Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Imagine, No Political Fallout for Bush on lack of WMD's in Iraq
President Bush appears to be in no political danger from the failure to find chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, with Democrats reluctant to challenge Bush on any aspect of the war and polls showing Americans unconcerned about weapons discoveries.
Disarming Saddam Hussein of his "weapons of mass destruction" was the main justification the Bush administration used both at home and abroad for attacking Iraq. But while other countries that opposed the U.S. military action claim they are vindicated by the failure so far to find those weapons, Americans -- even some of Bush's political opponents -- seem content with the low-casualty victory and believe the discoveries of mass graves and other Hussein atrocities justify the war.
Few Democrats are challenging Bush on the forbidden weapons, preferring to put the war behind them and focus attention on the economy, health care and other domestic issues.
Before the war, for example, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) accused the administration of exaggerating Iraq's nuclear capabilities, while other Democrats questioned whether Bush and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell were overstating Hussein's chemical and biological stockpiles.
This week, Pelosi said it is "difficult to understand" why the weapons can't be found. Yet she did not seem concerned about whether any are found. "I am sort of agnostic on it; that is to say, maybe they are there," Pelosi said. "I salute the president for the goal of removing weapons of mass destruction."
Similarly, Senate Democratic Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), who on the eve of war accused Bush of failing "miserably" to win international backing, now talks of giving the president "great credit" for winning the war.
Why the reticence to remind Bush of the rationale for the war? Public opinion may be one reason.
According to a May 1 Gallup poll for CNN and USA Today, 79 percent of Americans said the war with Iraq was justified even without conclusive evidence of the illegal weapons, while 19 percent said discoveries of the weapons were needed to justify the war. An April Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 72 percent supported the war even without a finding of chemical or biological weapons. Similarly, a CBS News poll found that 60 percent said the war was worth the blood and other costs even if weapons are never found.
It's not that Americans don't care about finding the weapons Bush said Hussein had; in an April 16 Post-ABC poll, 47 percent said it was essential. But that made it a lower priority than providing humanitarian aid to Iraq and restoring order.
"If I were a Democratic candidate, I don't think I would be pushing this issue,' said Andrew Kohut, of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. He cited a Gallup poll in the early days of the war determining that 38 percent thought the war justified even if the banned weapons were not found; toward the end of the conflict, that figure jumped to 58 percent.
"Inasmuch as we've already done the deed, the need for that as a rationale is less," he said.
White House officials express confidence that Bush is not vulnerable on the absence of banned weapons in Iraq, if only because few people in either party doubted that Hussein had such weapons. "Both Republicans and Democrats alike know that Saddam Hussein had a WMD program," said White House communications director Dan Bartlett. "In fact, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution that confirmed it. So why would you criticize something the entire world knows to be true?"
In November, the Security Council's unanimously approved Resolution 1441, which found Iraq to be in "material breach" of its disarmament obligations and gave it a "final opportunity to comply." But now even some close allies of the Bush administration say they have serious doubts about the intelligence evidence Bush and his aides used to win passage of that resolution.
Before the war, the administration said that Iraq had not accounted for 25,000 liters of anthrax; 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent; and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Bush said at the start of the war that Hussein "threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
But fewer than 60 days later, the group directing all known U.S. search efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the 75th Exploitation Task Force, is winding down operations without any confirmed discoveries of prohibited weapons.
"It's just very strange," said Kenneth Adelman, a member of a Pentagon advisory board who had predicted weapons would be found a month ago. "There will certainly not be the quantity and proximity that we thought of before." Adelman says Hussein may even have launched "a massive disinformation campaign to make the world think he was violating international norms, and he may not have been."
Gary Schmitt, of the pro-invasion Project for the New American Century, said investigators "may well not find stockpiles, because it may well be that Saddam figured out it was better to get rid of the stuff" and start over after inspectors left.
Neither Adelman nor Schmitt believes the absence of weapons will undermine the public's view that the war was a success. With mass graves being unearthed by the day, Americans will have plenty of humanitarian justification for the war. The discovery of circumstantial evidence -- mobile biological labs, for example -- would provide assurance that Hussein had a prohibited weapons program if not many of the weapons themselves. They say ultimate success will be measured by whether or not Iraq prospers now, not what weapons were found.
But the international community may not be so understanding. False accusations about Iraq's weapons could make the rest of the world even more reluctant to join the next effort to enforce Bush's policy of striking at emerging threats. "The American public is moving on, but those countries that were skeptical of this war are going to continue to press on this point," said Jonathan Tucker, a weapons expert at the U.S. Institute of Peace. "The credibility of the administration and the U.S. intelligence community are still on the line. This whole doctrine of preemptive war is predicated on our ability to determine a country's potential threat before the weapons are used."
Among the U.S. electorate, though, the concern about Hussein's weapons programs has been swiftly replaced by an increased sense of security that came with the successful military action. Even fiercely partisan Democrats say privately that they fear criticizing Bush for overstating Hussein's weapons capability could make Democrats appear to be defending Hussein's regime.
The top-tier presidential candidates are figuring it is better not to challenge the popular president on any aspect of the successful war. That's roughly the message former president Bill Clinton delivered at this week's meeting of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. "The formula that will beat George Bush is to match him where he is perceived to be strong -- national security -- and beat him where he is weak -- on his failing economic policies and his divisive social and political agenda," the DLC's Al From told reporters this week.
The only candidate making a big issue of the failure to find weapons stockpiles is Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), the fervently antiwar candidate. "The basis of the war in Iraq is fraudulent," Kucinich said in an interview. "They misrepresented Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. They misrepresented the nature of the nuclear threat."
There are reasons other than politics for the Democrats' reluctance to take up the subject. Several, including Pelosi, continue to believe weapons may be found. "If you make that accusation and they find [the weapons] tomorrow and you have a banner headline, you look a little silly," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who supported the war resolution.
But even if the weapons are never found, it may be smart politics to let the subject drop. "Our constituents like a victory, and at this point it's a victory," said Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.). "In the beginning, our constituents were saying, 'They better find weapons of mass destruction.' With it over so quickly, we are not hearing that refrain."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Few Democrats are challenging Bush on the forbidden weapons, preferring to put the war behind them and focus attention on the economy, health care and other domestic issues.
Before the war, for example, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) accused the administration of exaggerating Iraq's nuclear capabilities, while other Democrats questioned whether Bush and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell were overstating Hussein's chemical and biological stockpiles.
This week, Pelosi said it is "difficult to understand" why the weapons can't be found. Yet she did not seem concerned about whether any are found. "I am sort of agnostic on it; that is to say, maybe they are there," Pelosi said. "I salute the president for the goal of removing weapons of mass destruction."
Similarly, Senate Democratic Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), who on the eve of war accused Bush of failing "miserably" to win international backing, now talks of giving the president "great credit" for winning the war.
Why the reticence to remind Bush of the rationale for the war? Public opinion may be one reason.
According to a May 1 Gallup poll for CNN and USA Today, 79 percent of Americans said the war with Iraq was justified even without conclusive evidence of the illegal weapons, while 19 percent said discoveries of the weapons were needed to justify the war. An April Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 72 percent supported the war even without a finding of chemical or biological weapons. Similarly, a CBS News poll found that 60 percent said the war was worth the blood and other costs even if weapons are never found.
It's not that Americans don't care about finding the weapons Bush said Hussein had; in an April 16 Post-ABC poll, 47 percent said it was essential. But that made it a lower priority than providing humanitarian aid to Iraq and restoring order.
"If I were a Democratic candidate, I don't think I would be pushing this issue,' said Andrew Kohut, of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. He cited a Gallup poll in the early days of the war determining that 38 percent thought the war justified even if the banned weapons were not found; toward the end of the conflict, that figure jumped to 58 percent.
