29 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

The Middle East will be a very different place in 10 years.
---
10 years is too short a time. I thought it was a nice speech, but I dont believe theres any way in hell to bring democracy - or anything similar to it - to the middle east in the next 10-20 years. This is going to be a very long, expensive campaign for the US, once they commit to Iraq - so far they havent done a very good job with rebuilding Afganistan from what I hear.

29 Jan 2003 | ch said...

Didn't take that long in Germany after WW2. Maybe we will get lucky.

29 Jan 2003 | Steven Garrity said...

I'm not a fan of Bush or his policies, but I was blown away the State of the Union address in 2002 - every word was perfectly crafted. Whether you agreed with it or not, it was like watching a work of art unfold. This speech was obviously not written by the same people.

As for for the quote, "Free People Will Set The Course Of History". Doesn't that go without saying - isn't that the problem - that while free people set the course of history, the weak are powerless. Saddam Hussein is free, his people are not. Kim Jong Il is free, his people are not.

29 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

Didn't take that long in Germany after WW2. Maybe we will get lucky.
---
luck? to bring democracy to the middle east youll need divine intervention my friend. Something along the lines of the great flood and parting the red sea.

29 Jan 2003 | steve said...

For a president who lacks a natural talent for public speaking, Bush was downright eloquent. It's the first time I've heard a senior official neatly summarize the reasons for launching a war against Iraq (29,984 missing munitions; materials sufficient to produce 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX gas; intelligence revealing assistance to Al Qaeda). It's all starting to add up. Big ups to Bush I gained a lot of respect for him last night.

29 Jan 2003 | Jd said...

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

I love that he started his Iraq argument with this statement. It adds clarity. Hussein didn't just ignore UN resolutions (as other countries have), he originally agreed to them in order to save his ass, his power, and to end a war in which he was being destroyed. Agreements like that must be enforced.

If someone signs a piece of paper to end a war, they better keep to the conditions of their surrender. Hussein hasn't. The war should continue until he does or until we do it for him.

29 Jan 2003 | Toby said...

...38,000 liters of botulinum toxin...

Yeah, but that's just botox injections to keep Der Hussein's mustache from drooping.

Overall, a good speech. I liked Clinton, lots, but let's face it: his SOTUs went twice as long and said half as much.

My fave highlights:

A billion for hydrogen power -- that'll smooth out some of the wrinkles (more than Saddam's botox).

Money for HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention in Africa. (Out of the blue and very much welcome.)

Nationalized healthcare system (wishful thinking[?] but nice that a Republican would say it!)

As much as some would hate the cowboy image, this quote just rocked:

All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries.

And many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: They are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies. "

29 Jan 2003 | ggg said...

This past State of the Union address had someone of a Macworld Keynote excitement about it.
The tax cuts got me excited and even though my Dem's retaliated, they forget that working class people invest money the stock market too. And that any relief means more money I will invest or spend in my neighborhood (or neighborhood pub to be more exact).

The AIDS relief almost brought me to tears when the African doctor stood up and clapped. I had never seen someone so happy and excited about something.

Lastly, the funding for alternative fuels is exciting - though I am sure someone will spin it "more money going to companies that have been producing polluting SUVS!!!".

I do want to know what this Healthy Forest initiative is all about. And I still disagree with Faith based funding package. Charity shouldn't be supplemented by the Fed - just more government in my opinion.

29 Jan 2003 | fajalar said...

Overall a good speech. But I too wondered how we are going to pay for all that. I am not totally unwilling to pay for it, I just wonder how (even without the proposed tax cuts).

Two things I didn't like. Wehn Bush got all cowboy, as Toby quoted, and all the God stuff. I don't want to offend others who beileive, but I get tired of hearing it. Though God Bless America has become the equivilent of "I'm done talking now."

For another interesting and seemingly more informed take on the Iraq "issue" see the archives of Fresh Air from last night. Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace spoke. Interesting.

29 Jan 2003 | JF said...

RE: Cowboy

Don't call Bush a cowboy: Bush challenged by bovines, by Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens always nails it for me.

...a cowboy would have overruled the numerous wimps and faint hearts who he somehow appointed to his administration and would have evinced loud scorn for the assemblage of sissies and toadies who compose the majority of the United Nations. Instead, Bush has rejoined UNESCO, paid most of the U.S. dues to the United Nations, and returned repeatedly to the podium of the organization in order to recall it to its responsibility for existing resolutions. While every amateur expert knows that weather conditions for an intervention in the gulf will start to turn adverse by the end of next month, he has extended deadline after deadline...What we are really seeing, in this and other tantrums, is not a Texan cowboy on the loose but the even less elevating spectacle of European elites having a cow.

29 Jan 2003 | hurley said...

Great article! Good quote "To have had three planeloads of kidnapped civilians crashed into urban centers might have brought out a touch of the cowboy even in Adlai Stevenson. But Bush waited almost five weeks before launching any sort of retaliatory strike. And we have impressive agreement among all sources to the effect that he spent much of that time in consultation. A cowboy surely would have wanted to do something dramatic and impulsive (such as to blow up at least an aspirin-factory in Sudan) in order to beat the chest and show he wasn't to be messed with."

29 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

I was watching Shallow Hal during his speech.

Money for HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention in Africa. (Out of the blue and very much welcome.)

I also heard on the radio that Bush is also against providing condoms. I don't get how you help AIDs but are against condom use.

Nationalized healthcare system (wishful thinking[?] but nice that a Republican would say it!)

It's a start!

And enough of the cowboy stereotyping. Bush is a weasel politician. Not a cowboy. ;o)

29 Jan 2003 | jupiter said...

Didn't take that long in Germany after WW2...

You cannot compare the starting conditions - Germany already had democracy before, there were common values and many Americans have German roots.

Don't you think there will ever be democracy in the middle east - the islam is basically the opposite of it. The gloal of every fundamentalistic muslim (not all but lots of 'em are - we have some over here) is to make islam the new world order - no matter, where he lives.

Btw.: a muslim has a good life in an islamic country - if he's a man. Why should he change that?

29 Jan 2003 | SU said...

Thought it was a very human, very straightforward speech devoid of oratory flowery. I'm particularly psyched to see money going toward hydrogen fuel cell research and toward better healthcare in this country. Time will tell how these proposals shape tomorrow's reality... And just how much evidence Colin Powell will present next week to the UN.

Paid for? Welcome back to the world of defecit spending.

29 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

"cowboy", "sissies", "old europe", "problems", "european elities", "nazis", "hitler"

the name calling just goes on and on from both sides, like a bunch of 6 yr-olds. its pathetic and disgusting. I really hate emotions running rampant in politics - it get us nowhere.

29 Jan 2003 | ch said...

You are right - how about Japan?

29 Jan 2003 | me said...

Guess I'd be more excited by the scriptwriter's work if Bush & Co weren't working so hard to take that freedom anyway from us.

29 Jan 2003 | morsel said...

I dunno, why not ask a murderer?

29 Jan 2003 | fajalar said...

Perhaps 'cowboy' was a poor choice on my part. A convenient word that oversimplifies my feeling when he made that statement.

Let me put it this way... It took me out of the speech. In a much different way than the 'how are we going to pay for this' emotion I felt. The slight pause before he said it. The slight stutter while he said it. It seemed out of place. I just feel the president shouldn't be giving a wink-and-a-nod about people being "no longer a problem." Something like that shouldn't be allowed inferrence. Either say we killed a bunch of people that we are pretty sure did bad stuff, or don't say anything.

I apologise for the cowboy remark. Although I will say there are many breeds of cowboys. Some would go out with a posse right away and gun down the first fella in a black hat that they see. But you can be a cowboy and still have a respect for both law and justice. I think Bush only has respect for justice, at any cost.

