302. cartman69 - Dec. 23, 1998 - 8:29 PM PT
OK, back on the topic at hand, here's something to consider.
303. Ptoben - Dec. 23, 1998 - 9:06 PM PT
We have to have a satan and it's Sadam's turn in the barrel.
304. Wombat - Dec. 23, 1998 - 9:16 PM PT
Cartman:
Well, a diplomat would say that sort of thing, otherwise he/she would be out of a job.
Iraq signed an agreement to end a war that they started. They have not met some of the conditions that they agreed to. The price for that is continued sanctions. The French and the Russians are not happy about it, because they are owed a great deal of money by Iraq for all the fancy military hardware they sold them in the 1980s and 90s.
The Chinese never really favored UN action against Iraq at all. If the UN action in response to the invasion of Kuwait became a precedent, the Chinese might run into a problem over Tibet, or if they tried to use force to bring the erring province of Taiwan back into the fold.
Saddam has not compromised at all, nor will he. It takes two parties to compromise. Otherwise it is just concessions.
305. wexxford1 - Dec. 26, 1998 - 5:33 AM PT
Wombat : Whoa there Nellie! .Comedian Larry King does the interviewing of Iraqi diplomates on the Amurrican video media.Yet you say I'm shallow for pointing out that PR's contolling racketeeers have their sticky fingers on everything ? Hey, man, open your eyes. Example : Books promoted by PR that are hitting the top spots are supposedly by Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings? Does anyone buy this published rubbish ? Of course not . You, man, are the Shallow . Let's hear you on the phony books manufactured and sent to the top of the list by PR field marshals.Of course,if you even slightly buy the notion that Brokaw and Jennings actually write books, then ,pally, you live in some Amurrican looneyville unknown to real people. Perhaps you are a flack your ownself? As the Field Marshals of Madison Avenue chirrup every morning : "Keep them Morons marching."I say : Let's wake the morons up!
306. gravel - Dec. 26, 1998 - 8:09 AM PT
wexxford1:
In a controlled manner, and with brevity, please name two essentially different sources of information--with regard to Iraq--whose views you consider fair, unbiased and generally conducive to further thought. These can be from any medium.
307. wexxford1 - Dec. 27, 1998 - 3:29 AM PT
What ever happened to all those Amurrican " reporters" who were escorted around Baghdad by the Iraqui Ministry of Information ?What a fun gig it must have been.
308. gravel - Dec. 27, 1998 - 8:24 AM PT
wexxford1, re Message #301:
What does it matter where they are? If you want background information on Iraq, use your computer. If you want the broadcast or print media to give current and relevant updates on Iraq, contact them. They want this feedback from you, and this is true regardless of whether you believe their motives are purely good or purely evil or someplace in between. If they have no audience, they can't exist. If they have an attentive audience, all the better, right?
You have to make your views known to the media. You have the freedom to do so. What's your problem with this?
309. gravel - Dec. 27, 1998 - 8:26 AM PT
Sorry. I should have referred in my previous post to Message #307, not 301.
310. kastal - Dec. 28, 1998 - 1:17 AM PT
Wexxford1: I'm wondering why your "American" becomes "Amurrican"? Please tell me why 'cause I'm puzzled.
311. cartman69 - Dec. 29, 1998 - 10:07 PM PT
Wombat Message #304:
We are in agreement wrt the basic facts of the matter. However, the recent bombings appear to have no constructive goal, nor means to attain that goal, assuming for the moment that the goal in question is something besides distracting people from impeachment hearings.
Clinton comes on TV and makes solemn pronouncements about how dangerous Saddam is to his neighbors (excluding Iran, I imagine), and how he ruthlessly oppresses his own people. Interesting how we can be so tough on petty tyrants in pissant countries, and Clinton's solemn pronouncements on the sanctity of human rights turn to mealymouthed obsequiousness when it comes to China oppressing its dissidents, or faithful NATO ally Turkey running roughshod over its own Kurdish population, and rattling sabres with Greece on a regular basis.
I won't even bother listing the various scumbags we've supported around the world, who have butchered their own and neighboring populations with reckless abandon. Everyone already knows who they are; it's not worth the trouble right now.
Certainly *something* has to be done about Saddam; this has gone on far too long. But US policy has lurched from the silly (inspections at sites that are surely groomed ahead of time) to the dangerously bizarre (bombing...then not bombing...then bombing...then not bombing). Obviously, even removing Saddam from power is not a solution; it's entirely likely to create a worse problem.
312. cartman69 - Dec. 29, 1998 - 10:10 PM PT
(cont.)
So what do we do? I don't know. But what we're doing now has expended a lot of money, time, effort, and goodwill among our allies, with little to show for it. I think trial-and-error time is over, and if we don't have the *right* answer, maybe we should step back until we do.
Since you mentioned China, and its parallels to Iraq, what exactly do you think we'll do when they finally tire of playing games with their "errant province", and decide to reclaim it -- with technology that WE sold them? Then, I suppose we'll have to resort to "diplomatic measures". We don't seem to have a problem conceding to *them*, now do we?
Interesting how our mutable our "principles" and "commitments" are, depending on the potential consumer market. 'Course now that we've sold them plenty of supercomputers and satellite technology, we HAVE to deal with the Chinese, even if we wanted to give up the huge amount of consumers.