"Inasmuch as we've already done the deed, the need for that as a rationale is less," he said.
White House officials express confidence that Bush is not vulnerable on the absence of banned weapons in Iraq, if only because few people in either party doubted that Hussein had such weapons. "Both Republicans and Democrats alike know that Saddam Hussein had a WMD program," said White House communications director Dan Bartlett. "In fact, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution that confirmed it. So why would you criticize something the entire world knows to be true?"
In November, the Security Council's unanimously approved Resolution 1441, which found Iraq to be in "material breach" of its disarmament obligations and gave it a "final opportunity to comply." But now even some close allies of the Bush administration say they have serious doubts about the intelligence evidence Bush and his aides used to win passage of that resolution.
Before the war, the administration said that Iraq had not accounted for 25,000 liters of anthrax; 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent; and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Bush said at the start of the war that Hussein "threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
But fewer than 60 days later, the group directing all known U.S. search efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the 75th Exploitation Task Force, is winding down operations without any confirmed discoveries of prohibited weapons.
"It's just very strange," said Kenneth Adelman, a member of a Pentagon advisory board who had predicted weapons would be found a month ago. "There will certainly not be the quantity and proximity that we thought of before." Adelman says Hussein may even have launched "a massive disinformation campaign to make the world think he was violating international norms, and he may not have been."
Gary Schmitt, of the pro-invasion Project for the New American Century, said investigators "may well not find stockpiles, because it may well be that Saddam figured out it was better to get rid of the stuff" and start over after inspectors left.
Neither Adelman nor Schmitt believes the absence of weapons will undermine the public's view that the war was a success. With mass graves being unearthed by the day, Americans will have plenty of humanitarian justification for the war. The discovery of circumstantial evidence -- mobile biological labs, for example -- would provide assurance that Hussein had a prohibited weapons program if not many of the weapons themselves. They say ultimate success will be measured by whether or not Iraq prospers now, not what weapons were found.
But the international community may not be so understanding. False accusations about Iraq's weapons could make the rest of the world even more reluctant to join the next effort to enforce Bush's policy of striking at emerging threats. "The American public is moving on, but those countries that were skeptical of this war are going to continue to press on this point," said Jonathan Tucker, a weapons expert at the U.S. Institute of Peace. "The credibility of the administration and the U.S. intelligence community are still on the line. This whole doctrine of preemptive war is predicated on our ability to determine a country's potential threat before the weapons are used."
Among the U.S. electorate, though, the concern about Hussein's weapons programs has been swiftly replaced by an increased sense of security that came with the successful military action. Even fiercely partisan Democrats say privately that they fear criticizing Bush for overstating Hussein's weapons capability could make Democrats appear to be defending Hussein's regime.
The top-tier presidential candidates are figuring it is better not to challenge the popular president on any aspect of the successful war. That's roughly the message former president Bill Clinton delivered at this week's meeting of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. "The formula that will beat George Bush is to match him where he is perceived to be strong -- national security -- and beat him where he is weak -- on his failing economic policies and his divisive social and political agenda," the DLC's Al From told reporters this week.
The only candidate making a big issue of the failure to find weapons stockpiles is Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), the fervently antiwar candidate. "The basis of the war in Iraq is fraudulent," Kucinich said in an interview. "They misrepresented Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. They misrepresented the nature of the nuclear threat."
There are reasons other than politics for the Democrats' reluctance to take up the subject. Several, including Pelosi, continue to believe weapons may be found. "If you make that accusation and they find [the weapons] tomorrow and you have a banner headline, you look a little silly," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who supported the war resolution.
But even if the weapons are never found, it may be smart politics to let the subject drop. "Our constituents like a victory, and at this point it's a victory," said Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.). "In the beginning, our constituents were saying, 'They better find weapons of mass destruction.' With it over so quickly, we are not hearing that refrain."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
For more information:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Every American is fully aware that this war was not about "weapons of mass destructin"
That was just bullshit to appease the Euro-Weenies>
This war was about not having the honor to live up to your word.
We agreed to stop kicking Saddans ass after the first Gulf War, because HE agreed to the terms of surrender. He lied and thiught he could get away with it.
He was wrong.
"We surrender....No....wait....we take it back...."
That crap may fly in the Middle East, but not in America.
Get it?
That was just bullshit to appease the Euro-Weenies>
This war was about not having the honor to live up to your word.
We agreed to stop kicking Saddans ass after the first Gulf War, because HE agreed to the terms of surrender. He lied and thiught he could get away with it.
He was wrong.
"We surrender....No....wait....we take it back...."
That crap may fly in the Middle East, but not in America.
Get it?
We know where the WMD are, for full details:
CLICK HERE > http://www.msnbc.com/news/wld/graphics/strategic_israel_dw.htm
We went to war with Iraq to free the Iraqi people from oppression by Saddam.
Should we not free the Palestinian People who have been oppressed by Israel for the last 35 years???
For possible solution without war:
CLICK HERE > http://nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=56156&group=webcast
CLICK HERE > http://www.msnbc.com/news/wld/graphics/strategic_israel_dw.htm
We went to war with Iraq to free the Iraqi people from oppression by Saddam.
Should we not free the Palestinian People who have been oppressed by Israel for the last 35 years???
For possible solution without war:
CLICK HERE > http://nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=56156&group=webcast
Why is it the same people are obsessed with the right to life of unwanted fetuses are so supportive of the a military which intentionally targets children as long as they appear to be 10 years old (actual Israeli Military policy)
Sgt. Hartman, cannot spell, nor does he truly seem to grasp the Cause and Effect in the current situation.
Causality.
http://blackhouse.8m.com
Sgt. Hartman, cannot spell, nor does he truly seem to grasp the Cause and Effect in the current situation.
Causality.
http://blackhouse.8m.com
For more information:
http://blackhouse.blogspot.com
It's ludicrous to link the U.S. polls to the justification of the war on Iraq. If 90% of the Americans support to nuke every other nations on earth, is that a justification?
The U.S. polls apply to events strictly effective within the U.S. borderline. Iraq is in Iraq, not in the U.S. Bush told the world his justification to invade Iraq was to rid of WMD. There ain't any. Guess what, he's a war criminal because he launched an illegal and unjust war. He and his administration are accountable for the deaths of innocents who died in this war.
You can say that again. Why isn't something being done about Bush and Blair, these lying war criminals?
Iraq invades Kuwait, and the world is horrified. Bush and Blair invade Iraq, and life goes on as usual. Man, there is something desperately wrong here.
And Israel invades Palestinian lands, confiscates it, demolishes Palestinian homes leaving countless Palestinian People homeless with the backing of Billions of U.S. dollars and we wonder why there is terrorism.
If we want to put a big dent in terrorism we must do the right thing for the Palestinian People today. We need to show the Arab Population that We are fair.....
For a fair and just solution:
CLICK HERE > http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=64554&group=webcast
If we want to put a big dent in terrorism we must do the right thing for the Palestinian People today. We need to show the Arab Population that We are fair.....
For a fair and just solution:
CLICK HERE > http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=64554&group=webcast
What I'm wondering is: where is the Democratic Leadership in all of this? What I see is that they believe the polls and are afraid to speak up for fear of losing their seats. That isn't leadership. To me, leadership is speaking up for what's right. The current path is leading to another era of McCarthism. Shame on you, Pelosi and Daschle, for putting your political aspirations above what the nation needs--accountability for the lies this administration told to justify war. Nader had it right, after all: there apparently isn't much difference between the two parties.
The conflict in Iraq? You mean the military operation that just ended like 5 weeks ago, right?? And in that time, you expect WMD's to have just popped up in a country the size of California? Give em time.