29 Jan 2003 | Toby said...

I'm skeptical about the healthy forests bit...something tells me that this is about logging, i.e. cutting down the 'old' and 'sickly' trees. An acceptable forestry practice, perhaps, but I think the logging companies will have input on deciding what is old and sickly.

29 Jan 2003 | Bob O said...

I agree that the speech was well-crafted, but forgive me if I don't get all warm and fuzzy just yet. There has been a distinct difference between what Mr. Bush says in public and what his administration does in private.

This is still very much an administration of the privileged.

This administration's real policies are crafted toward Bush's real allies: the oil companies, the timber and mining interests, and the religious right.

As stark and politically simple-minded as that sounds, everything this administration has done reenforces it, and the American people swallow it whole.

When the first casualties start coming home from Iraq, we'll look back at this speech with a different set of emotions.

29 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

I missed the speech. Still at work out here on the west coast when it was on. Haven't had a chance to read the recaps much. Caught just a smidgen of it on NPR when I got in the car. The tone I heard in Bush's voice caught me completley by surprise. He was talking about going to war (big surprise), and I was expecting to hear a Texan version of Mussolini on the balcony. Instead, I got a very somber, deliberate, thoughtful presentation. Very different than what I expected, and a smart move on his part.

As for particulars, I can't comment on them much, but one thing is bugging me. If indeed he did outline a good case for why Iraq is falling short of what they've agreed to, and why war is the justified response - what the hell took so long? This lack of forthrightness is probably one of the biggest factors behind the waning support among the American public for the war and is a big factor (not as big as the economy, however) in his falling approval ratings. And, now, finally, he's also going to share the intelligence he's claimed he's had for months about how Iraq is hiding banned weapons.

The era of "we're the government, trust us" went out the window 30 years ago, yet that's the way Bush has operated thus far. Why this sort of explanation couldn't have been made sooner, and why it takes till next week to share intelligence with the Security Council, is beyond me. Not to mention, it's stupid strategically. The window before the weather starts to get brutal in Iraq is closing rapidly. If this intelligence is as persuasive as Bush thinks it is, his failure to share it before know is a strategic blunder that has postponed the start of an invasion.

29 Jan 2003 | JF said...

If indeed he did outline a good case for why Iraq is falling short of what they've agreed to, and why war is the justified response - what the hell took so long?

I think this was the plan all along. Let the UN/inspectors see if they can find anything on their own. Then, reveal the hole card at the very last opportunity to "win" the "game." It's always better to have your strongest evidence saved for the last possible moment when you're on center stage and the final decision has to be made. It's much stronger that way -- give it up early and its impact fades with time. I think the administration played this brilliantly.

29 Jan 2003 | Indi said...

I thought it was a good speech. I was pleasantly surprised that he didn't do the usual introduction of people in the audience. I got the sense, during his talk about hydrogen fuel development, the forest bit and the AIDS bit that he is deliberately trying to shut up some long standing criticism of his administrations agenda. Hopefully it is not just talk. The unique thing in this case is he does have majority support in both houses of Congress. If his plans are still-born, there will be no one to blame.

I watched the speech on CSPAN, so I didn't see the overlays of who is who in the audience. What I was continually struck by at the start was when Bush would give an applause line only half of the audience would stand and clap. Especially when he spoke of accelerating the tax breaks. I hope a lot of people saw that. I was also struck by how bored and put out so many people looked just to be there. Talk about a tough crowd.

Did anyone watch the Democrats rebuttal speech? The Governor kept saying the Democrats have a plan ... yet they so obviously have none. Everything he mentioned just came off as a shallow echo of what Bush said in his address.

29 Jan 2003 | SU said...

Did anyone watch the Democrats rebuttal speech? The Governor kept saying the Democrats have a plan ... yet they so obviously have none. Everything he mentioned just came off as a shallow echo of what Bush said in his address.

Absolutely -- the Democrats are clueless now. They don't have a single viable candidate to take on incumbent Bush, regardless of how far his ratings rise or fall and they seem completely and utterly directionless. The Green Party? They disappeared from the face of the Earth.

Looks like a single-party system is taking over from our pseudo-two-party parade of hot air.

29 Jan 2003 | ~bc said...

I'm quite surprised by the outpouring of praise in this forum. However that from me would violate a long held belief:

"Less talk, more walk."

Frankly, this administration has time after time said nice sounding things, then deliver a product with questionable motivations. Bush, an environmentalist? Bu-sh-it. Hydrogen sounds nice, but where will the American public get that from? Hmm, I'm guessing George's friends, Big Oil, branching out from their core (endangered product). Bush's speech plays to them like so...

"Not only am I going to go get you the world's last enormous cache of oil, but I'm also going to help you diversify by making you a new market for hydrogen. And although I'm totally against the gov't funding anything, I AM going to throw wad after wad of cash in to your R&D for your new product. Now when you're asked about what you've heard here, utilize these words "Liberation, Evil, Clean Air." They're now on your side."

And Healthy Forrests, eh? Total cover for the timbre industry. Why? Because he's looking to stop forrest fires. Why is this a bad thing? Because without forrest fires, a forrest can't replenish the soil in which the trees need to grow. Fires aren't about "cleaning up" they're about putting nutrients back in the soil. Some species of trees can only release seeds after a fire. Unfortunately, no matter how hard you vote Republican, you can't change how nature works, and people living in the forrest must accept risk, and get plenty of insurance. Of course the rest of us wind up picking up the tab for them, and the people who just can't resist building houses on active flood plains... all of this has happened since the dawn of time, when will humans catch on?

29 Jan 2003 | ggg said...

Ah, the healthy forest looks a lot like my backyard. Here's a counter point.

29 Jan 2003 | ~bc said...

Oh, and AIDS help with out condoms? How does the administration think HIV is spread, anyhow?

"We'll give $x for AIDS meds."

Well that's nice, for the pharma industry. But a lot less given to the latex industry might do many times as good. Drugs don't stop the spread of the disease. They help the dying go easier. We need to prevent infection.

"An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure"

Anyone? Hello? This kind of stupidity is what happens when church and state mingle too much... Let the church preach abstinence to their flock, with their own money, and everyone else can talk about more realistic approaches, since AIDS is a real life epidemic. Believe it. This is as bad, if not worse than funding Faith-based Inititives.

29 Jan 2003 | f5 said...

Forgive me for a couple things here...

1 - I haven't made it through all the comments yet, but I feel compelled to add that what he his words aren't always adding up to his actions. Before you go changing your opinion of the job he's doing based on one speech, give him a chance to live up to his words.

2 - "The Education President". I think it's safe to say he hasn't begun to live up to this one. Does anyone have proof of the contrary?

29 Jan 2003 | chico said...

BC, the US isn't the only country that has condoms. Other countries and organizations have been supplying condoms to Africa for years. Trouble is, there are stigmas surrounding wearing a condom that need to be overcome. Educating those in need will take a lot more time than dispensing drugs. Both are desperately needed.

29 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

I think the administration played this brilliantly.

It may be a brilliant technique rhetorically - or simply when playing euchre - to avoid playing the high trump till the end, but it's far from brilliant tactically.

If the goal all along has been to invade Iraq (which I believe it has, from the moment Bush stepped into office), it's potentially disastrous to wait this long. Already, it's getting late to start an invasion. By late March, Iraq starts getting pretty damn hot, and Pentagon rhetoric aside that they can handle any climate, temperatures above 35C wreak havoc not just with human bodies, but machinery. I'd say it's pretty safe bet that Iraw Invasion II is going to take longer than the 1991 version, simply because there's no stopping short this time like last time.

By waiting this long to make its most persuasive case, the administration has cost themselves three-quarters of the cool-weather months they had available to invade.

