If you want a well-informed view of the war and its larger context, read other essays like the above at: http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/Comment/index.shtml
keymar!!! cut and paste only? ok ok ok.... no essay, only a letter Thank you, George Bush, the Great Leader. First of all, may I thank you for showing all of us the danger which Saddam Hussein represents. Perhaps many of us might have forgotten that he used chemical weapons against his own people as well as against the people of Iran. Hussein is a blood-thirsty dictator, and certainly an embodiment of evil in the world today. However, that is not the only reason why I am thanking you. In the early months of 2003, you helped show us, sir, many important things about the world, and it is for this that you have my gratitude. I was taught as child to always say "thank you" to someone who has done me a favor, and it is in that spirit that I write these words. Thank you for showing us all that the people of Turkey and their Parliament are not for sale, not even for $26 billion dollars. Thank you for showing us clearly the enormous abyss which exists between the decisions taken by leaders of nations and the true desires of their people. Thank you for helping us see with painful clarity that whether it is José Aznar of Spain or Tony Blair of the UK, that our so called elected leaders donât have the slightest regard or respect for the fact that over 90% of their population are against war. Thank you for allowing us to witness the ease with whichTony Blair was able to blithely ignore the largest public protest held in England in the last 30 years. Thank you, because your insistence on war forced Blair to go to Parliament with a plagiarized dossier which consisted of notes written ten years ago by an arab graduate student. As a result we were able to witness the unbelievable farce of Blair insisting that these notes represented âproofâ gathered by the British secret service. Thank you for making Colin Powell descend to the ridiculous by showing the UN Security Council photographs, which a week later were publicly denounced by Hans Blix, the weapons inspector responsible for verifying the disarmament of Iraq Thank you, because your position on war resulted in the French Foreign Minister, Mr. Dominique de Villepin, in his speech against war on Iraq, being honored by a standing ovation. This is an honor which, if I am correct, has only happened once before in the history of the U.N., and that was during a presentation by Nelson Mandela. Thank you, because due to your strenuous push for war, for the first time the Arab nations of the Gulf, usually so divided, have found a reason to unite and have recently issued a joint resolution in Cairo condemning your proposed invasion. You have brought about a unity of opinion amongst the arab nations, that they had not achieved on their own. Thank you, because as a result of your administrationâs rhetoric blasting the United Nations as âirrelevantâ, even the most undecided and reluctant nations have been inspired to take a position against your countryâs attack on Iraq. Thank you for your extraordinary foreign policy. Attempts to defend your ambitions have caused British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, to attempt to argue a case for a âmoral warâ, and with each attempt lose more international credibility. Thank you for attempting to divide Europe, which after a century of war and upheaval has been fighting for unity. This was a warning clearly seen by all of us, and it will not be forgotten. Thank you for finally managing to achieve what few have managed in the past century: to unite millions of people, across the continents and give them a common cause to fight for, even if that cause is the exact opposite from yours. Thank you for letting us feel that even if our words are not being heard, they are at least being repeated. This will give us strength in the future. Thank you, because without your esteemed help, we wouldnât have known the extent to which we were capable of mobilizing. Perhaps this appears useless today...but it will serve us in the future. Thank you. So, now that the drums of war seem to beat with unstoppable ferocity, I want to add an insight, words uttered by an ancient European King to a would-be invader: âMay your morning be glorious and May the sun shine brightly on the armor of your soldiers, because in the afternoon I will defeat you.â Mr. Bush, thank you as well for visibly trying to stop a movement which has already begun. We will pay attention to the feelings of impotence, and the sensations it arouses within us. We will learn to deal with those emotions, and we will transform them. In the meantime, may you enjoy your beautiful morning, and all the glory that it may bring you. Thank you, because I know you will not listen to us, nor take us seriously. Know, however, that we have listened to you and heard you clearly, and we will not soon forget your words. Thank you, George W. Bush, the great leader! Nice going Georgie
