| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
I was at the local Apple store the other day and got into a conversation with a fellow-customer, who actually asked me if I didn’t believe that Bush got us into the Iraq war just for the benefit of companies like Haliburton. This was a reasonable, smart, well-educated guy. And he was buying into this conspiracy theory of Michael Moore’s. I was surprised that anybody had fallen for it.
I said I did not believe that, and ran down a list of the top reasons the war in Iraq is a good thing with regard to the war on terrorists.
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip – Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber.
In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to receive $10,000 checks. A large banner said: “The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein.”
From Israeli newspaper Haaretz:
Israel Radio, quoting a Palestinian Authority report, said Monday that some $500,000 in funds provided by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would be distributed this week to families of Palestinians killed in the territories, including $25,000 each to families of three suicide bombers.
The radio cited a report in the PA-affiliated Al-Ayyam newspaper, according to which the families of Palestinians killed in the violence – who were not suicide terrorists – would receive $10,000 each.
The funds would be distributed by the Arab Liberation Front organization, the radio said.
CIA Analysis, January 2003: Iraqi Support for Terrorism,* (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report):
“Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism.”
CIA Analysis, January 2003—Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report):
“Iraq continues to be a safehaven, transit point, or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel and other allies.”
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 315):
“The CIA provided 78 reports, from multiple sources, [redacted] documenting instances in which the Iraqi regime either trained operatives for attacks or dispatched them to carry out attacks.”
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316):
“Iraq continued to participate in terrorist attacks throughout the 1990s.”
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316):
“From 1996 to 2003, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] focused its terrorist activities on western interests, particularly against the U.S. and Israel.”
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316):
“Throughout 2002, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning attacks against U.S. interests. The CIA provided eight reports to support this assessment.”
After I responded he was open-minded enough to say that I might be right.
Update 9-25-04. See part 2 of this article here.
#1
#2----------------------------------------------------------------------------
the famous bill hicks sketch i think sums it up nicely:
"iraq, terrible terrible weapons of mass destruction, terrible.."
"well, how do you know that ?"
"err, well .........., we looked at the receipts !
but as soon as that cheque clears though we're going in..
what times the bank open? , 8 ? we're going in at 9!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3Kris and Willy,
I notice that neither of these comments contradicts any of the specific statements in the article.
#4theres no need mr rubenfield...
its all to blatantly obvious as for me not to waste my time giving you references
go and find out for yourself - thats what im saying
try lakoff, chomsky, edward said, john pilger etc...
good luck!
#5That's a response one usually hears from people who have no facts to back up their statements.
#6The CIA blew the call on WMDs. Whether that is an important element of the decision to go to war is another discussion. The CIA was claiming that Iraq had active production on chemical weapons, and large stockpiles. This is the information that Powell, Kerry et al were citing when calling Iraq a direct, immediate threat. Turns out, this just wasn't the case. Sure, we've found small amounts of chemical weapons in various locales within Iraq, but nothing compared to what the prewar intelligence suggested.
Qaddafi was a deal long in the making. I don't believe they closed that deal based on Iraq. It was the long-suffering Libyan economy that drove the Col. to make his move. I forget the attribution, but a comic had a great joke about what kind of dictator makes himself a Colonel?
The terrorists being engaged in Iraq is, I think, one of the best short term strategic moves of the war. If the number of people willing to be suicide terrorists increases as a result of this war, though, it may turn out to be a bad long term decision.
"Other dictators who support terrorism know that if anything like 9-11 happens again and they are involved, we are likely to own their country in about three weeks. This restrains their support of terrorists."
I think this statement is patently false.
We do not have the armed services power to continue to open new fronts in the war on terror. Which dictator is the next target; N. Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Chechnya? How can we simultaneously put occupation forces in all these areas at once. This king of bravado is very dangerous. Remember Somalia, and what happens when too few soldiers are stretched too thin.
Also, chest thumping about the power of our conventional forces is not going to solve the ongoing terrorist problem. We as a nation should not be so eager to pit our finely honed military machine against civilians, which is what the insurgents are. They certainly are not a conventional force, and until their exact fighting status is determined in an addendum to the Geneva Conventions, I have to resort to calling them civilians.
