Conflict in the Middle East, pt. 2a

6701. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 10:59:30 AM

Not that I'm entirely for the war yet... I'm still waiting for the large quantities of chemical weapons. I consider the removal of Saddam to be a consolation price. Without the chemical and biological weapons proof, we will not have vindicated ourselves against the criticisms of the world. Once we find WMD, we can basically tell those people to talk to the hand.

It is very hard to make a case to defend the current (as of yesterday anyway--I haven't turned on CNN yet) Iraqi regime. Bank's realpolitik justifications carry a great deal of weight.

The problem I have is how it was done, and the prospect for how it is gonna be done. Picking rationales that bore some resemblence to the truth would have been a little reassuring. Working with the international community to take action based on true rationales would have been even more reassuring. Planning to hand the administration of the state to the neocons is downright scary.

6702. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 11:04:52 AM

And it still irks me no end that the adminstration has successfully conflated mustard gas artillery shells and canisters that used to hold pesticides with nuclear bombs.

6703. judithathome - 4/8/2003 11:07:09 AM

Planning to hand the administration of the state to the neocons is downright scary.

Don't forget that we are going to try officials for crimes against humanity in our own military courts. No World Court BS for us!

6704. alistairConnor - 4/8/2003 11:29:30 AM

Any cites on that war-crimes stuff?

6705. judithathome - 4/8/2003 11:34:10 AM

I can cut and paste it...

6706. judithathome - 4/8/2003 11:38:39 AM

From Intel Dump

America plans to try Iraqis for war crimes

In a briefing today, Pentagon and State Department officials said they have decided to try Iraqi officials whom they believe to be guilty of various war crimes, once the war is complete. Significantly, the officials said they would not turn to an international body, such as the International Criminal Court, to adjudicate these cases. Also, the U.S. said it would not pursue an ad hoc tribunal, like the International Criminal Tribunal-Yugoslavia, that's currently trying Slobodan Milosevic, for use in this situation.


W. Hays Parks, special assistant to the Army Judge Advocate General, said trials could be handled by U.S. military commissions, military courts martial, or in civilian federal courts. Parks accused Iraq's government of three specific violations of the Geneva Conventions and related laws of war, and said others were being investigated.
Pierre-Richard Prosper, U.S. ambassador for war crime issues, said possible punishments for those convicted range from incarceration to the death penalty.

(cont'd)

6707. judithathome - 4/8/2003 11:39:03 AM

(cont'd)

``The current abuses, the crimes particularly against U.S. personnel, we believe that we have the sovereign ability and right to prosecute these cases,'' Prosper said. ``We are of the view that an international tribunal for the current abuses is not necessary.'' U.S. allies in the war, including Britain, have the same right to prosecute suspected war criminals, he said.

The only international tribunal in existence, Prosper said, is the permanent International Criminal Court. But that court lacks jurisdiction over this war because neither America nor Iraq are parties to the treaty creating the court, he said.

Prosper said an Iraqi judiciary process slated to be established following the war could handle trials relating to ``past abuses'' by members of Saddam's government. Officials said Iraqi exiles are being consulted about the matter.

``We have begun to catalog the numerous abuses, both past and present, that have been committed by the Iraqi regime. Our troops have been given the additional mission of securing and preserving evidence of war crimes and atrocities that they uncover,'' Prosper said.

Prosper said U.S. officials have been investigating the actions of the Iraqi leadership, including Saddam, his sons Qusay and Uday, and military leaders like Ali Hassan al-Majid, nicknamed ``Chemical Ali.'' He added that ``by the nature of the regime, we do understand that a lot of the orders for the atrocities came from the top.''

6708. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 12:26:51 PM

Here is the Reuters piece quoted by intel dump.

BTW, what happened to the NPR story about chemical weapons found?

6709. judithathome - 4/8/2003 12:46:35 PM

Last I heard they were field testing samples and sending trace amounts to the US for comprehensive testing.

6710. vonKreedon - 4/8/2003 12:49:21 PM

The apologists for the US administration's war on Iraq are now using the Liberation of Iraq as a smoke screen for this war's lack of legitimacy. They cry crocodile tears for the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam and decry those who would let mere international niceties of national sovereignty get in the way of such a noble purpose.

But when it comes to any whiff of potential infringement by the international community on US national sovereignty, well we are having none of that. So we are not part of the the International Criminal Court. We are not part of the Kyoto Accords. We are not part of Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Even treaties that we have adopted we ignore when they appear to restrict our national sovereignty. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty requires us to, "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament...", but the recent January 2002 Nuclear Posture Review calls for the maintenance of large and modernized nuclear forces for the indefinite future. Of course, in spite of our disregard of our obligations under the NPT, we have taken on the role of punishing other countries that are or may be in violation of their NPT obligations. Under the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention we are obligated to meet reporting and inspection regimes, but consistently fail to do so for reasons of National Sovereignty.

But we are the worlds only superpower and should not be bound by the international requirements of lesser nations. After all, we are doing it all for the children.

6711. judithathome - 4/8/2003 12:49:40 PM

No, that was the chemicals in the drums, sorry.

A general on CNN last night said it would be very difficult to field test the weapons reported on by NPR because they woukd have to be boken down and transporting then intact would be unweildly. So that's all I've heard...

6712. vonKreedon - 4/8/2003 12:51:19 PM

Regarding any finding of WMD in Iraq, if the US does not submit the sites and primary samples to international review it is unlikely, given the administration's abysmal record of verification to date, that the international community will accord much faith to our claims.

6713. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 12:53:39 PM

But, re 6710, that doesn't seem to matter, does it?

6714. vonKreedon - 4/8/2003 12:56:47 PM

Jay - What doesn't seem to matter, and to whom?

6715. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 1:00:01 PM

However, vK, the military guy in charge of the testing (or in charge of talking about it) did speak credibly, pointing out that false positives are common in such testing, and that since the stuff they found was in an agricultural facility, it might not be possible to rule out the claim that the find was "just" pesticides. (Sorry, but to me neuro-toxins are neuro-toxins, and not the kinds of things one wants to have around. Bugs are better.)

He didn't point out that barrels were empty, but they certainly looked that way on TV.

Moreover, he made it clear that there was no sign of weaponizing of the stuff. So, while I agree that someone independent should confirm any finds, they are working to build credibility in this area.

6716. vonKreedon - 4/8/2003 1:03:23 PM

The US militaries words and actions in this war have been excellent nearly accross the board.

6717. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 1:06:44 PM

vK

In 6710, you said that the US, or I should say, this administration doesn't care much about whether the international community will accord much faith to our claims.

Not in so many words, but I thought that was the intent of 6710.

6718. thoughtful - 4/8/2003 1:15:32 PM

Bugs are better? I think not.

African locust infestation

6719. AceofSpades - 4/8/2003 1:20:36 PM

Jailed Iraqi children run free as marines roll into Baghdad suburbs
46 minutes ago Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo!



BAGHDAD (AFP) - More than 100 children held in a prison celebrated their freedom as US marines rolled into northeast Baghdad amid chaotic scenes which saw civilians loot weapons from an army compound, a US officer said.

Around 150 children spilled out of the jail after the gates were opened as a US military Humvee vehicle approached, Lieutenant Colonel Fred Padilla told an AFP correspondent travelling with the Marines 5th Regiment.


"Hundreds of kids were swarming us and kissing us," Padilla said.


"There were parents running up, so happy to have their kids back."


"The children had been imprisoned because they had not joined the youth branch of the Baath party," he alleged. "Some of these kids had been in there for five years."


The children, who were wearing threadbare clothes and looked under-nourished, walked on the streets crossing their hands as if to mimic handcuffs, before giving the thumbs up sign and shouting their thanks.


It was not clear who had opened the doors of the prison.


...

At one stage the marines opened fire after coming under attack from snipers, leaving at least two civilians wounded.


One man needed treatment for gunshot wounds to his stomach and left arm.


But his friend, Abdul Amir Jaffa, said he did not resent the Americans despite the shooting.


"Americans are coming to free us," he told AFP.

...

How long should we have "given diplomacy a chance to work"?

For how many more years, precisely, would you have condemned these children to political prison?

6720. AceofSpades - 4/8/2003 1:22:31 PM

vK--

Your kneejerk recitation of "sovereignty" is a joke, considering you're all in favor of the denigration of American sovereignty. It's only the sovereignties of foreign dictators you champion.

Odd, that.

One would almost think you were rooting for the other side.

6721. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 1:23:38 PM

6718

Pesticides are a short-sighted, ultimately doomed solution. The more effective they are, the quicker they breed resistant strains.

6722. thoughtful - 4/8/2003 1:25:48 PM

vonK, the military has been believable, the administration has not, especially when seeking excuses to attack Iraq. See recent article in the NYer on how fake the documents were around the supposed purchase of aluminum tubes by Iraq. The dearth of WMDs found so far and the floating of the rumor that Iraq already shipped them to Syria suggests the credibility gap is large. Rapid moves by Halliburton and the Carlyle Group to "clean up on Iraq" only make that credibility gap larger.

The real test will be when the fighting is over...will we get a more democratic iraq? Or will we preside over fake elections as in Afghanistan and install someone of our own choosing whom we view as more tractable.

To paraphrase deep throat, follow the oil.

6723. thoughtful - 4/8/2003 1:27:52 PM

Jay, starvation is even shorter-sighted than pesticide resistance.

6724. Wombat - 4/8/2003 1:28:32 PM

If the best Ace can offer is talk radio smears, perhaps the Perfect World is the best place for him. (Incidentally, I support the war, just in case you are tempted to smear me.)

Anyone notice the language on the chemical drums that were uncovered near Karbala? Yep...French.

6725. AceofSpades - 4/8/2003 1:29:17 PM

Piously instruct these children about Saddam's "sovereign right" to imprison similar children.

6726. thoughtful - 4/8/2003 1:42:39 PM

Gee, Ace, Didn't know you cared so much for the Iraqi people. How about helping these folks:

"Torture and ill-treatment in prisons and jails...

Abuses, including excessive force and misuse of stun weapons, chemical sprays and restraints, were reported in various adult and juvenile facilities. At least three people died after being placed in restraint chairs. More than 20,000 prisoners continued to be held in conditions of extreme isolation in supermaximum security prisons..."

"There were allegations that girls held ... were tortured and ill-treated. Allegations levelled against the authorities included rape...pressure on girls to have abortions; sexual abuse and assault...; beatings; punitive solitary confinement; and lack of adequate medical care."

Oops...those people are Americans in American prisons, data courtesy of Amnesty International. Guess we'll have to attack ourselves next and install a democratic government.

You really ought to check out their annual report and see how many countries are NOT listed. We'd have to attack most of the world including ourselves, if that's all it takes to justify war.

Now why do you suppose we are pushing for regime change in Iraq and not, say, Colombia, Sri Lanka or Zimbabwe? Are these people any less deserving of our altruistic desire to free the peoples of the world?

6727. Wombat - 4/8/2003 2:22:56 PM

Thoughtful:

Have you read the chapter on Iraq in the Report? Compare it to that of the United States. There are a few minor differences that you should be able to recognize, before you come up with peurile moral equivalencies.

6728. PelleNilsson - 4/8/2003 2:26:17 PM

Thomas Friedman on post-war Iraq:

... the ideologues within the Bush team who have been dealing with the Iraqi exile leaders and will try to install one of them, like Ahmad Chalabi, to run Iraq. I don't know any of these exiles, and I have nothing against them. But anyone who thinks they can simply be installed by America and take root in Iraqi soil is out of his mind.

I couldn't agree more. Chalabi hasn't set foot in Iraq for decades. He was the head of Jordan's second largest back, the Petra Bank, when it had to be rescued by the government in 1989. He fled the country but was tried in absentia and sentenced to 22 years in jail for embezzlement. The idea to have a chap like that in a leading role in a future Iraqi administration is indeed madness.

6729. Wombat - 4/8/2003 3:08:50 PM

I see Kanan Makiya as the potential Vaclav Havel of Iraq.

6730. Edmund Dantes - 4/8/2003 3:13:15 PM

"There were allegations that girls held ... were tortured and ill-treated. Allegations levelled against the authorities included rape...pressure on girls to have abortions; sexual abuse and assault...; beatings; punitive solitary confinement; and lack of adequate medical care."

Whenever thoughtfree puts in ellipses, it's a good idea to determine what she's leaving out because she's basically a dishonest, misrepresentative poster: "There were allegations that girls held at the Chalkville Campus, a juvenile facility for girls operated by the Department of Youth Services in Alabama, were tortured and ill-treated."

So Amnesty International comes up with an example of abuse at one facility somewhere in the US where it is alleged these events occurred, and wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, thoughtfree posits it as general evidence the US treats prisoners just the same as Iraq does. One example from one juvenile facility where some girls alleged something--and of course those girls wouldn't lie, would they? More...

State fires workers for sexual misconduct at juvenile lockup
May-25-2001
Two employees have been fired and 14 more face dismissal for sexual misconduct at the Chalkville lockup for teen-age girls. Six girls complained of misconduct at the Chalkville campus, a lockup and high school for delinquents committed by the courts. The department placed 12 male staffers on leave with pay and moved the four girls still in custody out of Chalkville.

That's just what would happen in Iraq, too. Further...

A weeklong investigation revealed "inappropriate sexual comments and contact which violates department policy," according to the statement. Department spokesman Allen Peaton said Thursday the investigation found no evidence of sexual intercourse between staff and students.

6731. magoseph - 4/8/2003 7:39:30 PM

Robert Fisk: It seemed as if Baghdad would fall within hours. But the day was characterised by crazed normality, high farce and death

08 April 2003--The Independent


It started with a series of massive vibrations, a great "stomping" sound that shook my room. "Stomp, stomp, stomp," it went. I lay in bed trying to fathom the cause. It was like the moment in Jurassic Park when the tourists first hear footfalls of the dinosaur, an ever increasing, ever more frightening thunder of a regular, monstrous heartbeat.

From my window on the east bank of the Tigris, I saw an Iraqi anti-aircraft gun firing from the roof of a building half a mile away, shooting across the river at something. "Stomp, stomp," it went again, the sound so enormous it set off alarms in cars along the bank.

And it was only when I stood on the road at dawn that I knew what had happened. Not since the war in 1991 had I heard the sound of American artillery. And there, only a few hundred metres away on the far bank of the Tigris, I saw them. At first they looked like tiny, armoured centipedes, stopping and starting, dappled brown and grey, weird little creatures that had come to inspect an alien land and search for water.

6732. vonKreedon - 4/8/2003 8:01:09 PM

That appears to be a remarkably uninformed and poorly formed article, though the description of the Information Minister was very amusing. Fisk's insistence on the depraved barbarity of the US forces descredits is apparently accurate account of the state of the hospitals as the discipline and forbearance of the US forces has been on conspicuous display over the course of this war. But to read the article one would get the impression that the "Marines" are looking for opportunities to gun down reporters and other civilians and that the Iraqi defenders are all brave but overwhelmed; the Iraqis may be defeated but at least they have an honour that the "Marines" will never know. Bleah.

6733. vonKreedon - 4/8/2003 8:02:01 PM

Edit:

...descredits his apparently...

6734. arkymalarky - 4/8/2003 8:09:58 PM

Hey, Slate noticed the Hummer ads. They had an article about them this week.

6735. PincherMartin - 4/9/2003 9:06:21 PM

Jeepers, this place is as quiet as a tomb. From the sound of it, you'd think a few people here just had some dearly-held, precious delusions about their world shattered into pieces.

I wouldn't worry about it. There will be other reasons for you guys to hate the U.S. soon enough.

6736. Snowowl - 4/9/2003 9:13:20 PM

Don't be an idiot. The Mote has been down since before I went to bed last night until about 5 minutes ago.

6737. RickNelson - 4/9/2003 9:19:41 PM

Oh shit!

See what the downed server made me do.

I didn't check the dates when I signed on. It seemed that Poetry was hanging around on top. Sigh...


And Pincher is being pious stating things about U.S. haters.

6738. PincherMartin - 4/9/2003 9:27:16 PM

Don't be an idiot. The Mote has been down since before I went to bed last night until about 5 minutes ago.

If I were as suspicious of The Mote's management team's motives as, say, Alistair is of U.S. motives in Iraq, I guess I would think that this forum's outage over the last few hours was planned.

Should we expect The Mote to be down quite a bit over the next few weeks if the good news keeps coming in?

And Pincher is being pious stating things about U.S. haters.

No piety, Rick. Just good old-fashion gloating.

6739. PincherMartin - 4/9/2003 9:31:08 PM

Anyway, I sympathize with you guys. I know it's a horrible day for you to see Saddam kicked out of Baghdad with Iraqis welcoming U.S. troops as liberators. It's got to be hard to take.

6740. Snowowl - 4/9/2003 9:33:16 PM

What do you have to gloat about? That you overran Iraq without much difficulty? That's surely only what almost everybody expected, and indeed hoped, would happen once invasion was decided on.

The childish equation of opposition to some US policy decisions and hatred of the US is tiresome and not worthy of comment.

6741. arkymalarky - 4/9/2003 9:35:48 PM

We're great with it. If it's still that way a month from now and we're not being cursed and sniped at for everything from slow transition to a new government to lack of order to supply shortages I'll be shocked and awed.

6742. RickNelson - 4/9/2003 9:36:27 PM

That's not exactly gloating. More like baiting.


But, as I've said a few times, so that I can make mention of this fine country, I tear up when I see a flag and soldiers together. When I think of the U.S. I feel proud, I don't have to like everything, that's something to be proud of, I CAN not like something.

As for now, I'm not against much. There are budget issues, and if they try to drill for oil in the Alaskan tundra again I'll be very against that.

What's not to like about the U.S.?

Damn, we've got members of all the worlds ethnicities, we're managed better than most countries (at least we are in Metropolitan, Minnesota). [This is not to invite comparison]

6743. arkymalarky - 4/9/2003 9:43:44 PM

Those Americans who can't, without ad hominem ridicule, tolerate other Americans exercising their duty as citizens to criticize government actions they disagree with and try to influence policies of their elected representatives need to explain to me exactly what they think they're defending. Or is this just an "I'm right. Nanny-boo-boo," thing? If so, let's wait until the troops are all home before we play that.

6744. PincherMartin - 4/9/2003 9:46:13 PM

Snowowl --

What do you have to gloat about? That you overran Iraq without much difficulty? That's surely only what almost everybody expected, and indeed hoped, would happen once invasion was decided on.

Oh come on, sweetie. It certainly was hoped for by you and some others here on this site. You had dreams of quagmire and Vietnam on the brain. You certainly were willing to sacrifice the Iraqi people in order to see the U.S. discredited.

The childish equation of opposition to some US policy decisions and hatred of the US is tiresome and not worthy of comment.

There is childishness here, but not by me. You had not a single fucking good reason to oppose the fall of this dictator, except to mindlessly -- and childishly --oppose the U.S.

The Iraqi people would be better off.

The U.S. would be better off (ah, there's the rub).

And even the international environment would be healthier with appeasement not being the natural fallback position of the major power whose military does most of the enforcement around the globe.

6745. arkymalarky - 4/9/2003 10:02:11 PM

Un-American

6746. PincherMartin - 4/9/2003 10:06:10 PM

Arky --

Those Americans who can't, without ad hominem ridicule, tolerate other Americans exercising their duty as citizens to criticize government actions they disagree with and try to influence policies of their elected representatives need to explain to me exactly what they think they're defending.

Ideally, the point of free speech should be more than just a chance to hear a multitude of voices; it should be more than mindless criticism of U.S. government policy. Freedom of speech should be a lubricant to help with finding the best possible policy and the most effective way to implement it. By allowing people to speak out, to helpfully criticize their government, ideally the nation should be able to find a better, more effective policy.

Of course, in the U.S., people even have the right to be unhelpful to their government, because it's often hard to tell, beforehand, what's a helpful or unhelpful suggestion. Better to take a chance that they might be wrong than to quell a voice that has something helpful to add to the debate. And in the end, the people will decide --through their votes -- what works.

But the shitty thing about so many of you is that you were motivated by nothing more than malice towards the Bush administration. You refused to seriously look at the evidence against the Iraqi regime. You refused to consider the very good arguments for moving against it. And you did so, not because you were ennobled by high motives, but because you hate Bush. And now that Saddam has been shown to be a naked emperor, you refuse to admit you were wrong.

One can respect serious disagreement among people who are genuinely looking for the best way to move forward on some issue. But your dishonesty in addressing these issues of war and peace -- which is obviously motivated by your hatred for Bush -- makes a mockery of your claim that you were just disagreeing with his policy in good faith.

6747. arkymalarky - 4/9/2003 10:18:14 PM

A simple rule would make these "discussions" so much more productive: Read before you write.

Criticism that disagrees with yours isn't mindless, and neither is the fact that you haven't bothered to pay attention to the details of that criticism. Some, like I have, were not opposed to an invasion of Iraq but intensely dislike Bush's inept handling of the international community and his penchant for leaning on people who have a vested interest in the region that has nothing to do with the American values we're so fond of publicly promoting.

As far as evidence, I'm still waiting on the verdict of that. Unless you're talking about our second motive for this invasion.

But the shitty thing about so many of you is that you were motivated by nothing more than malice towards the Bush administration.

I think Bush is an idiot. I am not stupid and narrow enough to wish my country ill because of my perception of him--or the world, or Iraq, or even Bush himself, for that matter). Handily, my link above makes just that point (just change the president's name).

6748. PincherMartin - 4/9/2003 10:40:17 PM

Arky --

A simple rule would make these "discussions" so much more productive: Read before you write.

You need to follow your own advice. See below.

Criticism that disagrees with yours isn't mindless, and neither is the fact that you haven't bothered to pay attention to the details of that criticism.

I never said that criticism which doesn't agree with mine is mindless. (I, in fact, made the opposite argument.) I said that the criticism of the war here on this forum is mindless. I specifically said in #6746 that there can be serious disagreement among people who are genuinely looking for the best policy.

Some, like I have, were not opposed to an invasion of Iraq but intensely dislike Bush's inept handling of the international community and his penchant for leaning on people who have a vested interest in the region that has nothing to do with the American values we're so fond of publicly promoting.

Yes, but you --and others as well -- said much more.

As for Bush's handling of the international community, do you think that amorphous entity was putty in his hands? Does the international community have any responsibility for their own decisions or are they just Bush's pets, waiting for the proper incentives to perform whatever tricks we want them to do?

I can't stand Bush's dealings with the Saudis either, but to be fair, every other U.S. administration from FDR on forward have dealt with them in much the same way. After 9-11, I'm all for changing that, and believe Bush should.

continued ...

6749. PincherMartin - 4/9/2003 10:43:00 PM

As far as evidence, I'm still waiting on the verdict of that. Unless you're talking about our second motive for this invasion.

Really? You're waiting on it? You want to make any bets about whether we find WMD? And if you don't want to make that bet, I guess I can infer that you're pretty sure we had good cause to believe they are in there. In other words, we had good cause to go to war.

I think Bush is an idiot.

Yes, Arky, we know that. Bush is an idiot. Just look at his conduct of this war, when so many smarter people were counseling we do this and that. He's plainly just a dumbass for not following their suggestions. Thank God we have Cheney and Rove in there to wipe his chin off when he's drooling.

If you truly think Bush is an idiot, you must also think he's the luckiest man alive. He must be the Forrest Gump of U.S. Presidents, stumbling from one fortunate incident to another.

6750. arkymalarky - 4/9/2003 10:55:09 PM

I said that the criticism of the war here on this forum is mindless.

Yes. And that's what I was referring to. The discussion was in the context of what's been said here.

Yes, but you -- and others as well -- said much more.

Provide me with the "much more" I said that fits your description and I'll be satisfied. I abhor the propaganda and the attempts to shame people out of their right to speak in criticism of the government's actions (any=all as far as most are concerned--you're either for or against), but I have said from the beginning that I didn't disagree with using force on Hussein.

As for Bush's handling of the international community, do you think that amorphous entity was putty in his hands?

I never said Bush could manipulate the international community--yet another all-or-nothing straw man. Maybe my problem is that I can't construct my arguments simply enough to fit your characterization of them.

Do you know what "waiting on it" means?

We have a brilliant military machine and I think our soldiers have been our best PR people internationally thus far. I no more believe Bush is orchestrating this war than I believe he writes his own speeches. And no, he's stumbled on one fortunate incident. I'd hardly call his domestic accomplishments a riotous success, and Afghanistan would have happened no other way, despite the ludicrous projections of what Gore would have done. In fact, Bush is losing a significant part of the GOP on his ridiculous tax proposal.

6751. arkymalarky - 4/9/2003 10:57:15 PM

Really? You're waiting on it?

is what my "What do you think 'waiting on it' means?" referred to. Neglected to c&p it.

6752. arkymalarky - 4/9/2003 10:58:39 PM

Well, I'm going to pull a Hussein and head for my bunker and poke my head out tomorrow afternoon to see if I'm still standing.

Nite.

6753. PincherMartin - 4/9/2003 11:40:18 PM

Arky --

Do you know what "waiting on it" means?

I assumed when I read it in this context...

As far as evidence, I'm still waiting on the verdict of that. Unless you're talking about our second motive for this invasion.

... that it meant you were waiting to make a verdict depending on whether we found WMD. Wasn't that our other motiviation -- really our primary motivation -- for going to war?

If not, what did you mean?

As for your support of the invasion, I find that hard to believe. Please point out wherever you made that argument, and I'll retract my charge against you. Perhaps you made it somewhere and I missed it. What I've seen from you, however, is ironic comments on the war that have found support from your fellow leftists, such as the comment you made last week about regime change being a good thing, and asking where the U.S. was going to next. (Snowowl applauded your sentiment.)

6754. PelleNilsson - 4/10/2003 2:56:30 AM

Yesterday I watched BBC's webcast of events in Baghdad and provided a running commentary in RI (because the Mote was down). Here it is, anyhow. Times are a.m. and, I think, PDT.

5.53
The US army is conducting what amounts to a military parade in front of the Palestine hotel where all the media are. A fantastic PR coup.

6.03
It's extraordinary, absolutely surreal. The Americans are sending out patrols to secure the area. They have to make their way among cheering civilians and are followed by TV cameramen.

6.08
The crowd is now trying to topple a statue of Saddam while a US Marine is being interviewed by BBC.

6.19
It's turning into a family outing. Families are bringing their kids to look at the Americans and their fantastic vehicles.

6.31
They've now got a ladder and rope up to the statue. More and more people are arriving.

6.45
The rope is in place. It looks vaguely as a noose.

7.11
An APC has come up to the statue.

7.23
First attempt failed.

7.41
The marines are attaching a steel chain instead of the rope.

7.50
The statue is down

7.52
Rapturous scenes follow.

6755. alistairConnor - 4/10/2003 4:53:57 AM

If I were as suspicious of The Mote's management team's motives as, say, Alistair is of U.S. motives in Iraq, I guess I would think that this forum's outage over the last few hours was planned.

Well, I was going to make a jokey post about how those damn librals were so upset about their idol Saddam losing, they pulled the plug on the server. But you beat me to it. Thank you Pinscher.

6756. alistairConnor - 4/10/2003 5:03:21 AM

Vindictive, spiteful pettiness in victory is surely the true stamp of meanness of spirit.

I said that the criticism of the war here on this forum is mindless. Well, Pinscher, I had enjoyed our earlier discussions, in large part because you managed to lift your game. But you seem to be returning to form.

6757. alistairConnor - 4/10/2003 5:11:29 AM

Are we seeing the true face of Pinscher? He identifies pretty closely with the current US foreign policy; here he seems to be talking about free speech in the US (some paranoid fools on the left suspect the Bush administration of wanting to stifle dissent).

By allowing people to speak out, to helpfully criticize their government, ideally the nation should be able to find a better, more effective policy.

Of course, in the U.S., people even have the right to be unhelpful to their government, because it's often hard to tell, beforehand, what's a helpful or unhelpful suggestion. Better to take a chance that they might be wrong than to quell a voice that has something helpful to add to the debate.

Understood? Allowing free speech is generally a good policy, which ideally improves governance.

In Pinscher's world, free speech is a privilege, not a right. Use it wisely. Or else. (hint : mindless opposition is unwise).

6758. PelleNilsson - 4/10/2003 5:46:22 AM

Churchill on Montgomery:

In defeat unbeatable, in victory unbearable.

6759. Dubai Vol - 4/10/2003 7:40:25 AM

Hahaha!

You anti-war pukes are pathetic! Three weeks, less than a hundred US combat deaths, less than a thousand Iraqi civilian deaths, and Baghdad is taken. CHILDREN let out of prison, torture chambers found, crowds cheering and throwing flowers, humanitarian aid flowing. Nothing but good news for Iraqis and the world.

And take it to the bank: the proof of WMDs is soon to follow.

Face it: you were wrong on every count.

6760. alistairConnor - 4/10/2003 8:25:37 AM

Well, Dube, I fervently hoped for a quick and complete US victory, so I'm pleased with the result in that respect. On the other hand, that in no way invalidates my opposition to the war, which was certainly not predicated on the expected number of deaths in the US military.

I agree with Pinscher when he says [We] have a brilliant military machine and I think our soldiers have been our best PR people internationally thus far. (... what does that say about your PR people? I think your soldiers have been your best diplomats too...)

6761. Macnas - 4/10/2003 8:39:39 AM

I think that everyone here that opposed this war, and I am one of those, once it started hoped for a swift conclusion. Though the rotund gal has yet to sing, it seems that the assault stage is coming to an end.
And do not get me wrong here, and do not think that I am backtraking or justifying anything when I say that I am relived that the Iraqi forces, in Baghdad especially, saw sense and, as I said sometime back, stowed their rifles, went home and sat it out.

Have another beer, you deserve it.

6762. Wombat - 4/10/2003 9:19:06 AM

Now it starts to get interesting. Turkey is sending observers to Kirkuk, presumably to ensure that their various interests are protected.

I would expect to see large U.S. units in the north--particularly near Syria--once Tikrit falls.

Amusing Christopher Hitchens piece in Slate.

6763. RickNelson - 4/10/2003 9:26:36 AM

Opposing war does not equate total left leaning liberal.

Opposing war may be Ghandian in form, such that if non-violence would reach the end result, then that would be the effective plan. Iraq was hardly a case for Ghandian strategy. This was a difficult case for war opposers. It is never easy to find the niche of ones hope and the realities one is forced to face. It takes certain events and persons in the positions of leadership to steer the course.

Bush did that. His steering as it were forced the war opposition to decide where it might fit into, stay out of, vehemently oppose or change their minds. I was appalled at vehement opposition. I am always appalled at mob violence and ignorant blind disobediance. Some causes may occur to justify it, but I cannot see that war opposition is one of them. Mass demonstrate, mobilize voting, petition, meet, talk, debate, vote, vote, be a damn voter!!

Anyway, I'm one who looked at the face of reality, saw I couldn't do a thing to change the inevitable event of war, chose to oppose the principle of war, but supported the troops in whatever method available. That turned out to be a letter and money to give troops goodies and toiletries. I'll thank all I see on the streets when that chance arises. I do that anyway. Same for Vets day and Memorial day.

Soon they'll be coming home.


I'm still thinking about what to do with this new take on Imperialism and the bald face of policing wars. So, we're the world's police? hmmm... I don't like it, can't change it, might be able to vote about it. It might be a train we can't get off of, racing down the tracks, no end to the track.

Who's next, what's next?

6764. Wombat - 4/10/2003 10:01:34 AM

The Republicans who voiciferously opposed Clinton's military ventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Kosovo could hardly be called "leftists."

6765. magoseph - 4/10/2003 10:21:19 AM

The war critics were right—not in the way they expected.

So it turns out that all the slogans of the anti-war movement were right after all. And their demands were just. "No War on Iraq," they said—and there wasn't a war on Iraq. Indeed, there was barely a "war" at all. "No Blood for Oil," they cried, and the oil wealth of Iraq has been duly rescued from attempted sabotage with scarcely a drop spilled. Of the nine oil wells set ablaze by the few desperadoes who obeyed the order, only one is still burning and the rest have been capped and doused without casualties. "Stop the War" was the call. And the "war" is indeed stopping. That's not such a bad record. An earlier anti-war demand—"Give the Inspectors More Time"—was also very prescient and is also about to be fulfilled in exquisite detail

6766. magoseph - 4/10/2003 10:22:28 AM

I just couldn't resist the impulse, Wombat!

6767. marjoribanks - 4/10/2003 10:41:18 AM

The flood of images yesterday brought home the realization that a new day had indeed arrived. It also brought home some lessons that underlie the new 'new world order', the primary one being that the US military is indeed the most fearsome, yet precise, fighting force in the history of mankind. I will not grudge the mindless hawks one or two weeks of basking in received glory because they do in fact sit on an almost inconceivably powerful change-making machine.

A half-memory came back yesterday, of an article written by the poet James Fenton about the collapse and looting of the Marcos power centers. Fenton wandered into one of the biggest palaces, undisturbedly played an etude on an abandones piano and then aimlessly collected souvenirs from the detritus left behind. A lesson for the strongmen of the world may be that you should not amass riches in the sight of your own desperate, that you should not erect massive statues of yourself because they too will be powder.

I read yesterday's events as an unmistakeable writing on the wall for some. The Korean strongman must have shuddered as the giant statue fell and as the giant boulevards sounded with the voices of the formerly silenced. In the Arab world, the silence of the elite can only be read as indicator of stark fear. Who can dismiss the slapping of Saddam's metal face with shoes as another trick of American propaganda? The rabble are coming, the rabble are coming.

6768. Wombat - 4/10/2003 10:46:26 AM

Marj:

I am sure that some Arabs will find a way to present it as American propaganda.

Interesting Jack Shaefer piece in Slate on how the camerament in the Palestine Hotel may have drawn U.S. tank fire.

6769. Wombat - 4/10/2003 10:50:05 AM

I wonder about North Korea. Their system has been in place for over 50 years; there is literally no one who remembers life before the Kims; the media is far more tightly controlled. If/when North Korea falls, the most important task may be to import cult deprogrammers to deal with the population.

6770. AceofSpades - 4/10/2003 10:50:18 AM

THE PLAYBOOK. After listening to a lot of NPR for a couple of days (Q: why oh why do I do this? A: because otherwise I'd have to listen to AM radio for news), I have managed to reverse engineer their general guidelines for commentators who hate Bush and the war (i.e., most of them) as they come to grips with the infuriating triumph of their foes:

Make clear that it was obvious all along what the military outcome would be, and that skepticism about it formed no part of your opposition to the war. Give the aural equivalent of a shrug and make references to the world's largest military machine, etc.

State that of course you are happy for the Iraqi people -- those who weren't killed in the invasion -- but be careful never to end a sentence that way. Instead, always follow that sentiment with another that begins "but," or "; I only wish..." or "I only hope..." and then segue into other concerns -- the "diplomatic mess" we've created, or the "long term" picture, or "winning the peace," and so forth.

Talk a lot about things that "aren't clear" or that "remain to be seen." These sorts of assertion are good because they are hard to falsify. E.g.: "it's not clear how much of the excitement the Iraqis are showing is because Saddam is gone and how much of it is because of all the looting they are able to do." Or: "it remains to be seen whether the factions in the country can be governed in anything like the way the administration is imagining."

6771. AceofSpades - 4/10/2003 10:50:27 AM

Be forward-looking. Or past-looking. The point is to de-emphasize the present. Dwell on what hasn't been done, not what has been done. The sudden liberation of millions of people from tyranny is not, repeat not, the most important thing. Say that what counts is what comes next, that all this will only be meaningful if it ends up leading to true democracy and prosperity for Iraq. (Set the bar as high as you plausibly can.) Say that the real work lies ahead; say that the real test will be whether we can keep the country under control. Again, set the bar high so that if there is disorder six weeks from now -- fighting between factions, etc. -- you will be able to announce that the celebrations of early April were premature.

Remember: you haven't been proven wrong about anything, and the neocons haven't been proven right about anything.

-- From the Volokh Conspiracy

6772. marjoribanks - 4/10/2003 10:51:00 AM

Yesterday, I remembered with a start the face of a Chinese man who was in charge of minding me as I went about my state-related business in Beijing.

On one of my last days, after an exhausting several weeks, I arranged for some extra money to be paid him and went to his hotel room to make sure he was happy. After thanking me, and reminding me wordlessly again that there might be listening devices around, he sat quite helplessly on his bed. I talked away, about this and that, and then he lifted his head and I saw in his eyes something so hopeless that I have try not to think of it when reminded.

He said: "I can say nothing, completely nothing. And you can say everything, everything.

Today, the journalists and observers in some of Baghdad will be hearing the tumult of voices that have never been free to speak openly. And that alone is a great victory for the world. At a core level, I share the sentiments of one US soldier (Nasser something), an Arab immigrant, who admitted on TV a couple of days ago that he was and remains highly skeptical about US motivations for the war and dismayed by the administration's means of going about it - but after meeting the Iraqi's he encountered in the rush to Baghdad that whole bit of it did not matter as much. There is a genuine liberation underway, no matter how cynical your eye is. Like many such movements this one could end up being a disaster but you have to be a bit inhuman not to exult in the actual moment when tyranny is replaced, even if it may be with just anarchy.

6773. Wombat - 4/10/2003 10:53:43 AM

Orwell on Barcelona after the failure of the nationalist rising there remains one of the best accounts of a "liberated" city.

6774. marjoribanks - 4/10/2003 10:56:58 AM

I saw yesterday, again, one thing that shocked and impressed me and suddenly brought back the total optimism I harbored about this campaign before the Bushites went about it by kicking everyone not Brit in the balls repeatedly.

The Abud Dhabi TV anchor on CNN said that his channel is arranging a huge town hall meeting in Nasiriya to be broadcast live across the Arab world, and wants a hook-up with a US town hall meeting. That is a huge revolution in itself. Can you imagine?

Just as Blair convincingly spoke of the danger inherent in the convergence of rogue states, technological advances in WMD and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, there is another convergence underway that will shake up the world. That is of US-guaranteed security and freedom of speech, region-wide relatively free media, and the sudden and euphoric liberation of a portion of Arabs.

Watch this stuff, it is potent. I would not want to be young Assad, or even the young King of Jordan, in the coming months.

6775. AceofSpades - 4/10/2003 11:02:15 AM

I had a similar thought yesterday. In another couple of months, the Iraqis are going to have a constitutional convention, the first (I assume) in the Arab world. Assuming it's broadcast (and I have to imagine that it will be), I think it will be pretty well-watched in the Arab world, and a powerful message.

6776. Wombat - 4/10/2003 11:44:19 AM

While I share the optimism and aspirations expressed by Marj and Ace, there remains a large circle to be squared.

A constitutional convention taking place in a country that will most likely not yet be internally secure, in which prospective political leaders will either be returning exiles who are unknown and/or mistrusted, traditional tribal elders who have been tainted by their relationship with Saddam, and political functionaries who are at best implicated by association with the Baath party, does not sound like a recipe for a stable democratic system.

How then to "skip" a generation of leadership, how to rebuild a judicial system, recruit and train a depoliticized police force, and to de-Baathize Iraqi society and its education system, while ensuring that the infrastructure is able to provide services to all Iraqis?

6777. PelleNilsson - 4/10/2003 11:45:49 AM

No doubt, Iraqis will face a difficult time in the immediate future before a working civil administration can be re-established. But in my view it is worth it because now there is a future; there is hope for the Iraqi people where previously there was none. It is for this reason I supported the war. I never cared much about the WMD, the alleged links to Al Qaeda or Saddam's misdeeds in the past.

The events show the awesome power of the US (which has been applied judiciously) but it also shows that a regime that is based on repression and intimidation will crumble when real pressure is applied. As marj noted above, Syria's Assad may well be shitting his pants right now. His rule is a mirror image of Saddam's less the megalomaniac wars.

Of course the opposite also applies, as the Sharonistas have discovered at their cost when the Palestinians failed to crumble in spite of Israel's demonstrations of power in Jenin and elsewhere.

6778. PelleNilsson - 4/10/2003 11:53:04 AM

I heard on the news that Powell now says that the new regime in Iraq will be anointed by Defense whith some kind of nominal involvement of the UN. I seriously question the wisdom of that.

6779. concerned - 4/10/2003 12:33:54 PM

Chirac hails end of Iraqi dictatorship - rhetorically knifes 'good friend' Saddam in back after Coalition successfully resists Gallic obstructionism

Yurrupeon 'sophistication' at its most evolved = turgid perorations and bullying in the service of base venality & betrayal while u wait.

6780. concerned - 4/10/2003 12:40:01 PM

Re. 6774 -

Completely off base. Those who the Coalition 'kicked in the balls', as you so picturesquely put it, were particularly well chosen, as even you hopefully may eventually come to realize. IAC, considering the nature of most of the players involved, it's really more a matter of whose foot found its target than anything else.

6781. concerned - 4/10/2003 12:41:30 PM

Waiting for hysterical ad-hominems from marjoribanks.....

6782. PelleNilsson - 4/10/2003 12:52:10 PM

Sigh. Do you, perchance, have any opinion on the matter at hand? I guess not. It has not yet polarised to the extent that it allows a knee-jerk reaction.

By the way, you are emulating jexster's and vantheman's bad habit of adorning your link with opinions that are not present in the article you are linking to.

6783. Wombat - 4/10/2003 1:25:03 PM

I am not sure that I would allow the UN a role in helping form the government and political system in Iraq. Reforming the education system, training police and judicial officials, coordinating relief and infrastructure restoration, repatriation of refugees, yes.

6784. KuligintheHooligan - 4/10/2003 2:37:22 PM

I see only limited coverage of the war in Iraq, but one image has stuck soundly in my mind. Actually, two images which I bring together. The first is the statue of Saddam tumbling in Baghdad under the pull of American military vehicles. The second is the picture today I saw of Iraqis attempting to do the same thing in Kirkuk. Last I saw, they still hadn't pulled down the statue, but I assume they have by now. Still, there were some of them actually standing next to it, and "rocking" it with the hopes of it falling.

And it occurred to me. The Iraqis didn't have the might to topple Saddam, but the Americans did it for them.

6785. PelleNilsson - 4/10/2003 2:46:48 PM

Wombat

What I'm questioning is the dominant role of the defense department in the future governance of Iraq. I'd rather have the foreign office do it, or perhaps some kind of joint effort. What is your opinion?

6786. concerned - 4/10/2003 3:15:22 PM

re. 6782 -

I haven't read back far, bwrt 'rebuilding Iraq', I feel that, at least initially, Coalition nations should have the last word on infrastructure development with the UN focusing more on activities similar to its previous 'oil for food' program at which it has shown some facility. Once a robust enough constitutional Iraqi government having democratic institutions is established that can maintain itself and work in the Iraqi peoples' interests, then perhaps the UN can take a leading role in supporting Iraq.

One thing I don't see the UN being very effective at is in the initial stages of establishing a government or overseeing its acceptance by an effective majority of the individuals of a nation like Iraq, if for no other reason that the UN itself represents such a wide range of governmental paradigms that the decision process as to which institutions are implemented in Iraq risks, at best, either being the results of a series of toothless committee decisions, aka a 'clusterfuck', or will devolve into a power play between competing UN member nations with a wide range of almost entirely negative results for Iraq.

6787. concerned - 4/10/2003 3:18:58 PM

By the way, you are emulating jexster's and vantheman's bad habit of adorning your link with opinions that are not present in the article you are linking to.

It's not a bad habit and giving one's opinion is encouraged in forums such as the Mote, at least by those who can differentiate said comments from the editorial content of the link itself.

Keep in mind that I've seen quite a bit of criticism here of those who link without commenting. So, which is it?

6788. concerned - 4/10/2003 3:26:45 PM

I guess not.

I guess so. But, thanks, at least, for asking.

6789. concerned - 4/10/2003 3:37:03 PM

Re. 6785 -

There's no reason that the lessons learned during the Allied occupations of Japan and Germany couldn't be applied here to good effect. The Coalition military also has certainly gained the Iraqi peoples' attention and respect, and their continued visibility to the Iraqi people implicitly shows that cooperation between different nations (read: groups) is practical.

That being said, I see no problem with the State Department playing a role concentrating on Iraqi foreign relations, but any such 'joint effort' should always be structured so that there cannot be effective disagreement on what constitutes a common goal, or how it should be achieved wrt Iraq.

6790. concerned - 4/10/2003 3:46:39 PM

Re. 6759 -

I have to admit that I was worried about the possibility of significantly greater Iraqi civilian casualties in Baghdad and thankful they didn't occur. Looks like the coalition has shown that the best military in the world is also more PC than 99.99% of that world.

Sort of a scary thought, actually.

6791. concerned - 4/10/2003 3:50:51 PM

Re. 6760 -

There's the slight side effect of Saddam's tyranny being gone forever, but we won't dwell on that since we know how that deeply saddens Chirac, yourself and little Tommy Daschole, among others.

6792. concerned - 4/10/2003 4:03:52 PM

Re. 6763 -

Each 'adventure' like Iraq with its follow ons is an additional drain on US resources. It's not practical, IMO, to think of the US as the 'world's policeman' because the US is not attempting, after all, to police the world.

6793. alistairconnor - 4/10/2003 4:56:20 PM

Conjob:
The Coalition military also has certainly gained the Iraqi peoples' attention

BOOM!BOOM!BOOM!

Honey, I think there's someone at the door.

6794. alistairconnor - 4/10/2003 5:01:37 PM

Each 'adventure' like Iraq with its follow ons is an additional drain on US resources.

Indeed. And it doesn't look like the US has the wherewithal to pay for this/> adventure, let alone the next one.

The last Gulf War was paid for mostly by Saudi, Japan and Germany. And there wasn't the reconstruction to pay for that time.

I guess the Iraqis will just have to sit tight in their ruins for a few years until they've got some oil income.

6795. alistairconnor - 4/10/2003 5:03:12 PM

...How deep are your pockets, o ye Masters of the World?

6796. alistairconnor - 4/10/2003 5:03:48 PM

off again

6797. alistairconnor - 4/10/2003 5:05:41 PM

the US is not attempting, after all, to police the world.

...nor even Iraq, last time I looked. It's the first duty of the conqueror. What's the plan?

6798. robertjayb - 4/10/2003 5:35:36 PM

For fans of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf:

This site is a coalition effort of bloodthirsty hawks and ineffectual doves united in admiration for Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Minister of Information (currently on administrative leave).

..................

"In an age of spin, al-Sahaf offers feeling and authenticity. His message is consistent --unshakeable, in fact, no matter the evidence -- but he commands daily attention by his on-the-spot, invective-rich variations on the theme. His lunatic counterfactual art is more appealing than the banal awfulness of the Reliable Sources. He is a Method actor in a production that will close in a couple of days. He stands superior to truth."

-- Jean-Pierre McGarrigle

6799. judithathome - 4/10/2003 5:38:42 PM

He seemed like he was trying out for to me...either that or a Christopher Guest mockumentary.

6800. judithathome - 4/10/2003 5:39:32 PM

Okay, what the hell happpened to Saturday Night Live in that last post?

6801. iiibbb - 4/10/2003 6:20:47 PM

Message # 6797

If the conflict were actually over and we had total control of Baghdad that dig might be in order... as it is, it is premature. The war isn't over yet.

I also suppose it would be too much to expect Iraqis to perform informal policing of their own communities in the interim.

All this looting... I thought muslims were supposed to be so moral.

6802. iiibbb - 4/10/2003 6:41:51 PM

Besides... it's not like there was law and order there before. There were death squads... And Saddam was stealing about everything he could from those people. It's unfortunate that they don't realize that when they steal from a hospital that they're only stealing from themselves... but whatever.

The US should be given more than 36 hours after they enter the city's center to establish meaningful law and order... particularly when they have less than half of the city secured.

6803. vonKreedon - 4/10/2003 7:15:05 PM

I think that the US military allowing the looting etc is exactly the right thing to do. The Iraqis certainly require some venting after what they've been through, both in the last three weeks and the last two-plus decades, so looting palaces and government offices is cheap. Also we might hope that they will take it into their own hands to deal with some of the Saddamite security apparatchiks who remain. Finally, we certainly do NOT want to be put in the situation of firing on Iraqi looters!