Besides, playing games isn't the way to deal with allies you're trying to get to go along with you.

29 Jan 2003 | hurley said...

bc said: I'm quite surprised by the outpouring of praise in this forum.

Some of it might be coming from one person posing as many. There's a post above from "hurley" but I didn't write it.

29 Jan 2003 | hurley #2 said...

Sorry about that - didn't know that was occupied.

29 Jan 2003 | ck said...

agreed, education is the missing bit. a few of my friends have travelled through various parts of africa and returned with similar stories about a twisted myth... if you have the virus, having sex with a young virgin will rid you of the virus. If this kind of thinking is passing for fact... we clearly need more than condoms and friendly pharmacy.

29 Jan 2003 | JF said...

Well that's nice, for the pharma industry.

It's nice for someone who's infected/dying too.

And, to continue your logic, wouldn't giving out condoms be good for the pharma industry too? Humanity and the pharma industry can benefit together.

29 Jan 2003 | hurley#1 said...

hurley #2 said: Sorry about that - didn't know that was occupied.

My apologies for any insinuation!

29 Jan 2003 | Brian said...

I don't believe Don hasn't commented yet.

Overall, I liked it much more than I thought I would. The AIDS and the H-power points I did not expect at all. He certainly has some good speech writers

29 Jan 2003 | fajalar said...

I think the "outpouring of emotion" over the speech is more directed at the speech than the person. And I have no problem giving him a chance to live up to what he said.

He's got 1.5 years.

29 Jan 2003 | Jim Jones said...

JF, the only thing that moved for me was my bowels. Jesus, why don't you become a reporter for FOX News?

29 Jan 2003 | Shane said...

I missed the speech, but I read it in it's entirety. I was pleased with the care-based plans proposed, but am also cognizant that things change in all administrations and that many of them may lay to waste.

The thing that has irked me over the course of the past few of months has to do with the negative, two-faced stance that Hollywood and various media outlets have taken with respect to the impending war. Now I'm no war monger, but what other resolution-based options are there - really?

If we leave the situation be, will the world will be better off? If we negotiate this away, will the world will be better off? If we take action, will the world be better off? I we suddenly reduce the need for fossil fuels in this country, will the crisis in the Middle East disappear and the world be better off?

I don't know the answers to any of these questions, nor pretend to... I do, however, tend to agree with this line of thinking:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

What better options are there - really?

29 Jan 2003 | nelly said...

If you ignore him, he won't keep doing it.

29 Jan 2003 | JF said...

Re: options...

I like what this guy had to say. Especially this part:

Another question for those who are adamantly against any military action. It's one thing to criticize Bush's approach (and I'm not saying it's not subject to criticism). It's a whole 'nother thing to propose an alternative. Let's assume for a minute that Hussein is, in fact, actively pursuing biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. What's your alternative? I never hear anyone articulate a viable alternative. Here are some I can think of, but none seem to solve the problem:

* Halt all UN inspections/sanctions. Leave Iraq alone.
* Continue UN inspections, but no threat of force
* Continue diplomatic efforts (if this is your suggestion -- continue until when? what is the threshold for failure? and if the threshold is met, what then?)
* Use military force if and when Hussein attacks the US
* Use military force if and when it appears that an attack against the US is imminent
* Never use military force, even if attacked

29 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

JF, those aren't the only options (I know these aren't your words, just what you quoted). In fact, the list leaves out some rather big ones:

* Continue to inspections process as its intended to operate.
* Continue the inspections process indefinitely, until either proof that resolutions are being violated is obtained, or until conditions change in Iraq such that the Security Council is satisfied that terms of all resolutions are met and that there is no more pursuit of prohibited weapons.
* Should proof be found that there are violations occurring, or that Iraq posesses banned weapons, present a war resolution to the Security Council and proceed with invasion.
* If no proof is found, yet the situation doesn't change to warrant removing the threat of action against Iraq, continue as we are now. One thing that hasn't been given enough credit is the fact that sanctions and containment has worked pretty well for the last 12 years.

From where I sit, there are at least a couple huge reasons people are uneasy about the march to war with Iraq. The biggest is that there has been no proof that anything is different today than it was yesterday, and that the reasons for invading don't hold water. Remember, Bush has used many, many reasons to try to rationalize an invasion, has changed them regularly as they've been found not to hold water, and still has offered no concrete evidence that anything is so far out of line to change course from the way it has been the last decade. And, much of the "evidence" that has been presented has been shown to either be false (Iraqi intelligence meeting with Atta in Prague) or dates from the early 90s.

I think if concrete evidence were offered, opposition to the war would fall. If a persuasive case were to be made that Iraq's an imminent, or even semi-imminent, threat, most opposition would fall (again, why is he suddenly so dangerous today, but yesterday he wasn't?). I think even if the rhetoric changed so that it didn't sound like a personal vendetta on the part of George II to avenge the attempted assassination of George I, adn a chance for Cheney, Rumsfeld and others to clean up the mistakes they made the first time around, opposition would wane. People just aren't going to be comfortable until those conditions are met.

The other problematic issue is the difference between North Korea and Iraq. It's not know if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. North Korea proudly admits it. It's not known if Iraq were to use such weapons, if they even had them, unless provoked. North Korea's already playing a game of blackmail, and has fired test missles over Japan within the last couple years. We don't know if Iraq would supply weapons or materials to terrorist groups. North Korea has a long track record of selling weapons to questionable governments and groups (in fact, it's about the only thing their economy is cable of doing).

Who's the actual, imminent threat? Yet, who are we talking about invading? It makes no sense, and just adds fuel to the fire that there are ulterior motives going on here. Either it's a personal vendetta, it's about oil, or it's a philosophy that the US will act only in cases where it's pretty well assured of an easy victory. None of those options speaks very well for the judgement of the current administration, in my opinion.

29 Jan 2003 | Shane said...

Steve -

Excellent point re: North Korea - a definite imminent threat. I am concerned with that issue far more than the Iraq issue currently being discussed at length. However, the "fact" that N. Korea currently has ballistic missiles capable of delivering a long-distance nuclear strike means that they need to be dealt with differently.

Iraq, it has been suggested, is actively developing the capability to build and deliver such weapons. This is an act that can be thwarted and acted upon. Simple as that. Whether or not it's because of oil, proximity to Israel or what have you is a peripheral issue (to me). However, pursuing an act of war against Iraq makes more sense than pursuing an act of war with N. Korea - the stakes are far lower.

As far as administrations go, has there really ever been an up-and-up political administration. Don't kid yourself - this issue is a bi-partisan one.

30 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

Good point, Shane, regarding the differences in dealing with North Korea. They're one of the most heavily militarized nations on the face of the earth. I don't recall the numbers, but the proportion of the size of the military to the population is insanely huge. And, the game does change when there is a nuclear weapon involved.

But, Bush has painted himself in a corner on this one with his statements that it's so important to go in and forcibly remove from power someone who's purusing weaponry that shouldn't be. N. Korea is the country that Bush kept warning us that Iraq was about to become, but he insists diplomacy can work there. Maybe he's right - in fact, I happen to agree that diplomacy is the right way to deal with N. Korea, although saying "we're not going to talk to you unless you do what we say first" isn't exactly diplomacy. But why won't it work in Iraq? What's so different? I just can't see it.

Regarding that there never has been an up-and-up administration, and both parties have been guilty, I'm going to scare myself and say something my parents always said: if everyone's jumping off a bridge, does that mean you should too? Just because everyone else hasn't played it straight doesn't make it right for the current group not to play it straight.