Besides, if Iraq did not have WMD's, why didn't Saddam just come clean with the UN? All he had to do was say "We destroyed all the WMD's, here's the documentation proving we did, and we'll gladly lead the UN inspectors by the hand and show them exactly where every molecule of it was destroyed. We have complied." They never did that. Instead, they made every effort to show the UN that they were unwilling to co-operate and to convince them that they had something to hide. Even Blix admitted they were not fully co-operative. That they didn't show their hand when they had the chance doesn't add up.
Besides, if Iraq did not have WMD's, why didn't Saddam just come clean with the UN? All he had to do was say "We destroyed all the WMD's, here's the documentation proving we did, and we'll gladly lead the UN inspectors by the hand and show them exactly where every molecule of it was destroyed. We have complied." They never did that. Instead, they made every effort to show the UN that they were unwilling to co-operate and to convince them that they had something to hide. Even Blix admitted they were not fully co-operative. That they didn't show their hand when they had the chance doesn't add up.
Give'em time? Hello there, any body home, were you sleeping when collin powel made that huge presentation at the UN with all those satelite images, and cell phone call between Irqagis, now we are in control of every thing and they dont have a clue where the WMD are?, give me a break. The almighty US can find every thing when Iraq is in control, and then we are, but now they cant find shit, sounds like fuzzy bullshit to me....
WMD? Well, let's see. Syria has been shown to harbor & warehouse missles for Iraq - and we know 3 flatbed trucks filled with a Billion dollars that Hussein looted from his country headed that way a day before the war started - that would be a good place to check.
What ever came of those three ships that left the Iraqi harbor right before the war? Hmm???
And you know - how about those few missiles that Iraq destroyed - not by exploding them, but by crushing them - how about checking them out?
They did find two mobile labs - that only could be used for biochemical uses...and let's not forget all the protective suits found by the US military...Iraqis were prepared for the use by their own forces...WMD were there - no brainer.
Ask the Iraqi Kurds who had family members gassed to death if they though there were WMD.
What ever came of those three ships that left the Iraqi harbor right before the war? Hmm???
And you know - how about those few missiles that Iraq destroyed - not by exploding them, but by crushing them - how about checking them out?
They did find two mobile labs - that only could be used for biochemical uses...and let's not forget all the protective suits found by the US military...Iraqis were prepared for the use by their own forces...WMD were there - no brainer.
Ask the Iraqi Kurds who had family members gassed to death if they though there were WMD.
How do we know?
How do you know?. What info do you have, that the rest of the world does not. Oh wait, you must be getting your info from Bill O'reily, and the rest of those morons from Fox news. Just keeping sticking your head up your ass, and maybe you will find more top secret info, and let us know what we don't know yet...
Gosh you people get so vile when you are proved wrong. I guess you think your nasty comments prove something. I read lots of information from lots of sources...heck, I even check this site. All experts concurred about WMD. Maybe you should read other sources.
Do you really think there WEREN'T WMD?
Whose's head is really stuck?
Do you really think there WEREN'T WMD?
Whose's head is really stuck?
Mr,/Ms. Right to Life:
Where did you get that strange and ignorant conclusion that people who believe life starts at conception are warmongers and those that believe life starts at another time are not?
You are totally ignorant of both schools of thought. Read this carefully. People...don't...necessarily...fit...your...handy...preconceived...ideas.
I am a pacificist. I believe in the widest defination of life: both at start and at its end. I don't believe in capital punishment. I don't believe in Dr. K and his antics. I am anti war. I am a (rather weak willed) vegetarain. I base my personal ethics on all life being sacred. And guess what - I am not alone. I have run into many friends at anti war protests who were at anit-abortion or anti-capital punishment marches. Of course ignorant people like you come around once in a while and make me wonder if I should make an exception to by beliefs.
Where did you get that strange and ignorant conclusion that people who believe life starts at conception are warmongers and those that believe life starts at another time are not?
You are totally ignorant of both schools of thought. Read this carefully. People...don't...necessarily...fit...your...handy...preconceived...ideas.
I am a pacificist. I believe in the widest defination of life: both at start and at its end. I don't believe in capital punishment. I don't believe in Dr. K and his antics. I am anti war. I am a (rather weak willed) vegetarain. I base my personal ethics on all life being sacred. And guess what - I am not alone. I have run into many friends at anti war protests who were at anit-abortion or anti-capital punishment marches. Of course ignorant people like you come around once in a while and make me wonder if I should make an exception to by beliefs.
Could someone tell me what difference it makes whether Iraq had so-called weapons of mass destruction or not? I mean, Israel has them and is not afraid to use them. The US has them and loves an excuse to use them. I could go on, but I won't. You can see my point.
Now that the terrorist attack on a soverign nation has come and gone we can look at it and agree that it was -a vicious war crime carried out under the lies of war criminals, Bush and Blair.
The fact that the US is going to use the dividends from the sale of Iraqi oil fields to "rebuild" the country tells us all we need to know.
The US and Britain destroyed this nation and its infrastructure, not to mention the civilian dead and injured. Not one bleeding penny of an Iraqi resource should be taken to pay for its rebuilding.
This was an attack, not about "terror" - the only word Bush seems to know - but an excuse by this war criminal to destroy a nation in order to give his pals huge contracts to "rebuild". Blessedly we all didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
The only question remains. What is the rest of the civiliilzed world going to do about it?
The US is brazen enough to go about with its cards (excuse me while I gasp at the hypocrisy here). I would suggest that the Bush administration be taken into custody by the International Court of Justice and dealt with as the war criminals that they are.
Now that the terrorist attack on a soverign nation has come and gone we can look at it and agree that it was -a vicious war crime carried out under the lies of war criminals, Bush and Blair.
The fact that the US is going to use the dividends from the sale of Iraqi oil fields to "rebuild" the country tells us all we need to know.
The US and Britain destroyed this nation and its infrastructure, not to mention the civilian dead and injured. Not one bleeding penny of an Iraqi resource should be taken to pay for its rebuilding.
This was an attack, not about "terror" - the only word Bush seems to know - but an excuse by this war criminal to destroy a nation in order to give his pals huge contracts to "rebuild". Blessedly we all didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
The only question remains. What is the rest of the civiliilzed world going to do about it?
The US is brazen enough to go about with its cards (excuse me while I gasp at the hypocrisy here). I would suggest that the Bush administration be taken into custody by the International Court of Justice and dealt with as the war criminals that they are.
Angie, please explain why you are not upset about the MILLIONS of mass murders and tortures that were committed by Hussein's regime?
HOw could Bush & Blair be considered war criminals for STOPPING this?
HOw could Bush & Blair be considered war criminals for STOPPING this?
If this is not a myth, created by the ubiquitous propaganda mill of the corporate-government complex, you should be able to present some documentation that proves it really happened.
Why don't you do that?
Why don't you do that?
The mass murders and torture have been documented for years; the uncovering of the mass graves has been widely reported in print and television.
If you don't believe that - talk to Iraqi survivors.
Many have eyes but refuse to see.
If you don't believe that - talk to Iraqi survivors.
Many have eyes but refuse to see.
So why don't you show us some of this documentation, instead of just telling us it exists?
ur dealing with nessie. if he was an eyewitness to the mass the murders in Iraq he would deny it ever happened since it doesnt fit his agenda. he is of his father the devil who was a liar from the beginning and the father thereof. the guys hitting 55. he'll be dead soon from natural causes of hes not caught in the crosshairs first.
the world knows what happened. what a bunch of leftists/anarchists believe is immaterial and irrelevant.
the world knows what happened. what a bunch of leftists/anarchists believe is immaterial and irrelevant.
