MideastWeb Middle East Web Log
Is it wrong for a patriotic American, a red-blooded despiser of Saddam Hussein, a believer in the value of armed force, to think what I do?
I've got to ask, because I can't help thinking what I haven't heard expressed outside of the uglier precincts of Arab/Muslim chauvinism: that it's a good thing to see Iraqis fighting in their country's defense, that it is positive that it won't be so easy for American and British fighters to have their way with them, that a painfully protracted war might be the best thing in the end.
In hindsight, it's not too hard to understand why Iraqis fight. It seems that for Iraqis, there's a difference between fighting for Kuwait and fighting for Iraq -- somebody else's country versus one's own. This time, the Iraqis are highly motivated, whereas the Americans and British don't really know why they're there, and are mostly fighting for loyalty, survival, and perhaps pride. (It's yet another reason not to dismiss the American decision in 1991 not even to consider going to Baghdad, whether one agreed with it or not.)
After all, when it comes down to it, what patriot enjoys seeing his country bombed and overrun by heavily armed foreigners? It's no wonder that even the most passionately anti-Saddam Iraqi expats -- the Chalabis and Makiyas -- are eager to see us gone as soon as we arrive. As far as they're concered, we should get rid of Saddam, and get back to where we came from.
And isn't Iraqi resistance a salutary reminder that you can't go around conquering other people's countries without their having something to say about it at some point, in some way, shape, or form? Aren't there useful and even admirable aspects to the various illegal tactics the Iraqi fedayeen are employing in the name of national defense?
Isn't the ideal outcome a coalition victory that comes only after enough difficulty that the American public concludes it was not worth it, and loses its stomach for any additional misbegotten adventures? Saddam will be gone, and the prospects for war with the other components of the "Axis of Evil" will be minimized.
Whatever the right answers to these question may be, it's certainly a rare treat to see tough guy Don Rumsfeld whimpering about the implementation of the Geneva Conventions. This Sunday, Iraq owned the story on America's television sets. We'll get to Baghdad sooner or later, but a few more days like this, and Houston, we have a problem.
In upcoming fighting in the "red zone" around Baghdad, we can probably expect to see a further intensification of resistance and perhaps the unleashing of whatever weaponized CBW the Iraqis may have. If coalition forces really take it on the chin, we should expect to see the public develop true fury against Iraq for the first time. But the Administration should not interpret any outcry at that point to finish off the enemy as a show of support for their war leadership.
Once the fighting ends, of course, the really hard part begins. Hopefully, we'll all learn something from the experience.
Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000044.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission.
by Editor @ 06:38 AM CST [Link]
Replies: 27 comments
As a Canadian, I couldn't agree more! One of the reasons for this illegal and unnecessary war, besides control of the oil supply, is to demonstrate to the rest of the world the utter futility of resisting US military might. Although I don't doubt an eventual US victory, protracted resistance would nevertheless undermine this aim, which would be most welcome. In addition, perhaps the American people would draw a lesson from it, as an earlier generation did in Vietnam, and cool future US administrations' ardor for war.
Posted by Carl @ 03/25/2003 11:39 AM CST
I agree with both of the above comments; many people in my country, including the current administration, have way too much pride in us. They need to stop and look at our soldiers that are over there--and their families that are over here fearing that their sons or daughters may be lost. Mr. Bush has no fears; none of his immediate relatives will be fighting. I don't wish for a long, drawn out war, no matter what that would prove. I want our soldiers home as soon as possible, since they shouldn't even be over there in the first place.
Posted by Sara @ 03/25/2003 05:26 PM CST
This war isn't about oil, and it isn't about world dominance. Anyone who says so simply shows their stupidity. It's about self-preservation. The reality now is that extremists are capable of inflicting major damage on whatever target they choose, using very minimal but highly effective weapons. The rules of war are totally changed - it no longer requires a massing of armies, weapons, and munitions to attack an enemy; it simply takes a coordinated effort to commandeer commercial jets and destroy buildings and inflict as much damage as possible. Chemical, nuclear, and biological agents will be next.