313. Jonesatlaw - Dec. 29, 1998 - 10:15 PM PT
Cartman- how about extending the No-Fly zones to No-Sadam zones? This would do more to contain Saddam Hussein and the Baath loyalists and give indigenous opposition a staging ground. Let some homeboys effectively isolate him, let France and Russia get what they can out of him financially, and draw a line in the sand around the area so that others can't interfere with self-determination by Iraqis.
314. cartman69 - Dec. 29, 1998 - 10:46 PM PT
Jones:
Sounds good on paper, except it's impossible to predict what fanatics will do. Baath loyalists will simply say one thing, and do another.
You want to really take the wind out of Saddam's sails? Put the kind of money we use on hammering Saddam into pushing alternative energy sources & technologies. Of course, that may as well be a pipe dream, but imagine if we had gotten serious about it even 10 years ago.
Let's face it. We care about Saddam for one reason, and one reason only: he's a tangible threat to our access to Arab oil. The oil companies are frantically trying to develop the Azeri fields, and get a pipeline up & running, but obviously that area is equally fraught with political strife, maybe even more than the Middle East. So even when a pipeline route is settled on, and the fields are exporting at full capacity, we still have to be ready to send troops to Chechnya or Afghanistan.
So we have to figure out a way to lessen our dependency on Middle East crude. Even just making solar technology viable for homes and buildings would be a good start. $400 million would go a long way, certainly farther than it did in the cruise missiles we launched.
And if that sounds ridiculous, consider this: How much money was spent bombing Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq over the last few months? What did ANY of it accomplish, aside from demonstrating our lack of respect for international law, and national sovereignty?
315. Jonesatlaw - Dec. 29, 1998 - 10:51 PM PT
Cartman- your point re our interest in the area is a good one. There's no doubt that we are still too dependent on oil in general. Problem is, with it as cheap as it is now, we're likely to remain "hooked" I would love to see us develop a coherent long range energy plan, and try to keep some of the pork barrel out of it.
316. Jonesatlaw - Dec. 29, 1998 - 10:58 PM PT
The Pinochet affair leads to another route to deal with Saddam and others of his ilk. For too long we have accepted the flight of terrorists of both the international and intranational types to steal off into the night with their key loyalists and retire to some other country to enjoy the fruits of their repression.
It may be rather Jimmy Carterish of me, but I think that many of these guys are sociopaths. They seem nutty, but they are usually rather coldly calculating. If the safety net is removed, and downfall means certain punishment, they may hesitate to behave as outlandishly as they have. It does bear the risk of putting them in a gotterdammerung scenario, but after a few hard cases, it may actually be a restraint. We need more Nurembergs and fewer BabyDocs sunning themselves at Cannes.
317. cartman69 - Dec. 29, 1998 - 11:04 PM PT
Jones:
I'd like to see that too, even in a limited application (such as urban centers). It's impossible to expect people to come up with alternate transportation overnight, especially in rural areas. But if alternate energy sources were used to power just homes and buildings for now, the drain on the oil reserve would decrease.
I can think of reasons why that would cause the price of oil to rise *or* fall, so I'll leave the economic speculation to someone like Slackjaw or PseudoErasmus; they're better at it than I am. But just the environmental and military benefits would be tangible almost immedialtely.
The problem is, oil companies can't make a buck off of wind or solar power. So it won't happen until it HAS to, when we start really running out of oil. It's that kind of short-sightedness that enabled Saddam to consolidate his power in the 80's; since he was at war with the evil Iranians, we were only too happy to help out.
318. Jonesatlaw - Dec. 29, 1998 - 11:09 PM PT
I think that some of the oil companies were anticipating making their $ off of alternative sources during the "oil crisis" and did some research in the area in anticpation of future problems and/or government intervention. But when overseas oil came back to steadier prices and supply, it dried up.
319. cartman69 - Dec. 29, 1998 - 11:20 PM PT
Jones:
I missed your Message #316 the first time around. It is rather "Jimmy Carter-ish" to feel that way, but so be it. I feel the same way too. It is incomprehensible to me that a creature such as Duvalier is allowed to live out his days in the lap of luxury, after what he did to his country and people. Proof that the French are just as uncivilized as we are, despite their pretense.
Incidentally, I believe it was Carter who initially sent aid to the El Salvador gov't, to fight the rebels. I think his charity work these past years is something of an atonement for him, as he seems to be an honorable man. He knows he helped out some vicious thugs, and is making up for it.
I agree that there are serious sociopathic tendencies in these tyrants. It's one thing to say that the end justifies the means; it's quite another when the "means" involve summary execution and sadistic torture. Some of the accounts (reported by the Catholic Church) of what went on in Central America are absolutely revolting, as nauseating as any Holocaust story. As human beings, we can't excuse the men who committed these atrocities, no matter the ends.
320. concerned - Dec. 30, 1998 - 6:33 AM PT
It seems there was another exchange in the Iraqi no-fly zone this morning. I suppose we'll have to get used to this low-level conflict until the US finds a way to back out of supporting sanctions and weapons inspections in Iraq. Certainly, we don't currently have the resolve to do more than pretend to do otherwise.
321. JaDeGoLd - Dec. 30, 1998 - 6:39 AM PT
Yeah! We oughta just nuke 'em!
322. concerned - Dec. 30, 1998 - 6:46 AM PT
Re. 321 -
Nuke 'em? That's crazy.
