Fables of Faubus

Yuck

djberg96 on 2003-01-23T14:06:04

The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was he who made it possible.

So, Clinton was planning a war on Iraq then? What is he referring to here?

Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world’s poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties. They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions.

Yep, Enron is Bush's fault. Because we all *know* that a big, evil corporation's behavior is due to some Republican somewhere.

They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions.

First, supporting Israel is hardly new to the Bush administration. Second, what UN resolutions is he referring to?

A war for how long, please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost to the American taxpayer’s pocket? At what cost — because most of those 88 per cent are thoroughly decent and humane people — in Iraqi lives?

The cost will be minimal. The benefits, assuming a free democracy is set up and there is help in rebuilding from the West (and there would be), far outweigh the costs, both to the Iraqi people, the U.S., the Middle East, and the world. Let's not forget what a mother-fucker Hussein is. This guy *is* Stalin, only his army isn't nearly as big (thank goodness). How many Iraqi lives have to be lost at Hussein's hand? YOU ARE NOT SAVING IRAQI LIVES.

...but I would love to see Saddam’s downfall — just not on Bush’s terms and not by his methods

Yes, because we all know that *just wishing* Saddam Hussein would go away will eventually make him go away. Economic sanctions won't work. Political pressure won't work. ONLY MILITARY FORCE WILL REMOVE HUSSEIN. And no, putting a bullet in his head won't accomplish much - we'll just have one military dictator replacing another.

The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions. God appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America’s Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.

Oh, yes, we all know that Republicans are religious fanatics who justify everything they do as God's will. Please. This is more liberal, hysterical stereotyping. I have yet to see or hear the Bush administration suggest that it is God's will that we attack Iraq. Whether I agree with them or not, everything I've seen and heard has been very pragmatic. Mostly it boils down to, "we're sick of him".

God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one another’s, the Bush family numbers one President, one ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor of Florida and the ex-Governor of Texas.

Ok, let's talk about the Kennedy's now. No? I didn't fucking think so. What does this have to do with anything?!

Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker after her. And so on. But none of these trifling associations affects the integrity of God’s work.

Right, because only Republicans are involved in Big Oil. Oh, try searching on "al gore" + "occidental petroleum" and see how it goes. More ignorant liberal stereotyping. Democrats are merely better at pretending to be environmentalists without actually effecting any change. This is how we end up with protection for wildlife refuges (which I support, btw), but no real energy policy for 8 years.

What is at stake is not an Axis of Evil — but oil, money and people’s lives. Saddam’s misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world. Bush wants it, and who helps him get it will receive a piece of the cake. And who doesn’t, won’t.

What in the world makes you think we're going to war in Iraq over oil? Please liberals, tell me. Are we going to occupy Iraq permanately, and pipe their oil directly into our country? Is that your brilliant theory? Or would we help with the reconstruction and leave? Please, get a friggin' grip.

If Saddam didn’t have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart’s content. Other leaders do it every day — think Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt.

Oh, I think it's clear we have no love for most of these countries. Saudi Arabia has been on my personal shitlist for some time. Any country that gives refuge to Edi Amin based on a phoney conversion to Islam deserves a nuke in the capital square, but that's just my opinion.

Blair’s worst chance is that, with or without the UN, he will drag us into a war that, if the will to negotiate energetically had ever been there, could have been avoided; a war that has been no more democratically debated in Britain than it has in America or at the UN. By doing so, Blair will have set back our relations with Europe and the Middle East for decades to come. He will have helped to provoke unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional chaos in the Middle East. Welcome to the party of the ethical foreign policy

Holy Hell! Has Chamberlain come back from the dead to espouse his brilliant political views and demonstrate his keen political savvy? We wouldn't want to provoke retalation would we? Better if we just do nothing. GAH! It's the same old shit, warmed over.

BTW, I should mention that I am not a Republican. I am an agnostic Independent.

Re:Yuck

davorg on 2003-01-23T14:49:35

Don't have the time or inclination to debate this in much detail, but one thing you said can't go unchallenged.

Mostly it boils down to, "we're sick of him".

I really don't think that's a valid reason for one nation to try to depose the leader of another.

Re:Yuck

darobin on 2003-01-23T15:09:29

Not so! I'm sick of Bush, lets depose him, yay!

Re:Yuck

inkdroid on 2003-01-24T16:40:45

Agreed on that. I'm embarassed to be an American in these times. It transcends liberal/conservative politics IMHO. It's cultural.