Give peace a chance? We have - for years we have, via UN resolutions, economic embargoes, etc., and Iraq has proven time and time again how easy it is for a participant to outmanuveur an opponent when the one opponent lies and cheats, never intending to follow any ground rules. Peace has simply not worked. If reasoning worked every time, you wouldn't need jails - you'd simply explain how crimes are hurtful, the criminals would admit guilt and pledge themselves to restitution, and then everyone would go home happy. You can dream this works, but we all know it doesn't.
It is the burden of the US to defend the way of life that all of the Western World has come to love and enjoy, and flourish under. The less-powerful countries are much too involved in belly button examinations, interrupting that pasttime only often enough to critique the US's efforts on their behalfs. Why is Canada and others not feeling the heat of Islamic extremists? Because the Islamic extremists realize it is better to keep them alive in order to launch their attacks from while they attempt to bring down the strongest of the Western powers.
No one likes war, just as no one likes surgery. But no matter how much we believe in holistic medicine, sometimes it takes a scalpel in order to remove the threat. Why anyone would wish the surgery went poorly is beyond me. It won't deter the surgeon, it'll simply embolden the disease.
Posted by Eric @ 03/25/2003 08:15 PM CST
Regarding Eric's comment, the strongest evidence that this war is in part about global dominance, is the document uncovered by the Daily Herald; "Rebuilding America'a Defense: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century", prepared in September, 2000 by, among others, **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush. It calls for the US to "preserve and extend (America's) position of global leadership by maintaining the pre-eminence of U.S. military forces." the blueprint's authors say the US military must be large enough to "fight and win multiple, simultaneous theatre wars..." and "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." In short, Saddam and his alleged (but unproven) WMD, and his alleged (but unproven and unlikely) ties to Al Qaeda have nothing to do with the current conflict. At any rate, despite US propaganda, the UN inspections were progressing well. As for fighting terrorism, how do you think the Arab world feels about America now? The sad truth is that this war has increased, not decreased the terorism threat.
As for this war also being about control of Iraq's oil, consider that Saudi Arabia is also a backward, repressive regime (As in Afghanistan, women must wear burqas in public) and has even more oil than Iraq. The only reason that the US isn't interested in "liberating" the Saudis is that it already controls most of the Saudi oil. Do you really believe that it is "just co-incidence" trhat so many key administration people, including W, have ties to the oil industry?
And Sarah, I don't wish for a long war either. My fear is that if the US finds Iraq too easy, it will then move on to Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and God forbid, North Korea. That appears to be this administration's plan. It is up to the American people to stop it.
Posted by Carl @ 03/26/2003 02:00 AM CST
There is much criticism of the US and its allies in the running of this war. Despite the despicability of the Saddam regime, which has proved itself devastatingly cruel to its own people as well as a threat to its Arab neighbours, one must always bear in mind that blood is thicker than water.
It is an established fact that the Arab nations are not enamored of the Saddam Hussein regime. However, it is anathema to many of these nations with the exception of Kuwait and possibly a few other Arab countries, that a non-Arab power in the name of the US has taken it upon itself to liberate the Iraqi people from their tyrant. Many Arab states regard Saddam Hussein as an errant Arab brother despite the evil that he portrays. Bringing down the Saddam regime by non-Arab powers will always be controversial. This is the problem the US and her allies are facing.
Another problem is the goal of the US and her allies in a victory, which will not be a walkover as initially believed. The goal is the â€śdemocratization of Iraq and liberation of the Iraqi peopleâ€ť. Who is going to institute the future democracy? Where are the leaders in exile who may be an instrument in getting this job done after the war? Yes, there are leaders in exile but they are not united and are little known.