Mass graves may also be the remains of those murdered in the Gulf War. Has anyone else heard (or read) that? God knows there were enough humans wiped out at that time (remember the retreating Iraqi army being slaughtered?)
Lest not forget the thousands, if not millions, who have died as a result of the sanctions carried out by the US and Britain. Oh, and now we see these sanctions are lifted. Guess enough people have died in the past twelve years, hmm? The US and Britain must be so PROUD!
Actually I'm still waiting for sanctions against the US and Britain.
Oh, Doreen, when you're talking about MILLIONS being murdered, etc., why don't you take a look at what the US did in Viet Nam, hmm? Weapons of mass destruction were okay then, weren't they?
The US has more weapons than anyone else in the world, so let's not kid ourselves here. No one else is allowed to have them?
And speaking of mass graves, they are still being unearthed in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilah from the massacre of September 1982. Nothing about that, is there? Nor did anyone go rushing out to bomb Israel and save the people of Lebanon when it was invaded by Israel in '82 and some 17,000 plus, mostly civilians, were murdered. I don't recall any uproar or any "Lebanon Operation Freedom".
No one with an independent mind believes this was about Iraqi "freedom". What a misnomer! Remove one dictator and replace it with an outside gang with their own agenda. The people of Iraq are, sadly and tragically, merely incidental.
We also believe should any "weapons of mass destruction" (there's that dreaded phrase again) are found, we can be assured they were planted there by the CIA , perhaps Rumsfeld personally (excuse me while I giggle here) or Israeli agents..
Futhermore, if this terrorist attack on a soverign nation was not about taking over control of the Iraqi oil fields, why did the US stand idly by and let the various government offices be looted and/or burned with the exception of the Oil Ministry?
And, finally, why is the US taking Iraqi oil and using it to "rebuild" Iraq? Why isn't the US spending its own damn money to rebuild what it destroyed? But why should it, hey? As I said before look at who is rebuilding! Look at who is getting millions, if not billions, from Iraq for having destroyed it?
Weeks after this attack people had no water, no electricity. It was necessary to destroy essential services, was it? Right! They had to be "rebuilt". Ye'ah, the pals of this administration need a few dollars, don't they?
Donald Rumsfeld wasn't too concerned about WMD in the early to mid eighties, was he, when he was beaming whilst shaking hands with Saddam. Oh, right! Here, take our weapons of mass destruction and make sure you use them against Iran. The hypocrisy in mind blowing in its blatancy.
Sad, sad, sad! Tragic, tragic, tragic! Again, as I keep telling myself, there is a higher power, and we can only hope!
Lest not forget the thousands, if not millions, who have died as a result of the sanctions carried out by the US and Britain. Oh, and now we see these sanctions are lifted. Guess enough people have died in the past twelve years, hmm? The US and Britain must be so PROUD!
Actually I'm still waiting for sanctions against the US and Britain.
Oh, Doreen, when you're talking about MILLIONS being murdered, etc., why don't you take a look at what the US did in Viet Nam, hmm? Weapons of mass destruction were okay then, weren't they?
The US has more weapons than anyone else in the world, so let's not kid ourselves here. No one else is allowed to have them?
And speaking of mass graves, they are still being unearthed in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilah from the massacre of September 1982. Nothing about that, is there? Nor did anyone go rushing out to bomb Israel and save the people of Lebanon when it was invaded by Israel in '82 and some 17,000 plus, mostly civilians, were murdered. I don't recall any uproar or any "Lebanon Operation Freedom".
No one with an independent mind believes this was about Iraqi "freedom". What a misnomer! Remove one dictator and replace it with an outside gang with their own agenda. The people of Iraq are, sadly and tragically, merely incidental.
We also believe should any "weapons of mass destruction" (there's that dreaded phrase again) are found, we can be assured they were planted there by the CIA , perhaps Rumsfeld personally (excuse me while I giggle here) or Israeli agents..
Futhermore, if this terrorist attack on a soverign nation was not about taking over control of the Iraqi oil fields, why did the US stand idly by and let the various government offices be looted and/or burned with the exception of the Oil Ministry?
And, finally, why is the US taking Iraqi oil and using it to "rebuild" Iraq? Why isn't the US spending its own damn money to rebuild what it destroyed? But why should it, hey? As I said before look at who is rebuilding! Look at who is getting millions, if not billions, from Iraq for having destroyed it?
Weeks after this attack people had no water, no electricity. It was necessary to destroy essential services, was it? Right! They had to be "rebuilt". Ye'ah, the pals of this administration need a few dollars, don't they?
Donald Rumsfeld wasn't too concerned about WMD in the early to mid eighties, was he, when he was beaming whilst shaking hands with Saddam. Oh, right! Here, take our weapons of mass destruction and make sure you use them against Iran. The hypocrisy in mind blowing in its blatancy.
Sad, sad, sad! Tragic, tragic, tragic! Again, as I keep telling myself, there is a higher power, and we can only hope!
Is this commentary going to show up in every thread or am just checking the wrong ones?
What exactly does it have to do with the US/UK terrorist attack on Iraq? Enlighten, please.
What exactly does it have to do with the US/UK terrorist attack on Iraq? Enlighten, please.
You know Angie -
you never adressed whether it was BAD for Hussein's regime to murder & torture the Iraqi people...you just went on and on about anything else to divert the issue.
It is sad how people are so closed minded that they refuse to see how horrible it was to live (and die) under Hussein. I know, I've talked to Iraqi refugees who had family members gassed by Hussein. I guess it doesn't fit your agenda - US / Bush bad - and that is very sad. About the effects of the UN sanctions:
Saddam's parades of dead babies are exposed as a cynical charade
(Filed: 25/05/2003)
UN sanctions did not kill the hundreds of infants displayed over the years - it was neglect by the former regime, Iraqi doctors in Baghdad tell Charlotte Edwardes
The "baby parades" were a staple of Saddam Hussein's propaganda machine for a decade. Convoys of taxis, with the tiny coffins of dead infants strapped to their roofs - allegedly killed by United Nations sanctions - were driven through the streets of Baghdad, past crowds of women screaming anti-Western slogans.
The moving scenes were often filmed by visiting television crews and provided valuable ammunition to anti-sanctions activists such as George Galloway, the Labour MP, who blamed Western governments for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.
But The Telegraph can reveal that it was all a cynical charade. Iraqi doctors say they were told to collect dead babies who had died prematurely or from natural causes and to store them in cardboard boxes in refrigerated morgues for up to four weeks - until they had sufficient corpses for a parade.
Many of the children died, they say, as a result of the Iraqi government's own neglect as it lavished funds on military programmes and Saddam's palaces in the knowledge that it could blame sanctions for the lack of medicines and equipment in hospitals and clinics.
"We were not allowed to return the babies to their mothers for immediate burial, as is the Muslim tradition, but told they must be kept for what became known as 'the taxi parade'," said Dr Hussein al-Douri, the deputy director of the Ibn al-Baladi hospital in Saddam City, a Shia district in eastern Baghdad.
"The mothers would be hysterical and sometimes threaten to kill us, but we knew that the real threat was from the government."
Asked what would have happened if he had disobeyed the orders, Dr al-Douri replied: "They would have killed our families. This was an important event for the propaganda campaign."
Dr al-Douri, who has worked for 10 years as a paediatrician, said the parades were orchestrated by officials from the ministries of health, information and intelligence.
He said: "All 10 hospitals in Baghdad were involved in this and the quota for the parade was between 25 and 30 babies a month, which they would say had died in one day.
"We had to tell the babies' families that it was a government order and that they would be paid to keep quiet. The reward was sometimes in money, the equivalent of $10 per baby, or in food: rice, sugar and oil."
