97 replies to this topic

[MJ]

I just saw your prior message.

I have followed the coverage of the war on a daily basis. No representative of the administration has made such statements. If the media has made them, what’s new about media’s ventilation?

However, in the large scale of things, using your terminology, it has been essentially one sided and bloodless.

I can tell you precisely why Saddam was not pursued in the first Gulf War. That war was being conducted under the UN mandate, and the mandate was given only to liberate Kuwait. The same forces which were opposed to the war this time were the same ones that opposed the marching of the US troops towards Baghdad. I just wish that you don’t express any more a priori opinions as you have advocated in your previous material.

I don’t see a need or a desire of subduing the Iraqi nation - there is no such agenda nor need.

From the beginning of this discussion, the people on your side have predicted 100,000s of civilian deaths, World War III, blah, blah, blah.

You also express other vague thoughts, and I don’t want to response to every [non-clear] one, and have no desire to turn this into ping-pong.

[THOTH]

Sure it has been relatively bloodless - so far....will that last? - well I hope that it will...is this likely...all depends on Iraqi resiliance and willingness to take punishment...unfortunatly many of the (Saddam loyalist) troops may think they have nothing to lose (and everything to gain) by fighting it out. And sure terroristic type attacks are (for the most part) not militarily significant (w/o use of WMD...) but could be responsible for a steady stream of body bags for years to come....a price worth paying? perhaps...but tell that to the parents/children etc of the dead...at some point I expect that many Americans will become more critical of this war (and even the occupying "peace") as it drags on and more Americans are lost (even the issue of reservists kept away from home/family/careers etc...)...and even with the President stating that this war will likely be more costly (in deaths etc) then people realize I still think there was clearly a fundemental expectation put forth that this would be a fairly easy and relatively bloodless endevor...thats just my take...and its not a Priori at all but based on observation...the whole thing was pretty much a given - just listen to the statements - "we will win" "the outcome is without question" etc etc - well in war the outcome is never without question...please...

Also - I understand the various factors (as you have stated) for the first war ending....however the issue of additional casualties for pressing to Bahgdad was certainly one of the factors...

Weather the various estimates of casualties (military and Iraqi civilian) will come about is entirely dependent on weather the Iraqis will capitulate (as had already been expected by now based on the original "war plan") or if they dig in. The #s of casualties may rise significantly if the Iraqis are able to succesfully repel and do some damage (like with WMD or just fierce/determined resistance). If the US nose gets bloodied the gloves may come off...to date the (collateral damage/casualty etc) restraint shown on the part of the US & British forces has been comendable...but that is because it is still percieved that this war cannot be lost (and perhaps that is accurate...with the air & firepower available...etc)...but you wouldn't have thought we could have "lost" in Vietnam either...I do certainly hope that we can pull this one off with the minimul of losses/commitment and with the minimul negative political, economic and terroristic fallout...but we are in fact rolling the dice big time with this one...

[MJ]

Err…

First, about the “body bags”… I keep hearing it since the Balkan conflict and Afghanistan. Frequently, I feel those who have advanced this terminology and concept are expressing more of a desire than prediction…

Terrorism does not start with this war. This was is one of the necessary steps to prevent terrorism. Terrorism has become more vicious because, despite the warning of the experts in the last 10 years that the primary threat in the world is terrorism, one ‘happy’ administration and another ‘happy Union’ did not have the aptitude to grasp it – even after the failed attack on the WTC in early 90s. You don’t eliminate terrorism by appeasing the terrorists. You fight it out. Additionally, you help the economies of the regions and cultures, which incubate terrorism, to help them to create wealth so that their people are not so desperate that their lives and the lives of others have no value to them.

I am frequently puzzled as to what lengths would people go just to ‘prove’ that this war is ‘wrong,’ it is not ‘planned well,’ the ‘actions are right but not the motivations,’ etc. Such a bizzare philosophy…

As far as the future/potential Iraqi resistance is concerned, if you have been following the news of the last 24 hours, two elite divisions are gone, with four left. We can talk in few days about the four.