30 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

Why are sanctions and containment suddenly not an option? As Steve said, theyve worked for 12 years, and now suddenly not? Im anxious to know what evidence Powell will provide in 6 days to the U.N. Security Council. The fact that they waited so long to provide this "evidence" discredits them in the eyes of the rest of the world. A preventive war against Iraq is the same doctrine invoked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. Do none of the you even give the least bit of thought as to why so many of your allies are against war in Iraq? Do you really believe that the rest of world is so ignorant and coward compared to the US? It amazes me - the arrogance with which this administration speaks. Powell is the only one who has held a diplomatic, respectful stance toward the views of other countries on this subject.

Although Im not much of a Schroeder fan, he did put it right when he explained why Germany didnt want war. He sees it a last resort. Its nothing different than the views of JFK at the time of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis; carefully controlled crisis management. Germany has had nothing but negatives come from wars. They learned a good lesson back in WW II and its still so deep in the memories and minds of the people that they will first exhaust all other options before considering attacking another nation; options like sanctions and containment, which worked well through 40 yrs. of cold war. Im not so blue-eyed that I dont consider the alterior motives here, Im sure Germany has a lot to win by not participating - but the US can relate with that: they have also been looking out for thier own asses a lot lately. The US has no right to verbally attack other nations for preferring other options - it just shows how little they really understand thier alliesmentalities and backgrounds.

Bringing (true) democracy to the middle is nearly impossible right now. There are so many complications involving the middle east crisis, and it could drag on for decades. The US can go in, have a quick war and prop up some semi-democratic government like theyve done before, but that wont change a thing, except the fact that US will have better access to the oil. To really create change its going to take a very dynamic, involved, long-term campaign to ease the troubles there.

30 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

has anyone else noticed that there are too many Steves and Hurleys in here?

30 Jan 2003 | the other hurley said...

But the sanctions have not worked. And in fact, the US bears the blame for the millions starving because of the sanctions. Even with the billions of dollars coming in from the Oil for Food allowance, Saddam builds gold plated palaces while his people rummage for food - and the US get's the blame.

As far as why the EU or any of our allies would be against the war, I can only think of one - the price of oil. Give Iraq one of N. Korea's Daepodong missiles and tones would change.

30 Jan 2003 | petro said...

Things change.

[SVN: Please remember to close your quotes when you add links]

30 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap!"

30 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

One of many Hurleys, how have the sanctions not worked? Their intent was to contain Saddam Hussein. As far as I can tell, he's still contained. He hasn't invaded anyone else, or even threatened to. He hasn't even really done much within his own country in the Shi'ite south or the Kurdish north. From what I can tell, the sanctions have done what they're supposed to do.

Yes, it is an enormous tragedy that he misuses the food aid. That's not grounds for invasion, however. Unless we want to start invading Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Somalia, Myanmar, North Korea, and dozens of other countries where famine occurs because food is used is a weapon or money is diverted on behalf of the country's leadership.

As for why the EU or any allies would be against war - there are plenty of good reasons. I know I'm far alone in questioning why this is "necessary" now. Plus, Europe's got a pretty nasty history with what happens when people decided that war is the way to solve problems, so they're going to be very, very reluctant in using that as a tool. Losing 9 million people in one war and 20 million in another one 20 years later tends to do that.

30 Jan 2003 | JF said...

"New Europe" stands with the US.

30 Jan 2003 | paul said...

it's interesting how westerners always think their value systems and morals are the right ones, and think it's for the good of mankind to push them on others. heh.

30 Jan 2003 | Randall said...

Re: Iraq. Why is that Saddam is evil for hypothetically hoarding WMD, but our own surplus is never addressed? Hmmm? It's an easy out to say Bush wants the oil but it's the only reason I can see that we're going in--to compete against OPEC's monopoly.

Re: AIDS funding = it's about damn time.

Re: funding for alternative fuels ... I'll believe when I see it (i.e. a less oil-dependent U.S.)

"Healthy Forest initiative" = more evil in the world.

"Faith-based funding" = unconstitutional and wrong.

31 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

"New Europe" stands with the US.
---
and its thier right to choose how they want.

31 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

oops - that belongs on the in the "New Europe" post.

31 Jan 2003 | Toby said...

Randall:

By that logic, we should let everyone have WMD. Saddam isn't evil JUST for hoarding WMDs, but for using it. Just recently, is son, Uday, said that they would happily use their non-existent WMD against the US and, for fun, Israel.

Your easy out is precisely that, this isn't about oil -- although oil is important. We only get a fraction of our oil from the Gulf States. Other than inflammatory rhetoric, there is no proof whatsoever that we have an interest in the long-term control of Iraq's oil.

Strange how at least one country that has an interest in Iraqi oil is also the most in favor of retaining the status quo. France

31 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Why should the United States provide AIDS funding to any other country?

31 Jan 2003 | SAT said...

"Bush is a weasel politician. Not a cowboy. ;o)"

Aren't weasel and politician synonyms?

31 Jan 2003 | BL said...

"Why should the United States provide AIDS funding to any other country?"

Because it's the right thing to do. It's like standing by and watching the holocaust and doing nothing about it.

31 Jan 2003 | Jd said...

It's like standing by and watching the holocaust and doing nothing about it.

Oh, like the rest of Europe (save the U.K.) did? Europe's record of actually dealing with deeply serious problems is tragic.

31 Jan 2003 | Randall said...

Okay, let's put it this way: What has GWBush done since being in office that has actually made things better, made the US more secure, actually, truly HELPED its citizens. (Personally, I haven't seen anything he's done that hasn't made things worse.)

31 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

Um, Jd, you might want to take a refresher history course there. The rest of Europe (save the UK) wasn't in much of a position to do anything about the Holocaust, seeing as how the rest of Europe (save the UK and the USSR, and Switzerland) was under Nazi control. Just what were they supposed to do?

31 Jan 2003 | JF said...

Well, the world changed 9/11/01. That kind of throws a wrench in the gears. You can't ignore that.

There's hasn't been another terrorist attack in this country since 9/11/01 (but there have been a few elsewhere). I assume you'll chalk that up to the terrorists' decision, but I prefer to give credit to our government for busting up cells, cutting off funding sources, shoring up the borders (as best we can in this huge country), etc.

Securing a country the size and population of the U.S. is no easy chore. It's only been 1.5 years since 9/11/01. Shit, it takes a lot of companies a year+ to launch a damn website. Can you imagine how difficult a task it is to make this country more secure? Things are happening, but it's going to take time.

31 Jan 2003 | JF said...

The rest of Europe (save the UK) wasn't in much of a position to do anything about the Holocaust, seeing as how the rest of Europe (save the UK and the USSR, and Switzerland) was under Nazi control.

And how did that happen? Appeasement, passivity, and weak militaries. Remind you of anything?

31 Jan 2003 | Toby said...

Randall, I certainly feel a little more secure knowing that the international coalition that Bush put together to track Al Qaeda has arrested thousands of suspected terrorists accross the world.

I certainly feel more secure that we actually went in and took out the terrorist camps in Afghanistan rather than took a few cruise missle pot-shots at them.

Domestically? Economically? I'm not sure I can point to specific thing that Bush has done to help or hurt me any more than I can think of anything that Clinton did to hurt or help me.

In a way, it isn't really the job of the President -- Congress is responsible for haggling out the laws. the President sets (or attempts to set) the agenda, but Congress makes those sorts of decisions that directly effect my wellbeing.

31 Jan 2003 | Randall said...

Yes, and who has tied up the Congress for 1.5 years (with warmongering rhetoric) from doing what it needs to do on issues such as healthcare, Social Security, the failing economy, the victimization of the environment? GWBush. I feel less safe at home and in the world now, thanks to him. Our allies can't take us seriously. Our enemies are growing.
Orwell nailed it: the "perpetual war" strategy. When (not if) it all blows up in his, and our, face, there'll be a lot of I-told-you-so's...that's if we're still alive.