All in all, only the deranged would rather have Saddam in power than out of it. However, there are repurcussions to taking the road we have. Never before has a democratic revolution been started by an outside force. Certainly Iraqis in and out of their country want democracy, but by and large, this push right now is the doing of the U.S. This is a chancey move. If it does pay off with stability and prosperity for the region, then praise to whatever g-d you worship. This eventuality is unfortunately not assured. The negative other side of the possibility is an ethnically based civil war for control of Iraq. This disastrous road will be bad for the region, for us, and for the world. It means other countried may not have the desire to attempt deposing murderous dictators in the future, and that would be the biggest loss of all.
I'm not sure which Israeli occupation Kris wants to end, but the Arab world better just get used to Israel. It's not like a viable Palestinian government was disbanded and destroyed to make way for Israel. You want to look up history? Check out the founding of Israel. Gaza and the West Bank were taken after the combined arab nations tried to obliterate Israel, and kill all of its citizens. If I were Israeli, I'd occupy those lands too. Israel wants to give the land to the Palestinians, though, in return for acknowledgement, and a promise of peace. Neither of which the arabs want. The Palestinian's have submarined every opportunity for peace and a two state solution. Save your ire for their leaders continuing desire for death and murder
#7Great comments, Tim, as always. I particularly like your comments on the history of Israel, which I'll quote here just in recognition of their importance:
I'm not sure which Israeli occupation Kris wants to end, but the Arab world better just get used to Israel. It's not like a viable Palestinian government was disbanded and destroyed to make way for Israel. You want to look up history? Check out the founding of Israel. Gaza and the West Bank were taken after the combined arab nations tried to obliterate Israel, and kill all of its citizens. If I were Israeli, I'd occupy those lands too. Israel wants to give the land to the Palestinians, though, in return for acknowledgement, and a promise of peace. Neither of which the arabs want. The Palestinian's have submarined every opportunity for peace and a two state solution. Save your ire for their leaders continuing desire for death and murder
I don't think we can say that the CIA blew it on WMD's. We know we didn't find any; that doesn't mean the CIA and the intelligence services of so many other countries were wrong in saying he had them. He may have hustled them out of the country. As the U.N. itself reported, Hussein busted up giant factories capable of building WMDs and shipped them out of Iraq before and during the war.
"Other dictators who support terrorism know that if anything like 9-11 happens again and they are involved, we are likely to own their country in about three weeks. This restrains their support of terrorists."I think this statement is patently false.
You support this point of view by saying, reasonably, that we can't liberate the people of all the world's tyrannies. I do not think this contradicts my point, that if Iran or Syria blew up a skyscraper in the U.S., our armies would be likely to roll into their countries.
It's been said before but not enough people listened: the 9/11 terrorists did not kill 3,000 people because they wanted an Israel/Palistinian peace. They will not be satisifed with any settlement that allows Israel to exist. Just read any of bin Laden's tapes.
Beyond that, they want to establish a Talibam-style government across the Arabian peninsula. They want to end western influence in the Arab world - both military and culture.
#9What was it Abba Ebban said? "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity?" Let's hope that's less true now that Arafat is gone.
As for the reasons behind 9/11--they had nothing to do with Israel/Palestine. That was only something that Bin Ladin latched on to later. Saddam as well. The Arab regimes only care about the Palestinians insofar as they can use the issue to advance their own interests.
#10WMD?!?!?!?! Torture?!?!?!?!
I love how you so cavalierly claim that the WMD were carted off to another country. If that is the case, then the world is no safer from loose WMD's than before. Actually, we're probably less safe b/c now these WMD's (if they existed) are floating around. If the WMD went to Syria, why didn't we invade there? If they went to Iran, why didn't we invade there?
If there were no WMD's, then the rationale for war was a total LIE. If the WMD's were spirited off, then we are LESS safe than before the war.
Sure, Saddam was a bad guy and he gave money to suicide bomber's families. So what? We're talking about the security of the US, not the security of Israel.
North Korea is also ruled by a brutal dictator with WMD's. Why don't we invade there? Why not invade Togo or Sudan or Libya or Cuba or Saudi Arabia or Yemen or Syria or Indonesia....