Re:Yuck

darobin on 2003-01-23T15:08:38

First things first, you'll no doubt notice that the article clearly laid itself out to be written as a piece of opinion, and with an agenda to comment on UK foreign policy more than anything else. Calling it liberal blather and comparing it to the opinion of pinheads is either misunderstanding it or doing exactly the same thing -- in which case why criticize on those grounds?

Now, not calling you a pinhead, and moving on to a smaller selection of point myself:

So, Clinton was planning a war on Iraq then?

Quite possibly. Note that Iraq was pretty much constantly bombed since the last open war on it. You'll note that he says he very much dislikes Bush, but he doesn't say he liked Clinton.

we all *know* that a big, evil corporation's behavior is due to some Republican somewhere

Well, yeah... that's pretty much common knowledge [ducks].

Second, what UN resolutions is he referring to?

Err, well, a fair number of UN resolutions have been constantly disregarded by Israel, notably ones relating to occupied territories. That's a fact whether or not you think they should have been followed.

The cost will be minimal. The benefits, assuming a free democracy is set up and there is help in rebuilding from the West (and there would be), far outweigh the costs, both to the Iraqi people, the U.S., the Middle East, and the world. Let's not forget what a mother-fucker Hussein is.

I'll stay within the realm of polite conversation and call that optimistic. Where future cost is concerned, the real answer is We Don't Know. Let us not forget that operations by the CIA to overthrow SH over the past decade have all failed miserably, often at a non-negligible cost.

Where setting up free democracies abroad is concerned, well, maybe, but the US doesn't exactly have the track record to make it trustable there. Let us not forget that SH could stand this long only thanks to past support from the US (notably around the Iran conflict).

Yes, SH is a motherfucker, no need to be polite there. However, what people that have lived or spent sufficient amounts of time there over the past few years will tell you is that however much the iraqi want to get rid of SH, they trust the US even less and the odds are that they might side with SH in case of trouble. The reason for this mistrust is USA's past record in dealing with such matters, and the constant bombing (which is claiming lives) over the past decade.

try searching on "al gore" + "occidental petroleum" and see how it goes. More ignorant liberal stereotyping. Democrats (...)

Go back and read it again, you're putting words into his mouth, or at least grossly exaggerating his point. Just because Bush, Cheney, and Rice are Big Oil sons of a bitch doesn't mean Al Gore ain't a Big Oil son of a bitch. If the US ever needed a Witch Hunt, that could be it.

Are we going to occupy Iraq permanately, and pipe their oil directly into our country?

Come on, you have to have seen the plans put forth to put Iraq under US governing for five renewable years? And there are only two (simplified) ways in which the US can face its energy consumption problems in the not-so-distant future: a) find a way to produce more oil (most or Iraq's rigs are dead), and lower dependency on Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela or b) ratify Kyoto and invest massively in having a 21rst century energy policy. Sadly enough, I don't see many people advocating the latter there, which in turn would tend to make the former the only option.

I am an agnostic Independent.

Fine. But then surely you have no reason to assume someone is defending the Democrats just because he thinks the Republicans currently in power stink do you? The world isn't always a bipolar lobbycracy.

Re:Yuck

djberg96 on 2003-01-23T16:22:55

First things first, you'll no doubt notice that the article clearly laid itself out to be written as a piece of opinion, and with an agenda to comment on UK foreign policy more than anything else. Calling it liberal blather and comparing it to the opinion of pinheads is either misunderstanding it or doing exactly the same thing -- in which case why criticize on those grounds?

I realize what it's *supposed* to be. But most of the article is an attack on Bush, his staff, and his motivations. It isn't until paragraph 14 (!) that he even bothers to tie in Blair. 20% of an article does not a topic make. Perhaps I was out of line when I used the term "pinhead", but I used the term "blather" because he makes lots of claims with absolutely no corroborating evidence.

Where setting up free democracies abroad is concerned, well, maybe, but the US doesn't exactly have the track record to make it trustable there.

I'd say we're hit and miss. I'd like to at least give it a try.

Let us not forget that SH could stand this long only thanks to past support from the US (notably around the Iran conflict).