31 Jan 2003 | JF said...

Yes, and who has tied up the Congress for 1.5 years (with warmongering rhetoric) from doing what it needs to do on issues such as healthcare, Social Security, the failing economy, the victimization of the environmennt?

They've been talking about modernizing health care and SS for years. You'd better look twice if you are going to blame the "tie up" on Bush.

And since when does "warmongering rhetoric" get in the way of actually getting stuff done? GW isn't addressing the Congress daily, taking up all their time listening to him. There's plenty of time to get things done. PLENTY.

01 Feb 2003 | Paperhead said...

steve said...
For a president who lacks a natural talent for public speaking, Bush was downright eloquent. It's the first time I've heard a senior official neatly summarize the reasons for launching a war against Iraq (29,984 missing munitions; materials sufficient to produce 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX gas

and here's the rub:

how, exactly, do you suppose they know that he has that stuff. They are making a claim that he has it based on having sold it to him over a decade ago. Now I may be alone on this, but I'd have thought that actually it was better, simpler, and safer to just stop arming every tinpot dictator around the world in the first place. But of course, back when he was sold all that stuff he was a "good" brutal dictator on the side of liberty and free speech, so even though he'd already been gassing thousands of people, Rumsfeld thought it a good idea to sell him chemical weapons. This, like the recent escapade in Afghanistan, is at least partially about rectifying old mistakes. Yet I see no will or policy implementation to stop making these same mitakes over and over again.
Now bearing in mind that he had all this stuff the last time he was at war with your country and didn't use any of it, what exactly is it that makes everyone think he's suddenly going to attack with it now?
When he invaded Kuwait, the invasion had already been diplomatically "sorted" and cleared with the US (please note that contrary to popular belief Kuwait is no shining beacon of democracy) and then you changed your minds and attacked him. As an aside, after that last war in Kuwait anyone know who got all the contracts for the new pipelines when they finally put all the fires out. Give you a clue, company name starts with "Enro", ends with an "N", and recently went bust.

so circular.

01 Feb 2003 | Randall said...

They've been talking about modernizing health care and SS for years. You'd better look twice if you are going to blame the "tie up" on Bush.
But, JF, the Bush administration is also supposed to be a leader, to focus the government on solving plaguing issues. Rather, Bush has commandeered the White House to create the perpetual war scenario, while behind the scenes his minions have begun systematically dismantling the progressive social and environmental policies and protections that have taken decades to be implemented, all under the shroud of his personal vengeance doctrine. Oh, yeah, and he's destroyed the U.S. economy to boot.

01 Feb 2003 | Randall said...

For example

01 Feb 2003 | JF said...

Oh, yeah, and he's destroyed the U.S. economy to boot.

Since you seem to know, please detail the steps Bush has taken to "destroy" the economy. And please don't point to the stock market -- you should know when the bubble burst. And please don't point to the corporate scandals -- you should know when those started. So, please point to the specifics that Bush and Company have performed that have "destroyed" the economy. And since you're making a pretty direct claim, direct correlations would be nice.

02 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

Yet I see no will or policy implementation to stop making these same mitakes over and over again.
---
thats the problem: sleeping with the enemy when its convenient, and every democratic country does it. Free will does not necessarily mean good will.

02 Feb 2003 | JF said...

Bush Widens Access to Quick AIDS Test. The test, which provides results in about 20 minutes, is needed because every year an estimated 8,000 infected people go to clinics for testing but do not return a week later for the results.

02 Feb 2003 | Randall said...

JF, direct from the link you provided: "Under fire from AIDS groups for what they call his neglect of the disease..."
Why did it take him a year and a half for something so obviously needed the minute he took the oath? (Sure, Clinton should've done the same thing.) But was GW unaware of AIDS until only recently? No, his poll numbers are dropping and he has to try and seem human(itarian). Maybe he thinks the survivors will vote Republican...?

02 Feb 2003 | JF said...

Why did it take him a year and a half for something so obviously needed the minute he took the oath?

I knew this was coming. You criticize for doing nothing, you criticize for doing something. Now is better than tomorrow, and tomorrow is better than next week. Sure, yesterday would have been best, but yesterday is gone and all we have is today. I'm glad progress is being proposed/made.

It's surely better than good ole' Bill Clinton, Mr. "I care about Africa," who had 8 years to take a serious stand, but waited until he no longer had the powers of office to address the horrors of the situation. Typical Clinton -- talk talk talk. But I'll stop the criticism there -- I'm glad Clinton is using his celebrity to draw attention to the grave situation. Kudos to anyone who is doing something to help.

03 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

JF, you unfortunately see only war as an alternative. you talk of "doing something to help" but what you mean is "help going to war". What about all the other countries who have WMD and dictatorships who are human rights violators? Do want to bomb them all? You talk of "Appeasement, passivity, and weak militaries" in Europe. Can you prove that those 3 points are the reasons not to go to war? You have your 8 European countries - what do you need with little, weak, insignificant Germany and France? France by the way, has left an open door - they might still help the US, Germany is the one who gave a definate "no". So if you want to slam a country for not committing, slam Germany and not France.

03 Feb 2003 | Randall said...

Kudos to anyone who is doing something to help.
Agreed. But you seem to think, JF, that someone, like myself, who did/does not support the Bush agendae is automatically a clinger to the Clinton administration. You would be wrong. I proudly voted Nader.

This back and forth we've been having seems to be falling behind party lines and it shouldn't. That's what got us (Bush's America) into this mess. Personally, I think the two-party system's institutionalization has led to much of the recent erosion of democracy. We need to be a nation of ideas, not of mere reaction and response. A nation of purpose and integrity, not one of blind allegiance to romantic notions of WWII nationalism. (I overheard someone saying today that in many languages/cultures the word nationalism equates to "ego.")

People are gonna die in this upcoming "sweeps week" war, and from the less obvious of GWB's machinations. Homeland Security? I feel less secure today than I did, my industry's in the toilet because of a lack of economic policy, and the natural world around me is even more endangered than it was two years ago. I can't wait for the 2004 elections: I just want to see him justify his actions (or lack thereof).

[Rant over.]

03 Feb 2003 | JF said...

JF, you unfortunately see only war as an alternative.

No I don't. In fact, I don't believe there will be a war. The military talk, and buildup, is part of a well orchestrated bluff. We'll see a diplomatic solution to this problem (exile probably), but only because of the threat of force. The UN has so watered itself down that it requires a real threat of force -- led by the US -- for its words to carry any weight (as evidence of Saddam's constant defiance when there was no consequence of military action).

But I ask you this... After 10+ years of UN resolutions, economic sanctions, and other diplomatic efforts, what other alternatives do we have? And if you think containment has worked, you'll shortly see evidence that it hasn't stopped Hussein from building up his arsenal. This diplomatic containment also allowed Iraq to boot inspectors in the late 90s. That's really effective containment.

But you seem to think, JF, that someone, like myself, who did/does not support the Bush agendae is automatically a clinger to the Clinton administration. You would be wrong. I proudly voted Nader.

FWIW, Nader proudly received my vote as well.

03 Feb 2003 | JF said...

And, Alisha... War is not the first option, or the last option. We've given Mr. Hussein every option for 10+ years. War is the VERY LAST option. I just think we've reached that point. If military action is NEVER an option, then dictators like Hussein have no need to listen or change (as evidenced by Hussein's 10+ years of defiance of every UN resoution we've thrown at him).

