Bowling for Columbine

[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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

The link between Al Qaeda and Iraq is a fact.

---

This is a completely and utterly untrue statement.

[MJ]

[Guest Fadi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by THOTH:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

The link between Al Qaeda and Iraq is a fact.

---

This is a completely and utterly untrue statement.

---

Actually Thoth, MJ has access to some sort of materials, that us the rest of the "populace" don't have access to. You know, take what I am about to write with a grain of salt, because afterall I am just a dumb. But MJ position on Iraq smell biased to the core and is in contradiction with his previous analysis of any other subjects, that makes me wonder if he works on a contractor compagny that has somehow a link with the American government, something to do with Petrolium or I don't know.

 

Just reread his position and the so-called facts he brough, near identitical of those invited in American news shows, discussing on the name of the American government. The rest of us afterall, if we see nothing, it is or we are dumb, or because we have a narrowed vision of the situation, a cynical narcissim rarly seen before. Trying to sell us facts, without needing to support them. They are facts, thats the premiss, if you don't take them, then your dumb.

[MJ]

Fine. Today, I have already committed more time to this forum than I can afford.

[MJ]

I have been very clear on that subject, before.

[Guest Fadi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Domino:

... because afterall I am just a dumb.

---

I have been very clear on that subject, before.

---

That makes me clearer then.

[MJ]

Thank God!

[Guest Fadi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

Thank God!

---

You still believe in God ? What about Santa ?

[MJ]

I will tell you that only when you shave your mustache and change your forum user name to WhiteNoise.

[Guest Fadi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Domino:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

Thank God!

---

You still believe in God ? What about Santa ?

---

I will tell you that only when you shave your mustache and change your forum user name to WhiteNoise.

---

I'm afraid I can't. You are known in my regard, to not respect your contracts, and even if I were to accept that, I do not have any mustache to shave it in the first place, so my white noise is already exposed.

 

[ April 04, 2003, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[vava]

MJ,

 

Thanks, and thanks to Azat for posting the link. I find it interesting that you would put your trust in an 'independant' study such as this one. It is obviously written from one point of view, and although it presents a number of very intertesting facts, (which I found quite eye-opening) I find much of the analysis biased. I'm curious to know where the Coalition for International Justice gets their funding.

 

I would like to set it straight that I am not defending Saddam Hussein, nor his government (I hesitate to use the term regime, as I feel it also, is misused). My objection lies in manner that the Bush administration so suddenly decided that war on Iraq was necessary - and that the 'regime change' brought about by such a war was crucial (to the point of sacrificing human lives) to ensure the safety and security of Americans and subsequently the rest of the world.

 

Studies such as this seem to suggest that Saddam was not cooperating with the UN, and was disregarding international/diplomatic efforts to institute a wholesale re-integration of Iraq within the international community. Yes, perhaps that is infact the case. But how do you get from un-cooperative to missiles and occupation (liberation )

[MJ]

Vava,

 

When you talk about biases, it assumes that you know the accurate picture of things, and you can judge what is biased and what is truthful.

 

I put my trust in that material with a pretty high degree of confidence. I can assure you that I would not put my trust in trash copied and pasted from the Web page of SocIntern (Socialist International), figuratively speaking, or the rest of the similar and affiliated organizations. Copying and Pasting trash (forgive my French ) from one trashy site to another, and multiplying it does not make it more credible.

 

I can immediately tell you one source of the report, on the basis of which this material is composed – the 12,000 page December 7th Report of the Iraqi government to the UN Security Council. I am sure there are other sources, too. I would advise you to contact the responsible officers of Coalition for International Justice (see their web site) and ask them what sources they have used. You don’t have to say that you are not a US Tax-payer. Being a non-profit organization and, I suspect tax-exempt, they would be obligated to answer you.

 

I definitely believe in them being an independent agency. It doesn’t mean that I claim their material is 100% accurate. Not because I think that, much like Michael Moor, they may be deliberately misleading the public, but just due to an understanding that even the most professional studies under the existing circumstances may be incomplete and may have flaws. However, everything that I read there, looks to be absolutely logical and professional to me.

 

Bush Administration did not suddenly declare war. It did everything it could to get things done under the UN auspices. However, it did not surrender the decision making process in the name of the national security of the US to the mercy of Jacques Iraq.