There is not one Arab state in the Middle East that is democratic. Most of the states are one-party regimes. Will Iraq move towards a western style democracy as the allies intend? The answer to that question is probably in the negative. If the US and allies think that they will be successful in the project of democratizing Iraq, they will more than likely be doomed to failure. The idea of democracy is a non-starter in the Middle East. It is very naĂŻve to even think that it will be attained in Iraq. The most one can achieve is a state of non-belligerency towards the west by ensuring that WMD will not be produced and will be destroyed. This, of course also means that terrorist cells must be destroyed as well.
Yes, as we see, there are signs of an insurrection in Basra against Saddam. This does not mean that it will be pro US in the long run. Now, the coalition forces are serving the purposes of the Iraqi opposition, but they could over stay their welcome with time. There is the danger that they can become embroiled in a situation not of their choosing because of a future power struggle between Sunnis, Shiites, possibly Iranians, Turks and even the Kurds. The situation could even deteriorate into a second Vietnam.
The US does not have a great record in post war reconstruction of the countries that they have fought in the past. There is nothing indicating the end of the Iraqi War will be any different than previous wars involving the US. One thing is almost certain and that is a worldwide recession because of the war. The war will probably last longer than expected. Much does depend on the resilience of the Iraqi forces.
Posted by Shimon Z. Klein @ 03/26/2003 12:53 PM CST
Speaking out makes most people feel like they have a say in events taking place around them. But I know that my words are irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether I am for or against this war. I can do nothing to change it either way. And if I voice my opinion, no one really cares. So I listen and I watch, with the knowledge that I am truly powerless.
Posted by Susan @ 03/26/2003 07:36 PM CST
It seems only fitting that this site would only post one comment in favor of the American Administration. We have tried Peace through pacivity, and it only attained us 4,000 dead in the heart of New York City. Whatever dangers may lie ahead, it is not due to an imperialistic or over zealous US administration. It is due to trying to deal with treachorous dictatorships, that when offered the extended aolive branch, chop the hand off which offers it before any peace can be acheived.
Wake up people and see that even if we want peace, there are others in the world that don't and won't give it a chance. Bush is to wasy a person to point to. Try looking elsewhere first. Use your enlightenment and "superior" grey matter to see that this outcry wasn't heard when President Clinton sent our troops into harm's way in Kosovo. He promised our troops would be home by the next Christmas and they still aren't home. Take a look at yourselves and see the total hypocracy and partisan enmity with which you speak. Than you will be truly enlightened.
Posted by Allen @ 03/26/2003 09:17 PM CST
Allen, what evidence do you have that "4,000 dead in the heart of New York City" has anything to do with Saddam or any other Iraqi?
Al Qaeda is a Saudi (Bin Laden) organization with active cells in the Pakistani military. If this war were REALLY about fighting terrorism, wouldn't the US, by your reasoning, attack THESE countries? Do you think that US attacks on Moslem countries will DECREASE the threat of terrorism? Or INCREASE it?
Don't you see that the Bush administration is using 9/11 as a cover for US expansionism?
May peace be with you brother, and don't be afraid to ask the tough questions.
Posted by Carl @ 03/26/2003 10:45 PM CST
Just read the "Is It Wrong," piece, and the answer is, yes, it is.
Posted by Brent @ 03/26/2003 11:39 PM CST
Carl, seems the Canadian public education system is as flawed as it is in the US.
Posted by Brent @ 03/26/2003 11:55 PM CST
Carl, what evidence do you have that 9/11 wasn't funded by Saddam in some way?
Posted by Brent @ 03/26/2003 11:57 PM CST
Hello Brent. Glad to respond. Google 'american oil exploitation iraq' for several thousand world-wide links connecting America's attack on Iraq with its thirst for oil.
An energy report by Vice-President **** Cheney 18 months ago forecast that American oil imports would have to rise by more than half by 2020. Where do you suppose all this oil is to come from?