The fact is, there is no reasonably attainable goal in current US policy to Iraq, unless it is to harass Saddam in a relatively minor way and make news. The inspections are off, completely, now. This is obvious to anybody who hasn't just fallen off a turnip truck.
323. JaDeGoLd - Dec. 30, 1998 - 6:59 AM PT
concerned,
Yeah, let's nuke 'em! Then on the way back home, we can nuke France and Cuba.
324. Jonesatlaw - Dec. 30, 1998 - 11:10 AM PT
Jade- I hope that we have some neutron weapons for France. Many people have told me that it would be a wonderful place, if not for the French themselves.
325. RustlerPike - Dec. 30, 1998 - 11:16 AM PT
France sucks.
326. cartman69 - Dec. 30, 1998 - 1:31 PM PT
Ah, but Les Frogs suck with such -- how you say? ah yes -- panache. C'est si bon, n'est-ce pas?
327. concerned - Dec. 31, 1998 - 8:05 PM PT
Here's Colonel David Hackworth on Operation "Desert Flop". I like the name. Plus, as I've previously mentioned, how are weapons inspections going to be restarted? What has even been accomplished here that justifies the 'most expensive demolition job in history'?
"COL. David Hackworth: OPERATION DESERT FLOP
12-31-98 DH
Operation Desert Flop
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Happy New Year. But wait a minute -- is that Saddam Hussein standing there in the middle of the Iraqi desert giving us the double bird? Or is he just heralding 1999 in some traditional Iraqi way?
For eight years the U.S. has bombed and bad mouthed the Beast of Baghdad. We've virtually closed down his imports and oil business. Yet, like herpes, he just won't go away.
Our frustrated troops, who've now put more time in the Gulf than an Iraqi date farmer, don't call Bill Clinton's latest attempt to erase Saddam Operation Desert Fox. Nope -- to them it's Operation Desert Flop.
A former B-1 bomber pilot gave this latest military floparooty of the Clinton administration another title: Operation Free Willy.
Regardless of what you call it and its underlying purpose, the bottom line is that it was a military disaster. Little was accomplished except wasting a lot of money on what turned out to be the most expensive demolition job in history.
Saddam, last seen on TV ranting and railing while wading through the rubble, appears to have put it over on us kind of like the way Rodney King did with the billy-club swinging LAPD.
This latest disaster wasn't our troops fault. They deployed flawlessly and then executed a difficult high risk operation with precision and professionalism.
The problem was that once again Clinton sent American warriors into danger on a flawed military operation that didn't have a prayer of accomplishing its mission."
328. concerned - Dec. 31, 1998 - 8:06 PM PT
"I don't give the top brass high marks either. They should have challenged the President's harebrained plan, told him it wouldn't accomplish zilch and that in the end things would only be worse. If Clinton then insisted on launching, the Chiefs should have done the right thing and resigned en masse.
When was the last time a general or admiral resigned over principle?
Nothing would get a draft dodger's attention during a military heat-up like stars being slapped down on a desk and the words "I quit" echoing through the White House halls.
Now as the New Year jumps off, Saddam's warned Clinton that if U.S. planes enter Iraqi airspace -- in accordance with the 1991 peace arrangement paid for by American blood, gold and sacrifice -- he'll blow them out of the sky.
Saddam's also said the UN weapons inspectors are persona non grata.
Once he's cleared the decks, Saddam can merrily begin 1999 doing a few of his favorite things -- by rebuilding his weapons plants and his military machine.
He could be back making germ and chemical weapons of mass destruction in a few months and be up to his old neighbor-menacing tricks within a year.
Clinton told the nation last year that the weapons inspection program did more to reduce Saddam's weapons of mass destruction than the 88,000 tons of bombs dropped during Operation Desert Storm. And now his ineptness has closed down the very same inspection program he praised."
329. charlesatkinson - Jan. 3, 1999 - 3:34 PM PT
The creative way to solve the Saddam Hussein problem is to provide the Kurds something more tangible than a no-fly zone over their heads. Like a place called Kurdistan. Of course, anything like an actual homeland would infuriate our good friends in Istanbul and Tehran, who like to indulge in a little Kurd-ocide themselves from time to time, and might start a somewhat dangerous precedent, but where are the huevos we used to have in matters such as this? Why all the sly winking, instead of the steady gaze we leveled at the Arab world when we created (let's be honest here) Israel?
We need the Kurds not so much to overthrow Saddam (they won't), as to provide:
1) A living monument to Saddam's inability to preserve the territorial integrity of pre-war Iraq, thereby inciting nationalists to oust him;
2) A more effective lever to prod him with, having an infinitely wider range of settings than the current military lever;
3) A canary in this mineshaft (Saddam is much more likely to use gas on the Kurds again than on us for the first time).
And what's so bad about twisting the Turks' soft spot once in awhile? If we had some better tools to work with, we wouldn't need their bases to thump on Saddam anyway. Think the Kurds might give us a base or two in their new homeland? Oh, I imagine so...
330. cartman69 - Jan. 3, 1999 - 4:36 PM PT
Charles:
Yeah, but we need to keep the Turks happy so the oil companies can run their pipeline from the Azeri oil fields through Turkey.
