09 Apr 2003 | Darrel said...

Does anyone else have this slight--perhaps unwarranted--but there none-the-less thought in the back of their mind thinking 'that statue toppling could very well be staged'?

It just seems to perfect of a icon of 'victory' for us.

Good link, BTW. It's interesting to see the conflict of arabic countries happy to seem Saddam go and unhappy to see Bush come.

09 Apr 2003 | said...

'that statue toppling could very well be staged'?

Staged? You have watched Capricorn One too many times.

09 Apr 2003 | Urpburp said...

I find it quite ironic that in a story about someone spinning and outright refusing to accept the truth you get a comment like 'that statue toppling could very well be staged'.

What next? The soldiers transported all the flowers that were given to then in secret compartments on their armored vehicles? Those weren't really Iraqi people, it was all just CGI? The torture chambers are just back rooms at Washington D.C. Dennys and this is all just a 'Wag the Dog' rip-off?

And you wonder why the Information Ministers comments were accepted by some.

09 Apr 2003 | Steve said...

No, I got no such feeling, Darrel.

It is sad, though, that people will believe pretty much whatever they're told, simply because they don't have access to other news sources.

Of course, that's happening not just in the Arabic world....

09 Apr 2003 | Darrel said...

Hmm...my dry cynicism was lost. Oh well. ;o)

> Of course, that's happening not just in the Arabic world...

;o)

10 Apr 2003 | alisha said...

just goes to show you how painfully little we know about the middle east and the arab world. Hold onto your seats - the shows just begun.

whats with all the political posts? I expect culture and music from ML, whos an admitted political atheist.

10 Apr 2003 | dave said...

just goes to show you how painfully little we know about the middle east and the arab world. Hold onto your seats - the shows just begun.

Really? I'm not so sure about that... sure, there may be continued destabilization, but the nay-sayers predicting the doom of the US for "meddling" just seem so far off...

In reality, the US has worked hard to reduce the civilian casualties (don't think so? then you have a warped sense of "civilian casualities".. Dresden anyone?) and to reduce civil unrest.

There seems to be little groudswell in middle eastern countries defending their leaders. Support and anger seem to be lip service in the final accounting. For example, and early United States faced an overwhelming force in the British Empire and eventually won our freedom. Do you really see this happening in the Middle East? A rallying of the *entire* populus around a given leader or country? I don't.

10 Apr 2003 | dave said...

Um.. for those of you who may *not* know what the bombing of Dresden was, here's a pretty good overview. Take a look at those pictures... those are civilian casualties...

Slaughterhouse 5 by Vonnegut talks about him surviving the bombing, BTW...

10 Apr 2003 | p8 said...

And for those of you who may *not* know what the bombing of iraq is doing here's a pretty good overview.

Please note that some of these pictures are not suitable for small children and those who have weak hearts

10 Apr 2003 | p8 said...

"Do you really see this happening in the Middle East? A rallying of the *entire* populus around a given leader or country? I don't."

Did you forget Iran? Where islam shia drove away a corrupt american puppet (hmm, sounds familiar. Chalabi anyone?). What about the afghans who drove away the russians? What about the iraqi people after the previous gulf war?

10 Apr 2003 | Don Schenck said...

War, indeed, is hell -- as MacArthur said.

Where any of those pictures as result of Iraq bombing their own citizens?

Where are the pictures of the Iraqis killed and/or tortured under Hussein?

Just asking.

10 Apr 2003 | dirk benedict said...

hmm, sounds familiar. Chalabi anyone? Are you from the future? Maybe this guy will pull it off? P8, all the points you are making, have been made a thousand times already. Try to have faith or see the bright side in something.

10 Apr 2003 | Darrel said...

but the nay-sayers predicting the doom of the US for "meddling" just seem so far off

Who said that?

In reality, the US has worked hard to reduce the civilian casualties

Well, sure...that's a given. But that doesn't change the fact that we busted into Iraq and ended up with a lot of civilian deaths and injuries.