The government then ordered members of the Iraqi Women's Federation, an organisation funded by the regime, to line the streets of Baghdad and wail and beat themselves in mock grief.
"They portrayed an image of mothers in mourning for their recently dead children," he said. "It was too dangerous not to follow the orders. We were very afraid. The families were afraid, too."
Dr al-Douri showed The Telegraph the morgue where babies' bodies would be stored in cardboard boxes before being transferred to wooden coffins carrying their names and sometimes photographs.
Dr Amer Abdul al-Jalil, the deputy resident at the hospital, said: "Sanctions did not kill these children - Saddam killed them. The internal sanctions by the Saddam regime were very effective. Those who died prematurely usually died because their mothers lived in impoverished areas neglected by the government.
"The mortality rate was higher in areas such as Saddam City because there was no sewerage system. Infectious diseases were rampant.
"Over the past 10 years, the government in Iraq poured money into the military and the construction of palaces for Saddam to the detriment of the health sector. Those babies or small children who died because they could not access the right drugs, died because Saddam's government failed to distribute the drugs. The poorer areas were most vulnerable."
He added: "We feel terrible that this happened, but we were living under a regime and we had to keep silent. What could we do?"
you never adressed whether it was BAD for Hussein's regime to murder & torture the Iraqi people...you just went on and on about anything else to divert the issue.
It is sad how people are so closed minded that they refuse to see how horrible it was to live (and die) under Hussein. I know, I've talked to Iraqi refugees who had family members gassed by Hussein. I guess it doesn't fit your agenda - US / Bush bad - and that is very sad. About the effects of the UN sanctions:
Saddam's parades of dead babies are exposed as a cynical charade
(Filed: 25/05/2003)
UN sanctions did not kill the hundreds of infants displayed over the years - it was neglect by the former regime, Iraqi doctors in Baghdad tell Charlotte Edwardes
The "baby parades" were a staple of Saddam Hussein's propaganda machine for a decade. Convoys of taxis, with the tiny coffins of dead infants strapped to their roofs - allegedly killed by United Nations sanctions - were driven through the streets of Baghdad, past crowds of women screaming anti-Western slogans.
The moving scenes were often filmed by visiting television crews and provided valuable ammunition to anti-sanctions activists such as George Galloway, the Labour MP, who blamed Western governments for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.
But The Telegraph can reveal that it was all a cynical charade. Iraqi doctors say they were told to collect dead babies who had died prematurely or from natural causes and to store them in cardboard boxes in refrigerated morgues for up to four weeks - until they had sufficient corpses for a parade.
Many of the children died, they say, as a result of the Iraqi government's own neglect as it lavished funds on military programmes and Saddam's palaces in the knowledge that it could blame sanctions for the lack of medicines and equipment in hospitals and clinics.
"We were not allowed to return the babies to their mothers for immediate burial, as is the Muslim tradition, but told they must be kept for what became known as 'the taxi parade'," said Dr Hussein al-Douri, the deputy director of the Ibn al-Baladi hospital in Saddam City, a Shia district in eastern Baghdad.
"The mothers would be hysterical and sometimes threaten to kill us, but we knew that the real threat was from the government."
Asked what would have happened if he had disobeyed the orders, Dr al-Douri replied: "They would have killed our families. This was an important event for the propaganda campaign."
Dr al-Douri, who has worked for 10 years as a paediatrician, said the parades were orchestrated by officials from the ministries of health, information and intelligence.
He said: "All 10 hospitals in Baghdad were involved in this and the quota for the parade was between 25 and 30 babies a month, which they would say had died in one day.
"We had to tell the babies' families that it was a government order and that they would be paid to keep quiet. The reward was sometimes in money, the equivalent of $10 per baby, or in food: rice, sugar and oil."
The government then ordered members of the Iraqi Women's Federation, an organisation funded by the regime, to line the streets of Baghdad and wail and beat themselves in mock grief.
"They portrayed an image of mothers in mourning for their recently dead children," he said. "It was too dangerous not to follow the orders. We were very afraid. The families were afraid, too."
Dr al-Douri showed The Telegraph the morgue where babies' bodies would be stored in cardboard boxes before being transferred to wooden coffins carrying their names and sometimes photographs.
Dr Amer Abdul al-Jalil, the deputy resident at the hospital, said: "Sanctions did not kill these children - Saddam killed them. The internal sanctions by the Saddam regime were very effective. Those who died prematurely usually died because their mothers lived in impoverished areas neglected by the government.
"The mortality rate was higher in areas such as Saddam City because there was no sewerage system. Infectious diseases were rampant.
"Over the past 10 years, the government in Iraq poured money into the military and the construction of palaces for Saddam to the detriment of the health sector. Those babies or small children who died because they could not access the right drugs, died because Saddam's government failed to distribute the drugs. The poorer areas were most vulnerable."
He added: "We feel terrible that this happened, but we were living under a regime and we had to keep silent. What could we do?"
Just because I didn't mention the behaviour of Hussein doesn't mean I agree with it. Au contraire. But it is a topic of debate for another time in its own forum.
This is not a post about whether or not Hussein killed millions (and this figure may be highly exaggerated). It is about a terrorist attack on a soverign nation.
The US administration blatantly lied to the international community and to its own people about its "reasons" for invading Iraq. The sanctions that were imposed destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure just as the bombs (cluster, remember) missless, rockets, etc., etc., destroyed it.
In 1998 the inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq. The Iraqi Government didn't kick them out. There were no WMD located then, and despite stating emphatically from the beginning that it had no WMD capabilities, despite the UN inspectors not finding anything of note, Bush kept on ranting like a mad man, with help from Rumsfeld, and Powell (we all remember his presentation to the UN which turned out to be a big farce).
It is not up to the United States and Britain or anyone else, Doreen, to attack another country unless it is sanctioned by the UN. The UN said no. But it didn't matter to Bush et al. No, it didn't matter because whether the UN Inspectors were in Iraq for twenty years and combed every damn inch of the country and still found nothing, Bush and friends would keep on blabbering. It was a great routine - you know, keep repeating a blatant lie and people might listen and believe you especially if you get the media onside..
Nobody with an iota of intellegence believes the so-called reasons for the destruction of Iraq. No one. Noted journalists all over the world were skeptical and remain so.
Don't thank Bush for what he did, Doreen. If he really cared about the people of Iraq (and not the oil) he would have gone over to Iraq himself and met with Hussein. or do like Reagan did and send Rumsfeld. He would have done everything to avoid "war". But it was what he wanted.
This is not about good v. evil. This is about power and greed.
Look around you. There's Rwanda, 700,000 massacred. What did the US and Britain do to prevent it? Look at any of the horrifying events going on in the Congo and other regions of Africa which have been ongoing for years. What has Bush and Blair done to alleviate any of the suffering and death of civilians? Look at what is happening in Zimbawee. We could go on and on. Hussein is not the only bad guy. He is but one of many.
The US was in no damn danger of an attack from Iraq. Considering how its army was virtually wiped out in the first Gulf War, what was it going to launch an attack with? The US also knew that there were no known links to the 9/11 attack and the Government of Iraq. But it made good rhetoric, and helped to incense the poor US civilians who don't know any better.
Just one more thought. How would you feel tomorrow if a nation jumped up and said we have to remove the current regime in the US? Or if someone said we're going to remove the current regime in Britain? What would you do?
At the risk of shattering an illusion, George W. Bush is not God. He just thinks he is.
This is not a post about whether or not Hussein killed millions (and this figure may be highly exaggerated). It is about a terrorist attack on a soverign nation.
The US administration blatantly lied to the international community and to its own people about its "reasons" for invading Iraq. The sanctions that were imposed destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure just as the bombs (cluster, remember) missless, rockets, etc., etc., destroyed it.