America in the vice Lives and careers are on the line in Iraq Leader Saturday March 29, 2003 The Guardian A vice is slowly beginning to close on US and British political leaders who ordered or justified the launching of war on Iraq. This potentially fatal squeeze is the product of two opposed dynamics. One is the dawning realisation that the war will not be over quickly, may indeed drag on for months, and will certainly not be the "cakewalk" predicted by Kenneth Adelman of the Pentagon's infamous defence policy board. The other is the prospect of an accelerating humanitarian crisis. Several factors, notably fierce Iraqi resistance and US miscalculations about the number of ground combat forces required, have forced a slowdown in the offensive. Around Basra, indeed, and south of Baghdad, the advance has effectively been halted for several days. A tactical reassessment is now under way against a backdrop of escalating political recriminations in Washington and increasingly, between London and the US. The top US infantry commander in Iraq, Lieutenant-General William Wallace, admits the campaign is not progressing as expected, echoing concerns expressed by retired senior generals. Whitehall defence officials are urging the sort of patient, circumspect approach adopted by British forces outside Basra. The evident fear is that any precipitate ground assault on Baghdad and a subsequent descent into street-fighting by outnumbered, fatigued and poorly supplied US troops could be disastrous. Even the hawkish US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, principal author of the controversial "combat lite" strategy and a man whose reputation and career are very much on the line, appears to be hesitating. The champion of the "forward-leaning" posture is now in danger of falling flat on his face. His boss, George Bush, who at Camp David this week seemed to be asleep while standing up, insists a relentless America will prevail "no matter how long it takes". Down in Tampa, that sounds like leadership. But it is actually an amazing admission that the US military behemoth no longer entirely controls the timetable or pace of a war begun at a moment and in a place of its own particular choosing. That the Pentagon has been obliged to double its ground combat forces after only a week, and must now wait for them to deploy, is a matter for considerable political shock and awe. This military deceleration now runs directly counter to that other powerful dynamic: a quickening human tragedy. Put simply, the longer the war rages, the more acute the suffering of the Iraqi people will become. And while the regime remains undefeated, the more deeply problematic will be efforts to distribute aid and the more furious the international outcry. The prospect of Iraqis dying in large numbers from dehydration, or malnutrition or disease is still hopefully some way off; the UN estimates a five-week food supply. But problems with refugees and tainted water supply are beginning to emerge around Basra and Nassiriya. Aid agencies, unable to enter most of the country while fighting continues, say they cannot assess the status of the population. However much money is raised, and the UN has set a $2.2bn overall target, it is useless as long as organised, safe distribution remains impractical. Last night's decision to give the UN secretary-general temporary control of a resumed oil-for-food programme and $10bn worth of uncompleted contracts will also have a merely symbolic, political importance if secure distribution routes to 45,000 outlets are not swiftly reopened. The Iraqi regime is not helping, cynically using the plight of civilians as a propaganda tool. The US military and the US government's aid agency are not helping either by trying to direct the relief effort and thereby potentially compromising independent NGOs with far superior expertise. Yesterday's arrival of the British aid ship, Sir Galahad, at Umm Qasr, while welcome in itself, highlights another difficulty. This is Iraq's only deep-water port, the size of Dover. It will have to cope with the competing demands of military and humanitarian supplies for the duration and beyond. Britain has earmarked £210m for humanitarian work in a total war budget of £3bn; the US $2.4bn, out of $74.7bn. Yet even with the best will in the world, aid efforts will have limited impact while the conflict continues inconclusively. This is why, with the war lengthening and slowing, Iraq's human crisis seems certain to intensify. This is the inexorably closing vice that has the power to destroy thousands of innocent lives and some very prominent political careers. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,925032,00.html
Okay, let's try to make it simple: You (or the original author of the letter?) concede that Hussein is a "blood-thirsty dictator, and certainly an embodiment of evil in the world today." Since you appear to oppose military action to remove him and his regime, what is your proposal for dealing with this "blood-thirsty... embodiment of evil"? Or do you believe that blood-thirsty embodiments of evil can or should be ignored?