Nope, shouldn't do that...wouldn't be prudent.

6804. arkymalarky - 4/10/2003 7:39:43 PM

PM Message # 6753,

. Please point out wherever you made that argument, and I'll retract my charge against you.

Hahaha! Rather than dig through all this myself, I think I'll just live with your doubt of my word (horreur!). You're obviously not a very careful reader of people you're not in direct debate with (a fact I've made note of in the past), and the context of my statements in the exchange with Snow the other day was the sudden shift of reasoning, illustrated with such intense emotion by Ace, to "Look at all the good we're doing the Iraqi people." It's a sentiment I have no dispute with whatsoever and was a great and forseeable effect of any invasion, but not remotely related to this administration's motives for taking action.

I also take note of your deft avoidance of the salient points in my posts. Deflection is the name of the game, after all.

It's probably linked here (I haven't read the new posts yet), but Michael Kinsley's "Readme" in Slate was a perfect response to the slap-happy foot-stomping over whupping Sadaam's butt so fast (I'd actually predicted that would occur sooner than this).

6805. arkymalarky - 4/10/2003 7:44:22 PM

I agree with Pinscher when he says [We] have a brilliant military machine and I think our soldiers have been our best PR people internationally thus far. (... what does that say about your PR people? I think your soldiers have been your best diplomats too...)

Ahem. Actually, Alistair, I said that. Pinko Liberal American Who Should Live Somewhere That Doesn't Allow Freedom And See How I Like It that I am.

6806. arkymalarky - 4/10/2003 7:57:07 PM

Kinsley's Readme wasn't linked, I see.

6807. PincherMartin - 4/10/2003 10:50:57 PM

Vindictive, spiteful pettiness in victory is surely the true stamp of meanness of spirit.

And tell me, Alistair, what shall we call vindictive, spiteful pettiness in times of defeat?

Well, Pinscher, I had enjoyed our earlier discussions, in large part because you managed to lift your game. But you seem to be returning to form.

I lifted my game, but you did not. Calling the U.S. a colonial power, its leaders "madmen", and coming up with fanciful ideas of impossible scenarios for how the U.S. would suffer because of its decision to go to war required an answer from me. Calling them "mindless", I think, demonstrates my restraint. Either marriage or the fact I'm now in my late 30s -- I'm not sure which -- is mellowing me.

By the way, are you still dreaming of a Russian-European alliance to turn back the barbaric Americans? I noticed you found significance in the Russian decision, during the first week of the war, to shelve a nuclear warhead reduction treaty.

You might want to take a closer look at your ally. You're living in a dream world if you think that Russia's decision to shelve the treaty means anything; the move was only symnbolic.

The reason: Russia is too poor to maintain the nuclear arsenal they currently have. How can a country that has a lower GDP than Mexico compete with the U.S. in a nuclear arms race? The answer: It can't.

Russia wants -- and needs -- that treaty more than the U.S. needs it. And it will sign it. The U.S. wants the treaty, because, frankly, having thousands of nukes lying around is a waste of money. It's better to spend that money on more smart bombs and weapons the U.S. military will actually use.

continued ...

6808. PincherMartin - 4/10/2003 10:51:29 PM

And is the liberator of Chechnya the kind of ally you really want to join up with in your moral crusade against the U.S.? A few week ago, you spoke of how the U.S. decision to go to war would adversely affect the international environment by encouraging strong states to take "pre-emptive" action against weaker ones. You gave a few silly examples, most involving China.

But at the time I was debating with you, the only examples I could come up with involved Russia. One of those examples is Russia's threat to move into -- invade -- Georgia because of Chechen terrorists operating in areas of the country outside the control of the Georgian government. While Moscow doesn't speak of regime change in Georgia, its action has some correspondence to what you worry about in U.S. policy.

6809. vonKreedon - 4/10/2003 11:05:28 PM

Russia is an excellent example of the dangers of setting the bar too high on preventive war in the pursuit of national security. What passed for diplomacy leading up to the current Iraq war helped set the standard that legitimizes such actions by Russia and others. Reason enought to be against the war given the lack of clear and present danger from Iraq; instead we opened up the door for Russia, for China, for India or Pakistan, for Turkey. Isreal is already telling the Palestinians to heed the lesson of Iraq, and it doesn't sound like they mean they are going to liberate the Pals and give them their country back.

6810. PincherMartin - 4/10/2003 11:07:14 PM

Alistair --

Are we seeing the true face of Pinscher? He identifies pretty closely with the current US foreign policy...

Identify with it? Jesus Christ, man, I'm 110% behind it. If anything, I would accuse the administration of too much moderation in its implementation of that policy. What ever gave you cause to think otherwise?

...here he seems to be talking about free speech in the US (some paranoid fools on the left suspect the Bush administration of wanting to stifle dissent).

Actually, in the first line you quote from, I was talking about free speech in general, not freedom of speech anywhere in particular.

Countries can, in fact, curb or eliminate freedom of speech. When I used the word "allowing", it's a recognition of the well-observed fact that not all countries do allow it.

And yes, I believe there is an efficacy to not just freedom of speech, but freedom as well. I don't have a religious regard for it, that we should value it even in face of evidence that it doesn't work. It's something to be treasured because countries that have it seem to operate better than countries that don't.

6811. PincherMartin - 4/10/2003 11:10:01 PM

Pelle #6758

Churchill on Montgomery:

In defeat unbeatable, in victory unbearable.

*****

As H.L. Mencken once said to FDR after the President roasted the journalist at a gridiron dinner: "Fair shooting."

6812. PincherMartin - 4/10/2003 11:12:24 PM

Alistair --

"I agree with Pinscher when he says [We] have a brilliant military machine and I think our soldiers have been our best PR people internationally thus far. (... what does that say about your PR people? I think your soldiers have been your best diplomats too...)"

Did I say that? I mean, it's something I could have said, but I honestly don't remember saying this.

6813. PincherMartin - 4/10/2003 11:17:40 PM

Arky --

I humbly ask your forgiveness for misreading you. The fact Alistair could mistake your quote for something I said shows how much progress you have made in my absence ;-)

6814. OhioSTOPAS - 4/11/2003 6:42:30 AM

Only Fox News reported an allegation that "weapons-grade plutonium" may have been found in Al Tuwaitha, Iraq. (Okay, another reputable site, Newsmax.com, reported it too.) Fox repeated uncritically a story by a reporter from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Richard Mellon Scaife's rag.

But as this AP story reports, it ain't necessarily so.

Would "Fair and Balanced" Fox rush to report this implausible story because the finding of weapons of mass destruction would bolster President Bush's political standing? Nah.

(Note to Fox: "Passing the smell test" means that if it stinks, you DON'T print it.)

6815. PincherMartin - 4/11/2003 7:32:11 AM

Here's an assist for Alistair (who so plainly needs one):

Mulling Action, India Equates Iraq, Pakistan: Pre-Emption Cited in Kashmir Conflict

Asserting the same right of preemptive war that the United States used to justify its invasion of Iraq, Indian officials have accused Washington of failing to end Pakistan's support for guerrillas in Indian-controlled areas of Kashmir and warned that India may be forced to take limited military action against its nuclear-armed neighbor.

6816. RickNelson - 4/11/2003 7:42:03 AM

Let's consider what alistair and Pincher and partly VonKreedon are discussing.

I would like to sound off on China. Pincher I'm not trying to push anyone's button nor pull any chain.

I'm thinking about China as setting post WWII precedent for preemptive warfare. They swarmed into the Korean conflict without pause as we can recall. This was pre super power time. This was the beginning of the "Cold War", this was a time when "the bomb" was a big worry, who had it, who was making it. [still is a worry, isn't it?!]

What seems clear to me is that China was the first post WWII Imperialist. And stating that is to push a button and pull a chain, a Communist China chain. I would like them to think that an outsider thinks of them as Imperialist, that they've hardly changed their Imperial Chinese ways, just their labels for it. [Ok enough button pushing]


Then we can recall how Taiwan and Hong kong were and still are issues. And lest we ever forget South East Asia, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and the Chinese backed governments. Then what about Burma and Tibet and Naga Land and then what about the places we hear little about, or nothing about?

I'm thinking about China because it's their precedent, not ours. We did some heavy handed smaking around in the 19th and early 20th century, but look at the army and navy that was assembled at the time? Not Imperialist, not much really at all, until we had to make them something. Then as always a sleeping giant awakes with a vengence.[the U.S.]

So, look at China, consider China, we all wonder and worry about China anyway. Consider Marj's remark about his Chinese handler who cannot say anything. Consider what else China is doing out there? Rememeber Stalin and wonder about why China is still so closed. Hell Russia is an open book comparatively.

So, to remark that China might use U.S. policing as a ticket to perform like moves of its own is justified.

6817. jayackroyd - 4/11/2003 7:53:14 AM

6809

vK--

re: Isreal is already telling the Palestinians to heed the lesson of Iraq, and it doesn't sound like they mean they are going to liberate the Pals and give them their country back.

I was talking to yesterday, of all people, Manute Bol and his agent/manager/cousin/whatever. They are very pleased at the results of the war, and think it will give the US the leverage it needs to insist on a separation of the southern Sudan from the north. (I spent a year about 20 miles north of Manute's hometown, so we had some common subjects to talk about.)

Woolsey's speech was very scary, but in a double-edged way. I just wish I had the smallest bit of faith in this administration's ability to manage this aftermath.


wrt your point, the US willingness to commit armed forces to the campaign in Iraq, and do so successfully (so far--those pockets of resistance may be around for a while, having nowhere else to go) gives them the ability to say to both the Palestinians and the Israelis, "yes, this time we really mean it." But, to fly, that has to be a return to the Oslo deal, which Sharon will reject out of hand. Is the administration really willing to say that "we really mean it" to Sharon?

6818. PincherMartin - 4/11/2003 8:05:50 AM

Rick --

You make some good points. China's imperial past and its ambitions to make good on reuniting Taiwan with the mainland certainly provide Beijing with sufficient motivation to take unilateral action when it sees an opportunity.

But contrary to Alistair's point a couple of weeks ago in the International thread, the U.S. action in Iraq provides little in additional justification for Beijing to flex its muscles. Taiwan has almost no international standing (it's not a member of the U.N., for example), so issues of sovereignity do not apply. And Beijing has always made clear that it might resort to military action to reunite the island with the mainland.

As for China's imperial past, it is real, but for the most part the Communists sated most of China's imperial desires after WW2. Tibet was invaded and, in 1949, a Xinjiang rebellion crushed. As for other potential targets, China has not shown any interest in taking over Vietnam (even if it could) and Mongolia is not an attractive target because it would bring China into conflict with Russia. With those exceptions, China's current borders are pretty much the same as the furthest extension of its previous imperial claims.

There are a few contested islands in the South China Sea, and the East China Sea, as well as Taiwan, but all of those cases are little strengthened by what the U.S. does in Iraq.

6819. RickNelson - 4/11/2003 8:25:30 AM

Pincher,

I'm interested to know more about Chinese pseudo-satellites. I wouldn't consider China invading the countries I mentioned, with the exception of Taiwan, it's their interference and support with military and political tampering that I think is their current forte'. Espionage perhaps. I'm not tuned to the dark side.

I contemplate N.K. and perhaps Burma when I consider this.

6820. Wombat - 4/11/2003 9:08:22 AM

Rick:

China intervened in Korea after passing along specific warnings through intermediaries (India) that if UN forces tried to take over the North it would provoke a military response. These warnings were ignored by General MacArthur.

In the early 1960s, during a border dispute with India, China repeatedly warned India that continued Indian incursions into the disputed area would be met with force. India persisted, and the Chinese launched a large scale attack, routed the Indians, and halted at the existing border. Not exactly the actions of imperialist expansionist state.

6821. judithathome - 4/11/2003 9:54:47 AM

From the Guardian:

Fears For The Future

...All these factors point to the need for a prolonged US and British presence, which opponents will characterise as "occupation", as the Syrian government did yesterday.

Attacks by mujahideen, and possibly underground Ba'athists, will seek to push the US and British towards repressive measures in order to justify the term "occupation" and encourage others to join the struggle against it.

The model here is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80s, and the resistance to it. This, in the eyes of Islamists, not only led to the creation of al-Qaida, but also brought about the collapse of a superpower. The strategy is clear, although it's much too early to judge whether it has any chance of succeeding in Iraq.

6822. Wombat - 4/11/2003 10:08:25 AM

The difference is that the Soviets were intervening in a civil war where their side was losing, and were prone to acting in a heavy-handed manner in support of their allied faction from the get-go. And of course, modernization along Soviet lines did not include much in the way of liberation.

6823. Dubai Vol - 4/11/2003 10:26:57 AM

Seems like Iraq is no longer worthy of discussion here....

6824. PincherMartin - 4/11/2003 10:38:44 AM

Dubai Vol --

Much of the recent discussion has been on what effect the U.S.-led attack on Iraq will have on the international system. It's marginal to current events, but still on topic.

6825. Macnas - 4/11/2003 10:55:03 AM

If there were further discussions worth having about Iraq particularly then surely they would be:

Kurdish vision of homeland, what will be the outcome wrt US intentions and Turkey's traditional animosity towards the Kurds.

Shiite separatism and faction discord, as evidenced by the stabbing of Majid Al-Khoei.

The remaining Iraqi forces in Baghdad and elsewhere.

The threat of suicide bombings and other urban terror machinations, where the US/UK forces are vulnerable while still in an assault phase, as opposed to a peace-keeping/policing mode.

The western desert, just what the hell is out there if anything?

6826. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 12:29:52 PM

It has been estimated that in 23 years Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of at least a million of his own citizens. I will save you the time of doing the math. It works out to 119 Iraqis per day.


War is hell. No one desires war, but sometimes war is necessary. War defeated Hitler and Tojo and Mussolini. If the United States had refused the fight, it is hard to imagine the oppressive conditions under which we would be living.


Thanks to the leadership of President Bush and the ultimate sacrifice of brave warriors whose debt can never be repaid, Iraqis will not only no longer live in fear of saying the wrong thing, but more of them will be able to live and have hope for the future.


Civilian deaths are always a tragedy in war, however, 119 people were not tortured and killed by Saddam Hussein today. In the first 21 days of the war, 2,499 were not tortured and killed by Saddam Hussein. Over the next year, 43,435 Iraqis will not be tortured and killed by Saddam Hussein. Over the next 23 years, 999,005 Iraqis will not be tortured and killed by Saddam Hussein.


-- Doug from Upland, a "wingnut" from FreeRepublic who is far more informed (and better at simple arithmetic) than all of the leftist faux-intellectuals here

6827. OhioSTOPAS - 4/11/2003 12:52:01 PM

Well, that's just silly, isn't it?

6828. PincherMartin - 4/11/2003 12:55:38 PM

Why is it silly? You may disagree with the numbers or the calculations, but the important point is that some sort of calculation of the consequences of American non-action should be a part of any calculus about the morality of the war.

6829. Wombat - 4/11/2003 12:57:58 PM

Actually, the United States did not choose to fight World War II. If Doug was more aware of his country's history, he would note that the United States was attacked by Japan, and that Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. To have refused to fight under those circumstances would have been national suicide.

Unless Doug believes that Saddam attacked the United States through Al Qaeda on September 11, or that the United States was in imminent danger from Iraqi WMD, then we chose this fight. This choice was one that I agree with--although I would have allowed more time for diplomacy--to bring on board more allies and isolate the French. The Bush administration downplayed the best reason for overthrowing Saddam, now justified ex post facto, in favor of tenuous and half-assed arguments that strained credulity.

Finally, assuming that the Bush administration--against its campaign criticisms of Clinton/Gore--shows the leadership that Doug praises, and rebuilds Iraq in the manner it should, will Doug be so favorable if it means forgoing part of Bush's domestic agenda, such as tax cuts?

6830. PincherMartin - 4/11/2003 1:04:33 PM

Wombat --

Actually, the United States did not choose to fight World War II. If Doug was more aware of his country's history, he would note that the United States was attacked by Japan, and that Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. To have refused to fight under those circumstances would have been national suicide.

That is an incidental point to the piece. Even within that small context that you cite, his point is that war can have good consequences. It's obviously directed at the karmic pacifists who believe that war is always bad.

6831. thoughtful - 4/11/2003 1:07:03 PM

So I'm a dishonest poster for using ellipses, eh? Would seem to be dishonesty would consist of NOT using ellipses to indicate the quote was edited. Silly of me to expect someone of EdD's mingy intellect to understand my taking poetic license to make my point by leaving out the geography of the human rights violation cited…which I did add later. I won't even address the rest of the response he posted. Clearly he doesn't believe anyone is ever raped in prisons or detention centers anywhere in the US. Certainly the moral rectitude of the people in charge that either are the rapists or turn a blind eye to the rapes would never lie about it. But I digress. Down right ridiculous of me to think that EdD would get my point unless stated in monosyllabic words.


FWIW, my POV:

First, I'm tired of all this talk about the reason we went into Iraq is because we wanted to free the Iraqi people of this terrible dictator saddam hussein. One need not go far from home and one can go almost anywhere in the world to find human rights violations. At what point does it become a moral imperative to invade another nation just to stop human rights abuses? One person? 10? 1,000? If so, then why were the violations in Iraq any more imperative to stop than the violations say, in the Sudan, where 2 million civilians have been killed and 2 million more displaced? I suspect it is because human rights violations are the PC excuse for war, but not the primary purpose. Perhaps some feel comfortable with that. I do not. My sincerest hopes are that the Iraqi people will enjoy more freedom and security as a result of this war, but I do not believe it was the primary reason the war was undertaken.

6832. thoughtful - 4/11/2003 1:07:28 PM

The proof of this stated goal is at hand. Iraqis in many locations now have no security, no water, no food, no basic sanitation. How quickly will we stop the looting? (PM, it's not just palaces that are being looted…even schoolrooms have been stripped of black boards…a sign of lawlessness, desperation, not just an outpouring of emotion against saddam's regime.) What government will be put in its stead?

If we were to judge by the results in Afghanistan, then human rights are clearly not primary. The warlords are still in armed, the troops are still putting down Taliban fighters, and malnutrition rates of Afghan children in Kabul have doubled since we moved in. The bush admin ran the loya jirga making sure the Northern Alliance, though a minority ethnic group in the country, got the power as a thank you for the assist in ousting the Taliban. But remember the Afghan people themselves had chosen the Taliban over the Northern Alliance because life under them was so terrible. The Bush administration forgot to add money to the budget to rebuild Afghanistan until the last minute, but somehow found about $7B to contract with Halliburton over the next 2 years to rebuild Iraq's oil industry. Doesn't that suggest something?

6833. Wombat - 4/11/2003 1:15:20 PM

Pincher:

The post was from Free Republic. At risk of being excessively snotty, I don't think one would go broke underestimating the intelligence of some of the people who post on it. Anyway it is so rare that I get a straw man to play with, that I would have hated myself if I hadn't taken advantage of it.

6834. PincherMartin - 4/11/2003 1:17:35 PM

Thoughtful --

You're channeling Jexter.

6835. PincherMartin - 4/11/2003 1:18:12 PM

Wombat --

Fair enough. Swing away.

6836. thoughtful - 4/11/2003 1:22:01 PM

Second, I'm suspicious that the reason we went into Iraq is because of the clear and present threat Saddam's WMD. I doubted it when the UN inspectors had trouble finding anything but marmalade. I was more doubtful when it came to light that "evidence" of purchases of aluminum tubes was manufactured. We are now all over that country and to date, the few, if any proven WMD uncovered would suggest that they were not a clear and present danger…certainly not enough, IMO, to justify an unprovoked attack. The fact that troops were attacking the heart of the regime and the weapons were not used suggests the danger was not "clear." The fact that cries of "he gassed his own people" referred to actions of nearly two decades ago suggests the danger wasn't "present."

I agree the 9/11 attack warranted a military response and have no problem with the military going after the perpetrators. But the evidence to date of any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda is slight...certainly far less than the links with, say Saudi Arabia or Pakistan whom we've chosen not to attack or to liberate from their oppressive regimes.

Don't take my word for it...hear what a key player said for why Iraq was the place to attack. From Woodward's paean BUSH AT WAR, as quoted in Brad deLong's web site, "Wolfowitz seized the opportunity. Attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain. He worried about 100,000 American troops bogged down in mountain fighting.... In contrast, Iraq was a brittle, oppressive regime.... It was doable. He estimated that there was a 10 to 50 percent chance Saddam was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks." He wanted to attack iraq because it would be a quick win… it was doable, even if it only had a small chance of having anything to do with 9/11.

6837. thoughtful - 4/11/2003 1:23:10 PM

Third, oil has been intimately intertwined with money, power, politics and hegemony ever since it became an important source of energy in the US and in the world. Has anything happened in the last half century to change that? I don't think so. The US is currently importing 52% of its oil needs.

The unbid contracts worth billions to Halliburton, the refusal to release names of attendees at energy policy meetings with Cheney, the focus on preserving Iraqi oil wells, controlling pipelines, the push for drilling in ANWAR, the favorable tax treatments passed for the energy industry and the money the Bush family made in Kuwait after Desert Storm suggest at a minimum, this administration cares about the oil industry. Clearly there is money to be made by the oil industry from a regime change in Iraq. Perhaps those of you who saw malice aforethought under every Clinton whitewater/cattle future transaction have a new-found naivete now that the administration comes from the other side of the aisle, but I do not

6838. OhioSTOPAS - 4/11/2003 1:25:24 PM

Pincher: ". . . the important point is that some sort of calculation of the consequences of American non-action should be a part of any calculus about the morality of the war. . . ."

Absolutely. But the particular calculation Ace endorses is nonsense. Most of those deaths for which Saddam Hussein was responsible occurred in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980's, which says nothing about how many Iraqis would presently be tortured and killed per day if Saddam were still in power.

6839. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 2:04:28 PM

I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings.

Some of this is merely the result of pettiness -- ignoble resentment, partisan hackdom, the desire to be proved right and to prove the likes of Rumsfeld wrong, irritation with the sanitizing, myth-making American media. That part of it I feel guilty about, and disavow. But some of it is something trickier: It's a kind of moral bet-hedging, based on a pessimism not easy to discount, in which one's head and one's heart are at odds.

Gary Kamiya, admitting what I have long known, on Salon


Hey. It occurs to me that there are some self-declared "Aserious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war" here.

Anyone else want to confess to wishing for American & Iraqi civilian deaths in order to vindicate their partisan hackery and discredit BushHitler?

Fucking assholes.

6840. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 2:07:03 PM

What's galling is that you fucking douchebags have been denying the obvious (rooting for American battle dead) for months.

Gary Kamiya is a vicious punk, but at least he has the stones to admit he's a vicious punk.

He's outed you, you "Patriotic Americans."

Peace is Patriotic.

Yeah.

So is wishing for American battle dead.

6841. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 2:41:37 PM

More:

Many antiwar commentators have argued that once the war started, even those who oppose it must now wish for the quickest, least bloody victory followed by the maximum possible liberation of the Iraqi people. But there is one argument against this: What if you are convinced that an easy victory will ultimately result in a larger moral negative -- four more years of Bush, for example, with attendant disastrous policies, or the betrayal of the Palestinians to eternal occupation, or more imperialist meddling in the Middle East or elsewhere?

A ha.

It has long been charged that the left's opposition to this war was rooted entirely in partisanship and fears of a second Bush term.

It is now confirmed by one of your fellow-travellers.

It is interesting that the left considers a second Bush term more of a "moral negative" than tens of thousands of American and Iraqi battle dead, or than WMD, or than preventing terrorism, or than ending Saddam's torture-chambers and child-prisons.

But don't you think the left could have told us about these curious moral priorities before, so that we could properly evaluated their objections?

I am so sickened. I actually am physically nauseated.

You are a treasonous Fifth Column, just as was alleged.

You are the scum of the earth.

You are criminals.

You do not deserve to live in this country.

And no cute rejoinders from Ohio & Co will change that elemenmtary fact.

How

the fuck

do you live with yourselves?

6842. Wombat - 4/11/2003 2:47:23 PM

Even Ace must find it somewhat ironic that while bestowing the blessing of liberty on Iraq, the Bush administration is attempting to diminish liberty in the United States.

6843. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 2:48:32 PM

Yes, yes, all of our "liberties" are going poof.

As Eddie Vedder said, we will no longer have the right to free speech next year.

6844. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 2:48:36 PM

Yes, yes, all of our "liberties" are going poof.

As Eddie Vedder said, we will no longer have the right to free speech next year.

6845. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 2:51:19 PM

You're a fucking partisan jerkoff, Wombat, but I expressly do not address the posts about treason to you. I know that you have been forthright and fair in your evaluation of war; and I know, from my experience in the Clinton years, that it is difficult to support a war being waged by a man you consider corrupt and bad for the country. So kudos to you on that score (and, actually, kudos to me too-- I never prayed for American deaths just so Clinton's poll numbers would go down).

But if do please tell me about all of your vanishing "liberites." I really want to know all of the cherished liberties you had pre- 9/11 that you no longer have. And I really want to know the "Wombat Plan" to aggressively hunt down terrorists without, you know, any actual aggressive law enforcement or investigation.

6846. judithathome - 4/11/2003 2:52:49 PM

What's galling is that you fucking douchebags have been denying the obvious (rooting for American battle dead) for months.

One person writes about wishing for things to go wrong and suddenly, all of us douchbags are cheering every American death in Iraq...and Ace suspected it of us all along.

So why bother to deny it? We are as well hung for sheep as lamb...the mighty Ace is here to deliver his verdict!

Jesus, what an ass.

6847. Wombat - 4/11/2003 2:56:22 PM

Ace:

Do you believe that American citizens can and should be held incommunicado in a military prison without access to a lawyer for indefinite periods of time?

6848. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 2:57:16 PM

As you know, I've read this place on occasion, and I was amused to see you and Idiot Number Two, Pelle, actually arguing with Champion Retard Jexster and his various idiotic minions about the war. It was kind of funny to find myself rooting for you.

But, that said, you're a moron. The non-treasonous liberal side of the spectrum is simultaneously imposing a very high burden on Bush (if another terrorist attack occurs, it's YOUR FAULT) while simultaneously seeking to deny him the tools necessary to put up something resembling a decent defense agaisnt terrorism.

That is dirty pool, Wombat. If you want less aggressive policework at the expense of the occasional loss of life due to terrorism (and the possible ENORMOUS loss of life due to terrorism), then go on the record and say so. Say, "I am willing to live with some dead Americans just so that my library records will never be searched consequent to the securing of a judge's order."

And then I'll say, fine. I'll disagree with you about the importance of the two things -- lives versus perfect privacy of library history -- but I will admit you to be a stand-up, honest guy who just really treasures "civil rights" at the expense of human life. An odd ranking of priorities, but hey-- it comes from the gut.

But you cannot sit there and demand to be protected against thousands of hateful, crazed homicidal maniacs schooled in the art of mingling in a civilian population without detection and then say you are willing to concede NO additional powers to the police. That will not wash. That is not honest. You can choose A or B but you can't have A and B simultaneously.

6849. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 2:59:21 PM

Do you believe that American citizens can and should be held incommunicado in a military prison without access to a lawyer for indefinite periods of time?

I'm uncomfortable with it, but ultimately, yes.

Having answered the question, let me reverse it:

If the evidence against Jose Padilla is strong enough to cause great suspicion (and legitimate suspicion), but it is not strong enough to actually convict him -- or, alternately, it is strong enough to convict him, but cannot be used in a court of law due the need to protect sources -- would you let a dangerous man, dedicated to killing Americans, back out on the streets?

One honest answer deserves another, Wombat.

6850. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:04:24 PM

And I will instruct you that the French only ended the problem of Algerian terrorism once they passed a law -- no doubt repugnant to you -- making mere close association with known terrorists a crime punishable in and of itself, with no need to prove actual conspiracy to commit any other crime.

Look, if a guy is Al Qaeda, I've got to say I don't really require a lot of evidence that he was "planning something." Res ipsa loquitor-- the thing speaks for itself. It is self-proving.

What the fuck you think he was in Al Qaeda for-- for the travel opportunities? Maybe to take advantage of their terrific deal with the credit union?

Give me a fucking break.

6851. judithathome - 4/11/2003 3:10:38 PM

Saddam Is "Ace of Spades" in Card pack of Most Wanted in Iraq

Saddam Hussein is the "ace of spades" in a 55-card deck of the Iraqi regime leaders "most wanted" by the U.S. government.

The U.S. Central Command has a most-wanted list of Iraqi leaders it wants "pursued, killed or captured," said Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, U.S. Central Command's deputy director of operations.

Coalition soldiers in the field have been given the in several forms, one of which is a flip-deck of cards with an image of the person's face and job description of each official "to ease identification when contact does occur," he said.

6852. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:11:29 PM

There is a delightful liberation about being out of power politically. You are free to act completely irresponsibly, and to urge, for example, that we "loosen up" with regards to investigation of suspected terrorists-- and you can do so without political consequences, because hey, you're not running the show.

So this is all a cute talking point. But let me ask you honestly-- do you mean it? If a Democrat were President, would you urge him to do anything less than use the full power of the state to investigate, detain, and yes occasionally harass supsected terrorists, knowing that if you didn't, you were gambling with American lives?

Would you REALLY?

Or would you say: Hey, you're the Commander in Chief. Your first and supreme responsibility is protecting the citizenry. So, do what you have to -- both to preserve human life and to protect your chances of staying in power.

Which would it be, Wombat?

Oh, wait, let me guess: We can both insure against all terrorist attacks while giving a generous reading to all claimed civil liberties.

Right?

If that's so: How? If the CIA and FBI can't do that under Bush, what makes you think they could do it under a Democrat? You think a Democrat will fire the entire staffs of both agencies and replace them with "smarter people"?

6853. judithathome - 4/11/2003 3:11:40 PM

You don't have a bushy mustache, do you, Ace?

6854. Wombat - 4/11/2003 3:11:58 PM

Ace:

I actually don't have much of a problem with increasing the tools available to monitor cell phones and the internet. I have major problems with people being picked up and held incommunicado for months at a time without access to lawyers and with no information provided to their families. That is to be expected in countries like Iraq (minus the corpse turning up on the doorstep, of course), but not here.

I would hate to think that I would attract the attention of the authorities if I, in the course of learning more about Bin Laden by reading publications by organizations sympathetic to his form of Islam, turned up on a watch list.

Finally, much of what was passed was done so in an atmosphere of post-9/11 hysteria, which you personified on the Mote. The weaknesses exposed after 9/11 had little to do with the lack of information, and much to do with how it was processed. Oddly enough, these institutional weaknesses still exist, although without the complacency that existed before.

6855. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:15:39 PM

Please. A dodge. And I'm still waiting-- so let's let Jose Padilla out then, right?

Why do you refuse to say it? You're like Democrats who complain about the tax cut but won't call for an increase or repeal.

If you don't like Poor Innocent Jose being held-- then say the words: "I want him released."

6856. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:17:03 PM

JudiththeCrone:

I'd make fun of you, but I know how depressed you are that thousands of American soldiers aren't dead. The left is on a collective suicide watch that children are being released from Saddam's prisons and that his torture chambers have been shuttered.

6857. judithathome - 4/11/2003 3:19:49 PM

I have never called for the death of troops and you know it. But make yourself feel better by "not making fun of me". At least not to my face, correct?

6858. Wombat - 4/11/2003 3:21:04 PM

Duh, Ace:

You either charge him or release him and then monitor his movements and contacts. Either that or you cut a deal with him, as the Feds did with Jonathan Lind when the bulk of their case against him collapsed.

Most European countries that have had terrorism problems also have laws against belonging to banned organizations. If the Bush Administration wishes to get into tinkering with freedom of association, then they are welcome to try. However, the stink about that will come not only from liberals and left-wingers, but from the right as well.

6859. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:21:18 PM

I'm sure you were popping open the champagne corks at seeing Baghdad liberated, Judith.

Not in your name, right?

Right.

You had nothing to do with it. So, actually, you don't have a right to celebrate, even if you were inclined to do so.

Which you are not. Seeing that statue come down ruined your whole goddamned day. Why don't you just admit it?

6860. Wombat - 4/11/2003 3:24:26 PM

All these European countries had those laws on the books well before terrorism became a problem.

6861. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:28:01 PM

"You either charge him or release him and then monitor his movements and contacts. "

And if he flees the country?

See, you have a lot of glib "We can do both at once" type answers. But if he leaves the country, he is free to re enter at any time thereafter, all for the cost of a fake ID, which shouldn't be so hard to secure, given the fact that you can buy one at any college for $50.

And then what, dude?

You are fond of proposing have-your-cake-and-eat-it-to answers where nothing is lost were we to let him go. We get the virtues of both-- we let him go (yay!) but we keep tabs on him (yay too!).

You assume, incorrectly, that "monitoring" someone is easy. It is not. A friend of mine follows terrorist suspects for the FBI all day long, but only for part of the day, once or twice a week. There are simply not enough agents to follow them all 24/7.

Further, the very moment he leaves the US, surveillance ends, and cannot be picked up again once he re-enters through the Mexican border.

These are tough questions, asshole. And in your partisan zeal to knock Bush and "Trashcroft," you dishonestly pretend they're easy. They're no brainers. We can all have our cake and eat it too; yay, us!

If it were all that easy, dipshit, don't you think that Ashcroft would have thought of it already? Oh, wait, you claim this Harvard educated man is an "idiot." Very well-- don't you think a smart liberal Clinton holdover could have thought of it and told Ashcroft already?

There are issues of enormous consequences here, and I find your glib talking-points on the matter profoundly unserious. You are not seriously thinking about the issues that confront us; you are just trying to score cheap points, running down a list of infantile complaints you got from the Phil Fucking Donahue show.

6862. Wombat - 4/11/2003 3:31:47 PM

On the subject of partisan hackery, what were your thoughts when the Clinton Administration proposed increasing Federal power to monitor terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing? Did you agree with the Republican politicians who suddenly discovered the civil libertarian inside themselves, which disappeared again after a terrorist attack during a Republican administration?

6863. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:31:52 PM

If you want the US to risk the loss of human life at the gain of a more generous reading of "civil liberties," say so.

You refuse to.

Instead, you idiotically insist, like a partisan robot, that we can have both perfect security and perfect freedom from intrusive police measures simultaneously, if only we had "smarter people" running things.

Whatever. If that's your claim, tell me what these "smarter people" would be doing different. Don't fall back on vague platitudes; give me some concrete new procedures that this "smarter law enforcement regime" would follow.

What's that?

You don't know what they'd do differently? You're just sure, in you're heart, they'd do something differently that would allow them to better square the cirlce?

Wow. What a shock. I wasn't expecting that kind of a glib assertion from you of all people.

6864. judithathome - 4/11/2003 3:32:25 PM

Ace, I know you don't give a rat's ass about what I think or what position I took so I'll just leave you to your fuming at Wombat.

6865. judithathome - 4/11/2003 3:32:56 PM

Toys, jerkwad.

6866. judithathome - 4/11/2003 3:33:32 PM

???

6867. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:40:16 PM

On the subject of partisan hackery, what were your thoughts when the Clinton Administration proposed increasing Federal power to monitor terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing?

I favored them.

Did you agree with the Republican politicians who suddenly discovered the civil libertarian inside themselves,

Let's unpack this. This is a stupid partisan lie. Hopefully, you are well-read enough to know that there is a long tradition of zealous regard for civil liberties on the right. Not the entire right; but this is a very real, and very old, segment of the right. Scalia belongs to this tradition, which is where I often depart from him. (Rehnquist, on the other hand, is more willing to trounce on civil liberties (as are Souter and Breyer, too, on issues where liberals favor increased authoritarianism)).

So you are either uneducated or a liar; I will charitably assume you are merely ignorant.

6868. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:40:24 PM

which disappeared again after a terrorist attack during a Republican administration?

To answer the question now: I disagree with the Bob Barr/Dick Armey Conservative Civil Liberties Near-Absolutists just as much as I disagree with the Floyd Abrams/ACLU Liberal Civil Liberties Near-Absolutists. I find both to be idealistic, and I don't mean that in a good way. I think their voices are important, and I kind of like them offering their imput to keep the government in line, but usually I find them harmful, on the whole, to this nation's legitimate need to protect itself against crime and, especially, terrorism.

Now, on to the next cheap partisan lie: You make a big issue about these Republicans "forgetting" about Civil Liberties under Bush. Again, you're either lying or simply ignorant. Both Barr and Armey, for example, were, to my mind, a bit prickish and obstructionist when it came to passing the Patriot Act. I disagreed with them then; I disagree with them now.

And it is so ridiculous that you casually forget the rather large reason that Congressional Republicans might have eased up on their previous objections to intrusive counter-terrorist measures:

It was called 9-11. You might have seen it on TV. I think one of the network news shows did a special about it last year; maybe it was 60 Minutes. I forget all the details, but, if my memory serves, a couple of large buildings went missing one blue-skied morning.

6869. judithathome - 4/11/2003 3:42:25 PM

I will say this, though...I have more sympathy for what you and your pals went through when Clinton was in office, as much as you hated the man. It's not easy having a guy you can't stand dominate every newscast and headline and popularity poll.

6870. Wombat - 4/11/2003 3:46:01 PM

Ace:

Our system already assumes that risk with the presumption of innocence. I agree with that wholeheartedly. It is what makes the United States different from almost every other country in the world. I have lived in countries that do not have a legally-enshrined presumption of innocence and a right not to self-incriminate. I prefer the United States.

If you are so concerned about Americans dying, then I expect to see you at the forefront of moves to enforce seatbelt laws, banning SUVs, guns, and putting repeat drunk drivers in prison for life after a fatal accident. What say you? Do you really care about Americans dying?

6871. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:46:46 PM

Here's some more newsflashes:

I supported Clinton's roving wiretap law. Completely.

I actually supported Carnivore under Reno, and I'm annoyed that it is still, apparently, being blocked by civil-rights zealots.

From time to time I have thrown roving-wiretap and Carnivore in liberals' faces. But not because I disagreed with those measures-- I do not. I throw those measures in their faces because liberals can be awfully selective in their outrage about supposed compromises of "civil liberties." Liberals always love to pretend to be civil liberties absolutists when a Republican is in office; but they sure do have a lot more flexibility when a Democrat needs such measures to fight crime and terrorism, don't they?

So I've thrown roving wiretap and Carnivore in liberals' faces not because they violate my standards (they don't, again), but because were liberals being consistent and principled rather than partisan and hypocritical, those measrues SHOULD HAVE violated their standards, but, oddly, they did not.

Not all liberals are inconsistent on this issue, of course. Nat Hentoff (I guess not a liberal anymore, but he was once) was always all over Clinton's ass for these measures.

HE has a right to complain about civil liberties, because HE has been consistent about his zealous protection of them under both Republicans and Democrats.

Little partisan talking-points shitheads who only discover "civil liberties" when they're a convenient club to beat up on Republican Presidents, on the other hand, should just shut the fuck up and go back to listening to NPR.

6872. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:50:46 PM

Our system already assumes that risk with the presumption of innocence. I agree with that wholeheartedly.


Uhhhh, the math changes a little when one man is capable of killing hundreds or thousands in a morning, Wombat.

Let one hundred guilty men go free to spare one innocent man a false imprisonment? Well that works okay when those one hundred guilty men might only kill one or two more man apiece before being appreheneded again.

When nuclear weapons are involved -- and you liberals love to pooh-pooh this, and act as if it is some sort of Tom Clancy fantasy; I assure you, however, it is not a difficult feat to construct an atomic bomb given sufficeint time and money -- I'm not sure I do want 100 guilty fucking men going free.

6873. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:51:37 PM

Enough. I came here to gloat, not to argue.

6874. Wombat - 4/11/2003 3:52:18 PM

Ace:

Good. Then we are agreed. A pity that it was not passed under Clinton.

6875. AceofSpades - 4/11/2003 3:55:17 PM

Judith,

That's funny. I would be more willing to laugh at a poignant little admission were I not so angry about the Kamiya piece and what it says about the partisan antiwar-for-Republicans-but-rah-rah-bomb-Saddam-for-Clinton left.

6876. Wombat - 4/11/2003 3:56:47 PM

Ace:

Good. Then we are agreed. A pity that it was not passed under Clinton.

6877. angel-five - 4/11/2003 4:40:38 PM

They say a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Emerson said it, actually, but a lot of people have repeated it since then. He said it because it's true. Principles are important to have; it is still the height of arrogance to assume that our powers of analysis and summation have been perfected to the point that we can craft a principle that will trump real world facts in all cases. That's the way this works; we craft principles and try to stick with them, because they're our best guess when it comes to charting a course for moral behavior. Yet people bend over backwards to pretend that their philosophical tenets have never been found wanting, even when they're forced to abandon those tenets.

You find this in, say, a Republican state governor who got elected on an anti-taxation platform, but is now facing the economic reality of 2003 and massive budget shortfalls for their home state and has to raise taxes. You find this, moreover, in our current President, who campaigned on a plank that was much more isolationist than interventionist, who campaigned for smaller government and less spending, who questioned our need to deploy US troops around the world and was oh so disparaging about nation-building. Yet sometime shortly after that blue-sky morning in September the Bush platform became the Al Gore platform, for some short instant, and then went far, far beyond it. And you know something? I can poke fun at the reversal, but I'd rather they changed when they were wrong than stick to their guns.

So consistency ought to be our watchword, but a foolish consistency isn't admirable at all. It's reprehensible when you're talking about something so momentous as American policies.

6878. concerned - 4/11/2003 6:10:14 PM

And then we have the French, who are past masters of a foolish inconsistency, a foolish smugness, a foolish military ineptness, etc., etc., etc....

6879. concerned - 4/11/2003 7:26:08 PM

Why is it that I get the impression that Sakonige isn't likely come in here and gloat over her imagined worldwide Islamic insurrection any more?

6880. sakonige - 4/11/2003 8:23:00 PM

Hi, Concerned. How sweet of you to think of me.

Actaully, I've moved beyond imagining worldwide Islamic insurrection. Now I'm tacitly advocating Woolsey's WWIV, because I believe the US will lose, and such a huge conflaguration is the only way political boundries will ever be redrawn so that no single nation can ever become a superpower.

6881. arkymalarky - 4/11/2003 9:07:16 PM

I'm headed to Wal-mart for colored copy paper and a gilt frame for Message # 6813.

6882. labwabbit - 4/11/2003 10:33:42 PM

Even when the hawks of war were screaming, I was drawn to Aldouri. He speaks as honest as his profession was intended in the beginning.

He did his job well. That he did his job period was remarkable.

I wish him well. I hope he finds his family, and finds them well.

I hope his wisdom and dedication to his country earns him a place in history, (and its' future govt.), that honors his efforts to the people of Iraq.

Any vein of diplomacy severed, is a heart-attack in waiting to the life of the world.

6883. jayackroyd - 4/11/2003 10:49:21 PM

Just one Ace note:

I actually supported Carnivore under Reno, and I'm annoyed that it is still, apparently, being blocked by civil-rights zealots.

But he will not, under any circumstances, tolerate the publication of his own name in this forum. He won't post with it, and he won't permit publication of it. What's he afraid of?

6884. judithathome - 4/11/2003 11:32:15 PM

Groupies?

6885. Edmund Dantes - 4/12/2003 9:29:38 AM

That's a pretty stupid comparison that makes me wonder about the intelligence of someone who would make it.

The Mote created a contract with its membership by promulgating rules of engagement: in order to post here, you will obey these rules; you in turn will also be protected by these rules. Throughout its history the Mote has done a pretty piss-poor job of enforcing its own rules, but that's what the RoE were supposed to be.

In my function as Gatekeeper here, I learned many real-life identities. Would you be okay with it, Jay, if I took it upon myself to start publishing those names and violating one of the major duties of that office? Or would you favor that I be banned? Well, your answer doesn't particularly matter because you can't speak for everyone who ever entrusted that information under the presumption it would be protected.

Unlike the Mote, the FBI is a government organization that has been entrusted by the citizenry at large with the duties of law enforcement. Even so, it is highly regulated and limited in what it is empowered by the public to do. And when it falls down on the job, unlike the Mote, something actually happens to the people who abuse their authority.

Your silly analogy is akin to my saying, "Jay is okay with the government taking thousands of dollars of tax money from him, but he won't let me withdraw even a single penny out of his bank account. Why is that?"

6886. jayackroyd - 4/12/2003 9:42:16 AM

Count Eddy, or Indy, or whoever you are this week, Carnivore is an NSA operation.

You can rant as you will about rules here, but that was not the question I asked. The question I asked is why Ace is unwilling to voluntarily reveal his identity when he supports the government doing all it can to penetrate my private life, as it will.

As for legal protections, they have been routinely violated under old technological interventions, to put Japanese-Americans into a prison camp, to gain advantage over political opponents (meaning Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon), to blackmail politicians, and, in general, to serve narrow interests that were not public interests.

So my analogy is saying, not in a silly way at all, if you won't trust this little tiny community of well-meaning people with your real name, how can you trust John Ashcroft and the more spectral members of the NSA with your entire communication history? Especially given their history. And even more especially now, as an American citizen sits in jail, since June of last year, uncharged, without access to a lawyer or his family.

6887. PincherMartin - 4/12/2003 7:16:13 PM

Arky --

Hahaha! Enjoy your small victory; I'm already plotting my revenge.

6888. jayackroyd - 4/12/2003 7:36:05 PM

You know, it seems to me that permitting the looting may be a postive harbinger. Saying "Look, this is not our problem. We are not going to shoot at civilians, period." seems like a way to force responsibility for civil order onto the Iraqis. This is way difficult; a totalitarian regime has no mechanism for doing this in the absence of the totalitarian. It also provides an opening for UN and Arab League peacekeepers having a role, which is also good.

It's clear, because of the looting, that someone needs to impose order, and it's been made clear by more than a few people, Iraqi, not-iraqi-arab and otherwise, that the US is the wrong force to do so. So it's time for these other agencies to step up with a plan.

6889. arkymalarky - 4/12/2003 8:09:43 PM

PM, I have my flak jacket at the ready.

Jay,

Looks like that's beginning to happen, but the US's intervention precipitated the instability, so they were naturally looked to to fill in the policing gap and restabilize invaded areas to the point of getting the basics back--water, electricity, medical care--by the Iraqi people. That isn't necessarily bad, it's just that the US toppled the regime. The same result would have occurred in any scenario that left the necessary power vacuum that goes with that. The thing is, it has to be as brief as possible, and I was beginning to be concerned that it not only would become extended, but that the US would lose gained PR ground (crucial, at this stage imo, not just within Iraq, but everywhere, including here in the US) because of the expectations that they be prepared to at least minimally manage such a predictable consequence of ending the regime.

Also, my MSNBC Breaking News Alert headline is encouraging--"US, Allies Endorse UN Resolution--G7 calls for Iraq rebuilding plan" but I can't open the blasted thing in a new window to c&p a link.

6890. jayackroyd - 4/12/2003 9:04:19 PM

Yes, Arky, we're singing from the same hymnal. And the US should be working to help find the Iraqis, and protect the Iraqis who can restore basic services, imo. But letting anarchy reign for a day or two may not have been a bad thing--particularly because many of the most profitiable targets had to have been associated with the regime.

I do think they should have made an exception for the antiquities museuem.

6891. RickNelson - 4/12/2003 9:05:18 PM

IT took me a while to catch up. I skipped a lot of Ace. Too much Ace is bad for the psyche.

However, I agree with Angel-five's post 6877. That makes a lot of sense regarding "That's the way this works; we craft principles and try to stick with them, because they're our best guess when it comes to charting a course for moral behavior.". Principles can change with evolving facts. Unlike Ace's stand and deliver, never look over both sides of the fence, McCarthyist fuck them who don't think like me mentality.

I'm always thinking things over, re-evaluating. I don't have the time that Ace must have to wade through all the endless details, and I wander around awhile waiting to find something that is meaningful. Ranting attack isn't meaningful! Ranting alone could be meaningful, to the person, but broad sweeping generalized attack is a waste of thread time.

Mistakes are made, corrections are made. Wombat in 6820 steered me a bit regarding China and the Korean and Indian conflicts. However, Wombat you didn't mention Tibet nor Nagaland. What can you help me learn about these? Also, is there any information as to the meddling in S.E. Asia?