In 1998 the inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq. The Iraqi Government didn't kick them out. There were no WMD located then, and despite stating emphatically from the beginning that it had no WMD capabilities, despite the UN inspectors not finding anything of note, Bush kept on ranting like a mad man, with help from Rumsfeld, and Powell (we all remember his presentation to the UN which turned out to be a big farce).
It is not up to the United States and Britain or anyone else, Doreen, to attack another country unless it is sanctioned by the UN. The UN said no. But it didn't matter to Bush et al. No, it didn't matter because whether the UN Inspectors were in Iraq for twenty years and combed every damn inch of the country and still found nothing, Bush and friends would keep on blabbering. It was a great routine - you know, keep repeating a blatant lie and people might listen and believe you especially if you get the media onside..
Nobody with an iota of intellegence believes the so-called reasons for the destruction of Iraq. No one. Noted journalists all over the world were skeptical and remain so.
Don't thank Bush for what he did, Doreen. If he really cared about the people of Iraq (and not the oil) he would have gone over to Iraq himself and met with Hussein. or do like Reagan did and send Rumsfeld. He would have done everything to avoid "war". But it was what he wanted.
This is not about good v. evil. This is about power and greed.
Look around you. There's Rwanda, 700,000 massacred. What did the US and Britain do to prevent it? Look at any of the horrifying events going on in the Congo and other regions of Africa which have been ongoing for years. What has Bush and Blair done to alleviate any of the suffering and death of civilians? Look at what is happening in Zimbawee. We could go on and on. Hussein is not the only bad guy. He is but one of many.
The US was in no damn danger of an attack from Iraq. Considering how its army was virtually wiped out in the first Gulf War, what was it going to launch an attack with? The US also knew that there were no known links to the 9/11 attack and the Government of Iraq. But it made good rhetoric, and helped to incense the poor US civilians who don't know any better.
Just one more thought. How would you feel tomorrow if a nation jumped up and said we have to remove the current regime in the US? Or if someone said we're going to remove the current regime in Britain? What would you do?
At the risk of shattering an illusion, George W. Bush is not God. He just thinks he is.
You'd never say it, though.
Just a suggestion. Please don't put words in my mouth. I have plenty of them, and I dislike immensely having my comments misconstrued to suit (or not) your views or anyone else's.
The US, strangely enough, is no more important in the scheme of things than anyone else. Every nation could say we're not going to be dependent on the UN for anything. Another country could jump up tomorrow and say we are going to invade such and such because we believe they need a regime change. Think about the ramifications of such an eventuality for a moment. The US abides by the UN when it wants something; when it doesn't get what it wants, it becomes public enemy No. 1.
You're not concerned about a regime change? Of course you're not. However, there are more people in the world than "Christians" and Jews, Doreen. A hell of a lot more. What are you advocating? Surely not ethnic cleansing of the masses?
Did I say you were stupid? Don't remember that. You certainly don't sound as if you were. Thus, I suggest that it would be a good idea, though, for you to open your mind (as you seem to be an expert on the topic), and get away from the hype, and read something by someone with more than half a brain.
For starters, you could read Gwynne Dyer's "Ignorant Armies Sliding into War in Iraq". Or pick up something by another highly aclaimed author, John Pilger. Go to Robert-Fisk.Com and read his dispatches from his unembeded coverage of this attack.
As for George W. Bush thinking he's God, that's his delusion, not mine. It wasn't that long ago he thought he was Winston Churchill.
You remember, of course, that millioins of Americans were marching in protest against this terrorist attack on Iraq. So are you saying that all of us who marched world wide for peace were wrong?
Finally, though it's been an informative exchange and though we appear to disagree on the surface, I think we both want the same thing - peace and justice for all , not just a few. That's what I want anyway. You don't fight "terror" by creating "terror", Doreen. There has to be another way. Otherwise, what kind of a world are we going to see in the years ahead?
I do not believe a word that anyone in the current administration has to say. Nothing at all, and there's no reason why I should..
Take care, and I'll keep an eye on this board when I am not working. Good night.
Just a suggestion. Please don't put words in my mouth. I have plenty of them, and I dislike immensely having my comments misconstrued to suit (or not) your views or anyone else's.
The US, strangely enough, is no more important in the scheme of things than anyone else. Every nation could say we're not going to be dependent on the UN for anything. Another country could jump up tomorrow and say we are going to invade such and such because we believe they need a regime change. Think about the ramifications of such an eventuality for a moment. The US abides by the UN when it wants something; when it doesn't get what it wants, it becomes public enemy No. 1.
You're not concerned about a regime change? Of course you're not. However, there are more people in the world than "Christians" and Jews, Doreen. A hell of a lot more. What are you advocating? Surely not ethnic cleansing of the masses?
Did I say you were stupid? Don't remember that. You certainly don't sound as if you were. Thus, I suggest that it would be a good idea, though, for you to open your mind (as you seem to be an expert on the topic), and get away from the hype, and read something by someone with more than half a brain.
For starters, you could read Gwynne Dyer's "Ignorant Armies Sliding into War in Iraq". Or pick up something by another highly aclaimed author, John Pilger. Go to Robert-Fisk.Com and read his dispatches from his unembeded coverage of this attack.
As for George W. Bush thinking he's God, that's his delusion, not mine. It wasn't that long ago he thought he was Winston Churchill.
You remember, of course, that millioins of Americans were marching in protest against this terrorist attack on Iraq. So are you saying that all of us who marched world wide for peace were wrong?
Finally, though it's been an informative exchange and though we appear to disagree on the surface, I think we both want the same thing - peace and justice for all , not just a few. That's what I want anyway. You don't fight "terror" by creating "terror", Doreen. There has to be another way. Otherwise, what kind of a world are we going to see in the years ahead?
I do not believe a word that anyone in the current administration has to say. Nothing at all, and there's no reason why I should..
Take care, and I'll keep an eye on this board when I am not working. Good night.
I just wanted to respond to your last post before I also retire for the evening...
***You'd never say it, though.
Calm? I thought I did in my title...?
***Just a suggestion. Please don't put words in my mouth. I have plenty of them, and I dislike immensely having my comments misconstrued to suit (or not) your views or anyone else's.
Angie, I am confused. I cut and paste your words into my response, so I did not fabricate any of your words. Perhaps someone else posted using your name?
***The US, strangely enough, is no more important in the scheme of things than anyone else.
I agree.
***Every nation could say we're not going to be dependent on the UN for anything.
True, but the US did not say that. They are going to be using the UN for humanitarian aid.
***Another country could jump up tomorrow and say we are going to invade such and such because we believe they need a regime change. Think about the ramifications of such an eventuality for a moment. The US abides by the UN when it wants something; when it doesn't get what it wants, it becomes public enemy No. 1.
Not to the Iraqi people who no longer live in a regime of torture & murder. As far as the UN - lets get real. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights is chaired by Najat Al-Hajjaji of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and Iraq was selected to head the United Nations' Conference on Disarmament scheduled to be held in Geneva beginning in May 2003. Iraq ignored the UN and mocked its sanctions for 12 years.
The UN made itself inconsiquental.
** there are more people in the world than "Christians" and Jews, Doreen. A hell of a lot more. What are you advocating? Surely not ethnic cleansing of the masses?
Angie, how did you get to this 'logic'??? Yes, there are lots more people in the world then Christians and Jews...and they all deserve respect and to live without fear of torture or murder or terrorist attack. Why did you imply that I would advocate ethnic cleansing when I have been saying repeatedly that it was IMMORAL to ignore the ethnic cleansing done by Hussein to the Kurds and Shites in Irag??? Again, your argument has taken a very weird twist.