It is naive in the extreme to argue that a group of oil-industry execs would seek to run the nation's affairs without an interest in the second largest oil supply on the planet. As it is, Saddam has much of his oil tied up in deals with France, Russia, and China. I can guarantee that once the US takes control of Iraq, it will nullify these deals. The "reason"? Those countries' refusal to side with the US against Saddam. How convenient.
As for evidence that 9/11 funded by Saddam in some way, I assure you that if there were any, the US would be trumpeting it to the rest of the world. They tried linking Saddam to Bin Laden, but it was shot down. Like so many US claims in regard to Iraq, it just didn't stand up to examination.
As for Resolution 1441 allowing the US to attack Iraq, if this were so clearly the case, why did the US and Britain feel compelled to stoop to bribery and extortion in its failed attempt to get a SECOND resolution authorizing the invasion? What am I missing here, Brent?
Posted by Carl @ 03/27/2003 02:10 AM CST
First, let me say I applaud those who seek peaceful solutions to problems - it is the moral imperative of each of us. However, you need to know when to drop that method and resort to other means, or else you'll be a victim in short order.
Unfortunately there is nothing that can be done to dissuade you from the delusions that this war is about oil - as we can't shake some people's belief that Pierre Salinger really did have a document proving a missile brought down Flight 800, or that Kathy Lee Gifford has talent. Using Google hits as proof? OK, do a search on "Spontaneous Human Involuntary Invisibility" (you become suddenly physically invisible to those around you, similar to what a customer would experience at a Sears store), and you'll find a smattering of hits. Does this mean this is proof that people suffer from SHII? Too few hits? How many hits does it take to become credible? Try searching on "UFO". Lots of hits there! UFOs must exist, then, huh? Hits are hardly "proof". Besides, hit counts don't discern between pro- and con- references to the subject.
Just out of curiosity, are there other conspiracies that you believe in? I'm just trying to get a point of reference on your credentials. As for me, let's just say I'm a non-voting member of the Trilateral Commission, and an active member of the Zionist Oil Mafia.
You failed to explain to me in your response why, if diplomacy truly works in EVERY situation, why every civilized society has the concept of a JAIL. And of course, if someone commits a crime against you, you wouldn't pursue justice, would you? No, of course not. You'd talk and talk to them, for years if necessary, until they changed their ways. That's all the defense you'd need.
Next, "the leap". To interpret the desire of the US to maintain a military lead is hardly a next-step to the declaration that the US desires world domination. Self-preservation is hardly synonymous with world domination. In the meantime, please show me ONE (1) country on the face of this earth that is actively and purposefully looking to lose influence in world affairs, and you'll gain some much needed credibility.
Saudi Arabia, an oppressive regime? Perhaps, but your perspective is warped, very warped, if you're attempting to align them with Saddam's version of Gulf State governance. The Saudis have at least put considerable effort in investing oil wealth into the Saudi society. The Saudis are not openly starving, torturing, and ultimately killing their citizens.
And again, you should be ashamed that you're glad to see our military forces having a hard time. That "a painfully protracted war" means death for our service men and woman, the Iraqi citizens, and others. You really should rethink your statement and reform it.
Posted by Eric @ 03/28/2003 07:41 AM CST
Hello again Eric. I wasn't using Google hits as proof, I was simply saying that there is a wealth of information supporting my contention that oil is a prime reason for the invasion of Iraq. A typical article can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/business/programmes/moneyprogramme/archive/oil.shtml. Note that this is a "mainstream" British site.
Oil isn't the only reason for the invasion, but it's the most obvious. Saddam hasn't been a threat to the US since the first Gulf War, as the Bush administration well knows. It only makes this insupportable claim (think about it - poor, broken-down, partially disarmed Iraq a threat to the most powerful nation in all of history?) in order to justify the attack to the American people. Unfortunately, the mainstream US media function as the propaganda arm of the administration when it comes to foreign policy.