And, contrary to your insinuation, I believe that the restraint that the US and British Armies have demonstrated is not indicative of the “inevitability of the victory,” but of values that their societies hold. And there is nothing wrong in claiming that the victory over Saddam is inevitable. It is a fact and not propaganda. It is obvious from all material and moral factors.

[ April 02, 2003, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: MJ ]

[MJ]

To slightly lighten up, few jokes, which I think are reflective of the sides' complexes:

In Moscow, the respected daily Izvestiya devoted more than half of its front
page on Tuesday to dark satire on the war.

"Saddam claims to have shot down a British warplane, but Bush says: 'It's a
lie. We shot it down!"' read one of the Russian jokes mocking friendly fire
incidents in the war.

"Mr. Bush, do you have proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?,"
asks a journalist at a fictional news conference. Bush's answer: "Yes, we
kept the receipts."

Even comedians in traditionally neutral Sweden can't resist.

"The text on leaflets dropped over Iraq reads: 'McDonald's, opening soon in
Baghdad' 'Hands up!' and 'Collect four of these and you'll get a free Coke
once we're finished bombing'."

[564312]

I agree with MJ
I myself am against any war but it was inevitable, the beast was attacked.
And it is comical to see this world’s upheaval against this war. Where were the objections in the Chechen war or when Russians lazered away Japanese wanting to take part of Russian land and so many other wars.
It is more anti-Americanism then anything else.

[THOTH]

MJ -

I am very offended by any insinuation on your part that I would in any way desire to see American body bags.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this attack will increase terrorism against us and also increases not decreases the likelyhood that state and non-state entities will attempt and eventually succeed in aquiring and using nuclear or biological attacks against us. If indeed we wished to fight and blunt terrorism I feel this is very much the wrong approach. (I was 100% behind the action in Afghanistan BTW).

I am no apologist for Sadaam - in no way. I was all for pushing on to eliminate him and his regiem durign the last war - and thought we should go after him in the interveening years. I applaud the attempt to crater him and the start of the war (in fact I advocated such before it was done)...and who knows perhaps we got him eh? I also understand that a war against Saddam and his regiem may have been inevitable...I just don't think that the approach taken was the correct one - for a great number of reasons. But of course I hope everything turns out favorable to us. I very much want to be wrong in my concerns/predictions.

[MJ]

Thoth,

I had somehow missed that you had “advanced the terminology and concept of body bags.”

As far as the increase or decrease of the terrorism is concerned, our arguing on that subject would be immaterial. Based on the last two years experience, this administration is performing its duties, especially in the arena of national security, on a super-professional level, and you should delegate that function to them, as appropriate, rather than trying to solve it yourself. And don’t you worry – there are more than enough checks and balances in the American system.

As far as your concerns about the potential nuclear and biological attacks are concerned, it seems to me that this administration shares your concerns and is aggressively pursuing the prevention of such an outcome.

In general, you have a very peculiar way of conveying your thoughts. Frequently, your two opposing views blur and fade, unnoticeably transiting from one pole to the other (with the help of few IMOs and prentices ), which makes it hard to assess where you stand on the issues.

[ April 02, 2003, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: MJ ]

[vava]

MJ,

I wholeheartedly enjoyed your jokes... I don't often laugh out loud when reading folks' opinions on the war.

I agree, for the most part, with your statement above. However, the current administration, as well as that of Bush senior, have played a large part in 'incubating' terrorism - especially where Iraq is concerned. Iraq has effectively no control over their largest export product, crude oil. And they have not since the previous Gulf war. Their oil production/exports are controlled by the UN sanctions committee, who decide the quantity of Iraqi crude to be sold, to who, and for how much. The revenue generated is allocated through the 'Food for oil' program, in part to pay for some of the food, medicine and other 'humanitarian' needs of the country and the remainder is restitution for Kuwait. Additionally, the funds are spent entirely on imports - no funds are used for domestic product, or to aid the re-establishment of Iraqi industry, effectively shutting out any possiblity of EVER rebuilding the countries economy.

In a sense, we have done the exact opposite of what you propose to counter terrorism - and we have created a desparately poor, totally anti-western society, and now we're arriving at their doorstep with missiles and bombs and a flag of liberty.

If I was in their shoes, I wouldn't buy it either.

[vava]

I forgat to add, that a select few multinationals are the only ones profiting from the current situation in Iraq. It's certainly not the American, nor the Iraqi people.

[MJ]

Vava,

I significantly differ on some of the issues you have talked about - one of them being the “multinationals profiting from the situation.” In general, I think the term 'multinational' is much misused and bears much misguided sentiment.

I also think that your description of the landscape around the "Food-for-Oil" program is not descriptive of the reality.

Few weeks ago, I had provided a hyperlink with about 70 pages of independent studies, which can shed much light on the issue. I am somewhat sleepy right now, and cannot find the thread it was referenced in. But it is in one of the relevant threads.

With all my disagreements with some of your statements, I appreciate the restraint you have demonstrated in your material.

[Azat]

From the other thread

[MJ]

Thanks, Azat.

[alpha]

Iraq is not a Muslim fundamentalist country where Wahadism is preached in every Mosque. Yet most US allies in region are, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE just to name a few. Why are we not attacking these fundamentalist countries which are breeding grounds for terrorists, but are attacking Iraq? In fact Iraq used to be one of the more socially advanced Arab countries. The ruling Baath Party is socialist not Muslim fundamentalist, so the theory that Bush administration is fighting terrorism and Muslim fundamentalism by attacking Iraq is incomprehensible to me. The administration tried diligently and failed miserably to find a moral ground to attack Iraq. First argument was, “they possess weapons of mass destructions”. UN weapons inspectors did not find anything there and they claimed that Iraqis were cooperating. Then they tried to link Iraq to terrorism. No matter how hard the Bush Administration tried to find links between Al Qaeda and Iraq it failed. Iraq has fought a bloody war with Iran for eight years in order to prevent it from importing religious fundamentalism to Iraq, why would it endorse it now. Then it was “UN resolution”, which never came around. The unilateralism of war hawks caused a final demise of UN, a body for creation of which so much resources was spent.

Bush administration is not effectively fighting the so called “War in Terrorism”, as many CNN anchors want us to believe, its just fighting to “War for Middle East and its Oil”.

MJ allow me to disagree with your following comment:
“Terrorism does not start with this war. This was is one of the necessary steps to prevent terrorism. Terrorism has become more vicious because, despite the warning of the experts in the last 10 years that the primary threat in the world is terrorism, one ‘happy’ administration and another ‘happy Union’ did not have the aptitude to grasp it – even after the failed attack on the WTC in early 90s. You don’t eliminate terrorism by appeasing the terrorists. You fight it out. Additionally, you help the economies of the regions and cultures, which incubate terrorism, to help them to create wealth so that their people are not so desperate that their lives and the lives of others have no value to them.”

Terrorism is a sign of helplessness. Usually people that lack the means to fight a conventional war make terror as their weapon. IRA, Basques, Palestinians are all powerless to fight their colonizers, so they become terrorists. In many ways it’s similar to partisan warfare during WW II. Why Arab terrorists target US: Because of its unequivocal support of Israel. It armed Israel to its tooth and let it go wild. If there is more balanced policy in Middle East terrorists will become more marginalized in their societies. The ‘happy administration’ tried hard to bring peace to Middle East. It didn’t use armed conflict to force the issue, but let the sides find a common ground. The process failed, but it can be resurrected if enough will is found.

Afghanistan, Iraq…….. what’s next, Syria and Iran? Is Rumsfield and Co. out to conquer the world?

[MJ]

Alpha,

I have very limited time, now, and will respond to your material only partially. In the coming day or two I will address the rest.

No one has alleged that Iraqi terrorism has Wahabism as its ideological pretext. In fact, most of the world/historic terrorism has Socialism/Marxism as its ideological pretext, and Iraq is more or less socialistic county, even by your own recognition, I think. (ASALA, PKK, PLO, North Korean Regime, etc).