I agree with the first article link above. I'm sure the Iraqi's are for the most part happy to see Saddam go. I'm also sure that they're not overwhelmingly happy to have the the US hang around.

10 Apr 2003 | JF said...

Andrew Sullivan posted a bunch of Von Hoffman Awards this morning. So satisfying.

10 Apr 2003 | Tim said...

'that statue toppling could very well be staged'?

I don't if it was staged or not, but one of the (telling) things I saw on boston.com was this "poll" - Does TV focus too much on the iconic images of war?

10 Apr 2003 | Darrel said...

JF:

Those award appear to be pointing out that many who predicted that the Iraqi's weren't going to praise us for liberating them were wrong?

I'm not so sure about that. A few hundred people knocking down a statue is hardly a majority of Iraqi's celebrating the US liberating them.

But maybe I misunderstood the point of those awards.

10 Apr 2003 | JF said...

Darrel, some people will never be convinced. I feel like you are one of them. And, hey, there's nothing wrong with that, but if you can't see the massive, historic symbolism of the Iraqi people (even just a few hundred who aren't even sure if Hussein is dead yet) spontaneously tearing down statues and pictures of Hussein, then I don't know what else I or anyone can say to change your perspective on the situation.

All I can say is keep watching. The numbers will multiply. Momentum is building. Hope for freedom and a better life has been planted and there's nothing more contagious.

10 Apr 2003 | JF said...

More Von Hoffman Awards.

10 Apr 2003 | Darrel said...

> some people will never be convinced

I'm not sure what they/you are trying to convince me of.

> if you can't see the massive, historic symbolism
> of the Iraqi people...spontaneously tearing down statues

I see it, of course. But you need to put a few things in perspective:

1) Our media attaches itself to ANY potential symbolism and broadcasts the hell out of it. For the most part, US Media's coverage of the war has been rather narrow.

2) This wasn't a massive amount of people.

People are comparing this to the berlin wall coming down. It'd nothing like that in terms of scale.

Looking at the video, the crowd is mainly young males. Well hell, you'd get that many males rioting here if Def Leppard cancelled a show.

I'm not saying it isn't a memorable moment, or a touching icon of the war, but it's not an 'all clear' flag to let us know that this entire war is now just.

> The numbers will multiply. Momentum is building.

I'm all for that. But do read the above articles. I'm not sure of ML's intent for posting, but the articles...at least the first one, do point out that Iraqi's POV isn't the same as ours. That's all. Let's not assume that a majority of Iraq is thrilled we are there. Let's be just a bit humble.

10 Apr 2003 | Steve said...

I'm amazed at how lately everyone seems to be taking a black-and-white view of the world. "Some people tore down a statue - that proves the Iraqis great the US as liberators." "Some people resented the presence of US forces, that proves they don't view America as liberators."

It's both, people. And, it's far from over. Far too many people are acting like because Saddam's statue was knocked over yesterday that all the predictions about the Iraqis being overjoyed to see Americans taking over were true. They can very easily be happy today and pissed off tomorrow. Happens pretty regularly in cases like these, in fact.

We won't know how things will turn out, and who in the end was right or wrong, for years. This is just Act I of this play. And just because it went pretty well - although not as well as the writers hoped - doesn't mean that everything else will be a cakewalk from here. Doesn't mean it's going to fall apart, either, but I'd rather take a skeptical wait-and-see approach that's aware of the risks, dangers and potential pitfalls than to get all Pollyanaish and just assume that everything will be peachy.

10 Apr 2003 | JF said...

Steve, you're right -- this is Act I. It's early and no one knows how this will turn out long term. But the signs are encouraging. But, for those who predicted disaster, tens of thousands+ of dead civilians, major urban resistance, and a military failure and miscalculation on the US's part, well... So far they were just plain wrong. And to those still calling this an unjust war because no chem/bio weapons have been found... Well... You're digging and even deeper hole. They'll be found. Just wait. Like Hitchens' says: "An earlier anti-war demand?"Give the Inspectors More Time"?was also very prescient and is also about to be fulfilled in exquisite detail."