331. Blaise - Jan. 4, 1999 - 8:32 AM PT
News Report, September 1991
U.S. BURIED IRAQI SOLDIERS ALIVE IN GULF WAR
by Denise Levertov (Pulitzer Prize Poet)
*"What you saw was a
bunch of trenches with
arms sticking out."*
"Plows mounted on
tanks. Combat
earthmovers."
"Defiant."
"Buried."
"Carefully planned and
rehearsed."
*"When we
went through there wasn't
anybody left."*...
"Private Joe Queen was
awarded
a Bronze Star for burying
trenches with his
earthmover."
"Inside
the juggernaut."
"Impervious."
*"A lot of the guys
were scared,* he said,
*but I
enjoyed it."*
*"A bunch of
trenches. People's
arms and things
sticking out."
"Cost-effective."*
_____________
This poem needs no exegesis. It consists of quotes from newscasts during the Gulf War.
332. lazygeorge - Jan. 4, 1999 - 12:41 PM PT
Were the Iraqi soldiers buried alive before or after they surrendered? We did the same to the Japanese hiding in bunkers in World War Two.
333. cartman69 - Jan. 4, 1999 - 1:05 PM PT
I remember hearing rumors about sand dunes being bulldozed over groups of Iraqi troops. But of course I can't believe we'd EVER resort to such measures (ha!). What a heart-warming quote from Pvt. Queen -- "cost-effective". Perhaps it would have been even more cost-effective to capture them and test our own chemical weapons on them.
334. Wombat - Jan. 4, 1999 - 1:08 PM PT
Cartman:
US principles have always been mutable. I do not ascribe a grand strategy to Clinton's actions. This is not new. By his lights, Saddam had been given a number of chances to allow unfettered access to arms inspectors as called for by the cease-fire agreement. Heaven forbid that Clinton should actually do what I would like to see (invasion and the ejection of Saddam from Iraq), so any actions less than that are by definition ineffective, IMO.
Assuming that we would fight to preserve Taiwan (hopefully), two US carrier groups would disrupt any attempt by the Chinese to land forces on Taiwan. The Chinese would have to want Taiwan pretty bad to escalate things into the nuclear arena.
Wexxford, old chum! Unlike you, I know that the media coverage of the Iraqi situation and other events is extremely shallow. Therefore I do not pay much attention to their coverage and analysis. The sort of people who buy the books you mention are probably the same sort of people who buy presidential memoirs. If I am interested enough, I read 'em at the library. In short Wexxford, you belabor the obvious, your "insights" are much less startling than I suspect you think they are, and your "analysis" is rather a one-trick-pony.
335. cartman69 - Jan. 4, 1999 - 1:35 PM PT
Wombat:
Agreed, except it doesn't seem that Clinton has ANY strategy, much less a grand one. If he wants to send Saddam a message, why not nail one of the "presidential palaces" that supposedly litter the Iraqi landscape? I seem to remember reading that there are something like 60 or more of these "palaces". Surely we can target one of them, and get our point across, and not endanger civilians or destroy production for them. If it's really personal with Saddam, then let's go after him, and hit him where he lives.
336. Wombat - Jan. 4, 1999 - 1:52 PM PT
Jesus, not the "buried alive" thing again.
I realize that many seem to be of the opinion that that wars can be be fought without killing soldiers (and civilians) in unpleasant ways. Is being buried alive in a trench by a bulldozer any worse than being buried alive in a trench by an exploding bomb or shell? (I am assuming that the Iraqis in the trench had not surrendered.)
It also seems that some would rather that US and allied troops suffer huge amounts of casualties by fighting the Iraqis on their own terms (without the benefit of air support and armor, and bulldozers). The Iraqis picked a fight with a power that outclassed them technologically, and their troops paid the price.
This was different from the Iraqi experience against Iran in the 1980s, when Iraqi forces used poison gas to break up massed attacks by Iranian basij (teenaged volunteers armed with nothing but the Koran and a rifle). What do the faux humanitarians here have to say about that?
337. ScottLoar - Jan. 4, 1999 - 1:59 PM PT
Before leaping to support of a Kurdish state review the opinions and actions of Iraq and its neighboring countries who sure as hell do not welcome Kurds who have a reputation as vile as gypsies in Eastern Europe. In other words, Americans would do well to keep the fuck out of the intrastate politics of a country and just contend with the interstate relations that concern the US. What?! Limit concern to those matters which only directly impinge on one's own interests? How unAmerican.
338. ScottLoar - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:01 PM PT
Please, my comments were not posted to invite a rebuttal using chain logic.
339. Wombat - Jan. 4, 1999 - 2:05 PM PT
Leaving aside the fact that the Kurds have always been just as willing to fight among themselves as they were to fight their "oppressors."
340. thomasd - Jan. 5, 1999 - 10:53 AM PT
Well, what has wagging the dog in Iraq bought us?
1) UNSCOM can no longer inspect any weapons sites whatsoever.
2) Saddam is now actively opposing the US restrictions on 'no fly' zones.
3) The US has alienated Russia and China (and dozens of other nations) with this escapade.
4) The US has revealed how arbitrary its foreign policy is again, and also shown extremely poor planning and significant military weakness since the US apparently now does not have the wherewithal to redress the setbacks we sustained with this assault on Iraq.
IOW, another big time foreign policy fuckup, courtesy of the Clinton administration.
341. JaDeGoLd - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:01 AM PT
tommydemoron/concerned christian;
1) UNSCOM was unable to inspect suspected sites before Desert Fox;
2) So? Are you seriously avering that Iraq has air superiority anywhere in the world or even in their own country?