The rest of the world, without such constraints on their media, get the true story, and hence see things very differently. In fairness, a good number of Americans do as well. Thank goodness for the internet!
I don't wish for massive casualties, and yes, I regret implying as much. However, it will take masses of Americans protesting in great numbers for American war-mongering to stop with the conquest of Iraq. That they have not yet done so in sufficient numbers is largely due to Bush's promise, before war started of course, of an "easy war".
As for your comments on Saudi Arabia: Like Saddam, the Saudi regime has a long history of torture. Because of its oil arrangements with the US, the Bush administration doesn't mention this, just as the US didn't discuss Saddam's shortcomings when it "needed" him in the Iraq/Iran war. Prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq had the highest literacy rate of any Arab country, and enjoyed a high standard of living. It wasn't Saddam that forced his country into poverty. It was the harsh enterpretation and enforcement of UN sanctions by the US and Britain. In 2000, a UNICEF official estimated that HALF A MILLION children under the age of 5 have died in Iraq since the imposition of U.N. sanctions. That number would be much higher today. See http://www.rense.com/general2/irsd.htm for this Reuters story.
You said, "Please show me ONE (1) country on the face of this earth that is actively and purposefully looking to lose influence in world affairs, and you'll gain some much needed credibility."
Eric, most countries try to gain influence through diplomacy, not by waging war. Sometimes war is necessary. It wasn't in this case. I pray for us all.
That's all I'm going to say on this page. Thanks to all for the engaging discussion.
Posted by Carl @ 03/28/2003 11:42 AM CST
Do you think men like Saddam who torture & kill his own people should be in power? Do you think any nation should have stopped Hitler before he killed millions of Jews? And lastly, what nationality are you?
Posted by Sandra @ 03/28/2003 06:40 PM CST
So what I hear you saying, Carl and some others, is that the world is better off living with the Husseins of the world and terrorists who mostly murder innocent civilians, rather than removing both entities by force. Diplomacy will contain them? You can't be serious? Diplomacy failed, but equal fault for its failure should be attributed to the French, Germans and Russians. Those governments weren't the least bit interested in removing Hussein from power. Why? Well that's the other thing that is just laughable. You cry that this war is about "oil", but then you only point a bony finger at the U.S. and British. Well, you should be pointing toward the French and Russians, too, because they are the ones with the existing Iraqi oil contracts to lose.
Posted by Fred @ 03/28/2003 09:34 PM CST
One other thing - I think the whole world now sees that economic sanctions DO NOT WORK.
Posted by Fred @ 03/28/2003 09:54 PM CST
Carl, which page of which scholarly fairy tale did you jump off of?
Posted by Dawn @ 03/28/2003 11:02 PM CST
Sandra, If I were to buy your argument that the reason the US invaded Iraq is because Saddamâ€™s a bad dude, I guess US troops are going to have a busy time overthrowing the regimes of Syria, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, numerous African countries, and so on.
Tragically, according to UNICEF, US and British enforced sanctions have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of young children. Depleted uranium (DU) from fragmented US ammunition from the Gulf War has resulted in a huge increase in Iraqi birth defects and cancer. And now the US is showing its compassion and concern for the Iraqis by using it again! Not only are the Iraqis being exposed, but American and British troops as well. DU is the most likely cause of Gulf War syndrome.
The fact is that sanctions and DU have caused, and in the case of DU will continue to cause, far more sickness and death than Saddam ever dreamed of.
Sandra, Hitler went on a rampage and caused millions of deaths while the German people cheered him on in the name of patriotism, blinded by propaganda, before the allies managed to stop him. Fortunately, the German people learned their lesson. Too bad they didnâ€™t learn it a little sooner.