10 Apr 2003 | Urpburp said...

There is a vast difference between a concert riot and what was done in Baghad.

What are the repercussions for rioting at a concert? A possible night in jail? A rubber bullet upside your back-end? Whatever it is, a couple days later life goes on.

Now how about a public display in a country with a murderous dictator and equally creul enforcers? Families rounded up and shot? Torture and lengthy imprisonment? Watching your wife or children being raped then executed in front of you. Electricity to your testicles? Being fed alive to dogs? Crammed feet first through a wood-chipper?

Listen to the stories of the freed prisoners and exiles.

Standing up with your fist in the air is common-place in the United States as we are offended by one thing or another on a daily basis.

Standing up at all is unheard of in a place where the costs of that revolt are infinitely worse. That few hundred showed more courage than tens of thousands who protest safely in their freedom.

That statue coming down was a good thing and its importance can only be understood by listening to the actual citizens of Iraq who survived the Regime. But, as Steve said, it is not the tell all. There is much work to be done.

10 Apr 2003 | Darrel said...

> It's both, people.

Ah, yes. Much more eloquently put that my statement. ;o)

> They'll be found. Just wait.

Even if that does happen, and it is considered a reason for justifying the war (though it is an equally convincing reason to justify continued inspections), it still doesn't explain why we aren't going after the many other 'less than stable' countries that have WOMD. Nor does it explain why we seem to support regimes that end up turning in to Osamas and Saddams. ;o)

But, yea, the bigger problem on our soil is that we're really very isolated from the actual war. What we're experiencing is just a small window of the full picture. As such, the media, and then many citizen's really can't help but to oversimplify the issues into a black and white, right/wrong argument. That's what's frustrating about the whole thing.

There was a guy that would park in front of the state capitol each day selling 'Stop Terrorism, Bomb Saddam." At the same time, he'd rant about how important it is that taxes don't get raised. It's this seemingly pervasive oversimplification (not to mention, in his case, at least, a mixing) of issues that scares me. (And mind you, I--like most American's--am equally deprived of a full understanding of whats going on and, as such, tend to oversimplify as well...)

10 Apr 2003 | Paperhead said...

apropos of nothing, did anyone happen to see what was on the other end of the rope that pulled the statue down? all the VT that's been run here just showed the statue.

10 Apr 2003 | Urpburp said...

The citizens tried to tear it down (They even went after the base of it with a sledgehammer) then couldn't. A coalition armored vehicle was happy to help.

10 Apr 2003 | p8 said...

"Try to have faith or see the bright side in something.".

You are right. A good side effect of the war has been the removal of the most evil man in the world. Although no one can explain this to this kid who lost his father, his mother, two sisters, a brother and an uncle.

Let's hope the iraqi's no longer have to suffer.

Meanwhile the Arab media is puzzled and ashamed by the quick disappearance of the regime and create a new conspiracy: Saddam was a CIA-agent all along (sorry, no source just heared it on tv).

I agree with Steve and Alisha let's wait and see. This is far from over. Where is Saddam? Will he still use Chemical Weapons? Will the killing of a prominent oppostion leader lead to internal conflicts?
Let's hope not.

10 Apr 2003 | JF said...

apropos of nothing, did anyone happen to see what was on the other end of the rope that pulled the statue down?

Yeah, a US tank that was minutes later swarmed by cheering Iraqis.

10 Apr 2003 | Urpburp said...

Although no one can explain this to this kid who lost his father, his mother, two sisters, a brother and an uncle.

I don't understand the mindset behind comments like these. Is this under the premis that no one suffered while Suddam was there? Or that no one ever would again if there had been no war?

The best comments I heard about the loss of civilian life was from an Iraqi man on the BBC yesterday who had to flee the country to keep himself and his family alive. He said that he grieved for those children who lost their families or their lives in this war, but he would grieve worse if they had to suffer their whole lives in the Regime of Saddam.

10 Apr 2003 | p8 said...

"I don't understand the mindset behind comments like these."

Imagine you have lived under Saddam for all your live. You managed to survive by staying low-key, all the while hoping for better days. Now the Americans attack your country and a bomb falls on your house killing your wife and children. Would you be on the streets cheering for the Americans?

10 Apr 2003 | alisha said...

"Really? I'm not so sure about that... sure, there may be continued destabilization, but the nay-sayers predicting the doom of the US for "meddling" just seem so far off.."
---
I dont know Dave, considering that little over a year ago citizens of the arab world (Saudis among them) ripped a hole into New York, killing thousands, it doesnt seem so far off to me.

I dont think the US will be alone in fighting middle-eastern terrorism over the coming years. The whole western world will feel it when and if it comes. But we have to first understand more about the Middle East to have any success in setting up something similar to democracy - and that will be the hard part. Wars are quick and easy in comparison. You underestimate the years of mistrust the Islamic world has built up against anything western, after 500 years of prosecution - even from Dante.
---
"In reality, the US has worked hard to reduce the civilian casualties (don't think so? then you have a warped sense of "civilian casualities".. Dresden anyone?) and to reduce civil unrest."
---
I agree. But your comparison is weak, if not absurd.
Holocaust anyone? Saddam is nothing compared to what Hilter did.
---
"Now how about a public display in a country with a murderous dictator and equally creul enforcers? Families rounded up and shot? Torture and lengthy imprisonment? Watching your wife or children being raped then executed in front of you. Electricity to your testicles? Being fed alive to dogs? Crammed feet first through a wood-chipper?
Listen to the stories of the freed prisoners and exiles."
---
I feel the same when I hear this shit. But every successful revolution has happened because the people were fed up, they gathered and rebeled - the people themselves have to want it. Why has this not happened in any middle eastern country in modern times? Why have the people not taken a stand ever before? Im not against war to free a nation, Im simply frustrated that governments treat the Islamic world like some form of cancer. Instead of asking why or what the background is for all this violence and confusion, they look at the symptoms, diagnose a remedy which might help, and dont ask where the root of the illness came from.

10 Apr 2003 | Steve said...

Steve, you're right -- this is Act I. It's early and no one knows how this will turn out long term. But the signs are encouraging.

I hope you're right. Just because I've been against the war doesn't mean I don't want to see things go well now that we're there. And by well, I mean for all involved. I think it's way too early, though, to say that the signs for the future are encouraging. There's nothing really solid enough to say anything one way or another. I can as easily point to some troubling signs as you can to some encouraging ones.

But, for those who predicted disaster, tens of thousands+ of dead civilians, major urban resistance, and a military failure and miscalculation on the US's part, well... So far they were just plain wrong.

Well, I don't think that can be completely answered yet. We don't know the civilian death toll. Some word that's filtering out is that some of the bombing and fighting in Baghdad is far from clean. The final figures always end up being worse with time to reflect - remember how "succesful" the Patriot was int he first Gulf War, when in reality it ended up that it had a 10-15 percent success rate.

I am surprised at how easy Baghdad was to occupy. I really figured it would be difficult. But again, it's early. There's still Tikrit - a city that by design is populated only by Saddam's supporters and compatriots. There's a chance that that is where all the government disappeared to. Given its sentiments, that could be a difficult battle.

And there were some miscalculations on the part of the US military. No matter how much they wanted to protest it once things got going, many in the administration were predicting that things would be almost laughably easy. The supply line issues caused by the quick thrust were problematic. There wasn't sufficient anticipation of unorthodox responses from the opposition. In the end, at least so far, it hasn't turned out to be a major issue. But, it was a setback.

And to those still calling this an unjust war because no chem/bio weapons have been found... Well... You're digging and even deeper hole. They'll be found. Just wait.

I'm starting to develop some skepticism here. Maybe it's just the cynic in me. If they were the huge threat they were made out to be, then why hasn't a single one been found? Equally plausible explanation is that the Iraqis were just that good at hiding them - or there's something nasty waiting in Tikrit. (Or, for the snotty, cynical explanation: Maybe it's because the US had a tough time telling Iraq's banned chemical weapons from its own banned chemical weapons.)

Like Hitchens' says: "An earlier anti-war demand?"Give the Inspectors More Time"?was also very prescient and is also about to be fulfilled in exquisite detail."

From the same publication, Kinsley says very nicely that victory in the war is not victory in the argument about the war.

10 Apr 2003 | nic said...

You managed to survive by staying low-key, all the while hoping for better daysI don't think it's as easy as you think. With a secret police in place, everyone is one foot away from jail.

10 Apr 2003 | Urpburp said...

Imagine you have lived under Saddam for all your live. You managed to survive by staying low-key, all the while hoping for better days. Now the Americans attack your country and a bomb falls on your house killing your wife and children. Would you be on the streets cheering for the Americans?

Why imagine? There are enough stories, from people now free to speak, that can tell the tale. There are a million ways a scenario can be thought out. The problem is that it puts your own personal spin on the storyline.

Listen to the stories of the Iraqis. Staying low-key to survive isn't living.

10 Apr 2003 | neil said...

But every successful revolution has happened because the people were fed up, they gathered and rebeled - the people themselves have to want it.

Ha ha! Do you not remember what happened the last time there? Those people were slaughtered by government troops.

10 Apr 2003 | alisha said...

Did I not say "successful revolution"? and how many were they Neil?

10 Apr 2003 | neil said...

doh!

10 Apr 2003 | dave said...

In reality, the US has worked hard to reduce the civilian casualties

Well, sure...that's a given. But that doesn't change the fact that we busted into Iraq and ended up with a lot of civilian deaths and injuries.

Actually, not a given. Civilian casualties were considered an essential part of war. Hense "firestorming" and the like. It reduces a population's will to resist. Rape and plunder have been an essential part of war tactics from way back. "Modern" warfare is the first to try and reduce civilian casualties. I just feel that the US is not given enough credit for trying to *reduce* the impact war would have on the average citizen.

Did you forget Iran? Where islam shia drove away a corrupt american puppet (hmm, sounds familiar. Chalabi anyone?). What about the afghans who drove away the russians? What about the iraqi people after the previous gulf war?

First off, the best thing that ever happened to the US military was the Powell doctrine. Many of these named conflicts are around a weak foreign policy. Soviet occupation of Afghanistan is a good counterpoint. Point taken.

"In reality, the US has worked hard to reduce the civilian casualties (don't think so? then you have a warped sense of "civilian casualities".. Dresden anyone?) and to reduce civil unrest."
---
I agree. But your comparison is weak, if not absurd.
Holocaust anyone? Saddam is nothing compared to what Hilter did.

What's weak? The fact is that the US has worked very hard to reduce civilian casualties, a relatively *new* concept in warfare. The example shows that warfare often wipes out entire towns. Its more of a response to the cynicism shown by anti-war protestors, esp. here in America.

On another note, I wish someone would ask the several billion dollar question:
"Where are the chemical weapons?" I've seen a handful of barrels myself...

10 Apr 2003 | JF said...

The fact is that the US has worked very hard to reduce civilian casualties, a relatively *new* concept in warfare.

Krauthammer has a piece in the Wash Post about this very concept today.

10 Apr 2003 | p8 said...

" I've seen a handful of barrels myself..."

Huh, are you in Iraq right now?

10 Apr 2003 | Darrel said...

A good side effect of the war has been the removal of the most evil man in the world.

He's an evil man. It's good he's not in control. But where does this 'most evil man in the world' thing come from?

Is this under the premis that no one suffered while Suddam was there? Or that no one ever would again if there had been no war?

Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, yadda, yadda, yadda...

I certainly think Saddam was evil and killed/tortured many people. I certainly think that Saddam would have kept doing that without some sort of intervention. That in no way, shape, or form is a justification for an injured child caught in the cross fire of war. Yes, it usually can't be helped. Just don't forget what war does the innocent.

Those people were slaughtered by government troops.

Kind of like the time we 'liberated' Panama and killed thousands of civilians?

I just feel that the US is not given enough credit for trying to *reduce* the impact war would have on the average citizen.

Credit? They should be praised for that? Shouldn't that be priority number one for going into a pre-emptive war?

So, yes, I'm glad they made a concious effort not to kill innocents. But I consider that part of the basic job title.

10 Apr 2003 | Urpburp said...

Is this under the premis that no one suffered while Suddam was there? Or that no one ever would again if there had been no war?

Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, yadda, yadda, yadda...

huh?? They don't necessarily make a wrong either. Would you choose between the deaths that occured during the war or thousands more because of inaction? What is the other option? We have been talking to Saddam for a long time. His track record for keeping people alive is not so good.

Credit? They should be praised for that?

In a world where no one does this; yes it should be praised.

10 Apr 2003 | Darrel said...

Would you choose between the deaths that occured during the war or thousands more because of inaction?

I honestly don't know.

What is the other option?

Well, for starters, we can stop supporting regimes like this from the beginning. We can increase international pressure and exposure of his regime's going-ons. And, if our goal is really just to get rid of Saddam, I'm not sure if an all out war was the only option out there. It still begs the question why we went after this particular evil leader and not all the rest.

10 Apr 2003 | B said...

It still begs the question why we went after this particular evil leader and not all the rest.

So, would you be in support of going after all the rest, or would you rather come clean: You don't think we should go after any dictator - ever. You think the oppressed people of the world should be on their own when it comes to military overthrow? You think the only aid should be diplomatic aid?

10 Apr 2003 | Mick said...

It still begs the question why we went after this particular evil leader and not all the rest.

you assume we're done

11 Apr 2003 | alisha said...

What's weak? The fact is that the US has worked very hard to reduce civilian casualties, a relatively *new* concept in warfare. The example shows that warfare often wipes out entire towns. Its more of a response to the cynicism shown by anti-war protestors, esp. here in America.
---
The americans didnt invented the concept - all developed, western nations strive for this today. Youve taken the worst case senario. Nothing in our modern times comes even close to Hitlers 3rd Reich and what came out of that. Its easy to look back at those times and say weve improved.

Im not one of the people whos using "civilian casualties" as an anti-war statement - for me its a given that *today* civilians will be spared wherever possible by countries such as the US. Im questioning the method and timing of installing a democracy. The US has so many ememies in the region and we dont yet understand its history and relationships fully. Im really not so sure any longer about whether it was a good idea or a bad one to boot Hussein at this time - some of you here have had very good arguements why it should be done.

But I still wonder why it took so long, if hes been such a threat in the past - dont you think they had much more reason to get rid of him back when he invaded Kuwait and gassed his own people? Why now and not then? And where is Bin Laden and his team? Why cant they catch him? And why is the Bush administration acting so bully-ish - even to its allies? And why does the US need immunity from the ICC? And now that N Korea has become a loose cannon and a threat, why is US keeping out of it, stating its China and Japans duty to deal with N Korea (that was never the case before)? Why does Bush keep bringing God into the equasion and making all these religious statements when government sponsored religion-based initiatives is a known "no-no" (Nazi Germany).

All these questions make me nervous as to the intentions of the Bush administration - the balance of power is becoming imbalanced and its making me very nervous.

11 Apr 2003 | alisha said...

Ive asked these questions before and no one has answered them...

11 Apr 2003 | Paperhead said...

from the FT

11 Apr 2003 | Darrel said...

> You don't think we should go after any dictator - ever.

Does getting rid of a dictator always = all out war?

If so, then no, I'm not for going after every dicator out there. Dictators aren't inherintly evil, btw.

>You think the oppressed people of the
>world should be on their own when it
>comes to military overthrow?

Not at all. If they say 'hey, can you give us a hand?' I'm all for coming on over.

I actually agree totally with Alisha. The war seemed to accomplish something that's good, albeit with some baggage. But I question the entire process of the administration. There seem to be a LOT of questions that people just ignore because they are vehemently for the war.

I also don't like the attitude some people have of 'see...they're free now, they love us/what we did was right/the love democracy/etc.' That's a very simplistic and western-centric view of the actual situation.

11 Apr 2003 | p8 said...

"I also don't like the attitude some people have of 'see...they're free now, they love us/what we did was right/the love democracy/etc.'"

I agree. Too most western people this war now probably seems over and they can go on with their daily lives. Who cares what happens next. And if things go wrong the media won't pay attention since it's probably the fault of the shia, kurds or turks.

11 Apr 2003 | Don Schenck said...

p8 -- case in point: How much time does the average American give to thinking about Afghanistan?

11 Apr 2003 | JFR said...

p8 - "Would you be on the streets cheering for the Americans?"

No, but from my armchair, the needs and of the many outweigh the suffering of the few.

11 Apr 2003 | vulcan valkyrie said...

Ooo you dropped some Spock on em!

11 Apr 2003 | JF said...

The News We Kept to Ourselves.

Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard ? awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.

11 Apr 2003 | Paperhead said...

How much time does the average American give to thinking about Afghanistan?

not just the average American

11 Apr 2003 | Steve said...

Here's what I'd like to see happen:

Change foreign policy to make it clear that the idea that we'll look the other way when it comes to repressive governments just because they happen to be our enemy's enemy, or because they support us, is over.

For countries that demonstrate a willingness to begin to transition to a freeer, more open style of governnance, we will provide financial, logistical, educational, even military assistance as needed and feasible.

For countries that do not demonstrate a willingness to begin this sort of transition, cut off all financial aid and support.

For countries that are a mixed bag - say, Israel - used a mixed bag approach. Israel faces no consequences for using American weaponry to defend West Bank settlements that are in clear violation of UN Security Council resolutions, for instance. Make it clear that aid will be adjusted and curtailed for such behavior. The same coule be applied to Turkey, a democratic government that's worth supporting but has human rights issues, especially related to Kurds.

If a country requests military intervention because of a threat posed by another country, we consider and act appropriately. If a country defies international conventions, we use international conventions to rectify the situation. When we act, we act decisively and surely, whether that's fully supporting and enforcing sanctions or taking the military route if warranted and not a solo adventure.

This might appear to be a bit idealistic, but it is very, very much a case of self-interest-based realpolitik. Democratic, open governments are not in a habit of attacking each other, so supporting democratic countries - even ones that do not agree with us - increases stability and reduces threat. In almost every case where we've supported an authoritarian leader out of expediency - Samoza, Bautista, Pinochet, Hussein, the Shah, Marcos, whatshisname in South Vietnam, Noriega, et al. - it has come back to bit the US in the ass later on. Saddam may never have become a threat at all if we hadn't supported and supplied him in the 80s simply because he was fighting Iran. It's very much in the US' self-interest to support only those who fit the ideals the country was founded upon.

11 Apr 2003 | Urpburp said...

Change foreign policy to make it clear that the idea that we'll look the other way when it comes to repressive governments just because they happen to be our enemy's enemy, or because they support us, is over.

I agree completely on this. We need to stop looking the other way. I would like to have seen something done about Saddam long ago before it rose to this.