03 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

They have not done everything possible. They could selectively tighten sanctions - not those that harm civilians, but the prohibitions on imports of materials for military use and the export of oil. Inspections of cargo could be increased. more monitors could be installed. This could continue until (unobstructed) inspections had been completed to satisfaction. The sanctions have failed because they have crumbled, and that has encouraged the Bush Administration to seek war. And whats wrong with deterence? It worked with Hussein during Kuwait, after the US warned against using chemical & bio -weapons. If the US had warned him earlier with threat of attack, it could have detered him from even attacking Kuwait in the first place. Hussein has a history of being irrational, but not when the outcome is definately clear - only when it is unclear. So why doesnt Washington just go station troops in Northern Iraq and pose a threat there, if inspections arent carried through properly. They can "threaten" war in many ways, without actually doing it. Did you forget WW1 inwhich European leaders thought they could wage preventive war to contront the current threats? It ended up in 4 years of destruction and carnage. And did you forget that WW2 sent Germany and other european nations into the dark ages for over 3 decades? All of Europe lay in ruins, twice. And you ask why theyre not ready for another war. Americans have not had a war on domestic soil for over 100 years. 9/11 gave them only a small taste of what its like.

I will agree to war if Powell shows tomarrow that we are being attacked by Iraq or if he shows that these other options have been carried out. Ive heard nothing stating that they have been.

03 Feb 2003 | JF said...

Hussein has a history of being irrational, but not when the outcome is definately clear - only when it is unclear.

Really? Why then did Hussein ignite and sabotage more than 600 oil fields in Kuwait ON RETREAT from Kuwait? The war was over. The outcome was clear. It took firefighting teams from 10 countries (US, Canada, Britain, France, China, Iran, Romania, Hungary, the Soviet Union and Kuwait), thousands of people from over 40 countries and over a hundred thousand tons of equipment, the largest mobilization in peacetime history to put out this irrational, and blatent act of environmental terrorism ( source).

That's no small example.

03 Feb 2003 | Randall said...

I will agree to war if Powell shows tomarrow that we are being attacked by Iraq or if he shows that these other options have been carried out.
Hear, hear!

03 Feb 2003 | JF said...

Alisha, I haven't forgotten WWII. I've never been able to meet some of my relatives because of it. They met a similar fate that thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq have met.

But, I also remember that Hitler, and the other dictators of WWII, weren't defeated by words or sanctions -- they were untimately defeated by force.

03 Feb 2003 | Steve said...

And how did that happen? Appeasement, passivity, and weak militaries. Remind you of anything?

I know it's conveinent to compare 2003 western Asia with 1939 central Europe, but the comparison is specious at best.

The differences? Germany was the most heavily militarized nation on the the continent. Iraq's military is a shadow of its former self. Germany was an enormous economic powerhouse that had plenty of coal to throw on the furnaces of war - even with the crippling reparations required under the Versailles treaty. Iraq is an economic weakling, in worse shape than most of the states surrounding it, who aren't exactly swimming in excess economic output.

Iraq has been successfully contained for 12 years now. Again, who exactly are they a threat to today that they weren't a threat to yesterday? That's the most basic question in all of this, and no one, from the president to the various columnists and bobbleheads on TV clamoring for war to you, has been able to give an answer to that. What has changed that makes Iraq such a bigger threat today than they were yesterday?

And don't give me 9/11. There never has been any connection between Iraq and that event. There has never been any established link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. The Bush administration, and many key members of it (namely Rumsfeld and Cheney) have been pushing for war since even before they took office. Using September 11 is a cynical ploy to try to win the support of the majority of the American public who doesn't pay enough attention to the rest of the world to realize that there is no connection between Iraq and what happened that day.

So, again, what is different today than yesterday that warrants invading Iraq?

03 Feb 2003 | Steve said...

But, I also remember that Hitler, and the other dictators of WWII, weren't defeated by words or sanctions -- they were untimately defeated by force.

Stalin wasn't defeated, nor was his legacy country defeated by force. South Africa's repressive regieme was not defeated by force. The Iron Curtain countries were not defeated by force.

Force is not always the answer. In most cases, it causes more problems than it solves (just look at World War I, the affects of which we're still dealing with today). Sometimes it's necessary. As staunchly pacifist as I am, I have no problem at all with what was done in World War II. It was clearly the right thing to do, a "just war" if ever there was one.

But, again, drawing parallels between WWII and the current situation is easy, convenient but not necessarily correct. There are some clear differences, and it's clear to me that sanctions and the like have been effective. I have a huge problem with the notion that, just because we have the biggest military, we get to decide who is in charge of other countries. If perhaps we were more consistent in our foreign policy and stopped supporting all repressive autocrats, regardless of whether they support us or not (examples, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pinochet, Samoza, Bautista, Marcos, the Shah, Saddam Hussein, and many, many, many more), then maybe I could go along with the idea that we get to be some sort of arbiter of who's an appropriate leader and who isn't. As it stands, it strikes me as little more than picking on someone because we can.

By the way, off-topic: What's the deal with randomly disappearing text in posts? I'm on IE6, and it happens both at work (Win2K) and home (XP).

03 Feb 2003 | JF said...

So, again, what is different today than yesterday that warrants invading Iraq?

What's different is that we have an administration that is willing to step up and call Iraq to task for their repeated violations of multiple UN resolutions that ended a war. That's what's different. Iraq's behavior hasn't changed since '91, we have. And it's about time. And I think when you see some more evidence of Iraq's "containment" you might agree with me. Coming soon.

Iraq has been successfully contained for 12 years now.

Can I ask you a hypothetical? If Hussein has been able to amass stockpiles of illegal weapons during this period of containment, would you still believe they've been contained? What exactly does containment mean to you?

I mean, hasn't North Korea "been contained" as well? They haven't used their weapons yet so we don't have anything to worry about. Let's just keep it going as it was going. Status quo. We'll just watch them throw out the UN inspectors and build their nukes while we sit on the sidelines so this great ideology of containment can do its thing.

03 Feb 2003 | JF said...

What's the deal with randomly disappearing text in posts?

Really? Where? What do you mean exactly? Are posts not showing up for you? Are their gaps in posts? Let us know so we can look into it. Thanks.

03 Feb 2003 | Steve said...

What's different is that we have an administration that is willing to step up and call Iraq to task for their repeated violations of multiple UN resolutions that ended a war. That's what's different. Iraq's behavior hasn't changed since '91, we have.

That's a valid perspective, of course. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is an effective way of answering the question. However, I don't really recall hearing much clamboring for removing Hussein during that timeframe.

On a slightly different topic: If we're going to invade Iraq because they've violated UN resolutions, are we going to roll the tanks into the West Bank to take care of Israel's repeated violations of Security Council resolutions with each settlement they build and occupy? It's this selective enforcement thing that's always bugged me about US foreign policy, and it's what's bugging me now. I'll admit that it could be clouding my judgement regarding Iraq, inasmuch as the reasons that keep beign given justifying war fall apart very quickly (such as the UN resolutions thing).

Can I ask you a hypothetical? If Hussein has been able to amass stockpiles of illegal weapons during this period of containment, would you still believe they've been contained? What exactly does containment mean to you?

If that is to be found, then I support going in. Which is why I support letting the inspections process continue. There is not sufficient indication yet that this is the case. Indeed, from a nuclear perspective, the Interional Atomic Energy Agency report states pretty unequivocaly that there is no chance they have a successful nucliear weapons program. Bio and chemical weapons are a different story, and could prove to be true. But, we need solid evidence, not the president standing there saying "trust me." I'm sorry, I've seen the governmetn, and this administration, lie enough that I'm not going to trust them.

I mean, hasn't North Korea "been contained" as well? They haven't used their weapons yet so we don't have anything to worry about. Let's just keep it going as it was going. Status quo. We'll just watch them throw out the UN inspectors and build their nukes while we sit on the sidelines so this great ideology of containment can do its thing.

