to understand and to share much of the case against America. But my feelings about the war on terror have been different from the start.
I was in Florida on September 11, 2001, researching a book on World War II. In the week after the attack, the airlines were down, so I drove across rural Florida and Georgia, watching the flags come out and the patriotic messages go up on the billboards.
People were calling the radio shows. One question dominated, the same one I heard in bars, shops and around the dinner tables: "Why do they hate us so much?"
"It's just a minority," I said.
I returned home and realised that it wasn't a minority at all. To my astonishment, it included many of my liberal friends, and writers and thinkers I admired.
In that first week a cartoon in The Guardian painted President Bush as an ape dumbly trying to impersonate Winston Churchill, while The Independent offered a blind, deranged Bush firing his cowboy six-shooter and treading on a dead Arab. And all this before a single American bomb had been dropped on Afghanistan, and with 3000 bodies - we still thought 10,000 then - beneath the Trade Towers rubble.
I phoned a friend in the television business. We both said we were fearful. I was talking about Islamic terrorism, perhaps next time with a nuke, but it turned out he meant "the mad cowboy in the White House". It struck me then that, after so many years of opposing American foreign policy, the Left could not see beyond Vietnam-era slogans. It could not recognise that a toxic stew of rogue regimes, apocalyptic weapons programs and a perverted form of Islam posed a deadly threat.
It posed a particularly deadly threat, come to think of it, to the values of the Left itself: to women's rights and gay rights; to secularism, pluralism and multiculturalism. In fact, you name the liberal "ism" and Osama was against it. But one "ism" still trumped all: anti-Americanism.
The coming endgame with Saddam will, at the very least, rid the world of a proven danger, and lessen the chances that the next terrorist attack will take out millions not thousands. If war comes, will innocent Iraqis die? Certainly. More than the Americans will admit, fewer than the peaceniks will claim. But innocents have been dying for decades under this revolting regime.
We're told that war will drive Muslims into the arms of al-Qaida. But remember what bin Laden said in the days after 9/11: "America is weak, it cannot take casualties, it ran away in Somalia."
Throughout the 1990s the West responded tamely to attacks by bin Laden (the African embassy bombs, the USS Cole), to attacks by groups linked to Saddam (the Saudi barracks bomb, the assassination attempt on Bush's father, the first World Trade Center attack), and to the continued refusal of Iraq to disarm as required by the Gulf War ceasefire. Ten years of this weakness only encouraged our enemies to be bolder.
Good, decent people are painting their "No War" signs; even Nelson Mandela, the conscience of the world, tells me I'm backing a bunch of racist oil-imperialists. Nelson may be against me, but at least Czech leader Vaclav Havel understands. Which brings me back to Hyde Park in London in 1983.
Eastern Europeans know that when they suffered oppression, it was America which tried to help them, and the Western Left which marched in tacit support of their oppressors. The communists, as we later discovered, never believed that NATO would respond to the deployment of their SS-20s. They thought that the protests of Phil Craig and Emma Thompson and lots of other decent liberal people would make it impossible.
I still hope that Saddam will do the same. But I fear that all this marching will make him think that he still has a chance. And that could be more dangerous than any cowboy in the White House.
END OF ARTICLE.

I don't want war ... any war anywhere! I don't know anyone with half a brain who thinks any differently. But my feeling is that the time has come to make a show of force.
The intransigence of France, Russia, Germany, and China in the face of an obvious and long-standing game of brinkmanship by Saddam, in clear breach of his obligations under a resolution passed unanimously by the UN, is a seriously worrying turn of events.
I read somewhere recently the opinion that these countries are simply avoiding their obligation to disarm Iraq by force because they then won't be obliged to help pay for either the war itself or the rebuilding of Iraq afterwards! That, and the opinion that agreements with the present odious regime are just too lucrative for them to want to see Saddam ousted. I'm much more inclined to believe all of this than to believe the French, Russians, Germans and Chinese have suddenly become loving, forgiving paragons of higher morality.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven, if you ask me. But the worst aspect of it all is the undermining of the UN's credibility in the eyes of tyrants and terrorists everywhere.
If, unlike Phil Craig, the rest of the world's 'lefties' can't put aside their dogma for a minute and face up to the fact that sometimes you just have to make a stand (even if it does happen to be on America's side), then I guess I'll have to throw my arms in the air and admit I don't understand anything!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#726 2003-02-27 21:20:28

Re: President Bush - about bush

#727 2003-02-27 21:24:25

Re: President Bush - about bush

#728 2003-02-27 21:27:32

Re: President Bush - about bush

#729 2003-02-28 10:31:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#730 2003-02-28 14:23:24

Re: President Bush - about bush

#731 2003-02-28 14:30:36

Re: President Bush - about bush

#732 2003-02-28 15:00:21

Re: President Bush - about bush

#733 2003-02-28 16:59:20

Re: President Bush - about bush

#734 2003-02-28 18:17:31

Re: President Bush - about bush

#735 2003-02-28 18:28:29

Re: President Bush - about bush

#736 2003-02-28 18:30:13

Re: President Bush - about bush

#737 2003-02-28 18:52:03

Re: President Bush - about bush

#738 2003-02-28 18:54:19

Re: President Bush - about bush

#739 2003-02-28 19:15:13

Re: President Bush - about bush

#740 2003-03-01 04:55:18

Re: President Bush - about bush

#741 2003-03-01 10:24:42

Re: President Bush - about bush

#742 2003-03-01 16:22:27

Re: President Bush - about bush

#743 2003-03-01 20:00:38

Re: President Bush - about bush

#744 2003-03-01 21:34:06

Re: President Bush - about bush

#745 2003-03-01 21:37:34

Re: President Bush - about bush

#746 2003-03-01 21:58:35

Re: President Bush - about bush

#747 2003-03-01 22:01:17

Re: President Bush - about bush

#748 2003-03-01 22:05:36

Re: President Bush - about bush

#749 2003-03-08 02:26:21

Re: President Bush - about bush

#750 2003-03-11 05:36:36

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer