“Bagdad Burning Blog” - Baathist Propaganda
Wed September 3rd, 2003 21:59 MSTIn a remarkable display of arrogance, “River Bend,” the Iraqi who writes Baghdad Burning has written another vicious and ignorant screed, which exactly parrots the Baathist propaganda of Saddam Hussein, and makes hideous accusations against United States soldiers.
Perhaps it is because of his lack of knowledge of events, having lived his life under tyranny. But I suspect not, because other Iraqi’s (like Salam Pax) have a much more mature viewpoint. Thus the reader might wonder about the motivations of the author who wrote the following article, and perhaps his association with the previous regime of Iraq, which he never mentions or criticizes.
September 11 was a tragedy. Not because 3,000 Americans died but because 3,000 humans died. I was reading about the recorded telephone conversations of victims and their families on September 11. I thought it was awful, and perfectly timed. Just when people are starting to question the results and incentives behind this occupation, they are immediately bombarded with reminders of September 11. Never mind Iraq had nothing to do with it.
It was timed to the second anniversary. but you, of course, are implying it is done to somehow increase support for the action in Iraq. Well, I guess you are used to government controlled media and don’t understand how freedom works!I get emails constantly reminding me of the tragedy of September 11 and telling me how the Arabs brought all of this upon themselves. Never mind it was originally blamed on Afghanistan (who, for your information, arent Arabs).
Too bad you are so misinformed! The September 11 hijackers were, in fact, Arabs, who were being sheltered and supported by the tyrannical non-Arab government of Afghanistan. Who do YOU think did 9-11? And this is not a war against all Arabs, it is a war against terrorists and rogue governments (like Saddam’s) who shelter them or may arm them with weapons of mass destruction.I am constantly reminded of the 3,000 Americans who died that day and asked to put behind me the 8,000 worthless Iraqis we lost to missiles, tanks and guns.
Perhaps you don’t realize that there is a significant difference between intentionally killing civilians, and the accidental deaths that occur when fighting a vicious regime like you Iraqi’s lived under (although none of you seem to take any responsibility for it). Perhaps you don’t realize that for the scale of this war, the civilian casualty number was amazingly low, or that Americans and British took extra risks and spent huge amounts of money specifically to minimize civilian casualties. Nobody is happy about the deaths of Iraqi civilians, and those who ask you to forget them are fools. But you need to gain some perspective!People marvel that were not out in the streets, decking the monstrous, khaki tanks with roses and jasmine. They wonder why we dont crown the hard, ugly helmets of the troops with wreaths of laurel. They question why we mourn our dead instead of gratefully offering them as sacrifices to the Gods of Democracy and Liberty. They wonder why were bitter.
We don’t need the roses. However, one does wonder why in this entire screed you do not once refer to the evil government that we displaced. We didn’t do it for you, we did it to protect ourselves, but you still benefit!But, I *havent* forgotten
I remember February 13, 1991. I remember the missiles dropped on Al-Amriyah shelter- a civilian bomb shelter in a populated, residential area in Baghdad. Bombs so sophisticated, that the first one drilled through to the heart of the shelter and the second one exploded inside. The shelter was full of women and children- boys over the age of 15 werent allowed. I remember watching images of horrified people clinging to the fence circling the shelter, crying, screaming, begging to know what had happened to a daughter, a mother, a son, a family that had been seeking protection within the shelters walls.
I remember seeing families of civilians in Israel, intentionally blown to pieces by terrorists that your government funded. I remember that Saddam paid rewards to the families of these terrorists whenever they successfully killed civilians, many of whom were Americans in Israel. But I guess, to you, the only innocent are Iraqis.…
I remember the day the Pentagon, after making various excuses, claimed it had been a mistake.
And I suppose you think that the Pentagon intentionally killed hundreds of civilians? I’d like to hear the logic behind that! Of course it was a mistake, because it had no benefit whatsoever to the US - quite the opposite. Perhaps you should be asking why Saddam had a command bunker in the same shelter as a civilian shelter? Could it be that he wanted your people to be killed for the propaganda value? Nah… he wouldn’t do anything like that! You save all of your criticism for the Pentagon, without a shred of logic to support it.I remember 13 years of sanctions, backed firmly by the US and UK, in the name of WMD nobody ever found. Sanctions so rigid, we had basic necessities, like medicine, on waiting lists for months and months, before they were refused. I remember chemicals like chlorine, necessary for water purification, being scrutinized and delayed at the expense of millions of people.
No WMD’s? I remember the Anthrax (not totally accounted for). I remember the botulin toxin, the aflatoxin, and all the other biological weapons banned by internationial law. I remember the mustard gas and nerve gas, which your country used to kill thousands of its own citizens and more Iranians, whom your flawless country had attacked without provocation. I remember the huge nuclear weapons program, with its supply of yellowcake, its huge calutrons, its vast facilities. I remember the radiological dispersion device (”dirty bomb”) that your country TESTED (again in violation of international law)I remember having to ask aid workers, and visiting activists, to please bring a book because publishing companies refused to sell scientific books and journals to Iraq. I remember having to share books with other students in college, in an attempt to make the most of the limited resources.
I remember UN Inspectors being lied to at every turn. I remember them being blocked in their activities. I remember that your government successfully concealed its biological weapons program through four years of inspections until one of Saddam’s relatives revealed the details. I remember your country expelling the UN inspectors, knowing that to do so would continue the sanctions. I remember that suitable inspections, which only took a few months in South Africa, would have resulted in the lifting of the sanctions. Can you explain why your country would not allow such inspections?I remember wasted, little bodies in huge hospital beds- dying of hunger and of disease; diseases that could easily be treated with medications that were forbidden. I remember parents with drawn faces peering anxiously into doctors eyes, searching for a miracle.
I remember your leader, whom you have failed to blame for anything, building over 40 opulent palaces during this time. I remember that medications were not forbidden, but not affordable because Saddam kept the money for himself and his cronies, and intentionally allowed children to die for the propaganda value. It obviously worked in your case. Didn’t you notice all the construction of the palaces while you were there? How could you miss it? How often were you a guest?I remember the depleted uranium. How many have heard of depleted uranium? Those are household words to Iraqi people. The depleted uranium weapons used in 1991 (and possibly this time too) have resulted in a damaged environment and an astronomical rise in the cancer rate in Iraq. I remember seeing babies born with a single eye, 3 legs or no face- a result of DU poisoning.
I know that depleted uranium is no risk. I know that there are many studies that have been done to show that. I know that babies are born all the time with deformities, and there is no scientific way to establish any particular cause, especially DU. You can check here for details on DU’s lack of health risk, or here for other scientific information on radiation - something you clearly need to learn!I remember dozens of dead in the no fly zones, bombed by British and American planes claiming to protect the north and south of Iraq. I remember the mother, living on the outskirts of Mosul, who lost her husband and 5 kids when an American plane bombed the father and his sons in the middle of a field of peaceful, grazing sheep.
What are we to make of this? Do you think that Americans bomb families just for fun? Could it have been an accident? Could you have been lied to by your previous regime? I remember the Kurds who are very happy because those aircraft protected them from Saddam, who had been slaughtering and gassing them until the US protected them.And we are to believe that this is all being done for the sake of the people.
No, the battle of Iraq was to protect the world from Iraq’s dangerous regime, its weapons of mass destruction, and its support of terrorism. We are glad that you now have the freedom to express you thoughts as a result of our effort, but we didn’t send out people to die to save your sorry rear end! The war (of which Iraq is just a part) is an attempt to protect the world against terrorism magnified by weapons of mass destruction.A friend of E.s, who lives in Amiriyah, was telling us about an American soldier he had been talking to in the area. Es friend pointed to the shelter and told him of the atrocity committed in 1991. The soldier turned with the words, Dont blame me- I was only 9! And I was only 11.
American long-term memory is exclusive to American traumas. The rest of the world should simply put the past behind, move forward, be pragmatic and get over it.
Those of us who were a bit older were horrified and saddened by the attack on the shelter, although we remember the difference between an atrocity (as practiced frequently by your leader) and accidents, which are an inevitable part of war. Keep in mind that many of our casualties in that war were inflicted on our own forces by our own forces. War is difficult, something you clearly do not understand.Someone asked me whether it was true that the Iraqi people were dancing in the streets of Baghdad when the World Trade Center fell. Of course its not true. I was watching the tv screen in disbelief- looking at the reactions of the horrified people. I wasnt dancing because the terrified faces on the screen, could have been the same faces in front of the Amiriyah shelter on February 13 its strange how horror obliterates ethnic differences- all faces look the same when they are witnessing the death of loved ones.
Maybe Iraqi’s didn’t dance in the street. I don’t know. I do remember that Arabs danced in the street in a number of countries.
What did YOU do while your government was allowing children to die by stealing the aid for its private hospitals and using the nation’s income to build palaces for Saddam and his crony’s? Do you feel any guilt? What is your excuse? Are you a coward? A collaborator? A Baathist who gained from Saddam and his atrocities? Is there any reason that the rest of the world should respect Iraqis like yourself, who blame all of the problems in Iraq on everyone but the Iraqis, and never even mention the real cause of your problems? I think not.
Riverbend (Girl Blog from Iraq…) seems to have had a perfect life under Saddam but now everything is really bad because of the US. Common sense tells me the only Iraqi’s that thought life was grand under Saddam were privelidged Bathists. So while I read her blog, I’m not willing to assume she speaks for the average Iraqi.
No, the battle of Iraq was to protect the world from Iraq’s dangerous regime, its weapons of mass destruction, and its support of terrorism. We are glad that you now have the freedom to express you thoughts as a result of our effort, but we didn’t send out people to die to save your sorry rear end! The war (of which Iraq is just a part) is an attempt to protect the world against terrorism magnified by weapons of mass destruction.
I have yet to see any proof of the chemical weaponry in Iraq which is what our american government claimed that the reason for the attack was. Please email me a respectable websites URL or source that shows this information that you seem so sure of.
Riverbend might not speak for the average Iraq citizen, and her viewpoints might be different, but she still is accualy over there living in Iraq and dealing with the American occupation every day, which is more then most who criticize her every day.
You do make many good points on this site however, especialy when it concerns the casualties in Iraq. No one over hear is intentionaly wanting civilians to die, yet we are willing to let it happen in order to force a governmental change on Iraq. Even if they deaths are accidental they are our fault and responcibility.
I, like you, also have a great respect for the maturity of Salam Pax, but it is imporant that we look at these events from many different viewpoints of Iraqies, not just the ones that we personaly agree with. It is safe to assume that their oppinions on this war varies as much as the rest of the worlds, but for them they dont have to just hear about whats going on in the news. They have to live it every day.
The reason for the attack was to prevent Iraq from giving weapons of mass destruction to terrorists who might use it in western countries.
If you don’t believe that there was such a likelihood, then you have to explain why it was that Saddam Hussein intentionally forced his country to go through 12 years of sanctions (which hurt him none at all - he built over 40 palaces during that time - all of which Riverbend ignores)? He could easily have ended the sanctions by allowing suitable inspections. Instead he blocked inspections at every opportunity.
Furthermore, he had a history of using chemical weapons in warfare and against his population. He had tested biological weapons on people. We now have solid evidence that Iraq had mothballed his nuclear weapons systems, with plans to revitalize it when the inspectors were gone.
The most probable explanation for the lack of WMD finds is this: The US built up massed forces near Iraq, which is why Iraq was forced to readmit the UN inspectors it had thrown out it 1998. France advised Saddam that the inspectors would not be there very long, because the US could not afford to keep large numbers of troops in Kuwait for a long period (which was true). They also advised Saddam that there would never be a UN resolution authorizing the US to invade, so he didn’t need to actually have the weapons. Thus Saddam just destroyed his chemical weapons stocks (since they are very easy to recreate), hid his biological weapons seedstock (easy to do - just one hidden refrigerator somehwere) and buried his nuclear facilities (in a centrifuge based separation system, there are no huge parts - like a nuclear reactor - that can’t be hidden). We have credible reports from a number of Iraqis whose job it was to bury things in the desert during the UN inspection regime just prior to the war. These were members of security services, so it is unlikely they were just burying municipal garbage!
As far as Riverbend, I do read he blog. I am, however, disgusted by her perspective. She has yet to say anything bad about the Baathist regime which, by any standards, was one of the worst on earth in the last 100 years. She blames the Americans for everything and assumes the worst motives in all cases. For example, she blames us for the crime, but never mentioned that Saddam released ALL of the imprisoned criminals (but not many political prisoners, who were still being executed right up until US troops arrived at Baghdad) before the war.
Thus I pointed out that her viewpoint is poisonous and characteristic of the Baathist regime.
As far as accidental deaths, I would argue that they are the responsibility of the government of Iraq. They intentionally sent out irregular forces to fight us, disguised as civilians, in violation of the rules of war. This is why our troops shot up so many civilian vehicles (many of which, in fact, did contain fighters). They would hold a person’s family hostage and require that the individual take a car bomb to a US checkpoint and set it off. Again, none of this is acknowledged by Riverbend.
I read the view of many. That doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t criticize those who are wrong, and Riverbend is very, very wrong.
After all, we are free to debate, right?
Ironic that you should call this site “Useful Fools” - since you are obviously one for the right-wing regime that rules this land. If you really believe the Bush administration wasn’t using 9/11 to bolster its illegal takeover of Iraq (where NO WMD have been found), then you are more than fool. I hope you will be happy living in a fascist state that has taken over the world by military might, because that is their one and only aim. You doubt my word? Go look it up. Project for a New American Century. It’s on the web. Written in 1997, it outlines the plan for American world domination. But if that’s okay with you, you would probably have been right at home in Nazi Germany.
It always amazes me the gullibility of some of the conspiracy theorists in the world. And of course, if they are on the left, they always find a way to associate those on the right with Nazi Germany, even though NAZI means National Socialist Party, and the worst dictatorships in the world have mostly been Communists.
But I wouldn’t expect someone who believes that 9/11 was a Bush plot to take over the world to change his mind based on mere evidence.
Oh, and Project for a New American Century is a good idea, IMHO. Better Americans in the most powerful position than most other folks. We actually care about human rights and suffering and tyranny, and have a history of doing something about it.
So, Henry, you are one of the Useful Fools this blog is about and for.
In one of riverbends earlier blogs she says that Iraqis are stereotyped as poor people living in tents with only boys learning in school while the women stay at home wearing black with 10-12 children and baking bread all day long. Then in a later blog she turns right around and stereotypes Americans: She says that life is not all about skyscrapers,mobile phones,computers and mcdonalds. Wow!! If that is not hippocrisy I do not know what is. She must be from a wealthy family who flourished under Saddams rule while her fellow country men starved and were tortured all around her.
So, dumping 2000 pound bombs on a bomb shelter is not killing innocent civilians? Remember the geneva code?
Iraqi WMB> LOL, keep in mind, thier farthest reachin g missle could go as far as kuwait. The US was always protected.
They should have gotten rid of saddam the first time…
The girl has a real viewpoint on the world in Iraq, Her latest writeup was realistic, and pointed out the OBVIOUS double standard the american population has for people. I will also remind you that there have been many convient arrests of many people who oppose the americans in Iraq. Most if not all of the Al Jazerra reporters have been arrested and deported, and americans complain that the Arab broadcasts are unfair, and bias. The american broadcasts are moreso. If you look at the late printings on the page. they are making the hate for bush by arabs look less and less. Also the comment about the not allwoing of us inspectors in the country. Iraq was following American example. America refuses to follow the UN when it does not meet its needs. Iraq did not want the bothersome inspectors in the country, who were bias to the United states digging theough its country. If the UN was looking through the United States for anything the puiblic would go crazy
If she ever, once said anything nice about the Americans or anything bad about Saddam, I might consider her as having a possibility of reasonableness.
Your other points are crap. Are you European? They are the ones usually being fed that sort of propaganda.
An Unfortunate Anniversary
Here is John Moore’s response to Riverbend’s above-mentioned Sept. 3rd entry, in which he rebuts her statements. A couple of months later, Mr. Moore did this entry on Iraqi bloggers (it was at that entry, by the way, that I posted my first comments at …
After reading posts from people like John Moore, I was so scared I peed my diapers.
Just remember that the American government supplied Iraq with chemical weapons. He used them on Iranians (which I am) brutally and without any outcry from the western world. Most Iranians are more than happy that the world is rid of Saddam but that does not mean that they trust America. Why should they. Do you really believe that our administration has sincere intensions about Iraq?
The United States government did not supply chemical weapons to Iraq. Of all the governments supply weapons, USSR was first, France was second, and we were around tenth with only 1%.
If you can’t support your allegations, you shouldn’t put them on the blog. If you can, then you should provide evidence.
I grew up in that country that supplied “useful fools” for Lenin & Co in large numbers. Maybe I am one of them
But, hey , I live in the States, so at least it would prove that this country is not free of those “fools”either.
Anyway, based on my whole experience of living there, the very sort of thinking and argumentation you put into this thread is exactly the characteristic of the “useful fools”. Let’s brand the opponent an “imperialist spy”, “enemy of the people”, …, “baathist supporter”, “one who does not understand how freedom works”…
I don’t say that whoever writes that blog is right. However, it looks quite probable that she lives there, while you don’t. Am I wrong? If not, then what makes you think she is wrong? Does it conflict with your view of the world or something?
It’s comic that you demand that others support their “allegations”, but what about yourself? Where do those numbers about chemical weapons come from? And do you actually admit that the US -did- supply those weapons?! Argh…
Don’t you think it’s hypocrisy (of course you don’t) to demand substantiation of the facts when you support the war that was based on flawed “facts”. I leave it up to you to look up the references for the statements from senior officials like Powell admitting it.
You accused the author of that blog of vicious lies and hideous accusations against US soldiers. Don’t deny it, you did. But what about all that commotion around the abuse photos? Don Rumsfeld admitted them and many others too (the whole Senate, etc.). Oh, well, may be they are enemies of the freedom too… but you know better, don’t you? Why do you think Pentagon bans all of a sudden certain interrogation methods (CNN, etc.)? Were not they already illegal and only the result of a few sickos who disobeyed the rules?
It’s a wide open question who is a useful fool here…
BK
I am well familiar with Communist propaganda, having listened to it off and on for three decades. The difference between what I am saying and communist propaganda is that I am providing truth, to the best of my ability (which, on these subjects, is pretty damned good). Hence your attempt to equate my writing with that of the propagandists is simply cheap rhetoric.
By your name, I suspect you are from East Germany, which I visited in 1966 and 1991. A country where 10% worked for the Stasi. Were you one of them?
If you really grew up under Communism, you know that they used a mixture of truth and lies, and that almost everyone knew they were being lied to, but had a harder time figuring out which things were true, which was why the technique was effective.
I am not doing that. If you think I am, prove it. I analyzze the facts from various sources, and write my opinion as I see it. I do not make up facts.
Simply making a judgment and attaching a label is not propaganda, if the judgments and the label are a result of a truth-seeking project rather than a propaganda effort.
Regarding supporting allegations. I said we provided 1% to Iraq. A quick trip to google will provide all the information you need. On facts that are solid and easy to find from reputable sources on the net, I’m not going to do homework for people. I have supported many of the facts I publish, but I am not an encyclopedia and don’t get paid for this.
If I see facts that I know are wrong, or for which I cannot find a valid source, then I ask people to support them. Since you can easily find the 1% number yourself on the web, I’m not going to bother. By the way, that 1% includes dual use material. It did not include chemical weapons. It did not include biological weapons, although seed stock that could be used for some biological weapons (Anthrax, botulinum toxin, etc) was available to any qualified researcher in the world from the private, non-profit American Type Culture collection, and indeed Iraq did get cultures from there, which is hardly a crime.
I don’t remember accusing Riverbend (presumably the blog author you are referring to) of all of the things you said, but I very well may have, because she did do those things, so let’s stipulate that I did. So what? My accusations are based on reading almost a year’s worth of her output.
To try to turn my observation into a propaganda screed is really pretty pathetic.
What about the commotion about the abuse photos? They shouldn’t have been taken, and having been taken, they shouldn’t have been allowed to get out. The people who committed some of those acts should be, and will be punished.