Saudi Arabia is of increasing concern to the US. There is no question that it is a breathing ground of international terrorism. However, as I have indicated before, that is not the position of the Saudi ruling position but its opposition. The choice is to support the Saudi regime or not to support it, in which case the Saudi Arabia will become a full fledged terrorist country. If Iraq would not be dealt with, that outcome in S.A. will become an absolute reality. I expect that after the fall of the Iraqi regime there will be a huge pressure on Saudi (and definitely on Syria and Iran – not necessarily military but other. Note that few years ago Turkey booed, and Syria expelled Ocalan and PKK. How much do you think is it going to stand up against the US?)

I absolutely disagree with your perception of the UN Inspectors mission and their reported outcome. That’s not what the inspections do. In fact, outside the TV charades, they have not made such statements, and have claimed that the only thing Iraqi regime cooperates in is the process. In their more than 100 page reports the Inspectors have always claimed that Iraq does not cooperate. Additionally, it has not been their mission to prove that Iraq has WMD, but the burden of proof was on Iraq to prove that she has destroyed the weapons which in and prior of 1998 had been proven to exist.

The link between Al Qaeda and Iraq is a fact. However, it is immaterial. Libya had no links with Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda didn’t even exist then, but she was engaged in terrorism. Al Qaede is not the only and the most dangerous terrorist threat.

I think you are not giving proper thought to the cliché and the statement on the “three axes of evil.” The distinguishing of only three states does not mean that there are no other terrorist states, but means that under the conditions of the removal of the three axes, the rest of the terrorist regimes would collapse as a consequence. As I have mentioned once, each large problem has few critical points, attacking of which leads to the solution of the overall problem.

I have to run, now. As promised, I will address the rest of your arguments later – including those on what does promote and create climate of terrorism.

[ April 04, 2003, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: MJ ]

[Stormig]

Even the Bush administration has been unable to show the link; I don't see how some people are convinced of the "fact"..

/cgi-bin/forum/ultim...19;t=000307;p=4

Let's not forget what it says there - domestic human rights abuses also go hand in hand with terrorism. Uh-huh.

[MJ]

[continuation]

You say the Administration has tried hard to find links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and has failed. In fact, it has not tried to do so. It is the opponents of the Administration who have demanded such “evidence.” It is like, first you make a false problem up, and then you demand someone solve it. The Administration has brought a number of facts which attest to the link, but it has never been a driving factor and is attributable to a deeper understanding of the issue, which is not expected from the ‘masses.’ Some have expected that the suggested link was going to be such a broad scale that just on its own, it would have provided “moral ground” for the offensive over Iraq. It is not the Administration’s fault but of those who have a very narrow scope of understanding of the issue. The Administration did not try to make case based on Al Qaeda, though for some understandable, perhaps, reason, this is what the average consumer might have expected. Terrorism has long history, and it precedes Al Qaeda, and goes way beyond the organizational and missionary scope of Al Qaeda. If Al Qaeda is even eliminated, there will be some other group or individual, or more likely some secret state structure, which would be positioned to commit more astonishing terrorist acts, as long as there is an international or regional issue which gives rise to large scale resentment.

To summarize, it is not Bush’s or the Administration’s fault that some people would think that the justification of the offensive against Iraq is supposed to be Al Qaeda, and if an “overwhelming evidence” is not provided, then the “moral ground” is absent. As an argument of a secondary dimension, I would like to remind you that after 9/11, when the offensive against Afghanistan started, many (ans some in this forum) claimed that “it was not proven that Osama Bin Laden” was behind the attack. In fact, they claimed that it was a fabrication. It didn’t take long even to come up with “eye-opening” conspiracy theories about “who runs the world.” Large number of people still don’t think that Al Qaeda has committed 9/11. So who should the Administration try to appease? My thinking is to no one. National and world security is not something to be run based on polls.