 

The war might have been avoided, perhaps, if Saddam’s old accomplices would not give him signs that they will do everything to save his neck. I can assure you that, at least up to yesterday, Saddam (assuming he is alive), was counting on his old friends being able to save him. And, yes, it is a regime, since it has not come to power through an elective and democratic process, nor Iraq is a monarchy where the power may be passed through the inheritance right.

 

As far as the human life is concerned, that is a good argument. As a result of the existing status quo, which all of the opponents of the war vehemently supported to continue, in the last 10 years or so about 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians have died, including about 600,000 children (I know, I know, Sip, children are not more valuable than the adults. ) That means, roughly, 10,000 civilians a month. Assuming that US would’ve agreed to delay the offensive, and to grant the UN Inspectors “few more months,” that would have meant “few more tens of thousands" civilian lives.

 

By the Iraqi accounts, publicized the last couple of days, so far about 460 civilians have been killed. It is widely believed that that number is inflated and, in particular, it includes those killed by the Iraqi side as an act of reprisal, those killed through their own bombing of their own people, and through using them as human shields and suicide bombers.

 

If this is the case, it is better to have the courage to launch an overwhelming offensive and win quickly and swiftly, than to continue the agony of the people for months/years.

 

I am not claiming that this was the only consideration from the US side, when launching the offensive, but it definitely is one of the valid considerations. In reality (outside the hypothetical world), you may be compelled to make choice between the bad choice, the worse choice and the worst choice.

 

I have addressed some of your other arguments in my earlier postings.

 

In the view of what is apparent regarding the social, economic and political climate in Iraq, the overthrowing of this regime and the helping to even instill a better (let it be) regime, may be qualified as liberation.

 

So much for today…

 

[ April 05, 2003, 06:21 AM: Message edited by: MJ ]

[Guest Fadi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

Vava,

 

As far as the human life is concerned, that is a good argument. As a result of the existing status quo, which all of the opponents of the war vehemently supported to continue, in the last 10 years or so about 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians have died, including about 600,000 children (I know, I know, Sip, children are not more valuable than the adults. ) That means, roughly, 1000 civilians a month. Assuming that US would’ve agreed to delay the offensive, and to grant the UN Inspectors “few months,” that would have meant “few more thousand civilian” lives.

 

By the Iraqi accounts, publicized the last couple of days, so far about 460 civilians have been killed. It is widely believed that that number is inflated and, in particular, it includes those killed by the Iraqi side as an act of reprisal, those killed through their own bombing of their own people, and using them as human shields and suicide bombers.

 

So much for today…

---

Nonsense, the official counts from what I saw was of about something like 1,200 Iraqi civilians. It does not matter if they were killed from the Iraqi side, or American side, and that without including the thousands of possible victims in the Iraqi army, they are as well human in case you missed that up. I think the numbers of victims here could have been pied for extra couple of more months for the UN inspections. As for the rest, I will do like you, when you find something not worth answering for, I will ignore, just a correction, when I said thoth that your position on Iraq is biased to the core and does not reflect your way of analysis of other subjects, I was wrong, I remember another subject where you were as well biased to the core, again something to do with the Bush administration, and again something to do with Petrolium, I think many here in a not so distant past remember your biased view and denial of global warming and the impact of enviromental polution. I think it is evident for everyone that would be just a little above being dumb(I'm included here, since you wrote that I was near being dumb, therfore not 100 % dumb), would realise that your biased and totally innacurate treatment concerning global warming and your reference on that subject to the Bush administration, and your present opinion that consist basicaly of the regurgitation of the so-called arguments of again the Bush administrations, concerning the war on Iraq, indicate that you are in no position to discuss this matter, neither handle it objectivally. You sound to be more Bush then Bush himself, and I am sorry to write that, you forced me to do it. I was again uninvited to answer, but I guess my signature explain my action.

 

Regard to you Martin

 

[ April 04, 2003, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[MJ]

Sip,

 

Would you dampen the White Noise, please?

[Guest Fadi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

Sip,

 

Would you dampen the White Noise, please?

---

Don't worry I rarly hurt myself when I fall, and never when I don't.

[MJ]

Some devices may be advisable for overcoming certain challenges caused by Francophile zealotry. Glossary of proper terminology maybe found in the traditional manuals of Signal Processing.

 

http://www.quietnoise.com/damping.htm

[Guest Fadi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

 

Some devices may be advisable for overcoming certain challenges caused by Francophile zealotry. Glossary of proper terminology maybe found in the traditional manuals of Signal Processing.