You must be joking!!! Where does virtually ALL of Iraq's non-Russian military equipment come from? It comes from FRANCE! Over 100 F-1 Mirage fighters, plus over 100 military helicopters, plus exocet missles (many now destroyed, however). Some of these were sold in exchange for (you guessed it) - OIL! As far as I know, the U.S. never supplied the Iraqi's with a single aircraft, helicopter or tank. Certainly nothing even remotely modern if we did. Mostly stingers, small arms and money, I imagine. Oh, and who built most of the hardened aircraft hangers in Iraq? ENGLAND! It is time we dispel this myth that the US is to blame for Iraq's military might.

Here are some links btw:
globalsecurity.org
nothing

Go back and read it again, you're putting words into his mouth, or at least grossly exaggerating his point. Just because Bush, Cheney, and Rice are Big Oil sons of a bitch doesn't mean Al Gore ain't a Big Oil son of a bitch. If the US ever needed a Witch Hunt, that could be it.

Ok - you're right. I guess what irritates me about this point is that it suggests that major foreign policy decisions are being made so that Bush and his staff can pad their portfolio. To me, it's sickening.

Come on, you have to have seen the plans put forth to put Iraq under US governing for five renewable years? And there are only two (simplified) ways in which the US can face its energy consumption problems in the not-so-distant future: a) find a way to produce more oil (most or Iraq's rigs are dead), and lower dependency on Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela or b) ratify Kyoto and invest massively in having a 21rst century energy policy. Sadly enough, I don't see many people advocating the latter there, which in turn would tend to make the former the only option.

Oh, I'll be the first person to say we should sign the Kyoto treaty. But I can tell you that the US does not rely on Iraqi oil *at all*. IIRC, we actually get more from Russia and South America these days. But yes, we need a greatly improved energy policy and Republicans are notorious for opposing environmental measures.

Fine. But then surely you have no reason to assume someone is defending the Democrats just because he thinks the Republicans currently in power stink do you? The world isn't always a bipolar lobbycracy.

Ok - my mistake. But I've been suffering under a two party system my whole life...

Why

rafael on 2003-01-23T15:29:07

What in the world makes you think we're going to war in Iraq over oil?

Personnally, I can't figure out another reason. Care to explain why are you going to war then ?

Re:Why

chromatic on 2003-01-23T18:04:30

To depose a government that's ignored several U. N. resolutions -- put together at the end of the last war -- and has destabilized the region.

Assuming those are good reasons (and I realize there's a wide difference of opinion on that), should there not be a war if Big Oil benefits? In other words, is "punishing" Big Oil more important than promoting global stability and practicing international justice?

Re:Why

rafael on 2003-01-23T20:32:43

These are perhaps good reasons, (and that's not the point here), but they're not consistent with other facts. Israel also ignored several UN resolutions, and has destabilized the region (and for a larger number of years than Iraq). But it's still supported by the USA (and several other governments worldwide). So these reasons don't explain the current foreign policy of the USA.

Re:Why

chromatic on 2003-01-23T22:49:59

It's hard to make a credible argument that Israel's just looking for a good excuse to turn Syria, Lebanon, Sinai, or Jordan into a glassy crater. You're right, though, ignoring UN resolutions is a pretty lousy justification by itself.

Of course, with Israel you have to admit two things. First, the existence of the country itself is a destabilizing factor (and pretty much makes the whole situation unsolveable). Second, any solution has to take into account 1.2 centuries of entrenched Zionism within Israel and American Protestantism.

It'd be pretty tough for Sharon to get away with building nuclear or chemical weapons on the sly, though, compared to Hussein.

Nuclear weapons

htoug on 2003-01-24T07:16:35

Israel already has nuclear weapons - that much is commonly acknowledged [try Googling for Mordechai Vanunu - you'll find articles in the Jerusalem Post about the Israel nuclear capability under the headline 'The worst-kept secret in the world'}.

I still haven't seen the US doing anything but support one of the most vicious occupations in the later years, and a goverment that is led by former terrorists who are completely indifferent to human rights [ducks and scurries for cover from angry right-wing americans hurling bombs at anyone they don't agree with - or like].

Re:Nuclear weapons

chromatic on 2003-01-24T20:25:25

a goverment that is led by former terrorists who are completely indifferent to human rights

Funny, you can paint people of both sides in the Israeli/Palestinian fracas with the same brush.

Re:Nuclear weapons

pudge on 2003-01-31T15:22:27

Having nuclear weapons is not the crime of Iraq. Having nuclear weapons in direct violation of UN resolutions resulting from Iraq losing a war with the UN is the crime of Iraq.