3) So what. We've upset France, too. We'll probably get a very stern letter from them.
4) Nope. We warned Saddam--comply with UNSCOM inspections or face the consequences. Nothing arbitrary whatsoever.
Honestly, military and foreign affairs aren't your forte, tommydemoron/concerned christian.
342. thomasd - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:11 AM PT
Re. 341 -
Moron -
You're quite an illogical, foolish moron, aren't you? You agree with me point-for-point (empty administration threats excepted) and then pretend that this wag-the-dog abortion was justified. Well, it didn't even keep bastard-man from being impeached.
343. JaDeGoLd - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:13 AM PT
"bastard-man"????
You're losing it, tommydemoron/concerned christian.
Look, you're completely wrong, you have no solutions other than to blame BC for your miserable lot in life.
344. thomasd - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:21 AM PT
Re. 343 -
Moron:
I'm absolutely correct. This administration is incompetent to administer foreign policy wrt Iraq (not to mention in virtually any other challenging situation). They've taken a touchy situation and are rapidly turning it into a complete debacle. This administration is squandering whatever military and foreign policy advantages it inherited from the Reagan/Bush administrations, and doesn't have the know how or resolve to turn anything around.
Even an ignorant ass such as yourself must have seen article after article by people with relevant expertise you can't even touch, saying essentially the very same things that I recapitulated above, and with which you yourself were forced to agree.
You're a moron with ostrichlike tendencies.
345. JaDeGoLd - Jan. 5, 1999 - 11:26 AM PT
tommydemoron/concerned christian;
Let's see. Bush ended Desert Storm by leaving Saddam Hussein in place and imposing an embargo that does nothing but punish the Iraqi people.
Yet, this is BC's fault?
Hokay.
346. thomasd - Jan. 5, 1999 - 3:52 PM PT
Re. 345 -
I really don't know why this gal has *such* an emotional investment in defending the ruins of our Iraq policy.
347. toonces - Jan. 5, 1999 - 4:00 PM PT
I do. She doesn't want to feel ashamed to be an American.
348. toonces - Jan. 5, 1999 - 10:52 PM PT
I missed the first 20 minutes of an informative biography of Saddam Hussein on A and E's Biography International show this weekend. I would really like to see it again because it laid out the history of Iraq over the last 10 years in one connected piece, making the progression of events stand out from the shock and slant of the headlines. In 1988, Iraq and Iran still seemed to me to be parts of one country, the podunk Arabic middle-East. What they were doing to eachother was horrible, but it didn't seem to have anything at all to do with me. It is facinating to watch such a distant problem be made my own business.
349. toonces - Jan. 5, 1999 - 10:57 PM PT
The biography made a point of showing how outrageously brutal Saddam Hussein is, but it left me wondering about a society where that kind of open brutality is accepted in a leader and not seen as seriously pathological. It made me wonder if Iraqis simply routinely beat eachother to death in anger all the time. Other than Saddam, they seem like pleasant enough people when you see them milling about waiting to be bombed.
350. Wombat - Jan. 6, 1999 - 7:10 AM PT
Toonces:
You seem to be under the impression that people in an evil system must themselves be evil. Nazi concentration camp guards had wives and children who they presumably loved, and in their interactions with their peers, were polite and pleasant. The open brutality of Saddam's regime combined with a powerful state-run media have resulted in a population that is cowed and willing to believe anything they are told, even if it flies in the face of a reasonably objective truth.
What I hope you got out of program is a sense that for the last 20 years, Iraq has been run by a brutal totalitarian system that has savagely repressed ethnic and religious groups in Iraq, started one war that lasted for the better part of a decade (with hundreds of thousands if not millions of casualties, the use of ballistic missiles aimed at civilian targets, and the use of chemical weapons against both soldiers and civilians), and started another war that led to the disruption of Iraqi civil life and crushing sanctions.
Hopefully, you would then ask yourself which is worse, allowing that system to continue undisturbed, or to attempt to weaken it as much as possible, and eventually to overthrow it.
351. concerned - Jan. 6, 1999 - 7:33 AM PT
This administration has certainly done an excellent job of giving the world the *impression* that it has run out of options wrt Iraq, especially since the US has now resorted to worse than ineffective reprisals that are driven by internal political problems:
"TIME Daily
Wednesday, Jan. 6, 1999
Is the U.S. Playing Into Iraq's Hands?
A shootout over Iraqi skies may be just what Saddam wants
From a military standpoint, U.S. planes accomplished almost nothing in confronting Iraqi fighter aircraft Tuesday morning over the southern no-fly zone: Apparently none of the air-to-air missiles fired by the four U.S. planes -- two Air Force F-15s and two Navy F-14s -- struck their targets. But U.S. policy almost certainly took a PR hit. "Saddam Hussein is trying to show that the U.S. has run out of options," says TIME U.N. Correspondent William Dowell.
Saddam's strategy is to goad the U.S. into repeated reprisals which would give the impression that all the U.S. cares about is punishment. "The more the U.S. bites, the more Saddam can then use the U.S. attacks to rouse domestic and international sympathy to lobby against the sanctions that are hurting his country," says Dowell. For now, Saddam appears to have hit upon an effective strategy. The question for U.S. officials is whether they can come up with a valid counter-strategy. Until they do, expect more clashes -- and more American frustration.