The American administration is a bloodthirsty wild animal By Harold Pinter The article is taken from an address given by English playwright of world-renown and political activist Harold Pinter upon receiving an honorary doctorate at the University of Turin on November 27, 2002, and was first published in the London Telegraph on December 11, 2002. Earlier this year, I had a major operation for cancer. The operation and its after effects were something of a nightmare. I felt I was a man unable to swim bobbing about under water in a deep dark endless ocean. But I did not drown and I am very glad to be alive. However, I found that to emerge from a personal nightmare was to enter an infinitely more pervasive public nightmare - the nightmare of American hysteria, ignorance, arrogance, stupidity and belligerence; the most powerful nation the world has ever known effectively waging war against the rest of the world. "If you are not with us, you are against us," President George W. Bush has said. He has also said: "We will not allow the world's worst weapons to remain in the hands of the world's worst leaders." Quite right. Look in the mirror, chum. That's you. America is at this moment developing advanced systems of "weapons of mass destruction" and is prepared to use them where it sees fit. It has more of them than the rest of the world put together. It has walked away from international agreements on biological and chemical weapons, refusing to allow inspection of its own factories. The hypocrisy behind its public declarations and its own actions is almost a joke. America believes that the 3,000 deaths in New York are the only deaths that count, the only deaths that matter. They are American deaths. Other deaths are unreal, abstract, of no consequence. The 3,000 deaths in Afghanistan are never referred to. The hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children dead through American and British sanctions which have deprived them of essential medicines are never referred to. The effect of depleted uranium, used by America in the Gulf war, is never referred to. Radiation levels in Iraq are appallingly high. Babies are born with no brain, no eyes, no genitals. Where they do have ears, mouths or rectums, all that issues from these orifices is blood. The 200,000 deaths in East Timor in 1975 brought about by the Indonesian government but inspired and supported by America are never referred to. The 500,000 deaths in Guatemala, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Argentina and Haiti, in actions supported and subsidised by America, are never referred to. The millions of deaths in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are no longer referred to. The desperate plight of the Palestinian people, the central factor in world unrest, is hardly referred to. But what a misjudgment of the present and what a misreading of history this is. People do not forget. They do not forget the death of their fellows, they do not forget torture and mutilation, they do not forget injustice, they do not forget oppression, they do not forget the terrorism of mighty powers. They not only don't forget: they also strike back. The atrocity in New York was predictable and inevitable. It was an act of retaliation against constant and systematic manifestations of state terrorism on the part of America over many years, in all parts of the world. In Britain, the public is now being warned to be "vigilant" in preparation for potential terrorist acts. The language is in itself preposterous. How will - or can - public vigilance be embodied? Wearing a scarf over your mouth to keep out poison gas? However, terrorist attacks are quite likely, the inevitable result of our Prime Minister's contemptible and shameful subservience to America. Apparently a terrorist poison gas attack on the London Underground system was recently prevented. But such an act may indeed take place. Thousands of schoolchildren travel on the Underground every day. If there is a poison gas attack from which they die, the responsibility will rest entirely on the shoulders of our Prime Minister. Needless to say, the Prime Minister does not travel on the Underground himself. The planned war against Iraq is in fact a plan for premeditated murder of thousands of civilians in order, apparently, to rescue them from their dictator. America and Britain are pursuing a course that can lead only to an escalation of violence throughout the world and finally to catastrophe. It is obvious, however, that America is bursting at the seams to attack Iraq. I believe that it will do this not only to take control of Iraqi oil, but also because the American administration is now a bloodthirsty wild animal. Bombs are its only vocabulary. Many Americans, we know, are horrified by the posture of their government, but seem to be helpless. Unless Europe finds the solidarity, intelligence, courage and will to challenge and resist American power, Europe itself will deserve Alexander Herzen's declaration - "We are not the doctors. We are the disease".