The Gulf War ended with Iraq losing. There were terms to its end. Iraq has failed to comply with those terms, according to everyone except for Iraq itself. What the hell did they THINK would happen?

Re:Why

pudge on 2003-01-31T15:20:33

Rafael, I can't believe you are honestly comparing Israel to Iraq. The resolutions against Iraq have to do with failure to disarm of NBC weapons and weapons programs following Iraq losing a war with the United Nations. The resolutions against Israel are largely against both Israel and the Palestinians, are not related to weapons of mass destruction, have far less force of law, being that they are not the terms of the end of a war. They are, simply put, not the same thing.

Re:Why

properler_head on 2003-01-24T20:10:25

There are other reasons:

• waging a war demonstrates leadership or so think Bush.
• the Military-Industrial Complex needs a major war every ten years or so.

Moral grounds are irrelevant as can be seen by reading any biography of Saddam Hussein.

Re:Yuck

ethan on 2003-01-23T16:34:13

The cost will be minimal. The benefits, assuming a free democracy is set up and there is help in rebuilding from the West (and there would be), far outweigh the costs, both to the Iraqi people, the U.S., the Middle East, and the world. Let's not forget what a mother-fucker Hussein is. This guy *is* Stalin, only his army isn't nearly as big (thank goodness). How many Iraqi lives have to be lost at Hussein's hand? YOU ARE NOT SAVING IRAQI LIVES.

The costs wont be minimal, and they haven't been minimal during the last gulf-war. I heard something about roughly 300,000 casualties. Those were numbers I wasn't aware of and numbers you wouldn't have expected if you had followed the news coverage by this time.

Now, if such a war could in fact bring a stable democracy to this country or region I'd say that these are costs worthwhile to be taken. But I am sceptical. While the Iraqi people surely long for a different government their idea of such a government is a different one than that of the Americans or, in general, us Westerns. It is a common misconception that our democracy is suitable for everyone.

And nonetheless, I still tend to back the war against Iraq, for quite some idiosyncratic reasons though. In my surrounding I have a lot of people from the middle east (mostly originating from the Iran, but also the Lebanonm, Syria and even one from the Iraq): those are considerate and intelligent people, all of them saying ever so often that they'd already have returned in their home country if it only had a proper political system that could ensure their freedom. I hope that a war against SH could give them such a system. Only if this happens we will later be able to say that this war was a success.

Keeping that in mind, the last war on the gulf was not a success as no substantial changes have been achieved. Hopefully Bush will do it properly this time.

Oh, I think it's clear we have no love for most of these countries. Saudi Arabia has been on my personal shitlist for some time. Any country that gives refuge to Edi Amin based on a phoney conversion to Islam deserves a nuke in the capital square, but that's just my opinion.

Pardon me, but that's a silly statement. Do you want to declare war against a particular political system or against the people suffering from it? No, you need to come up with a more intelligent (more costly, more tricky, less simplistic) solution than dropping a nuke. The aim is to get rid of a few people not of a whole nation (or city, for that matter).

Re:Yuck

djberg96 on 2003-01-23T16:53:55

The costs wont be minimal, and they haven't been minimal during the last gulf-war. I heard something about roughly 300,000 casualties. Those were numbers I wasn't aware of and numbers you wouldn't have expected if you had followed the news coverage by this time.

Actually, I was referring to civilian casualties. 300,000 sounds like an estimate of Iraqi military casualities.

Pardon me, but that's a silly statement. Do you want to declare war against a particular political system or against the people suffering from it? No, you need to come up with a more intelligent (more costly, more tricky, less simplistic) solution than dropping a nuke. The aim is to get rid of a few people not of a whole nation (or city, for that matter).

Well, I was hoping my sarcastic exaggeration was obvious, but apparently not. In any case, I vote we take a poll on the subject...in Uganda.

re: Yuck

vek on 2003-01-23T21:16:08

Re: Yuck

vek on 2003-01-23T21:21:11

Should have replied to djberg96 - my mistake :-(

Re: Yuck

djberg96 on 2003-01-23T21:38:00

How much do you think we're spending annually now to maintain a permanent presence in the area? Now add that up over twelve years. So YES, in the long run, the cost will be minimal.

In reality, I was referring to allied casualties, but thanks for bringing up the $$$ issue.

All I need now

gizmo_mathboy on 2003-01-24T02:51:22