Fred, you say sanctions didnâ€™t work. What were they supposed to achieve? Despite the USâ€™s use of crudely fabricated evidence, it has been unable to come up with a shred of evidence that Iraq still has WMD. The leading technical expert from the first round of inspections, the American Scott Ritter, says it no longer has any. The UN inspectors checked out all the American â€śleadsâ€ť, and they all came to nought.
Fred, the French, Russians and Chinese are indeed protecting their legitimate Iraqi oil interests from the US. Doesnâ€™t that support my argument that the US IS after Iraqi oil?
Finally, since you asked, Sandra, Iâ€™m a Canadian of British birth.
Posted by Carl @ 03/29/2003 03:04 AM CST
I provided a bad link in a previous post for evidence that oil is a motive for the US invasion of Iraq. Here is the correct link:
Posted by Carl @ 03/29/2003 03:14 AM CST
I have to lean in Carl's direction. As a US citizen, I have been trying to figure out the reason we 'had' to attack Iraq. The one I have come up with is to make the world safe for US & multinational corporations. Oil is a reason but since the Saudi govt. are 'our friends' (they are the Islamic fundamentalists & they are the ones with 9/11 connections, not Iraq) we aren't attacking them..we need oil to keep US business rolling. and the administration has ties to them business & personal. Look at the list of big corporations lined up to rebuild Iraq after we destroy it - Halliburton (Cheney was CEO for 5 years) got a contract without any bidding. Who is paying the bill for this war & rebuilding, ordinary US citizens like you & me. In the meantime, our economy is going down the tubes (I've been on the verge of being laid off several times last & this year and I have friends that have been out of work for months (with good skills).
Posted by Karen @ 03/29/2003 03:35 PM CST
Carl, thanks for the reply.
Iraqi sanctions were imposed by the U.N., not the U.S. and British alone. I think we need to make that distinction clear. With respect to sanctions and their general results, I'm saying that sanctions have NEVER been effective (in my opinion) at punishing a rogue State. The UN and all member Nations should simply forego their use in the future.
Scott Ritter is a hypocrite, if not just a downright liar. He was singing the complete opposite tune when Iraq kicked him out, allegedly for spying.
The UN inspectors DID NOT check out all the U.S. leads w/respect to WMD. The UN only checked out the leads presented to them. Your argument about WMD is valid, technically. No, WMD have not been found. As a reasonable person, though, would you then conclude that Iraq has none? If the answer is no, then will you be willing to state in a future op ed that the U.S. was ultimately proven correct if WMD are found? Furthermore, would you also state in that same piece that, indeed, this war was partly about WMD?
I agree that this war is partly about oil. All I'm saying is that there's plenty of culpability to go around. However, I also think this war is partly about human rights, terrorism, WMD, and megalomaniacs who have vast resources at their disposal, (i.e., hitler-ish).
Posted by Fred @ 03/30/2003 12:10 AM CST
Don't get me wrong, I'm as cynical as they come about our government, no matter which party holds the Whitehouse. However, after all the reasons for going to war are considered, some of which are suspect at best (I agree), I believe the good outweighs the bad in this case. Carl, you implied that other countries might be next after Iraq. Obviously, Syria and N. Korea have come to the same conclusion given the recent actions of their government.
Posted by Fred @ 03/30/2003 12:33 AM CST
I stand corrected, Fred. The inspectors didnâ€™t check out ALL of the US â€śleadsâ€ť on hidden WMD. They were prevented from finishing the job by the US itself, after the ones they did check came up dry.
As for your claim that the sanctions didnâ€™t work, time will tell whether Saddam still has WMD. Isnâ€™t attacking Iraq BEFORE it has proof putting the cart before the horse?