OK, let's compare Iraq and North Korea. One country doesn't have nuclear weapons, and inspectors say they won't have them anytime soon. Yet we need to invade. The other country has them, brags about it, yet we say diplomacy can work. Why aren't we invading North Korea? Aren't they a far more imminent threat? I sure as hell think so; the only income they have is arms sales. So, why does diplomacy work there, but it won't work with Iraq. Could it be because North Korea's armed to the hilt and fighting a war there would be very deadly adn long, but Iraq's military is a shambles and probably is easy pickings? We wouldn't be playing the bully, just picking on the smaller kids at all, would we? Nooooo.

03 Feb 2003 | TC said...

>> Hussein has a history of being irrational, but not when the outcome is definately clear - only when it is unclear.

> Really? Why then did Hussein ignite and sabotage more than 600 oil fields in Kuwait ON RETREAT from Kuwait? The war was over. The outcome was clear. It took firefighting teams from 10 countries (US, Canada, Britain, France, China, Iran, Romania, Hungary, the Soviet Union and Kuwait), thousands of people from over 40 countries and over a hundred thousand tons of equipment, the largest mobilization in peacetime history to put out this irrational, and blatent act of environmental terrorism.

And your point is...?

The destruction of the Kuwaiti oil fields was entirely rational. Hussein had a strong interest in A) vengeance, B) weakening Kuwait and making it more problematic and less valuable to the enemy, and C) enhancing his image, both domestic and abroad, as someone who, even though utterly routed from the battlefield, can and will still wreak tremendous destruction.

The greatest and stupidest of American traits in regarding the world is the habit of incarnating all foreign nations and entities as one person (Palestinians=Arafat, religious Muslims=Osama, North Korea=the Kims, Iran=the Shah, Iran=Khomeini, South Africa=Botha, South Africa=Mandela, Iraq=Saddam (though this last, as Saddam himself is the particular focus of our ire, makes some sense)) and then conceiving of that person, at such time as there is significant divergence of views, as being irrational,a mad dog, a madman, a "mad mullah", wacky, incapable of being comprehended by us clear-thinking Americans, and thus unfit for any consideration other than contempt followed by a swift and civic-minded smashing and removal from existence, and which point we earnestly believe that all things will become good.

03 Feb 2003 | JF said...

The destruction of the Kuwaiti oil fields was entirely rational. Hussein had a strong interest in A) vengeance, B) weakening Kuwait and making it more problematic and less valuable to the enemy, and C) enhancing his image, both domestic and abroad, as someone who, even though utterly routed from the battlefield, can and will still wreak tremendous destruction.

Wow, that just about justifies any act by anyone. So I guess we're in the clear now!

03 Feb 2003 | TC said...

Er, I said "rational." I didn't say "nice" or "justifiable."

Evil -- vastly overused concept though it is -- is not at all incompatible with rationality.

Indeed, as its self-interest tends to be significantly less in conflict with its deeply held aims, evil is often far more rational than good.

03 Feb 2003 | Randall said...

Let's start here:
Dear Dubya, where's the evidence? If it exists, let's see it.

03 Feb 2003 | JF said...

Dear Dubya, where's the evidence? If it exists, let's see it.

Coming Feb 5.

04 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

Really? Where? What do you mean exactly? Are posts not showing up for you? Are their gaps in posts? Let us know so we can look into it. Thanks.
---
the last 3 or 4 posts often disappear when I scroll back up - only the little comment bubble is left standing. that only happens on the pc, and they always reappear again. and sometimes the text disappears on mouseover of the comment bubble.

04 Feb 2003 | Paperhead said...

JF: Well, the world changed 9/11/01. That kind of throws a wrench in the gears. You can't ignore that.

There's hasn't been another terrorist attack in this country since 9/11/01 (but there have been a few elsewhere). I assume you'll chalk that up to the terrorists' decision, but I prefer to give credit to our government for busting up cells, cutting off funding sources, shoring up the borders (as best we can in this huge country), etc.

Securing a country the size and population of the U.S. is no easy chore. It's only been 1.5 years since 9/11/01. Shit, it takes a lot of companies a year+ to launch a damn website. Can you imagine how difficult a task it is to make this country more secure? Things are happening, but it's going to take time

Well there wasn't really any terrorist attacks in the US before 9/11 either, while there were plenty of them around the rest of the world. Geez, they must've all known that the Homeland Security bill was coming within the next few decades . . .

As for making things more secure. I go through a major international airport and have my nail clippers and Swiss Army knife confiscated. Oooh yeah that makes me feel secure. The fact that once I've gotten past that security check I can go into a duty free shop and buy a bottle of spirits, some cotton wool, and a lighter - and then board the plane without being checked again . . . ack, I always forget, how do you spell M-O-L-O-T-O-V again?

04 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

Really? Where? What do you mean exactly? Are posts not showing up for you? Are their gaps in posts? Let us know so we can look into it. Thanks.
---
the last 3 or 4 posts often disappear when I scroll back up - only the little comment bubble is left standing. that only happens on the pc, and they always reappear again. and sometimes the text disappears on mouseover of the comment bubble.

Same here.

04 Feb 2003 | moolah said...

Alisha, I haven't forgotten WWII. I've never been able to meet some of my relatives because of it. They met a similar fate that thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq have met.

. . . mmm, that friendly fire's a real bugger ain't it.

04 Feb 2003 | Steve said...

Really? Where? What do you mean exactly? Are posts not showing up for you? Are their gaps in posts? Let us know so we can look into it. Thanks.

Same problem Alisha and fajalar mentioned. Usually the bottom several posts don't show, just the comment bubbles. Scrolling up and back down, or switching windows often causes them to reappear. I've also noted the most recent posts disappear when I start typing in the comments box. Also happens when I preview a comment. I have to highlight the area where text is supposed to be to see it.

04 Feb 2003 | Randall said...

You see?! Now they're taking our posts from us! The terrorists have already won! The Internet is EVIL and must be stopped, at any cost!!!

04 Feb 2003 | Randall said...

No, wait. The Internet doesn't have oil. Never mind.

04 Feb 2003 | Don Schenck said...

How many people here have built any kind of solar-powered generator?

That's what I thought.

(And by the way, yes, I've help a friend built a solar water heater)

You see, it's easy to TALK about improvement, tough to actually do it YOURSELF.

04 Feb 2003 | Paperhead said...

Don Schenck said...
How many people here have built any kind of solar-powered generator?

Most of my heating and hot water are provided by solar panels. It isn't that hard ;)

04 Feb 2003 | Randall said...

Oh, yeah, I remember GW mentioning his new solar power initiative in the (sorry) state of the union address...

Here in the NW we have hydropower a-plenty. We kill our share of endangered fish species, but we don't burn so much oil. We'd do more solar, but as you know, it rains four out of every three days...

04 Feb 2003 | JF said...

It's getting heavy: Pentagon adviser Richard Perle: France 'no longer ally'.
(Important note: Perle is a civilian advisor, he is not an official of the Bush administration)

04 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

How many people here have built any kind of solar-powered generator?

We just bought a house. Needs a new roof. We will do the work ourselves so we can afford to put in a passive solar system (can't afford the batteries).

Also, I am in the process of researching putting a commercial coffee roaster here. Part of that research will be harnessing wind and solar to run everything (or as much as possible).

I've just never owned anything that could use solar power until recently.

04 Feb 2003 | Steve said...

It's getting heavy: Pentagon adviser Richard Perle: France 'no longer ally'.

This is perhaps one of the most disturbing things I find about the whole of the Iraq situation, and the Bush administration's overall approach to international affairs. (Yes, I know Perle's not an official part of the administration, but I think his attitude isn't far off from many of those who are.) There's a very explicit message being sent out that "allies" are only those people who agree with the U.S. If you don't, then you're no longer of any concern to the U.S.