6892. RickNelson - 4/12/2003 9:16:23 PM

"antiquities museuem"

What gave Iraqi's general population the idea to destroy artifacts? They weren't affiliated with Ba'ath. That curator's despair is moving. I've not heard much detail, was it as much looting as destruction? That meaning some things will turn up?

6893. jayackroyd - 4/12/2003 11:46:12 PM

Money. There are very valuable artifacts in that museum, whicn have now moved to the "private" marketplace.

6894. boohab - 4/13/2003 1:19:08 AM

yes. what us westerners wouldn't pay for some original artifacts. archeology grad students all over america are gnashing their teeth. the baathists wouldn't let us foreign devils get passes to see the antiquities, so just when we were on the verge of christmas... kapoof!

'tis a sad day for leakey wannabees. on the other hand, there's still time to save hasankeyf.
http://www.visioncircle.org/archive/000026.html

6895. magoseph - 4/13/2003 6:16:06 AM

My understanding of what happened at the National museum is that the officials in charge contacted Coalition Command for help in safeguarding the treasures contained therein. I believe that they had every legal right to do so under the Geneva Conventions which obligate an occupying power to respond.
It is my position that the prior remarks of Rumsfeld rationalizing looting had a lot to do with what happened. After his persistent references to the Geneva Conventions and his commitment to adhere to same, this breach is inexcusable. I don't know what the legal consequences will be but the damage to the prestige of the U.S. worldwide will be significant.
It is clear now that critics are pointing out our priority in respect to a natural resource as compared to historical treasures. Rumsfeld's stupidity in this matter has done much to support those irrational elements that condemn this war on the grounds that it is based on the desire to grab Iraq's oil.

6896. wabbit - 4/13/2003 8:25:30 AM

Seven of the MIAs or POWs have been recovered alive and in reasonably good shape north of Baghdad. It looks like Iraqi officers abandoned the group that was responsible for the Americans and the junior officers, or whoever was left holding the bag, turned them over to American troops in the area.

6897. RickNelson - 4/13/2003 11:39:51 AM

I just heard that good news myself wabbit.

boohab, that's a nice moniker to see.

6898. alistairconnor - 4/13/2003 11:46:58 AM

Iraqis who had warmly welcomed Americans in the capital last week were growing resentful at the persistent disorder, noting the troops often just stood by as people stormed government offices, schools, hospitals and homes.

I confess I just don't get it. Criminally stupid, or just plain criminal? Is this part of the plan, or is there simply no plan for establishing order? If the US needs the help of other nations to police Iraq, then they should have set it up in advance.

Those who order troops to stand by and watch as hospitals and museums are looted, are guilty of war crimes.

6899. alistairconnor - 4/13/2003 11:48:13 AM

Hello boohab... Long time...

6900. joezan - 4/13/2003 12:17:13 PM

Geez...

I come back for one last gloat - check all the way back to the start of the war - and jasper is AWOL.

Did he join the Human Shields in my absence?

I did find this gem, though:


5706. Cellar Door - 3/24/03 3:42:57 PM

The Iraq Attack is not turning into the cakewalk that was so widely advertised in our ficticiously "free" press.

The "Coaltion" will prevail in the end but at enormous cost to its volunteer army -- not to mention others ( about whom the Count doesn't give a shit)

I predict a return of the Draft before this is all over.


(I notice Cellar hasn't been back, btw).

6901. judithathome - 4/13/2003 12:21:20 PM

Neither is coming back so dry your drool.

6902. joezan - 4/13/2003 12:22:10 PM

They both joined the Human Shields?

6903. judithathome - 4/13/2003 12:31:16 PM

Marines Grudgingly Give Up War Loot

BAGHDAD, IRAQ--Since they arrived, U.S. Marines have been doing their own kind of looting -- grabbing Iraqi pistols, rifles, uniforms and pictures of Saddam Hussein. On Friday, they were ordered to dump what they took or lose their rank.

"You did not conquer ... this country. Get off your high horse," Lt. Col. Michael Belcher told his officers. "You took some thugs and ran them out."

The commander of the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, reminded his soldiers that the Iraqi people allowed U.S.-led forces to oust Saddam. They deserve respect, he said, and that means no looting.

There will be no " 'I won this country back. I can take what I can get,' " Belcher said.

6904. joezan - 4/13/2003 12:43:51 PM

Well there you go - the US went there only to rape and plunder the wealth of the poor Iraqis. That much is now abundantly clear.

Not satisfied with their oil, the evil occupiers are now plundering the Iraqi people's priceless stores of Saddam Hussein posters.

6905. magoseph - 4/13/2003 12:45:09 PM

Who is joezan?

6906. magoseph - 4/13/2003 12:45:18 PM

Who is joezan?

6907. joezan - 4/13/2003 12:49:34 PM

From today's Telegraph UK:


Revealed: Russia spied on Blair for Saddam
By David Harrison (Filed: 13/04/2003)

Top secret documents obtained by The Telegraph
in Baghdad show that Russia provided Saddam
Hussein's regime with wide-ranging assistance in
the months leading up to the war, including
intelligence on private conversations between Tony
Blair and other Western leaders.

Moscow also provided Saddam with lists of
assassins available for "hits" in the West and details
of arms deals to neighbouring countries. The two
countries also signed agreements to share
intelligence, help each other to "obtain" visas for
agents to go to other countries and to exchange
information on the activities of Osama bin Laden, the
al-Qa'eda leader.

The documents detailing the extent of the links
between Russia and Saddam were obtained from
the heavily bombed headquarters of the Iraqi
intelligence service in Baghdad yesterday.


Our "friends".

Bombs away, I say.

6908. joezan - 4/13/2003 12:52:32 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/13/wrus13.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/04/13/ixportaltop.html
...Here's the link.

6909. judithathome - 4/13/2003 1:12:19 PM

the US went there only to rape and plunder the wealth of the poor Iraqis. That much is now abundantly clear.

May be clear to you but I was posting the article for another reason.

6910. jayackroyd - 4/13/2003 1:14:05 PM

Toys?

6911. judithathome - 4/13/2003 1:25:44 PM

Ooops.

6912. alistairconnor - 4/13/2003 3:02:26 PM

So where are the weapons of mass destruction?

Saddam's scientific advisor says there are none. I'm not especially inclined to take his word for anything, but I can't come up with a plausible reason why he would lie about it at this stage.

6913. arkymalarky - 4/13/2003 3:04:48 PM

Joe, if you have the remotest interest--seeing how you abandoned your thread I somehow doubt it--an explanation is in Suggestions.

6914. arkymalarky - 4/13/2003 3:05:17 PM

Of Message # 6902, that is.

6915. alistairconnor - 4/13/2003 3:08:40 PM

Our "friends".

Bombs away, I say.

Oh goody. Joe is advocating nuclear war. Boom goes Chicago, boom goes L.A., etc.

(Or had you forgotten about the bunkers full of MIRVs?)

6916. arkymalarky - 4/13/2003 3:15:14 PM

Joe somehow thinks that because the US is the only remaining superpower we're completely invincible.

6917. alistairconnor - 4/13/2003 3:19:48 PM

(from the Indendent article I linked in 6912)
The patient and long-suffering Blix has finally conceded the obvious :

Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector who spent four months badgering the United States and Britain in vain for reliable intelligence information about the whereabouts of lethal weapons, now says he believes the war was planned on entirely different criteria, well before his inspection teams went back into Iraq in December.

His good faith is so painfully obvious that it makes him look rather naïve :

"I think the Americans started the war thinking there were some [weapons]. I think they now believe less in that possibility," he told the Spanish daily El Pais. "You ask yourself a lot of questions when you see the things they did to try to show that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons, like the fake contract with Niger."

The outlandish alibi they are working on, that the WMD have been shipped out to Syria, is nicely analysed by the journalist :

But the notion does provide the hawks in Washington with a compelling plot device not unlike the McGuffin factor in Alfred Hitchcock's films – a catalyst that may or may not have significance in itself but that gets the suspense going and keeps the story rolling.

If the Bush administration should ever seek to turn its military wrath on Damascus, the weapons of mass destruction it is failing to find in Iraq might just provide the excuse once again.

All the world's a stage, and we are merely spectators.

6918. alistairconnor - 4/13/2003 3:59:08 PM

With respect to getting some institutions running again in Iraq, there's one idea I haven't heard expressed.

As it happens, there is a large chunk of Iraq which already has pluralist democratic institutions, functioning administrations, police, the works. The Kurdish region.

Those institutions have the merit of existing, and being Iraqi. They could well become the nucleus, or catalyst, for establishing new government structures throughout Iraq. This would have the benefit of giving the Kurds a stake in Iraqi nationhood, and a share in the oil money; and the issue of control of Kirkuk and Mossoul would become less pregnant.

There seems to be some unspoken assumption that Iraq has to be dismembered into a loose federation. "Divide and rule" is a plausible reason for this : quite likely, the US doesn't want a viable central government in Iraq. That is a very, very dangerous game.

6919. judithathome - 4/13/2003 4:59:17 PM

His good faith is so painfully obvious that it makes him look rather naïve :

He and half the American public.

6920. Al D - 4/13/2003 8:18:53 PM

Well, I guess Sddam sent his WMD to France. I would really hate to see all of Fance destroyed as I was looking forward to going back there some day. But I guess it would be alright since there is such hatred of America in France, I don't imagine I would be safe.

It is sad to see the same people heaping shit on America. One would imagine seeing Saddam out of power would please people. Just goes to show you can't please everyone.

6921. jayackroyd - 4/13/2003 9:12:11 PM

Who will surrender?

6922. arkymalarky - 4/13/2003 9:24:03 PM

Who has said they're not thrilled (including the French) that Sadaam's out of power? There's more to the world than sic et non, Al, and if you'd accept that as a first principle of discussion, debating with you might have a chance of being remotely productive.

6923. vonKreedon - 4/13/2003 9:48:49 PM

The main import that our colleagues from the right seem to take from this war is that those of us from the left hate America and want to see death and failure to all we touch. To that view people such as Al seem to be completely blind to the many expressions of support for our troops in accomplishing their mission with the minimum of casualties and destruction, or the expressions of joy at the liberation of the Iraqis.

That I do not trust or support this administration has been turned into treason. That I do not support our entering into this war in the time and process that we did has been turned into hatred of our troops and support for Saddam. Makes it alot easier to see me as the enemy and that is quite scary when I think that a substantial minority of those who voted in 2000 may have a similar view, and that, as I said at the top of the paragraph, I do not trust this administration.

6924. arkymalarky - 4/13/2003 9:57:52 PM

What just makes me plain old mad is that loud criticism against the previous president's military actions was fair game, as was anything else he did, and no defense on policy grounds had to be given--just a "wag the dog" or other dismissive line suggesting everything Clinton did was to deflect attention from his activities (as if even starting WWIII could have done that). And I know you didn't like Clinton, vK, but the hypocrisy of the double-standard of our friendly Right is puke-worthy. And in this case I am not talking about Al, who I believe is right when he says he didn't base his opinions wrt Clinton's political actions on his about Clinton as a person, but one Ace and another Joe were quite righteous.

In addition, it fascinates me no end that Joe and Ace have found such sudden affinity for these Iraqi Muslims and their newfound freedom from a secular (except when being religious was convenient) oppressor in light of their disgusting remarks broad-brushing slime on the entire religion after 9/11.

6925. jayackroyd - 4/13/2003 10:01:22 PM

The demonization of the opposition by the right has been a steady trend since 1994's congressional campaign. Some of the tactics have become institutionalized, as with the filibustering of judicial appointments.

It's like this comment of Al's: One would imagine seeing Saddam out of power would please people. Just goes to show you can't please everyone.

Nobody was ever happy to see Saddam in power. There were few on the right screaming for his takedown in 1998 (to their credit for coherence, Wolfowitz and Perle were among those who were), rather they were screaming "wag the dog." Because it is apparently all political to most of them. There are, as far as I can tell, and for the most part, no principles other than might makes right.

That's a shortsighted, anti-American way of creating a worldview, imo.

6926. PincherMartin - 4/13/2003 10:31:40 PM

Alistair is as goofy in his views as Concerned is. Why does no one here complain about his silliness?

I confess I just don't get it. [That part he has right.] Criminally stupid, or just plain criminal? Is this part of the plan, or is there simply no plan for establishing order?

There is a plan. But no plan is going to be implemented in just a couple of days in the middle of a war. The Iraqi regime -- who you say is full of "patriots" --didn't do the right thing for its people by surrendering and ensuring a smooth tranfer of power.

If the US needs the help of other nations to police Iraq, then they should have set it up in advance.

Nope, you had that chance and you blew it. Besides there's nothing you could have done over the last few days anyway. The speed of the military campaign has proceeded so fast that even if your services had been available, you would have still been in Kuwait City, watching CNN, when the chaos broke out in Baghdad.

Those who order troops to stand by and watch as hospitals and museums are looted, are guilty of war crimes.

Good luck setting up a court to listen to your arguments, loony tunes. Meanwhile, back in the real world, we will be working on the problems of Iraq, and attempting to make the incremental improvements to the Iraqi people's lives they are looking for.

As we do that -- largely without your help -- you can continue your silly arguments about the ongoing genocide and colonialism in Iraq.

6927. PincherMartin - 4/13/2003 10:40:36 PM

The report in JudithatHome's link in #6903 is ridiculous.

Why does the military care if soldiers take home some keepsakes like Saddam's picture or some minor and useless military equipment? The Iraqi people could give a shit, I'm sure, if U.S. soldiers and Marines collect a few thousand pictures of Saddam as mementos of the war. It's not like the Iraqis seem all that eager to keep them.

6928. PincherMartin - 4/13/2003 10:43:12 PM

Saddam's scientific advisor says there are none. I'm not especially inclined to take his word for anything, but I can't come up with a plausible reason why he would lie about it at this stage.

If the man was involved in covering up nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon production, he'll go to trial.

6929. PincherMartin - 4/13/2003 11:03:21 PM

There seems to be some unspoken assumption that Iraq has to be dismembered into a loose federation. "Divide and rule" is a plausible reason for this : quite likely, the US doesn't want a viable central government in Iraq. That is a very, very dangerous game.

Ridiculous tripe. Who but a moron would be calling for a strong central government in Iraq if they had any interest in a functioning democracy there? The U.S. has shown it doesn't have the slightest problem taking over Iraq even when it has a strong centralized government, so why the hell would it need to "divide and conquer"?

On the other hand, only a decentralized government will keep the different ethnicities from tearing at each other's throats in a democracy.

*****

Cliches and hackneyed ideas just jump to Alistair's mind without the slightest hesitation.

1) Without the slightest difficulty, the U.S. has just conquered Iraq. It took less than a month and fewer than one hundred casualties, while also minimizing Iraqi civilian casualties.

2) No one seriously thinks the Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis will lay down together like the biblical lion and lamb, so unless there is another hard-nose dictator, only a decentralized Iraq will work.

3) Twelve years ago, the U.S. didn't help the Kurds and Shias to overthrow Iraq's leadership, instead calling for a coup, because it wanted to keep Iraq intact as a counterweight to Iran.

So what does Alistair infer from this: that the U.S. is using a "divide and conquer" strategy. Hey, Earth to Alistair: the U.S. has already easily conquered without dividing. Why would it have the slightest interest in creating three different governments when it can far more easily control just one?

6930. PincherMartin - 4/13/2003 11:11:06 PM

The demonization of the opposition by the right has been a steady trend since 1994's congressional campaign.

Of course, Jay, we don't get that from the left. When people on the far right accused Clinton of rape and murder, it's not at all like people on the far left comparing Bush to Hitler, is it?

Some of the tactics have become institutionalized, as with the filibustering of judicial appointments.

Hello, Judge Bork anybody?

6931. Al D - 4/13/2003 11:34:23 PM

The demonization of opponents was perfected by the Clinton clique, and to claim otherwise is plain stupidity: Bork, Thomas, Delay, every Republican member of the committee who voted to Impeach Clinton, Starr, et.al.

It seems the fish I expected to catch didn't bite the bait, but a couple of other flounders did. Perhaps I should say if the shoe fits, wear it. Anyway,PM has done an excellant job of deling with that fish.

And arky, how do you take my comments as entering into a debate?

6932. vonKreedon - 4/14/2003 12:40:17 AM

It is one thing to characterize an public individual; Bork, Thomas, Dashole, Clinton, of being unsuitable to hold offics or even of being a danger to Constitutional order. It is another, and more insidious thing to accuse an entire portion of the body politic of being anti-American. The first, while regretable, is mere partisan politics; the second is a necessary precursor to repressing a part of civil society.

6933. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 1:55:39 AM

It is another, and more insidious thing to accuse an entire portion of the body politic of being anti-American. The first, while regretable, is mere partisan politics; the second is a necessary precursor to repressing a part of civil society.

von Kreedon, there is nothing -- and I mean nothing -- that Republicans do, that Democrats don't also do.

The use of "anti-American" by right wingers to describe anyone left of Scoop Jackson finds its analogue in the use of 'racist" by many of you on the left when describing almost any Republican.

6934. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 2:12:10 AM

Look, I personally found the anti-Clinton hysteria of the nineties by the right-wing way over the top.

Clinton was a moderate President with personal failings, brilliant in the day-to-day details of politics, but poor at putting forth a coherent set of ideas and fighting for them. He probably had the most potential of any President in my lifetime, and he also had a great deal of luck. After a few years, when he's lined up against the other occupants of the White House by historians, the man from Hope will probably be considered no more than a fascinating mediocrity.

But what Clinton was not was a murderer or a rapist. I'm also completely blase about his so-called crimes in Whitewater as well as his perjury. Yes, Clinton's a cad, and yes he's a liar, but then the American public knew that when they elected him.

However, the same people who complain about the right-wing's treatment of Clinton are silent when Bush is given similar treatment by the zanies on their side of the aisle. The kindest comment anyone will give him is to say that Bush is unusually stupid for a President. It goes downhill from there until he's compared to Hitler. No one on the left -- even among the moderates -- ever questions this type of rhetoric.

6935. vonKreedon - 4/14/2003 2:51:42 AM

PM - Surely you recognize a qualitative difference in calling someone a racist and calling someone a traitor. Being a racist is not a high crime, being a traitor is.

I question comparing Bush to Hitler. Bush has no genocidal agenda for example. Comparing Bush to Hitler is also a stupid tactical ploy, it looks (because it is) silly and immature, and as such it delegitimizes what I believe are very real concerns we should have for the health of our civil liberties.

I'm tired, so please have some patience if this is not terribly coherent. I'll try again later.

6936. arkymalarky - 4/14/2003 3:41:36 AM

Bork is not an example of partisan blocking of a great candidate for SCOTUS. It's an example of congressional sanity.

PM on Clinton:

...but poor at putting forth a coherent set of ideas and fighting for them.

I disagree. He's a master at the first, and the last is due to his lack of follow-through to the conclusion (and of course sometimes there isn't one--it's a matter of maintenance), a problem he also had as governor. He still accomplished an amazing amount as one president under the circumstances he found himself forced to work in. He's neither a cad nor a liar. He's done some caddish things and has lied and I have no respect for his sexual behavior in the White House. The fact that his opponents were so ridiculously obsessed with it was much more detrimental to the nation, however.

And I will guarantee you that you are wrong about his place in history. What history will record is the ridiculous tunnel-vision of his hard-right opposition and their funding of the baseless case of a wretched Arky hick. Enough Arkies knew plenty well what Clinton was about, but it didn't involve her. I know precious little (and that's more than I'd like to) and it involves a whole different situation than anything Paula Jones described. Whatever people think of Gene Lyons he knows exactly what he's talking about on that subject.

One little clarification, also. There was no crime on his part in Whitewater. That whole fiasco was a riduculous waste of tax dollars as anyone who knew anything about any of it in AR and wasn't a frothing Clinton-hater for reasons the rest of the nation would find bizarre,to say the least, could have told anyone who was listening. It was a very small part of the banking scandal that resulted in the 80's collapse involving the failed real estate ventures of a what became a pathetic little man--Jim McDougal.

6937. arkymalarky - 4/14/2003 3:42:45 AM

Bush is given similar treatment by the zanies on their side of the aisle.

Kindly specify. General hyperbole of Americans who dislike him hardly qualifies as "similar treatment." No president in history has received "similar treatment" to Clinton. Even Johnson's impeachment had a political basis (dubious charge though it was, it was a challenge to what congress felt was his obstruction of Reconstruction reforms) and the motivation of political principle behind it, though its pursuit was wrong and hurt the balance of powers.

Dadgum, I'm yappy when I've got insomnia.

6938. arkymalarky - 4/14/2003 3:46:25 AM

Comparing Bush to Hitler is also a stupid tactical ploy, it looks (because it is) silly and immature, and as such it delegitimizes what I believe are very real concerns we should have for the health of our civil liberties.

vK, as the great Walt Kelly said through Porkypine, the Constitution has given us all the inalienable right to make fools of ourselves" and I, for one, intend to exercise that right to my last breath as an American. ;-)

No one should fear silly or extreme or hyperbolic remarks endanger civil liberties. If that is the case, the fear should be directed at the government that would respond to them in such a way and attempt to shut down opposition by focusing on extremes and reasoning that they should be shut down. That way lies fascism and it makes me extrememly nervous.

6939. arkymalarky - 4/14/2003 3:48:40 AM

And I read you wrong, I see. But I do disagree any extremes "delegitimize" the real concerns on any side, right or left. They've always just been part of the package.

6940. alistairConnor - 4/14/2003 7:33:08 AM

Al :
But I guess it would be alright since there is such hatred of America in France, I don't imagine I would be safe.

Do you actually have any evidence for this, Al? Other than what they tell you on Fox?

The problem is, it's hard to tell when you're being deliberately funny and when it's unintentional. The bit about chemical weapons in France is easy enough, but the bit about your being unsafe in France, I'm not sure about.

6941. alistairConnor - 4/14/2003 7:46:51 AM

Message # 6929 Poor Pinscher needs remedial reading classes. He devotes most of his post to debunking "divide and conquer". What I wrote was "divide and rule".

But he graciously concedes that the US does not want a strong central government :
No one seriously thinks the Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis will lay down together like the biblical lion and lamb

Clearly, it's much easier for the US to maintain hegemony in Iraq as arbiter among distrustful groups (and distrust can easily be exacerbated as required). How do you feel about the ethics of nation-breaking, people?

6942. alistairConnor - 4/14/2003 7:48:47 AM

Apparently, it's too much to expect a reply of any substance from Pinscher; does anyone have any comment on the notion of the Kurdish institutions as the nucleus of a new Iraq? It's just a thought.

6943. thoughtful - 4/14/2003 9:41:03 AM

Deja-vu all over again?

From CNN:

The Bush administration and the Syrian government over the weekend traded allegations on whether Syria possesses weapon of mass destruction, and whether Syria is harboring fleeing members of Saddam Hussein's regime.

President Bush, in remarks to reporters, said "We believe there are chemical weapons in Syria" and that the Iraqi neighbor "needs to cooperate" with the United States and its coalition partners.

Gotta keep that momentum going at least til early Nov. 2004

6944. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 9:49:33 AM

Alistair --

Apparently, it's too much to expect a reply of any substance from Pinscher.

Of course it's too much to expect.

With your substantial posts on colonialism -- firmly backed up with a few lines of poetry -- your slapdash smear of "Madmen" to describe the top decision-makers in the U.S. administration, capped by your desire for the establishment of a war crimes tribunal for a couple days of looting, how can I keep up? You set the bar too high for my contributions.

With those kinds of sophisticated arguments, you need to keep the heady company of Concerned and Rosie. Only with Titans like that will you have any real chance of a debate at your level.

6945. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 9:50:53 AM

Gotta keep that momentum going at least til early Nov. 2004

Well, we're obviously doing it for Syria's oil.

6946. alistairConnor - 4/14/2003 9:53:59 AM

Message # 6926 As with any question he doesn't like, Pinscher tap-dances around the question and attempts to bludgeon the questioner...

There is a plan. But no plan is going to be implemented in just a couple of days in the middle of a war.

OK, the hospitals and museums have been looted; the libraries are burning. I guess that was part of the plan. Ethnic clashes are breaking out between Kurds and Arabs in the north. I guess that's part of the plan too. (see Message # 6941)

6947. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 9:54:45 AM

Arky, I'll reply to your Message # 6936 in American Politics.

6948. alistairConnor - 4/14/2003 9:58:55 AM

Pinscher's identification with the "top decision-makers in the U.S. administration" is so fusional, that when I denounce their madness he takes it as a personal insult... I wonder what his shrink thinks about that.

6949. alistairConnor - 4/14/2003 10:04:32 AM

Oops, he said the three-letter word in Message # 6945...

The KDP blame the US for allowing the looting of Mosul to happen. Despite their restraint, the flames of ethnic hatred are being fanned, while the US looks after the important stuff :


Mr Mirani, speaking at Mosul airport, said the KDP did not want to send its peshmerga into Mosul because of memories of the killing of Arabs by Kurds during a failed military coup in 1959.

When the Iraqi army surrendered last week, the KDP had expected the Americans to move in. They had not done so because their troops had gone to secure the oilfields in Kirkuk.

6950. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 10:04:59 AM

Alistair --

As with any question he doesn't like, Pinscher tap-dances around the question and attempts to bludgeon the questioner...

See my Message # 6944 I'm not worthy.

OK, the hospitals and museums have been looted; the libraries are burning. I guess that was part of the plan. Ethnic clashes are breaking out between Kurds and Arabs in the north. I guess that's part of the plan too.

You're right, Alistair, how silly of the U.S. We used Plan A -- the plan with minimal casualites to both the U.S. military and Iraqi civilians that still rids the country of a vicious dictator in about three weeks, and then allows Iraqi civilians to take the primary responsibility to run much of their own country.

But what we should have used was Plan B -- the war plan that has no casualties, especially Iraqi civlian casualties, and suddenly transforms Saddam's Iraq to Eden on the Tigris/Euphrates with Coalition forces and Baghdad civilians working hand-in-hand to make a better world.

I'm outraged! (This obviously calls for a War Crime Tribunal!) Why wasn't Plan B used?!?!

6951. alistairConnor - 4/14/2003 10:07:52 AM

Carry on looting

new habits die hard. As hundreds streamed into the meeting at the al-Wiyah Club in the city centre, set up to encourage civic responsibility, others looted offices in the building. United States Marines standing guard just a few yards from the entrance refused to intervene despite repeated requests, saying it was not their responsibility.

6952. alistairConnor - 4/14/2003 10:08:49 AM

Sorry pal, not my department. And my lunch break starts in ten minutes.

6953. jayackroyd - 4/14/2003 10:10:36 AM

Pincher-

Just who made the Bush-Hitler reference?

6954. ronski - 4/14/2003 10:13:08 AM

What's the matter with you anyway, Pincher?

Just because Iraq has been ruled by a psychotic dictatorship for more than twenty years is no reason why the U.S. couldn't institute the full rule of law in two days.

6955. alistairConnor - 4/14/2003 10:23:24 AM

From the article linked in 6951 :
Anti-American sentiments continue to rise. Yesterday's demonstration in front of the Palestine had Fardous Park in the background. Four days earlier the park was the scene of the much-publicised pulling down of the biggest statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad by US Marines, with crowds of Iraqis cheering. "But in those days they have allowed criminals to loot shops and encouraged them to loot public buildings. No one believes they care for Iraq or the Iraqi people," said Mutannar Ali, one of the demonstrators.

6956. Al D - 4/14/2003 11:21:36 AM

Alistair is outraged that looters were not stopped by the U.S. military. The only effective way to halt looting is to shot them. Now that may be acceptable in France or other parts of Europe, or maybe it never occurs there, but in America it is unacceptable to use lethal force to protect private property.

While looting is not an everyday experience in the U.S., it is not uncommon. It sometimes happens because a team has either won a championship or lost one. Either will do. Now I don't know of museums being looted; looters are more interested in other goods.

6957. Wombat - 4/14/2003 11:22:40 AM

How much of a fuss would Alastair make if U.S. forces cracked down on looting by shooting looters?

6958. judithathome - 4/14/2003 11:23:37 AM

The report in JudithatHome's link in #6903 is ridiculous

I didn't write it, I just linked it. And why is it ridiculous to expect our side to act above the fray in regard to the looters? I don't think the commander in that story was expecting too much of his troops in asking them to be better than the common thieves who were looting the hospitals, museums, and their neighbor's homes.

You focused on the pictures but failed to note the soldiers were taking weapons and other things of value.

6959. Al D - 4/14/2003 11:29:30 AM

alistair
The war with Iraq has been a bit short of a month, and yet you seem to think all problems should be neatly solved by some plan Tommy Frank or Bush had. You and others keep yapping about WMD, where are they, why have we not found them. To be honest, I don't really care much if we find them. I have no doubt that left alone Saddam would have produced them and at some point used them. You may be convinced that Saddam is or was not that irrational. I'm sure in the 1930's many people did not believe that Hitler was that much of a monster. Oh well, live and learn.

About the question of who linked Bush with Hitler, those who ask must be kidding. Remember same shit, different asshole? And yes, people have the right to make fools of themselves, but sometimes it is wise to let them know what fools they are. But why beat a dead horse.

6960. Al D - 4/14/2003 11:31:24 AM

How much of a fuss would Alastair make if U.S. forces cracked down on looting by shooting looters?

Now why can't I be that terse.

6961. Macnas - 4/14/2003 11:42:09 AM

Regarding the chronic looting (sorry Mr.Ruminacup, it is chronic), I do not blame the US for standing by. The soldiers in there at the moment have no policing skills and as Baghdad is not under martial law per se, they cannot deploy effectively enough to prevent lawlessness.

It is just as well in the short term at least, because as indicated before, the options open to an army to enforce law (and under martial law, the army decides what the law is and what the punishments are) few, and in the case of looting, shooting them is the punishment. Even in the Irish army, that is what would happen under martial law, I'm pretty sure that is the case with the US as well.

6962. concerned - 4/14/2003 11:45:11 AM

6963. iiibbb - 4/14/2003 11:45:27 AM

Ummm...

I think they need to find the ones in Iraq before I'm going to bite on there being WMD's in Syria.

6964. iiibbb - 4/14/2003 11:48:54 AM

Because of Saddam Hussain, I can accept what we did to Iraq... however what's going on with Syria? This wasn't part of the plan.

6965. Edmund Dantes - 4/14/2003 11:49:04 AM

Strange that the French are so concerned about looting in Iraq when they can't control rampant antisemitism in their own country.

Violent hate crimes quadrupled in France in 2002 to the highest level in a decade, with more than half the assaults aimed at Jews, a national study has found.

6966. concerned - 4/14/2003 11:49:06 AM

There seems to be some unspoken assumption that Iraq has to be dismembered into a loose federation. "Divide and rule" is a plausible reason for this : quite likely, the US doesn't want a viable central government in Iraq. That is a very, very dangerous game.

This doesn't survive Occam's Razor. Perhaps you're attributing speculation among your fellow travelers to the wrong source.

6967. concerned - 4/14/2003 11:53:38 AM

Or should I call it Occam's Boxcutter.....?

6968. concerned - 4/14/2003 11:59:28 AM

Re. 6925 -

'Demonizing'? It's mostly just good natured live and let live tolerance, mixed with the expected amount of dissenting opinion.

6969. concerned - 4/14/2003 12:08:55 PM

Looks like even the $400,000 booty from the WH wasn't enough.

6970. concerned - 4/14/2003 12:17:43 PM

Hey, what happened to the Wiz and Jex? Now there is a whacky pair whose comments & graphics we can laugh at appreciate.

6971. judithathome - 4/14/2003 12:25:00 PM

They're not coming back. Happy?

6972. concerned - 4/14/2003 12:27:19 PM

The only thing I'm 'happy' about is that it wasn't me who had anything to do with their leaving, Judith. Btw, how do you know they're not coming back?

6973. judithathome - 4/14/2003 12:29:49 PM

They told me. And said I could mention it if anyone asked. Other than that, you'll have to ask them yourself.

6974. concerned - 4/14/2003 12:30:01 PM

'Course, I can see how others might have found jexster's incontinent spamming objectionable. But dealing with that wasn't my concern, fortunately.

6975. concerned - 4/14/2003 12:37:42 PM

I wasn't being entirely facetious when I said I liked some of WoW's graphics (usually, with the least repetitious themes). In fact, near the end, he even stepped his game up a bit.

6976. concerned - 4/14/2003 12:47:18 PM

Re. 6926 -

Wrt pompous goofiness, speak for yourself, dimbulb. You're a master at saying little at length.

6977. concerned - 4/14/2003 12:55:36 PM

So, stop comparing my humor to AC's goofiness.

6978. thoughtful - 4/14/2003 1:14:40 PM

PM, perhaps you are unaware that there is a pipeline from Iraq to Syria, that Syria was exporting some 200,000 bbls of oil which it was able to more than double once the Iraqi pipeline was complete. Perhaps you are unaware that Syria is on the Mediterranean coast.

6979. concerned - 4/14/2003 1:33:54 PM

Maybe I am being a little lighthearted. But, look at the paradigm shift since 9/11. Then, there was widespread unease about a surge in Islamism and the potential of similar additional international terrorist incidents. While that hasn't entirely receded, the Allies now appear to have succeeded in seizing the initiative, not just in the West, but in the heart of the Arab Mideast. Admittedly, it is certainly possible to not fully capitalize on or even fritter away the current opportunity, but people everywhere are talking about the implications and ramifications of a truly democratic Iraq and its effects on their own societies, and this alone is a good thing.

6980. magoseph - 4/14/2003 1:50:00 PM

Doonesbury: We've no problems!

6981. magoseph - 4/14/2003 1:50:26 PM

Doonesbury: We've no problems!

6982. magoseph - 4/14/2003 1:51:46 PM

Sorry for the double posts!

6983. iiibbb - 4/14/2003 2:37:15 PM

Wiz and Jex aren't coming back? What on earth could have turned them suddenlty so timid?

6984. alistairconnor - 4/14/2003 3:10:09 PM

Message # 6965 Monty:
Strange that the French are so concerned about looting in Iraq when they can't control rampant antisemitism in their own country.

[Strange... I am apparently a proxy for "the French", for both Monty and Pinscher... probably for Germany and Russia too... why not for the whole big, bad world outside the US/UK coalition, while we're at it?]

If you read the article you linked, you will know that the only death from racial or religious crime was... an Arab. I don't intend to minimise anti-Jewish violence in any way, but the cold fact is, there are racially motivated Arab deaths about every year in France, and none of Jews that I know of, since a terrorist attack in Paris in the early eighties.

Anti-Jewish violence is a reality, but the idea that French Jews live in fear for their lives is a fiction.

6985. alistairconnor - 4/14/2003 3:17:36 PM

How much of a fuss would Alastair make if U.S. forces cracked down on looting by shooting looters?

Let me surprise you... none.

In particular, if US forces had shot people trying to loot hospitals, or museums, or set fire to the Iraqi national library, there would have been no complaint from me. You can't overthrow a regime and then pretend you have no responsibility for what happens next. Half a dozen marines defending each hospital, and a couple of dead looters, would have saved many lives.
From the NYT:
Among other buildings afire or still smoldering in eastern Baghdad on Sunday were the city hall, the Agriculture Ministry and — so thoroughly burned that heat still radiated 50 paces from its front doors — the National Library. Not far from the National Museum of Iraq, which was looted on Thursday and Friday with the loss of almost all of its store of 170,000 artifacts, the library was considered another of the repositories of an Iraqi civilization dating back at least 7,000 years.

By Sunday night, virtually nothing was left of the library and its tens of thousands of old manuscripts and books

I repeat, war crimes.

6986. ronski - 4/14/2003 3:27:23 PM

No question about it.

The cuneiform should have been secured first.

Then you can start thinking about decapitating the regime, securing the oil fields, eliminating the scud firing ranges, and so on.

6987. alistairconnor - 4/14/2003 3:39:41 PM

Oh hell yes, oil is more important than cuneiforms. Or than civilians dying in hospitals.

(Didn't realise there were oil fields to secure in Baghdad?)

6988. alistairconnor - 4/14/2003 3:42:00 PM

Remember when the Taliban dynamited the big buddha. They had it right : destroy the symbols, destroy the memory, that's how you subject a people.

6989. Wombat - 4/14/2003 3:44:02 PM

So after committing "war crimes" by collaterally killing civilians with cluster bombs, mis-directed bombs and missiles, and itchy trigger fingers at checkpoints, U.S. forces are now committing war crimes by not shooting Iraqi civilians who are looting?

Leaving aside the fact that there are comparatively few US troops actually in Iraqi towns, that is a really good way to antagonize local populations, particularly if Ahmed Blow with a family of ten is one of the unlucky few who is shot while carrying off a load of toilet paper, for example. Had US forces acted immediately to stop looting by shooting and killing dozens--if not hundreds--of looters from the start, what do you think the reaction would be?

6990. concerned - 4/14/2003 3:47:20 PM

Re. 6984 -

Talk about missing the forest for the trees. How many Muslims have been attacked by Jews during this period? A single digit number, most likely. How many killed by Jews? Nada. How many attacks by those who identify themselves as being of the political Left? Well over half, with a limit of 91%.

6991. Wombat - 4/14/2003 3:49:50 PM

Anti-Moslem violence usually is perpetrated by the right in France. Anti-Jewish violence is most likely attributable to Arab immigrants.

6992. concerned - 4/14/2003 3:52:53 PM

If we use this info, then a Jew in France would be almost two orders of magnitude more likely to be attacked for ethnic or religious reasons than Muslims.

6993. concerned - 4/14/2003 3:53:27 PM

....Jews in France...

6994. vonKreedon - 4/14/2003 4:06:13 PM

The only niggle that I have with the way that the US handled the civil unrest in Iraq is that we might have been more proactive about guarding the hospitals, seeing as the war we prosecuted had filled them. There is no way we should have taken on trying to stop, much less shoot, people looting their own government buildings and museums. Our responsibility under the Geneva Convention is to ensure that the basics are protected. We seem to have done fine at protecting the water/power stations, but only managed to protect the main Baghdaddie(I absolutely love that name) hospital. Again, this is a niggle, we had the opportunity to fuck this up big time and avoided doing that.

6995. vonKreedon - 4/14/2003 4:07:16 PM

Con - I think you just defined fuzzy math by example. I am completely unable to follow either your givens or your reasoning from your givens.

6996. alistairconnor - 4/14/2003 4:23:49 PM

Message # 6990 The point about racial violence in France is that, except for a flare-up of anti-Jewish violence in 2002, which has since died down, the victims are overwhelmingly Arabs (and occasionally, Blacks).

You will not find any statistics which contradict this.

6997. alistairconnor - 4/14/2003 4:30:17 PM

Message # 6989 The idea that you have to shoot dozens of people dead to stop looting, strikes me as pretty silly. A Marine points his gun at you and says, put those toilet rolls down, sonny. You going to die for some toilet rolls?

6998. alistairconnor - 4/14/2003 4:37:42 PM

Baghdad's got a brand new papa
(ringadingadingading)

Dr. Muhammad Zobaidi, appointed by American forces to manage Baghdad, began interviewing people to fill major positions in a new government. Dr. Zobaidi is a representative of the Iraqi National Congress, a coalition of political exiles headed by Dr. Ahmad Chalabi, the man some American officials want to take a leadership role in Iraq.

Dr. Zobaidi will act as a kind of mayor of Baghdad to oversee, with the help of the American military, the restoration of order and the resumption of basic municipal services.

Oh dear. I hope he's more honest than Chalabi, whose most notable career achievements have been to embezzle millions from a Jordanian bank and from the US government, to the extent that the CIA will have no more truck with him, and the Rumsfeld gang are his only backers.

6999. vonKreedon - 4/14/2003 4:46:15 PM

Chalabi is the kind of guy the administration can do business with, you know a CEO kind of a guy, a Ken Lay kind of a guy.

7000. concerned - 4/14/2003 4:53:10 PM

why not?

7001. alistairconnor - 4/14/2003 5:07:56 PM

7000... like the years of Mesopotamian/Iraqi history gone up in smoke.

7002. ronski - 4/14/2003 6:55:43 PM

Arabs in Iraq appear to have shown a bit more regard for Mesopotamian culture than Arabs in Afghanistan, with the help of indigenous mullahs, did for the Bactrian.

Much of what was looted in Baghdad will find its way to the market, not having been blown to smithereens for religious reasons.

But of course, for some people, what happened in Baghdad was not the Arabs' fault, only the Americans'.

7003. judithathome - 4/14/2003 7:04:54 PM

But of course, for some people, what happened in Baghdad was not the Arabs' fault, only the Americans'.

No one here is saying that; I suspect you soaked that up at TPW where it is automatically a suppost for Saddam to oppose this war and anyone who isn't 100% for Bush is a pinko commie traitor who wants babies roasted on the ends of bayonettes.

Of course the looting is the fault of the people who did the looting. It's their fault and none other.

7004. judithathome - 4/14/2003 7:05:32 PM

suppost=support

7005. arkymalarky - 4/14/2003 7:06:01 PM

This could be interesting:

Egypt and Jordan Demand Withdrawal from Iraq

7006. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 8:59:53 PM

Jay Ackroyd --

Just who made the Bush-Hitler reference?

European and American protesters of the war. Just google "Bush compared to Hitler" if you want some examples.

7007. magoseph - 4/14/2003 9:03:51 PM

Inside Uday's porn, drink and drink palace

His personal zoo has lions, cheetahs and a bear. His store has a million dollars worth of fine wines, liquors and heroin. His house has Cuban cigars, cases of champagne and downloaded pictures of prostitutes.

While most Iraqis bent under the brunt of UN sanctions that drove their country into poverty, Saddam Hussein’s eldest son Uday lived a life of fast cars, expensive alcohol and easy women, a tour through his bombed house showed today.

The walls of a gym were plastered with photographs of women downloaded from the Internet – “the biggest collection of naked women I’d ever seen,” said US army Captain Ed Ballanco. “It looked like something at the Playboy Mansion.”

(continued here)

7008. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 9:22:10 PM

JudithatHome --

I didn't write it, I just linked it. And why is it ridiculous to expect our side to act above the fray in regard to the looters? I don't think the commander in that story was expecting too much of his troops in asking them to be better than the common thieves who were looting the hospitals, museums, and their neighbor's homes.

You focused on the pictures but failed to note the soldiers were taking weapons and other things of value.

Bullshit. I read the article. Every single item that the soldiers and marines were accused of taking was either a small weapon (or a piece of a weapon) that will probably be destroyed or a picture of Saddam Hussein that will probably be destroyed. If there are two things that Iraq has too much of right now, it's weapons and pictures of Saddam Hussein.

For something to be called "loot" it should have some intrinsic value. It's hard to see what sort of value those items will have other than as mementos of the war. If some soldier wants to have a picture of Saddam that he found in Baghdad, why should anyone care so long as it isn't a gold-plated copy?

Any functionable weapons should be confiscated, obviously, but I would turn a blind eye to pieces of military garbage that these soldiers and marines want to take back to the states as keepsakes of their time in Iraq.

7009. jayackroyd - 4/14/2003 9:23:19 PM

European and American protesters of the war. Just google "Bush compared to Hitler" if you want some examples.

I did that. Got Russians, Europeans, wacky leftie protestors. Do I get to cite David Duke as a representative of the mainstream right?

7010. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 9:34:38 PM

Thoughtful --

PM, perhaps you are unaware that there is a pipeline from Iraq to Syria, that Syria was exporting some 200,000 bbls of oil which it was able to more than double once the Iraqi pipeline was complete. Perhaps you are unaware that Syria is on the Mediterranean coast.

Please, I have a good impression of you. Don't make yourself out to be a first-rate crank.

There are at least a dozen other countries in the region whose importance to the oil markets are more substantial than Syria's (and Syria's importance is predicated on its access to Iraqi oil, something we now control). If oil is the reason for turning the heat up on Syria, then Libya, Iran or Saudi Arabia would be much more inviting targets. Each of those states could just as plausibly be linked to terrorism as Syria and each of those states doesn't have to rely on a pipeline for their oil supplies.

7011. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 9:42:54 PM

Alistair --

[Strange... I am apparently a proxy for "the French", for both Monty and Pinscher... probably for Germany and Russia too... why not for the whole big, bad world outside the US/UK coalition, while we're at it?]

There is a good deal of consonance between your views and those of most Europeans, including the French. Your opinions are not impressively erudite or unique to merit a special critique of the "Alistair" point of view.

But why do I bother? Concerned has returned, so the heavyweight battle of the century between the two of you can resume.

7012. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 9:47:37 PM

Wombat: "How much of a fuss would Alastair make if U.S. forces cracked down on looting by shooting looters?"

Alistair: "Let me surprise you... none."

Well consider me shocked. My suspicion is that you have tossed out your ready-made mantra of "War Crimes" the first minute an unarmed Iraqi civilian was shot by a U.S. Marine for doing nothing more than carrying out a government desk.

I repeat, war crimes.

There's no need to repeat it because I won't ever let you forget it.

7013. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 9:54:19 PM

Alistair in response to Ronski --

Oh hell yes, oil is more important than cuneiforms. Or than civilians dying in hospitals.

The oil fields have the advantage of being in locations where they are easy to secure. And environmentalist that you are, you would have certainly been calling for "War Crimes!" if those fields hadn't been secured and Saddam had lit them up like he did in Kuwait.

7014. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 9:59:05 PM

Alistair --

Remember when the Taliban dynamited the big buddha. They had it right : destroy the symbols, destroy the memory, that's how you subject a people.

Hahahaha!

Yes, that's right! I never thought of it that way! The U.S. armed forces liberating Baghdad are the equivalent to the Taliban destroying the ancient Buddha.

War Crimes!

Hey, I have one: You, Alistair, are the equivalent to Concerned (although without the charm)!

7015. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 10:04:17 PM

JudithatHome --

No one here is saying that [what happened in Baghdad is the Americans fault]...

Excuse me? Alistair is not only saying it, he says the Americans should be brought up on war crimes.

He's only said this in about half-a-dozen posts so far. Are you even reading this thread?

7016. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 10:17:21 PM

Jay Ackroyd --

I did that. Got Russians, Europeans, wacky leftie protestors. Do I get to cite David Duke as a representative of the mainstream right?,

You can if you like. Certainly you wouldn't be the first one here to argue in that vein. The mainsteam left does argue that Republicans and their policies are racist. And for every David Duke you cite (tossed out of the party), for every Trent Lott (demoted), I can come up with an Al Sharpton or Robert Byrd (neither of whom has suffered for their views).

Is Bush called Hitler by U.S. mainstream left? No. But then Clinton wasn't called a rapist and a murderer by the mainstream right either. Is the invective of the mainstream right and left equal? I don't know, but until someone comes up with a solid argument for why one is worse than the other, I'm assuming they are about the same.

7017. judithathome - 4/14/2003 11:15:03 PM

Are you even reading this thread?

Yes, I am but I didn't see that he was saying the Americans caused it, only they didn't do anything to prevent it. To me, that doesn't mean the same thing. But I realize by parsing what I read this way I am engaging in semantics and that is best left to the experts.

I don't necessarily agree that it should be a war crime. I do think they could have done more than they did to prevent much of the looting. Threatening unarmed citizens with rifles could have gone a long way toward making the looters think twice, in my opinion.

You ridiculed the link I made about the troops looting...I posted that because it made a point that we could hardly expect the populace to refrain from looting when our troops were doing the same sort of thing.

7018. Al D - 4/15/2003 1:06:24 AM

We have never done a blessed thing to stop looting is this country, but we are supposed to stop it in Iraq. It is just left wing bullshit, anything to blacken the face of the American troops. First we were in a quagmire, then we had a bad plan, then, while we got rid of Saddam, we didn't make Iraq a safe country. Shit, Oakland Calif. isn't a safe city, so give me a break.

People say "Who ever compared Bush to Hitler?" and PM says war protestors did. Does one have to go beyond the Mote? Not if one is honest, that's for sure.

7019. alistairConnor - 4/15/2003 5:31:42 AM

We have never done a blessed thing to stop looting is this country, but we are supposed to stop it in Iraq.