-- ALAIN L. SANDERS"
352. Blaise - Jan. 6, 1999 - 1:51 PM PT
If you want the inside story, the truth about Iraq, check out Brian Becker's report. He's written extensively on what's really happening from location.
The REAL STORY on Iraq
International Action
353. Wombat - Jan. 6, 1999 - 2:30 PM PT
Based on his article, Brian Becker would not know the "truth" about Iraq if it lept up and bit him on the ass. Iraq is one of the few countires in the world where it would be a step up in terms of human dignity and freedom to have a government like Kuwait's or Saudi Arabia's.
Baathism is a pan-arabist ideology that seeks to unite the region under one ruler. Unfortunately, there are two countries in the area who are ruled by Baath regimes, and each regime wants to be the one. That is why Syria has consistently allied itself with Iraq's enemies (Syrian troops even participated in Desert Storm!).
Becker has nothing to say about the nature of the Saddam's regime. Must be a fan of Ramsey Clark's.
354. cartman69 - Jan. 6, 1999 - 9:56 PM PT
"Iraq is one of the few countires in the world where it would be a step up in terms of human dignity and freedom to have a government like Kuwait's or Saudi Arabia's."
True enough, but wrt US foreign policy decisions, that has nothing to do with anything. Preserving "human dignity and freedom" is an aspiration of convenience; that is, if we can combat tyranny while in the course of promoting our own national interest, fine. But it's not terribly high on the priority list. Getting rid of Saddam has nothing to do with him oppressing his people, or gassing Kurds.
Again, if we're serious about hitting Saddam where it hurts, and not blasting civilians, why not take out one of Saddam's many presidential palaces? Hit him where it hurts. Doesn't matter if he's there or not, he'll get the message, which is supposedly the point in our latest excursion. We will not tolerate tyranny or oppression -- at least not in a country that doesn't offer a lucrative market.
Nothing in the present military action indicates any constructive plan, nor any foresight in handling foreseeable consequences.
Syria, while not Iraq, is not exactly a paragon of human rights either, although one hears less and less about police torture there.
355. jonesatlaw - Jan. 6, 1999 - 10:58 PM PT
Blaise's sites gloss over the indirect assistance given to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war by western powers, the tacit acceptance of armament sales to the regime by Western-friendly regimes. Also absent is any mention of the benefit to Iraq from black market sales of oil possible because of US naval actions to keep navigation going during the war.
356. wexxford1 - Jan. 7, 1999 - 5:32 AM PT
What happened to the trained Amurrican TV monkeys who reported from the roof of the Iraqui PR headquarters?
357. wexxford1 - Jan. 7, 1999 - 5:37 AM PT
Hey cartman ,baby. Tis the price of oil,fella, that makes Amurrican field marshals run Middle east PR fantasies .Divide and conquer,baby. That's the title of ther well-tried script. Glad to steer you right.You seem to have that theatrical frothing mouth again. I'd watch that overacting.Gettin' to be a problem, eh?
358. Wombat - Jan. 7, 1999 - 7:25 AM PT
Cart:
In re. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, I was responding to Becker's Workers Revolutionary Party idiocy.
I suspect the "Presidential Sites" were not attacked because of the possibility that non-military personnel were living in some of them. I agree that they should have been hit, though.
Compared to Iraq, Syria is a "responsible" international player. Don't have to tell me about the Assad regime's human rights record.
Jones:
The site also doesn't mention that Iraq was in the Soviet sphere of influence until the 1980s. That site isn't worth the pixels it takes to display it.
Wexx:
The price of oil is low, there are no shortages, and the United States imports most of its oil from places other than the Middle East. Your point...?
359. cartman69 - Jan. 7, 1999 - 1:25 PM PT
Wombat:
Yes, the Becker article was an example of breathless anti-imperialism, fraught with poor writing and editing. It's hard to take that sort of unprofessionalism seriously, but there is a nugget of truth to the notion that the US just wants to keep its finger in the Middle East pie, regardless of the cost or whether or not we have a cogent strategy.
wexxford, baby:
You calling me "theatrical" is bizarre, to say the least. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. At least I can actually write clearly and logically, on more than one topic.
Shouldn't you be ranting about bibulous Hibernians running the vast PR mind-control machine right about now?
Jerkoff.
360. Wombat - Jan. 7, 1999 - 1:35 PM PT
Cartman:
As long as Israel is in the region, the U.S. has got its finger in the pie, whether it wants it there or not. Anyway, the U.S. interests in the region seem obvious enough to me, and do not come as a great shock. I also don't think it is a bad thing. I would be much less happy with Iraq absorbing Kuwait and threatening Saudi Arabia with the same. Compared to that prospect, "neo-imperialism" looks pretty good to me.
361. charlesatkinson - Jan. 8, 1999 - 12:59 PM PT
Cartman,
With the world price of oil this low, does it matter if supply from any single oil field is shut off? Would even the oil companies care? Heck, we could let Saddam start selling all his oil again if it were in "exchange" for a Kurdistan. All he would do with the money is invade Kurdistan, probably with poison gas, and then we could kick his butt again.
I think keeping the Turks happy is just a bad habit we got into some time ago, when we needed them for bases close to Russia, and they became our "friends." I say, let em pout. Let em leave NATO. We don't need them anymore, and where else are they going to go anyway?