That leads to a question I have:

Saddam may never have become a threat at all if we hadn't supported and supplied him in the 80s

Can someone give me more information about this? I know weapons were given to Saddam by the US, but according to a report from Stockholm International Peace Research Institutes the US only supplied 1% of conventional weapons to Iraq since 1973. Russia has supplied 57%, France 13%, & China 12%. Other countries above us in the list are: Czechoslovakia, Brazil, & Denmark to name a few. And those are just the legal ones before 1991.

11 Apr 2003 | ItsMe said...

The war has come and the war has gone. Whats a nice movie that you have seen last ? I'm bored watching war-reports on almost all channels that I have on my TV day and night.

11 Apr 2003 | Don Schenck said...

I still think the Designated Hitter rule sucks.

Ditto inter-league play.

11 Apr 2003 | p8 said...

Maybe Darrel is right after all.
proof that statue toppling could very well be staged

11 Apr 2003 | p8 said...

That's it. I'm sick of this shit. To me the US government has lost all of it's credibility. I don't know what to believe but I can't believe anything the US government says.

11 Apr 2003 | JF said...

proof that statue toppling could very well be staged

"Proof" that something "could" be staged. Too funny.

12 Apr 2003 | alisha said...

Can someone give me more information about this?...And those are just the legal ones before 1991.
---
Dont forget good ol germany:
http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/mass.htm

Its silly to act like politicians and governments are above acts of greed. Doesnt matter who it is - they all do it to one degree or another. Anyone who believes everything theyre told by the media is living in a dream world. Im sick of governments being able to hide thier dirt and want to see transparency and accountability.

I completely agree with Steve, idealistic as it is.

12 Apr 2003 | p8 said...

""Proof" that something "could" be staged."

:) uhm, yeah that is sort of funny. And I don't believe it is the same guy but the overview photo is very strange. It was a bit late yesterday. Let's say I was very tired and sort of suffered an information overload with news like this:

Onion: When satire becomes truth

UPI: Saddam was used by U.S. intelligence services as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials.

BBC: Marines say that the US flag draped over Saddam Hussein's statue was the flag that was flying over the Pentagon on 11 September 2001. Do some people still think there is a connection between Saddam and 9-11?

Blix argues main aim of US, Britain is to change regime in Iraq, not banned arms.

Philip Carroll, a former president and chief executive of Shell Oil Co. has reportedly been asked to head Iraq's oil industry during a postwar transition.

And now the same lying have begun with Syria.

12 Apr 2003 | p8 said...

If the pentagon flag was used on this statue this whole thing is staged. How could this flag have ended up in Baghdad if this hadn't been planned all along?

12 Apr 2003 | alisha said...

its not the same flag p8 - its a bunch of media bullshit.

12 Apr 2003 | p8 said...

to answer my own question about the flag

16 Apr 2003 | meera said...

You guys have no idea how much the rest of the world hates USA. Your president has waged a war (just or unjust - we'll see) but the protests all over the world are not about this particular war. They are about Bush telling the world what it can and cannot do. He has caused a doubtful liberation in Iraq, made Americans everywhere even more vulnerable regards terrorists attacks. The only good thing that has happened is that Iraqi oil will henceforth be controlled by the US of A. And if you don't believe where Bush's interest was - consider 7000 years of Iraqi heritage was looted and destroyed, Marines shot on a demonstration and killed 10 but the fire in the oil-wells has now been doused, because that was the one eventuality the "liberators" had prepared for in advance.

23 Apr 2003 | George Olsen said...

Actually, it was one of the flags flown over the Pentagon. Why? Because one of the officers with the unit that was in downtown Baghdad worked at the Pentagon during 9/11 and took it with him to Iraq. (This was reported in one of the Brit papers prior to the flag raising.)

Coincidence? Yeah, but not necessarily an unbelievable one. A military division is around 10,000 troops, and it's not unlikely a number of them had either worked at the Pentagon themselves or had friends who worked there.