So, Al, you claim that people could just go ahead and loot the MOMA, or torch the national library in Washington DC, and the police would just stand by and watch.

It all depends on what you value. Baghdad is one of the world's most ancient cultural centres, and repository of the world's first civilisations, and this deserved respect, management, a minimum of foresight. I'm not saying that protecting these things is more important than saving human lives. I'm saying that it's a higher priority than securing oil wells.

7020. alistairConnor - 4/15/2003 5:35:38 AM

And environmentalist that you are, you would have certainly been calling for "War Crimes!" if those fields hadn't been secured and Saddam had lit them up like he did in Kuwait.

Pinscher, it's amazing how you know me better than I know myself.

If Saddam had torched the oil wells, I would be accusing the US of war crimes. Of course. I wish I'd thought of that myself.

As ecological disasters go, Kuwait was pretty bad. But the earth recovers from that stuff. No-one can bring back the ancient documents.

7021. alistairConnor - 4/15/2003 5:51:32 AM

Well consider me shocked. My suspicion is that you [would] have tossed out your ready-made mantra of "War Crimes" the first minute an unarmed Iraqi civilian was shot by a U.S. Marine for doing nothing more than carrying out a government desk.

Again, you know me better than my mother does, Pinscher.

The first duty of a conquering army is to establish order. Like you, I sympathise with the soldiers who were reprimanded for taking souvenirs. Generally, looting is the exclusive prerogative of the occupant; and the poor guys are clearly under orders to let everyone else loot, but keep their hands off.

7022. alistairConnor - 4/15/2003 5:56:40 AM

I heard an interview on the radio this morning, with a doctor in a Baghdad hospital. Six staff on duty, out of 500 in normal times. The others don't turn up to work, it's been too dangerous out in the streets. I hope it'll be better today.

No water, no electricity, no fuel for the generators. No telephone or radio to try to call staff back to work. The hospital is full. Calls for help to the US military are met with "Not our problem".

They must have more important stuff to do still.

7023. RickNelson - 4/15/2003 6:59:27 AM

I heard an interview on BBC last night of a doctor in Basra,

reporter:"do you have water"

doctor:"No!" "We have nothing, absolutely nothing!"

BBC stating that Iraqi are wondering why the British presence does not come with support for water and electrical generation?


Hmmmm...



Is the coalition responsible to give water and electricity to the Iraqi?

My first question is why can't it be turned back on? Did we bomb the water mains, pumping stations, wells, towers to oblivian? Did we destroy every source of electrical generation within Basra or elsewhere? This question applies across Iraq? Are there no civil engineers left to re-open any facilities that remain?

7024. alistairConnor - 4/15/2003 7:32:57 AM

Is the coalition responsible to give water and electricity to the Iraqi?

The coalition took it away. Bad PR to leave it like that.

Are there no civil engineers left to re-open any facilities that remain?

They will be eager to get to work, once order is restored. Should they be risking their lives in places where it's too dangerous to send Marines?

7025. RickNelson - 4/15/2003 7:45:35 AM

The water and electrical details is one item I would really like a thourough report upon. Where are the facilities, how badly off are they, is there anyone nearby who could be escourted to the facility and assisted to reestablish the works?



re; 6918 I agree that the a divide and rule, or divide and let them rule their area will be dangerous. I agree that a third party (U.S.) could mess up the internal workings by bringing someone in particular to the front of Iraqi politics.


There is something I heard this morning, that is the Islamisc party is boycotting the meetings in Nasaryiah. There is also Shiite discontent that the Americans abondoned them originally so they can just get the hell outa dodge!

7026. Martin - 4/15/2003 10:28:04 AM

the looting of an ancient civilisation from the museums of bagdhad is more than just an example of the pain of living in a city which knows what it is liberated from, but not what it is liberated to . it is a consistent and prolonged attack on the notion the city has of its own self worth. museums across the world stand as symbols, not only of the past of a feo-political entity adn as a badge of power in procuring what is diplays, but also as symbol of the cultural value a place holds.
with all this looted under the noses and withthe complciity of the american marines, i think a definite responsibilty for the return of the loot should be taken. if the u.s. cannot find what has been looted, perhaps it could replace it with artefacts found in the U.S.A. such as dinosaur bones, which while being a poor substiute for the assyrian scrolls, would at least give the iraqi's some sense of cultural value in their once proud museums!

7027. Wombat - 4/15/2003 10:44:37 AM

Is the above post serious?

7028. alistairConnor - 4/15/2003 10:48:34 AM

The "shock and awe" bombings had an interesting symbolic effect : they seem to have destroyed most of the Saddam-era monumental architecture.

That's probably a good thing, it will help that unhappy era to fade from memory quickly.

7029. ronski - 4/15/2003 11:43:13 AM

Perhaps the U.S. and U.K. will get some credit from Islamists for destroying all the images of Saddam, such portrayals being forbidden in orthodox Islam, but probably not much.

7030. magoseph - 4/15/2003 11:48:32 AM

It's either a pitiful attempt to make a valid point or it's a pitiful attempt at sarcasm--I have no opinion as to which...

7031. alistairConnor - 4/15/2003 12:04:08 PM

You Americans are all alike (eh Mago) -- no respect for cultural symbols.

The destruction and dispersion of 7000 years of history seems to leave you all perfectly cold.

7032. PelleNilsson - 4/15/2003 12:16:00 PM

What do you expect from a country with a history of a few hundred years?

7033. judithathome - 4/15/2003 12:33:06 PM

Pelle, that is exactly it. While I was in Europe visiting ruins that were old before this country was even a gleam in the eye of history, I would hear comments from Americans that would stun me...at a castle in Italy, one yahoo said there was "a nicer one in Georgia that was a brand new, even."

7034. judithathome - 4/15/2003 12:35:07 PM

Alistair, I can assure you it doesn't leave this American cold at all.

7035. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 12:45:16 PM

While I was in Europe visiting ruins that were old before this country was even a gleam in the eye of history, I would hear comments from Americans that would stun me...at a castle in Italy, one yahoo said there was "a nicer one in Georgia that was a brand new, even."

No one believes that such a thing ever happened. Are you such a dreadfully uninteresting person that you feel forced to invent anecdotes?

7036. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 12:46:18 PM

Judy, just for shits and giggles, precisely where were you in Europe? At precisely which castle did you come across these confabulated Georgian stereotypes?

7037. judithathome - 4/15/2003 12:47:27 PM

Well, here's an interesting take on how much Americans...ahem, appreciate...antiquities:

Books In Flames

...It turns out, however, that there was another group that may have had the ear of this privatizing administration of ours. As Burkeman reports,

"…a letter from nine British archaeologists, published in the Guardian yesterday, [claimed] that private collectors were 'persuading the Pentagon to relax legislation that protects Iraq's heritage by prevention of sales abroad'.

"The American Council for Cultural Policy, a New York-based coalition of about 60 collectors, dealers and others, had received 'no special treatment,' the official insisted, despite reports that members of the group met with Bush administration representatives in January to argue that a post-Saddam Iraq should have relaxed antiquities laws."

7038. magoseph - 4/15/2003 12:49:47 PM

One thing is certain, Judith has lived in Europe. What is much less certain is if Ace has ever gone there.

7039. judithathome - 4/15/2003 12:53:11 PM

Ace, not that it matters but I lived in Germany for almost 5 years and saw quite a lot of it and at the time I heard this remark, I was in northern Italy tourning a castle just over the border. It was a German casle in Italy and I don't recall the name of it.

There were several Americans touring the castle along with other tourists...you do know what those are, don't you? They are people who go to different countries and attempt to broaden their horizons.

I'll give the guy credit; he at least got out of his comfort zone and went on a tour rather than staying in his hotel room playing with his Gameboy.

7040. judithathome - 4/15/2003 12:56:23 PM

Ace, I can't help it if your crabbed little universe precludes any acceptance of the fact that other people do things you don't believe.

I not only lived in Europe...OLD Europe...but I lived in Japan, too. I've been to several countries you can't even pronounce.

7041. judithathome - 4/15/2003 12:58:37 PM

Are you such a dreadfully uninteresting person that you feel forced to invent anecdotes?

I must not be...YOU seem to be so fascinated with me you have to attack every single thing I say.

And with that, I am done with being off-topic in this thread. You ought to try it, too.

7042. PelleNilsson - 4/15/2003 12:59:56 PM

I have it on the highest authority (i.e. Ace himself) that he has visited Italy. Also, there are persistant rumours that he speaks some German. A right proper internationalist Ace is.

7043. judithathome - 4/15/2003 1:02:55 PM

Yes, such a one that accuses others of lying.

7044. vonKreedon - 4/15/2003 1:04:46 PM

All you lefties live such boring lives that you are forced to invent places that you've been and boring American hating anecdotes to shore up your pitiful attempts at presenting a straw argument for me to flame your butts with. You should all be deported to the fucking countries you claim to know and love so well.

Fucking vicious traitors.

7045. judithathome - 4/15/2003 1:08:57 PM

Nice. I'm assuming that isn't satire?

7046. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 1:11:21 PM

Si buono, Pelle. Das ist richtig.

Judy, on my numerous excursions to Outer Madeupistan, I ran across numerous foreigners who said things like, "Gee, I sure would like to conform myself to a politically useful stereotype popular in the minds of dipshit leftists. Ergo, I shall proclaim some unlikely idiocy that places me squarely within the confines of that stereotype. Like, I will now say: You stupid Ameeeericans, what with your John Wayne Bang-Bang TJ Hooker culture. Do you not voulez-vouz that theeeengs, they are so much more complicated that your James T. Kirk Rambo Cowboy Pink Lady & Jeff Fred Silverman Supertrain BJ & The Bear world view?"

I swear to god, Judy. I really heard some foreigners saying that.

7047. judithathome - 4/15/2003 1:12:57 PM

Lucky you.

7048. judithathome - 4/15/2003 1:17:05 PM

This is the friggin' castle. I don't expect you to believe me but it was a true story.

The fact you HAVE to belive I am lying is more telling of you than of me.

7049. judithathome - 4/15/2003 1:17:33 PM

Toys

7050. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 1:19:06 PM

Here are the foreigners I heard maligning our country, Judy:



Not that I'd expect you to believe me.

7051. judithathome - 4/15/2003 1:23:49 PM

About the speed I'd expect you to hang with.

7052. christipeters - 4/15/2003 1:29:04 PM

Ya know, I lived in Germany for 2 years, and yes, I did encounter some Americans who fit the stereotype of the stupid, ugly American. They were the minority, but they existed and most likely still exist. Stereotype usually don't come out of vacuum.

Don't know what any of this has to do with the war in Iraq, though.

7053. judithathome - 4/15/2003 1:31:17 PM

It has dip to do with Iraq and I am sorry I ever brought it up.

Be careful, Christi, or Ace will put you on the liars list, too. Living in Germany seems to trigger something in him.

7054. christipeters - 4/15/2003 1:34:44 PM

ooooo, I'm scared. see me shake.

7055. ronski - 4/15/2003 1:45:28 PM

What 7000 years of history has been destroyed? Dispersed temporarily, yes, but not destroyed.

Then again, I remain of the opinion that seaching for these artifacts and bringing them back to Baghdad someday is easier than scrubbing radiation out of the pavement on 42nd Street.

7056. PelleNilsson - 4/15/2003 1:46:51 PM

Very definitely a minority, in my experience.

7057. judithathome - 4/15/2003 1:49:13 PM

"…a letter from nine British archaeologists, published in the Guardian yesterday, [claimed] that private collectors were 'persuading the Pentagon to relax legislation that protects Iraq's heritage by prevention of sales abroad'.

If this is true, we more than likely will be able to see some of that 7000 years of history not far from 42nd Street and in museums across the country.

7058. ronski - 4/15/2003 1:49:52 PM

'persuading the Pentagon to relax legislation...'

I can't wait to watch C-SPAN covering the roll-call vote in the Pentagon.

7059. ronski - 4/15/2003 1:53:02 PM

judith,

Not very likely. Some of it will get to and remain in private collections, to be sure.

But it will be declared "hot" by the international art community and will be not be purchased by museums.

I suspect much of it will find its way to back to Baghdad eventually.

7060. judithathome - 4/15/2003 1:53:32 PM

Evidently they think the Pentagon is more in control of the situation than Congress. I'm sure Rumsfeld thinks so.

7061. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 1:53:40 PM

It has been suggested that the museums were looted by the Saddam-appointed, loyal Baathist party hacks in charge of them, who have been smuggling out treasures for weeks.

If this is proven to be true, expect Judy and AC to suddenly find the museum looting to be no big deal, as was Saddam's imprisonment of children, torture chambers, and rape as a tool of state coercion. They only care about looting to the extent they can pin it on America; if it is shown that Baathists were behind it, they will excuse it, as they excuse all crimes committed by Saddam and his antihuman claque.

7062. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 1:55:12 PM

Ronski--

Nice catch.

I expect the Air Force and Navy to vote in favor of suspeding the legislation, but the Army and Marines will of course form their typical ground-based voting bloc to block the legislation. Where the swing votes of the Coast Guard will come down on this is anyone's guess.

7063. judithathome - 4/15/2003 1:55:24 PM

I suspect much of it will find its way to back to Baghdad eventually

I hope it does. It's a shame to lay waste to such a rich history.

7064. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 1:56:07 PM

Judy and AC care a lot more about 7,000 year old tablets than 14 year old children.

7065. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 1:56:33 PM

Judy and AC care a lot more about 7,000 year old tablets than 14 year old children.

7066. judithathome - 4/15/2003 1:57:51 PM

they will excuse it, as they excuse all crimes committed by Saddam and his antihuman claque.

I would like to think you are not that stupid but evidently your natural instinct to prove yourself a buffoon wins out every time.

7067. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 1:59:05 PM

I don't remember you being so upset about the looting and rioting during the LA riots, Judy. In that case, you seemed to think "the people" were entitled to let off a bit of steam by ransacking Korean delis.

7068. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 2:02:12 PM

To hear the left pine for "law and order" on the streets of Baghdad, you'd almost kind of forget that they are generally supportive of "rebellions" and "uprisings" of "the people" against repressive regimes.

They're virtually pining for the firm hand of Saddam to return-- so that, as happened under Mussolini, the trains would start running on time again.

7069. judithathome - 4/15/2003 2:02:16 PM

You don't remember a lot, Ace, but then again, why should you?

Why don't you move this crap over to the Inferno?

7070. vonKreedon - 4/15/2003 2:05:43 PM

We're allowing looting for the children you anti-American leftist hacks. The same fucking children that you have been arguing for years should be used to gratify Saddam's every twisted whim. And don't you dare try to say that you haven't been acting as the Hussein families personal procurors, you've already exposed yourself as a lying bitch with your charming little anecdote about the ugly fucking Americans. You leftist don't care the least for the children unless they can be used as bombs to kill Americans.

You should be deported to Git-mo so you can personally satisfy the desires of Saddams buddies that we have detained in that resort. Fucking traitorous pervert.

7071. Ms. No - 4/15/2003 2:09:32 PM

Good lord, get the man an exorcist!

7072. magoseph - 4/15/2003 2:10:01 PM

Goodness, what is this? Stalking? Obsessing? Judith, you should be flattered, Dantes the grammarian and now the Mighty Ace! I should be so lucky, but then I am pro-war, so I don't qualify for abuse these days. Only Alistair and Pelle are after my hide. Imagine, the two intimating, however SO subtly, that I am a Philistine.

7073. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 2:16:16 PM

It's hysterical. Saddam's palaces were looted.

Liberals shriek.

Saddam's government offices were looted.

Liberals bitch.

The mansions of Saddam's cronies were looted.

Liberals cry out in horror.

I've never seen liberals so firmly behind the proposition that the property rights of the overclass ought to be vigorously enforced at the point of a rifle.

It's odd, but the "uncaring conservatives" seem to focus on the welfare of Iraq's downtrodden.

Whereas the "caring liberals" only seem concerned about the location of Tariq Aziz's couches and ottomans.

7074. PelleNilsson - 4/15/2003 2:17:12 PM

Ronski

Then again, I remain of the opinion that seaching for these artifacts and bringing them back to Baghdad someday is easier than scrubbing radiation out of the pavement on 42nd Street.

That is a false dichotomy if I ever saw one. Is it your opinion that posting ten Marines outside the National Museum in Baghdad would have caused a nuclear attack on New York?

You say that the artefacts are not destroyed. In fact many of them are. And what about the National Library which was set on fire? And the people that died in the hospitals that were looted?

I think that the US troops did not anticipate that the defense of Baghdad would collapse so quickly, nor that the whole civil administration would simply melt away. But still, the commanders on the ground could and should have acted more quickly to protect vital sites.

7075. vonKreedon - 4/15/2003 2:19:12 PM

And the children, let's not forget the very foundation of why this adminstration overthrew the Saddamite regime, for the children. Now the liberals want to cry and wail over the redistribution of Saddamite wealth, fuck I thought liberals were all about redistribution and child welfare. I guess this war put the big lie to that little fallacy.

Fucking retarded morons.

7076. Dubai Vol - 4/15/2003 2:19:34 PM

Well the rhetoric has gotten a little heated, and I can certainly understand that, but fact is that blaming America for the Iraqis looting their own hospitals and museums is just ludicrous. Anyone making that argument is plainly just finding an excuse, and a lame one, for bashing the US.

As my (English) wife, put it so eloquently: "these animals loot their own hospitals and it's America's fault?"

Yes I'm being repetitive because it bears repeating: it's not Americans looting, it's Iraqis. If US soldiers had been tougher on looters you lowlife scum would have been screaming about American oppression. Any wonder nobody cares what you think? Cos you don't think. You remind me of Republicans hounding Clinton about his personal life. Partisan scum, all of you.

And now MY rhetoric has grown heated. :p

7077. theDiva - 4/15/2003 2:19:41 PM

"7031. alistairConnor - 4/15/03 12:04:08 PM

You Americans are all alike (eh Mago) -- no respect for cultural symbols.

The destruction and dispersion of 7000 years of history seems to leave you all perfectly cold.

7032. PelleNilsson - 4/15/03 12:16:00 PM

What do you expect from a country with a history of a few hundred years?"

I take serious exception to this. This country is home to some of the finest museums in the world, some of the finest symphonies in the world, and the birthplace of jazz. These things, these institutions were built by and large by Americans. We aren't the philistines you think we are, just because our country is a few hundred years old.

7078. judithathome - 4/15/2003 2:19:47 PM

Von Kreedon, I do not appreciate your personal attack on me and think you need to step back a bit.

7079. vonKreedon - 4/15/2003 2:21:00 PM

Judith - I trust that, liberal thought you are, you recognize satire or even parody when it slaps you in the face.

7080. vonKreedon - 4/15/2003 2:22:05 PM

To be perfectly clear, that I am parodying Ace and not attacking you, even though you are a vile traitorous anti-American child abusing Saddamite. But that goes without saying.

7081. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 2:24:08 PM

Maybe vonK should just admit that he has never been on the side of "the Iraqi people." Like AC, he's simply been against expressions of American power, and if he has to choose between free Iraqis and a chastened US, he'll choose the chastened US and leave the Iraqis to rot in torture chambers.

At least AC isn't a citizen of this country, so he can't be accused of treason-- merely self-deluded, envy-fueled Marxist anti-Americanism.

7082. judithathome - 4/15/2003 2:24:34 PM

I trust that, liberal thought you are, you recognize satire or even parody when it slaps you in the face.


I thought I did but after a few of Ace's strikes today, I guess I left my sense of humor on the floor.

Whatever, I think I may take a break from all this frivolity; I'm not sure I can handle much more "fun" and "hilarity".

7083. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 2:26:30 PM

a wag in Australia puts it best: "This is the Vietnam of the Left."


You are exposed as liars and unamerican Fifth Columnists. You can wail till your faces turn blue about the sacking of Tariq Aziz's Summer Home, but you are discredited and no one will pay any attention to your hateful nonsense for thirty years or more.

You now have the credibility and influence of the KKK-- and you're just as deserving of that low status.

7084. judithathome - 4/15/2003 2:26:53 PM

VonK:

You do an exxxxcellent Ace, by the way.

7085. judithathome - 4/15/2003 2:28:13 PM

no one will pay any attention to your hateful nonsense for thirty years or more.

If this means you will no longer harass those you disagree with, that's a good thing!

7086. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 2:28:44 PM

"I want the army of my country, which is engaged in an act of gross immorality, to be defeated."


Terry Lane, a commentator for the Australian Broadcasting Company, wishing defeat upon his own country


You guys can continue claiming that such sentiments don't exist on the Left. Unfortunately for you, we have things called newspapers and magazines and videotaped news programs upon which their statements are preserved.

7087. ronski - 4/15/2003 2:28:52 PM

Is it your opinion that posting ten Marines outside the National Museum in Baghdad would have caused a nuclear attack on New York?

No. It is my opinion that not taking the military action in Iraq would have increased the possibility of WMD (for example, a dirty bomb) being used by terrorists against the United States. And I am loathe to second guess the decisions made on the ground by the military, nice as it would have been for the Marines to send a few of their number to the Museum, the Library, and the National Archives.

7088. ronski - 4/15/2003 2:31:54 PM

And I am saying that 7000-year-old artifacts have not been destroyed. They are too valuable to have been. They were looted (perhaps by Saddam's own people).

I acknowledge that century-year-old records from Ottoman times have been lost. That is unfortunate, but not as tragic as keeping Saddam in power would have been.

7089. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 2:32:28 PM

"I pray for a million Mogadishus"

-- Columbia Professor Nicholas De Genova

Yes, vonK. It is just so absurd to claim that there are broad swaths of the left that don't pray for American defeats and American soldiers coming home in bodybags.

No wonder you people support Saddam-- you have truly Arab mindsets, in which uncomfortable truths are simply denied in the face of overwhelming evidenc.e

7090. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 2:34:58 PM

"I have a confession to make: have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings. "

-- Gary Kamiya, confessing to hoping for an American military defeat and Saddam's continued rule of Iraq in order to prevent the "greater moral negative" of a second Bush term


So who are you going to believe-- vonK or your own lyin' eyes?

THESE QUOTES DO NOT EXIST. They were never said, never wriitten. They are inventions, fabrications, the creations of MOSSAD.

Do not acknowledge these quotes exist. They do not.

7091. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 2:36:09 PM

"Anyone who bombs the Pentagon gets my vote"

-- Texas Professor (whose name I forget) just hours after the 9-11 attacks


BUT THIS QUOTE TOO IS A FABRICATION.

The Left loves America.

7092. judithathome - 4/15/2003 2:37:21 PM

How much longer will TPW be down?

7093. seadate - 4/15/2003 2:37:53 PM

Now former UT Prof?

7094. ronski - 4/15/2003 2:38:24 PM

As for the hospitals issue, I don't believe we know very much about what happened in the fog of war, nor in the planning for the conflict, nor what contingencies existed for protecting hospitals, nor what took place on the ground when the bullets were flying and U.S. service people were being ambushed.

But I certainly do not believe that U.S. forces intentionally sacrificed hospitals to looting mobs. Never has such care been taken by an invading force to limit civilian losses.

In other words, I don't see the war crimes that some on the far left, and perhaps not so far left, are suggesting were committed by Americans.

7095. vonKreedon - 4/15/2003 2:43:37 PM

Ace is doing an excellent job of showing that there are people who have been published who wished the US/UK/Australians to fail in their war on Iraq. What Ace fails to do, though he certainly puts his all into it, is show that this means that all of us lefties hate America, wish death and destruction on American soldiers and are more aggrieved at the looting of Saddamite palaces than we are joyful about the freeing of Iraqi children. Indeed, Ace fails to actually show that people here give a shit about Tariq's pleasure palace being gutted. What complaints there have been have focused on the destruction of the hospitals, museum and library.

This leftist has said several times that I had no problem with the US allowing the Iraqis to loot, though we probably should have done better at protecting the hospitals.

But that is of course all transparent lies from a lying traitorous American hating leftist.

7096. ronski - 4/15/2003 2:44:00 PM

(Strike "year" from "century-year-old").

7097. ronski - 4/15/2003 2:51:57 PM

U.S., U.K. "War Crimes" Investigation

"We do not know if war crimes have been committed," Ratner said. But he added: "We should examine why so many people could have been killed on one side."

Duh?

7098. judithathome - 4/15/2003 2:58:01 PM

But that is of course all transparent lies from a lying traitorous American hating leftist.

But you must admit, Ace certainly elevates the discussion. He's good for blood pressure spikes.

"We should examine why so many people could have been killed on one side."

This is really a stupid remark...DUH, indeed.

I don't think war crimes were committed by the American troops at all. They did their jobs. I might have liked it had they done a little more at the museum and the hospitals but that is neither here nor there. I don't, however, feel it fits "war crimes" designation.

7099. PelleNilsson - 4/15/2003 3:07:36 PM

Diva Message # 7077

Well, I expected someone to rise to the bait. No doubt Alistair did too.

7100. vonKreedon - 4/15/2003 3:09:29 PM

"We should examine why so many people could have been killed on one side."

[Irony_Mode]
This is certainly highly suspicious. It becomes even more suspicious when one looks deeper into the casualties and realizes that a great many of the coalition casualties were fraticidal! Not only is there a huge, unexplained and suspicious disparity between the casualties on the Iraqi and the coalition sides, but the coalition side appears to have inflicted casualties on itself in a vain attempt to raise its casualty level to something less inequitable and so less suspicious!
[/Irony_Mode]

7101. magoseph - 4/15/2003 3:14:12 PM

Hahaha! Pelle, so funny you and Alistair

7102. PelleNilsson - 4/15/2003 3:14:13 PM

Ronski

I acknowledge that century-year-old records from Ottoman times have been lost. That is unfortunate, but not as tragic as keeping Saddam in power would have been.

You persist in pursuing ridiculous, untenable dichotomies. What happened? Did somebody drop a MOAB on your intellect?

7103. theDiva - 4/15/2003 3:16:54 PM

Pelle

both you and the Curmudgeon can bite me.

7104. PelleNilsson - 4/15/2003 3:22:13 PM

Another ridicoulus thing is this talk about American war crimes. Any such allegations are, to use a nice German word, vernuftswidrig.

7105. concerned - 4/15/2003 3:24:13 PM

I think those on the left are forgetting that the Coalition Forces are not, first and foremost, civil servants, and that their numbers are inadequate for policing every nuance of Iraqi behavior, or misbehavior, as is the case.

I simply rejoice that the Coalition military forces continue to refuse to give the Left targets to pillory without revealing themselves as the fools they are.

7106. vonKreedon - 4/15/2003 3:27:40 PM

Con - You forgot about the children; you rejoice that the children have been freed from the leftist supported sex camps AND that the Coalition military forces continue to refuse to give the Left targets to pillory without revealing themselves as the fools they are.

Please, don't lose sight of why we invaded Iraq, its all about the children and only then is it about revealing the left to be traitorous American hating fools.

7107. judithathome - 4/15/2003 3:30:40 PM

Except, of course, for those leftist leaning ogres who contributed money to the sex camps for children. Those can be pilloried at will.

7108. concerned - 4/15/2003 3:33:44 PM

Btw, I haven't yet heard of any LW NGOs that are setting up to help Iraqis build a new democratic society. Are they out there?

7109. vonKreedon - 4/15/2003 3:35:45 PM

By-the-by Con, your syntax leaves you open to charges of being an American hating troop non-supporter. The following appears to claim that the Coalition troops are fools, who you rejoice are managing to both refuse the Left pillory targets AND succeeding in hiding that they are fools:

...Coalition military forces continue to refuse to give the Left targets to pillory without revealing themselves as the fools they are.

7110. judithathome - 4/15/2003 3:40:01 PM

Btw, I haven't yet heard of any LW NGOs that are setting up to help Iraqis build a new democratic society. Are they out there?

Oh yeah, like this administration is going to loosen it's death grip on all the planning. This was a joke, right?

7111. ronski - 4/15/2003 3:53:09 PM

Pelle,

I have been responding to the ridiculous criticism that the U.S. committed war crimes by not preventing looting.

This criticism is nothing but a cover for the belief that the U.S. never should have invaded in the first place.

Perhaps I need to bring back my old irony icon, (i).

But in seriousness, I don't know whether it was practical for the U.S. to stop the looting, as easy as it sounds when you, and others I've heard, speak of just sending a few troops over to the front door of these institutions. I don't know. I wasn't there, and I don't trust all the pot shots I'm hearing right now. We'll know more soon.

7112. alistairconnor - 4/15/2003 3:56:06 PM

What was this war for, someone remind me please?
After days of arson and pillage, here's a short but revealing scorecard. US troops have sat back and allowed mobs to wreck and then burn the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Irrigation, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Information. They did nothing to prevent looters from destroying priceless treasures of Iraq's history in the Baghdad Archaeological Museum and in the museum in the northern city of Mosul, or from looting three hospitals.

The Americans have, though, put hundreds of troops inside two Iraqi ministries that remain untouched – and untouchable – because tanks and armoured personnel carriers and Humvees have been placed inside and outside both institutions. And which ministries proved to be so important for the Americans? Why, the Ministry of Interior, of course – with its vast wealth of intelligence information on Iraq – and the Ministry of Oil.

Clearly, this is all very right and proper.

7113. concerned - 4/15/2003 4:24:21 PM

I think the above excerpt is much more revealing of the crying lack of actual Saddamite infrastructure than of any Coalition troop negligence.

7114. concerned - 4/15/2003 4:28:47 PM

I see no essential problem with allowing Iraqis to destroy what is symbolic of the evil and injustice in their society. It's unfortunate, of course, that a few hospitals and museums were also affected.

7115. alistairconnor - 4/15/2003 4:39:19 PM

So, yes, Ronski, it was perfectly possible to prevent looting. Undoubtedly the troops were too thin on the ground to prevent looting everywhere; they had to choose their priorities. What do you think of their priorities?

Government ministries wouldn't have been high on my list of things to protect. Hospitals would have been at the top. The museum would have merited a few guards, once it was apparent that it was a target for looters.

7116. alistairconnor - 4/15/2003 4:41:50 PM

Ronski : But in seriousness, I don't know whether it was practical for the U.S. to stop the looting, as easy as it sounds when you, and others I've heard, speak of just sending a few troops over to the front door of these institutions. I don't know. I wasn't there, and I don't trust all the pot shots I'm hearing right now. We'll know more soon.


You want to know more. I'm happy to oblige.

Abdul Rehman Mugeer, a senior guard, was shaking with anger yesterday at the destruction. He praised the US for at least parking four tanks in front of the museum when they took control of Baghdad last Wednesday. But they were later removed, leaving the museum to the mercy of rampaging Iraqis.

"Gangs of several dozen came," he said. "Some had guns. They threatened to kill us if we did not open up. The looting went on for two days."

The Americans returned with tanks at one point on Friday and sent the looters fleeing, but as soon as the tanks rumbled away, the gangs came back to finish the job.

"I asked them to leave one tank here all the time but they have refused," said Raeed Abdul Reda, an archeologist.

7117. alistairconnor - 4/15/2003 4:43:11 PM

I see no essential problem with allowing Iraqis to destroy what is symbolic of the evil and injustice in their society.

... as distinct from the Oil Ministry, which is symbolic of all which is holy.

7118. concerned - 4/15/2003 4:45:46 PM

Iraqi information minister moves to AOL/Time Warner

Named company's official spokesman

by: Any Borowitz, JWR

Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf, the former Information Minister of Iraq, was named today as the new official corporate spokesman for AOL/Time Warner in New York.

Mr. al-Sahhaf, who just days ago had been saying that coalition troops were nowhere near the gates of Baghdad, had generally positive things to say about AOL/Time Warner's prospects in today's competitive media environment.

"The merger of AOL and Time Warner was the most successful merger in the history of the media world," said Mr. al-Sahhaf, wearing his trademark beret. "All you have to do is take a look at the value of our executives' stock options - they're worth untold billions."

Mr. al-Sahhaf disputed reports that the company was desperately trying to raise cash by selling assets such as its two Atlanta sports teams.

"No parts of this company are for sale - in fact, we'd like to go on a buying spree right now," Mr. al-Sahhaf said. "That's what companies do when their bottom lines are gushing cash, which is precisely what ours is doing."

Mr. al-Sahhaf also took issue with reports that Ted Turner, a major AOL/TW stockholder, was disaffected from the company: "That is insane! Ted Turner is deliriously happy! At out last board meeting he was purring like a little kitten. Ask anyone who was there."

While many on Wall Street welcomed Mr. al-Sahhaf's upbeat assessment of the company's prospects, Ira Hogan of Credit Suisse First Boston lowered his recommendation on AOL/TW to "sell," primarily because of the company's decision to hire Mr. al-Sahhaf.

Asked to comment on Mr. Hogan's move, Mr. al-Sahhaf replied, "That gangster bastard will meet with a fiery doom of his own making."

This is humor.

7119. concerned - 4/15/2003 5:01:18 PM

Is AC's great justification for opposing the de-Saddamization of Iraq going to devolve to: 'He protected the museum exhibits.'?

I wait with bated breath.

7120. judithathome - 4/15/2003 5:04:14 PM

Great reading comprehension there, Concerned.

7121. concerned - 4/15/2003 5:12:46 PM

Interesting that those who would consign Iraq to the UN today wanted to keep Saddam in power a month ago. It's difficult to imagine that they have the best interests of the average Iraqi at heart.

7122. magoseph - 4/15/2003 5:34:29 PM

Who are "those", concerned?

7123. magoseph - 4/15/2003 5:55:29 PM

15/04/2003 - 7:20:09 pm

The Pentagon is offering rewards of up to €185,000 for information on the whereabouts of leaders from Saddam Hussein’s toppled regime and its hidden weapons.

In addition to cash payments, US forces in Iraq also can give food, basic necessities and other incentives to encourage Iraqi citizens to “provide information and other assistance ... including the delivery of dangerous personnel and weapons,” said Defence Department spokeswoman Lieutenant Commander Barbara Burfeind.

More Here

7124. arkymalarky - 4/15/2003 6:18:38 PM

I'd forgotten what a fine air-boxer Ace is. I'll bet he plays a mean air-guitar, too. Have you actually addressed a single direct quote from anyone here, Ace?

7125. arkymalarky - 4/15/2003 6:22:18 PM

No wonder you people support Saddam-- you have truly Arab mindsets, in which uncomfortable truths are simply denied in the face of overwhelming evidenc.e

But Ace loooooves those Arab children. Is the Arab mindset hereditary or cultural, I wonder?

7126. wabbit - 4/15/2003 6:27:40 PM

In addition to cash payments, US forces in Iraq also can give food, basic necessities and other incentives to encourage Iraqi citizens to "provide information and other assistance ... including the delivery of dangerous personnel and weapons," said Defence Department spokeswoman Lieutenant Commander Barbara Burfeind.

7127. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 6:28:37 PM

Abu Abbas arrested in Iraq.

I guess he didn't get the memo that Iraq didn't harbor terrorists.

7128. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 6:42:48 PM

B-b-b-but Saddam Hussein doesn't harbor terrorists!

I don't understand how this man, convicted of the terroristic murder of an American citizen, Leo Klinghoffner, in absentia, was living on fat tit in downtown Baghdad for 17 years!


B-b-b-because you said there were no terrorists in Baghdad!

I don't get it! I'm confuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuused!

7129. magoseph - 4/15/2003 7:09:07 PM

Wrong, wrong wrong wrong, bad idea. Cash incentives, fine, but "food, basic necessities and other incentives" (and who knows what other encompasses) is just plain wrong.

Good point, wabbit!

7130. wabbit - 4/15/2003 7:33:29 PM

Hey magoseph,

Wouldn't you think someone would recognize that infomation given by desperate people in exchange for food/necessities might not be entirely reliable? In fact, wasn't a similar argument brought up days ago about the Christian groups who want to go into Iraq and exchange necessities for converts? Same results, unreliable intel or converts to Christianity. But maybe it's just me.


In other news, has anyone seen anything more about the non-existant eighteen Kuwaiti POWs from the 1991 war that were found?

7131. vonKreedon - 4/15/2003 7:34:32 PM

Ace is indeed a fine air-boxer. People claim that there no known link between Saddam and Al Qaeda or 9/11 and Ace turns it into a claim that there are no links between Saddam and any terrorists, even ones like Abu Abbas who has been known to be in Iraq for nearly two decades.

And of course any opposition to the invasion of Iraq is because we want children to be tortured. It all makes sense, really it does.

7132. magoseph - 4/15/2003 7:44:53 PM

Wouldn't you think someone would recognize that infomation given by desperate people in exchange for food/necessities might not be entirely reliable?

I see that now that you brought it up and I would really like to think that the Pentagon should always know better than I do.

7133. vonKreedon - 4/15/2003 7:49:11 PM

But let's keep out eye on the ball here, it's not about Al Qaeda or WMD, it's about the children who are now free to visit the burned out libraries and museums. It's about the children and their average hard-working Iraqi parents who are at long last free to work for Halliburton and Bechtel.

Really all this talk of Al Qaeda and WMD is so Old Europe, I mean we found a retired terrorist and freed the children.

7134. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 7:51:05 PM

That's slicing the baloney pretty fucking thin. You go before a crowd of Americans and try to sell them that bullshit-- that the Dems don't generally support taking down Saddam because he hasn't been proven to be directly behind 9-11, but that you concede he harbors terrorists.

Lefties talk about dishonesty from the Bush adminstration on Saddam-9/11 linkage. Apparently you wanted Bush to state PLAINLY and EXPLICITLY that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. (Which, by the way, I don't concede at all; but lefties don't need "evidence" and "proof" to fervently believe their dogma.)

How about some turnabout being fair play? Find me a specific quote from Kerry, Dean, or any of the other war critics PLAINLY and EXPLICITLY conceding that Saddam harbors terrorists.

They DID NOT MAKE ANY SUCH STATEMENT. Just as you accuse Bush of hoping partisans will mistake close mentions of Saddam and Al Qadea for an assertion that Saddam is part of Al Qaeda, the Democratic/liberal critics say, broadly, "Saddam has nothing to do with 9/11" and intend for their deluded liberal supporters to infer that Saddam has nothing to do with terrorism generally.

If you dispute this, I invite you to find a single quote where an anti-war critic makes it plain that Saddam does indeed support terrorists-- just not 9/11.

No one says that. Because it would be political suicide to admit that Saddam in fact harbors terrorists and yet you are determined to leave him in place, post 9/11.

I have never heard a liberal bring up Saddam's harboring of Abu Abbas sua sponte. They don't mention it, they keep it quiet, and then, when I shove it in their faces, they all whine, "Oh, we all knew that already."

Oh?

You did?

Then why were you trying to keep the news secret? Why is there no mention by John Kerry that Saddam does in fact harbor terrorists?

7135. arkymalarky - 4/15/2003 7:52:00 PM

Hey Wabbit! One of my kids told me about that today and I couldn't find anything on it and said she must be mistaken. I'll have to show her that tomorrow.

7136. arkymalarky - 4/15/2003 7:54:16 PM

This strange scenario popped in my head of people in Ace's neighboring apartment calling the cops to report a major domestic dispute involving several people and the cops arriving to find Ace the only one in the apartment, but all the furniture upended and a wingtip through the tv.

7137. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 7:58:43 PM

I'll check back tomorrow. I'm sure you'll be able to find dozens of quotes where the antiwar snipers, who are so much more honest than the low demogogues of the Bush administration, confess that Saddam Hussein does indeed harbor terrorists.

I'm sure we'll see that relentless truth-teller Michael Kinsely stating right up front that yes, Saddam harbors terrorists, but not the particular terrorists we're fighting this war against, and even though the terrorists Saddam harbors have in fact killed American citizens, we're going to leave them alone because we're fighting a very narrowly focused war on Al Qaeda terrorism, not a broad war against terrorists who kill Americans generally.

And I'm sure that if you comb this thread for your own quotes, you leftist truth-tellers will find plenty of your OWN mentions of Abu Abbas, right? After all-- you all knew about Abu Abbas, right? Surely you were honest enough to admit the very thin cut of your own argument, i.e., that Abu Abbas "doesn't count" as a terrorist for our rhetorical purposes, though of course he counts as one as for everyone else's purpose.

It's only liberals who can go for six months denying a fact, and then, when the fact is proven beyond controversion, to suddenly switch to a posture of "Oh, that's old news. We've always known thaaaaaaat."

Prove it.

Cite it.

7138. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 8:00:44 PM

Tell me, vonK and Arky--

Do you think that an antiwar Democratic cadidate like John Kerry will clearly admit this in a debate with Bush? That he of course knew all along that Saddam harbored terrorists who'd killed Americans, but he was against fighting the war anyway?

IF he won't make that admission clearly-- why do you suppose he won't?

Is it because America would never support such a ludicrous position, requiring you to fudge/hide the truth?

7139. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 8:04:09 PM

Oh, suuuuuure, we Democrats want to fight terrorists -- but only a very selective group of terrorists. The rest should be left free to kill and maim us at their leisure.

Put it on a bumpersticker! I liiiiiiiiiiiiiike it!

7140. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 8:31:10 PM

Marines free 123 from Iraq hellhole
By Derwin Pereira

FOR three days, American tanks have been shelling a military intelligence building in the posh Al-Khathamia area in west Baghdad.

The dozen or so tanks are not here to pound intransigent fighters but to break down concrete beams and steel, to reach bunkers deep underground at the Al-Istikhbarat Al-'Askariya facility.


The Marines found 123 prisoners, including five women, barely alive in an underground warren of cells and torture chambers.

Being trapped underground probably kept them safe from the bombing of Baghdad by the coalition.

Severely emaciated, some had survived by eating the scabs off their sores. All the men had beards down to their waists, said onlookers.

Most looked absolutely dazed when they emerged, said Mr Sadoun Mohamed, 37, who lives in the area.

'They had not seen sunlight for a long time,' he said. 'They kept blinking and covering their faces.' He said they were taken to the Saddam Hospital for treatment.

7141. arkymalarky - 4/15/2003 8:31:41 PM

I think we should wage a campaign against verbal terrorism, especially as it comes in the form of Chinese water torture.

7142. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 8:32:17 PM

Their names were posted on the walls of the Al-Hajabehia Mosque in west Baghdad, as were names of some 40 others known to have been executed or murdered in prison.

Hundreds of anxious locals wait for word of their family, relatives and friends, some of whom were taken away more than 10 years ago.

Outside Al-Istikhbarat Al-'Askariya, Mr Sadeq Al Saeed, 24, a construction worker, has been waiting sleepless for the last 36 hours. He said he had heard the facility had five levels below ground.

He said his father, an Iraqi army captain, was killed in 1991 during the first Gulf War, and his cousins Amer and Jasem and some 50 others were picked out by the secret police for chanting anti-Saddam slogans during the funeral procession.

'That was the last I saw of them,' he said.

'In the night, people raided their houses, blindfolded them and took them away.'

He hopes against hope that the Marines will be able to find his cousins, who were brought here to be interrogated.

This hellhole is believed to be one of many for Iraq's political prisoners. Thousands may still be behind bars though the regime released many criminals from prisons before the war.

The United States soldiers at Al-Istikhbarat Al-'Askariya would not say what they were doing there. Their tanks blocked the entrance.

This place could be part of the labyrinth of underground facilities which might still shelter regime members.

...

Taxi driver Hathem Ejam, 36, said Mr Saddam's older son Uday, also used them for his harem discards.

Relaying widely-believed rumours, he said: 'He would pick any young girl he liked from the street, rape her, shave her head bald and then get his guards to dump her in an underground cell.'

7143. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 8:32:46 PM

Thank god you bravehearts fought so valiantly to keep this regime in place.

7144. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 8:34:31 PM

Thank god you bravehearts fought so valiantly to keep this regime in place.

7145. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 8:35:26 PM

"I think we should wage a campaign against verbal terrorism, especially as it comes in the form of Chinese water torture."

Without a doubt, you exhibit the intelligence and wit I've come to expect from public school teachers.

7146. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 8:37:45 PM

Next time, you might want to wade into the deep side of the pool and try responding to the point made, rather than trying for the big yucks with that legendary wit of yours.

You know how you can tell which side is winning or losing an argument? You don't even have to listen to what's actually being said. Just pay attention to which side actually stays on the facts, and which side keeps trying to change the subject, or avoid the subject with glib evasions.

7147. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 8:54:24 PM

Most of the claims that [the looting of Baghdad was] America’s fault, however, boil down to people saying that the United States “let it happen.”

But what, exactly, does “let it happen” mean?
...
The “America let it happen” argument seems to me to be a particular case of the more general impotence/omnipotence double bind that America’s critics like to attempt. Before the war, remember, we were supposed to be impotent: a helpless giant, sure to be quagmired into a Vietnam-like morass of will-o’-the-wisp guerrillas even as we were pounded by the serried ranks of “elite” Iraqi units that Robert Fisk was touting as late as April 4.

Now that the quagmire predictions have died — yet again — the United States, formerly impotent, blind and helpless, is now charged with being omnipotent yet negligent: capable of preventing looting (in a city that it did not in fact yet control), yet unwilling to do so. What’s more, the transition between impotence and omnipotence took place in the blink of an eye: On April 7, Fisk was writing of a “bloody battle for Baghdad,” about which we learned even more on April 8, yet we are supposed to have had such complete control of a city of five million that we could prevent looting the very next day. There’s just no pleasing some people — but then, I don’t think they want to be pleased, at least not with the doings of the United States.

--GlennReynolds.com

Again, the left doesn't seem the least bit embarassed as they discard arguments and premises and create new, contradictory ones left and right as their rhetorical position demands it.

7148. arkymalarky - 4/15/2003 9:31:03 PM

I'm sorry Ace, could you repost a summary of the last six posts in 100 words or less? I'm having trouble concentrating with this constant "drip, drip, drip."

7149. RickNelson - 4/15/2003 10:10:00 PM

I'm tired of Ace's invective spew. Sure there can be some real discourse about the issues brought up, but it's a waste to deal with a liberalphobe. Treatment would be, taking a deep breath, counting to 10 and then reasonably type something relating to the topic. Then wait for discourse regarding that topic. Perhaps a contiguous set of posts may occur. One may hope.

7150. RickNelson - 4/15/2003 10:15:31 PM

I'm still curious about the civil engineering conditions in Iraq. I'm also interested to know more about what terrorists operations are being discovered. Is there more evidence beyond on old retired terrorist?

7151. seguineandonly - 4/15/2003 10:20:26 PM

From the Telegraph, the London:

Revealed: Russia spied on Blair for Saddam
By David Harrison
(Filed: 13/04/2003)

Top secret documents obtained by The Telegraph in Baghdad show that Russia
provided Saddam Hussein's regime with wide-ranging assistance in the months
leading up to the war, including intelligence on private conversations
between Tony Blair and other Western leaders.

Moscow also provided Saddam with lists of assassins available for "hits" in
the West and details of arms deals to neighbouring countries. The two
countries also signed agreements to share intelligence, help each other to
"obtain" visas for agents to go to other countries and to exchange
information on the activities of Osama bin Laden, the al-Qa'eda leader.

The documents detailing the extent of the links between Russia and Saddam
were obtained from the heavily bombed headquarters of the Iraqi
intelligence service in Baghdad yesterday.

7152. seguineandonly - 4/15/2003 10:21:13 PM

The sprawling complex, which for years struck fear into Iraqis, has been
the target of looters and ordinary Iraqis searching for information about
relatives who disappeared during Saddam's rule.

The documents, in Arabic, are mostly intelligence reports from anonymous
agents and from the Iraqi embassy in Moscow. Tony Blair is referred to in a
report dated March 5, 2002 and marked: "Subject - SECRET." In the letter,
an Iraqi intelligence official explains that a Russian colleague had passed
him details of a private conversation between Mr Blair and Silvio
Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, at a meeting in Rome. The two had
met for an annual summit on February 15, 2002, in Rome.

The document says that Mr Blair "referred to the negative things decided by
the United States over Baghdad". It adds that Mr Blair refused to engage in
any military action in Iraq at that time because British forces were still
in Afghanistan and that nothing could be done until after the new Kabul
government had been set up.