362. BobaFett - Jan. 8, 1999 - 1:01 PM PT
Cartman:
Stop calling people "jerkoff." I've got a trademark on that. And yes, I have a trademark on jackoff, jagoff, and jerkweed too, so don't even try that.
Jagoff.
363. jexster - Jan. 8, 1999 - 1:10 PM PT
Apologies to the Fray but I posted the following on the thread, Deconstruction of the Grand Old Pigpile. I got confused over the reference to the destruction of Republican Guards:
The Pentagon announced today, much to the dismay of
BobaFet, that the bombing of Boba's Baghdad Boyz was
far more effective than initially thought. Several key
members of the regime and hundreds of *Republican*
Guards were wasted in the attacks.
364. RustlerPike - Jan. 9, 1999 - 1:49 AM PT
Why didn't the doofuses just go sleep somewhere else, other than their barracks?
365. jkuzmak - Jan. 9, 1999 - 5:12 AM PT
Just to put my two cents in, which is all I have time for these days, I would agree that the Becker article contains a grain of truth with a huge, standard line, ideological balloon puffed up around it. Fact is though, that we human beings sure like to form empires regardless of the specific chemistry that goes into their maintenence.
366. jkuzmak - Jan. 9, 1999 - 5:20 AM PT
When I set up my own operations room for world domination I shall have a huge reproduction of Pogo stating his imortal words-- "We has met the enemy, and he is us."
367. toonces - Jan. 10, 1999 - 3:15 PM PT
jexster -
Re: Message #363
"The Pentagon announced today, much to the dismay of BobaFet, that the bombing of Boba's Baghdad Boyz was far more effective than initially thought."
Well, that's because the UNSCOM arms inspectors actually were US controlled spys working to set up the asassination of the Iraqi president and install a puppet government, just like the Iraqis said they were, just like the Clinton administration swore they were not.
368. toonces - Jan. 10, 1999 - 3:24 PM PT
It turns out everyone who was killed in the Dec 16 - 19 bombing of Iraq was murdered in cold blood for political purposes, just like Saddam claimed they were.
369. Wombat - Jan. 11, 1999 - 9:00 AM PT
Toonces:
I see you understanding of the brutal nature of Saddam's regime in Iraq based on the A&E documentary was transitory.
From your reference to Al Gore in the Impeachment thread, you are obviously unaware that Gore voted in favor of the use of force against Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait.
370. Jenerator - Jan. 11, 1999 - 9:01 AM PT
I wonder if Saddam Hussein killed members of his own FAMILY for political reasons.
371. toonces - Jan. 11, 1999 - 4:18 PM PT
As I recall, news of the spying operation conducted by UN arms inspectors in Iraq broke in the Boston Globe and The Washington Post the first weekend of January.
"Published on 01/06/99. Article 7 of 26 found.
SOURCE: By Colum Lynch, Globe Correspondent
UNITED NATIONS -- US intelligence agencies, working under the cover of the United Nations, carried out an ambitious spying operation designed to penetrate Iraq's intelligence apparatus and track the movement of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to US and UN sources.
The operation, which is believed to be ongoing, allowed US intelligence agents to listen in on secret communications between elite military units responsible for Hussein's security, the sources said. It remains unclear if the plan..."
372. PincherMartin - Jan. 11, 1999 - 4:22 PM PT
I am shocked, SHOCKED, that our intelligence agencies were spying on Saddam Hussein. And to think that we were USING the United Nations. The wonder of it all.
373. toonces - Jan. 11, 1999 - 4:29 PM PT
The allegations were at first vehemently denied, then acknowledged as true, first by the UN Secretary General, then US State Dept and Pentagon.
This local paper report provides some background and dates:
Seattle Times report
374. toonces - Jan. 11, 1999 - 4:35 PM PT
The point is, Iraqis were bombed and killed because they expelled UN arms inspectors for being US spies plotting the assassination of their president and the overthrow of their government, a charge the US and Britian vehemently denied. The US government lied. The US government lies. The US government murders in cold blood and lies to cover it up.
375. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 11, 1999 - 4:37 PM PT
Toonces, I did NOT express disbelief that spies could number among UNSCOM inspectors. I was rather more interested in the hallucinatory part of your assertion:
"...the UNSCOM arms inspectors actually were US controlled spys working to set up the asassination of the Iraqi president and install a puppet government, just like the Iraqis said they were..."
Now, substantiate the part about assassination and installation of a puppet regime.
376. PincherMartin - Jan. 11, 1999 - 4:46 PM PT
The point is that Iraq needs to be monitored, whether by the U.N. or the U.S. does not matter. But regardless of who does this, the U.S. provides crucial personnel and information that are needed to fulfill the task. Now if I heard that the U.S. intelligence agencies were not, at the very least, debriefing these personnel on what they had found in Iraq, then the U.S. needs new intelligence agencies. These kind of agencies need to be sneaky and underhanded, it comes with the territory, and the U.N. is not so pure that we should overly worry about its neutrality.
377. toonces - Jan. 11, 1999 - 5:20 PM PT
PE, I'll see what substatiation I can find when I get home.
Why do you suppose US spies posing as UN arms inspectors infilterated presidential palaces and installed monitoring devices to track Saddam's movements?
378. PincherMartin - Jan. 11, 1999 - 5:23 PM PT
I would hope to knock his sorry ass out.