Pakistan, China, and North Korea are also ruled by brutal dictators. That these countries possess WMD is not even an issue. Pakistanâ€™s army is riddled with Al Qaâ€™eda members. So why did the US attack Iraq first? The US is the only nation to announce that it has the â€śrightâ€ť to use WMD in â€śpre-emptiveâ€ť strikes, and has not ruled out their use in Iraq. Fred, I assure you the existence or otherwise of WMD in Iraq has NOTHING to do with this war. The Bush administration has repeatedly stated that their immediate objective is â€śregime changeâ€ť, and that they would bring this about even if Saddam gave up all his alleged banned weaponry. The US has also refused to recognize the International Criminal Court. This, and its unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation without an international mandate, clearly demonstrates that the US feels it doesnâ€™t have to abide by the laws of the rest of the world. The land of the free also reserves the â€śrightâ€ť to hold its own citizens indefinitely, without contact with a lawyer, at the Presidentâ€™s leisure. And of course it has violated the terms of the Geneva Convention by holding POWâ€™s without any rights whatsoever at Guantanamo Bay.
I stated that the US and Britain â€śenforcedâ€ť UN sanctions. I stand by that.
According to Scott Ritter, he was not â€śkicked outâ€ť of Iraq. He resigned. Iraq didnâ€™t accuse him personally of spying. It accused unnamed US inspectors. Ritter himself was concerned about UNSCOM employed CIA agents answering to their US handlers, rather than UNSCOM, and planting bugs. When he took it up with Deputy Executive Chairman of UNSCOM, Charles Duelfer, he was told, â€śâ€¦you're getting into national security areas and if you keep moving you'll have a problem with the F.B.I. It's a law enforcement problem, it's espionage, and you'll lose that game.â€ť
The whole UNSCOM team was ordered out by the UN, not Saddam, in late 1998. Shortly after, the US began its â€śDesert Foxâ€ť bombing campaign, which just happened to coincide with Clintonâ€™s impeachment hearings.
Iâ€™m sorry Fred, but your statement that this war is about â€śmegalomaniacs who have vast resources at their disposalâ€¦â€ť reminds me more of of the wealthy, powerful invader, the US, than of Iraq, a small nation driven into poverty by harsh sanctions.
As I stated in previous posts, it is up to the American people, for whom I have considerable admiration, to stand up to the Bush administration, which is beginning to resemble Hitler and his cronies more and more with each passing day.
Take care, my friend.
Posted by Carl @ 03/30/2003 03:51 AM CST
Your beliefs are crystal clear, Carl. You gladly accept a murdering despot head of state, who pays for terrorist acts, lets terrorists train in his country, and who openly and proudly defies the UN.
Next time this situation happens, I encourage you to plead your case to the murdering despot directly, and convince him to follow UN resolutions so as to avoid a conflict. In all seriousness, if the people that demonstrated against the U.S. were at all concerned about preventing this war, they would have spent equal time demonstrating against the Baath Party in downtown Baghdad.
It's pointless to continue this dialogue. You are no more open-minded about your views than Saddam himself. Carl, if you look hard enough, you'll see a U.S. government conspiracy at every turn, and I applaud your research in proving your suspicions. The Truth Is Out There, Carl.
Posted by Fred @ 03/30/2003 10:04 PM CST
i dont understand where people get
Posted by Lee @ 04/02/2003 12:19 AM CST
Any country who wouldn't fight in this war should not have any say in the rebuilding of Iraq. (France, Russia)
Posted by Susan @ 04/05/2003 04:41 PM CST
Please do not leave notes for MidEastWeb editors here. Hyperlinks are not displayed. We may delete or abridge comments that are longer than 250 words, or consist entirely of material copied from other sources, and we shall delete comments with obscene or racist content or commercial advertisements. Comments should adhere to Mideastweb Guidelines . IPs of offenders will be banned.
Editors' contributions are copyright by the authors and MidEastWeb for Coexistence RA.
Please link to main article pages and tell your friends about MidEastWeb. Do not copy MidEastWeb materials to your Web Site. That is a violation of our copyright. Click for copyright policy.
MidEastWeb and the editors are not responsible for content of visitors' comments.
Please report any comments that are offensive or racist.
Editors can log in by clicking here