His comments regarding the UN are equally troubling. To suggest that the US - which runs around telling everyone to follow the rule of law and to respect the authority of the international institutions it backs - should just ignore the UN is very troubling to global stability. If the US doesn't have to pay attention to the UN - an institution it helped create and established many of the rules for - then why does China, or Russia, or anyone, for that matter? The US's acting in its own self-interest here will come back to bite its own self-interest in the ass, and sooner than later.

I don't always (or even often) agree with the way France goes about things, but just because it disagrees on this point does not make it no longer an ally. And, frankly, I'm glad someone out there is trying to act as a check to American power. Any power, no matter how benign, allowed to run unchecked eventually leads to enormous problems. And, almost without exception (Britain being the one I can think of) any power that came to dominate the world ended up crashing and burning in part due to the rest of the world coming to resent it. Out of pure selfish interest, I hope France and others keeps trying to be a check on the U.S.

04 Feb 2003 | JF said...

If the US doesn't have to pay attention to the UN - an institution it helped create and established many of the rules for - then why does China, or Russia, or anyone, for that matter?

Maybe the US is taking after Iraq. Iraq has never paid attention to the UN. Why? Cause Iraq realizes that the UN is basically irrelevant if they don't enforce their resolutions. They've been right so far.

The US's acting in its own self-interest here will come back to bite its own self-interest in the ass, and sooner than later.

Your point is? Every country acts in their own self-interest. France is acting in theirs right now, just as they did when they built that Iraqi nuclear reactor in the late 70s, early 80s. Just as they did by invading Rwanda on the side of the killers. Just as they did recently by dispatching troops to the Ivory Coast. Everyone has their own interests.

05 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

You know people, we dont have to take at face value everything that every jack-ass says about this war. 75% of it is bullshit and makes no difference. Declaring France is no longer a US ally? Do you really believe that the US would just lightly toss aside a long-term ally because of Iraq?

"The rest will be voting with the US. "
8 out of 46 countries on the European continent have officially stated support for the war so far. Many of those countries, such as Spain, happen to be under conservative rule at the moment, just as the US is. Dont get your hopes up too high.

Pacification, economic development, and institution building are long-term activities, not short-term, quick solutions. Tell me, do you war-supporters think Vietnam went well? Do you think it was a good decision to have invaded Vietnam? Reports say that Iraqi forces plan to make their stand in the cities rather than the desert or open countryside. How will the millitary handle that?

05 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

"Maybe the US is taking after Iraq. Iraq has never paid attention to the UN. Why? Cause Iraq realizes that the UN is basically irrelevant if they don't enforce their resolutions."

Great way to stregthen and validate the UN. Just lower yourself to the level of your evil enemies tactics. Quite an easy way out, eh? Lets hope to God that the US hasnt decided to use Iraq as an example of good decision-making.

05 Feb 2003 | ha ha said...

I don't think I remember this part.

05 Feb 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Alisha, urban warfare training is now a part of the U.S. military's training. There's a ton about it that you don't know.

Also, remember the Gulf War in 1991? Remember how Iraqi troops surrendered en masse?

The people of Iraq are waiting to be liberated. If this were "Hitler" and "Germany" it'd be the same ideal.

Having said that, I do *not* believe we should be going to war *at this time*. I believe there's a lot more pressure that can still be brought to bear on Iraq's inhumane dictatorship.

Again, I predict that Iraqis will be very happy to get rid of Hussein. But I'm tired of the United States being responsible for ridding the world of "bad guys", whether real or imagined.

05 Feb 2003 | Steve said...

The US's acting in its own self-interest here will come back to bite its own self-interest in the ass, and sooner than later.

Your point is? Every country acts in their own self-interest.

My first thought is duh, of course every country acts in its own self-interest.

But, my point is, what the US is perceiving is its self-interest at this particular moment in time is actually counter to its self-interest at any time immediately thereafter. Once we establish the precedent that the UN does not need to be listened to, that a country can invade another country because of a perceived, not actual threat (Saddam couldn't strike the US himself no matter how badly he wanted to), other countries will follow. Then what ground to we have to tell India that, no, they shouldn't lob those nukes over at Pakistan, or tell China that, no, you can't just go over and take back Taiwan? That's how our short-term self-interest will come back to bite the US in its ass very quickly.

Do you really believe that the US would just lightly toss aside a long-term ally because of Iraq?

Yes, under the current administration I do believe they would. Bush showed from pretty much day 1 that he has little interest in working with the rest of the world. The stated foreign policy of the US is not to allow even regional powers to arise. I do believe that anyone who doesn't interpret "ally" as "lap dog" does run the very real risk of no longer being considered an "ally."

Having said that, I do *not* believe we should be going to war *at this time*. I believe there's a lot more pressure that can still be brought to bear on Iraq's inhumane dictatorship.

Thank you Don. Very well said. The time may come where this is necessary. But, Iraq's not even the most dangerous situation facing the world at this very moment. That's happening over on the other side of Asia, but everyone's so fixated on the dick-wagging over Iraq that it's going unnoticed.

05 Feb 2003 | Randall said...

Don: "...urban warfare training is now a part of the U.S. military's training. There's a ton about it that you don't know."
It doesn't mean they are any good at it. Or know the streets and buildings of Baghdad any better than Iraqi troops. This is where the blood will spill--and not just theirs.

"Also, remember the Gulf War in 1991? Remember how Iraqi troops surrendered en masse?"
I've heard first-hand Gulf veterans' accounts of how the ones who surrendered were abandoned in the desert without food or supplies. I don't recall us taking troops into any significant cities in Iraq. (My sources also revealed our troops were deep in Iraq two days before we "officially" went in.)

05 Feb 2003 | Randall said...

Clarification: "...how the ones who surrendered [had been] abandoned in the desert without food or supplies [by the Iraqi military].

06 Feb 2003 | Don Schenck said...

You're right Randall ... our military is so weak and so unprepared.

Does anyone here know how we targeted Iraq's Command and Control in 1991? I do. Do you?

The January 2003 issue of Soldier Of Fortune magazine has a great editorial by Col. David H. Hackworth, USA (Ret.). It should be required reading.

06 Feb 2003 | TC said...

... our military is so weak and so unprepared.


No, our military is very strong and very unprepared. They may be as prepared as we can make them, they may be so well prepared that Iraqi forces are stunned, incapacitated, and terrified in ways and situations even they (with their extensive first-hand experience of being utterly routed) hadn't remotely anticipated, but unless there is a coup within twelve hours of the invasion, U.S. forces will encounter situations for which they are inadequately prepared, and Americans will die, maybe in small numbers, maybe in large, and we can only hope that their deaths will be swift and come from conventional means.

Or we could be clever and try to pull a Chairman Mao on them, rolling up all the countryside while being in no big rush to take over the cities.

10 Mar 2003 | manuel said...

Can't belive the people from 37s being so clever on what they sell, are willing to buy such bullshit from the System.

18 Mar 2003 | Kip Ingram said...

Regarding the comparison between Iraq and North Korea. I agree that North Korea has clearly shown itself to be a threat and seems proud of it, whereas Iraq denies being a threat. However, North Korea has shown no inclination to launch unprovoked attacks on American soil. That doesn't mean they're not an international threat, but it does allow American politicians to approach the situation with an international perspective rather than with an immediate homeland defense perspective.

The President, on the other hand, declared war on terrorism in the aftermath of 9/11. He received overwhelming public support for that declaration. He has stated his belief that Iraq represents a haven for such terrorists. One can argue that point with him if one wishes, but the bottom line is that he's our President and he's the one that must make the call. If you don't like the calls he makes you can complain and you can vote against him in 2004, but I find it hard to question the legal legitimacy of his actions.

Terrorism represents an immediate and lethal threat to Americans at home and abroad. Our President promised to go after terrorism whereever it may hide, and that's what he's doing.