379. toonces - Jan. 11, 1999 - 5:31 PM PT
PE:
How much substaniation would it take to make my assertion reasonable to you?
The frantic and embarassed back-peddaling away from the denial that UNSCOM is controlled by US spys, followed by reports of how long it had been going on and the types of operations that were undertaken, added to the openly declared goal of eliminating Saddam by any means including assassination is pretty convincing evidence.
380. toonces - Jan. 11, 1999 - 5:32 PM PT
PincherMartin -
Did you happen to notice it ain't his sorry ass that's getting knocked out?
381. toonces - Jan. 11, 1999 - 5:34 PM PT
PincherMartin -
Does it bother you that the US government has no respect whatsoever for anything like international law, while executing civilians of governments for flouting international law?
382. toonces - Jan. 11, 1999 - 5:35 PM PT
"of government it accuses of"
I guess. Something like that.
383. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 11, 1999 - 5:41 PM PT
It is customary to get to know everything about an enemy and their leaders as possible.
It is also customary to deny that one is engaged in espionage.
From what I understand it is illegal to assassinate a foreign leader, but it would not be illegal if he died in a U.S. military operation against his forces. I don't think the latter is unreasonable. If I could rewrite the law, I would permit assassination as an instrument of policy.
I still see no evidence of any assassination attempts, let alone a desire to install a puppet regime in Baghdad. The latter is particularly stupid, since no one in his right mind actually believes that removing Saddam Hussein actually means the total domestication of Iraq.
Message #381
The recent military strikes against Iraq were legal according to international law.
384. PincherMartin - Jan. 11, 1999 - 5:52 PM PT
Toonces --
Message #380 I did notice that. So what. If anything, that tells me that we need to increase our intelligence resources in that area, not decrease them as you suggest.
Message #381 I think that the U.S.is too respectful of international law for its own good. The Iraqi civilians are suffering because of it. It also is too respectful of dumb alliances.
385. toonces - Jan. 11, 1999 - 5:57 PM PT
It sounds like you have the mind and morals of a common criminal, PincherMartin.
386. PincherMartin - Jan. 11, 1999 - 6:10 PM PT
Toonces --
I have the mind of a man who wants to see the end of this conflict as soon as possible. I believe that Saddam, if left in power, will continue to threaten the region. Take him out, and the Iraqi people can return to the relatively happy state of an oil-subsidised existence. The U.S. will be able to relax its vigilance somewhat.
I am not a subscriber to the Kissenger idea that we need Iraq to balance Iran -- a dumb idea that is way past its usefulness.
387. toonces - Jan. 11, 1999 - 6:27 PM PT
sure.
388. toonces - Jan. 11, 1999 - 6:30 PM PT
Ritter spy rats on Butler spy, per CNN
It's probably bad manners to link to this site, but I'm in a bad mood.
389. PincherMartin - Jan. 11, 1999 - 6:42 PM PT
Why is it bad manners to link to that site. It seems completely reasonable to me.
390. PincherMartin - Jan. 11, 1999 - 6:43 PM PT
Toonces --
What would you have the U.S. do in the Persian Gulf?
391. toonces - Jan. 11, 1999 - 6:48 PM PT
Respect the international community and the rule of law, for a start.
392. PincherMartin - Jan. 11, 1999 - 6:51 PM PT
Did you read Mr Erasmus's Message #383? How are we not respecting international law?
393. LadyChaos - Jan. 11, 1999 - 6:56 PM PT
toonces,
Too bad you weren't around in 1938. You and Chamberlain would have gotten along quite well. (And now, before he gets his dander up, I will ask PE to please excuse the reference to Hitler as a momentary indulgence on my part.)
If we don't keep the screws tight on Saddam, we will lose credibility throughout the Middle East. The result of such a loss of credibility would be more death and political uncertainty, I'm afraid.
I also don't have a major problem with a few Iraqi civilians being killed in the strikes. A government that is so cowardly as to use its civilian populace as a shield against military intervention deserves to take full responsibility for whatever might happen.
394. toonces - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:01 PM PT
It's sickening to me to watch Madeline Albright stand in front of television camereas declaring self-rightously that some other country must be bombed for violating international law and disregarding the will of the international community. She is a grotesque monster. It's sickening to realize she no worse than the average American.
395. Msivorytower - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:02 PM PT
"I also don't have a major problem with a few Iraqi civilians being killed in the strikes. A government that is so cowardly as to use its civilian populace as a shield against military intervention deserves to take full responsibility for whatever might happen."
I couldn't agree more Lady.
396. toonces - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:03 PM PT
LadyChaos, fuck off and die.
397. PincherMartin - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:03 PM PT
Msivorytower --
cool handle.
398. Msivorytower - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:08 PM PT
Thank you Pincher
I like to think it fits me.....
(MsIt snickers)
399. LadyChaos - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:09 PM PT
Madeleine Albright was a victim of the Munich agreement, a Czech Jew who was forced to flee her country in the wake of the 1938 appeasement of Hitler. I respect her as an authority on the dangers of appeasement.
400. PincherMartin - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:10 PM PT
Toonces --
Wow. And to think that you almost had me fooled with your nonviolent advocacy. I guess one way for you to support the U.S. policy in the Middle East would be to call Saddam by his real name -- Lady Chaos. That would get your support for the bombing, huh.