There are some problems that can be solved by the tactical application of high explosives. But there are other problems that are only made worse by the application of military force.
I believe that the tension between Muslims and the West was made worse by the invasion of Iraq and the torture scandals
I agree with Tim that we have to look at the long term consequences of what is going on in Iraq. By putting Syria and Iran on notice that they are next on the invasion list, the US has created a strong impetus for those countries to contribute resources to the insurgency in Iraq.
In the long run, the US public will tire of this expensive and bloody occupation and we will eventually leave. We're in a race to try to create stability in Iraq before the public demands an end to the Iraq occupation and everyone in this country knows it.
If we leave a political vacuum in our wake or a theocracy similar to Iran then our long term security is NOT advanced, it is undermined.
I SINCERELY hope the administration can pull this trick off and make Iraq more stable before we pull out. But I think the odds are not great of this happening.
No one can know if Bush's little adventure has made the US safer until we see what happens to Iraq after we pull out most of the US troops.
#11I love how you so cavalierly claim that the WMD were carted off to another country.
I didn't say anything of the kind.
#12I didn?t say anything of the kind.
I will.
Multiple US weapons inspectors reported clearly to Congress that there was evidence that weapons had been moved to Syria and even Jordan. Saddam could have shown us detailed evidence of his entire program to destroy just the weapons we knew he had in the late 90's. Why do you suppose that he didn't do that? He could have kept his country.
I believe it is because he didn't destroy them all; he hid some, most, or all of them. And now people like Qadaffi have figured out that we do not HAVE to prove you have lots of WMD right now... if we know you had them before, and you can't (or won't) prove that you destroyed them, we destroy YOU. Vik's right, it's a safer world for us and those we protect.
#13You forgot the most obvious reason why the Iraq War wasn't undertaken to serve the interests of Halliburton and all of the Evil Corporations (TM):
It would have been easier and more profitable to leave Saddam in place, strike a deal to end sanctions and rest content with the knowledge that future profits were assured by the stability inherent to the iron grip of the Baathists. You know, the old "pretend that we're France" strategem. (There's also the small matter that government contracts are no way to make a lot of money unless you build fighter planes and aircraft carriers, but that's an esoteric discussion for another day.)
As for the rest, we also know now that Saddam vastly increased the budgets of the ministries that oversaw his WMD programs post-1991. Where do we imagine that money was going? Certainly not toward distributing the food and medicine bought and paid for by the compassion and generosity of the United Nations. Indeed, we know that the best-case scenario is that Saddam had reconstituted his ability to develop WMD technologies with the intent of producing weapons either on a just-in-time basis or on a mass scale after the inevitable demise of the sanctions regime. (A sanctions regime that produced an unconscionable humanitarian disaster and effectively lined the pockets of the Baathists. If it weren't for the inconvenience of intermittent, nosy weapons inspectors -- easily fooled or bribed -- and the humiliation of western fighters flying constant sorties over roughly 2/3 of the country, you could say that the sanctions were the best thing that ever happened to Saddam. But I digress).
Also (Vic, you damned fool) you forgot to mention that Saddam was financially and materially supporting Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaeda affiliate dedicated destroying the only functioning democracy in the Middle East not called Israel: the Kurds. Lovely people those brave young men of Ansar al-Islam -- they ran terrorist training camps on Iraqi soil, dabbled in the use of chemical and biological weapons and murdered Kurdish leaders under a false banner of truce in the run-up to the war. Just for kicks, they ultimately morphed into Zarqawi's "al Qaeda of Mesopotamia" and joined the remnants of the Fedayeen Saddam in their ostensibly heroic "insurgency". (P.S., don't forget where Zarqawi was before his arrival in Iraq: Afghanistan, where he had been wounded in a similar "heroic insurgency" to restore the Taliban to power).
Oh, and does the name Abu Abbas ring a bell? Or Abu Nidal? Or how about a host of related terrorists and elite members of the Islamofascist thugocracy? (Remember Abdul Yasin, one of the architects of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? He -- at the very least -- was granted sanctuary in Baghdad. Anyone who's seen even one episode of LAW AND ORDER knows what that's called: aiding and abetting.) Interesting, however, how so many of these paragons of humanity seemed to keel over dead in the company of their Iraqi hosts not long before coalition troops could bid them "hello" on our behalf. But surely that must be a coincidence.