 

http://www.quietnoise.com/damping.htm

---

Sorry to decieve you MJ, but go reread the Francophile zealot one more time, and consider that even if near dumb, maybe what he wrote had nothing to do with his ignorance of signal processing, and that it is not because the word dampen is in English, that the Anglo-saxonphil narcissic would think that I have no idea of what I am talking about. As I have already studied the physic of accoustics. I shall post here the graph representing noise damping, and you could perhaps understand what I meant by "fall." But I will not lose my time, but just refer you to a link.

 

http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~ob/Papers/pap9scan.pdf

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/990...906/9906050.pdf

 

Well MJ, go down there and read a little about "collapse" and about autocolleration of white noise. Maybe then you could understand what I meant by fall.

 

[ April 04, 2003, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[vava]

Vava,

 

When you talk about biases, it assumes that you know the accurate picture of things, and you can judge what is biased and what is truthful. 

 

I put my trust in that material with a pretty high degree of confidence.  I can assure you that I would not put my trust in trash copied and pasted from the Web page of SocIntern (Socialist International), ....

 

I definitely believe in them being an independent agency.  It doesn’t mean that I claim their material is 100% accurate.  Not because I think that, much like Michael Moor, they may be deliberately misleading the public, but just due to an understanding that even the most professional studies under the existing circumstances may be incomplete and may have flaws. However, everything that I read there, looks to be absolutely logical and professional to me.

 

Actually MJ, when I talk about biases, it does not assume that I know anything about the accurate picture of things - it only presumes that I am cynical of the material I am reading - on both sides of the argument. Unlike you, I do not put my trust in any organization/government/self-interest group, claiming 'the absolute truth' regardless of how professional their material 'looks', or how much it 'makes sense'. Some of Hitler's propoganda also 'made sense' to many people .

 

As far as misleading the public, I don't think that is wise of anyone to adopt an opinion on any political issue based on one sole resource. Part of the problem with much of the democratic societies these days, is that the public is too eager to gobble up what their governments are spoon feeding them through the mainstream media , without bothering to question/analyse the policies/issues on their actual merits.

 

I do feel, however, that by exposing oneself to the various points of view - through various information sources (whether that be material from the CIJ, or from the Gaurdian, or from the BBC...) and adding a good dose of salt, that one can paint a pretty good picture of the real scenario, and judge for oneself.

 

Bush Administration did not suddenly declare war. It did everything it could to get things done under the UN auspices. However, it did not surrender the decision making process in the name of the national security of the US to the mercy of Jacques Iraq.

 

Hahahaha Jacques Iraq! That's a good one!!

 

But seriously - do you really belive that? I really don't agree. If the US did truly want to do everything in collaboration with the UN, then why not follow the Canadian compromise? Wait for the inspectors - set a deadline, and get France & Germany on-side. I don't think they ever would have had the Russians on side, but the 'moral' victory was attainable, and it would have been much better for American foreign relations to respect the will of the UN. And probably safer for the American public in the long run.

 

As far as the human life is concerned, that is a good argument. As a result of the existing status quo, which all of the opponents of the war vehemently supported to continue, in the last 10 years or so about 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians have died, including about 600,000 children (I know, I know, Sip, children are not more valuable than the adults.  ) That means, roughly, 10,000 civilians a month. Assuming that US would’ve agreed to delay the offensive, and to grant the UN Inspectors “few more months,” that would have meant “few more tens of thousands" civilian lives.

 

By the Iraqi accounts, publicized the last couple of days, so far about 460 civilians have been killed. It is widely believed that that number is inflated and, in particular, it includes those killed by the Iraqi side as an act of reprisal, those killed through their own bombing of their own people, and through using them as human shields and suicide bombers.

 

If this is the case, it is better to have the courage to launch an overwhelming offensive and win quickly and swiftly, than to continue the agony of the people for months/years.

 

So then according to you, the bleeding heart Republicans are out to save the lives of the Iraqi people. I'm sorry, but I have trouble buying in to that argument. This war is costing the administration upwards of 75$ billion (and that is the administration's own estimate - it may well be beyond that.) I don't pretend to know the actual motives for war of the Bush government (regime, some may argue ) but there must be some 'real' motivation excluding the humanitarian argument. Could it be retribution? A sort of Capital Punishment in foreign policy terms?

 

As I've said before, for me the problem is a lack of understanding how all this came about so suddenly (and it was sudden) Why war? Why now? What was the rush? What have we (the US) got to gain by all of this? Is it worth the human cost?