---Or do you believe that blood-thirsty embodiments of evil can or should be ignored?--- that label can easily apply to us looking from the outside if you consider all our doings (the bad) to the world BUT this is another subject. He used to be addicted to nuclear weapons too, per Shrub & Co but that's not the essence of your question. Sooooo few thinks to consider first. ok ok ok. I will ask you and the rest in this forum the following: Go back and find the facts about world history on all the nations that we, the United States of America has been involved with. militarily, peacefully, trades, allies, enemies etc. Get the facts both on the good we have done to this world AND the bad. Make a list(hundreds of sites) List all the nations now out there and who rules them. Check National Archives. Check declassified Documents. Check Presidential Orders. Go to your local library and read about war and peace. Next: List all the heads of all these nations. Tell me who is good and who is bad and why? Then Prioritize them!! Who/what nation is the greatest threat?? and WHY? Next you will discover that many of the bad ones were put in place by us. Ask yourself why. Few of the conclusions: Just about all of them can be "labelled" evil or great leaders depending on what cartel benefits. Use media spin and you got what ever you want. YOU are a trader, follow the tape, follow the money trail. NOT upgrades/downgrades and fake bids/asks Don't look at the media puffery and f%$ked up wording. DON"T show me any friggin polls supporting shrub and co by 65% Cause if you do then you need to remember the CNN polls and Princeton studies where 2/3 of our fellow citizens believe that Iraqis were either all or some of the hijackers. And these maywell be the same ignorant people who are fat and pay more attention to freedom fries than the death and destruction we are causing. Sadam is bad? yes we all agree on that. Is he a threat? NO! Who put him there? We did. Why? read the history. Has he done good to Iraq, yes that too. Iraq till 91 had the best educational system in the middle east second to Israel. Are the Iraqis expecting us with open arms? doesn't look like it. How to deal with the problem? DON'T fucking CREATE ONE TO START WITH!!!!!!! But now he is there. You want him removed? ( but are you sure we really do? and why?) Who's gonna replace him?? Look at Afghanistan, it's worst now than before. But back to Iraq. Fine, want him out: Who much will all this mess going to cost us I meant the tax payers???.. cause as you know Halibarton and shrub Co, Defense, Oils will make out extremely well. Ok let's say 500 billion when all is said and done? F%$K we are willing to pay Turks (possibly worst barbarians than Iraq) 50 billion of our tax to let us in. Take 1/2 of 500 billion, save all the lives, avoid destabilization of the area and possible WW3, AND GIVE IT to the Iraqi people. Money talks bullshit walks. Sodom will be out in no time. Look! inspection were working before and worked now. Blix stated: we never have declared to UN that Iraq has WMD's When he was full of them before 91 he didn't use them and he had infinitely more capability to do so. I read these posts and it's really sad how misinformed all the warmongers are. I am for WAR 100% IF someone tries to invade my home. I am NOT for pre-emptive bs based on fraud and I am not for destabilization of the world. Now I am sure that many will come and answer this, try to find a sentence, or a period missing, or attack the poster you know how it goes... But if you are serious--I know this is chit chat--get the facts all of them or as many as you can. Open your mind to what is happening on the big picture. Take a look at our greatest nation the true beacon of democracy and values --AT LEAST IT USED TO BE-- and then tell me about this war or any war for that matter. I don't want to turn this into a pissing and moaning contest, and I do appreciate your honest and direct questions. Follow the real big money trail and who benefits from what. Connect the dots and it becomes clear. Keymar, do notice the minimal usage of (^%$#%# words).. out of courtesy
Oh, good, an opportunity to re-argue the same arguments that we've gone over and over a thousand times over the last year or so. Prediction: msfe will not bother to attempt to justify any of the arguments in this twisted screed. He'll either just disappear from the discussion, or, at best, reply with some irrelevant and impertinent jab that never addresses either the larger argument or the ideas on which it rests. Deft and penetrating analysis there... Good thing the writer doesn't possess any biases. Actually, the victims came from many different countries. The larger point isn't the 3,000 already murdered, but the ones who could be added to the total by future acts perpetrated by an implacable enemy whose ambitions in this regard appear to be unbounded. It would have been better to leave Afghanistan under the Taliban-Al Qaeda? When do we begin, for instance, to "refer to" the millions of Afghanis who were under threat of famine prior to US military action, and have been saved? The misappropriation of money by Hussein's regime - for building "palaces" and for maintaining military and security forces in luxury rather than for feeding and caring for the Iraqi people - is "never referred to" by peaceniks. That their preferred policy - "containment" - would have ensured an indefinite continuation of this same situation is also "never referred to." The consequences of any alternative policy are also never referred to. I have repeatedly asked the anti-American and anti-war writers on ET to address this central issue. None has. Ever. Not once. The depleted uranium charge is, to be charitable, controversial and very weakly founded - especially when compared to the widely documented crimes, including genocide, ethnic cleansing, and wars of aggression, perpetrated by the Hussein Regime. As compared to the tens of millions of deaths caused by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, among others? On this score, by the way, implicitly blaming the Cambodian genocide (or the fighting on Central America) on the US is an obviously one-sided and, for a leftist, totally self-serving re-writing of history. The rest of Pinter's commentary is just rhetoric all derived from the same "style" of historical analysis, suffused with presumptions of certain knowledge and moral superiority, yet offering nothing even remotely resembling a practical or effective method of dealing with the world situation.