***Did I say you were stupid? Don't remember that.
Again, I am cutting and pasting from a prior post of yours: "Nobody with an iota of intellegence believes the so-called reasons for the destruction of Iraq. No one. Noted journalists all over the world were skeptical and remain so."
Since I do believe there were legitmate reasons to invade Iraq and end Hussein's regime - wouldn't your statement apply to me?
**You certainly don't sound as if you were.
Thank you
*** Thus, I suggest that it would be a good idea, though, for you to open your mind (as you seem to be an expert on the topic), and get away from the hype, and read something by someone with more than half a brain.
Angie, I have been following this situation most closely for awhile (with a son there I have a vested interest), have read tons of information and base my opinion on what information is most credible and verified by multiple sources....and therefore, I differ from your opinion, based on this confirmed information and my own personal experience. I fully trust my ability to determine those with "half a brain".
**As for George W. Bush thinking he's God, that's his delusion, not mine. It wasn't that long ago he thought he was Winston Churchill.
Angie, I thought you were implying that I thought he was God...what I do believe is that God is in all of us.
**You remember, of course, that millioins of Americans were marching in protest against this terrorist attack on Iraq. So are you saying that all of us who marched world wide for peace were wrong?
Yes. But I would fight anyone who tried to stop your protests - it is your right to freely speak your mind. I protested the Vietnam war because I felt that war was wrong.
**Finally, though it's been an informative exchange and though we appear to disagree on the surface, I think we both want the same thing - peace and justice for all , not just a few. That's what I want anyway.
Thank you, and I do agree.
**You don't fight "terror" by creating "terror", Doreen. There has to be another way. Otherwise, what kind of a world are we going to see in the years ahead?
For whatever reason, some people will do anything for greed and power. History is filled with them. And all it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.
**I do not believe a word that anyone in the current administration has to say. Nothing at all, and there's no reason why I should..
That is your choice. But doesn't that sound close-minded??
***Take care, and I'll keep an eye on this board when I am not working. Good night
Thank you for your challenging debate. Sleep tight :-).
***You'd never say it, though.
Calm? I thought I did in my title...?
***Just a suggestion. Please don't put words in my mouth. I have plenty of them, and I dislike immensely having my comments misconstrued to suit (or not) your views or anyone else's.
Angie, I am confused. I cut and paste your words into my response, so I did not fabricate any of your words. Perhaps someone else posted using your name?
***The US, strangely enough, is no more important in the scheme of things than anyone else.
I agree.
***Every nation could say we're not going to be dependent on the UN for anything.
True, but the US did not say that. They are going to be using the UN for humanitarian aid.
***Another country could jump up tomorrow and say we are going to invade such and such because we believe they need a regime change. Think about the ramifications of such an eventuality for a moment. The US abides by the UN when it wants something; when it doesn't get what it wants, it becomes public enemy No. 1.
Not to the Iraqi people who no longer live in a regime of torture & murder. As far as the UN - lets get real. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights is chaired by Najat Al-Hajjaji of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and Iraq was selected to head the United Nations' Conference on Disarmament scheduled to be held in Geneva beginning in May 2003. Iraq ignored the UN and mocked its sanctions for 12 years.
The UN made itself inconsiquental.
** there are more people in the world than "Christians" and Jews, Doreen. A hell of a lot more. What are you advocating? Surely not ethnic cleansing of the masses?
Angie, how did you get to this 'logic'??? Yes, there are lots more people in the world then Christians and Jews...and they all deserve respect and to live without fear of torture or murder or terrorist attack. Why did you imply that I would advocate ethnic cleansing when I have been saying repeatedly that it was IMMORAL to ignore the ethnic cleansing done by Hussein to the Kurds and Shites in Irag??? Again, your argument has taken a very weird twist.
***Did I say you were stupid? Don't remember that.
Again, I am cutting and pasting from a prior post of yours: "Nobody with an iota of intellegence believes the so-called reasons for the destruction of Iraq. No one. Noted journalists all over the world were skeptical and remain so."
Since I do believe there were legitmate reasons to invade Iraq and end Hussein's regime - wouldn't your statement apply to me?
**You certainly don't sound as if you were.
Thank you
*** Thus, I suggest that it would be a good idea, though, for you to open your mind (as you seem to be an expert on the topic), and get away from the hype, and read something by someone with more than half a brain.
Angie, I have been following this situation most closely for awhile (with a son there I have a vested interest), have read tons of information and base my opinion on what information is most credible and verified by multiple sources....and therefore, I differ from your opinion, based on this confirmed information and my own personal experience. I fully trust my ability to determine those with "half a brain".
**As for George W. Bush thinking he's God, that's his delusion, not mine. It wasn't that long ago he thought he was Winston Churchill.
Angie, I thought you were implying that I thought he was God...what I do believe is that God is in all of us.
**You remember, of course, that millioins of Americans were marching in protest against this terrorist attack on Iraq. So are you saying that all of us who marched world wide for peace were wrong?
Yes. But I would fight anyone who tried to stop your protests - it is your right to freely speak your mind. I protested the Vietnam war because I felt that war was wrong.
**Finally, though it's been an informative exchange and though we appear to disagree on the surface, I think we both want the same thing - peace and justice for all , not just a few. That's what I want anyway.
Thank you, and I do agree.
**You don't fight "terror" by creating "terror", Doreen. There has to be another way. Otherwise, what kind of a world are we going to see in the years ahead?
For whatever reason, some people will do anything for greed and power. History is filled with them. And all it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.
**I do not believe a word that anyone in the current administration has to say. Nothing at all, and there's no reason why I should..
That is your choice. But doesn't that sound close-minded??
***Take care, and I'll keep an eye on this board when I am not working. Good night
Thank you for your challenging debate. Sleep tight :-).
I should have asked you to define "terrorist". Bush hasn't done so yet. Apparently his definition is wide sweeping, yet at the same time, somewhat erratiic, isn't it, which makes his rants so entertaining.
I am sure you know that within hours (or was it minutes) after the September 11 attack, we were told that Saudi Arabia was home to at least seventeen (or whatever) of the hijackers.
Ah, but what did Bush do? Bomb Afghanistan. And then what did he do? Bomb Iraq. And there's Saudi Arabia blightely carrying on with its US sanctioned existence. Ah, but it has oil. Iraq has oil.
Now we have him (and his sheep) going on about Iran. Can't stop, can they? And the US economy is worse than it's been in years. I wonder why.
And furthermore don't you find it at all hyprocritcal to be going on about suicide bombers in Palestine when the Israeli army has murdered almost 3,000 people in the past two plus years (most of them civilians) with money given to them by the US? That when these unfortunate people are not killed but injured, in a lot of cases (and we can name them), the IDF would not allow an ambulance through to help them? You see nothing wrong with this?
Maybe my giving you credit for wanting peace and justice for all was misplaced. Maybe you only want peace and justice for christians and jews. I hope and pray this isn't so.
I am sure you know that within hours (or was it minutes) after the September 11 attack, we were told that Saudi Arabia was home to at least seventeen (or whatever) of the hijackers.
Ah, but what did Bush do? Bomb Afghanistan. And then what did he do? Bomb Iraq. And there's Saudi Arabia blightely carrying on with its US sanctioned existence. Ah, but it has oil. Iraq has oil.
Now we have him (and his sheep) going on about Iran. Can't stop, can they? And the US economy is worse than it's been in years. I wonder why.
And furthermore don't you find it at all hyprocritcal to be going on about suicide bombers in Palestine when the Israeli army has murdered almost 3,000 people in the past two plus years (most of them civilians) with money given to them by the US? That when these unfortunate people are not killed but injured, in a lot of cases (and we can name them), the IDF would not allow an ambulance through to help them? You see nothing wrong with this?