Ultimately, there's a legitimate argument to be had over the merits of going to war against Iraq (true of any war, actually). And there are legitimate arguments to be had over the conduct of the war (again, true of any war). But to argue that Saddam was not a threat, that he was not operating directly and intentionally to compromise our security interests, that he was not a terrorist and a thug and a murderer and had awful taste in art is to engage in flat-earth ahistoricity. And to imply through such willfully blind omission of the facts that Saddam is somehow a misunderstood victim in all of this is a crime against the millions who suffered and died at his hand. At the very least --whether you're for the war or against it -- you owe them your intellectual honesty.
That's my $.02. Your mileage may vary.
#14Great comments! Some of this is new info to me. Can you refer me to links to provide documentation on:
- "Saddam vastly increased the budgets of the ministries that oversaw his WMD programs post-1991"
- "Saddam was financially and materially supporting Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaeda affiliate dedicated destroying the only functioning democracy in the Middle East not called Israel: the Kurds. "
If I can get links on those subjects I'll quote this comment in a post.
Lakoff, Chomsky, Said, Pilger? Add Robert Fisk as well. And Saddam's Minister of Information, Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf. You'll get the honest truth from all of them.
I certainaly wouldn't call Mr Weston a liberal. Other things, perhaps, but not liberal.
#16Take a long look at the history of humans::: WAR is one of the few constants, constants, constants. Our only option is to determine how to minimize the impact, and extent of war. I am a vietnam vet, believe me no one wants to goto war. no corporation, no soldier, no one.
I am a retired professor of 25 years. Many of my fellow faculty members were liberals who thought US soldiers were terrible representations of humans and at the least misguided. How do you get to that conclusion and never been a soldier???.
Being human is being at war. If we lose 1000 soldiers a year for the next 100 years, guess how many lives have been saved compared to the years of the 2 world wars 1914 thru 1945.
NONE of the details of iraq matter except IF it is the smallest conflict humans will participate in, then we should accept the human conflict is isolated to this small area for the next 100 years.
WAR is what we do. the world is full of BAD dictators who would like nothing less than to be able to use atomic weapons. We need to keep up the fight and not hide from the human condition of WAR.
sorry to be so blunt. I've worked in Asia , africa europe. there is noting to count n in any of these areas of the world. the USA has to be around the world.
Willy wonka said:
"the famous bill hicks sketch i think sums it up nicely:
"iraq, terrible terrible weapons of mass destruction, terrible.."
"well, how do you know that ?"
"err, well .........., we looked at the receipts !
but as soon as that cheque clears though we're going in..
what times the bank open? , 8 ? we're going in at 9!"
Hicks must've been a soothsayer, as he died in 1994...
You are a sadly misguided individual repeating the 'state ideology' which you have been fed
look beyond my friend
'terrorism' is a linguistic weapon only..
the biggest terrorism comes from governments
who are basically controlled by corporations
'state terrorism' - ever considered that ?
such as the american, israeli, and british governments..
the atrocities the american government have commited over the last 50 years
FAR outweigh any other group or even all of them put together...
saying the Michael moore invented this haliburton conspiracy is ludicrous
it was around well before that fat chump
wake up - corporations lead the government...
not your silly christian values.. WAKE UP!
god you religious people make me vomit..
and your racist doctrine on this site makes me pretty scared..
obviously ain't been out much..
have a look at the economy .. see what it does...
look at military spending...
look at how much america gives to israel each year
lets have solidarity not militarised economies and suffering...
END THE ISRAELI OCCUPATION NOW!
i hate to be the one to tell you this..
but the old israel / palestine problem
is a major cause of upset
hell, it might have even been why those nasty 'terrorists' came to your country in the first place...
DUH
and err dont call me a liberal either...
another little gem of 'ideological warfare'
the way you guys have tried to make it a dirty word
very clever, but some of us ain't fooled...
good luck -
didn't the CIA put saddam in power by the way ?