7153. seguineandonly - 4/15/2003 10:22:18 PM

It is not known how the Russians obtained such potentially sensitive
information, but the revelation that Moscow passed it on to Baghdad is
likely to have a devastating effect on relations between Britain and Russia
and come as a personal blow to Mr Blair. The Prime Minister declared a "new
era" in relations with President Putin when they met in Moscow in October
2001 in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks.

In spite of warnings by the British intelligence and security services of
increasing Russian espionage in the West, Mr Blair fostered closer
relations with Mr Putin, visiting his family dacha near Moscow, supporting
the Russians in their war in Chechnya, and arranging for the Russian
president to have tea with the Queen.

Mr Blair was surprised and dismayed when Mr Putin joined France in
threatening to veto the American and British resolution on Iraq in the UN,
but continued to differentiate between President Putin and President
Jacques Chirac.

The Prime Minister refused to join the French, German and Russian leaders
in their summit on Iraq this weekend, but still regarded Mr Putin as an
ally in global politics.

The list of assassins is referred to in a paper dated November 27, 2000. In
it, an agent signing himself "SAB" says that the Russians have passed him a
detailed list of killers. The letter does not describe any assignments that
the assassins might be given but it indicates just how much Moscow was
prepared to share with Baghdad. Another document, dated March 12, 2002,
appears to confirm that Saddam had developed, or was developing nuclear
weapons. The Russians warned Baghdad that if it refused to comply with the
United Nations then that would give the United States "a cause to destroy
any nuclear weapons".

7154. seguineandonly - 4/15/2003 10:22:59 PM

A letter from the Iraqi embassy in Moscow shows that Russia kept Iraq
informed about its arms deals with other countries in the Middle East.
Correspondence, dated January 27, 2000, informed Baghdad that in 1999 Syria
bought rockets from Russia in two separate batches valued at $65 million
(41 million) and $73 million (46 million). It also says that Egypt bought
surface-to-air missiles from Russia and that Kuwait - Saddam's old enemy -
wanted to buy Russian arms to the value of $1 billion. The Russians also
informed Iraq that China had bought military aircraft from Russia and
Israel at the end of 1999.

Moscow also passed on information of Russians who could help Iraqi
politicians obtain visas to go to many Western countries.

The name of Osama bin Laden appears in a number of Russian reports. Several
give details of his support for the rebels in Chechnya. They say bin Laden
had built two training camps in Afghanistan, near the Iranian border, to
train mujahideen fighters for Russia's rebel republic. The camps could each
hold 300 fighters, who were all funded by bin Laden.

7155. seguineandonly - 4/15/2003 10:23:18 PM

Training materials found at the complex give insight into the Iraqi
intelligence gathering methods. One certificate shows that a Rashid Jassim
had passed an advance course in lock-picking.

Other papers found at the headquarters include reports on the succession in
Saudi Arabia and on US-Yemen relations.

The intimate relationship between Baghdad and Moscow is further illustrated
by copies of Christmas cards - in the Christian tradition - sent by Taher
Jalil Habosh, the head of the Iraqi intelligence service, to his Kremlin
counterpart.

Russia has been a key ally of Baghdad since the 1970s and was one of
Saddam's main arms suppliers. The Iraqis are understood to owe Moscow more
than 8 billion for arms shipments. Russian oil companies had longed to
forge links with Saddam Hussein to help develop Iraq's vast oil reserves.



[end]

7156. seguineandonly - 4/15/2003 10:24:46 PM

clear ital, just in case

7157. PincherMartin - 4/15/2003 10:30:05 PM

Alistair

The first duty of a conquering army is to establish order.

Purest crap. The few soldiers in Baghdad -- and at the time they were just the tip of the spear of the attack -- were at the end of the war, not the beginning of the peace. There are still almost daily attacks on them in the capital. Nobody was sure then whether Saddam and his forces were there, gone, dead, alive, on the run, hunkering down, etc. Nobody knew. And at the time, the orders were explicit: they were there to take out Saddam and his regime -- in other words to fight the war -- not to take on police duties.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the "patriots' -- as you call them --who skulked out of Baghdad in the middle of the night, and provided no opportunity for a smooth transfer of power by surrendering to the Allied forces.

7158. PincherMartin - 4/15/2003 10:34:07 PM

Alistair --

No water, no electricity, no fuel for the generators. No telephone or radio to try to call staff back to work. The hospital is full. Calls for help to the US military are met with "Not our problem".

They must have more important stuff to do still.

Yes, they obviously are just sitting back, kicking out their heels now that the war's over.

It's a shame France and New Zealand didn't participate in this action. If they had, perhaps they would have had a say in where soldiers went and or what tasks they were used.

As it is, I guess you'll just have to sit on the sidelines and carp about how you'd do it differently.

7159. PincherMartin - 4/15/2003 10:47:44 PM

JudithatHome -- Message # 7017

Yes, I am but I didn't see that he was saying the Americans caused it, only they didn't do anything to prevent it. To me, that doesn't mean the same thing. But I realize by parsing what I read this way I am engaging in semantics and that is best left to the experts.

You are not grasping the important point: Alistair says the U.S. should be brought up on war crimes -- War Crimes! -- for the looting going on in Baghdad. That suggests some ultimate U.S. responsibility for the looting.

Alistair, of course, is completely off his fucking rocker. But you don't see his point as somehow blaming the U.S. for causing the looting, because, well, he didn't actually use the word "causing".

You ridiculed the link I made about the troops looting...I posted that because it made a point that we could hardly expect the populace to refrain from looting when our troops were doing the same sort of thing.

Huh? Are you trying to draw some sort of relationship --causal, correlative, moral -- between what the troops collected (pictures and metal garbage mainly) and what the Iraqis were looting? I will try to be patient while I wait for an explanation.

7160. PincherMartin - 4/15/2003 10:52:34 PM

JudithatHome (The Austin Dowager) --

While I was in Europe visiting ruins that were old before this country was even a gleam in the eye of history, I would hear comments from Americans that would stun me...at a castle in Italy, one yahoo said there was "a nicer one in Georgia that was a brand new, even."

I would faint from surprise if I ever heard you mention reading a serious book or discovered your house wasn't decorated with anything other than the most tasteless pieces of baroque European trash imaginable.

7161. judithathome - 4/15/2003 11:02:25 PM

Pincher, you can't possibly be as stupid as all that. Not that it matters but by saying such a thing, you prove how little you think for yourself and take other's opinions for your own. I really thought much better of you than that but thanks for clarifying.

And by the way, I don't live in Austin and if you really cared about how my house is decorated, which I seriously doubt, you could ask those on the Mote who have been there. Possibly one of them might be someone whose opinion...and taste...you can appreciate.

I have more Mission and Stickly than baroque trash, anyhow.

7162. judithathome - 4/15/2003 11:04:14 PM

I will try to be patient while I wait for an explanation.

I do hope you aren't holding your sainted breath.

7163. PincherMartin - 4/15/2003 11:10:26 PM

Pelle's Message # 7074 is reasonable.

It's shame that the treasures were destroyed or looted; it's a significant loss, easily the greatest loss of this war.

But the U.S. did not do it on purpose. The regime in Baghdad simply collapsed suddenly at a time when many people -- both in the administration and out of it -- were of the opinion that the battle for Baghdad would be the hardest and longest battle of the war.

Instead, it ended up being the easiest, and when the Marines and soldiers found themselves in control of the city, they were not prepared for it.

7164. judithathome - 4/15/2003 11:13:47 PM

Gen. Vince Brooks said it well...he said it occured during "a void in security"...before new security could be established and after old security, as horrible as it was, had vanished.

7165. PincherMartin - 4/15/2003 11:21:37 PM

JudithatHome --

You have no business making fun of other Americans for their lack of culture when your own taste -- as evidenced here by your lack of originality, wit and style -- is in question.

As for The Austin Dowager joke, it's not important whether you live in Austin or not; what's important is that you think like someone who lives in Austin. It's the equivalent of calling a west coast liberal a "berkeley radical". Whether they've gone to Berkeley or not is irrelevant.

7166. PincherMartin - 4/15/2003 11:29:59 PM

Message # 7112

Fisk is an unreliable reporter, particularly for this war.

7167. vonKreedon - 4/16/2003 12:14:58 AM

I will fess up that the "We were talking about Al Qaeda/9-11 terrorist links to Saddam." is indeed slicing the cheese thinly. It is however as accurate, and thin, as the claim from the right the administration never presented Saddam as connected to Al Qaeda and 9-11.

I did about 15 minutes of searching for Kerry or Kennedy or Pelosi or McDermott mentioning Abu Abbas or Abu Nidal in the last six months and came up empty.

7168. vonKreedon - 4/16/2003 12:15:50 AM

But I did find the President's speech October 7th, in which he makes some interesting claims:

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

One must wonder, if we had such certain sattelite evidence why is it that neither UNMOVIC, nore the 5th Corp has been able to find them, it would seem a simple matter.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles &emdash; far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations &emdash; in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.

Again, compelling stuff, but were are these missiles? Why is it that the psycopathic megalomaniac failed to use any of them? And the growing fleet of arial vehicles?

7169. vonKreedon - 4/16/2003 12:16:15 AM

Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

I would appear that somehow our sattelite recon capability is a real step down from the U-2 capability we had in '62, as we really had certainty about the Soviet weapons, but we can't find the ones the sattelites showed. Further, Baradei's crews were also unable to find what it was that the President assures us we know with certainty.

But of course the reason for this war has changed, it's all about the children.

7170. concerned - 4/16/2003 12:25:18 AM

Wrt the idea of bringing war crimes charges against Coalition personnel for not successfully preventing Iraqis looting museums, I have to say that AC has more than his share of nutrageous opinions, but this one takes the fruitcake.

7171. Edmund Dantes - 4/16/2003 12:34:46 AM

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.

7172. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 12:35:31 AM

By the way, if Thoughtful is still out there, she should take note that the U.S. shut down the Iraq/Syria pipeline.

7173. Edmund Dantes - 4/16/2003 12:36:51 AM

7174. vonKreedon - 4/16/2003 1:16:09 AM

Yep, they sure did build some stuff. Since Indy has these pictures I imagine that Blix and Baradei and Tommy Franks all have had these and then some.

7175. RickNelson - 4/16/2003 7:54:21 AM

VonKreedon,

I also searched last night. I didn't find any explicit statements Kerry might have made regarding Iraq harboring terrorists. However, that has been, as you pointed out, only rhetoric of the Bush admin. until Abu Abbas was found. Then, is he the only one?

Dantes,

Any follow-up comments you wish to make? The implied reality that Iraq had and used its capability to restore factory production to create weapons still hasn't provided proof of WPM. However, I saw the FrontLine reports and tape-photos of reactor magnets and tubing as reported by the Bush Admin. I believe if enough searching is done, something will turn up. However, I am also suspicious of Syria's role toward hiding Saddam's secret programs.

Lastly, has anyone seen reports other than a quick blurb by the BBC that the marines have called for engineers to volunteer? How are things in Basra and Um Qsar? Or Mosul, Kirkuk and any other metroplitan area? One would assume that sparse regions would have less affect from the war.

7176. alistairConnor - 4/16/2003 7:56:18 AM

Message # 7158 Pinscher,

Yes, they obviously are just sitting back, kicking out their heels now that the war's over.

Well, they managed to protect the Oil Ministry from day one. It's a matter of priorities, as I said.

I can't imagine any American field commander willingly turning down a request for protection against looters from hospital personnel. That surely would be in breach of professional ethics, as well as common humanity. Many such requests were made. There must have been orders from the top to ignore such requests. The people who gave the orders are the war criminals.

7177. alistairConnor - 4/16/2003 8:04:31 AM

With respect to protecting the museum, it's harder to make a case for deliberate inaction. I think it just never registered on their radar. Despite repeated warnings before the war, and urgent calls for help during the looting, it didn't occur to them that any serious person could care about protecting Iraq's cultural heritage.

Does that make it any less of a crime?

7178. alistairConnor - 4/16/2003 8:06:34 AM

Fisk is an unreliable reporter, particularly for this war.

While I dislike his florid style and constant editorializing, he gets his facts right.

Or do you have evidence that the Interior and Oil ministries were trashed, just like all the others?

7179. alistairConnor - 4/16/2003 8:21:22 AM

So, Acey wacey, they went looking for Al Qaeda and they found Abu Abbas.

Near enough.

I guess if they find a couple of tear gas grenades, that will do on the WMD count.

7180. alistairConnor - 4/16/2003 8:22:54 AM

I'll tell you what Ace : there are terrorists living in Damascus.

There are others living in Israel.

Hey, London's crawling with them.

Well... where do you want to go today?

7181. marjoribanks - 4/16/2003 9:14:05 AM

Once again the mindless hawks obfuscate and purposely mislead in order to further a highly questionable argument. Now the arrest of old Abu Abbas is "proof" that Iraq harbors terrorists. What happened to WMD as justification for the War? What happened to the alleged Al-Qaida connection?

As happened with regard to Afghanistan, the mindless hawks do a disservice to the very real motivations for war by erecting meaningless smoke screens like democracy and women's rights and now the presence of old terrorists like Abbas.

By those standards, everyone harbors terrorists. Yes, Syria has some, Saudi Arabia has some, Israel has some, even the US has some. Should we look at the continued and extended presence of proven IRA terrorists in the US as justification enough for invasion plans by the UK and allies?

It's so degraded and stupid an argument, and the back-slapping so terribly worthless that once again once is left with the impression that the mindless hawks are genuinely the only ones fooled by their third-rate hackery.

7182. marjoribanks - 4/16/2003 9:22:26 AM

I find the apologia issued by rote about the unconscionable destruction of the Baghdad Archives and Museum similarly unconvincing. It is a big, giant, colossal, fuck-up and immediately makes the US's job in persuading the world of its intentions much harder and potentially ridiculously more expensive.

There is no good enough excuse to cover up this fuck-up. Governments in the region have come and gone, nations have fallen and risen, the US has invaded and will leave soon enough - those records and that art was eternal and the loss is a black mark in global history that will not be erased or alleviated no matter what the results of the US invasion.

100 years from now, Iraq may be a functioning democracy, and the beacon for the ME as the Wolfowitzes envision. But their mother lode of historical memory will still most likely be gone, and the blame for this crime against humanity will still be laid at the hands of a momentarily careless and callous occupying force.

Shame on those who would dishonestly paper over this loss and make shameless arguments to justify the idiotic decision-making that led to it.

7183. marjoribanks - 4/16/2003 9:32:15 AM

Don't be surprised to read in some tiny newspiece, in some weeks, that Abu Abbas has been released because of a standing behind-the-scenes agreement between Israel and Palestine to give amnesty to criminals who acted before a certain date.

7184. marjoribanks - 4/16/2003 9:35:02 AM

Having said all of the above, I'll reserve my final judgement about the crime against humanity involved in the Baghdad Museum losses for some time. It is entirely possible that the museum staff themselves lifted the most valuable and important items and in any case much of it may be returned in exchange for US tax dollars.

It looks very bad right now, but I allow the possibility that it may not work out to be quite as bad given some months of sleuthing and ransom-paying.

7185. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 9:59:47 AM

1) Explain to me why it is somehow "dirty pool" to have multiple reasons for an action. The left continues to whine that we had too many good reasons for dethroning Saddam; apparently we had so many good reasons to take this action that the left conisiders it "unfair," and demands that we eliminate any superfluouis reasons until we're down to a workable one or two reasons.

The left, incidentally, usually has contradictory multiple reasons for the disasterous policies it supports, and yet never has a problem with that.

2) Third rate hackery? I'll tell you what third-rate hackery is: Claiming an equivalence between terrorists being in Baghdad and New York and Tel Aviv, apparently blissfully unaware that the terrorists are actively hunted in two of those cities and actively welcomed and feted in the third.

7186. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 10:02:02 AM

Majori, there were also lots of terrorists on the four airplanes that crashed into the earth on 9-11. Perhaps we should have bombed those planes too, right?

After all, there were terrorists in them. Just the same as terrorists being in Baghdad. No difference at all. It is entirely irrelevant whether the "regimes" in question -- Saddam in one case, butchered stewardresses and rapidly exsanguinating pilots in the other -- welcomed the terrorists or attempted to fight them off.

7187. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 10:06:18 AM

Many on the antiamerican, antiwestern luddite left seem confused by this point, so let me explain.

Yes, it is true that there are terrorists in London and Berlin. But do not be deceived -- there are actually highly professional and highly effective special police and intelligence services actively seeking to root those terrorists out, surveilling them, following them, tapping them, bugging them, and occasionally imprisoning them.

Contrast this with the situation in Baghdad and Damascus, where terrorist organizations are allowed to run offices openly on the major boulevard and conduct terrorist related business through the state's institutions (especially its banks).

I hope that this once and for explains the difference to the terrorist-loving left between the terrorists in London and those in Baghdad, and why it makes sense to invade one but not the other.*

*Oooops-- I keep forgetting how confused the left is on this point; I should have been more specific. I meant it makes sense to invade Baghdad, not London. I know that if I didn't make this clear, many of you would be confused once again.

7188. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 10:17:59 AM

You see, the decision to "bomb" a state is not made simply upon the question of whether or not terrorists are present in a state. Were that the case, we would bomb ourselves, and of course we don't want that!!! (Again, don't be confused-- we will not be bombing Lackawana, New York or Portland OR any time soon.)

The question turns not on the presence of terrorists, but upon the posture of the local government to those terrorists. See, we have decided that it is probably more effective to have London's Special Branch keep tabs on terrorists than it would be to, you know, simply bomb London. That might kill a few terrorists, but the chaos caused would cripple London's capacity to track the rest; in fact, bombing London might cause Londoners to no longer wish to cooperate with us in the war on terrorism at all!!!!

On the other hand, the Special Branch is not bugging and tapping and following the terrorists, such as convicted terroristic murderer Abu Abbas, present in Baghdad. See, Baghdad actually likes terrorists like Abu Abbas and gives them something called "safe harbor." Again, don't be confused-- there are no harbors in Baghdad; it's just an expression. But here by "safe harbor" we mean that the terrorists are not facing any state surveillance, harassment, or threat of imprisonment.

Ergo, the option we had in the case of London-- let the Special Branch take care of the problem -- would not seem to actually exist in Baghdad!!!


I hope this has cleared matters up for the idiotic left. I understand that here I am explaining things in great detail that an eight year old retarded child already implicitly understands, but the left continues to profess profound confusion on the point. So I just thought I would clear things up for them, once and for all.

7189. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 10:25:39 AM

Let me just ask a few questions to test your new knowledge:

1) Terrorists are present in four cities. In three of those cities, London, New York, and Tel Aviv, the terrorists are hunted like the criminals they are. In the third city, Damascus, they are allowed to set up shop openly and use the country's banks and diplomatic bags to move money and materiel.

Which city would it make the most sense to bomb?

a) New York, because it's got lots of Jews

b) Tel Aviv, because it's got lots of Jews

c) London, because it's got lots of Jews

d) Damascus, because, of all four cities, it is the only city that welcomes and deliberately harbors and supports the terrorists

e) All of the above, I can't tell the difference between them, except that three of those cities have lots of Jews



2) Who among the following would be subject to an "aiding and abetting of a known criminal" charge?

a) The police officer who drives the criminal to the jail, because he gives the criminal a ride and thus "aids" him

b) The judge who sentences the criminal to prison, because he thereby gives the criminal room and board thus "aids" him

c) The criminal's accomplice, who destroys evidence of his wrongdoing and hides his ill-gotten loot for him during his term of imprisonment

d) All of the above-- I can't distinguish between any of them; don't they all aid and abet a known criminal in a way?

7190. Edmund Dantes - 4/16/2003 10:30:19 AM

Yep, they sure did build some stuff. Since Indy has these pictures I imagine that Blix and Baradei and Tommy Franks all have had these and then some.

In which case, both these statements you criticized are true:

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past."

"And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons."

You ridicule them, but they're true. They don't make claims greater than can be supported by the satellite photographs, i.e., what is going on in those buildings. The statements say that we know what these facilities were used for in the past, and now the Iraqis have rebuilt them. Those are facts.

Clinton bombed these facilities in 1998 immediately after inspectors (who'd been in Iraq for seven years) were evacuated. So all your sarcasm about inspections begs the question, "Why did Clinton bomb them? With inspectors there, didn't he know what was in those facilities?"

Presumably he believed that even with an ongoing inspections program he needed to bomb those buildings. Why?

7191. Edmund Dantes - 4/16/2003 10:31:33 AM

Any follow-up comments you wish to make? The implied reality that Iraq had and used its capability to restore factory production to create weapons still hasn't provided proof of WPM.

See previous post.

7192. Macnas - 4/16/2003 10:32:13 AM

Ace, regarding the harbouring of terrorists, a lot does depend on the position in law for that particular country.

The only real example I can speak of is that of the IRA having offices in Dublin, under the auspices of the political wing Sinn Fein. I think from what I've heard on the news, that’s the reasoning behind Syria's acceptance of these offices. Bluff or not, it still is an awkward one to tackle.

7193. marjoribanks - 4/16/2003 10:32:50 AM

The usual insanity from AceofSpades, though appearing more juvenile in this instance because I haven't had to read such astounding drivel in this forum for a while.

,i>1)Explain to me why it is somehow "dirty pool" to have multiple reasons for an action.

It's not "dirty pool", ApeofHades. It's stupid and transparently concocted. There are some good realpolitik reasons for the US to engage in this injection of fearsome power. And then there are asinine rhetorical tutus arrayed on the hippo. Your use of this Abu Abbas is one particularly frayed tutu.

The left continues to whine that we had too many good reasons for dethroning Saddam; apparently we had so many good reasons to take this action that the left conisiders it "unfair," and demands that we eliminate any superfluouis (sic) reasons until we're down to a workable one or two reasons.

I have to repeat again that only you blinkered buffoons seem to be genuinely won over by your nakedly unpersuasive rhetorical tactics.

Memo to Spades:

1) The arrest of Abu Abbas in no way goes toward "proving" one diddly-squat iota of the Bush regime's monumentally recorded apologia for this campaign.

2) The astoundingly incompetent demonstration that culiminated in the loss of everything in one of world civilization's treasure troves will have to be reckoned for.

3) The word 'terrorism', used by the like of you, carries almost no meaning in the world of geopolitics. Are you so very ignorant that you do not know that the US harbors many many people directly equivalent to Abu Abbas? read up on the IRA, Irishman.

4) #7186 is meaningless drivel.

7194. marjoribanks - 4/16/2003 10:35:41 AM

)Contrast this with the situation in Baghdad and Damascus, where terrorist organizations are allowed to run offices openly on the major boulevard and conduct terrorist related business through the state's institutions (especially its banks).

Syria is going to argue very convincingly to the entire world that Hizbollah is not a terrorist group but an organization of Freedom Fighters supported by the common man. The US itself accepted this designation until comparitively very recently.

In any case, baboon-boy, how would you like it if Castro took the US to the World Court for harboring terrorist groups intent on overthrowing the internationally acknowledged and formally recognized government.

7195. Macnas - 4/16/2003 10:36:24 AM

And before anyone jumps down my throat about Ireland harbouring terrorists, the State has imprisoned IRA members since its foundation, and hung more IRA members than the UK ever did. IRA membership is a crime here, and carries a long sentence.

7196. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 10:38:51 AM

Syria is going to argue very convincingly to the entire world that Hizbollah is not a terrorist group but an organization of Freedom Fighters supported by the common man. The US itself accepted this designation until comparitively very recently.

How did the U.S. accept this designation until recently?

7197. marjoribanks - 4/16/2003 10:41:28 AM

Go look up when the US designated Hizbollah as a terrorist group.

7198. Edmund Dantes - 4/16/2003 10:42:41 AM

Don't be surprised to read in some tiny newspiece, in some weeks, that Abu Abbas has been released because of a standing behind-the-scenes agreement between Israel and Palestine to give amnesty to criminals who acted before a certain date.

Would this "behind-the-scenes agreement" be the ultra-secret Interim Agreement witnessed by representatives from the US, Russia, Jordan, European Union, Egypt, and Norway?

7199. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 10:45:15 AM

Majoribanks has, and always will have, a third world mentality. He presumes to lecture his cultural and intellectual superiors on how we are to run the world, while he and his ilk snipe from the sidelines, contributing nothing to the world, unable even to feed themselves, a plague of welfare-whores on the face of the earth.


And Majori, you and your little terrorist-loving third-world welfare-kings can call Hizbollah "Freedom Fighters" all you like; it doesn't make it true.

There IS a distinction between non-terroristic insurgents and terrorists, although the third-world losers of the world attempt to claim there is not. It has ALWAYS been accepted that insurgents may target policemen, soldiers, and leaders of the regime they seek to overthrow.

The difference between terrorists and non-terroristic insurgengs is that terrorists target civilians, often almost exclusively-- and they do that primarily because, though they're only good at one thing (exporting death and destruction), they're still not as good as that as the West, and so they content themselves with, as they call them, "soft targets."

Arabs/third world fucks like you can't dream of taking on a fucking Western soldier. So you attack unarmed civilians, blowing up bar mitzvah parties for 14 year old girls, and call yourselves heroic "Freedom Fighers."

Why is that the Palestinians' target of choice seems to be children? Why don't these heroes go up against the IDF more frequently?

7200. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 10:47:24 AM

But Majoribanks, do endeavor to apologize on behalf of terrorists. Do continue to sing their song, that there is no difference between US forces targeting Al Qaeda fighters and Al Qaeda fighers targeting stockbrokers and secretaries; all are equivalent in the eyes of a third-world puling fuck blinded by envy and the need to repair his battered psyche.

7201. marjoribanks - 4/16/2003 10:48:45 AM

Let's give a round of applause to the ApeofHades, ladies and gentlemen.

Now run along, baboon-boy.

7202. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 10:52:35 AM

What did I say that was incorrect? You presumed to lecture me on the difference between insurgents and state-sponsored forces; I explained to you that that was an irrelevant distinction. The distinction is between those who target legitimate targets (generally, police, soldiers, leaders) and those who simply target civilians.

Arabs and Indian fucks like you can't of course dream of taking on Western forces in an actual fight, so you make excuses and invent reasons why it's okay to just avoid the fighting forces entirely and simply go after the unarmed, defenseless, often female civilians themselves.

Yeah. You guys are really heroic. There is no courage like third-world courage, the "courage" to slash out an unarmed, 110 pound stewardress' throat with a straightrazor.

7203. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 10:56:36 AM

So tell me once again: In what sense is Hizbollah non-terrorist? Just because Arabs, Muslim fanatics, and their various envy-filled apologists-in-arms like you claim they aren't terrorists cuts no ice with me.

Do they, or do they not, have a habit of targeting civilians?

If so, they are terrorists. If they were fighting Israel's fighting forces almost exclusively, I'd say they were insurgents (insurgents I might disagree with, but not criminals).

But they don't. Because they can't. They occasionally shoot an RPG at a guardpost, but chiefly they're dedicated to taking on the elite fighting forces known as Alyssa Goldberg's Bar Mitzvah.

And puling fucks with a scarred third-world mentality like you apologize for them-- because you can't beat us playing by the civilized rules, you simply claim those rules irrelevant and become moral monsters, slaughtering children and women and calling yourselves "heroes" for doing so.

7204. marjoribanks - 4/16/2003 10:57:03 AM

Rave on, Ape.

7205. concerned - 4/16/2003 10:57:21 AM

Re. 7177 -

Of course it does. As a necessary requisite to be a war crime, what loss of life or human suffering has been engendered by this noncombatant Iraqi behavior in the specified museum(s)? None, of course. It's somewhat bemusing that you would fecklessly trivialize and misapply the concept of 'war crimes' so egregiously wrt something that clearly does not meet that standard.

7206. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 10:57:34 AM

Ape? I don't have the complexion, Johnny.

7207. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 10:58:14 AM

You really have some nerve addressing your superiors by terms like "Ape," you ridiculous envious wog buffoon.

7208. Macnas - 4/16/2003 11:02:46 AM

I'm not getting between the two of you, but there is no call for that kind of shite.

7209. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 11:06:52 AM

Fuck you. I will not have this stupid terrorist apologist, who certainly lied to get his fucking Green Card or citizenship, sit here and instruct us all with that superior, pious tone that Hizbollah, an organization that spends most of its time butchering innocent and unarmed women and children, that they are merely "Freedom Fighters supported by the common man."

Fuck him, fuck you, and fuck anyone else who deals in this sort of apologism on behalf of killers.

7210. concerned - 4/16/2003 11:06:59 AM

Macnas -

That qualifies as mutual grooming with them.

7211. Macnas - 4/16/2003 11:08:28 AM

Ace, are angry for a living or is it just a hobby?

7212. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 11:08:58 AM

I'd be interested to know if Wog Buffoon mentioned his belief that Hizbollah was a "Freedom Force supported by the common man" during any of his Green Card or citizenship-application interviews.

7213. alistairConnor - 4/16/2003 11:09:14 AM

Ace is playing the game psychiatrists call "Rapo".

He's begging to be banned, so he can squeal "Rape!"

7214. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 11:11:10 AM

Why would I be in any danger of being banned? I didn't start with the name-calling.

Oh, wait-- he calls me Ape, but I can't call him wog, right? Because he's a minority.

7215. marjoribanks - 4/16/2003 11:14:47 AM

ban?

No bans, please. Ace's shambling lunatic presence should not be banned, maybe we can help him.

7216. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 11:16:29 AM

Envious Wog Scumbag,

We await your explication regarding Hizbollah's deliberate (and near-exclusive) targeting of unarmed civilians, and how (apparently for Arabs/third world scumbags only) that fails to make one a "terrorist."

7217. Macnas - 4/16/2003 11:17:13 AM

There is a difference though, between changing the letters of your Mote name so that they mean something else, and using racist terms.

Unless there is another reason for calling you Ape that has racist origins that I'm not aware of, if so fair is fair in the inferno at least.

7218. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 11:18:56 AM

Explicate.

You made the claim.

Back it up.

By what reasonable definition of "terrorist" would Hizbollah not qualify?

Ahhhhh-- but that is the point, right? You wish to claim there isn't any reasonable definition of "terrorist" at all, thus obscuring the moral distinction between types of fighting that we Westerners are good at (fighting against other enemy soldiers, taking great pains to avoid targeting civilians) and the type of "fighting" that third-world subhumans such as yourself are capable of ("fighting" against an unarmed stewardress you oughtweigh by 120 pounds, detonating bombs in children's birthday parties, etc.)

7219. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 11:24:18 AM

Majoribanks' fractured psyche bubbles and seethes with resentment against caucasians. His entire worldview is dedicated to reassuring himself that he is not inferior, despite all available evidence.

This is what causes his virulent anti-american hatred-- because he and his kind are so ill-accomplished in most human endeavors, he lathers himself into a righteous froth explaining to all who will listen that his "culture" and his "understanding of the world" actually make him superior.

I haven't injected race and culture into this. I merely made it explicit. And if he's going to flail about with his caucasian-hating, "We're smarter because we invented curry" attitude, I'll remind him he's a goddamned wog buffoon. He came here. No one here went there, for Christ's sakes.

7220. marjoribanks - 4/16/2003 11:25:54 AM

ApeofHades,

I suggest that you look up the history of Hizbollah and figure out when it is that the US designated it a terrorist group.

The circle-jerk that you get your information from should do so as well.

7221. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:26:45 AM

In Message # 7194, Marj wrote: Syria is going to argue very convincingly to the entire world that Hizbollah is not a terrorist group but an organization of Freedom Fighters supported by the common man. The US itself accepted this designation until comparitively very recently.

I was fairly shocked to read that the U.S. government recently considered Hezbollah an organization of freedom fighters. I kind of figured that the U.S. would have no love for a group it thinks responsible for the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon that killed 200 Americans.

And after looking it up, it appears that Hezbollah did make the State Department's original list of terrorist groups in the 1990s. Marj needs to explain just when the U.S. thought of that group as "freedom fighters".

7222. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 11:27:19 AM

Let's call a spade a spade. Majoribanks instinctively apologizes for, and claims solidarity with, anyone whose skin is darker than, say, Woody Allen's.

It would be hard to understand his kneejerk embrace of Hizbollah otherwise.

If he is coddling monsters and championing terrorism out of some sense of third world chic or racial solidarity, hey, can't we all play at the same game?

7223. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 11:29:00 AM

PM--

Wait. MajorTerroristApologist got a factum [let's use the pidgin Latin he favors] wrong?

Won't that require a corregidum of some sort?

I'm fucking shocked.

7224. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 11:30:55 AM

I suggest that you look up the history of Hizbollah and figure out when it is that the US designated it a terrorist group.


Apparently since the US began keeping an official list of such things, more than a decade ago.

Now that we've established that-- tell me more about these "Freedom Fighters" who detonate C4 studded with nails and ball-bearings on commuter buses.

I need more Tales of Third World Heroism.

7225. marjoribanks - 4/16/2003 11:33:45 AM

I kind of figured that the U.S. would have no love for a group it thinks responsible for the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon that killed 200 Americans.

And after looking it up, it appears that Hezbollah did make the State Department's original list of terrorist groups in the 1990s..

Well, that says it all.

Thank you for playing, Ape.

I'll check back in some time to see what meaningless drivel you generate.

7226. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 11:37:06 AM

Giggle. You're claiming victory? You've now been routed on every single point, Wog Terrorist Apologist.

And there's an example of why the Third World fails. They just blame everything on America, refusing to look inward. And they define "victory" so terribly low that even they can manage to win most of the time, thus inflating themselves with a false sense of achievment.

No wonder you guys were all shocked to see American tanks in Baghdad. You have so divorced yourself from objective reality that your occasional unavoidable collisions with it cause you cognitive dissonance.

7227. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:37:15 AM

Nice try, Marj, but no dice:

The word you should have put in bold from my remark is this: "And after looking it up, it appears that Hezbollah did make the State Department's original list of terrorist groups in the 1990s."

7228. vonKreedon - 4/16/2003 11:37:41 AM

Indy - Yes, those statements are true, but untrue when put in the context of the speech in which Bush says:

The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.

The sattelite evidence is then quite obviously being put forward as proof of the Iraqi regime producing such weapons. The President claims in his speech that we are certain that the regime has and is producing WMD, but the intel that this certain is based upon has yet to support such a conclusion.

Regarding why Clinton bombed them, convenient dog wagging targets would be my guess.

7229. Edmund Dantes - 4/16/2003 11:40:12 AM

PM: I wondered about that but could only find a list back to 1994. So I didn't bother to post, thinking the rebuttal would be:

1) Attacks on a U.S. marine barracks aren't terrorism because it's a military target.

2) 1994 is (perhaps) relatively recently if the organization has been around since 1982.

However, I think what banks implies contrarily is absurd: that "the US itself accepted this designation [an organization of Freedom Fighters supported by the common man] comparitively very recently."

Not explicitly labeling them terrorists--especially if no such official designation existed--does not by omission mean we accept they are the modern incarnation of the Green Mountain Boys.

7230. concerned - 4/16/2003 11:41:51 AM

I'm shocked that you would ascribe such total duplicity to x42's actions. Even I haven't accused him of deliberately bombing targets with, at the time, no suspected military or terrorist significance.

7231. concerned - 4/16/2003 11:42:24 AM

My previous is wrt 7228.

7232. alistairConnor - 4/16/2003 11:43:24 AM

Yes, VonCretin, but can't you understand that it doesn't matter what the facts are? As Ace points out, the important thing is that a majority of (voting?) Americans believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and that they believe that there are chemical weapons there (or suddenly, in Syria instead). The fact that the people were lied to, is of no importance.

The US can do whatever the fuck it wants.

7233. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 11:43:46 AM

Yeah, that's fucking ridiculous.

But for the Leftism Means Never Having to Say I'm Sorry crowd, it's just an easy, glib assertion.

Leftists are the only people I know who can self-righteously scold the CIA for giving Saddam Hussein anthrax in one breath and then claim Saddam Hussein doesn't have any anthrax in the other.

7234. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 11:45:32 AM

AC,

What was the UN's position on Saddam's WMD as of 1998?

[Answer: It said he had lots of WMD.]

Do you think Saddam voluntarily and Secretly destroyed his remaining stockpiles of WMD since then?

Yes?

or

No?

7235. concerned - 4/16/2003 11:47:50 AM

The US can do whatever the fuck it wants.

Yeah, and hearing LW bullshit gets us real irritated.

7236. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:49:16 AM

ED --

However, I think what banks implies contrarily is absurd: that "the US itself accepted this designation [an organization of Freedom Fighters supported by the common man] comparitively very recently."

Yes, that's what got my attention too. It was the U.S. considering them "freedom fighters" -- when I knew we blamed the group for killing U.S. Marines in the early 1980s -- that raised my eyebrows.

I googled the words and all I could find were Arab views of the group as freedom fighters. But I doubt the U.S. Government has ever looked at them as anything other than a group it must tolerate (pre 9-11).

7237. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:51:10 AM

Nowadays, of course, we don't tolerate terrorist groups, even if they are thought of as freedom fighters in some parts of the world.

7238. concerned - 4/16/2003 11:51:14 AM

By 'LW bullshit', I refer, of course, to the typical disjointed melange of non-factual pressure-group cause-of the week propaganda spew liberally laced with Marxist dialectic that is an insult to the intelligence of any adolescent with a 3-digit IQ.

7239. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 11:52:42 AM

The US can do whatever the fuck it wants.

By Jove, I think she's got it!

Hey, asshole, it's about time for you French faggits and New Zealand pacifist assholes to put away your childish delusions. You are not running the show. 90% of your anger and hatred (yes, hatred, you puling faggig) isn't over this decision to take out Saddam specificially; you're angry chiefly because we 1) had the power to do it and 2) didn't need your help and 3) didn't ask for your permission and 4) did it anyway even when you squealed like a stuck pig about it.

You don't count.

What you think doesn't matter.

You have as much influence on history as an Australian aboriginal. If we don't listen to him, why should we listen to you?

You contribute nothing to global security but you demand to make half of the decisions (and all of the big decisions). We politely decline to allow YOU to run OUR military and foreign policy.

Do you get it now, French Fuck?

We don't care what you think.

And if we get our way, we're going to boycott your economy into a recession.

7240. vonKreedon - 4/16/2003 11:55:46 AM

I am not positive about this, and do not have the time or inclination to search (so I should just shut the fuck up, but I won't), but if my memory serves Hizbollah doesn't fit the Ace definition of terrorist vs. freedom fighter:
There IS a distinction between non-terroristic insurgents and terrorists, although the third-world losers of the world attempt to claim there is not. It has ALWAYS been accepted that insurgents may target policemen, soldiers, and leaders of the regime they seek to overthrow.


Hizbollah has made its name in attacking Isreali and SLA military forces in southern Lebanon, eventually forcing the Isrealis out and the SLA out of existence and "freeing" southern Lebanon. Since then they occasionally rocket northern Isreali Kibbutzim and guard posts in the Sheeba Farms area of Northern Isreal. I don't think that Hizbollah has been associated with the spate of suicide bombings in Isreal.

7241. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 11:55:54 AM

As always, I am the Ambassador of Love.

But honestly, the French have had fifty years to come to grips with their irrelevance. Given their venality and cowardice, there's just no percetage in playing along with their delusions anymore.

Sure, it was cute during the Cold War; we all pretended to be impressed by the Force de Frappe. But honestly--

We don't care what you think.

Are you getting that, you French Faggits?

You just don't count. You never have, really; at least not for 100 years.

7242. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 12:02:52 PM

I just want to know.

Honestly:

Why would we listen to the French or New Zealanders? They have no more power than, say, Niger and a few other oil-rich third world countries put together.

And yet of course we don't hop to at their bidding.

Why would we do so for the French or New Zealanders?

I'm honest when I ask: Do you think that you are entitled to have more of a say in the US's foreign policy merely because you are European/caucasian/white?

Because that's all I can figure. I don't hear Morocco claiming it should have a privileged position in deciding the affairs of the world; and yet countries which are scarcely more important miliatarily than Morocco, like Belgium and New Zealand and, yes, France, claim that they should.

Why?

What's the difference?

White skin privilege? What?

7243. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 12:03:13 PM

7244. Jenerator - 4/16/2003 12:07:59 PM

I have died and gone to heaven.

ACE!!!!!!

7245. PelleNilsson - 4/16/2003 1:18:55 PM

Most invigorating debate. Keep up the good work, gentlemen.

7246. vonKreedon - 4/16/2003 1:35:14 PM

gentlemen!?!

7247. PelleNilsson - 4/16/2003 1:50:40 PM

Perhaps I used the term loosely. Perhaps 'motherfuckers' would have been more appropriate. But one doesn't want to appear vulgar, does one? After all, this is a refined forum.

7248. judithathome - 4/16/2003 1:57:02 PM

Pelle, you can use my trademarked (s)™ anytime you wish, at no cost.

7249. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 2:05:48 PM

Jen,

Hi.

.....

I'd like to extend my message to the liberals, too:

You don't matter.

This war, and your repulsive conduct during it, is your Vietman, and like Vietnam, the public will not soon forget.

You don't count.

What you think doesn't matter.

And you will continue to be more and more marginalized until the last of your wispy-haired hippy assholes croaks out and FINALLY gives up his US citizenship.

Thank you.

7250. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 2:32:58 PM

I know how much you all loved Wiz's ingenious, uprorarious, and utterly unpredictable Foto-Funnies, so I also know how much you must be missing those hysterical visual satires.

Being the Ambassador of Love and Minister of Doing You Right, I feel I have a duty to pick up the slack. So here's a Foto-Funny which I'm sure you'll find just as delicious and delightful as any by that incorrigible scamp Wizzo!:

7251. alistairconnor - 4/16/2003 3:55:28 PM

Why would we listen to the French or New Zealanders? ... I'm honest when I ask: Do you think that you are entitled to have more of a say in the US's foreign policy merely because you are European/caucasian/white?

Well, make up your mind Ace, are you a white supremacist or aren't you? You can't have it both ways, you know.

As for the idea that France's position was somehow more significant than that of other nations : That is a peculiarly American obsession, carefully constructed to hide from your poor pitiful selves that pretty much the whole world was against you on this issue. What about your northern and southern neighbours? Are you going to boycott tortillas and... and... whatever it is that Canada produces?

(And as for New Zealand, I doubt whether anyone other than you and me actually noticed that it opposed the war.)

Look at the Security Council. The Vote That Never Was went 11-4 against the US. Let's see : it turns out that the "white" nations were split, and the wogs were unanimously against war.

White Nations : 4 in favour (US, Spain [borderline case, rather swarthy], Bulgaria, UK); 3 against (Germany, France, Russia).
"wog" nations : 8 against.

(though these numbers change if you want to accept Mexico and Argentina as "white" nations. Somehow I think you don't.)

7252. Al D - 4/16/2003 4:55:03 PM

alistair
I don't suppose yu will be visiting our great nation in the near or far future. Your loss. Of course, we are a poor lot. Perhaps if better people left Europe to come here things would be different. We just have to accept the fact that the rest of the world hates us and move on. Even some who are citizens don't have much love for America; but I do, and Ace does, though he is often a bit crude.

the thing is, though, that Ace, in his fowl, arrogant way is mostly right on the mark. France really doesn't count for much, except great cheap wine and excellent cheeze. And for the most part very nice, polite people. Although as of late, I have my serious doubts about you.

7253. marjoribanks - 4/16/2003 4:57:43 PM

White supremacy is yet a giant evolutionary step ahead for the likes of AceofHades. Getting there will require a couple of generations of desisting from gibbering and hooting and smearing their own feces about their faces.

Besides the mild amusement derived from poking such animals with sticks, it is informative to watch just how soon they revert from being the self-styled champions of the Iraqi people to the "wog"-hating, two-a-penny, bottom-of-the-evolutionary-barrel racists that we all know they are.

Thanks for the laughs, ApeofHades.

7254. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 4:59:52 PM

Sahib Softass,

I'm still wondering if you mentioned your belief that Hezbollah, which has killed American citizens, was a group of "freedom fighters supported by the common man" when you were lying your way to obtain a fraudulent American citizenship.

7255. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 5:02:03 PM

Willy Wogg-a,

At any point during the process, did it occur to you that perhaps you were duty-bound to stop supporting american-killing terrorist groups?

It makes me laugh when you spout these sorts of primative tribal allegiances and solidarity with your third-world barbarian brothers, and then have the gall to say that the US should let in more treasonous third-world baboons like yourself.

7256. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 5:03:03 PM

Because, you know, you people contribute so much to our nation.

Why, where would our foreign terrorists hide and find comfort, if there were not a sea of like-minded third-world baboons for them to swim in?

7257. Al D - 4/16/2003 5:12:29 PM

Ace
Why are you stooping to banks level? Besides, he cain't hep it, he's read too much Fisk.

7258. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 5:15:21 PM

Because it is outrageous that this filthy cocksucker lied his way into some form of US residency when he continues to unapologetically support terrorism, so long as it's carried out by his third-world brethren.

The act of becoming a US citizen carries with it the implied responsibility of leaving your former tribal allegiances back in the jungle they were spawned in.

But this filthy vermin has the gall to lie his way into this country and then advocate on behalf of a terrorist organization which has killed hundreds of American soldiers.

Tell me, AlD, at what point do some people begin to care?

7259. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 5:18:46 PM

It is one thing to be antiwar. It is another to begin piously lecturing us that Hizbollah are "Freedom Fighters supported by the common man."

I understand when Syrians say such things. They are, after all, essentially enemies of the United States. But it is rather galling when a supposed US citizen spouts them.

No wonder he's such a lover of Clinton. It was Clinton's new-voter citizenship-bazaare that lowered our standards, both in terms of educational requirements and background checking, and flooded our nation with vermin the likes of Sahib Softass.

I have no problem with Indians who are loyal US citizens. But this fucker is clearly not a loyal US citizen.

7260. marjoribanks - 4/16/2003 5:21:03 PM

ApeofHades,

Here are some points for you that perhaps your master will interpret via your preferred lingo of feces-arrangement.

1) Hizbollah has long been defended as a legitimate group of freedom fighters by its sponsors. The United States has, for decades, done business just fine with those sponsors including the primary Hizbollah backer -Syria. Maybe I should spell it out in bananas, but the US still has open diplomatic relations with Damascus.

2) The United States has a long and inglorious history of sponsoring known terrorist groups, and has sheltered their leaders on occasions too numerous to mention. Go knuckle-scraping along to a library and peruse the history of US funding and support for the IRA or the copious records of American-based terrorist groups acting in Cuba and other parts of Latin America. You may also wish to read up on the School for the Americas.

3) As I've pointed out, know-nothing, empty-headed, fifth-rate bigots like you do nothing to further the current administration's arguments about war, terrorism, Islam, the Middle East, anything of any note. On the contrary, the sight of you capering naked, daubed in your own excreta, does a disservice to this country and its goals. You make Sayyid Al-Qutb sound like the discerning prophet he wasn't.

4) Now, ApeofHades, you can play with yourself in the open as much as you like uninterrupted by me. When I check back in much later, I'll assess how much further you've slid down the evolutionary ladder.

7261. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 5:23:01 PM

You can tell that Sahib Softass has spent time in Arab culture. Arabs are always fond of begining sentences, "What you don't know is ..." or "What you don't understand is..."

There is a definite cultural bias in favor of asserting intellectual superiority there.

7262. marjoribanks - 4/16/2003 5:25:11 PM

I warned of this in the days directly after 9/11. Words become meaningless when grunted out by the likes of ApeofHades. Today's degraded word is "terrorism" which when emitted by baboons means exactly what everything else grunted out by baboons becomes - zero.

The ApeofHades is recommended to ask his master for a good definition of terrorism. When submitted here, we will see how the United States matches up to the implied rhetorical stance.

--

Toodle-oo, Ape.

7263. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 5:25:18 PM

I'm wondering if Sahib Softass would be willing to invite a couple of Marines out for drinks at a dive bar and begin lecturing them on the Freedom Fighters known as Hizbollah...?

Make sure you mention to them that Hizbollah struck a mighty blow for freedom when they killed 243 Marines with a suicide bombing, too.

7264. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 5:27:31 PM

I have defined "terrorist" as "unconventional forces which make a practice of hiding in civilian populations and deliberately targeting civilian targets, sometimes to virtual exclusivity."