However, in some cases those acts (not including the sodomy) are justified. The Pentagon changed rules because, due to a shortage of qualified manpower, they used unqualified and improperly supervised people, resulting in sadism and bizarre sexual play instead of appropriate pre-interrogation softening up. As a result, these pictures came out. That meant that, because of the unseriousness of many in America, we could no longer use appropriate techniques in Iraq. That means more Americans will die and more Iraqis will die. Why capture a prisoner if you can’t interrogate him? Just shoot him. That’s the reality of war.
Oh, and by the way, in training for fighting the people your country armed (North Vietnam), I went through worse tortures that shown in those pictures. That was because your allies ignored all rules, and we had to be trained to deal with it.
So if you think I am going to apologize, forget it. Some bad people did some bad things under conditions of inadequate supervision. They are going to be punished (unless the release of the photos poisons the prosecution). These things happen in war, and I am not going to deny it. The people who did that will hopefully suffer severe punishment, but the person who did the worst harm to the War on Terrorism was whoever released those photos. Not because the photos revealed a cover-up (they didn’t - the press was briefed in January about the investigation and several times since), but because they will be used by terrorists to recruit vulnerable young men.
If you live in the states, why do you have a Russian email address?
THe legality and morality of interrogation techniques depends on the circumstances. If my daughter was going to die unless I tortured a terrorist, you know what I would do. What happened at Abu Ghraib was a program that spun out of control.
Do we use those techniques when appropriate? Yes. Do we use rape? No. Do we use sexual humiliation? Yes, if the information to be gained is worth it and the technique is likely to work. Do we use it on common criminals? No. Do we use a water board? Yes, and it was used on students in the school I went to, but later than when I went there.
So, what’s your point, eh?
Just want to yell at an American?
I deal with lots of people like you - those who are unable to discriminate between closely related concepts. It’s a shame, really.
Thanks for the detailed reply, though it did not surprise me.
So what that you called what Riverbend wrote a creed, lie, etc.? Not much. She was right and you not. There was abuse. Limited? Maybe. But there was, period. Your credibility just took a plunge, that’s all.
My advise, don’t put too much on the facts from the internet. Yes, there are solid fact there. But it is also full of stuff like the one you write as well.
Unlike you, I not only heard of, I lived under communism. And I was fortunate to live in both of the systems, the West and the East. I can compare different facts, btw it’s part of my profession. So, please don’t pretend to have a better knowledge of the subject, because you don’t.
Yes, you provide the truth to the extent of your ability, but that is a measure of your ability only, whatever you think of it.
You don’t seem to get the point about supplying chemical weapons to Iraq. The fact is that none other but Rumsfeld himself was there during that chemical warfare affair. The fact is also that the US unfortunately did not react much then on their use, and as you say, even supplied them there. There are other not so pretty facts, like the fact the US shortsightedly trained a Frankenstein of Osama. That the administration tried to sell bogus info to get support in the world for the war and fell flat on its face because the world appeared to be not as stupid as some like to think. And that’s unfortunately not all. It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. These are just things that happened, for one reason or the other. The great cause justifies the means?
Don’t get me wrong. The US is a great country. But it is stupid to neglect the shortcomings. Those photos should not have been released? Maybe, because they did have quite a disastrous effect. But where is the line?
It is EXACTLY the thing that commies did: feed part-truths, hiding or “justifying” the bad ones not to hurt the “good cause”. It is EXACTLY the idea that the cause justifies the means that commies used. It is because of your biased presentations that I think you are a perfect material to be one of the “useful fools”. In fact you are, and strangely(?) I am not the only one who think this way. Don’t cover yourself with words like I hate commies. Words don’t matter, what matters are actions.
I hear ya about your daughter. But what makes you think others are different? You think all non-Americans are lowly cowards? What would YOU think when an uninvited 500lb bomb would “unintentionally” kill someone you love just because s/he happened to be in the neighborhood of some jerk? Huh? You just don’t get it, do you? You think it helps multiplying people who hate us? Keeps you busy, doesn’t it. There were Arabs on those plane, so let’s get all Middle East, just in case?
I am not German and moreover not a Stasi (though you may wish it all you want). I don’t see how my origin matters. No, I am not French either (damn!). Do you think being born elsewhere would preclude me from being an American? Check out the governor of California. So go figure. But I did serve in Germany, so yes, I’ve been there too. Why e-mail with a RU domain? I have several, .com, .edu., etc. That one for my business there. I chose that one exactly to see your reaction. Are you going to continue to ridicule yourself? Pathetic? Keep going.
Do I want to yell at AN American? No
Actually I prefer talking, not yelling, even to you, who just happen to be AN American. And using your words: even if I did, so what?
So what’s the point? Trying to reason with you? No. I don’t really count on it, and your reply proved it. But I do respect your right for your own views and appreciate you posting my stuff and replying to it. I just happened to come across your thread and wanted to let you and others know that not all here in the States think the way you do.
I don’t know, if I will reply to your eventual reply, time is precious. Anyway, I think I have said all I wanted. You may call this unsubstantiated liberal brainwashed blubber or something (actually I consider myself a moderate conservative). It’s a free country, right? But I hope you will start thinking and really take all the facts as they come. Fairly.
And when you talk to someone on the net, don’t assume you know who is on the other end, it may look embarassing. Let my or anybody else’s abbility to descrimante between closely related concepts be judged by somebody who understands what it is.
AK
If you have specific statements that you disagree with, put them out and we can discuss them. If you are visiting here only to attack, without discussion, then you are not welcome. Your response almost completely ignores my response, except where you make false assertions about it.
You repeat your assertions about Riverbend. But you provide no evidence. Go pluck up something she said that contradicts what I am saying (along with the URL), and you might find respect paid to your argument. Simply asserting that my credibility just took a plunge is, to put it mildly, laughable, because your credibility, as I shall show below, is not worth much.
As far as your advice to not rely too much on the internet, gee thanks… I thought everything on the internet was true. You mean those penis enlargers don’t work? I’m shocked.
So, please don’t pretend to have a better knowledge of the subject [communism, or the differences between it an freedom], because you don’t.
Don’t worry, I won’t. You implied that I did. I will leave it to any reader looking at this exchange to judge for themselves how absurd your assertion is.
Yes, you provide the truth to the extent of your ability, but that is a measure of your ability only, whatever you think of it.
Yes, I do. And that is a lot better than lying, which some do. It is also better than going to other peoples’ sites, making numerous false assumptions about them, and then personally attacking them for it. As for my ability to provide truth, I let my readership judge on that also.
You don’t seem to get the point about supplying chemical weapons to Iraq. The fact is that none other but Rumsfeld himself was there during that chemical warfare affair.
And you don’t seem to understand several important facts: (1) That is not evidence that Rumsfeld, supplied, aided in the use of, or knew of the use of chemical weapons at the time. (2) The enemy of my enemy is my friend is sometimes an unfortunate stance that must be taken.
The fact is also that the US unfortunately did not react much then on their use, and as you say, even supplied them there.
I don’t know the US’s reaction. I never said we supplied the chemical weapons. What was it you were saying about credibility?
There are other not so pretty facts, like the fact the US shortsightedly trained a Frankenstein of Osama.
We did not train Osama. I know a person who was involved in the operations in Afghanistan, and Osama was just one of many characters there. His main function, by the way, was providing money and logistical support, not fighting. But let’s say we did train him. So what?
That the administration tried to sell bogus info to get support in the world for the war and fell flat on its face because the world appeared to be not as stupid as some like to think.
This is full of inanities. The administration thought the information was valid. The administration never thought the world was stupid. Much of our WMD information came from foreign intelligence agencies, who universally though that Saddam had WMDs. And they were right. Read David Kay’s report. Read the latest report of his successor. We found all sorts of WMD programs (illegal under numerous UN resolutions and not found by Hanz Clouseau Blix. We found illegal missile programs. We found stocks of organophostphate pesticide hidden in an underground bunker. The people who investigated the bunker - soldiers and reporters - had to be treated for nerve agent poisoning. Why don’t you explain why Iraq was hiding organophosphate pesticides in the bunker. Also explain why Iraq had a plant for producing Baccilus Thuringensis? Explain why they were working on Ricin technology up until the invasion (a violation of UN rules). Explain why they ordered a scientist to keep botulinum seed stock in his refrigerator. Explain why we found parts for a isotopic separation centrifuge and a full set of plans in another scientist’s rose garden? Explain what was in the large convoy that was seen crossing into Syria just before the invasion. Explain why the line generals, when questioned, all reported that their adjacent units had ready-to-use chemical munitions (and yet, none of them actually did)? Explain where the never accounted for (another UN violation) known huge stocks of biological weapons went?
But first, explain how, if you had been president Bush, how you could have known that Saddam did not have stocks of WMDs when every intelligence agency in the world and his own generals thought he did? If you cannot adequately answer that question, anything else about the failure to find stocks of WMDs is nothing but rhetoric. I have given this challenge to many people who made the same claim you did. Not one has answered it. Care to be the first?
Don’t get me wrong. The US is a great country. But it is stupid to neglect the shortcomings. Those photos should not have been released? Maybe, because they did have quite a disastrous effect. But where is the line?
Finally a reasonable comment. I agree with everything you said there. And I think you draw the line at the point necessary to make sure the techniques are not misused, which in this case was prosecution of those involved, and whatever commanders allow inappropriate use of those techniques. The release of those photos make that punishment less likely, due to the “command influence” defense allowable under military law.
As I mentioned before, I have been through worse “tortures” than that in the service of my country, so my main concerns with those photos are:
1) A unit got out of control, using valid interrogation techniques in the wrong circumstances, probably on the wrong individuals, and with inadequate supervision. That is not acceptable. They appeared to have been inadequately trained also, but that is not a valid excuse, just a condemnation of whoever should have trained them.
2) Some behaviors were inappropriate, depending on the level and time criticality of intelligence that could be gained and the certainty that the prisoner had it. That included the bizarre sexual behavior.
Stripping a suspect naked and mocking his genitals is not inappropriate behavior when dealing with terrorists. It is also neither torture nor an atrocity. It is not precluded under the Geneva Convention. It is shocking only to those who do not understand how intelligence is gathered by every intelligence agency in the world, when the intelligence value justifies it.
However, doing it for the sexual gratification of the guards or interrogators is absolutely wrong. Strong techniques of interrogation must never be used for personal pleasure, and interrogators are normally screened to prevent this. In this case, it was untrained MPs who were also degenerate enough to enjoy their behavior.
3) Some behaviors were absolutely wrong except under the most extreme of circumstance, with the best experts involved, with the highest level prisoners who have information extremely vital to protecting innocent lives - in this case: sodomy or most other sexual behavior.
I would hope that, when appropriate and under tight control by true professionals, we continue to use these techniques. But we need much tighter control over who does it and to whom they are applied.
It is EXACTLY the thing that commies did: feed part-truths, hiding or “justifying” the bad ones not to hurt the “good cause”. It is EXACTLY the idea that the cause justifies the means that commies used. It is because of your biased presentations that I think you are a perfect material to be one of the “useful fools”. In fact you are, and strangely(?) I am not the only one who think this way. Don’t cover yourself with words like I hate commies. Words don’t matter, what matters are actions.
It is important to understand how to deal with sensitive and difficult decisions. Interrogation of prisoners who are likely to have high value intelligence is a place where those decisions are made. But keep in mind that the communists used their techniques on their own people. We use them only on those who are fighting outside the rules of warfare, and only when there is substantial value to be gained.
The particular behavior that you describe of the Communists is common to all bureaucracies when they try to justify their actions. The important issue is whether the actions are actually justified. The reason that decisions of this sort are, and should be so difficult, is that we try to avoid, in our society, “end justifies the means” approaches, because it is a slippery slope under which any kind of evil behavior can be justified.
But there are some extreme cases where, in fact, the end does justify the means. Unfortunately in Iraq, it is clear that the corrosive effect of that dangerous doctrine was allowed to affect non-professionals. In other words, it was a justification used by those who have not been trained, vetted and supervised to avoid over-use of those means.
And then you are back to ad hominem attacks with:I hear ya about your daughter. But what makes you think others are different? You think all non-Americans are lowly cowards?
What makes you think that either of your questions relects my attitudes? They do not.
What would YOU think when an uninvited 500lb bomb would “unintentionally” kill someone you love just because s/he happened to be in the neighborhood of some jerk? Huh? You just don’t get it, do you? You think it helps multiplying people who hate us? Keeps you busy, doesn’t it. There were Arabs on those plane, so let’s get all Middle East, just in case?
No, you just don’t get it. Do you think I don’t appreciate the horrors that we caused in our war? Do you think we didn’t know that our attack would somewhat increase hatred against us (less than predicted so far - largely because too many in the Middle East already hate us for supporting Israel).
I am not German and moreover not a Stasi (though you may wish it all you want).
Again, you seem to impute a wish on my part - another of your false assumptions.
I don’t see how my origin matters. It is only a matter of curiosity. I meet many people who are not Americans, and I am always interested in where they came from. It helps me understand the impact of foreign cultures on attitudes.
Do you think being born elsewhere would preclude me from being an American? Check out the governor of California. So go figure.
Once again you are making assumptions about my attitudes. You are implying that I am a native, a racist or a xenophobe. I am not. Why do you do that?
I chose that one exactly to see your reaction. Are you going to continue to ridicule yourself? Pathetic? Keep going.
So you are playing games, eh? I merely questioned your origins because your name is German and your domain was elsewhere. Is that ridiculous? Why?
So what’s the point? Trying to reason with you? No. I don’t really count on it, and your reply proved it.
You just cannot avoid an insult. I responded to you honestly with reason (and one dig at you)_. You responded to that with many insults and few facts. When am I going to learn not to waste my time on those who are unwilling to hold a reasonable discussion?
But I do respect your right for your own views and appreciate you posting my stuff and replying to it. I just happened to come across your thread and wanted to let you and others know that not all here in the States think the way you do.
You don’t even know how I think, or you would never make the charges you do.
I am well aware, of course, that there are plenty in the US and the world who do not think the way that I do. Do you really think you were providing me with any insight with your illogical attacks?
I don’t know, if I will reply to your eventual reply, time is precious.
Yes, it is.
Anyway, I think I have said all I wanted. You may call this unsubstantiated liberal brainwashed blubber or something (actually I consider myself a moderate conservative).
Actually I consider a highly rude attack on me personally, mixed with very poorly reasoned points (except for the one I mentioned above), and probably done just to score points by an immature person unwilling to engage in real debate.
It’s a free country, right? But I hope you will start thinking and really take all the facts as they come. Fairly.
You have provided hardly any facts. You are making another offensive assumptions: that I am not thinking about the facts fairly.
I would respond as follows: I examine my premises frequently. But I am not objective and neither is anyone else. I do my best to be objective but recognize that such objectivity is impossible. I also try not to go around insulting people unless they are very insulting first.
And when you talk to someone on the net, don’t assume you know who is on the other end, it may look embarassing. Let my or anybody else’s abbility to descrimante between closely related concepts be judged by somebody who understands what it is.
So you are telling me, someone who has been doing this for 25 years, how to talk to someone on the net? You could use some advice, but I doubt you would take it.
Look at what I wrote and see how much was assumption, how much was speculation (and defined as such) and how much was derived by analyzing your method of argumentation and your reaction to my responses.
If you don’t come back, readers will still be able to judge who is more fair and more logical in this discussion.
I’m not worried.
I didn’t really think you were Stasi, although the last name gave a reasonable probability that you were East German. And of course you are unlikely to be French if the information you have provided is true, since it was never a Communist regime. I am just curious about your origin, as how it reflects your attitude.
Your origin should certainly not preclude you from being an America. An important reason that we are the greatest country on earth is because so many refugees from other countries (including some of my ancestors) came here. I have a number of friends who are immigrants, as does almost every American I know. My sister-in-law is Japanese.
If you prefer talking, why do you fill your comments with a high number of insults? Why do you always assume the worse about my motivations. Your rhetoric implies that I am a racist (or at least a nativist), that I am a liar (I am not).
You say “don’t cover yourself with words like I hate commies. Words don’t matter, what matters are actions.”
All I have to communicate with you is words (and pictures, if I wanted to). So your previous statement is nonsense. How can you judge my actions when you don’t know what they are? I find that attack highly illogical. Again, you use far more words to attack me than you use to present facts on which we might debate. That is both fruitless and offensive. Name-calling is not a discussion, and it doesn’t convince anyone.
“You think all non-Americans are lowly cowards?” Speak for yourself. Of course I don’t think that. Again, you are making absurd assumptions. I find that tiring, to put it mildly.
I wouldn’t like a 500lb bomb killing any innocents, and especially my family. That is why I am so proud of the way our military tries to avoid excess tragedies. That is why I praise the technique discovered by our airforce of using inert bombs to kill tanks. But unless you are omnipotent, you cannot fight a war without innocent deaths. Just remember this: we didn’t Saddam in power, Iraqis did.
How would you feel if your loved ones had been in the 9-11 targets or aircraft? How will you feel if they are killed in a terrorist attack? That is why we are fighting in Iraq.
I don’t think you respect anyone who disagrees with you. I happen to know that many in the states disagree with me. To you really think that you are the first arrogant, assumption-making, barely logical commenter on my blog?
I did not assume who was on the other end. I suggested a possibility, based on information.
I would also say that you yourself should stop making assumptions also. You have come to my site, thrown a number of insults at me, many based on misreading what I write, made many assumptions about me, as is obvious from your comments.
I have had many fine discussions with people I dislike. You are apparently proud of simply dropping by to slander. Here’s a clue: most people, reading your illogical remarks which make many wrong assumptions without ever showing that any of my statements are wrong, and which is primarily a personal insult, will conclude that you are rude, ignorant and not very good at either logic or writing.
If you disagreed without making all sorts of assumptions about me, and without trying to anger me, we could have a discussion. But obviously that is not your point.
I allow you to post because it allows others to see what sort of irrational attacks are being made against American policies and how illogical are the people making them.
So far, you are doing a good job of illustrating that.
Oh… one comment. One assumption I did make is that your name is related to your User ID. That is a relatively safe one, but not a certainty. Your user ID uses a German name.
Online Tramadol is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.top-tramadol.com
Dear John,
I came across your site. I am glad to see that you post comments that both agree and disagree with your point of view.
In the above I believe you obtained the reaction that you do because of the tone of language you use. For example in your opening you use the folowing
In a remarkable display of arrogance, “River Bend,” the Iraqi who writes Baghdad Burning has written another vicious and ignorant screed, which exactly parrots the Baathist propaganda of Saddam Hussein, and makes hideous accusations against United States soldiers.
You insult the blogger at the start with words like, arrogance, viscious, ignarante screed, hideous, and you associate her with a villain.
I have read the Blog you refer to and have found her comments not to be reflective of what you right. In this regard, one say we simply disagree. However, I think it is reasonable to say that the use of the words above makes your writing inflamatory. Again, we may disagree on this. So I simply state one person opinion, and would not argue with you on this point, if you believe otherwise.
On the point on the invasion of Iraq. It seems Ironic that the nation that holds the largest number of weapons of mass destruction, goes to war by accusing another country of possesing weapons of mass destruction. In fareness one might argue that well democtatic, free countries are entitled to weapons of mass destruction. This does work out nicely, because then any country really then can stand up and say, they are justified for having these weapons for reason, x, be it because of god, ala, or because they proclaim themselves to be good. It seems that United States has opened itself up to further agression simply for the same reasons, it has used against Iraq. The United States surely has weapons of mass destruction. The United States surely has acted agains other countries such as, Vietnam, Iraq, it goes into countries like Panama and gives itself authority to take by force heads of state. It seems to the world outside, that if the United States, decides that you are wrong, then your status as country is secondary to it’s intersts. Now, one can safely argue that the leader of Panama was not a good guy, and that Communism was a real problem in the world. Perhaps, the world should really thank the United States. But even if the United States is right, why the large number of people in the world that disagree with it. I believe in Europe and Canada, generally have an opinion that the United States is a bully. Perhaps, these people are ungrateful, how have you put it lefties. But perhaps, like the tone in your article above, it really is something else. Something doesn’t seem right.
There are inconsistentecnies, in who the United States chooses to Attack and “help” in the world there have been other people in need of “military help”, East Timour, Riwanda, Sudan, why did these places not obtain the level of military placement. Perhaps, it was not possible, but again, the some in the world wonders about these things. Why is it that rights of country, that is not a democracy, Kuwait, so befriend the United States. It does happen that the region has oil, but that wouldn’t have anything to do with it. I suppose it is purely a matter of coincidence, that the middle east gets so much attention. As you had put it people should be happy that the United States should be kicking out the dictators. But why is it so bothersome to be told one should be grateful. There are a lot people angry at the United States. Is it the majority of the world. Should a vote be taken? Afterall the United States is a democracy, and if the majority of the people think the United States is a bully and wrong about Iraq, wouldn’t the world be right? But perhaps, I am wrong and the world thinks that the United States is correct in it’s foreign policy. Having, suggested otherwise, I do applaud your posting of both views.
JoeS,
Thank you for your comments. Please notice the date of my comments. At that time, Riverbend’s writing could be accurately described as I did. I have read her writing recently so I don’t know if she still deserves to be characterized this way or not. At the time I was reading a number of Iraq blogs and her’s was unique in being completely one sided (without stating so up front) and, through her complaints, making it clear that she had a better life under the butcher Saddam and was angry it had been taken away.
Your other points could start a very long discussion, as they essentially address the entire role of the US in the world today.
I will answer them as follows: we are threatened by weapons of mass destruction. Nobody except evil and non-democratic nations are threated by our weapons (or France’s or Britain’s). Even so, we are very reluctant to use our weapons while Saddam used them freely against the Iranians and Kurds. Right now, our retaliatory capability may be preventing the bizarre North Korean leader from launching and EMP strike (see below) against us.
The world is in a perilous state, because “rogue” nations may provide dangerous weapons to terrorists, thus attacking the civilian populations of the free world while avoiding responsibility or retaliation. That is a danger unprecedented in history.
Because of that reality, we need to do our best to limit their capabilities. The most effective weapon for non-suicidal rogue leaders is the nuclear weapon. It can be used to kill millions at once, is small enough to be easily smuggled, and can be set off anonymously. Put atop a small ballistic missile (such as a SCUD), it could be launched from a freighter and exploded in space over a modern industrialized area such as a US coast or Europe, destroying most of the electronic infrastructure of that area, causing enormous disruption and probably mass starvation (EMP attack). For a long time, and maybe today, there was a North Korean freighter loitering in the Gulf of California, a few hundred miles from where I sit (in Arizona)
These are the dangers with nuclear weapons. Hence the fewer countries that have them, the better. Right now the world would be a safer place if Russia did not have them, because their security may not be adequate. The same applies to Pakistan except the feel they need a deterrent against India. It may offend the dignity of other nations that they are not trusted with nuclear weapons, but the safety of the world depends on ending their proliferation. Imagine what the powerful nations would do if attacked by one or more anonymous nuclear weapons!
Ideally, the United Nations would take on the chore of preventing the proliferation of these weapons. But the UN is incompetent at this, as has been shown by its failed efforts in India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iraq and Iran. In fact, the UN is a disgrace and is rarely helpful. If the United Nations cannot act, then someone else must, and the only nation which ha chosen to develop adequate military capabilities is the United States (with China and India now developing capabilities).
Many Europeans and Canadians do believe the United States is a bully. We believe that the Europeans and Canadians are decadents who believe that they can ignore these problems I described. But if you look more closely, you will find that Europe, Canada and the United States cooperate at the counter-terrorism level to try to stop nuclear proliferation. The Europeans are unhappy that (by diverting all of their money to their welfare states), they have lost the ability to particicpate militarily in world affairs. Their reaction has been to try to believe that military means are unnecessary. Hence they want, as you suggest, a vote that decides what our sovereign nation does with our power. That is not going to happen. If Europe wants military power, it should develop it. It has the technology (it sells sophisticated weapons to some of the world’s worst dictators) but not the willpower to create its own defensive force, much less the long range forces needed for counter-proliferation work.
You say “It seems to the world outside, that if the United States, decides that you are wrong, then your status as country is secondary to it’s interests.” To which I respond: “Good!”
That is how all countries behave. Do you think France, which also has weapons of mass destruction, treats countries which are hostile to it as well as it treats countries that are not? How about Britain, which by the way has weapons of mass destruction? Mainland China, which by the way has weapons of mass destruction?
Unfortunately, they are wrong.
So I would ask why you single out the US for anger, and the answer I come up with is that we are uniquiely (sometimes) willing to use our vast power, and sacrifice our money and blood, to stop terrible trends - such as the acquisition of WMD’s by Saddam.
You mention inconsistencies. The United States does indeed choose its targets inconsistently. We cannot police the entire world, especially while we are, at the same time, trying to combat terrorism and stand up Iraq as a functioning democracy.
Your examples are interesting because the United Nations has also failed in those area. I do take exception to East Timour because I believe our ally, the Australians, intervened in that bloody fight. In the Sudan, chattel slavery has been practiced for a very long time in the southern regions (not just Darfur) and nobody has done anything. Why hasn’t Europe, which is quick to condemn the slightest deficiency in some regimes, moved into southern Sudan and put a stop to it? Why was France *complicit* in the Rwandan massacre.
You mention Vietnam, a war in which I participated. You assume, I think, that it was wrong for us to intervene. But how well do you know the history of that 30 year war? Do you know why we intervened (not what the politicians said, which was “to save democracy”)> Do you know who the VC were and who commanded them? Do you know about the voluntary choice that was provided in the ’50s to live under communism in the north or capitalist dictatorship in the south, and that 1,000,000 people went south? Do you ever ask why there were no boat people until after the communists took over?
How about Panama? I opposed the invasion (as I did the operations in the Balkans). Noriega’s regime had killed an American, was engaged in drug trafficking, and was an evil dictatorship, not to be trusted with the Panama Canal. We replaced Noriega with a minimum of casualties on both sides (by the use of precision weapons). I have been to Panama since then, and it is a vibrant place.
To answer your last issue about many people being angry. That is the price we pay for protecting ourselves (and them). Many people are being given daily propaganda (especially in Europe) that is very one sided and does not reflect the reality of the situation. The BBC has become a joke, for example.
Finally, I think there are two major problems:
1) Most people do not recognize the dire danger of rogue nations armed with nuclear weapons, and do not want to, and:
2) Most people dislike a nation which has and is willing to use vast power to defend itself and to try to reduce danger in the world. These people would prefer if “diplomacy” would someone convince ambitious and sociopathic leaders to drop their dreams of military “greatness.” They believe demogogues who claim the US acts military for its economic interests (rarely true, except to keep the oil flowing in the ’80s which benefited the entire world).
I will finish with two challenges:
1) What should be done about North Korea? Who should do it?
2) What should be done aout Iran. Who should do it?
Dear John,
I think perhaps you hit upon the heart of the matter in the characterization of countries as purely self serving. I would extend this to the idea of a self serving country that also gains far greater relative power over others. To borrow from a truism, that ultimate power corrupts ultimately. At some point self serving interests, become self destructive, not only for those around it but for the person, or country itself. One can dangle all the fear factors, true or untrue in front of a person, or world, but eventually, people will begin to fear the medicince more than the disease.
Though, perhaps countries are not entirely self serving. Like, people, perhaps it is possible that a country, a nation understands, that it co-exists with other nations, and that there is self interest to be served with consensus, rather than simply, the “tuff luck” aproach of the strong. That a country like France, will one day be an ally again. Perhaps sooner if it is not taunted, and ridiculed.
As for the UN it is generally viewed as the impotent lap dog of the United States.
More generally, I think you make valid points of the problem of North Korea, and Iran. How will it deal with these two countries. One on the brink of collapse as it is, the other stronger than the country it has just invaded, many times over. The fanatical leader of Korea, will die in time, (as will Castro). Norht Korea, is a starving country that would probably trade for food over arms, given some way of saving face. No one likes to be backed into a corner and humiliated. Give a person, a country chance to retain dignity, and diplomacy has a chance. It is the same you would extend to another person. You don’t have to crush them, to defeat them. On the other hand crush one person, one country force them to acknowledge your superioty, and see how the rest of the world responds. Even, the strongest bully can be brought down by a group.
I am not muslim, I live in a western country and am christian. But, I am sympathetic to how muslims view the invasion of Iraq. It seems clear that United States, does not understand this nor understands what the implication are. As, the British Embassador to Rome put it, “Bush is al Queda’s best recruiting Seargent”. In many ways I grew up admiring the United States and it’s people. In this way I do not feel biased, or brain washed. The United States has many admirable qualities, disregard, for sovreignty of countries, in comments and actions however, does not one of them.
It certainly does not win over the hearts and minds, as his been the rhetoric from Bush. Which, is the second point which relates to the go it alone, “that’s too bad if you don’t like it attitude”. How, do you deliver Democracy, and Freedom, and Lofty Ideals, on the back of hand, or on accidental bomb drops. (I do believe they were accidental, and that arguable casualities were low.) Let alone, the pictures of the abuse, however, warranted as some suggest, or “accidental”. The point is it does matter what people think. It matters a lot. Accidents may be accidents, a few renegade soldiers may be abusive, but at the end of the day you are not going to win over hearts and minds by say “so what, stop crying about it”. Who, will believe you? Who will sympathize with your efforts to bring Democracy?
Will the United States, continue to make diplomacy a dirty word. Will it choose to continue on a path of alienation, however, it comes about. Will, it hand to it’s future generations, a philosophy of pure self interest.
Your, web site has a joke page for France. Everyone likes jokes, a good joke will be laughed at by the giver and the receiver. Your, jokes do not attempt that. That is your position, arguable your right. But, I wonder what end does it serve. Does, this teach future generations, to tolerate differences of opinions, or does it simply advocate intolerance. I am not french so it does not insult me in this way, as it it offends simple sensibilities that one doesn’t ridicule all french people, because one disagrees with it’s government’s position.
It also, doesn’t serve your cause to debase difference of opinion to school yard taunts. The world is a large place, the United States has some 300 million people, China 4 times that much, India another billion or so on top, South East Asia billions more and Europe along side.
How the United States is viewed from outside is more than a matter of “Good / So be it / tuff luck”. It is a matter of self interest.
Regarding the weapons of mass destruction, yes, yes, many countries have weapons of mass destruction, as you mentioned. The point is it is ridicules, for the United States to be calling the kettle black, as pretext for further their interests in the Middle East.
I do concede, that other countries benefit, yes that’s wrong. So, it’s up to the people inside to make sure it doesn’t become worse by sending their own troops on top of it.
As an example, Canada suffered economically by the cooling of relations with the United States. If the Canadians had supported the war, the troops would have been sent. But people did not support the Invasion.
I am willing to concede that you are right, that the United States has put itself ahead by invading Iraq. But, thus far it seems that it has made more new enemies than friends and has turned friends into sympathizers. In the end I do not see how this advanced US intersts. Which is a shame for a country born in such high ideals.
I believe that Iran will continue with it’s nuclear weapon’s program. I believe that there will be operations, to destroy these nuclear development programs. I think these actions will further the view that US is against muslims countries. This will fuel renewed activity in terrosist cells, in Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia, Europe, and possibly in North America.
It is my understanding that the general population of Iran does not support the government and that in time the old gaurd of clerics, would be set aside, as it happened in the former Soviet Union.
My thoughts, on Korea were given above.
How would you approach Korea?
You write about nations being self serving. This is a necessary function of a nation. However, that does not mean that every action is self serving. The US actions after the tsunami were generous and not self serving in most cases. We had the capability because of our vast military, so we used it. I do not believe the power of the US has corrupted us, because we also have great weaknesses that can be exploited in asymmetrical warfare- i.e. terrorism. We are an easy target, and that is not good. So I think we must act in our self defense, even if other nations do not approve, but we must, as a rich country, help the world also. Also, do not forget that Russia, England and France have the capability to destroy us, and that Russia and the US are still on hair-trigger alert, just as they were doing the cold war!
As for the UN it is generally viewed as the impotent lap dog of the United States.
How can that be? Please tell me, as we view it as an impotent and corrupt weapon used against the United States. The general assembly is uniformly hostile to us. We do not control the UN. Hostile regimes chair some of the major committees. France and Russia veto many of our initiatives. It is hardly the lapdog of the US. I would disband it, except for some useful functions (such as World Health Organization). You are right, though, that it is impotent.
More generally, I think you make valid points of the problem of North Korea, and Iran. How will it deal with these two countries. One on the brink of collapse as it is, the other stronger than the country it has just invaded, many times over. The fanatical leader of Korea, will die in time, (as will Castro). Norht Korea, is a starving country that would probably trade for food over arms, given some way of saving face.
Here we come to the heart of the argument. You are not recognizing evil at its full value. The leader of Korea is willing to starve his own people as long as he maintains power. There is no reason to believe that will change with the next leader. Meanwhile he is rapidly developing ICBM’s that can target the US, and nuclear weapons to put atop them. Who is to say that, as he ages, he doesn’t order the launch of those missiles? Do you believe that he would be stopped? Do you want to bet a gre million librd on it? There are many scenarios whereby he could use these weapons. He could give them to terrorists to set off in US cities. One bomb, a ground burst in Los Angeles, would kill millions (mostly from the fallout). He could invade the south and tell us he would use his bombs if we try to stop him. These are grave dangers. He has the ability, without using nuclear weapons, to kill 10-20 million South Koreans within an hour or two, and is the kind of person who would not hesitate to do so if he thought it would gain him stature or power.
No one likes to be backed into a corner and humiliated. Give a person, a country chance to retain dignity, and diplomacy has a chance.
You are right about humiliation. Dictators use that to motivate their people, in fact. But we gave North Korea a chance in 1994, and they responded by developing nuclear weapons. In other words, they got what they wanted from us, and they also developed fearsome weapons.
As, the British Embassador to Rome put it, “Bush is al Queda’s best recruiting Seargent”. In many ways I grew up admiring the United States and it’s people. In this way I do not feel biased, or brain washed. The United States has many admirable qualities, disregard, for sovreignty of countries, in comments and actions however, does not one of them.
Sovereignty was a concept developed hundreds of years ago to provide rulers with security. In a very few areas, it is obsolete. One of those areas is support of international terrorism, and the other is the development of nuclear weapons. People may dislike George Bush, but all he does is tell the truth - a truth that people do not want to hear - a truth that the world is still dangerous, and it may not be possible to solve all security problems with diplomacy, but we wil try as hard as we can to do so.
It certainly does not win over the hearts and minds, as his been the rhetoric from Bush. Which, is the second point which relates to the go it alone, “that’s too bad if you don’t like it attitude”. How, do you deliver Democracy, and Freedom, and Lofty Ideals, on the back of hand, or on accidental bomb drops. (I do believe they were accidental, and that arguable casualities were low.) Let alone, the pictures of the abuse, however, warranted as some suggest, or “accidental”. The point is it does matter what people think. It matters a lot. Accidents may be accidents, a few renegade soldiers may be abusive, but at the end of the day you are not going to win over hearts and minds by say “so what, stop crying about it”. Who, will believe you? Who will sympathize with your efforts to bring Democracy?
I believe that too many in the world are angry at us for irrational reasons that we can do nothing about. I do not know what characterization of Bush you are referring to, but he is often characterized as an uneducated cowboy, when in fact he is one of our better educated presidents, and a Christian who seriously cares about all of mankind. Somehow, he is hated by many. I do not understand why. I truly don’t. What did he do to gain the anger of the world? How much of this is displaced anger at the US invasion of Iraq, and invasion that was probably necessary, and one which cost us huge amounts of money and many lives.
Will the United States, continue to make diplomacy a dirty word. Will it choose to continue on a path of alienation, however, it comes about. Will, it hand to it’s future generations, a philosophy of pure self interest.
What makes diplomacy a dirty word is when it fails; when diplomats ride around in limousines while people are dying in Darfur; while diplomats congratulate each other while North Korea creates nuclear bombs and says it will sell them to anyone; while diplomats pass human rights resolutions that their own countries violate and will continue to violate.
Diplomacy is very important. So is military power, because no matter how much we dislike it, there are people like Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il (or Stalin or Hitler) who are thoroughly evil and who will seek to gain empire through the use of force. People like that do not respect diplomacy. Kim Jong Il doesn’t care about diplomacy - he only wants to win. As a typical malignant narcissist, he wants North Korea to be seen as a world power and himself as a world class leader, and he will do whatever it takes, murder whoever it takes, starve whoever it takes to do so. We are dealing with EVIL - with depraved human beings who are not like you and me - who do not care about the pain and suffering of others, or worse, who enjoy it (Saddam and his sons). It is an unfortunate side effect of the peace since World War II (except for those who fought in Korea and Vietnam) that the face of evil has remained hidden so well. Too many people think as you do - that these horrible leaders have the same drives and goals as we do, when in fact they are mental monsters - psychopaths.
Your, web site has a joke page for France. Everyone likes jokes, a good joke will be laughed at by the giver and the receiver. Your, jokes do not attempt that. That is your position, arguable your right. But, I wonder what end does it serve. Does, this teach future generations, to tolerate differences of opinions, or does it simply advocate intolerance. I am not french so it does not insult me in this way, as it it offends simple sensibilities that one doesn’t ridicule all french people, because one disagrees with it’s government’s position.
It may surprise you to learn that I used to live in French and liked very much the French people. I put up the jokes page when France stabbed the US in the back - not really the French people but the French elite. Many people sent me jokes, and I think they are funny. You could replace “Frenchman” with “Pole” or “American” or anything else. They are generic ethnic jokes for the most part.
Regarding the weapons of mass destruction, yes, yes, many countries have weapons of mass destruction, as you mentioned. The point is it is ridicules, for the United States to be calling the kettle black, as pretext for further their interests in the Middle East.
It is not a pretext for our actions in the middle east. We have a deliberate polify with three major prongs: (1) try to remove, long term, the causes of terrorism, (2) remove or frighten “rogue” states which would give WMD’s to terrorists or use them themselves (North Korea), and (3) stop or reduce the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We are ot “calling the kettle black” because we don’t use weapons of mass destruction and we don’t engage in terrorism. It is a false equation when you compare us to the states in the middle east - we are a free democracy and they are various forms of dictatorships. So it is hardly hypocritical that we advoce for them a policy that we do not advocate for ourselves.
Furthermore, it is a fact of history that we have nuclear weapons (we have no other WMD’s except old chemical shells being destroyed). While it is unfair that we seek to preent other nations from gaininig those weapons, the major atomic powers long ago decided that the weapons were too dangerous to spread any farther, and too important (since we didn’t trust each other across the east/west divide) to get rid of.
As an example, Canada suffered economically by the cooling of relations with the United States. If the Canadians had supported the war, the troops would have been sent. But people did not support the Invasion.>/b>
It saddens me that Canada failed to support us. Canada has a long and honorable history of contributing far more than its share to the defense of freedom. But now Canada is caught in the same bind as Europe - it has a very expensive welfare state and a military that is trivial as a result. It also has forgotten the evils of the world and in fact provides sanctuary to terrorists who would attack the United States (through its very generous refugee policy).
Too many have lived the fruits of the peace that was kept by the nuclear standoff primarily between the US and Russia, while America lost 100,000 lives in maintaining that peace (I believe Canada, GB and Australia lost live sin Korea also). Perhaps it is because we have lost those lives and fought more recent wars that we are still capable of recognizing real ythreats and responding to them as best we can. Canada’s refusal to join our anti-missile defense system was especially disappointing, as it means that an EMP air burst from Korea might best be set off over southern Canada, out of range of our defenses.
I am willing to concede that you are right, that the United States has put itself ahead by invading Iraq. But, thus far it seems that it has made more new enemies than friends and has turned friends into sympathizers. In the end I do not see how this advanced US intersts. Which is a shame for a country born in such high ideals.
The United States invaded Iraq for two reasons, in the following order: (1) remove a source of WMDs, and (2) establish a democracy in the heart of the middle east in the hope it would spread. I see nothing against our hitgh ideals in those actions. We did not “put ourselves ahead” unless #2 is successful, and then we put the whole world ahead. In other words, it was a pre-emptive war of self defense and nothing else. It had huge risks (such as causing the recruitment of additional terrorists, and the angering of the rest of the world). It was selfish only in the sense that we are the number one target of terrorists and we are trying to stop them by democratizing the region. I consider much of the rest of the world to be short sighted to not realize the danger and the fact that diplomacy along would not stop either Saddam or others [that Saddam was bluffing about WMD’s was such a well kept secret that his generals only found out on the first day of the invasion.]
Our experiment may fail. But please tell me - would you have left the Iraqis to die under Saddam’s cruel regime? Would you have permitted Al Qaeda to continue their chemical weapons activities in North-East Iraq? Would you have allowed Saddam’s scientists and engineers to sell their information on the world market, as Daniel Kay says they were ready to do? What would you have done?
I believe that Iran will continue with it’s nuclear weapon’s program. I believe that there will be operations, to destroy these nuclear development programs. I think these actions will further the view that US is against muslims countries. This will fuel renewed activity in terrosist cells, in Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia, Europe, and possibly in North America.
All of this is possible. What is the alternative? We are hoping for a democratic revolution in Iran, and are taking measures to foment one. But what if it is not successful?
It is my understanding that the general population of Iran does not support the government and that in time the old gaurd of clerics, would be set aside, as it happened in the former Soviet Union.
We agree on that.
How would you approach Korea?
I really don’t know. I would try to get China and Russia to pressure Korea into giving up its nuclear capabilities. They are the only countries with significant leverage over Korea. Unfortunately, China has not been cooperative, and I don’t know why not (they have a lot to lose if a Korean nuke goes off in the US). I would not pay off North Korea because there is no possibility that such a tightly controlled dictatorship would agree to the sort of intrusive inspections necessary to guarantee they are not cheating (like they did last time) on a nuclear agreement. There are known to be 16000 tunnels in North Korea and we don’t know which ones have what in them.
You still have not provided a solution other than a hope that Kim Jon Il would die and by some magic be replaced by someone not hostile - someone who would responsibly handle those nuclear tipped ICBM’s. That isn’t good enough.
Dear John,
I should start off that I admire your convictions. Clearly you have thought into what you believe. In this respect you have taken the edge of the comments I initially have read.
This notwithstanding, I begin to understand better where it is we disagree. Sovereignty, comes to mind first. To many people it is held with basic principles of life, such as innocent until proven guilty. If the United States doesn’t protect other peoples sovereignty then why should the rest of the world. It’s equivalent to what comes around goes around. It reminds me of do unto others as ye would have others do unto ye.
As for Bush, the view you presented was accurate. There are so called Bushism that simply do not make any sense, they really are quite funny, and are not generic poor humour jokes, as they come from his own mouth. As for the truth, when was the last time a politician told the truth, (I am kidding here). I would be interested to references that support the existence of weapons of mass destruction in the days leading up to the war. I am not talking about one test tube in the back of a fridge. I am talking about the ability to kill thousands of people.
Bush reminds me of the book 1984, with words like “smart bombs”, “interdiction”, “minimal loss of life”, “Axes of evil” it all sounds ridiculous, and commic book like, double speak. “Freedom is slavery”. Everything, sounds so human, when really it’s not.
It’s a dangerous practice to dehumanize a human being. Your probably aware it is what all nations have done, in order to get men to kill one another. The germans did it in WWII, as did the Americans, and others. The breeding of hatred is weapon just like any other. Should the good guys use it? Should nuclear weapons be used? Maybe maybe not, there’s always a price to pay.
I fundamentaly disagree with you, but I realize your a person. You have beliefs and you have thought about them and from what you mention have fought for them. I think it would be wrong to simply think of you as some fundamentalist cowboy christian who cares nothing but himself. But, I think it would probably be easy to slip into this kind of hate mongering. I’d rather think of you of the above, as a peson with differing views.
Isn’t this what Jesus taught, not to hate. To suffer the first blow, and then offer the other cheak. I don’t recall Jessus, speaking about preimpetive attacks on his persecuters.
I have met some people who are pacificist christians. They have travelled from country to country seeking peace, refusing to fight in wars, to kill.
I am not pacifist, but I admired their simple refusal to kill, and yet they live such full meaningful lives.
I sometimes think that if the world is to know peace, it will not be inherited by people like you and me. But by them. Perhaps, on our backs, but wouldn’t the world be better if we passed and they survived.
How do you reconcile christianity with the reality of war?
But back to WMD.
What counts as weapon of mass destruction, economic sanctions that starve country? Certainly, this is the case in Iraq, on the part of the United States. Of course Saddam had more than his share. But why would the US force his hand in starving his people. The US would have known that the civilian population would be the ones to suffer.
Yes, despite are differences on basic principles such as sovereneighty, we agree, there are admirable qualities about the United States and it’s people. An example being the Tsunami aid.
I draw final analogy to the war in Iraq. Lets say a man in a women are meant to be the man being the perfect person for her. But the women wants more time. But the man disagrees with the time lines and forces himself on her. What good is the happy life if it starts with rape. It would be interesting in this respect how the Iraq people would answer the question, “Were you happy the Americans came?”. I think the dead ones would have to say no. But lets say these weren’t included, it would be interesting, don’t you think? If the answer was yes you would be right. If the answer was no, I would be right.
Regardless, of the answer to the outcome of the hypothetical question, sovereignty is valued by many people. It’s a simple principle like the right to an attorney, it may protect some bad guys, but in general it protects the innocent from a police, or government with too much power. It’s like freedom of speech. You may not like what other people have to say, but it protects your right to say what you believe. These, basic tenents make societies work inside and outside of countries. Begin, to take these things away and the societies begin to collapse.
This what sovereignty is, a right to be free from even the best persion or country in the world. It may protect some bad guys, but it protects the innocent as well. So isn’t sovereignty in keeping with American ideals?
Before I respond to the points, let me mention the following: we are in an era mankind has never before encountered. There is a large movement of people who are willing to die to subjugate us to their religion. At the same time, there are immensely destructive weapons that are small enough for a small team or a single individual to deploy. It is that combination that motivates our actions and has to do so. It is the first time that the west has been realistically threatened since World War II (the cold war was very likely to stay cold). There are countries which are hostile to the west, and especially the US, who would like to greatly harm us.
Now let your imagination run with that information: small, very deadly weapons; skilled and well led suicidal terrorists; hostile countries which possess and make those small and exceedingly lethal weapons.
The US found binary Sarin nerve agent (a WMD) in artillery shells in Iraq after the invasion. Only a few shells. But Saddam had never declared binary agents. Where did they come from and do the terrorists have them? If so, imagine a terrorist who mixes the two agents in a pesticide sprayer, and sprays it into the air intake of a high rise office building. One shell has enough agent to kill everyone in a good sized building - tens of thousands of innocent people.
How about a terrorist with a nuke (bought from North Korea) who sets it off in central Washington?
Consider a flu virus, with its antigenic coat modified by genetic engineering to be unknown to the human immune system, remembering that the 1918 flu epidemic killed more people than World War I, and suicidal terrorists wouldn’t mind losing some percentage of their own people. My daughter has worked as a molecular biologist and knows how easy it is to do this sort of thing - she has designed modified human brain cells.
Imagine that the Iranians equip a terrorist gang with a Shihab missile, a freighter and a small nuclear warhead. It sails to near the US, fires the missile which explodes 200 miles over the east coast, and then they sink the ship. The eastern half of the US loses all power and electronics. We don’t know who did it. The economic loss is huge, and there is probably starvation as the logistical systems for food shipment break down (plus the vehicles would be disabled by the same EMP).
Imagine that the Iranians decide to control the flow of oil. So they invade Saudi Arabia and take control of their oil fields (in Shia country near Iran) and control the Strait of Hormuz, enacting a large tax on every tanker that goes through. They threaten both Europe and the US with nuclear strikes (or EMP strikes) if we intervene, playing off their “mad mullah” image to make the threat credible. They activate Hizbollah cells for a few nasty terrorist attacks in Europe and the US to show they are serious.
Imagine the North Koreans develop a bunch of nukes, and the ability to hit the US (next year, probably). Then they invade South Korea, saying they will destroy Los Angeles if we intervene, and will disable the west coast with an EMP attack. What happens? Then they build up their forces to attack Japan, with similar threats. Remember, their leaders have 16,000 tunnels to hide in, and they do not care about the people - they have dehumanized their own population.
IT IS THIS WORLD IN WHICH THE DECISIONS MUST BE MADE!
This notwithstanding, I begin to understand better where it is we disagree. Sovereignty, comes to mind first. To many people it is held with basic principles of life, such as innocent until proven guilty. If the United States doesn’t protect other peoples sovereignty then why should the rest of the world. It’s equivalent to what comes around goes around. It reminds me of do unto others as ye would have others do unto ye.
Note that I hold sovereignty to be very important except in very special cases: where the nation threatens the world or threatens the United States, or in certain terrible human rights situations. In that sense, the over-riding of sovereignty is in the spirit of self defense - pre-emptive self defense in some cases. Also notice that other countries over-ride sovereignty - France in Africa especially, Europe and the US in the Balkans, Australia in Indonesia, the UN in Africa.
As for Bush, the view you presented was accurate. There are so called Bushism that simply do not make any sense, they really are quite funny, and are not generic poor humour jokes, as they come from his own mouth. As for the truth, when was the last time a politician told the truth, (I am kidding here). I would be interested to references that support the existence of weapons of mass destruction in the days leading up to the war. I am not talking about one test tube in the back of a fridge. I am talking about the ability to kill thousands of people.
We had lots of evidence of WMD’s, because, according to Saddam himself , he was pretending to have them in order to prevent a feared attack by the Iranians. In other words, he was bluffing, and had to take steps to make it look like he was working on the weapons to sustain the bluff. Our evidence was, of course, wrong in most cases ( a test tube of botulinum, which produces the most deadly toxin known, was found , as was a small amount of nerve agent). What he had was a capability to rapidly produce chemical weapons using his organophosphate pesticide plants. His bacillus thuringiensis pesticide plant could probably have produced large amounts of Anthrax, although I personally don’t know how well it could have been weaponized (2 steps: antibiotic resistance which is easy to do, and treatment for high density of viable spores with appropriate clump size Bush reminds me of the book 1984, with words like “smart bombs”, “interdiction”, “minimal loss of life”, “Axes of evil” it all sounds ridiculous, and commic book like, double speak. “Freedom is slavery”. Everything, sounds so human, when really it’s not.
I find this observation very surprising. With the exception of the accurate and colorful characterization of Axis of Evil, George Bush is using the teminology that is standard throughout America, and he didn’t invent it. It would seem that you, as many people I discuss Bush with, attribute to him many things that are not from him. “smart bombs” is the term our media uses because it is a simple, accurate description of a weapon that the readers can understand (and these weapons are quite smart - they combine GPS guidance with precision inertial guidance to produce betterf than 3 meter accuracy). Interdiction is a standard military term (and Bush was a soldier and officer) . “minimial loss of life” is a very important goal - more accurately, minimal loss of innocent life, and we have lost many lives in our own troops because of that goal.
