Iraq

[BeardofPants]

AE:
...feminism thread

**** stirrer.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by afro-elf
Greetings shipwright.

I still stick my head in but just don't have the time to engage in lengthy debates but I am gonna post your above joke on the feminism thread

That's cool. My sister the feminist sent it to me.

[The Lady of Ithilien]

What are your personal feelings on this? would an attack be justified? Has Iraq acctually made an attack on the US?

One has to keep in mind that Iraq isn’t the main issue: America has embarked on a global war against global terror, and it began after the attacks of September 11, 2001. This war is indeed unlike any other war because the true "bad guys" are not affiliated with any one nation or any other single, identifiable characteristic.

Iraq is called to task now because Saddam Hussein has been harboring terrorists, fostering terrorists and collecting WMD for himself, and even, unbelievably, providing a retirement zone for old terrorists (though not a completely safe one, as Abu Nidal recently found out). See http://www.iraqfoundation.org for a closer picture of Iraq, check out the Project: Eden link, and then tell me, what are your personal feeling on the opportunity offered for preserving Paradise?

It's all in how one phrases the question.

What is haunting everybody right now is not really Iraq or any other particular facet of the war -- these same questions could be and were phrased with Afghanistan as the subject rather than Iraq. They will, with time, be phrased with other regions, countries, individuals, as the war continues. The recent terrorist action in Bali points out the possible next region of concern and subsequent response.

But presently what everybody really has in mind is the specter of World War III as we have been conditioned to view it by Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" and other man-made 'portents of doom.'

Indeed, the "cowboy" characterization of the current president of the United States (who is actually from the cream of the upper class elite and the son of a New England-born patrician) seems in large part an attempt to cast him into the role of Slim Pickens in "Strangelove," riding the bomb down to the ground and setting off Doomsday.

What is wrong with this picture, apart from the absence of a workable 'Doomsday' system, is that it overlooks that World War III has been going on for quite a time. It doesn't have to be nuclear to qualify: just global and war. Look around the world, check the body counts, and you'll see that we have been wading in the blood of the innocent and the guilty alike for quite some time now. America has stayed out of it, as much as possible, at least militarily, just as with WWII, but this is no longer possible after the attacks of 2001.

Now we must join in and thoroughly defeat a faceless, homeless, yet very powerful enemy. It's like trying to wrestle with a Ringwraith -- what's to hold onto if they shed their cloak? And yet they have the power to wound us, kill us, or even worse, drag us into their own horrible, dark world if we do not fight them wisely.

This is hardly an easy struggle, but no other nation could be more qualified for the job than us, not because of our arsenal or economic might or global business connections, but because we are ourselves a nation of diverse individuals who see things on the individual level and best deal with things on that level.

Well, I do go on. I will mention one other Tolkien tie-in to this situation, though.

America used a real-life form of The Ring to end World War II, there being no real-life version of Mount Oroduin to toss the A-bomb into, and since then we have had to grapple with a problem that even Tolkien couldn't solve non-fantastically. It has scarred us at times, brought out our worst characteristics at times, and our very possession of this "Ring" has deformed us in the eyes of many of our peers ever since then. Yet always have we tried to do the right thing, to first keep this thing out of others hands -- not for selfishness, but for the sake of world peace. We failed, of course, but in the long struggle we have learned better than anyone else how important it is to do something for the right reasons. We are doing this now (or why else would we be working so hard to come to agreement on Iraq within the framework of a UN that seems afraid to take its own resolutions--16 of them, I think it was--seriously).

If you go to http://www.whitehouse.gov or some other archival site and read the text of the major presidential speeches by President Bush immediately after the attacks in 2001 and early 2002, you will see overall not a justification of premeditated war but the construction of a blueprint of good intentions that has been laid down to guide others as this global war continues down through the years (and it will take years) and takes its toll on our wills, hearts and dreams.

I don't believe Kubrick had the right view of World War III. I do think we have entered into a new world where none of us can see very far ahead. But as Tolkien said in another context, some things are good to have begun, no matter how dark the eventual end may be. We have begun . . . .

[afro-elf]

Hello Lady of Ithilien,

You said some good things there, and always your "NICE "
nature shows forth.

The only thing I would comment on is George Dubya CAN be portrayed as a cowboy despite his parentage and a country will look out for its interest so American motives may not be totally altruistic. This not a swipe at the US just stating ANY country may act this way.

Anyway, it nice to know nice people are still around.

[Coney]

*yawn*

[afro-elf]

Originally posted by Coney
*yawn*

I guess George Dubya will be setting his sights on the Isle of the Ever Young now.

[Coney]

Originally posted by afro-elf
I guess George Dubya will be setting his sights on the Isle of the Ever Young now.

Well, I'd never be so audacious to call him a Formorian devil

[The Lady of Ithilien]

You said some good things there, and always your "NICE " nature shows forth.

Thanks, Afro-Elf -- I think. "Nice" has become such an epithet these days. As one would imagine it was in Mordor.

Not at all the world I want to live in, or envision for others. And yet, as someone said long ago, all that's needed for Evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing. And it's so hard to be good in a bad world.

"Who has not hoped
To outrage an enemy's dignity?
Who has not been swept
By the wish to hurt?
And who has not thought that the impersonal world
Deserves no better than to be destroyed
By one fabulous sign of his displeasure?" -J. Bronowski, The Face of Violence

The Good, unlike the Evil, must resist this universal impulse; and one step along the way by which we liberate ourselves from this mindset, which holds the terrorists, their enablers and many of their victims in thrall, is by cultivating "nice." With backbone. Exactly what the US and its allies are doing today. And so, I believe, we will win.

[afro-elf]

It was meant as a compliment.

[The Lady of Ithilien]

And so taken -- thanks!

[Coney]

THIS was only to be expected

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20021029_1949.html

Bush and his meglomaniac mouth

[samwiselvr2008]

I'll come back and post more later, but since I have a time limit, I'll just mention why I do not wont to have war this time:

I don't wont to have war, because my brother dropped out of high school, and that added on to the fact that he is jouning the army in January, if we go to war, he would be in one of the first groups. I love my brother, and even though I don't like some of the things that he has done to me, and suspect that he has done to me, I still love him. If my brother died, then I would go insane. And if he didn't die, then he would never be the same again. He just wouldn't be Richard, he would be, well, not Richard, someone diffrent, that I would prefer Richard over. So lets say that he dose not get called off to war. While we were wating to see if he was or not, it would be tense. We would allways be waching and wating and waiting some more to see if he got called or not to go to war! I don't want war for that reason.

[Coney]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
I'll come back and post more later, but since I have a time limit, I'll just mention why I do not wont to have war this time:

I don't wont to have war, because my brother dropped out of high school, and that added on to the fact that he is jouning the army in January, if we go to war, he would be in one of the first groups. I love my brother, and even though I don't like some of the things that he has done to me, and suspect that he has done to me, I still love him. If my brother died, then I would go insane. And if he didn't die, then he would never be the same again. He just wouldn't be Richard, he would be, well, not Richard, someone diffrent, that I would prefer Richard over. So lets say that he dose not get called off to war. While we were wating to see if he was or not, it would be tense. We would allways be waching and wating and waiting some more to see if he got called or not to go to war! I don't want war for that reason.

That's probably the best anti-war argument on this thread.

[jerseydevil]

Why does your brother want to join the army rigth now? He must support the war then or supports the stand the US is taking.

My brother joined the navy before 9/11. He was stationed in Bahrain when the terrorist attacks occurred and was there during the Afganistan action. It is lucky that he's in the navy and not the army - but still he supports the action that the US is taking.

There is only one reason to join the armed forces and that is to fight and defend your country. If a person isn't willing to give their life for their country - then they shouldn't join the armed forces.

I know it doesn't make it any easier on you. I had to calm my father down during 9/11. My father was in the Navy Sea;ls and he was concerned about my brother.

[Lief Erikson]

Well, I want to thank you Coney for posting that link. I found the new information very interesting, and I hope that when other people find out something new, they also will post links. It would be so convenient for us lazy people .

As for entering the army, I agree with you, jerseydevil.

And I actually think that Iraq is being a little high and mighty to say that we are "tantamount to declaring war" simply because we demand that they do what they said they'd do in the first place. If it takes threatening or bullying to get them to disarm, then so be it. And if they refuse even then . . . We know what Saddam Hussein is willing to do to people, President Bush keeps stressing that on the news. He is certainly willing to use the weapons of mass destruction that he creates, or give them to terrorists, and I think that it is much better to deal with him now than later, when he can kill millions at a command.

I agree with the U.S. position to Iraq, except as regards our position on trade, because that is hurting the Iraqi people much more than the government.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I agree with the U.S. position to Iraq, except as regards our position on trade, because that is hurting the Iraqi people much more than the government.

The trade is actually not the US position. That is the UNs - the US has repeatedly tried to get smart sanctions that would allow much more humaitarian aid into Iraq, but has repeatedly been blocked by Russia. Russia makes money off of the way things stand now and would make more if sanctions would be lifted completely which is what they want.

Iraq 'smart sanctions' postponed
Iraq 'smart sanctions' derailed by Russia

Russia Benefits from "Smart Sanctions": The U.S. unfreezes $200 million in Russian contracts in the "oil for food" humanitarian program to Iraq

Russian oil companies export the bulk of Iraqi oil. They account for 40% of "the black gold" coming from Iraq. LUKoil's press service (the company is regarded as Iraq's leading partner in the implementation of the "oil for food" program) told Izvestia that the company has drawn up a plan for the development of the Western Kurna-2 oil field, but it will not launch it as long as the sanctions remain in force.

[Coney]

But isn't America the biggest buyer of Iraqi' oil under the food-for-oil program?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
But isn't America the biggest buyer of Iraqi' oil under the food-for-oil program?

yeah. But in our overall supply of oil it's a minor amount.

Just because we buy the oil doesn't mean that we don't want to institute better sanctions that get food and medical supplies to the Iraqi people.

The accusation that it is AMERICAN's fault that the Iraqi people are starving is ridiculous. Saddam Hussein spouts this crap as he lives in his palaces. By instituting smart sanction - hopefully we can get the goods and money directly to the Iraqi people. I don't know why the UN lets it get funneled through Hussein in the first place.

By the way - are you saying we SHOULDN'T be buying their oil?? If that's the case then the people of Iraq would be getting even less - since Iraq only gets things through the food-for-oil program.

[Coney]

Then if America is the biggest buyer of oil from Iraq then surely America makes the most profit from the existing sanctions?

I think that if sanctions were relaxed to allow Russia and France to trade with Iraq (as per their pre-Gulf War contracts) it would be a good thing.. Saddam is never going to feed/give medical treatment to his people with $'s that come from America (why would he want his people to be grateful to America for anything?) and as America is the biggest buyer of Iraqi' oil is it not time that is it not time that the biggest buyer was a country not quite so antagonistic towards Iraq.

Yep Russia would make Billions if sanctions were lifted, and the country could certainly do with the income. Iraq would also make billions, and that has to be good for the Iraqi' people. Maybe Saddam would be willing to spend money on his people if the money came from fair trade after completion of a contract(s) signed with France and Russia more than a decade ago.

The money gets funneled through Saddam for one simple reason, he can pull the plug on existing oil exports at the drop of a hat.

[Cirdan]

It would be nice if the were some carrot with the stick, so to speak. The UN resolution being pushed doesn't seem to contain any laguage as to conditions for lifting sanctions. It may be that it is complicit with complying to the previous resolutions, but is does give it a face of a declaration of war. I would prefer that the regime change be left to the Iraqi people annd the disarmament occur. The UN should be a tool to maintain peace, not waging war by proxy. It seems obvious the administration has read the polls (Gallup) that say we are against was without the UN "seal of approval".

EDIT: Has anyone found the text of the resolution as put forth by the whitehouse? I looked a bit last night but didn't find it.