Please explain to me in what way this definition is controveersial or debatable, and how it would not include Hizbollah, or any of the other third-world loser "freedom fighters" whose butchery you praise as "great victories" for your loser culture.

7265. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 5:38:09 PM

Once again, Wog, you make the typical Wog mistake of assuming that you are superior. You're not. Far from it.

You continue to make the point, which no one argues, that the US has in the past supported insurgencies/guerilla forces. NO ONE DISPUTES THIS.

NO ONE.

Understand, Wog? You are not enlightening anyone to point out that we supported guerillas in the past, including, most notoriously, the Contras.

But terrorists are not merely guerilla fighters. You have some difficulty understanding this, but given the closed nature of the culture which you come from, which champions face-saving and ego-stroking above all else, I do understand your hesistancy to engage in any introspection or consideration of the possibility you may be wrong.

Terrorists, once again, are not merely insurgents, revolutionaries, or guerilla forces. If that's all they were, you would indeed be correct that the US has supported "terrorists" in the past.

But that is not how terrorists are defined. Only uneducated, uncultured baboons like yourself claim such a ludicrous definition, because you don't seek clarity of definition, but murkiness and vagueness, so that you can claim moral equivalence with the armies of your superiors, i.e., western armies.

Terrorists do share some similarities with simple insurgents/guerillas. They both are irregular forces. I trust you have a dictionary of some kind to look up that word. And in some cases both DO attempt to hide in civilian populations, although, for most guerillas, that is only an occasional ploy; most of the time guerilllas live in the forests or jungles.

7266. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 5:38:18 PM

The PRIMARY distinction between lawful and illegal or terrorist forces is that lawful forces target MILITARY AND GOVERNMENT TARGETS ONLY; although civilians are occasionally killed, this is only incidental and "collateral" to the main object of neutralizing actual military forces or government targets.

Terrorists, on the other hand, tend to avoid military forces and government targets as generally being too difficult to attack (although they do of course take the occasional action against them). Terrorists chiefly attack civilians.

Get that?

Terrorists attack civilians. Civilians are NOT incidental or collateral targets, which are incidentally killed while attacking a legitimate target. They are, usually, the main target and the ONLY target.

That's what makes a terrorist a terrorist.


THAT is the distinction, Baboon. Not, as you would have it, whether or not insurgents and terrorists both favor jungle fatigues and AK-47s.

Once again, you will ignore this widely accepted definition of "terrorist" because it is in your interests to pretend that there is no distinction between lawful forces and terrorist forces.

You are a terrorist apologist and a traitor. Hopefully your US citizenship is not yet finalized and we will have the chance to boot you from this country.

7267. magoseph - 4/16/2003 6:14:54 PM

Now that we have found out about the illegal pipeline from Iraq to Syria, I think it is fair to speculate in respect to what the deal probably was. There is a huge desert border between Iraq and Syria. If the WMDs were two miles over the border, they were immune to any search by the inspectors or any one else for that matter. They were also available to Saddam any time he wanted to use them. Iraqi officialdom could technically deny that they possessed any WMDs even though they had access to them. The oil, of course, was the payoff for this arrangement. It was also the method of funding the Hamas suicide attacks. I believe the present attempt to expose the relationship between Iraq and Syria will intensify because the Bush administration will come under increased pressure to justify the war unless they come up with the goods.

Any comment?

7268. vonKreedon - 4/16/2003 6:34:31 PM

Ace - Regarding Hizbollah and your definition of freedom fighter vs. terrorist, see Message # 7240. I've done a tiny bit of looking since posting that and what I've found seems to confirm my impression.

Perhaps PE can come over and tell us both why we are total ignorata in thinking any of the things we think we know about Hizbollah.

7269. vonKreedon - 4/16/2003 6:37:20 PM

Mag - Seems unlikely to me as relations between Syria and Iraq have been analogous to the relations between Iran and Iraq, without the war. If you'll recall Iran greatly increased its air force in 1991 by inviting Iraqis to escape with their planes into Iran. I doubt that Saddam would trust the Assad regime with any WMD he might have had.

7270. judithathome - 4/16/2003 6:38:49 PM

Maybe he can explain why it is spelled both ways: Hizbollah and Hexbollah.


Magos, I don't think Bush has to justify the war in any way whatsoever. Most of America is satisfied with how things turned out and he doesn't really care what the rest of the world thinks.

7271. judithathome - 4/16/2003 6:39:53 PM

Well, hell...Hezbollah.

7272. concerned - 4/16/2003 6:53:13 PM

re. 7270 -

Actually, no. The Coalition has effectively assumed responsibility for Iraq's condition, at least for the time being. Of course, if we ignore the lessons of the last 25 years in the Mideast, we could simply leave and let the vultures swoop in, but the perhaps more difficult task still remains, IMO, to provide the foundation for and nurture a self-sustaining democratic form of government for Iraq, something that the First World will almost certainly benefit from.

7273. magoseph - 4/16/2003 6:56:26 PM

Seems unlikely to me as relations between Syria and Iraq have been analogous to the relations between Iran and Iraq, without the war.

Von--I don't think they are analogous because of the war between Iran and Iraq which poisoned their relationship. Syria on the other hand has been a strong backer of Hamas and radical elements in the PLO.

Magos, I don't think Bush has to justify the war in any way whatsoever.

Juds--I don't think that Bush has to justify the war but he has to run an election campaign and he has made a commitment to the world to deliver a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. To accomplish this, he will have to reconcile the Syrian situation.

7274. judithathome - 4/16/2003 7:00:06 PM

I think there is no way he can lose re-election. He is golden. No competition, won the war, 80 gazillion people think he is just like them...I could open my veins right now.

7275. concerned - 4/16/2003 7:01:26 PM

Re. 7273 -

The Coalition right now is in probably almost the best position possible to apply pressure to Bashir Assad to drop his monkey business. If nothing else, I'd be surprised if he'd be as intransigent as Saddam was, given the current state of things. Now that France claims to have come around wrt Iraq, maybe they can station peacekeepers in Damascus?

7276. concerned - 4/16/2003 7:02:58 PM

A French zone, if you will....

7277. concerned - 4/16/2003 7:09:19 PM

Re. 7274 -

It must be rather shocking to you to have a president that actually delivers on what he promises.

7278. magoseph - 4/16/2003 7:09:28 PM

I don't know what you mean, concerned. Call me obtuse, but your post doesn't seem to apply to what I was talking about. If it does, please explain.

7279. concerned - 4/16/2003 7:12:31 PM

I'm sorry. I just feel, perhaps wrongly, that Coalition pressure alone can succeed in straightening out Assad's act. It can happen, at least in part. Look at Ghaddafi and Libya.

7280. concerned - 4/16/2003 7:14:05 PM

What? No comment on my little fillip about France participating in the taming of Syria?

7281. vonKreedon - 4/16/2003 7:15:28 PM

Mag - Syria was a backer of Iran in the Iran/Iraq war and has always had a sour relationship between the Assad and Saddam Ba'ath parties. Syria/Iran have tended to back different parts of the Palestinian resistance than Iraq.

I'm still expecting PE to come over insist that I be broken by Cossacks for my duplicitous stupidity for saying any of the above. But it would be a relief from being told that I'm an traitorous American hating hypocritical liberal. For one thing in the VRW worldview the first four terms are redundant with calling me a liberal, if only our right wing colleagues could be more concise it would make it easier to take.

7282. Macnas - 4/16/2003 7:31:47 PM

Just to add a 2 bit, the Hairys, as we called them, were constantly attacking the SLA compounds and would have a go at the IDF if they could get close enough. I cannot remember any attacks on civilians, but I wouldn’t put it past them. The interfaction fighting and tribal rivalry was another big headache for all concerned.

Nonetheless they do differ from the description that Ace was using.
That being said, the IRA/INLA/IPLO etc do (did) not either, as the British army was always a target along with civilians.

Terrorism is not about trying to take on an established army, the concept of terror is to destabilize and weaken. The targeting of innocents is often deliberately used to this end, the worse the atrocity the better. There is no point in demonizing it any further, it is already demonic. It is what it is to use a trite term, and is often the only method of war open to a minority group or under-militarized forces.

The Hairys were never short of weapons, and I'm not talking AK's and RPG's, it was the heavy rockets and mines that did most damage. And as far as I know, they were in the main supplied by Syria.

7283. Al D - 4/16/2003 9:45:47 PM

To banks the only terrorists are the Jews, and the same is true of one of his favorite writers, Fisk. I have read and re-read Pity the Nation, based on his suggestion, and I find no good guys, just villians, and Hizbollah and Syria are big villians. I agree 100% with Ace that it is totally disgusting to call Hizbollah freedom fighters.

The only freedom they could be fighting for is that of the Palistinians, and it should be obvious to all that the PLA under Arafat has no interest in peace with Israel. Peace might be possible with the total destruction of Hizbollay, Hamas, the Islamic, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.

7284. jayackroyd - 4/16/2003 10:36:38 PM

Terrorists attack civilians. Civilians are NOT incidental or collateral targets, which are incidentally killed while attacking a legitimate target. They are, usually, the main target and the ONLY target.

So, Ace, you would agree that the Blitz, the fire bombing at Dresden and Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and any number of vietnam bombing runs were terrorist acts? That John Kerry is a terrorist? You'd agree that the Cold War rested on state terrorism? You'd agree, in particular, that the (still current) position of the US is that it would launch nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack on Europe means the cold war US position was a terrorist position?

You'd agree that the continued development of American biological and chemical weapons, in violation of treaty, is evidence that the US considers terrorist action among the tools of statecraft?

Do you have one single principle, Ace, that you can hold to?

And why don't you have the stones to post in person, rather than hide behind a pseudonym? What are you afraid of?

Maybe you just need to face facts, get out of the closet, and feel better about yourself.

7285. Edmund Dantes - 4/16/2003 11:22:24 PM

And why don't you have the stones to post in person, rather than hide behind a pseudonym? What are you afraid of?

This is the worst kind of ad hominem and is completely irrelevant to the topic. As you are the host of this thread, I suspect you'll not police yourself about it, but if you want to pursue any kind of consistency, then you'll have (or at least ought) to question everyone else on this thread who uses a pseudonym why they don't post under their real name. Moreover, if I choose to include such a question--or similar--in every post I make, you ought to have to tolerate that.

I note that joezan was removed as host of this thread with you replacing him because of his absenteeism. Strangely, Jenerator asked more than six weeks ago to be removed from her hosting position, yet no action has been taken (nevermind the number of hosts who are never here).

Since you're interested in other's cojones, how big is your dick, jay? Just as long as we're putting everything on the table. Two inches? Why keep it a secret, man?

If you're not willing to tell, I'm sure you have your reasons.

7286. jayackroyd - 4/16/2003 11:42:24 PM

In fact, Indy/Count Eddy/Stinky, I have made it eminently clear in multiple policy discussions that I dislike pseudonyms. I've conformed to the consensus policy, religiously.

But it is still a fair observation--to say that I post in my real name, and that other people choose not to. Ace, or you, can do so.

I am not afraid to post with my real name. Why are you?

This has absolutely nothing to do with policies of the forum. I simply ask, why can't you post with your real name, and your irl information?

And, yes, I agree that my comment about Ace's gutlessness was totally ad hominem. On purpose. He has no substantive response available on the issue, and so my ad hominem comment was pre-emptive, since he inevitably launches into obscene ad hominem invective when he is clearly wrong on substance.

7287. Al D - 4/17/2003 12:38:51 AM

jay
To me you are out of line insisting one should post with there real name, and to make that a remark to Ace without asking almost every poster is nonsense. And you, as host, should move all of this to the Inferno.

7288. alistairConnor - 4/17/2003 3:13:51 AM

alistair
I don't suppose yu will be visiting our great nation in the near or far future. Your loss.

Whatever makes you think that, Al? You take this stuff awfully personally. You love France, yet you're boycotting it, because you disagree with its government on Iraq. That's your choice, and your loss. There is no reason to project your attitudes on me. I like America and Americans. I don't like your current administration, and I think many of its policies are having disastrous effects on the world. That would not stop me going to the USA. I visited the USA in 1998, 2000 and 2001 (I did my Christmas shopping in lower Manhattan the last time). I have no plans to go there in the near future, but that's mostly because I'm broke.

the thing is, though, that Ace, in his fowl, arrogant way

You calling Ace a chicken? You realise that animal comparisons will get you accused of racism in this thread?

7289. magoseph - 4/17/2003 6:38:35 AM

I found this little gem in Le Monde: The inversion of Saddam Hussein is, for the American leaders, the first stage of a strategy which aims at putting an end to decades of bloody confrontations and economic and political stagnation in all the area.

Who ever said in this forum that French newspapers were not fair in their analysis of our revered leader's intentions for Iraq? You, concerned, Dantes, or you, Ace? It certainly was not me, I am a Bushie as far as Iraq is concerned and I am not a French basher either.

7290. marjoribanks - 4/17/2003 9:43:12 AM

Just for kicks, I looked up my two lines on Hizbollah which set the ApeofHades loose with his unending spew of liquid excreta.

Here they are: Syria is going to argue very convincingly to the entire world that Hizbollah is not a terrorist group but an organization of Freedom Fighters supported by the common man. The US itself accepted this designation until comparitively very recently.

From this, given the intellectual bankruptcy of the likes of ApeofHades, it naturally followed that I am a Hizbollah supporter and virtually an accessory to that group's attack on US marines. The rhetoric is actually pathetically funny.

7291. marjoribanks - 4/17/2003 9:43:42 AM

Now, I don't take the wardrums about Syria terribly seriously for a number of reasons. One, there is no compendium of UN resolutions wrt Syria that will embolden allies of the US to join a coalition such as that which eventually destroyed Hussein's rule. Two, it will be extremely hard for this administration to sell to its own public that the Syrian Baathists either pose a threat to the US or run as heinous an internal regime as Hussein. Third, Syria notably runs a relatively open society by local standards, with some genuine good points awarded for freedom of religion, for relatively free access to information, for women's emancipation.

No, I see the pressure on the Syrians as part of the groundwork for the vaunted 'roadmap'. As of now, Syria is the only wild card in the necessary partners for Israel and it is being pressured (most likely successfully) to finally come to the table and exchange peace for land.

7292. marjoribanks - 4/17/2003 9:44:22 AM

Getting back to Hizbollah, I have some reading for the handlers of ApeofSpades. It will take them a few days, probably, to administer the lessons in this fairly lengthy review, but via cattle prod some of the information may be hammered in.

Some relevant excerpts:

For the first month after September 11, the American anti-terror campaign was strictly limited to the al-Qa'ida terror network. A September 24 executive order threatened sanctions against states or financial institution that do business with 27 groups and individuals tied to bin Laden. Although Hezbollah was included in the State Department's update of its list of foreign terrorist organizations on October 5, this merely confirmed an existing designation and carried with it no explicit threat of sanctions.2 On October 12, the Bush administration released an additional list of 39 individuals, which included the former head of Hezbollah's special overseas operations, Imad Mughniyah, and two other Lebanese nationals, but no members of the group's current leadership were mentioned.

Moreover, whereas American officials periodically raised the issue of Syrian-backed Palestinian groups, there was virtually no criticism of Hezbollah by US diplomats in Lebanon. The American ambassador in Beirut, Vincent Battle, was even reported by one Lebanese newspaper to have told guests at a recent dinner that Hezbollah has nothing to do with the terrorism that the US is combatting. In fact, when one Lebanese newspaper erroneously reported that American officials had demanded that the Lebanese government freeze the assets of a list of individuals that included Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and his predecessor, Sobhi Toufaili, Battle issued a heated denial. "They are not included on the list," he told reporters on October 19. "I won't say anything more about the lists ever again."

7293. marjoribanks - 4/17/2003 9:50:19 AM

My initial mild two sentences on Hizbollah predicted that Syria would make a convincing case to much of the world community that Hizbollah is not terrorist but a group of freedom fighters. In fact, this is a distinction accepted not only by a great number of US allies in the ME and Asia, but also by the EU. In ApeofHades's know-nothing endless spew, the key fact contained here makes no appearance. Not a surprise.

But the rest of us should note that despite US pressure, the EU's list of officially designated terrorist groups conspicuously excludes Hizbollah. The list is otherwise quite comprehensive, including a wing of Hamas. The United Nations, similarly, does not include Hizbollah on its list of officially designated terrorist groups.

ApeofHades's definition of terrorism is the most ridiculously convoluted and tortured bit of syntax I've read in a good long time. Meaningless in the extreme. I prefer the State Dept's definition of terrorism, and my own personal definition is much broader and easily encompasses activities such as those engaged in by Hizbollah. Inconveniently, my definition also encompasses a legion of actors which the US supports and has supported over decades.

But from the mouth of Apes, words like terrorism become incomprehensible grunts just like everything else from the same source. the meaning becomes degraded and the reasoning is unintelligible. Thankfully, the Apes are in a tiny minority and though entertaining in a forum such as this remain entirely powerless.

ooh-ooh, ah-ah, baboon-boy.

7294. marjoribanks - 4/17/2003 9:53:53 AM

Finally, with regard to my citizenship, I repeat an invitation to the ApeofHades to meet anywhere in NYC, at any time.

I will be happy to display my assorted travel papers, and also acquaint his soft ass with my fine Made-in-America boots.

7295. Wombat - 4/17/2003 10:30:08 AM

I hate to interpose myself into an earlier debate, but Ace is confusing Hezbollah with Islamic Jihad and Hamas in re suicide attacks on Israeli civilians. Most of Hezbollah's attacks have been on IDF forces and allies, at first in Lebanon, and now occasionally in Israel or areas along the Lebanese border. Hezbollah's attacks on civilians in Israel usually are rocket barrages on northern Israeli towns, and have been rare in recent years.

Hezbollah is sponsored by Iran, and operates under the aegis of Syria. Hezbollah has been responsive to pressure from Syria and Iran, and in fact has not attacked Israel during the recent unpleasantness in Iraq, as was feared by many Israelis.

Islamic Jihad and Hamas are homegrown Palestinian organizations, which have been responsible for most of the suicide bombings against civilians in Israel.

One could make an argument that Hezbollah conforms more to a definition of an insurgent group than a terrorist group. this is not the case for Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

7296. judithathome - 4/17/2003 12:01:45 PM

The war in Iraq is officially over...CNN has changed its header from War In Iraq to The New Iraq.

7297. concerned - 4/17/2003 12:30:01 PM

Anatomy of the Three Week War

excerpt:

Such unprecedented military power brings with it enormous moral responsibility as the world — its utopians especially (my emphasis) — in the decades ahead will vie for a hand in the decisions on how to use it and for what purposes. There quite literally has never been a single nation that has exercised such colossal military force to change almost instantly the status quo, and used it under the auspices of a consensual government to free — Grenada, Panama, Serbia, Afghanistan, and Iraq — rather than to enslave peoples. How long it will last, we do not know, but we should at least realize that we are living in one of the most anomalous periods in recorded history.

7298. PincherMartin - 4/17/2003 1:30:18 PM

Marj --

My initial mild two sentences on Hizbollah predicted that Syria would make a convincing case to much of the world community that Hizbollah is not terrorist but a group of freedom fighters.

It was not your first sentence I took issue with. It was your second -- very unmild -- statement on the U.S. position of Syria's claim that caught my attention.

Nothing in the links you provided backs up your original statement that the U.S. accepted -- until very recently -- the designation of Hezbollah as freedom fighters.

Instead as I suggested in Message # 7236, it just shows the U.S. has tolerated Hezbollah; that's still a hell of a distance from calling them "freedom fighters".

If you had written in Message # 7194: Syria is going to argue very convincingly to the entire world that Hizbollah is not a terrorist group but an organization of Freedom Fighters supported by the common man. The US itself has tolerated the group until very recently, it wouldn't have been a controversial statement.

7299. pseudoerasmus - 4/17/2003 2:37:33 PM

Why does VonKreedon keep making references to me? I had completely forgotten his existence until I read the last 50 or so posts today.

7300. PincherMartin - 4/17/2003 2:39:48 PM

He misses your contributions, as do we all.

7301. vonKreedon - 4/17/2003 2:48:13 PM

PM is correct, I was trolling for you to participate, even at the expense of my dignity.

7302. vonKreedon - 4/17/2003 4:55:53 PM

From Yahoo/AP

A Defense Department employee asked Rumsfeld what could be done so the United States would not be accused of planting any chemical or biological weapons that might be discovered. Rumsfeld said he believed such charges are likely and there is little the United States can do to avoid it.

Rumsfeld is right that such charges are likely, but wrong that there is little the US can do to mitigate. We need to turn the inspection process back over to UNMOVIC. By having our military perform the inspections we inevitably taint anything that we might find.

7303. concerned - 4/17/2003 5:04:58 PM

Of course, the Allies would need to avoid the camel's nose under the tent flap phenomenon that would likely result. Immediately, UN junkies would be asking why, if the US lets UNMOVIC back in for this, why the UN shouldn't be allowed to become intimately cozy in every Iraqi internal affair that causes their little hearts to flutter, ad insufferabilium, ad driven to distractionum...

7304. PincherMartin - 4/17/2003 5:13:12 PM

VK --

We need to turn the inspection process back over to UNMOVIC. By having our military perform the inspections we inevitably taint anything that we might find.

It won't help. Even if UNMOVIC moves in to take over inspections, the U.S. military presence in Iraq will taint whatever they find. They were already relying on U.S. intelligence for some searches.

7305. concerned - 4/17/2003 5:15:20 PM

Part of the problem is that much of the agenda of the UN junkies is more to kick the US out of Iraq soonest than anything else.

7306. vonKreedon - 4/17/2003 5:19:04 PM

I don't see how this accusation is relevant to bringing UNMOVIC back in to do its job.

7307. concerned - 4/17/2003 5:25:16 PM

I was just pointing out what I saw as being possible complications with your original suggestion. Blix's & UNSC member country sneering at the information that the US had provided UNMOVIC in the first place was probably not what I'd now call a 'smart move', IAC.

7308. vonKreedon - 4/17/2003 5:59:59 PM

I'm not sure where you got the "sneering", what I heard was a detailed explaination of what information the US had provided, what actions were taken, and what the results were. Now you may have taken it as sneering simply because the results were not what the administration claimed they would be, but the presentation was quite formal and proper.

Simply because UNMOVIC failed to produce what the US administration wished to be produced does not mean that UNMOVIC is incompetent or duplicitous. It could well mean the contrary.

7309. concerned - 4/17/2003 6:09:14 PM

Most of my criticism is not directed toward UNMOVIC as an isolated entity within the UN, but those who tried to exploit and misrepresent the significance of its findings or lack thereof.

7310. seguineandonly - 4/17/2003 6:14:17 PM

Wombat: "Hezbollah has been responsive to pressure from Syria and Iran, and in fact has not attacked Israel during the recent unpleasantness in Iraq, as was feared by many Israelis."

Actually, I think Hizballah did fire rockets harmlessly into Har Dov (Shebaa Farms) during the last month--someone might want to look that up, I don't have time right now.

In the months leading up to the war, the US stepped in at least once to pressure Syria (strongly) to restrain Hiz, which was threatening to up the ante on Israel's northern border.

Syria complied, but their politicos like to maintain they have no control over Hiz. But my understanding is that Hiz has to some extent been integrated into the Syrian army.

Of course Syria supports Hiz in Lebanon and channels weapons and cash through Damascus from Iran. I'm not sure Assad could not support Hizballah. I think it constitutes the most powerful Shiite party in Lebanon, having surpassed Amal when it set itself up as the liberator of Lebanon from the Israelis.

7311. vonKreedon - 4/17/2003 6:20:04 PM

Yeah, another kettle of worms. I used UNMOVIC for a couple of reasons:

• It's already in existence and could be brought in very quickly.
  
• It has international legitimacy, which is what the US needs to mitigate the suspicion of any WMD that might be found.
  
• Along those lines, the taint that PM refers to would be greatly mitigated by UNMOVIC's previous investigations based on US provided intel and their repudiation of the intel's significance. If UNMOVIC used US intel and found WMD it could not be claimed that UNMOVIC was merely the US waterboy.
  
• Finally, if the UN is indeed to have that "vital role" to play in post-Saddam Iraq, and that role is to be something other than merely sub-contracting out the unprofitable parts of providing humanitarian relief for Bechtel, then this is an obvious opportunity for the US/UK to mitigate the overall of corporate imperialism taint that much of the world smells.
  

7312. vonKreedon - 4/17/2003 6:20:59 PM

The "kettle of worms", refers to Con's Message # 7309.

7313. seguineandonly - 4/17/2003 6:36:11 PM

"relations between Syria and Iraq have been analogous to the relations between Iran and Iraq, without the war."

VonKreedon (was it?),

Not recently. Syria under Assad pere was as you describe, but under Bashar Assad the two Baathist regimes warmed up to each other considerably. For one thing, Bashar made friends with one of Saddam's son's (I can't remember whether it was Uday or Qusay). For another, Saddam opened up an oil pipeline to Syria which sold heavily discounted oil to Syria in contravention of the UN sanctions regime. The oil has proven crucial to Syria's state-controlled economy, which Bashar has been trying to "reform" without pisssing off too badly his father's old cronies. Iraqi oil was resold by Syria at market rates, thereby gaining Saddam money for arms development, a dependent ally in Syria, and giving Bashar a way to prop up his country while it goes to hell. I should say another way. In addition to dependence on the pipeline, Syria sends lots of workers to earn a living in its better off client state, Lebanon.

Now the Syrians are in trouble: Saddam is gone, Syria is encircled by US-allied states, and that oil windfall is finished.

Their latest political salvo is pretty clever: in response to US charges that the Syrians have chemical weapons, they want the US to press a global anti-WMD program throughout the mideast.

Also, Lebanon's Rafiq Hariri has resigned. I have no idea what this means in the current context and I haven't yet learned precisely why he resigned, but it's interesting.

7314. vonKreedon - 4/17/2003 6:42:06 PM

Seg - That was me. Good info on the change in relations, thanks.

7315. marjoribanks - 4/18/2003 9:02:24 AM

There are two analogies to India/Pakistan and US relations with those countries that have emerged as Syria has come under pressure.

1) The Syrian demand that elimination of WMD's not be undertaken selectively but across the board. India, in rejecting the NPT, has always said that it is for universal denuclearization, but any global protocol that allows some nations to maintain nuclear arsenals is patently unfair and unacceptable. Syria can make a persuasive international case on the same lines by demanding that Washington take into account Israel's WMD. The Wolfowitzes will be unimpressed, the Brits (for example) and everyone else will be more swayed.

2) This matter of locally backed insurgent groups, a la Hamas, has long been a bone of contention between India and Pakistan. There are numerous groups operating in Pakistan which even Musharraf says are the reaction of the people to Indian occupation of Kashmir. He claims the government supports them in spirit but does not actively sponsor them. To some extent, even I buy this line. Syria can cogently argue much the same about Hizbollah especially given that the world is divided as to how "terrorist" that group is.

7316. marjoribanks - 4/18/2003 9:09:04 AM

Why is there an argument about the criminally negligent abandonment of the Baghdad Museum and Archives hiding in the Inferno?

--

The entire episode would appear a great deal less outrageous if the small coterie of knee-jerk apologists wouldn't act like such buffoons about the possible irretrievable loss of a mother-lode of civilization's treasures.

One could perhaps start to buy that it was a cost of war if there wasn't such a cretinous, idiotically obstinate, campaign to paper over the losses.

Two cultural advisers to the Bush administration have resigned in protest over the failure of U.S. forces to prevent the wholesale looting of priceless treasures from Baghdad's antiquities museum.

7317. marjoribanks - 4/18/2003 9:19:56 AM

Worst of all is the credibility gap. The Invasion is now being lauded (mostly appropriately) as a Liberation of the Iraqi people, as a campaign on behalf of them. If so, how can the destruction of the cultural riches of the country be dismissed so lightly? It would have been much better if Rumsfeld had apologized early and often for the oversight and pledged an accounting while putting the blame back on the Iraqis.

7318. PincherMartin - 4/18/2003 9:20:13 AM

Banks --

I'm still waiting for an honest admission from you that you fucked the pooch when you said that the U.S. accepted the designation of Hezbollah as "freedom fighters" until recently. Your cries for some honest admissions from the "knee-jerk apologists" wouldn't sound so tinny if you came clean yourself.

The entire episode would appear a great deal less outrageous if the small coterie of knee-jerk apologists wouldn't act like such buffoons about the possible irretrievable loss of a mother-lode of civilization's treasures.

It's a terrible loss and it shouldn't be downplayed. But there's nothing to indicate an incident worthy of war crimes. At best, the military had other priorities when securing Baghdad; at worse, they showed insensitivity or incompetence in arranging those priorities.

Recent reports suggest that elements of the now defunct regime played a key part in the looting, and that the most priceless treasures were secured very early by people who knew what they were doing.

7319. marjoribanks - 4/18/2003 9:26:45 AM

Go read my comments yet again. I said that the Syrians would convincingly argue that Hizbollah are freedom fighters. I further said that the US until relatively recently accepted this designation. This was perhaps an overstatement (when one is dealing with the ApeofHades, such overstatements are occasionally necessary). What I should have said is that the US had until relatively recently no formal beef with the Syrian argument. There is ample evidence for this, some of which I posted.

I further point out the analogy to India and Pakistan's "harboring" of similar groups of insurgents/freedom-fighters. One such group committed a small massacre within Indian Kashmir just a few weeks ago. US response? None, and then one billion dollars of Pak debt was forgiven.

The point is that some groups which we can all possibly agree are terrorist can also be seen as legitimate insurgent groups set up in response to invasion and occupation. Hizbollah fits into one of these grey areas and it can be a hard sell to insist that the grey is instead stark black.

7320. PincherMartin - 4/18/2003 9:38:16 AM

What I should have said is that the US had until relatively recently no formal beef with the Syrian argument. There is ample evidence for this, some of which I posted.

Okay, that's something of an admission, so we'll move on.

I further point out the analogy to India and Pakistan's "harboring" of similar groups of insurgents/freedom-fighters. One such group committed a small massacre within Indian Kashmir just a few weeks ago. US response? None, and then one billion dollars of Pak debt was forgiven.

No one with any wit will disgree with you that the U.S. prioritizes threats, and as a result maintains some double standards towards terrorist groups even after 9-11. That's still a far cry from your original statement.

The point is that some groups which we can all possibly agree are terrorist can also be seen as legitimate insurgent groups set up in response to invasion and occupation. Hizbollah fits into one of these grey areas and it can be a hard sell to insist that the grey is instead stark black.

It depends on who we are selling to. The Arab world certainly won't buy it. The Europeans probably won't buy it. But the American public might buy it.

In any case, any future action against the Syrians will not hinge on this question, but on the level of cooperation the U.S. can secure from them in handling Iraq. If Syrian-backed groups keep attacking U.S. troops in Iraq, and Syria does not keep its border closed to prevent this, there will eventually be some sort of showdown. This question is much more relevant to future U.S./Syrian relations than Syria's backing of Hezbollah.

7321. marjoribanks - 4/18/2003 9:46:49 AM

In any case, any future action against the Syrians will not hinge on this question, but on the level of cooperation the U.S. can secure from them in handling Iraq. If Syrian-backed groups keep attacking U.S. troops in Iraq, and Syria does not keep its border closed to prevent this, there will eventually be some sort of showdown. This question is much more relevant to future U.S./Syrian relations than Syria's backing of Hezbollah.

You're naive, and are minutely obsessed with the military campaign to the point that the larger political picture is being obscured.

Look at Pakistan again. The entire Al Qaeda leadership and a good portion of the Taliban simply fucked off across the border with Pak's NWFP and despite groups tracking across to snipe at US-backed forces, the US has largely sat on its hands. Why? partly because Musharraf ceaselessly (but unpersuasively) argues that he is doing all he can to represent US interests. But also because there are no larger political goals at stake.

In Syria, the US is faced with one of the key actors needed to make the vaunted 'roadmap' work. No Syria, no lasting peace in the ME. Hizbollah, oil, chemical weapons, sanctions, all of these things are mere sticks to beat the reluctant Syrians to the table in order to exchange peace for land.

7322. marjoribanks - 4/18/2003 9:51:04 AM

Speaking of sanctions, I saw that blowhard O'Reilly of that factor show is threatening boycotts of Canadian, Mexican, French and German goods in retaliation for various slights. On the other hand, the anti-war crowd epitomized by the likes of Arundhati Roy are also threatening global boycotts of "the locomotive" of the American economy.

Idiots both. I wish both groups could be made aware of how interconnected the global economy is becoming. When a financial crisis in latin America can roil the US markets for weeks, the time is coming to recognize that boycotts of the proposed sort shoot everyone in the foot.

7323. Ronski - 4/18/2003 10:06:56 AM

Well, I purchased both French wine and roquefort while the war raged, and I will do so again.

7324. Andonly - 4/18/2003 10:09:05 AM

"India, in rejecting the NPT, has always said that it is for universal denuclearization, but any global protocol that allows some nations to maintain nuclear arsenals is patently unfair and unacceptable."

Not only India believes this, it seems to be a popular sentiment among leftists in general, and people who have been influenced by them.

There may come a distant day when more powerful weapons or deterrent capabilities render nukes dangerous but useless to states (as opposed to non-state entities). On that day, a global NPT might make perfect sense. But as of now, any sane individual should understand that the world's prosperity and security is less endangered by democratic countries having nuclear weapons than it is by despots having them, and that any effort to deprive democracies of their nukes will eliminate a major deterrent to despotic regimes wishing to challenge liberal countries' regional power or influence.

There will never be sufficient will in the international community to enforce the prevention of development of nukes in countries (e.g. N. Korea, Israel) that decide unilaterally to abandon NP treaties or develop nukes in secret. The task will always fall to the US, as the prevailing military colossus, and US interests will (and to some ectent should) prevail in determining where it enforces NPT compliance and where it doesn't.

7325. alistairConnor - 4/18/2003 10:13:55 AM

I'm glad to hear that Canada and Mexico are starting to get their share of boycott... which is the beginning of the end of the whole absurd boycott idea.

7326. Andonly - 4/18/2003 10:18:52 AM

"In Syria, the US is faced with one of the key actors needed to make the vaunted 'roadmap' work. No Syria, no lasting peace in the ME. Hizbollah, oil, chemical weapons, sanctions, all of these things are mere sticks to beat the reluctant Syrians to the table in order to exchange peace for land."

This is exactly right, Spanks, but it doesn't really rebutt what Pincher is arguing. We (the US) are not going to go to war with Syria over its failure to control Hiz. However, we could be persuaded to respond militarily to a Syrian failure to contain mujahideen attacking our troops in Iraq. (Or we will claim as much anyway.) And to kep us from "overreacting," I'll bet you anything the Syrians are going to be working very, very hard to keep Sheikh Narullah's pants on.

This is a means by which Iraq is used to influence the Is-Pal conflict resolution. As I think you might agree, Syria is probably not stupid enough to line itself up in our military sights. But politically, it is definitely next in line.

7327. PincherMartin - 4/18/2003 10:24:07 AM

Marj --

In Syria, the US is faced with one of the key actors needed to make the vaunted 'roadmap' work. No Syria, no lasting peace in the ME. Hizbollah, oil, chemical weapons, sanctions, all of these things are mere sticks to beat the reluctant Syrians to the table in order to exchange peace for land.

I don't deny this may be the intended effect of all these recent public statements against the Syrian regime, but the fact is that the reason Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell came out so quickly against the Syrians was because of events on the ground in Iraq.

When a country is sending militia groups and military aid into another country you're at war with, it's not just some incidental part of the larger picture. It's serious fucking business. Those Syrians were reportedly shooting at and killing our troops. If it continues to go on, and it looks like Syria wants to play the same role in Iraq against the U.S. as it did in Lebanon against the Israelis, there will be U.S. military action.

Will this happen? No, I doubt it. The Syrians are much sharper than Saddam was, much less given to self-destructive behavior. They will make adjustments if they haven't already done so.

7328. Wombat - 4/18/2003 10:25:51 AM

I'd be more confident this if the elder Assad was still alive.

7329. PincherMartin - 4/18/2003 10:28:52 AM

Since Mexico and Canada are two of the three largest oil importers to the U.S. (the other is Saudi Arabia), I doubt the embargo will go too far.

I don't know if this is correct, but I think I read that more trade (in value) goes over the U.S./Canadian border than any other border in the world.

7330. magoseph - 4/18/2003 10:30:12 AM

Well, I purchased both French wine and roquefort while the war raged, and I will do so again.

In another forum, someone said that he will lift his boycott of French wines as soon as the prices go down.

7331. PincherMartin - 4/18/2003 10:30:25 AM

That's a good point, Wombat. I assume the young man is a chip off the old block, but that might be a very flawed assumption.

On the other hand, the old man might have been a little too cautious sometimes.

7332. alistairConnor - 4/18/2003 10:31:45 AM

There is another reason, Pincher, why foreign irregulars are unlikely to hang around sniping in Iraq.

From accounts I've seen, they have been spontaneous individual volunteers from all over the Arab world. Motivated by pan-Arab solidarity, and the desire to defend Iraq from invasion. They tend to be baffled and disoriented by the fact that Iraqis, by and large, haven't defended themselves from invasion. Rapidly disillusioned idealists.

7333. alistairConnor - 4/18/2003 10:35:23 AM

Well, I purchased both French wine and roquefort while the war raged, and I will do so again.

Is there still a 100% import tariff on the roquefort, Ron?

7334. PincherMartin - 4/18/2003 10:37:39 AM

Alistair --

I don't know. It's hard to tell how these things will go. The situation might look good for months and then we'll see non-Iraqi Arab suicide bombers striking U.S. targets in Baghdad.

7335. Andonly - 4/18/2003 10:49:31 AM

On the subject of the Hariri resignation: the deal is, he resigned in order to dissolve his cabinet. He was expected to be re-elected (he was) and then appoint a new cabinet to get rid of the infighting and divisiveness characterized by the old one.

But, against expectations, he reappointed all but 11 members. In particular, he did not appoint Christians opposed to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, which it was believed he would do.

I wonder how much stick and how much carrot the US is going to offer Assad. Offhand, I'd guess it'll go like this: 'you can keep Lebanon, but in exchange you must reconcile to Israel's existence and keep Syrian fighters out of Iraq'.

7336. Ronski - 4/18/2003 10:51:55 AM

alistair,

No, fortunately. And I was not at all happy with my government's stupid move in that regard.

Tariff-lovers never stop to think about those in their own country who will be harmed.

7337. marjoribanks - 4/18/2003 10:52:01 AM

any sane individual should understand that the world's prosperity and security is less endangered by democratic countries having nuclear weapons than it is by despots having them, and that any effort to deprive democracies of their nukes will eliminate a major deterrent to despotic regimes wishing to challenge liberal countries' regional power or influence.

Arrant nonsense. Democracy does not in any way ameliorate the risk of the use of nuclear arms. Who has used nuclear arms in the past, who has tested them repeatedly despite the near-universal pleas to desist?
Democracies.

If you were to take a poll of the world, hell a poll of this site, which nation of those holding nuclear arms would you reckon would be chosen as "most likely to use them?" I bet you anything it would be one agreed on as a democracy.

7338. marjoribanks - 4/18/2003 10:54:39 AM

There will never be sufficient will in the international community to enforce the prevention of development of nukes in countries (e.g. N. Korea, Israel) that decide unilaterally to abandon NP treaties or develop nukes in secret. The task will always fall to the US, as the prevailing military colossus, and US interests will (and to some ectent should) prevail in determining where it enforces NPT compliance and where it doesn't.

Well the USA better show some credibility and balance on the international stage now, at this crucial time, or you and I should reconsider our decisions to live within the potential target zones of the future. I still harbour some optimism.

7339. vonKreedon - 4/18/2003 11:15:14 AM

Regarding nuclear weapons and the NPT; the US, as an NPT signatory, have committed ourselves on paper to complete nuclear disarmament as part of a global nuclear disarmament process. So, on paper, the US has already aligned itself with those who call for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, far from reiterating our support for complete disarmament, this administration is on record planning the modernization and maintenance of our nuclear arsenal and there is no movement whatsoever on the disarmament process called for in Article VI of the NPT.

Given that we, and the other four permanent UNSC members, possess nuclear weapons and show no signs of being interested in dispossessing ourselves; and given the differences between how nations with and without nuclear weapons are treated (see Iraq vs. NK, or Syria vs. Pakistan etc.), it is easy to see that the lesson we are teaching the world is that one better get the bomb and quickly.

7340. vonKreedon - 4/18/2003 11:17:06 AM

Marj - Regarding your poll, do you consider Pakistan a democracy? In such a poll I would split my vote between India and Pakistan.

7341. PincherMartin - 4/18/2003 11:18:35 AM

Marj --

Democracy does not in any way ameliorate the risk of the use of nuclear arms. Who has used nuclear arms in the past, who has tested them repeatedly despite the near-universal pleas to desist? Democracies.

Since nuclear weapons have been used only one time, and since three out of the first four countries to develop nuclear weapons were democracies, I wouldn't say there's an abundance of case studies out there on which to base your opinion.

Instead, one should probably argue that, until fairly recently, only modern states -- the kind of states that are often democracies --have had the kind of resources to develop nuclear weapons. The only two exceptions to this over the first forty years of the nuclear era were two of the largest non-democracies in the world (The Soviet Union and China).

That tells you nothing of future risks. Western democracies were also the first to develop and use chemical weapons in warfare. However, that hasn't kept the non-Western dictatorships (Iraq and Iran) from playing catch-up long after the game was no longer considered appropriate in the West.

7342. PincherMartin - 4/18/2003 11:32:06 AM

Marj's point about democracies being the most likely culprits to test and use nuclear arms is like saying that democracies are the most likely places to have major problems in their space programs.

7343. transient1a - 4/18/2003 11:41:00 AM

Message # 7286

Jay,

I am not afraid to post with my real name.

Who knows and who cares what your real name really is?

Maybe you are:

Jay Ackroyd
181 E 93rd St
Manhattan, NY 10128
(212) 987-4680

and maybe not?

And then some people just cannot stick to one name like (seguineandonly, andonly). One candonly wonder why?

7344. Edmund Dantes - 4/18/2003 3:35:57 PM

Arrant nonsense. Democracy does not in any way ameliorate the risk of the use of nuclear arms. Who has used nuclear arms in the past, who has tested them repeatedly despite the near-universal pleas to desist?
Democracies.

This is nonresponsive to what it purports to be a response to: "any sane individual should understand that the world's prosperity and security is less endangered by democratic countries having nuclear weapons than it is by despots having them, and that any effort to deprive democracies of their nukes will eliminate a major deterrent to despotic regimes wishing to challenge liberal countries' regional power or influence."

Your response is instead to something more like "democracies are not likely to use nuclear weapons." That's not at all what was said.

7345. Edmund Dantes - 4/18/2003 3:39:36 PM

Iraqis: Museum Looting Wasn't as Bad as Feared

"Most of the things were removed. We knew a war was coming, so it was our duty to protect everything," Mr. George said. "We thought there would be some sort of bombing at the museum. We never thought it could be looted."

Experts: Looters Had Keys to Iraq Museum


Experts say that what seemed like random looting in Baghdad - the pillaging of treasures dating back 5,000 years in human history - was in fact a carefully planned theft....

7346. seguineandonly - 4/18/2003 3:41:41 PM

"Arrant nonsense. Democracy does not in any way ameliorate the risk of the use of nuclear arms. Who has used nuclear arms in the past, who has tested them repeatedly despite the near-universal pleas to desist?
Democracies."

Re-read what I asserted and then try again, Spanky. Note that I have not referred to the "risk of the use of nuclear arms," which even in itself would not necessarily impact the world's prosperity and security. E.g., if Israel were attacked with chemical weapons by Iraq and responded in nuclear fashion, exactly how would that affect the prosperity and security of Barcelona or Khartoum or Tokyo? (Not that there wouldn't be a bit of an oil supply problem until the rest of OPEC recovered from the shock and picked up the slack.)

But if a democracy were nuked by a dictatorship, Spanky, then the security and prosperity of the world would ipso facto be reduced because democracies either are already, or else have the immediate potential to become, more secure and more prosperous--in terms of human freedom above all--than repressive states. Imperfect though they may be, democracies should be the preferred survivors in any major confrontation: Europe over Russia, India over Pakistan, the US over N. Korea, Israel over any country in the mideast.

7347. seguineandonly - 4/18/2003 3:42:07 PM

This is also something the legalistically "fair"-minded don't get: if one is going to have expansionist states in the world, and one is, then it is preferable that they be non-colonial, liberal states than that they be land-grabbing despotic states. Even if they are colonial liberal states, such as France was until recently, that is better than the illiberal alternative.

As long as the illiberal alternative exists, can get its hands on the means of producing nukes, and the rest of the world is not prepared to invade and disarm--keep in mind that even the US is not yet prepared to invade N. Korea--NPTs are mostly a band-aid on a festering sore.

This isn't to say that there aren't political means of discouraging nuclear proliferation. I simply don't believe they can be depended on exclusively or in perpetuity, and if they can't, then those countries we would all prefer to live in over the alternatives may well be better off armed with nukes.

7348. seguineandonly - 4/18/2003 3:44:32 PM

Transient Slater: My excessive name problem is a result of computer proliferation. Posting from one machine I am Andonly. From another I am Seguineandonly.

7349. concerned - 4/18/2003 5:15:23 PM

Ok. Why 'Seguine' or 'Andonly' at all?

7350. concerned - 4/18/2003 5:15:53 PM

Rather than some other moniker, that is?

7351. seguineandonly - 4/18/2003 5:28:19 PM

Um... well, why 'concerned', rather than some other moniker?

Hell, you pick a moniker. You try to make it slightly memorable, something that doesn't annoy you when you post under it. Equivalents of 'Chrissy' or 'Phillygal' would get tiresome.

You don't even want to know what I've named my cat.

However, I'll tell you that past cats have been called Millwee and Martatoad.

7352. seguineandonly - 4/18/2003 5:29:36 PM

Incidentally, the Iraqi Information Minister site is hysterical.

7353. wabbit - 4/18/2003 6:10:15 PM

And now you can have the action figures: Iraqi Dis-Information Minister

7354. jayackroyd - 4/18/2003 6:49:18 PM

7343

transient1a

Well, the phone number is wrong. It's now 212-655-5786. Will your own information be forthcoming? Will you stand behind your posts, as yourself?

My challenge to Ace was purely personal. I'm willing to stand behind my posts, as myself. Why isn't he? Is it a question of courage?

Why don't I pose this challenge to other people? Well, I have, in general, saying I'd prefer to people to post as themselves, and have argued for it as policy. But, in Ace's case, he posts in a hyperbolic, hyperaggressive, very personal way. And he doesn't have the guts to back it up. He needs to get a grasp of his sexuality, come out of the closet, and calm down.

And I am willing to say that as myself. He doesn't have the guts to do so, himself. He doesn't have the guts to meet with banks, in person, when banks challenges him to do so following an ethnic slur.

All he has the courage to do is stand back and launch personal attacks when he is losing an argument.


And then vanish, never to return again.

7355. magoseph - 4/18/2003 6:59:40 PM

I will come out, I mean for my address and telephone number if someone asks me here: magoseph@yahoo.com. I will not, however, put my name on any forum anymore . I still have the psychotic step-son to contend with, the one who objected to my posting the family's "sacred revered name" (only in his mind, of course).

7356. Edmund Dantes - 4/18/2003 7:06:27 PM

Well, that's all just silly and off topic.

If you want to have the RoE changed and require posting under real names, argue it on the forlorn policy thread.

Until then, anyone posting under a pseudonym has a clear right to do so, enshrined and protected (hahaha) by the RoE.

He doesn't have the guts to meet with banks, in person, when banks challenges him to do so following an ethnic slur.

This is particularly pathetic--and again a slap at the RoE. Or rather the old RoE, since I just looked and the prohibition against threats appears to have been removed. You're arguing that implied threads are good and "courageous." I didn't see banks make one, so I'm not saying he did, but you apparently think people who do make threats ought to be rewarded with the name and address of how to find their victim.

In any case, the idea that someone should be willing to "meet up" physically with someone else to "defend" opinions is just intellectually sad. What is that? Physical prowess determines the validity of one's thoughts?