The kind of thinking, as conveyed in many materials of our forum, among other places, is a very dangerous state of mind from the perspective of state governance. It implies that you wait till terror is committed against you, and then you respond.

It is beyond doubt that the primary cradle of international terrorism is the Middle East. Some would attribute it to the situation surrounding Israel and Palestine. Sure, it is part of it. I would think that situation is a consequence of the problem, it is not the driving factor of the problem itself, though it feeds the outbursts of the darkest layers of the xenophobic human beast – including in this forum.

Prior to the Gulf War, all countries of the region felt threatened by Iraq. In mid 80s, there was expectation of war between Syria and Iraq. Among the states that felt and feel threatened by Iraq were/are Iran, Syria, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, etc. All of them (expect Iran), gave support against Iraq in the first Gulf War. Most of them continue to do so even today. The reason was Iraq’s and Syria’s drives to dominate Middle East, especially the Arab world. Now add Iran and Turkey to this mix. This is a very complex and very tangled region – one where the historic, geopolitical, economic and social issues intermingle with emotional ones. The result is just mess – mess that somehow has to be cleaned so that the people of the region, first of all, would have dignnified life.

I also find your argument on “Was for Oil” to be very unfortunate while, obviously, there will be consequences on the Oil market as a result. Of all the people in this forum, I would expect that you don’t make such ill thought out arguments.

You say terrorism is a sign of helplessness. You are only partially right. First, who has created that helplessness? Those in Palestine definitely are helpless. But cannot we see that they are being used? The regional terror is being sponsored by the Iraqi, Iranian and Syrian governments. Which one of them is helpless? Why are the Palestinians in a situation of such overwhelming helplessness? I know, I know… Not just one member will jump up and exclaim “Israel,” in response. I am sorry for them. Their hateful nature has eaten their minds and blinded their judgments. This doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize Israel’s responsibility in the problem. It means I don’t see Israel being the source of the problem.

The fact of the matter is that the entire regional economy is paralyzed, while this region sits on enormous wealth. This paralysis is the source of the enormous misery of the region. If people have no hope in life, and life has no value, what would stop them from committing terror, especially when there are those who financially and ideologically sponsor it? And frequently, committing suicide-terror is the only way some may support their families.

Meanwhile, the prevailing status quo of the region provides Saddam, Saudies, and others with hundreds of millions of dollars, and more importantly, power.

I would urge you to think over the manifestation of “three axes of evil.” It was not a rhetoric terminology. It was a shortcut for a very serious international policy.

Also, maybe you could write about how do you see the solution of the problems of this region. Then, I think it would put you in a better position of criticizing the solutions pursued by others.

I have to go.

P.S. One can ask, "why this proble has not been givn so much attention by the US, before, and has become such a big issue now." The answer is simple. The problem has arrived to the US shores on 9/11. Again, some opponent may try to say "show me the link with Al Qaeda." I would say that is a stupid thing to request. The problem is there - whether Al Qaeda or not.

[ April 04, 2003, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: MJ ]

[Cilician]

That is a very flagrant use of the phrase "war is forced on America". Nothing was forced, and most Americans and the planet disagreed, many quite strongly and vocally with even a just cause for this war. I have said it before and I will say it again. Hate Saddam? Then kill/murder him, not thousands of Iraqis (and some Americans and Brits to boot). Willing to spend good money on killing Saddam? Offer 1 BILLION dollars for his head on a platter, or even 5 billion, but NOT $75 billion minimum we are looking at. An old fashioned "Wanted, Dead or Alive, Saddam Hussein, Bush's mortal enemy, $5,000,000,000 reward" :-)

AND THEN, to be FAIR, and gain a TINY bit of credibility, offer the same reward for Ariel Sharon!

Hmph. Anyone who can support this war without strongly supporting a war on Israel on the very same grounds is a hypocrite if you ask me.

[THOTH]

This is a completely and utterly untrue statement.

[MJ]

Sorry, I would not ask. I have a pretty good idea on which side is the hypocritic one. And, in particular, I have already expressed myself on the subject of the "xenophobic human beast."