One thing that upsets me about criticism of the US is that we go to great lengths to protect civilians, and are criticized as if we were ancient Mongol hordes. One thing we did in the Iraq war was to drop bombs filled with nothing but concrete on tanks too close to civilian structures, that way disabling (permanently) the tanks while avoiding having a big explosion in a civilian area. I have personally spoken to a person who used those bombs. We really do care about human life - far more than any opponent we fight. By using smart weapons (this is a term the military uses), we not only can be more effective in disabling our enemy, but we can kill and injure far fewer innocents. If we had used Vietnam-era technology, we would have killed tens of thousands of civilians and lost thousands of our own troops.
Axis of Evil is a good term in my mind. It tells us what we are dealing with - genuine evil, and at least in the case of Iran and North Korea, an axis - they work closely together.
It’s a dangerous practice to dehumanize a human being. Your probably aware it is what all nations have done, in order to get men to kill one another. The germans did it in WWII, as did the Americans, and others. The breeding of hatred is weapon just like any other. Should the good guys use it? Should nuclear weapons be used? Maybe maybe not, there’s always a price to pay.
Americans try not to do that, but there is a tribal nature of humans that can be misused in the way you describe. In World War II, we bombed cities without regard for civilian casualties, and with “dumb” bombs that often missed their targets by a mile or more. We intentionally killed a huge number of Japanese civilians with fire bombing raids (my wife lived in Tokyo after the war and my brother’s wife is Japanese). In those days, nobody criticized us for this, and all major nations did the same sort of thing. If you watch how American soldiers normally treat wounded enemy, you see our humanity. Unlike in World War II, we try not to dehumanize people. The problem is not that some nation of people is evil, but that there are genuinely evil regimes led by evil people who recruit other evil people (often sociopaths) to enforce their regime. The world has always been this way and it hasn’t changed.
You wish to live in a world of peaceful people, as do I, but I think you fail to realize the power and prevalence of bad people and the ways in which they achieve power over ordinary people. And in today’s world of weapons of mass destruction, and evil person with a country is a threat to us all.
I fundamentally disagree with you, but I realize your a person. You have beliefs and you have thought about them and from what you mention have fought for them. I think it would be wrong to simply think of you as some fundamentalist cowboy christian who cares nothing but himself. But, I think it would probably be easy to slip into this kind of hate mongering. I’d rather think of you of the above, as a peson with differing views.
I care about the future of mankind. I believe the United States represents the best hopes for the world, even as flawed as we are. I believe our current leaders (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice) are good people with good intentions, but we do not always have good leaders, and of course some of their subordinates may not be very good. I also believe we live in the most perilous time mankind has ever faced, due to the existence and simultaneity of the following reasons:
1) the proliferation of nuclear weapons and missiles, especially to North Korea, Iran and Pakistan.
2) the Islamist movement - radical Islam willing to kill anyone necessary, including themselves, in order to *force* their religion and government on the rest of us. These people may be fanatics, but many are well educated (sadly, many are engineers, my professon) and thus capable of creating and using sophisticated weapons systems.
3) biotechnology, which enables a single skilled molecular biologist to create “doomsday” pathogens by weaponizing existing bacteria or viruses. Imagine if Ted Kazynski (the “Unabombere”) had been a virologist or bacteriologist!
4) the hair trigger nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia - still aimed at each other and still in launch-on-warning status, just like the cold war
Isn’t this what Jesus taught, not to hate. To suffer the first blow, and then offer the other cheak. I don’t recall Jessus, speaking about preimpetive attacks on his persecuters.
We do not fight out of hate. We fight out of necessity and I believe perhaps even desperation (see above). If we fought out of hate, we would not be spending billions of dollars rebuilding Iraq. I am not going to argue foreign policy in terms of scripture, although you might ask the money changers about pre-emptive attacks. I am arguing out of utilitarianism and humanism here.
I have met some people who are pacificist christians. They have travelled from country to country seeking peace, refusing to fight in wars, to kill.
I am not pacifist, but I admired their simple refusal to kill, and yet they live such full meaningful lives.
I sometimes think that if the world is to know peace, it will not be inherited by people like you and me. But by them. Perhaps, on our backs, but wouldn’t the world be better if we passed and they survived.
How do you reconcile christianity with the reality of war?
There is a Catholic doctrine called “just war.” That’s how. I know pacifists, and they live a nice life in their fantasy world. And many do good. There were pacifists who served as battlefield medics in Vietnam. I envy their innocent and ignorance.
The problem with pacifism is it only works if everyone is a pacifist, a situation which does not existt.
But back to WMD.
What counts as weapon of mass destruction, economic sanctions that starve country? Certainly, this is the case in Iraq, on the part of the United States. Of course Saddam had more than his share. But why would the US force his hand in starving his people. The US would have known that the civilian population would be the ones to suffer.
Why do you blame the US for this. It was passed by the Security Council, on which France, Britain, Russia and China and US have vetoes. Why do you single out the US? Also, that was under the Clinton administration, which in fact was far more likely to use facile diplomacy, which is why North Korea now has nuclear weapons!
Our choices were:
1) No sanctions - let Saddam build up his weapons again and attack somebody (his history and personality made that inevitable), meanwhile terrorizing his people.
2) Sanctions - slow down his weapons buildup
3) War - replace his regime with one that was not evil.
There is only one reason the civilian population suffered: the corruption in the “Oil For Food” program, the biggest financial scandal in history, in which Kofi Anan’s son took part. Saddam was bribing politicians in Europe, reporters, inspectors and others in order to divert the money which was intended for medicine and food. Had the UN done its job, there would have been no starvation or shortage of medicine. This is one reason I am in favor of eliminating the UN. It allowed the “civilized” world to imagine that it was doing the right thing in Iraq, providing cover while Saddam bought weapons and built over 40 huge palaces.
What would you have done about Saddam?
Yes, despite are differences on basic principles such as sovereneighty, we agree, there are admirable qualities about the United States and it’s people. An example being the Tsunami aid.
I draw final analogy to the war in Iraq. Lets say a man in a women are meant to be the man being the perfect person for her. But the women wants more time. But the man disagrees with the time lines and forces himself on her. What good is the happy life if it starts with rape. It would be interesting in this respect how the Iraq people would answer the question, “Were you happy the Americans came?”. I think the dead ones would have to say no. But lets say these weren’t included, it would be interesting, don’t you think? If the answer was yes you would be right. We finally changed to option 3, because the world situation changed, and the whole world condemned us for it.
I can only conclude that the world preferred an Iraq with Saddam in charge, which is a foolish and immoral position. Look at how eager the French and Russians were to trade with Saddam. I cannot compare the situation to rape. First of all, we didn’t invade Iraq to save its people - we invaded it for reasons of self defense, with the hope that the resulting government would destabilize the dictatorships in the middle east as others saw the results of freedom in Iraq. Iraq, the regime, was a danger to us. Daniel Kay, the inspector who was first to discover that there was no significant WMD program, said that Iraq had been more dangerous to us than he thought before the war (when he thought it had WMD’s) because of the amount of dangerous knowledge for sale and a breakdown on the security of that information. So we didn’t rape Iraq - we threw out the regime and are now dealing with the consequences. It was an experiment - we still don’t know if it will achieve its goals. Any war brings tragedy, and this was no exception, but Iraq was already full of tragedy and a threat to export it.
The Iraq people created Saddam. They let him take power. They cannot totally absolve themselves of responsibility. Furthermore, many took advantage of the Baath apparatus to live well. Others were innocent victims. We also made a historic mistake when we encouraged the Kurds and the Shia to rise against Saddam in 1991, and the rebellion was a failure. Far more people died because of that than because of the recent war.
Regardless, of the answer to the outcome of the hypothetical question, sovereignty is valued by many people. It’s a simple principle like the right to an attorney, it may protect some bad guys, but in general it protects the innocent from a police, or government with too much power. It’s like freedom of speech. You may not like what other people have to say, but it protects your right to say what you believe. These, basic tenents make societies work inside and outside of countries. Begin, to take these things away and the societies begin to collapse.
This what sovereignty is, a right to be free from even the best persion or country in the world. It may protect some bad guys, but it protects the innocent as well. So isn’t sovereignty in keeping with American ideals?
Yes, sovereignty is very important (see my discussion at the start). But it isn’t the absolutely most important value in world affairs.
I opposed the intervention in the Balkans on the following grounds: it was a violation of sovereignty that did not involve vital US interests, and hence we should have stayed out. I felt the Europeans should have done the job if it needed doing, but apparently all of Europe didn’t have the combat power and logistics to fight Serbia!
Tell me - should we have intervened in the Balkans? Why did the US have to intervene, and why do we still have to keep one division permanently stationed there? Why doesn’t Europe clean up the mess in its own back yard? How about Serbian sovereignty?
In Serbia, where we had no vital interest, Europe wanted us to intervene, violate sovereignty, and be the world’s policeman. In Iraq, which gave all evidence of being a serious threat to us, the world condemns us for intervening.
Is it any wonder that we are not always going to do only what the world wants when it comes to protecting ourselves, when those who would criticize us are so selfish and hypocritical themselves?
Dear JonS,
Had the US supported the Kurdish and Shia uprising, I think it would have had far more credibility in it’s argument against the validity of sovereignty.
It’s involvement with Serbia, was in the midst of the country disentegrating in armed conflict.
In which, we differ in the reasons when sovereignty is set aside. It seems the united states has gone to war with poor knowledge. It is simply not acceptable to say, it was the best knowledge at the time. The united states was wrong, and instead admiting so. It says, well it was still the right thing to. It’s like the boy who cries wolf, (because he had the best available knowledge), credibility is lost. It’s the chain of command where for what ever reason, the people at the top are to be held accountable. To do other wise simply sets the president, for a mode of operation, where countries go to war, and simply state after the fact that they had bad informoration.
Even if all what you say is true. It seems like a questionable methodology and foreign policy. Simply put the end does not justify the means.
It is the equivalent to throwing a persion in jail on bad evidence, and then changing the charges, and saying well he deserved to be in prison in any account. Can you imagine a judicial system that would condone such a syste