Look, it takes no more courage to espouse popular, "I'm such a nice guy" pablum like you favor under a real name than it does to post anything under a pseudonym. I don't think personally that posting anything here indicates a great deal of courage, but what do you say, Jay, that proves your such a man just because your name is above it? Can you point me to a sample post I might have missed where you have demonstrated political guts by signing it Jay Ackroyd?

7357. Al D - 4/18/2003 7:33:20 PM

As outrageous as Ace's posts can be, they are no more so than jexster's were, and I never heard one of you Liberals complain. Pelle is not a Liberal, he is the cop of the Mote. What really outrageous you people is conservative ideas. Now Free Republic won't put up with Liberals, but they are upfront about it.

7358. jayackroyd - 4/18/2003 7:53:56 PM

Well, that's all just silly and off topic

True.

But THIS IS NOT A POLICY DISCUSSION.

I am simply saying to Ace, one to one, with no implied requirement or anything else, why he does not post as himself. If he wants to launch ethnic slurs, why he doesn't do so as himself.

He can, of course, choose not to to post as himself. People can do what they want. I post under my name. Eddy/stinky/.... chooses to post under pseuodonymns. That is certainly your right.

I am simply asking Ace why he chooses to skulk behind this protection. That has nothing to do with the RoE, with thread management, or whatever your reasons are to not post as yourself.

7359. vonKreedon - 4/18/2003 9:10:42 PM

AD - Am I not a liberal, or at least a leftist? I complained regularly about Jex. You appear to be hard of hearing.

7360. vonKreedon - 4/18/2003 9:12:19 PM

I would venture to guess that AD would catagorize Ms. No as a liberal, and I heard her warn Jex many times about his behavior.

Jex did not leave because conservatives complained about him.

7361. seguineandonly - 4/18/2003 9:22:24 PM

Oh god, those action figures are the funniest thing I've seen all week.

Check out some of their non-Iraqi figures. When you come across "The British Ally," tell me if you don't laugh yourself sick.

7362. Edmund Dantes - 4/18/2003 9:34:41 PM

If it's not a policy discussion, it's certainly not a discussion of the topic (Iraq).

If you want to question Ace about his preference for a pseudonym, there is a Notices & Queries thread.

If you want to insult him and make innuendoes about his sexual preferences, there's the Inferno.

And it does have to do with thread management when you are the (installed) host, yet you repeatedly and deliberately take the thread off topic and try to intimidate a poster from posting here.

7363. jayackroyd - 4/18/2003 9:40:51 PM

Thread hosts get to manage their threads as they wish, Eddy/indy/stinky. People can vote with their feet.

7364. RickNelson - 4/18/2003 9:44:42 PM

this is a good laugh too. ya'all should read seadate's post in Sports News.

she was about to vault the rail toward me and I screamed, "that big white woman's gonna come up here and kick my ass!"

7365. Edmund Dantes - 4/18/2003 9:59:52 PM

My understanding has been that there was an expectation of consistency, but then it wouldn't be the first time my expectations of fairness from Mote management would be disappointed.

Ahh well, in that case, I see why you consider yourself courageous, Jay.

It takes a lot of guts to say, "Might makes right."

7366. Edmund Dantes - 4/18/2003 10:08:08 PM

I wonder on what grounds joezan was removed as host, if a host can manage however he or she sees fit.

I wonder what the email I received removing me as host of Religion meant when it said "for abusing hosting privilidges" (sic)," when I did not a thing.

But I'll not wonder long because a warm bed beckons and the foolish ego-driven "evils" of the Mote won't trouble my good night's rest.

7367. jayackroyd - 4/18/2003 10:33:49 PM

Eddy/Indy/Mounty/stinky

As I've said, anyone can vote with his or her feet. The thread had been both very active and unhosted for some time. I volunteered. If joe wants it back, he has ample opportunity to say so. I'd be fine with his taking it back over.

And if you have a substantive comment to make on topic on this thread, we'd enjoy hearing it.

As for the religion thread, that is clearly off topic, and I am surprised that you would raise that issue here, given your concern for keeping posts on topic in this thread. In any case, I have no idea what happened there.

7368. jayackroyd - 4/18/2003 10:54:16 PM

It takes a lot of guts to say, "Might makes right."


Finally, Indy/Eddy/stinky, I have no idea what you mean by this. I've deleted no posts, moved nothing to the inferno, started no meltdowns in the suggestions thread. And anyone who doesn't like the way I'm managing the thread can bail at any time.

I've just asked Ace a simple question. magoseph, unasked, answered the question. I've heard other answers at various times in the past to that question.

So let Ace explain why he feels it is necessary to hide behind a pseudonymn.

7369. judithathome - 4/18/2003 11:34:17 PM

Hey, I post as Judith Spencer, my real name, on WC and at the Atlantic. I would be happy to do so here. Everyone here knows I am from Fort Worth, Texas and that I am happy to be so...I have made enemies here and elsewhere and it doesn't bother me at all.

7370. transient1a - 4/19/2003 11:21:40 AM

Seguine.....,

Message # 7348

My excessive name problem is a result of computer proliferation.

Should be no problem.

SO

No excuse for one andonly bifuricating to two andonly.

7371. transient1a - 4/19/2003 11:27:12 AM

jayackroyd,

Message # 7354

It does not matter. No one cares -- except, perhaps, the posters.

On the NYT forums, university professors and scientists were bickering for months on end until two forums were filled with meaningless garbage of complex ludicrous arguments and accusations. This, of course, included what were real names. Recently those forums were put to rest.

Posting is just an amusing game with very little, if any, linkage to the 'real' world -- not to be confused with 'real' world.

Trying to rationalize an emotional response is unhelpful.

7372. jayackroyd - 4/19/2003 11:48:04 AM

The French really aren't looking so hot right now.

They're now opposing the lifting of sanctions that they opposed the imposition of. It appears they are only opposed to sanctions when they are directed at Saddam's regime.

And the oil for food program that France benefited so
much from keeps its books a secret.

7373. alistairconnor - 4/19/2003 12:43:25 PM

That's a troll if ever I saw one... I'll have to think about that.

It seems you are using "French" as shorthand for the non-Alliance world? I don't see a specifically French position on this question.

Logically enough, the great majority of the world's nations are keen to see the UN take over as tutelary power in Iraq, until such time as a democratic government is in place. Clearly, the sanctions regime needs to be lifted, but clearly, the US will have to ask nicely. Therefore, the question will serve as a bargaining chip. Lest we forget too quickly, the US intervened in defiance of the UN processes.

If the US chooses to go it alone, then it will have to pony up. As I have been saying... We know who will get the reconstruction contracts, but I still don't understand where the money will come from :

Can a global hyperpower also be a global hyperdebtor? In the prime of the European empires, when the British ran much of the Middle East, the dominant power was supposed to be a creditor, not a debtor, investing large chunks of its own savings in the economic development of its colonies. Hegemony also meant hegemoney. Britain, the world's banker before 1914, never had to worry about a run on the pound during its imperial heyday.

7374. jayackroyd - 4/19/2003 12:58:30 PM

It seems you are using "French" as shorthand for the non-Alliance world? I don't see a specifically French position on this question.

Should have said "French, Syrian and Russian" as they are prime beneficiaries of the oil for food plan. But I also said French because they opposed the imposition of the sanctions in the first place.

Why does the US have to ask nicely, btw? Why should the Iraqis still have to suffer under sanctions intended to deter Saddam, when there is no Saddam? Or is this about something other than the welfare of the Iraqi people?

Not excusing the baser US motives, but it's worth noting that the French/Russian motives are looking pretty base too.

7375. jayackroyd - 4/19/2003 1:00:01 PM

On your other note, establishing the euro as an alternative reserve currency would do more to establish the EU as a global power than ranting at the UN.

7376. judithathome - 4/19/2003 1:02:24 PM

This announcing of who has been captured in Iraq and then pointing out what "card" they were in the DOD deck of most wanted is getting ridiculous...do they think people have their decks out at home and are retiring each "card" as the evil ones are run in?

7377. jayackroyd - 4/19/2003 1:22:42 PM

The US TV media have been pretty much DoD lapdogs throughout this. An article I read on Salon attributes this in part to the success FoxNews has had in the ratings by being jingoistic. Oh, I'm sorry, fair and balanced.

But most cable users can't complain. There are foreign news alternatives most places.

7378. vonKreedon - 4/19/2003 1:29:27 PM

Jay - A couple of things:

- Can you provide a citation on the French opposition to the original sanctions?
- The Iraqis are not suffing under sanctions, the sanctions provide plenty of money to buy food/medicine/civilian infrastructure. The Iraqis suffered under the Saddamite refusal to fully utilize the oil for food to benefit his citizenry. The actions of the French et al is consistent with their desire to use the UN to reign in US unilateralism. At this point if the sanctions are lifted the UN loses any leverage for UNMOVIC or participation in Iraqi nation building. If the sanctions are lifted then the US has free reign to do what it will in Iraq, a state that is not acceptable to France et al.

Of course there is also the niggling matter of the Iraqi WMD disarmament that are the basis both for the sanctions and for the US invasion.

7379. iiibbb - 4/19/2003 2:34:32 PM

It seems to me that france is only managing to exasperate American unilateralism.

7380. jayackroyd - 4/19/2003 3:06:50 PM

vK--

I read that somewhere in the last couple of days. After the 1998 bombing, this document, with countries' proposals, at the time is a contemporaneous record.

Among the more obvious problems posed by the French proposal is the fact that with the oil sanctions gone, Iraq would be under almost no pressure to cooperate with the new inspection system. Its only concern would be that a new Security Counjcil resolution might be adopted re-imposing sanctions.

is how the person summarizing the french proposal in the article expressed part of his analysis.

7381. jayackroyd - 4/19/2003 3:13:06 PM

- The Iraqis are not suffing under sanctions, the sanctions provide plenty of money to buy food/medicine/civilian infrastructure. The Iraqis suffered under the Saddamite refusal to fully utilize the oil for food to benefit his citizenry. The actions of the French et al is consistent with their desire to use the UN to reign in US unilateralism.

Fine. Put it that way. IAC, there is no reason now for there to caps on oil sales, nor limitations on imports. And now there is nobody to sanction. There is the question of authority to purchase right now, but the sanctions regime is clearly a stopgap.

Yes, I agree that France opposing the sanctions under Saddam as too harsh, and now supporting them now that Saddam is gone reflects their desire to block American policy.

But the more compelling rationale behind the two positions is that both, in their respective contexts, maximize the flow of petrodollars into France.

7382. jayackroyd - 4/19/2003 3:22:27 PM

vK

On the question of chemical and biological weapons [aside--I think it's clear that there are no nukes, just like the inspector whose name I would have to look up to spell right said. It's also clear, at this point, that there are no weapons of mass destruction. But there may be some stockpiles of some chemical weapons, or some biological raw materals, or some dormant production facilities. But those aren't weapons of mass destruction--end of long aside.]

what happens if they don't find anything? You can't uninvade Iraq. I read one piece where the author speculated that it really was a conscious pretext. I don't buy that--they would have shifted the rhetoric earlier. But what do you think the effect would be?

7383. PelleNilsson - 4/19/2003 3:32:25 PM

AlD

Pelle is not a Liberal, he is the cop of the Mote.

But I am, Al. I'm an old-fashioned European social democrat.

7384. alistairconnor - 4/19/2003 3:59:43 PM

The story about being ill-prepared for peace is wearing a bit thin.
Plea to end Baghdad chaos

The International Red Cross has urged US forces to restore the Iraqi capital's power supply and other basic services as the threat to public health grows daily.

7385. robertjayb - 4/19/2003 6:09:38 PM

Tell it to the Chaplain... Hey, where's the Chaplain?

When the battles are over, officers regularly tell their soldiers they can turn to the battalion's chaplain for counseling to deal with what they have seen on the battlefield or what they have done.

But what happens when it's the chaplain who says he can't deal with the horrors of war and quits the battlefield?

7386. robertjayb - 4/19/2003 10:55:43 PM

The bushies like Iraq so much they're staying awhile...(NYTimes)

WASHINGTON, April 19 — The United States is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush administration officials say.

American military officials, in interviews this week, spoke of maintaining perhaps four bases in Iraq that could be used in the future: one at the international airport just outside Baghdad; another at Tallil, near Nasiriya in the south; the third at an isolated airstrip called H-1 in the western desert, along the old oil pipeline that runs to Jordan; and the last at the Bashur air field in the Kurdish north.

7387. Wombat - 4/21/2003 8:53:13 AM

France and Russia have supported every attempt to weaken the Iraqi sanctions regime during the last decade. It is disgraceful that they (France in particular) should now hold lifting of sanctions hostage in the Security Council.

7388. vonKreedon - 4/21/2003 10:59:58 AM

Wombat - Why "disgraceful"? It seems perfectly in keeping with a strategic objective of using the leverage of the UN to reign in the world's only hyperpower. I don't see how this effects the flow of humanitarian aid to Iraq, it just keeps the oil money used for such aid under the control of the UN instead of the US.

7389. Wombat - 4/21/2003 11:06:40 AM

VK:

The rationale for the sanctions disappeared when Saddam did. Keeping them on for the reasons you note does not help the Iraqis, and will serve to make the UN appear even worse than it does already.

7390. vonKreedon - 4/21/2003 11:19:31 AM

Resolution 687, implementing sanctions make no mention of Saddam, it refers to Iraqi compliance and the means to certify such. As yet it has not been certified that Iraq is free of WMD. Now this is a thin argument since the US is occupying Iraq, but given how the US has treated the UN I do not see how the UN can do other than assert its right to finish the inspection/certification process. Again, continuing the sanctions as designed will have no effect on humanitarian aid, indeed since current process assumes the sanctions keeping them may facilitate the delivery of aid. The only thing that can hold up humanitarian aid is US insistence on complete control. It is not the French who are endangering Iraqi civilians.

7391. Edmund Dantes - 4/21/2003 11:45:45 AM

> A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, members of the team said.

> They said the scientist led Americans to a supply of material that proved to be the building blocks of illegal weapons, which he claimed to have buried as evidence of Iraq's illicit weapons programs.

> The scientist also told American weapons experts that Iraq had secretly sent unconventional weapons and technology to Syria, starting in the mid-1990's, and that more recently Iraq was cooperating with Al Qaeda, the military officials said.

NY Times

7392. concerned - 4/21/2003 11:45:58 AM

vK -

As somebody who presumably has the interests of Iraqis at heart, I'm surprised that you can support the continuation of the UN Iraqi sanctions now that their reason for existence has been removed.

To say that they somehow 'reign' in the US is glib and false.

7393. PelleNilsson - 4/21/2003 11:56:05 AM

I suspect France is having a bit of fun at the expense of the US. According to the sanctions regime sanctions can be lifted when Iraq has disarmed to the extent set forth in UN resolutions. And who certifies that? The same UNMOVIC that the US just now saw as irrelevant and superfluous to requirements.

7394. vonKreedon - 4/21/2003 12:01:04 PM

Con - Again, the sanctions as designed have no detrimental effect on the Iraqis, it was the Saddamite implementation that was detrimental.

To say that they can act as a restraint on the US is neither glib nor false.

If the sanctions are lifted then UNMOVIC also goes out of existence, along with any chance of third-party inspection of suspected WMD. The Oil-for-Food program goes out of existence, along with any non-US control over Iraqs oil revenue and any non-US control over humanitarian aid distribution. Finally, to simply lift the sanctions on Iraq, not Saddam, on the basis of unauthorized US occupation of Iraq is to legitimize the invasion of Iraq against UN wishes.

So there are several realpolitik and legitimacy reasons for France et al to oppose the immediate lifting of the Iraqi sanctions regime.

7395. Ms. No - 4/21/2003 12:26:04 PM

I'll be interested to see how this scientist's information pans out. As the story stands it doesn't make much sense and there is an deciced lack of any kind of official verification or sanction of any of it.

7396. concerned - 4/21/2003 12:53:40 PM

vK -

I don't believe it's realistic or fair to Iraq to treat the sanctions as a monolithic '
take it or leave it' block. The conditions are different, thus preexisting sanctions, treaties and agreements certainly need to be reevaluated and adjusted to meet the changed exigencies. The inflexibility of not accommodating such practicalities is usually a warning sign that a totally different agenda that is almost certainly detrimental to Iraq is motivating such suggestions. IAC, any area in which the US might need to be 'restrained' wrt its foreign policy in the future would not significantly include its short term plans in Iraq - it's a purely specious argument to think that the Iraq sanctions as they stand will limit US involvement significantly as much as continue to disadvantage the Iraqi people themselves.

7397. concerned - 4/21/2003 12:54:46 PM

If the sanctions are lifted then UNMOVIC also goes out of existence, along with any chance of third-party inspection of suspected WMD.

This is a fallacy of the invalid 'all or nothing' assumption.

7398. concerned - 4/21/2003 12:56:14 PM

You don't even want to know what I've named my cat.


Hopefully, it's not 'thomasd'.

7399. concerned - 4/21/2003 1:02:50 PM

Re. 7396 -

I suspect that France is trying the same sort of power play here that served it so poorly before. This smells like another attempt to place excessively onerous restrictions on Allied activities by leveraging influence through the UN with only France's interests being considered in all of this. It ignores the fact that the government of Iraq now is not that of Iraq under his Heinousness and Chirac's good friend Saddam.

7400. seguineandonly - 4/21/2003 8:59:29 PM

"Hopefully, it's not 'thomasd'."

No. However, I once did have a cat named Thom.

He had an unusually large head and wide-set eyes, as did a local rockabilly singer I knew in Dallas, by the name of Thom Edwards.

Thom Edwards was sort of a cipher--there wasn't much under the surface, that I could discern; not much inside the large head.

He pronounced his name "Tom". I pronounced my cat's name phonetically, the 'th' like the 'c' in Barcelona.

7401. Edmund Dantes - 4/21/2003 9:50:31 PM

In a word, treason

It doesn't get much worse than this. George Galloway is Britain's most active and visible peace campaigner. The Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin did not just oppose the recent campaign against Saddam Hussein; he lobbied equally aggressively against the first Gulf war, and – during the years in between – for an end to sanctions.

Yesterday, The Daily Telegraph's correspondent in Baghdad, David Blair, unearthed papers detailing alleged payments from Saddam's intelligence service to Mr Galloway through a Jordanian intermediary.

There is a word for taking money from enemy regimes: treason....
More
THE Labour MP George Galloway issued strenuous denials last night after documents were found in Iraq alleging that he had received regular, large sums of money from the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Confidential papers found in Baghdad purported to show that Mr Galloway had been taking a cut of oil revenue meant for the people of Iraq under the United Nations oil-for-food programme.

Wonder how many other Saddamites were/are bought and paid for traitors?

7402. jayackroyd - 4/21/2003 10:15:05 PM

7391

I just wanna know one thing. Did you actually read the entire article?

7403. jayackroyd - 4/21/2003 10:22:55 PM

7390

Again, continuing the sanctions as designed will have no effect on humanitarian aid, indeed since current process assumes the sanctions keeping them may facilitate the delivery of aid.

A comment, and then three questions. Comment: the sanctions as designed will enormously slow humanitarian aid, as it works its way through the UN bureaucracy. Four month delays have been cited in getting goods delivered.

Three questions.

Are you saying that UN control of Iraqi oil sales and imports should continue indefinitely?

Are you saying that Iraqis are incapable of managing an Iraqi humanitarian aid program?

There are sanctions in place. Who is being sanctioned, at this point? The US?

7404. jayackroyd - 4/21/2003 10:24:32 PM

Follow on comment, of a more general nature. Alistair's right. The "we weren't ready for this" excuse is wearing pretty thin. Why isn't the power on? Why aren't there troops available to bring in food convoys?

7405. Edmund Dantes - 4/21/2003 11:01:23 PM

Brave "jay ackroyd" writes:

I just wanna know one thing. Did you actually read the entire article?

I have zero interest in what you "wanna know."

7406. jayackroyd - 4/21/2003 11:43:38 PM

Then no need to post.

And, btw, the names issue was not about bravery, it was about cowardice. Alistair displays no particular courage in being himself. He just posts away, politely.

Hurling racist invective, dumping out personal, nasty attacks from behind a false name is cowardice. When I said that Ace has no stones, I was saying that he was a coward, choosing language I thought he would understand.

I was not saying that Pelle was a hero. He's just a regular fellow, participating honestly in the community here.

7407. jayackroyd - 4/21/2003 11:53:13 PM

OTOH, for other observers, the Judith Miller article raises interesting questions.

Jack Shafer savages her, and the Times, for publishing the piece. I read it differently--that it was a left-handed attack on the administration's attempt to lower the bar to a point where they could say the WMD claim was based in fact.

You know, first there was Condi talking about nukes, and then there was Powell saying for sure that there were chemical weapons, and then there were guys in the field finding things that didn't quite stick, and now we're at unidentified sources, seen at a distance, reported to have said that they have seen both al qaeda connections, and chemical weapons moved to Syria (which I continue to hasten to point out are not weapons of mass destruction) in a story reviewed by the military and held three days before release as, I dunno, proof? of the prewar claims.

Now I am still waiting for a response from vK, or anyone, on whether this matters. But this story is not a good sign for the wmd seekers.

7408. PincherMartin - 4/22/2003 1:50:26 AM

Jay Ackroyd --

Quite apart from the rest of your post, where there are already far too many errors of judgement, you write in the middle of #7407: "...I continue to hasten to point out [chemical weapons] are not weapons of mass destruction..."

Why do you continue to point this out when you are flat out wrong? The term "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) almost always refers to "NBC" -- that is nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

Here is the Monterey Institute of International Studies Center for Nonproliferation Studies overview on Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East Please take note that this prestigious institute, which has researched WMD for years, does not share your view that chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction.

You might also have heard of the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty, signed by the U.S. in 1993. Please take note that there are over 150 other signatories to the treaty, including all of the major powers (but not Israel or Syria), and that the only other such comprehensive treaties in existence that deal with weapons are for biological and nuclear weapons.

Chemical weapons are part of the triumvirate of weapons of mass destruction. While you may have some sort of private definition that you think has some applicability here, you should call it a private definition rather than pretending that it has some general usefulness.

7409. Macnas - 4/22/2003 6:30:01 AM

Meanwhile, Mr.Blix, bless his cotton socks, wants to go back to work.

7410. alistairConnor - 4/22/2003 9:39:54 AM

Garner visits looted hospital

Gen Garner's first escorted visit was to the 700-bed Yarmuk hospital, which was ransacked in the days after the arrival of US troops. Zayed Abdul Karim, the hospital manager, led the 64-year-old general through corridors littered with broken glass, and showed him wards stripped of everything but beds. The hospital has had no mains electricity since power was cut during air raids two weeks ago.



If he wants to re-equip the hospitals in a hurry, there are some bargains going :
In central Baghdad’s Tahrir square, a man who would not give his name was asked what the surgical tools he was selling could be used for.

“I have no idea,” he said. “I can tell you that it is usually sold in dollars but I am selling it for 500 dinars (15 cent). Any piece, 500 dinars.”

7411. jayackroyd - 4/22/2003 10:35:14 AM

Thanks Pincher. You're right. I don't understand why a false acronym, WMD, is used when a more accurate one is available, NBC, but I'll stop complaining about his particular conflation.

(Actually I do have a supposition. Perhaps you know the facts. My guess is that in order to heighten concern about the BC part of the tla, the anti-prolif guys went with the scarier, if less accurate name. Do you happen to know?)

7412. vonKreedon - 4/22/2003 11:59:36 AM

Jay - Regarding santions, the UN and humanitarian aid you make the statement, Four month delays have been cited in getting goods delivered. Can you cite this? This Transcript of the UN humanitarian briefing in Amman indicates that:

An ongoing review of priority items in the Oil-for-Food pipeline for Iraq has so far identified $395 million worth of supplies that are "shippable" within the 45-day timeline adopted last month by the UN Security Council. Further the transcript states, Most [of the "priority items] were already in transit at the beginning of the war and will be routed to strategic locations in Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait and Iran for shipment to Iraq. And still further, The first Oil-for-Food shipment since the adoption of resolution 1472 arrived in Kuwait late last week. 50,000 tons of wheat were delivered and part of the delivery was immediately offloaded for milling into flour. The World Food Programme will manage surface transportation to warehouses in Iraq.

A second wheat shipment of 50,000 tons is expected at the Jordanian port of Aqaba within days.

7413. vonKreedon - 4/22/2003 12:00:03 PM

Now regarding the US role in the delivery of this humanitarian aid, this Agriculture Worldwide posting of information from Reuters and Save the Children states:

However, the United Nations said the U.S. military was preventing a first postwar team of international humanitarian staff from flying to northern Iraq, hindering plans to oversee food, water, health-care and demining programmes in the region.

Around 30 aid workers have been blocked in Larnaca, Cyprus, since Monday after failing to get security clearance from U.S. military authorities for their planned flight.

"This delay is slowing down the delivery of humanitarian aid. It's too long a process to return to an area where direct conflict did not occur," said Veronique Taveau, spokeswoman for the U.N. Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq.

Aid agency Save the Children said it had been trying to land a plane in Arbil in northern Iraq with medical supplies to treat 40,000 people and emergency feeding kits for malnourished children. But a U.S. military official had said no aid flights would be allowed until the area was declared safe.

7414. vonKreedon - 4/22/2003 12:08:48 PM

Regarding the sanctions and Iraqi oil; yes, the Iraqis should control their own oil, everyone is giving at least lip service to this concept. However, if the UN lifts the sanctions on grounds that the US has occupied Iraq this hardly gaurantees that control will actually be turned over to representative Iraqis. There is also the matter of the Kuwaiti reparations from oil revenue that is part of the sanctions regime. As well, the Oil-for-Food program that is also funded under the sanctions regime.

And finally we come to the realpolitik crux of the issue; for the UN to lift the sanctions on the basis of a unauthorized occupation of Iraq by the US would be to post facto legitimize US unilateralism and further degrade the relevance of the UN as a break against superpower ambition and agression.

7415. jayackroyd - 4/22/2003 12:14:07 PM

Let's start with where we may agree--that it is unconscionable for either group to be playing politics with humanitarian aid. And that both groups are doing just that.

As I said, there has to be some control structure in place, and there is no reason to stop the oil-for-food program while that control structure is in place. But there is no reason for there to be any import restrictions, is there? And presumably one wants to move toward Iraqi control as soon as possible.

Now, it sometimes seems that when an administration official says "Iraqi control" he or she means "US control," as with the talk of reopening the oil pipeline to Israel closed in 1948. But it also sometimes seems that "UN control" sometimes means "French/Russian/Syrian" control. When I say Iraqi control, that's what I mean.

I do not remember where I read the 4 month delay quote. If I do, I will post it.

UN haggling, and details about what's in the oil-for-program pipeline.

7416. Ms. No - 4/22/2003 12:15:28 PM

No, Jay, I agree with you. Unless Judith Miller is a complete moron and her paper has just never noticed I'd say you're right on the money.

She goes to a good bit of trouble to point out exactly what she has not been told, who she's not been allowed to interview, who won't confirm any of this information and the more she harps on it the more suspect it all becomes.

7417. vonKreedon - 4/22/2003 12:18:12 PM

Jay - What exactly do the Iraqi people need to import that the sanction prevent? I don't believe the sanctions are preventing the importation of anything that the Iraqi people need. Are you arguing there is an urgent need to re-equip the Iraqi military?

7418. vonKreedon - 4/22/2003 12:19:19 PM

Also, I would be interested in you further developing the argument that UN control = France, Syria, Russian control vs. UN control = UN control.

7419. concerned - 4/22/2003 12:20:46 PM

Re. 7408 -

Jay just is hoping to build a case for his personal political agenda here, which has, as a goal to accuse the Coalition of not having sufficient justification to depose Saddam.

7420. PelleNilsson - 4/22/2003 12:29:13 PM

vonKreedon

They need to import a lot of stuff which under the sanctions regime has been classified as "dual-use", for example water purification chemicals and pesticides.

This squibble over the lifting of the sanctions is just a play for the galleries. The SC could easily, if wanted to, agree on a formula that lifts sanction while protecting the interest of the Iraqis.

I must say that in my view the idea to give the initial, urgent reconstruction projects to US companies is a sound one. The procurement policies of the UN and the World Bank are slow and cumbersome. The delay between the identification of a need until the beginning of construction is not less than 12-18 months if everything goes well (and it almost never does). Been there, done that.

7421. PincherMartin - 4/22/2003 12:41:29 PM

Jay --

There is some controversy surrounding the designation of chemical weapons as "weapons of mass destruction", but it's largely either an academic issue in the West or one that countries like Iraq have argued in their defense after using such weapons.

I found this from an academic who is sympathetic to the argument that chemical weapons should not be considered any different from any other kind of non-nuclear weapon. He explains the genesis of how much of the world came to see "chemical weapons" as WMD.

...the disciplinary implications of the "poor man's bomb" designation have been turned on their head by the situation of this definition within the discourse of "weapons of mass destruction," a category that has been widely accepted in the West. The designation of chemical weapons as a means of destruction on a par with nuclear weapons was given its earliest expression by the United Nations Commission for Conventional Armaments, which in 1948 adopted the following definition of "weapons of mass destruction": "Atomic explosive weapons, radioactive material weapons, lethal chemical and biological weapons, and any weapons developed in the future which have characteristics comparable in destructive effect to those of the atomic bomb or other weapons mentioned above."

The Chemical Weapons Taboo by Richard M. Price

7422. vonKreedon - 4/22/2003 12:41:51 PM

Pelle - I have not heard that sanctions were holding up the reconstruction of the water supply, but I understand that there is a "dual-use" issue and have not addressed it.

The UNSC "could" revisit the sanctions and, as Con suggests, lift some and keep other portions of the santion regime in place. I do not hear any of the SC members taking this position, and that is a shame. However, the reason is that the crux is not about the sanctions or humanitarian aid, but rather about the legitimacy of the US occupation of Iraq and the realpolitik implications of the UN rolling over and offering its belly to the worlds only superpower.

The US may not like it, but a major role of the UN has always been to act as a brake on superpower ambitions and actions. Since we are now the worlds only superpower this of course means just us, not the US and the USSR. We really should not take this as personally as we are doing.

7423. concerned - 4/22/2003 12:43:38 PM

Will Chiracism hold back Iraq?

To put it succinctly, France and Russia's main motive for not wanting to lift the Iraqi UN Sanctions is venal, and they are practicing a form of international blackmail in hopes that they can continue to extract revenue from Iraq and/or force the new Iraqi government to extract monetary compensation for the pre GWI military contracts that had been entered into with Saddam and the big oil contracts promised by the Saddam government, without regard to the interests of Iraq.

7424. PincherMartin - 4/22/2003 12:48:56 PM

Judith Miller is not a moron. She's been reporting from and on the Middle East for more than twenty years and is well aware of pitfalls journalists can fall into when they rely on the government for their story. I read her book Germs, and found it one of the best on the subject I've ever read.

In the NY Times article, she is very careful to qualify her story. In fact, I'd have to say that it is one of the most carefully written reports I've read. (If only Robert Fisk and Peter Arnett were so careful about their sources.) You can take it or leave it, but the story was worth reporting on. Only time will tell if the former Iraqi government source was accurate in his remarks.

7425. concerned - 4/22/2003 12:51:15 PM

...and/or forcibly extract monetary compensation from the new Iraqi government....

7426. jayackroyd - 4/22/2003 1:00:51 PM

7419

Actually, that is exactly backwards. I do think it reprehensible to make a false case to go to war, but my quesstion was whether it makes any practical difference going forward. If nothing is found, the US will be denounced for a while.

But it's like Microsoft. You can denounce the company all you want, but you have to deal with them.

Can we wreck UN relations and NATO any more than we have already? And do they make any difference?

I was wondering if vK had an alternative view.

7427. jayackroyd - 4/22/2003 1:04:32 PM

7417

I dunno vK. Why do they call them sanctions? Seems to me that there isn't any other country in the world where Kofi Annan has to personally sign off on stuff that isn't on the list kept in a back room at the UN.

I will develop further the idea that the three security councils members, France, Syria and Russia are pursuing their own narrow interests, rather than the interests of the UN. But I have to get to a meeting.

7428. PincherMartin - 4/22/2003 1:11:52 PM

France has just announced it wants to suspend the sanctions against Iraq and phase out the UN food-for-oil program.

7429. vonKreedon - 4/22/2003 1:12:35 PM

Con - Mr. Safire implies what you posit as the motive for France et al's resistance to lifting of sanctions.

He says, Chiracism threatens to hobble oil sales and prevent recovery. But it is very unclear to me how maintaining the current sanctions regime hobbles oil sales; I believe that Iraq has permission to sell all it can, but the proceeds go to the UN Oil-for-Food escrow.

Safire continues his argument by innuendo, I wonder: In what French banks is the money collected from past oil sales deposited? One might wonder, but wondering hardly constitutes an argument. He follows this innuendo up with That adds up to more than a billion bucks over a few years in Saddam's personal pocket, placed - ?. He refers to Iraqi debt to Russia and implies venality to Russian motives on this basis. At any rate, it may be true, but Safire presents tabloidal innuendo in place of journalistic research.

7430. PincherMartin - 4/22/2003 1:12:51 PM

France's UN ambassador made the announcement.

7431. jayackroyd - 4/22/2003 1:14:27 PM

7424

You're agreeing with MsNo, Pincher.

7432. PincherMartin - 4/22/2003 1:17:05 PM

Jay --

Is that right? I didn't think Mrs. No was capable of such an ironic biting tone.

7433. PelleNilsson - 4/22/2003 1:19:32 PM

Safire used to be sharp but for the last five years or so he has deteriorated.

7434. PincherMartin - 4/22/2003 1:21:09 PM

Pelle --

I agree. He's turned into a hack.

7435. vonKreedon - 4/22/2003 1:25:13 PM

The French position is nicely nuanced. The key is this statement from the UN Ambassador, A final lifting of sanctions would depend on a report by weapons inspectors, he added. This position appears to be contrary to the Con/Safire et al argument regarding the reasoning behind the French position. The French appear at my first reading to have distilled their position to the nub of the legitimacy of US actions; the US pre-empted UNMOVIC on the grounds that Saddamite WMD were such a clear and present danger that we had a legitimate right of self-defense. At this point the US seems very reluctant to let a third party, such as UNMOVIC, in to inspect Iraqi WMD. France, by taking the sanctions off the table, but leaving UNMOVIC, has put the focus squarely on the central issue.

7436. Ms. No - 4/22/2003 1:43:15 PM

I didn't think Mrs. No was capable of such an ironic biting tone.

Egads! I'm going to ruin my image.

7437. Ms. No - 4/22/2003 4:27:47 PM

More on the hunt for WMD.

7438. alistairconnor - 4/22/2003 5:30:48 PM

Hmmm. How can I avoid giving the impression of unseemly gloating?

Best to say nothing I think.

7439. vonKreedon - 4/22/2003 5:40:26 PM

I wish that the French had been this diplomatically competent prior to the war.

7440. jayackroyd - 4/22/2003 10:26:26 PM

7435

Also, it means that if the US wants to accelerate the lifting of sanctions, it has to concede that its primary justification for the war was a pretext.

That is, the French seem to be saying "We agree to lift the sanctions, which means, of course, that there are no WMD. What, wait, you're saying there ARE WMD?!? Then we have to continue the process of disarming Iraq, which is why you invaded and why there are sanctions in place. We'd prefer to have UNMOVIC confirm this, but as a starting point, has Iraq been disarmed? If so, then we'll lift the sanctions, but you have to admit you invaded on a pretext. If not, what is your justification for lifting the sanctions? They still, presumably, pose an imminent threat, if the weapons were to fall into the hands of terrorists."


vK--rather than saying I wish the French had been this nuanced in advance of the war, I wish the US had been.

7441. vonKreedon - 4/22/2003 10:55:34 PM

Well, yeah, but the US has yet to exhibit the diplomatic competence that I would wish for; the French are starting to show some competence. The US military offered the US diplomats an opportunity, but they seem oblivious.

7442. PincherMartin - 4/22/2003 11:22:58 PM

This is like watching a conversation between Gilligan and the Captain as they try to find some way off the island. The audience knows they aren't going anywhere, but it's entertaining nevertheless.

Also, it means that if the US wants to accelerate the lifting of sanctions, it has to concede that its primary justification for the war was a pretext.

First, the peace has only been established for a little over a week. Critics who think the US should be able to pull WMD out of their ass upon arriving in Baghdad resemble the idiots who think it was bogged down during the first week of the war and those who thought U.S. troops should have been able to stop the chaos on day one after the fall of the regime. There should be an interregnum of at least three to four months before qualified judgements can be made about the validity of the U.S. rationale for going to war.

Second, even if the U.S. does not find weapons of mass destruction, it does not mean that this was a "pretext" for going to war. It may simply mean that U.S. intelligence is spotty or too dependent on Iraqi dissidents who told U.S. authorities what they thought the U.S. wanted to hear. I have no doubt the U.S. believed -- and still believes --that WMD was in Iraq. This was the case under Clinton and it's the case under Bush, and its been the case when Western nongovernmental and nonpartisan institutes and think tanks looked at the issue. There was no pretext.

Well, yeah, but the US has yet to exhibit the diplomatic competence that I would wish for; the French are starting to show some competence. The US military offered the US diplomats an opportunity, but they seem oblivious.

Why? The U.S. is doing exactly what it needs to do. The U.S. does not want the U.N. in Iraq except in a secondary role. I completely support that aim.

7443. vonKreedon - 4/23/2003 12:47:27 AM

PM's disdain for the UN and for the need to actually find significant WMD is right in line with the current oblivious administration. The underlying assumption seems to be that, as the superpower, the rest of the world is irrelevant and there is no need for us to act to legitimate, or even explain, our unilateralist activities. They assume that we can invade Iraq on the basis of the absolute assurance that there are hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapon material, as well as banned ballistic and UAV delivery systems. Then we can turn around and tell the world that it makes no matter if we actually find anything and further we, and we alone, will determine whether or not we found anything.

We tell the rest of the world that they are irrelevant and believe that not only can we make this stick, but that this is a wise diplomatic course.

It appears to be an exercise in power for power's sake; there is no fostering of relationships, only imposing them. We tell the world that the beatings will continue until they like us better. It hardly seems like a winning long term strategy in what is supposed to be a war on terror.

7444. PincherMartin - 4/23/2003 5:12:18 AM

VK --

PM's disdain for the UN and for the need to actually find significant WMD is right in line with the current oblivious administration.

No, I think it will be a serious blow to American credibility if the U.S. fails to find WMD in Iraq or at least strong evidence that they existed there just prior to the war.

But you are right about one thing: I do have disdain for the United Nations.

The underlying assumption seems to be that, as the superpower, the rest of the world is irrelevant and there is no need for us to act to legitimate, or even explain, our unilateralist activities.

See above. It will be a serious blow to U.S. credibility if it turns out there are no WMD in Iraq.

Where I differ from you two numbskulls is in the amount of time I'm willing to give the administration to discover them. Unlike the UN team under Blix, the U.S. has to keep the peace, stop looting, set up civil and military administrations in Baghdad, turn on the power, the water, and other services, and then find WMD.

Then there's the additional problem of finding many of the scientists and government officials who worked on the programs. Some of them have been caught or turned themselves in, but most have not. This is key since many biological weapons labs are small enough to be mobile and other facilities may be buried deep under ground (and their entrances buried under rubble from coalition bombing). We need at least a couple of volunteers from among the scientists to help us speed up the process of finding any WMD sites.

continued ...

7445. PincherMartin - 4/23/2003 5:15:16 AM

They assume that we can invade Iraq on the basis of the absolute assurance that there are hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapon material, as well as banned ballistic and UAV delivery systems. Then we can turn around and tell the world that it makes no matter if we actually find anything and further we, and we alone, will determine whether or not we found anything.

That's right. If I trust my government to make the determination of going to war without many traditional allies, I certainly can trust it to find WMD without them.

It's funny, VK doesn't trust his own government to make this determination because he thinks it is compromised on this issue of WMD, but he doesn't admit that the UN and Blix are also compromised on it. It's in Blix's interests to show that he should have been given more time, and that the U.S.-led war was wrong. He can do that if he's allowed back into Iraq where he can play the same political games he played before the war began. Blix can downplay the credibility of scientists who step forward to talk about weapons programs and he can bury evidence that he doesn't think substantial enough to merit attention.

We tell the rest of the world that they are irrelevant and believe that not only can we make this stick, but that this is a wise diplomatic course.

The rest of the world made themselves irrelevant on Iraq's future by their actions before the war. The U.S. and its allies will now determine Iraq's future without their help.

7446. alistairConnor - 4/23/2003 6:25:32 AM

Blix can downplay the credibility of scientists who step forward to talk about weapons programs and he can bury evidence that he doesn't think substantial enough to merit attention.

What bullshit. He'd have a batallion of Marines up his arse at all times. How could he possibly "bury" anything?

This is as laughable as the alibi I saw in the papers yesterday, that probably the WMD were looted by Iraqi officials and that's why they can't be found!

I still don't know whether Saddam had chemical and/or biological weapons. Neither does Hans Blix. Nor do you, Pinscher (though you used to).

7447. alistairConnor - 4/23/2003 6:35:16 AM

They (the madmen) want to keep Blix out for the same reason they want to punish France : wounded pride.

He stuck to his job, throughout. He did his best to come up with a smoking gun, to please the US. All he could find was the slightly over-range missiles, a damp squib at best. What more he could have done to please the US, I have no idea (since the intelligence provided turned out to be "spotty").

By being scrupulously honest throughout, he showed up the US's duplicity. That is his unpardonable sin.

7448. transient1a - 4/23/2003 7:30:27 AM

alistairconnor,

Message # 7373

1

Can a global hyperpower also be a global hyperdebtor?

Niall Ferguson has been and is very busy hyping his newest book: Empire.

2

Iraq is not war-torn Europe. Vast oil resources can pay for the reconstruction. The question is: Can a secular democratic state friendly to the US arise from the totalitarian ashes. Or will the new Iraq be a totalitarian fundamentalist Moslem state alligned with Iran.

3

Like any sovereign state, the US can renege on its national debt -- or reclaim the parts of its industries under foreign control -- whenever it chooses. (This has been done by other countries in the past.)

7449. alistairConnor - 4/23/2003 8:03:37 AM

Or will the new Iraq be a totalitarian fundamentalist Moslem state alligned with Iran.

That would indeed be rather counter-productive, and is looking daily more likely. A UN-supervised transition to democracy would offer better guarantees than the interim US military regime, which by its nature, generates resentment.

7450. alistairConnor - 4/23/2003 8:07:51 AM

Like any sovereign state, the US can renege on its national debt -- or reclaim the parts of its industries under foreign control -- whenever it chooses.

An interesting prospect. But I can't see how that would benefit the US, since it seems to me it would require it to balance the books thereafter.

7451. Wombat - 4/23/2003 8:34:58 AM

Transient:

Or

4
Will Iraq end up as a quasi-democracy with religious establishment oversight and a veto of candidates and legislation that it does not like? (Iran)

5
Iraq as a democratic, federal country--roughly along ethnic/religious lines with considerable legislative, religious, and economic autonomy at the state or provincial level? This recognizes that voting at the state and local levels in parts of the country will be controlled by ethnic and tribal leaders for the forseeable future.

I think the latter two options are most likely, with no. 5 being the most desireable/realistic.

7452. marjoribanks - 4/23/2003 9:29:11 AM

There should be an interregnum of at least three to four months before qualified judgements can be made about the validity of the U.S. rationale for going to war.

This is quite obviously reasonable, and sane. There is no surprise that those who criticized the War virulently are those now willing to make day-to-day snap pronouncements about its alleged failure as well.

However, these people are matched and trumped by the hack neocon apologists who are likewise skipping the decent period of assessment to trumpet phony triumphalism and, worse, move the targets from those carefully set out before War to far less meaningless benchmarks.

Pincher, the author of the reasonable quote above, came in here several days ago to "gloat", one recalls.

7453. alistairConnor - 4/23/2003 9:29:57 AM

I think it likely that the "desireable" outcome for the US administration, is any damn thing they like, as long is there is not a strong central government with control over the oil.

Some people (the paranoid left) think that that the Texas oilmen want to carve up Iraq's oil for private profit. Although there are individuals in and around the administration who wouldn't say no to that, I doubt it will happen. I think it more likely that several competing Iraqi-controlled oil companies are the preferred outcome, because that would tend to maximise output, and make a cut-off of supply less likely.

After all. If we apply Occam's razor to the many and varied reasons for the war, which one comes out looking necessary and sufficient, based on current US actions (as distinct from US words)? Maintaining abundant and reasonably priced oil supplies on the world market is vital to the US economy. Doesn't matter who owns it, as long as they keep pumping.

7454. marjoribanks - 4/23/2003 9:32:37 AM

The U.S. and its allies will now determine Iraq's future without their help.

No they will not. There is the small matter of the chaotic wishes of Iraqi humanity, and there is also the abiding influence of players such as Iran and Turkey which will have a giant role in determining the future of Iraq. The US can and will act as controller for a brief period, but if anyone thinks the Iraqis can be kept alienated from the decision-making process is misreading the unfolding situation.

7455. marjoribanks - 4/23/2003 9:35:02 AM

..to far less meaningful benchmarks....

7456. marjoribanks - 4/23/2003 9:45:05 AM

Maintaining abundant and reasonably priced oil supplies on the world market is vital to the US economy. Doesn't matter who owns it, as long as they keep pumping.

This is still a thin excuse, AC, no matter how many people in the world accept that it is paramount.

There's no doubt that the breaking of OPEC, the sourcing of Saudi-Arabia-type petroleum resources, and so on, are good reasons why the US went to war and they undoubtedly played a part.

But there is a bigger security picture whether we want to accept it or not. The injection of fearsome and permanent US power into a deeply troubled region filled with sworn enemies is definitely a larger motivation for the US, as is the desire to genuinely create a power revolution in the ME including safe borders for states within, the stabilizing of the festering Israel/Pal situation, and a real belief that the region wants and needs a democratic revolution similar to that undergone in Eastern Europe.

Oil is one piece, only one piece, of a far grander Imperial scheme. It is this grander Imperial scheme which is better apologia for the war, in my opinion, and it is the Imperial scheme that I support. It is worth at least one shot, the alternative is to stand by while the region falls deeper and deeper into a hole, dragging some of us after it. In this context, I highly recommend the Arab Human Development Report which starkly lays out the failures and the challenges ahead.

7457. Wombat - 4/23/2003 10:05:40 AM

The U.S. does not any problem with strong central governments that control their countries' oil. The U.S. was content to buy oil from Libya and Iraq, as well as the other Arab states.

The best thing for U.S. oil interests is cheap oil, preferably owned by someone else, who will need U.S. expertise, but will pay for exploration and capitalization costs, without any pesky regulations that direct U.S. control would entail.

7458. Wombat - 4/23/2003 10:11:55 AM

Has anyone else been following the latest George Galloway imbroglio?

7459. judithathome - 4/23/2003 10:20:38 AM

Galloway's Statement

This attack is part of a smear campaign, against those who stood against the illegal and bloody war on Iraq and against its occupation by foreign forces.

As I am out of the country, writing a book about Iraq, I have not seen the so-called "documents" the Telegraph - a highly partisan source - claims to have access to.

The idea that such documents have, as if to order, come to light just days after the massive assault on Baghdad, the looting and destruction of its ministries and government buildings, and the chaos in the country must be treated as highly suspect....

7460. marjoribanks - 4/23/2003 10:30:22 AM

I feel zero surprise about Galloway. The UK Parliament is rife with small-scale corruption exactly of the kind displayed by Galloway, and numerous scandals have shown that MP's are bought for relatively small sums (look up Al-fayed's history), and those small sums often translate to ridiculously disproportionate rhetoric in the chamber.

It's just lobbying, really. If Galloway had registered his income and had it been channeled through other sources it would have caused nary a flutter. Remember Marcos paying off US legislators until the very end?

7461. alistairConnor - 4/23/2003 10:30:36 AM

US detains children at Guantanamo Bay

Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson, a US military spokesman, yesterday said all the teenagers being held were "captured as active combatants against US forces", and described them as "enemy combatants".