Maybe my giving you credit for wanting peace and justice for all was misplaced. Maybe you only want peace and justice for christians and jews. I hope and pray this isn't so.
My last post must have crossed yours. I had not noticed the reference to suicide bombers.
If your son is in the forces, I hope and pray that he will come home safe and well.
I don't believe in war, my friend. I don't believe in someone's son (as Gwynne Dyer said in his brilliant series, "War" ", "any mother's son will do") having to go fight and kill or be killed. Do you suppose if we all tried a little harder.as a world that there might be real peace? We are only here for a short time after all. Can't everyone have the chance to live out his or her life without fear? Without killing and murdering and all the horrid things the world is involved with these days? We just have to try harder.
I thank you too for a most interesting debate, and as promised I will keep an eye on this board. I congratulate you on your research, and when I get some more time I'll check out some of the sites you mentioned. In the meantime take care. I am definitely going to bed before I fall asleep at the computer, which would not be much fun, would it?
And, no, I didn't say, or mean to say, that you thought Bush was God. Bush thinks he is God. It's one of our little jokes. So when I say now "God Bless" I mean the God that's in all of us!
If your son is in the forces, I hope and pray that he will come home safe and well.
I don't believe in war, my friend. I don't believe in someone's son (as Gwynne Dyer said in his brilliant series, "War" ", "any mother's son will do") having to go fight and kill or be killed. Do you suppose if we all tried a little harder.as a world that there might be real peace? We are only here for a short time after all. Can't everyone have the chance to live out his or her life without fear? Without killing and murdering and all the horrid things the world is involved with these days? We just have to try harder.
I thank you too for a most interesting debate, and as promised I will keep an eye on this board. I congratulate you on your research, and when I get some more time I'll check out some of the sites you mentioned. In the meantime take care. I am definitely going to bed before I fall asleep at the computer, which would not be much fun, would it?
And, no, I didn't say, or mean to say, that you thought Bush was God. Bush thinks he is God. It's one of our little jokes. So when I say now "God Bless" I mean the God that's in all of us!
I wanted to respond to some of your questions/statement:
**I should have asked you to define "terrorist". Bush hasn't done so yet.
Actually, he has. Please see this website:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2001/1126usback.htm
Regarding your questions about the Saudi ties to 9/11 - Al Qaeda was responsible. Al Qaeda has cells in many countries, including the US. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. Any country where the government harbors or supports terrorist organizations is liable for the terrorists activities. I think this message is now being understood by those governments.
** And the US economy is worse than it's been in years. I wonder why.
I believe that is due to the wildly inflated 'value' given to dot.coms. The so-called 'profits' were only on paper - the sad thing is people believed it, and companies banked on it. And there were too many accountants who ignored their fiduciary duties and allowed some noteworthy corporations (like Enron, Tyco & World Com) to perpetuate the fraud because they were caught up in the greed. But it will right itself. The market is already rebounding, slowly, with more realistic numbers based on reality.
**And furthermore don't you find it at all hyprocritcal to be going on about suicide bombers in Palestine
The only mention I made regarding that was that Hussein supported them by making payments of 25K to the families of the suicide bombers...I think it is horrible that the Jews and Arabs hate and kill each other, and there has been a tremendous loss of life for what purpose? I think that Bush's roadmap for peace might actually work, because for once the Palestinians agree to it, and Israel has agreed to a separate Palestinian state. Let's pray that this works!
**If your son is in the forces, I hope and pray that he will come home safe and well.
Thank you, I appreciate all prayers in his behalf.
**I don't believe in war, my friend. I don't believe in someone's son (as Gwynne Dyer said in his brilliant series, "War" ", "any mother's son will do") having to go fight and kill or be killed.
I prayed that Hussein would do the right thing and flee; but he did not. I think war is horrible, and it's a shame that we have not advanced to the level where fighting is unthinkable. Like I said before, there are greedy, power hungry tyrants who still live among us, and can not be allowed to murder and torture the masses to advance their own causes. They rise to power because no one stops them. It is in the best interest of all that they are stopped. It is not easy to stop evil, and usually requires much sacrifice, but it is for the ultimate good.
**Do you suppose if we all tried a little harder.as a world that there might be real peace? We are only here for a short time after all. Can't everyone have the chance to live out his or her life without fear? Without killing and murdering and all the horrid things the world is involved with these days? We just have to try harder.
I agree. As the Tao says:
Handle things before they arise.
Manage affairs before they are in a mess.
A thick tree grows from a tiny seed.
A tall building arises from a mound of earth.
A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step.
We will find no peace on earth without finding peace in ourselves. It starts there.
Peace to you, Angie
**I should have asked you to define "terrorist". Bush hasn't done so yet.
Actually, he has. Please see this website:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2001/1126usback.htm
Regarding your questions about the Saudi ties to 9/11 - Al Qaeda was responsible. Al Qaeda has cells in many countries, including the US. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. Any country where the government harbors or supports terrorist organizations is liable for the terrorists activities. I think this message is now being understood by those governments.
** And the US economy is worse than it's been in years. I wonder why.
I believe that is due to the wildly inflated 'value' given to dot.coms. The so-called 'profits' were only on paper - the sad thing is people believed it, and companies banked on it. And there were too many accountants who ignored their fiduciary duties and allowed some noteworthy corporations (like Enron, Tyco & World Com) to perpetuate the fraud because they were caught up in the greed. But it will right itself. The market is already rebounding, slowly, with more realistic numbers based on reality.
**And furthermore don't you find it at all hyprocritcal to be going on about suicide bombers in Palestine
The only mention I made regarding that was that Hussein supported them by making payments of 25K to the families of the suicide bombers...I think it is horrible that the Jews and Arabs hate and kill each other, and there has been a tremendous loss of life for what purpose? I think that Bush's roadmap for peace might actually work, because for once the Palestinians agree to it, and Israel has agreed to a separate Palestinian state. Let's pray that this works!
**If your son is in the forces, I hope and pray that he will come home safe and well.
Thank you, I appreciate all prayers in his behalf.
**I don't believe in war, my friend. I don't believe in someone's son (as Gwynne Dyer said in his brilliant series, "War" ", "any mother's son will do") having to go fight and kill or be killed.
I prayed that Hussein would do the right thing and flee; but he did not. I think war is horrible, and it's a shame that we have not advanced to the level where fighting is unthinkable. Like I said before, there are greedy, power hungry tyrants who still live among us, and can not be allowed to murder and torture the masses to advance their own causes. They rise to power because no one stops them. It is in the best interest of all that they are stopped. It is not easy to stop evil, and usually requires much sacrifice, but it is for the ultimate good.
**Do you suppose if we all tried a little harder.as a world that there might be real peace? We are only here for a short time after all. Can't everyone have the chance to live out his or her life without fear? Without killing and murdering and all the horrid things the world is involved with these days? We just have to try harder.
I agree. As the Tao says:
Handle things before they arise.
Manage affairs before they are in a mess.
A thick tree grows from a tiny seed.
A tall building arises from a mound of earth.
A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step.
We will find no peace on earth without finding peace in ourselves. It starts there.
Peace to you, Angie
Thanks, and peace to you as well.
Always refreshing and stimulating to read what you have written. Always hit hard on Israel, for the people in the U.S. are very blind when it comes to that bastion of democracy.
As to our economy, it is a very fragile thing. People actually think the stock market is real. Try looking up the plunge protection team on the net. It might open some eyes.
Kudos to you Angie, may more of us see like you and Nessie do.
As to our economy, it is a very fragile thing. People actually think the stock market is real. Try looking up the plunge protection team on the net. It might open some eyes.
Kudos to you Angie, may more of us see like you and Nessie do.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$190.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network