7462. marjoribanks - 4/23/2003 10:31:15 AM

The difference may be in the high ground Galloway sought, which has disappeared into a pit of quicksand under his feet.

7463. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 10:38:17 AM

You can approach Iraq in traditional Cold Warrior style (i.e., we have nullified the the threat - now, let us leave them to their own devices) or you can embrace an internationalist stance (we have toppled Saddam, nullified the threat, and we intend to stay and grapple with the morass of the region for the next 30 years, chest and head banging Shiites or no).

7464. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 10:40:32 AM

Frankly, I prefer to get in the thick of it, but modern American media has the patience of a toddler (six day war - quagmire! Seven day riots - disaster! Shiites going crazy after being suppressed for decades - Bush's Folly!).

7465. RIckNelson - 4/23/2003 10:46:22 AM

Wombat points out that the Iranian system headed by spiritual leaders might take a large part of the control for new Iraq. The Shiites resurgence to faith may very well carry this to fruition. Then the Kurdish question is still a wild-card.


It would be nice to see a democratically elected government system take strong roots in Iraq. Yet this is Marxist idealism, to espouse that democracy is to spread far and wide. Starting with this foothold in Iraq. Not that it would be a bad thing.

I'm not smart mouthing the ideal. It's ironic that where communism failed to spread via its efforts, here democracy via somewhat parallel methodology is spreading (perhaps).

7466. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 10:48:35 AM

Alistair

I still don't know whether Saddam had chemical and/or biological weapons.

At this juncture, I'm quite sure he does not.

But I do enjoy your rendition of Hans Blix on the Cross, one good soul against . . . the madmen.

7467. RIckNelson - 4/23/2003 10:51:46 AM

Daniel and I'm sure others have said they question the validity of WMD existing. We didn't know they had almost a billion US dollars either, but they were found. I'm still being patient with them. I can't imagine these weapons will be easy to find. And if never found, say in six months, then I will agree they were not there. Six months minimum, I'm willing to let them look longer.

7468. marjoribanks - 4/23/2003 10:55:13 AM

Democracy is already in the Middle East via satellite television, which is devoured by everyone with access.

The pictures from Karbala have to be seen as some kind of victory for the US and a visible sign of some kind of liberation. Where we will go from here is somewhat unclear but I wouldn't credit very much the stock opinion that Iraqi Shiites will demand an Islamic Republic.

7469. Macnas - 4/23/2003 10:55:42 AM

Considering the contempt that was shown to the UN weapons inspectors, in both their ability to find these weapons and to their requests for more time, I would say that they'll have to find them quicker than that.

7470. judithathome - 4/23/2003 10:56:33 AM

More Cash Found

U.S. soldiers found $112 million in U.S. currency sealed inside seven dog kennels in a wealthy Baghdad neighborhood of mansions and rose gardens where top Baath Party and Republican Guard officials once lived, a newspaper reported Wednesday.

The Los Angeles Times reported that the cash found Tuesday — like the $656 million uncovered Friday in four barricaded cottages in the same neighborhood — was stacked neatly inside galvanized aluminum boxes sealed with blue strapping tape and green seals stamped "Bank of Jordan."

The last paragraphs of this article point to someone having see Three Kings a few too many times.

7471. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 10:58:29 AM

Rick

To be clear, no one of any rational mind has qustioned the existence of the components of WMD existing. Even Clinton ("Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors") and Gore ("We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country") have been unequivocal on the subject.

I merely affirmed that Saddam no longer has them.

Which is a good thing.

7472. Macnas - 4/23/2003 10:59:23 AM

A case of "Hate the US, Love their money".

7473. Wombat - 4/23/2003 11:00:28 AM

Judith:

Given that the Iraqi leadership seemed to base most of its assessment of US strategy on movies (Black Hawk Down in particular), this should not be suprising.

7474. RIckNelson - 4/23/2003 11:00:31 AM

I see your point about a stock opinion. For myself it's the jitters of 1979. I have so much hope, yet hold back to avoid a let down.

But, what of the old adage any democracy is better than none? Skepticism, healthy or otherwise.

There is always doubt when looking at another variation of what Americans hold dear. Free elections and for the most part good representation. Solid infrastructure and accountability (mostly). So, taking into this the recent Nigerian election as an example of varied democracy. What might be a healthy wait and see for Iraq?

7475. RIckNelson - 4/23/2003 11:02:15 AM

7471, Noted, thanks Daniel.

7476. alistairConnor - 4/23/2003 11:02:58 AM

It will be interesting to see how Bush plays off the A team (State department) against the B team (the madmen) over coming months. There is still time to back away from some of the "We're right, and the rest of the world can just eat shit an' die" posturing, and turn the military leverage gained to good effect.

Breaking the Israel/Palestine deadlock has always seemed to me to be the worthiest of the many reasons proffered for the war. Any day now, we're going to see the famous road map, co-sponsored by the US, the EU and Russia. This, I think, is what the bitter in-fighting within the US administration is currently focused on. Newt Grinch and the Perle lobby want to bury it.

Then again, these were the people who touted the charlatan Chalabi as a credible Chiite leader.

7477. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 11:04:59 AM

Let's not forget, it was the madmen who persevered in toppling Saddam. And it is the madmen who are pushing a long-term commitment and presence in Iraq.

The gentlemen at State would have been pleased to wait and would be even more pleased to get out and back to Fortress America.

7478. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 11:05:54 AM

As for posturing, thus far, it has served the United States and the Coalition quite well, though some egos seem unduly bruised.

7479. marjoribanks - 4/23/2003 11:06:46 AM

Exactly what you said, Rick, solid infrastructure and a government with some accountability to the electorate.

Give it those six months. Any kind of democracy will be a massive improvement, and a robust state will be a grand victory.

7480. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 11:08:04 AM

Six months.

That's like, sixty years in idiot time!

7481. RIckNelson - 4/23/2003 11:08:57 AM

alistair,

I've heard Chalabi say during an interview he is very much wait and see with regard to running things. I have heard him state he wishes at present to be of use in organizing only. When there are elections he stated he has not made any decision as to running. Of course that means nothing, but it's not like he's running amok.

7482. PelleNilsson - 4/23/2003 11:09:02 AM

I think we will see a tribal political structure dressed up as a democracy much like the system in Jordan. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose. In any case, in the ME the one-man-one-vote formula will promote voting along tribal lines. If we add a religious dimension we could look to Lebanon as an example. Jordan and Lebanon are not democracies in the western sense of the word but they are tolerable regimes.

7483. RIckNelson - 4/23/2003 11:09:51 AM

7480,

elucidate.

7484. alistairConnor - 4/23/2003 11:12:41 AM

Rick (re Chalabi) : Yes, that means that he is rather more lucid about his own insignificance than his idiot backers. I suppose he's counting on the ability to win support by handing out wads of money.

7485. RIckNelson - 4/23/2003 11:13:44 AM

I suppose you mean reporters.


Doesn't really matter.

7486. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 11:13:55 AM

Rick

What we are doing with and in Iraq is of historic importance. It is about getting a foothold in the region and challeneging it economically, culturally and, on occasion, militarily. It is an effort of decades, spanning political parties.

Yet, to read the new York Times or watch any cable show, avery rally and every looting is evidence of failure and eventual doom.

7487. RIckNelson - 4/23/2003 11:14:52 AM

HAHAHAHA, "wads of money".

Could be, but like you note, he's being more lucid than the backers.

7488. RIckNelson - 4/23/2003 11:16:27 AM

Daniel,

I gathered that might be it. It's a good point. Patience as you mentioned earlier, is the prudent and needed course.

7489. alistairConnor - 4/23/2003 11:16:34 AM

Pelle,
The exception I see is the north, where the Kurds seem to be making a reasonable start on a pluralist democracy, with political rather than ethic bases. Or am I too optimistic on that?

7490. Macnas - 4/23/2003 11:24:08 AM

Alistair

Haven't the Kurds been more politicised than others in this region, since the 70's at least?

7491. RIckNelson - 4/23/2003 11:33:25 AM

I think Kurd credibility and leadership was heightened by their withdrawal from Kirkuk. I hope they are politically plural for the future Iraq.

7492. PelleNilsson - 4/23/2003 11:43:51 AM

Alistair

Aren't the Kurds the very epitome of an ethnically based polity? There cannot be many Arabs or Turkmens in the Kurdish areas.

7493. PincherMartin - 4/23/2003 11:58:24 AM

Alistair -- Message # 7446

What bullshit. He'd have a [battalion] of Marines up his arse at all times. How could he possibly "bury" anything?

Blix's team is made up of internationals from countries not named "Great Britain" or the "United States". It is they -- not a battalion of Marines -- who will be making the visits to sites if the U.N. gets back into Iraq. No thanks. We've been there and done that before.

And I can tell you with great certainty that 95% of Marines couldn't tell you what a WMD looked like if they were bit in the ass by one. I'm sure that is why the U.S. had quite a few false WMD reports in the opening days of the war. Men who had never seen any kind of WMD, but knew they were suppose to look for them, got all excited whenever they came across a piece of ordnance they weren't familiar with.

Now, with most of the fighting over, professionals who've had either military or civilian training in identifying WMD, are looking for the weapons. A couple more months, and we should know for sure what's in the country.

I still don't know whether Saddam had chemical and/or biological weapons. Neither does Hans Blix. Nor do you, Pinscher (though you used to).

Yes, I use to, and so did most of the rest of the sane world, including the U.N. inspectors in Iraq, when they were persuaded to leave their jobs prematurely in 1998. I still believe WMD will be found in Iraq or, at the very least, strong first-hand evidence that the Iraqis possessed them on the eve of the war.

7494. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 12:14:47 PM

In his fervor over the madmen, Alistair has yet to state whether he believes Iraq possessed WMD.

In fact, I'd like to know who claims that they did not.

7495. PincherMartin - 4/23/2003 12:16:23 PM

Alistair --

They (the madmen)...

Here we go again.

...want to keep Blix out for the same reason they want to punish France: wounded pride.

No, they want to teach a lesson: Oppose U.S. interests to save a dictator, under the umbrella of our alliance and through the guise of morality and legalisms that you practice only when it suits you, and you will suffer the consequences.

It was good to see Powell, of all people, say that France would pay for their opposition. The secretary of state is not someone to hold grudges so it's obvious French perfidy is thought to run deep if even Powell supports some tit-for-tat action in the future. What do you want to bet Alistair that when the U.S. does eventually move against France --at a time and place of its choosing -- it will be more effective at opposing French interests than France was at opposing U.S. interests.

He stuck to his job, throughout. He did his best to come up with a smoking gun, to please the US. All he could find was the slightly over-range missiles, a damp squib at best. What more he could have done to please the US, I have no idea (since the intelligence provided turned out to be "spotty").

He buried the remote controlled plane and dual use materials in his reports. He constantly spoke of the cooperation he was given by the Iraqis even though they continued to hold out over -- and only grudgingly gave in to -- matters that had been locked in by resolution 1441: U2 flights over Iraq, interviews with scientists, etc.

7496. PincherMartin - 4/23/2003 12:21:20 PM

Marj --

Pincher, the author of the reasonable quote above, came in here several days ago to "gloat", one recalls.

I came in to gloat over the success of the military action, something that many here were quite unhappy to see.

As for gloating over any future success in turning Iraq into a modern-day Eden, I'll take a raincheck. I've mentioned here before that I'm more pessimistic about the odds of making Iraq into a democratic success story than I was about removing it as a potential threat to the U.S.

7497. wabbit - 4/23/2003 12:25:26 PM

Pelle, Message # 7492, here's a map showing the ethno-religious distribution of the Iraqi population (click on map for full size):

7498. PincherMartin - 4/23/2003 12:28:02 PM

Some people (the paranoid left) think that that the Texas oilmen want to carve up Iraq's oil for private profit. Although there are individuals in and around the administration who wouldn't say no to that, I doubt it will happen. I think it more likely that several competing Iraqi-controlled oil companies are the preferred outcome, because that would tend to maximise output, and make a cut-off of supply less likely.

This may surprise some people but Iraq was one of America's biggest suppliers of oil through the late 1990s and early 2000s. It varied from year to year, but in more than just a couple of years, Iraq was the second biggest supplier of oil to the U.S. in the entire Middle East, with only Saudi Arabia supplying more.

Once a democratic government is in place in Iraq, the U.S. will have little choice but to acquiese if it chooses to stay in OPEC and not much ability to affect its decisions in that body.

7499. jayackroyd - 4/23/2003 12:37:05 PM

I came in to gloat over the success of the military action, something that many here were quite unhappy to see.

Who would that have been?

7500. PincherMartin - 4/23/2003 12:44:43 PM

Jay --

I exaggerate.

Some people (Alistair and Von Kreedon) were expecting a U.S. military debacle of Vietnam-esque proportions after the uneasy second week of the war and (cheerfully?) grabbing on to any report of bad news to bolster those expectations.

7501. concerned - 4/23/2003 1:14:20 PM

Re. 7497 -

The somewhat comparable areal distributions of Kurds and Sunni & Shiite Muslims actually gives me a sense of optimism that a more or less pluralistic, secular government will be accepted by all in Iraq in preference to the uncertainty of ethnic and religious violence and tension. Don't be too surprised if the US ultimately pulls this off.

7502. vonKreedon - 4/23/2003 1:17:56 PM

Regarding the amount of time given to find WMD, it is not I, but the US administration that claimed there was no time. I, and most of the rest of the world, argued that inspections should be given more time. It was the administration that argued:

• The Iraqi WMD program was so advanced and large that it presented such a clear and present danger that the US had a legitimate right of self-defense to invade without UN authorization. The logical assumption here, and the argument made by the administration, is that the US has such solid intel on this that it is certain.
  
• That the amount of WMD was immense, at least 100 tons and probably closer to 500 tons according to Powell, in addition to what the President called a fleet of UAVs capable of delivering WMD. Again, a clear and present danger.
  
• UNMOVIC was not being agressive enough in using US supplied intel and suggestions in searching for WMD. That Blix et al really were not trying to find WMD, and conversely one would assume that once we have control of the country and those involved in the WMD are free from Saddamite coercion the WMD will quickly come to the surface.
  

7503. concerned - 4/23/2003 1:18:20 PM

Re. 7500 -

Too bad Sakonige and jexster haven't been hanging around this time to salvage their apparent relative credibility.

7504. PincherMartin - 4/23/2003 1:30:41 PM

Von Kreedon --

Regarding the amount of time given to find WMD, it is not I, but the US administration that claimed there was no time. I, and most of the rest of the world, argued that inspections should be given more time.

Your defense is disingenous. More time for inspections was not the point; Saddam's full cooperation in any inspection regime was. More time for inspections was simply a delaying action for people like yourself, and countries like France, who could not abide a war for any reason.

Your defense would also make more sense if any WMD in Iraq was still the same kind of threat to the United States as it was before the war. But as Daniel Sickles points out, whatever happened to the WMD in Iraq, we are fairly certain it is not in Saddam's control.

7505. vonKreedon - 4/23/2003 1:30:49 PM

But what really interests me currently is the complete lack of regard for legitimacy shown by the US administration. The rest of the world, and substantial portions of the US citizenry, clearly doubted the administration's argument about the clear and present danger of Iraqi WMD. The rest of the world, and substantial portions of the US citizenry, distrust the administration and its rationale for this war. Yet the administration, to hossanas from the apologist choir, tells the rest of the world that we will do all the inspecting our ownselves and let you all know the results. Rumsfeld says, referring to any US claims of finding WMD, "Now that will not stop certain countries and certain types of people from claiming inaccurately that it was planted." So they are aware that there is distrust. But rather than taking the obvious step of having UNMOVIC, the official international body charged with the task, complete its inspection process, the administration compounds the distrust and the suspicion by insisting that it and it alone will verify Iraqi WMD.

This is stupid, oblivious diplomacy.

7506. vonKreedon - 4/23/2003 1:36:46 PM

PM - No, the question is was there such a clear and present danger that the US had a legitimate right to override the UN authorized process. The UN argument is that the inspection were in fact working; the US argument is that they were not working effectively or quickly enough to counter the clear and present danger, and we were forced to take action in our self-defense. Given that no WMD were used in the war and that our supposed certainty of information has turned into a hope that someone will come forward and show us the hundreds of tons of WMD and fleet of UAVs, the US argument looks wrong, illegitimate and disingenuous. The US is compounding this error by pooh-poohing any legitimacy questions and refusing to allow UNMOVIC to finish its UN mandated job.

Again, we are telling the rest of the world that they are irrelevant. This hardly seems a wise strategy for fighting a global war on terror.

7507. vonKreedon - 4/23/2003 1:39:30 PM

Regarind the military operation in the war; I was too quick to think that Rumsfeld had fucked the operation. I still do not see what the rush was, why it was necessary to go in without the 4th ID, 1st ID, 1st AD that we apparently had in the pipeline. The operation went stunningly. The occupation could be going better with more troops, but for some reason we could not wait.

7508. vonKreedon - 4/23/2003 1:40:35 PM

I've got to get some work done. Check with you all in a few hours.

7509. vonKreedon - 4/23/2003 1:43:56 PM

Oh, one thing more, I never wished that the US military would have anything other than swift and nearly bloodless success in their operation. Given that the administration ordered the invasion the best for all, excepting the Saddamite regime, was for a very quick and effective campaign. I was also very admiring of the conduct of the US military throughout this campaign.

It is the administration and its policies, not the US military, that I oppose as wrong headed and incompetent.

7510. PincherMartin - 4/23/2003 1:50:10 PM

VK --

But what really interests me currently is the complete lack of regard for legitimacy shown by the US administration.

You keep believing in this Santa Clause of "legitimacy" even after he leaves no gifts under your tree.

The U.N. has no legitimacy beyond what we give it, and we rarely give it. Military actions in Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti and Panama were all undertaken over the last few years without a UN vote.

Certainly if the UN isn't willing to back up its own resolutions, then it loses all credibility. Why would the U.S. cede its national interest to live in a secure world to such a body?

The rest of the world, and substantial portions of the US citizenry, clearly doubted the administration's argument about the clear and present danger of Iraqi WMD.

Substantial portions? Maybe 20 to 30% at the most. In any genuine democracy that would be considered a rout.

Yet the administration, to hossanas from the apologist choir, tells the rest of the world that we will do all the inspecting our ownselves and let you all know the results.

Damn straight. And look at the result. So far, not a single thing found. If the U.S. didn't really expect to find WMD, you would think it would have found the planted evidence by now.

But rather than taking the obvious step of having UNMOVIC, the official international body charged with the task, complete its inspection process, the administration compounds the distrust and the suspicion by insisting that it and it alone will verify Iraqi WMD.

Yes, the U.S. can't trust a body that has backpeddled from its task, and is comprised of members from countries that were uniformly against the war. We can't trust them to enthusiastically carry out their duties or to have the final judgement call on something they were against from the start.

7511. PelleNilsson - 4/23/2003 1:53:41 PM

Well, I'm certainly glad that my support of the war was not predicated on WMD. I wanted Saddam gone, that is all. And now he is.

7512. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 2:00:20 PM

Vk

The administration is held in high esteem by the populace and the polls even suggest support for the war without the need to find WMD. You need to get to a Tastee Freez more often.

As for your clear and present danger standard, it is the kind of mathematical disingenuousness that was taken up by the Kucinich and Daschle crowd. The entire point of the action was not to wait until WMD became operational. You should take something from your jitters during the 3 day quagmire stage. Patience, VK, patience.

Of course there is distrust. The Arab Street overwhelmingly believes nasty Jews brought down the towers on 9-11. Other "allies" and non-allies had their own interests in this matter, and when the U.S. decided to act on its interests instead, naturally, some feelinsg were hurt. But one cannot be more foolish than to suggest policy based on the presumed fantastical assumptions or fragile egos of portions of the world.

Moreover, you have no idea what we have found. My guess is that when it is presented to you, you will dismiss it, because your intellectual pride cannot take the strain.

We have not told the rest of the world they are irrelevant. Indeed, the relevancy of our Coalition partners, Iraq, Syria, Turkey and various other countries has been underscored.

You can remain relevant while being ignored.

7513. PelleNilsson - 4/23/2003 2:02:12 PM

wabbit

Thanks for the map. It shows a mixed Arab/Kurd population in Sulaymanyiah, Arbil and in an area southwest of that city and scattered Turkmen pockets. On the other hand the underlying data is almost certainly pre-1991. There may well have been what we euphemistically call a "population exchange" since then.

7514. PincherMartin - 4/23/2003 2:05:58 PM

No, the question is was there such a clear and present danger that the US had a legitimate right to override the UN authorized process.

There was a clear and present danger. Who knows when Saddam would have begun supplying terrorists with WMD (if he hadn't already)? That danger is now past. No WMD has been found yet, but we can be sure that Saddam is not likely to be in control of any right now.

The UN argument is that the inspection were in fact working; the US argument is that they were not working effectively or quickly enough to counter the clear and present danger, and we were forced to take action in our self-defense.

No, that was just part of the argument. The U.S. thought the inspection process failed because Saddam was not cooperating. It also admitted (and some of the countries opposing the US were also very clear on this point) that if the invasion didn't go ahead when it did, the U.S. would have to wait until after the summer before taking it up again. That was too long a wait. Who knows what that extra time would have allowed Saddam to do?

continued ...

7515. PincherMartin - 4/23/2003 2:06:10 PM

Given that no WMD were used in the war and that our supposed certainty of information has turned into a hope that someone will come forward and show us the hundreds of tons of WMD and fleet of UAVs, the US argument looks wrong, illegitimate and disingenuous.

Again, let's wait and see what is in the tunnels under Baghdad and what the scientists say without the threat of Saddam's henchmen before jumping to any conclusions. I will only say now that I agree it will look very bad if the U.S. does not find any WMD in Iraq.

The US is compounding this error by pooh-poohing any legitimacy questions and refusing to allow UNMOVIC to finish its UN mandated job.

Its mandate ended the minute we invaded. They now have no mandate. If the UN is so unwilling to back up their resolutions regarding Iraq before the war, I don't see why they need to be such sticklers now.

Again, we are telling the rest of the world that they are irrelevant. This hardly seems a wise strategy for fighting a global war on terror.

But the initial results suggest otherwise. To my knowledge, not a single country has said it is suspending its cooperation with the U.S. on the war on terror because of the war in Iraq. And several countries -- notably Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria -- have additional incentives now to cooperate.

7516. PincherMartin - 4/23/2003 2:12:25 PM

Pelle --

Well, I'm certainly glad that my support of the war was not predicated on WMD. I wanted Saddam gone, that is all. And now he is.

Yes, I agree this is a good thing, but I have to add that if the US can't find any WMD in Iraq after three or four more months, then my confidence in our intelligence services will be severely shaken.

7517. PincherMartin - 4/23/2003 2:18:39 PM

Iraq's biological weapons labs might be mobile; we may never find them.

But nuclear facilities -- and many chemical ones as well -- are too large to move; nuclear, for obvious reasons, but chemical factories because you usually need to make a shitload of chemical weapons in order to have any serious destructive power.

Those sites should be fixed, and if they're fixed, they should be findable.

7518. judithathome - 4/23/2003 2:19:55 PM

You need to get to a Tastee Freez more often.

Yes, VonK, because as you know, that is where all the intellectual thinkers hang. But I suppose Daniel means you need to rub elbows with the great unwashed a bit more, those who are driving the polls. God knows, they are on top of things!

7519. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 2:23:23 PM

VK deigned to speak for the masses. He misrepresented their current view so profoundly that a recommendation of a Tastee Freez Blizzard was in order.

I've no doubt he - and perhaps others - presume to know better. It might even be the case.

But one should be able to make a point contrary to the views of the great unwashed without distortion of or even reliance upon their views.

7520. PelleNilsson - 4/23/2003 2:45:38 PM

Pincher Message # 7516

I'm not in the elaborative mood at the moment. Let's just say that, substantially, I agree.

7521. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 2:47:26 PM

THE NERVOUS IN THE SERVICE AWARDS - MARCH 28, 2003

6038. alistairConnor - 3/28/03 11:51:10 AM
It looks like the US media are breaking the news gently. I admit I had a moment of cognitive dissonance this morning, this is such disastrous news that it could shift people's opinions abruptly. It's a real nightmare. Horrible news for the Iraqi civilian population.


6042. alistairConnor - 3/28/03 1:43:52 PM
I think it's pretty clear now that they have them [chemical weapons], and quite likely that they'll use them, defending the approaches to Baghdad. Since there's no tomorrow.

6059. vonKreedon - 3/28/03 5:00:56 PM
ED - As Wombat said, if we hadn't been in such a rush to alienate the rest of world we could have signed on to the Candadian UNSC plan while putting more forces into the pipeline so that at this point in the campaign we would have the 4th ID, 1st ID, 1st Cav, and assorted ACRs coming into the theater rather than being weeks away. We would have had the potential to really shock and awe the Iraqi military instead of looking stalemateable (did I just make that word up?). In addition, more time for diplomacy might have enabled Turkey to come around to allowing us to launch the northern front from their bases. The rush to jump into this war is a true mystery to me.

7522. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 2:48:01 PM

THE NERVOUS IN THE SERVICE AWARDS - MARCH 28, 2003 cont . . .

6061. labwabbit - 3/28/03 5:10:36 PM
It was a bluff game vK. Capitulate or deal with the mighty US! Bluff called. George and Rembrandt had to show the world we meant business...not to mention all the new toys.
I'm for kicking Hussein's ass until he bleeds well into the hereafter, but kicking out an aggressor is one thing, having someone come into your house with intent to kill you is another. I also feel that most of the "humanitarian aid" is not only failing to win "hearts and minds", but is actually feeding many of those in Saddam's "militia", who are not only being starved by Saddam, but will be killed if they don't fight. Well, at least Agent Orange isn't needed for clearing the landscape.


6064. vonKreedon - 3/28/03 5:16:29 PM
Lab - We obviously had talked ourselved into a position that we would have to use force if Sadam did not eventually, as in this quarter, provide full transparency on any WMD programs. But it seemed to me that we easily could have taken the out that the Canadians offered us without diplomatic damage, indeed it would have minimized the damage that has been done. We seemed to be in a rush to war that not only outstripped the diplomatic effort, but outstripped our strategic military effort and has left us looking vulnerable instead of invincible.

6099. thoughtful - 3/28/03 8:15:33 PM
From CNN: -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warns Syria that the U.S. considers military shipments to Iraq a 'hostile act.' Can you spell Mideast Conflagration?

7523. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 2:48:39 PM

THE SMART, COOL HEAD AWARD - MARCH 28, 2003

6089. PelleNilsson - 3/28/03 6:13:38 PM
I think the recent setbacks, which has provoked criticism of the war effort and the resources that go into it, are temporary. First, the Americans were indeed surprised by the tactics and willingness to fight by the irregular forces. They will quickly adapt. Second, the bad weather had all kinds of effects on their fighting capability. I also think that the regime's writ outside Baghdad will wither away as people (including those irregulars forces) begin to understand what they are up against.

7524. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 2:56:30 PM

THE NERVOUS IN THE SERVICE AWARDS - MARCH 29, 2003

6127. Wombat - 3/29/03 12:35:54 PM
Slate reports that a massive war game in August exposed planners to the type of tactics currently being used by Iraq, but those overseeing the game disallowed the tactics because they did not conform to the desired results (namely that a smaller force would be able to successfully fight in a situation like the one we are currently facing).

Bye bye, Don.

7525. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 2:57:10 PM

THE NERVOUS IN THE SERVICE AWARDS - MARCH 30, 2003

6169. alistairconnor - 3/30/03 12:23:03 AM
Air Assault Further Strains U.S.-Arab Relations
CAIRO, March 29 -- A shuddering sense of outrage at President Bush and the United States fell over the Arab world today as television networks and newspapers reported a U.S. air assault at a vegetable market in Baghdad that killed 58 people. [...] "Mr. Bush has lost us. We are gone. Enough. That's the end," said Diaa Rashwan, head of the comparative politics unit at the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "If America starts winning tomorrow, there will be suicide bombing that will start in America the next day. It is a whole new level now."

It doesn't actually matter who did it. Whatever the outcome, this war is a disaster. For the US too.

So predictable.

7526. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 3:02:09 PM

MORE BEAUTIES - March 30, 2003 (this is fascinating reading . . . )

6189. Wombat - 3/30/03 12:55:44 PM
No, the speed of the advance through the south toward Baghdad, and the lack of follow-on forces to secure the rear areas ensured that Baathist operatives remained in control of the south, where they are able to suppress any moves toward rebellion, and to attack the coalition's lines of supply.

6194. jayackroyd - 3/30/03 2:14:36 PM
6189

Yeah, Wombat, that's right. Basing the entire campaign on the rising of the south, without substantial US support, seems to have been a mistake. The rising may have been wishful thinking in any case (which was my hindsight point), but the battle plan did not support it as much as it could have.

6195. jayackroyd - 3/30/03 2:21:51 PM
6193

Rosie--

He's lying and spinning. That's not reassuring. I just read the reuters presentation of the press conference, and it's as if he hasn't seen the reports from the field that embedded reporters, and others, have made.

I guess it is to their credit that they embedded those reporters, confident in their quick surgical success. But they are gonna have a harder time spinning this thing than they did in version 1.0 of this war.

7527. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 3:04:28 PM

6196. jayackroyd - 3/30/03 2:28:13 PM
Everything happens quicker now. We've moved from ass-covering to full bore attack in the space of a day:

Rumsfeld's Role as War Strategist Under Scrutiny

"At the end of the day the question arises: why would you do this operation with inadequate power?" retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who commanded an infantry division in the Gulf War and later headed all U.S. military forces in Latin America, told Reuters.

"Because you don't have time to get them there? But we did. Because you don't have the forces? But we did. Because you're trying to save money on a military operation that will be $200 billion before it's done?

"Or is it because you have such a strong ideological view and you're so confident in your views that you disregard the vehement military advice from, particularly, Army generals who you don't think are very bright."

the last, of course, is opposed to the very bright neo-cons who have worked the whole thing out in their basement cauldrons.

6223. alistairconnor -3/30/03 8:20:32 PM
Rumsfeld soon to be toast? That's the only good news since the beginning of the war.

The madmen must go, along with their loony doctrine of Imperium.

World's shortest-lived empire?

7528. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 3:05:19 PM

6228. alistairconnor - 3/30/03 8:48:07 PM

I'm more and more astonished about the failure of US intelligence in this war.

This stuff about the population welcoming the liberators. I can't believe that the intelligence people were really reporting this to the deciders. I guess they had no trouble finding some Iraqi opposition people who told this story, because they wanted it to be true and half-believed it themselves; but there were plenty of ways to reality-check that. Or perhaps the madmen simply discounted any intelligence that didn't fit with their ideology : the population has to welcome us.

7529. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 3:07:23 PM

Sickles note - Alistair's stuff is perhaps the funniest shit I've read in a long time

6233. alistairconnor - 3/30/03 9:45:22 PM
Bloodied but still unbowed, Baghdad prepares to fight

I can't see how they can take Baghdad, without spending several months and a few thousand dead Americans on it. Not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

The whole bombing thing has been next to useless, as far as I can see. The obvious targets were surely emptied before they were hit. The near-miss on the opening day was a nice try, but there will be no second chance : Saddam probably hasn't seen the light of day since then, he'll be sticking to his vast network of unbustable bunkers.

That's something that hasn't been mentioned much in the media. Everyone seems astonished that the Iraqi government keeps functioning.

I don't know if Stalingrad is a useful reference, but Sarajevo bears thinking about.

7530. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 3:08:21 PM

6234. alistairconnor - 3/30/03 9:47:39 PM

Colin Powell is an honest man, and I bet he bitterly regrets not resigning when he lost the battle within the US administration, some time in December I guess.

He'll outlive Rumsfeld, but that's small consolation for him.


I'm rolling -somebody send a paramedic

7531. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 3:08:51 PM

6236. alistairconnor - 3/30/03 9:48:57 PM

I note that they're not burying the US and British dead in Iraq, which I think is wise.

please, AC, stop . . . please

7532. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 3:10:05 PM

6258. alistairconnor - 3/30/03 11:27:32 PM

No, I think you're right, Al. If it's not over by the end of June, then the whole world is in serious trouble, and not just the USA (and Iraq).

I guess you'll just have to buy me dinner with your own money. But you're welcome to my place too.

7533. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 3:11:53 PM

6274. alistairConnor - 3/31/03 11:12:42 AM

Sure, it's wrong. It's evil. But the problem is that, though the "terrorist" rhetoric undoubtedly plays well with the US public, it's damaging public opinion of the US in the rest of the world.

Clearly, Saddam is also spinning events to influence his public opinion; undoubtedly, he is sending ill-equipped fighters to certain death, knowing that martyrdom inspires awe; quite likely, one or both of the market bombings were his work. Because he has less scruples, he has huge advantages in the propaganda war. And with respect to his own people, the indications are that he's winning that war. This was predictable, unless very rapid complete victory was the only assumption. He's had time to create a surge of patriotism.

What happened at Stalingrad? Were the people there defending Stalin's evil regime? Were they fighting against the evil of Nazism? No, they were defending their mother country against invaders. Patriotism trumps all.

7534. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 3:15:46 PM

6276. jayackroyd - 3/31/03 11:38:27 AM

Patriotism trumps all. Yes, the administration appears to have made a fundamental miscalculation.

This is horribly unfair, but perfectly predictable. So, what's the plan?

There is obviously no plan. The path is perfectly predictable. Targets that are now deemed civilian will be gradually deemed potentially military. Civilian casualties will rise. The taking of Baghdad will be a bloody hell. The US apparently got its first shopping center last night.

Unless, of course, the rumors of collapse of the upper Baath echelons are true. From where I sit, I see the looming prospect of blood and a made-to-measure jihad recruitment program. From where they sit, they may well see no endgame that is gonna save their asses.

Sickles note - down big early to AC, jay comes on strong

7535. Al D - 4/23/2003 3:18:49 PM

Is there anything that tastes worse than eating your own words? Daniel, does your cruelty know no bounds?

There is a post above so pompous, enough to make one gag. But, nothing could make me identify the poster.

7536. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 3:24:04 PM

Oh baby.

I'm dying.

Absolutely dying.

And I only started on March 28th. This is so good, when I'm done, I'm going back.

But I have to take a break.

I can't take it.

7537. AceofSpades - 4/23/2003 3:24:43 PM

Funniest.

Posts.

Evah.

"Nervous in the Service"... hee hee hee. Is that a Stooges episode? How a propos.

I was surprised to see Wombat playing the partisan fool. But play he did.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, hah.

Being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry... they just elide from praying for US battle deaths to shedding crocodile tears about Iraq's "stolen history"...

ho ho ho ho ho.

Fucking vicious little punks.


Sahib Softass--

The other day I offered a definition of "terrorist" which was quite conventional. You scoffed, claiming it was "convoluted."

Please offer your own definition. Oh, wait-- I forgot. As a terrorist-supporting little fat ass Wog, you pretend there is no definition of "terrorist." Very well-- offer what you find to be the most widely accepted defintion of "terrorist" among people more civilized and advanced than you (and thus who do confess the existance of terrorists).

7538. AceofSpades - 4/23/2003 3:28:20 PM

JayAckroyd,

If we're going to be "honest" about ourselves, let me ask you for the third time:

Are you the same Jay Ackroyd who, during the Impeachment Saga, claimed to be a "moderate Republican"?

Why did you lie about that, Cock-in-the-Mouth Jay? Were you just going for the old CSPAN trick of calling up on the conservative line to complain about conservatives and claim "Gee, I used to be a conservative, but now I'm outraged by Newt Gingrich and his extremist ilk"?

Is it more dishonest to refuse to post under one's name (which is permissible), or tell a ludicrous lie about one's politics in order to make a spurious claim of impartiality/lack of bias?

Now, since you're so interested in knowing my name, Cock-in-the-Mouth Jay, I wonder if you'd be willing to meet me somewhere lonesome and dark one night, all alone?

7539. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 3:32:10 PM

Oh man.

To read it is to really have a fine time.

7540. AceofSpades - 4/23/2003 3:33:03 PM

I'd like to present my own award.

THE "YOU SHOW 'EM, SADDAM!" AWARD FOR MOST CONSPICUOUS ROOTING FOR THE ENEMY DURING A TIME OF WAR

6007. judithathome - 3/27/03 4:28:33 PM

Guerilla warfare might be the way to describe the current Iraqi tactics

I don't know what people expected...these are troops led by the most disgusting dictator in the world, whose sons are allowed to do the unthinkable to innocent citizens with no sign of disapproval from above; a man who executes his own officers of they displease him. If people thought we were going to face troops who play by the rules of war, they were sadly mistaken, weren't they?

[the gleeful chuckling is merely implied]

7541. AceofSpades - 4/23/2003 3:34:44 PM

I understand that the Department of Defense is going to officially change its name to the madmen.

7542. Al D - 4/23/2003 3:34:51 PM

Ace
I object, and I certainly objected to jay's claim that one should post under real name, which I have done. But I am old and foolish, so my doing so is of no account. But to attempt to lure jay into a brawl is beneath one as refined as you.

arky
Please feel free to come in with corrections, missy school marm.

7543. AceofSpades - 4/23/2003 3:36:11 PM

AlD,

I can't help myself. I've become one of the madmen.

7544. AceofSpades - 4/23/2003 3:38:37 PM

THE GENERAL WESLEY CLARKE AWARD FOR ERRANT, OPTIMISTICALLY ANTI-AMERICAN PROGNOSTICATION

5797. vonKreedon - 3/25/03 6:17:14 PM

On another note, well sort a follow-on to Cellar's Message # 5784; a convergence of data has me very afraid that we've screwed this up royally.





We assumed that the Iraqi regular army was looking for an opportunity to get out of the war. This has not come to pass. We trumpeted the surrender of the 51st Mech Division, but apparently this never happened and they are still fighting us in Basra. We only have ~3,000 POWs to date, nothing at all like the concern expressed pre-war that we might not be able to handle the numbers of POWs. This indicates that our intel assessment of the Iraqi regular army was very wrong.

We anticipated that we would be recieved as liberators by the Iraqi people, and again this is not happening with anything like the regularity expected. There has been little footage of dancing in the streets. Now this may be because the Iraqi people do not trust that simply seeing a Marine platoon means that the Baath security apparatus is now impotent, but that actually doesn't matter because of what it means in the next item.

The Iraqi regime is fighting an effective irregular war campaign in our rear areas. To do this requires at a minimum the passive acquiescence of the civilian population. At best We obviously are not trusted enough for the Iraqi's to take the risk of expelling the Fedayeen in their midsts. This has many potentially dire consequences for the ongoing war. We end up in a VietNam like situation were we cannot tell the civilians from the enemy. We may as a result end up killing civilians, and so help move the population from passive acquiescence to active support of the Fedayeen. Also, our logistic problems increase as we either have insecure lines of supply or drain our offensive fighting power to guard convoys.

7545. Al D - 4/23/2003 3:38:41 PM

Am I the only sane one left? No, there is always Pelle!

7546. AceofSpades - 4/23/2003 3:43:12 PM

HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN'S INAUGURAL "SCREAMING MIMI" AWARD FOR GAY PRO-SADDAM PROGNOSTICATION MOST LAUGHABLY HYSTERICAL AND AFFLICTED WITH "THE VAPORS"

5706. Cellar Door - 3/24/03 3:42:57 PM

The Iraq Attack is not turning into the cakewalk that was so widely advertised in our ficticiously "free" press.

The "Coaltion" will prevail in the end but at enormous cost to its volunteer army -- not to mention others ( about whom the Count doesn't give a shit)

I predict a return of the Draft before this is all over.

7547. AceofSpades - 4/23/2003 3:44:50 PM

That post was also nominated for most promiscuous use of "sneer quotes" (the "Coalition," our "free" press) but unfortunately the nomination was received too late to be eligible.

7548. AceofSpades - 4/23/2003 3:56:49 PM

THE "I'M WITH STUPID" AWARD FOR BEING OUTRAGEOUSLY WRONG ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE BEING OUTRAGEOUSLY WRONG


5665. alistairConnor - 3/24/03 8:56:48 AM

I'm surprised that everyone seems to feel that the US had a bad day yesterday.

The problem is not the two dozen dead : the problem is the psy-ops that the US administration has been pouring on for weeks, about how this would be a cakewalk to Baghdad, Iraqi soldiers would desert in their thousands, GIs would be welcomed with roses, insurrection would break out behind Iraqi lines. The fact that this raises expectations that could never be met, is not a problem to them : they were hell-bent on getting the US into the war, and they needed this naïve belief to get there. Now that the war is on, public opinion is no longer important. And anyway, it will stand near unanimous behind the nation, if not behind the leadership. That is a given during wartime.

But it's also a given on the Iraqi side.

7549. AceofSpades - 4/23/2003 4:01:12 PM

THE "BAKED TURKEY" AWARD FOR MISPLACED BELIEF IN THE IRREPLACEABILITY OF AN ALLY

5688. jayackroyd - 3/24/03 10:51:43 AM

Well, Ulgine, I have been concerned that the neo-cons who devised this have been reading too much RMA literature, and not really worked out their contingency plans. They apparently had no plan for the failure of Turkey to cooperate. If they have no plan for the failure of the Iraqis to surrender as soon as a bombing campaign took place, then there's another problem.

Putting it another way, they made it clear that they thought this could be done by the US, alone. Shedding allies left and right, they really needed to be sure they'd worked out their plans to go it alone, or some poor jarhead is gonna find himself (as poor jarheads always fear) holding the shit end of the stick because the politicians didn't work it all out.

But, as a vet I spoke to earlier today said, what's gonna happen is what's gonna happen. And we have to hope these guys know what they're about.

7550. AceofSpades - 4/23/2003 4:01:32 PM

7551. AceofSpades - 4/23/2003 4:06:50 PM

Awwwww... what's the matter? Isn't this fun anymore for General Wombat, Field Marshal Awistaiw, G.I. Judy, and Super Patriot and Moderate Republican Cock-in-the-Mouth Jay?

Battlefield prognostication was oh so much fun for you two weeks ago; why won't you join in again now?

7552. AceofSpades - 4/23/2003 4:12:35 PM

'Chirac Was Wrong' on Iraq, Frantic French Fret


It's almost enough to make you feel sorry for the Frogs. After raging against America's Iraq policy for months, French citizens are suddenly saying that President Bush was right and their own Jacques Chirac was wrong, the Christian Science Monitor reported today.

"Since they saw the rapid fall of Saddam's empire, the French are asking themselves if they hadn't perhaps been wrong in making themselves irrelevant to the course of history," admitted Dominique Moisi of French Institute of International Relations.

Three weeks ago, 84 percent of the French opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom. Only 55 percent felt that way last week, Le Journal du Dimanche reported.

What made them change their minds almost as fast as a Frenchman surrenders to a German? TV footage of Iraqi citizens cheering as U.S. troops toppled that statue of their longtime oppressor.

"Chirac was wrong to say no to the war," Paris bartender Georges Chabat told the Monitor. "The Iraqi people wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein."

.............................................

The ineffectual communist blockheads -- Majori, Wombat, Alistair, Cock-in-the-Mouth Jay, Judy, etc. -- will admit to no such re-evaluations. For them, it's always the summer of 1968; the revolution is always just around the corner.

7553. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 4:12:47 PM

6305. judithathome - 3/31/03 8:55:21 PM

I wonder what we would think if some country like France or Austria decided we Americans were living under an oppressive government and that the government allowed killing of its citizens (death penalty) and let old people starve and go without healthcare and children to be lost in a maze of bureaucratic red tape, some to even die, and that the population had no say in what the government did but the business interests of the head of the government could do as they wished...I wonder if one of those countries decided to invade us and free us from oppression for our good, whether we wanted them to or not...I wonder if we would fight like angry cats boxed into a corner or would we just lay down and say take us, we're yours?

I don't know why it is so surprising that people are fighting for their country against a supposed invader. It may be a crummy country but it's theirs and it's the only one they have.

Sickles comment - good, generalized infidel v. patriot stuff

7554. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 4:13:40 PM

Cool Head Award

6308. Wombat - 3/31/03 9:17:25 PM

Anyone attributing the current stubborn resistance to the coalition attack to Iraqi patriotism/nationalism without factoring in a huge fear factor for what the regime might do to those who refuse to fight--and their families--is missing the point about the regime, and why it should be overthrown.

7555. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 4:14:58 PM

6319. judithathome - 4/1/03 12:48:01 AM

Al, Cheney was quoted upthead as saying just that. He also told Tim Russert it would be "weeks, Tim, weeks...not months".

Sickles comment - stumbling sarcastically onto the truth

7556. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 4:17:21 PM

6333. vonKreedon - 4/1/03 2:23:04 AM

Regarding the administration talking up a quick war:

Rumsfeld quoted by BBC under the title, Rumsfeld foresees swift Iraq war: "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months,"

Cheney quoted by Washington Times from Meet the Press,"I don't think it would be that tough a fight,"

Perle, who as appointed chair of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, needs to be included as an administration member, from the same link, "I don't believe we have to defeat Saddam's army, I think Saddam's army will defeat Saddam."

From the same link, JC Chairman Gen Myers, "Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the early '90s"

According to the Pakistani Dawn newspaper group,US Assistant Secretary of State, Christina Rocca in February conveyed to Pakistan's top leadership on Friday that Washington believed that its war against Iraq would be "quick and short".

Cheney again, quoted by Time, "I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators,"

And I'm afraid that I cannot find the site that had Cheney, Rumsfeld, Adelman, Myers and Perle all quoted about quick wars and houses of cards and cakewalks.

Sickles quote - seems the estimates VK was ridiculing were borne out

7557. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 4:18:34 PM

6341. jayackroyd - 4/1/03 3:12:34 AM

Mind you, this doesn't matter. The situation is what it is, and I thought today that things are turning a little bit. There was progress in the north, and some signs that the south was beginning to believe.

There's still the problem of guerilla urban warfare....

And the significant loss of life for the Iraqis, military and civilian.

Sickles comment - jay is the first to see the tide turning; right rudder, easy

7558. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 4:19:58 PM

6350. vonKreedon - 4/1/03 3:39:47 AM

Al - No, Rumsfeld is quoted as saying, ""It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months" I am sorry that I did not find the site I was looking for, but I do believe that between the outright quotes and then many many background quotes that I did not cite it was very clear that the administrations spinup to this war was that it was going to be a good time for everyone who wasn't a Saddamite. That they are now trying to blame the "breathless reporting" is almost funny.

Sickles comment -VK holding course

7559. Daniel Sickles - 4/23/2003 4:22:58 PM

6392. jayackroyd - 4/1/03 5:29:45 PM

The move to islamist rhetoric is remarkable. Makes you wonder who is in charge. And, if that rhetoric continues, the possibility of post-hoc Al Qaeda links increases.

It would be terrible and terribly ironic if the result of all this is the rise of islamists in Iraq.

Sickles comment - jay sees some handwriting; moves to plan B

7560. AceofSpades - 4/23/2003 4:27:12 PM

Speaking of funny-- they all continue to insist they made no errors, no inaccurate predictions, no mistakes in analysis in any of this.

"We always knew we were going to win," they bleat in unison. First, who's this "we," Kimo Sabe? Second, this avoids the question. True, no one thought the US would actually lose outright. But it was claimed our victory could be only of the "Pyrrhic" type (see Newsweek conventional wisdom watch, April 7), that the war would take months, that we'd lose thousands and thousands of troops, that we'd kill tens of thousands (or even millions) of Iraqi civilians, that it would be "un neauveau Vietnam," etc.

They also claimed it wouldn't be a "cakewalk" (it was), that we wouldn't be greeted as liberators (we were), that we didn't have enough troops (we did), that Rummy's & Frank's plan was an absolute disaster (it wasn't), and that their assumptions were all naive (Field Marshall Alistair's term) or deliberately deceptive, in order to induce us to enter a virtually unwinnable war (Cock-in-the-Mouth Jay's supposition).



About all of this they were wildly wrong. WILDLY wrong.

And yet none of them have the simple integrity to admit any error whatsoever.