An open letter to all anti-war liberals, from a fellow liberal

[Rasker]

well, I've known BGB for many months if not years, he's much nicer than his ferocious posts

[Fridaddy]

banana, in regards to your first post your candor and opinion.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by banana
Saburo, there are two big differences, though. Hitler's ultimate intent was to enslave Europe by conquest. Our intent is to overthrow a tyrannical and potentially dangerous government.

The other small difference you over-looked is that we are a Democracy and Germany was a totalitarian state. That fact alone makes your comparison spurious.

I will grant you, however, that America is not always in the right. There are many instances of unfortunate American imperialism(The Indian wars, the war in the Phillipines at the turn of the 20th century, etc.)

"But we are a Democracy"? Like that makes any difference in this case? What is so democratic about our nation invading another sovereign state? Without world support? To the Iraqis, we don't look so democratic in their eyes. Suppose you'll tell me when free elections, freedom of the press, labor unions, etc. spring up after we overthrow Sadaam? It won't happen, not in the near future. Won't in Afghanistan either. For the U.S. to thumb its nose at France, Germany, Russia, and any other country that happens to disagree the present pro-war coarse of action is very short-sided indeed.
Perhaps you'll tell me about the "great democratic" regimes of Batista (Cuba), Somoza (Nicaragua), Pinochet (Chile), the death squads of El Salvador, Pahlavi (Iran), Hussein (Iraq '80s) etc. (I could go long but this list is long.) Yeah, real liberty and freedom
Please spare me the arguments:

1) He has used WMD on his own people and Iran in their war!
Big frikken deal! How long ago was that? Where were your voices of protest then? Oh, he was our ally at the time! Oh, he might of gotten those same chemical weapons from the US! Why aren't you all protesting the massacre of those same Kurds by our ally Turkey? Most countries that have a segment of their population trying to break free and have their own sovereign nation has met with great resistance from the "mother" country. For example, the U.S.A. in its own civil war. A lot of Americans died in that war. The Kurds are fighting for their own independent state from Iraq AND Turkey. Either you support the Kurds or you do not. Do not use the Kurds as an excuse to attack another sovereign state you happen to not like. BTW, Iraq is not the only country to have used WMD. Turkey and Iraq don't consider the Kurds as their own people. the Kurds don't consider themselves Iraqis or Turks, they are Kurds.

2) Saddam is crazy! Really, who said? what experts analysed him? If he is crazy, was he always crazy? Why was he our ally then? Oh, I get it, He is crazy now only because he's our enemy. When he was our ally, he was sane!

3) We gotta invade Iraq for peace and freedom. LOL! REALLY!?
I love the oxymorons there.

4) If we don't get Saddam now, we might face WMD attacks from Iraq in the future! Really? Despite we being the #1 military power in conventional, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons in the world and could wipe out any country in 30 minutes, we fear what Saddam MIGHT do to us? Unfrikken believable. That insecure? So our criteria is based on "tyrannical and potentially dangerous governments?" There's a lot of countries that could go on that list. Some more dangerous than Iraq ever was. We going to go invade and overthrow all those governments too? Keep in mind the military actions bear a heavy financial burden on us, the invaders. How many can we afford?

5) We don't need the rest of the world's support. Especially those greedy French and Germans. We can win this War on terrorism on our own! I disagree. We need the rest of the world's support even more, now, post 9/11. I just saw a news report yesterday that Bush says prepare for more terrorist attacks. Gee, our invasion of Iraq is just so justified
To disrespect the French, Germans, and anyone else that happens to disagree with us is very short-sided and childish indeed. When the toejam really hits the fan and we need our allies, who among those we insulted are going to come to our aid? Can we say isolated?

************
Bottom line: This war isn't about freedom and democracy. Not about terrorism. Not about Iraq proving it destroyed its WMD.
It is about one sovereign nation invading another for its own selfish goals, not to benefit the world or the Iraqis.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by banana
The other small difference you over-looked is that we are a Democracy and Germany was a totalitarian state. That fact alone makes your comparison spurious.

BTW I didn't overlook the differences in the idealogies of both countries, hence my reply earlier:
 

If we're to draw parallels, The US, not Iraq, is closer to Nazi Germany (not in ideology).

[lord dolf vader]

talk about hitting the nail on the head.

wish i was that eloquent.


but hell i spell to bad to be a veteran. thanks ripsnort

[SirLoin]

Nice post banana...Not even going to pull quotes outta it,just going to say I disagree.

[Naso]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Naso,

We BUY 50% of the world's oil, but we don't own it, or even control it.  Remember that the next time OPEC raises the price of a barrel of crude.

By the way, the rest of the world would raise hell if the U.S. seized permanent control of Iraq's oil, and this administration knows it.  So the argument that this is a war about oil is spurious.  Opposing the war because it IS a war makes more sense.

Nevertheless, deposing Saddam not only can be done but it SHOULD be done.

Regards, Shuckins

You control, via the seven sister (partly owned by your own governent), the distribution of almost 90% of crude and refined oil, the only thing that OPEC can control is the extraction rate, the last time 7 sisters and OPEC disagreed was in the half '70 (1974?) when all western country had huge problems for the cuts in oil extractions.
Since then an agreement was reached, and the things have been gone smoothly (for the instance Bush senior and junior both worked for a big oil company and had good affairs with Osama's family, a powerfull saudi family, but this is a "must-forget" fact).

But now, there's an occasion to grab control (an hidden control) of one of the bigger extraction site in the world, and you can bet it will be not an official thing.

What push France, Germany and Russia (the latter have his own reserves, but know that is strategically better to not touch it), to oppose this war is not humanitarian reason, only a naive man can believe it, the more probable reason is that the "preferential" treatment their oil company have obtained from Saddam is in danger for the future, and a "good" agreement has not been reached with the US for the "after".

The same reason, reversed, Italy have to back up US and be called "one of the good allies", against the huge majority of citizens opposing the war for naive humanitarian reasons (near to 80%), nice big deals in the reconstruction of Iraq

So in my opinion ONE of the reasons of this war IS oil, is not the only one, and we can discuss in another place about strategic dominance, the division of EU, the war equipment productors role and pressure, the various lobbies and pressures that concurr in producing this war.

In my cinic vision of politics, based on history and some first hand experiences, the only reason that have no credibility (politically speaking, or better historically speaking) is the "remove a dictator" one, in all our (as humans) history a dictator removing has always been a secondary effect of other reasons.

Hell, there have been even moments in witch a dictator has been supported by OUR democratic states for our dirty reasons (and Saddam has been one of them), so I dont buy his removing as the real and unique reason.

It's good for masses, for public opinion, coupled with some terrorism fear and other nice propaganda (true) facts used at the correct moment for the politics agenda.

But we can believe we are'nt "masses" can we?

As I have stated in other places, in my opinion, I am happy if Saddam and his minions are removed from humankind quick, but this war, in this political way, is not the best thing to do, for the consequences that will put OUR nations on an edge, with the hate (and is already enough big) for us growing, the economics more in the hand of a little number of people (and their interests can diverge from ours), and put ourselves in the position to become the SOBs in this world, more than we already are, what we hated more, what your fathers fought over the ocean (but with a much much better control on the masses).

We are building a future that will be very difficult to justify to our children, or nephew.

[Nash]

banana, old friend... I respectfully disagree.

[Torque]

"To sit idly by and let Saddam continue to build weapons of mass destruction for later use against the world would be criminal. To be sure, Iraq poses little or not threat to the world at large today. But since America, Great Britain, Australia and Portugal seem to have learned from history, it is up to us to lead the way and do what needs to be done."


Hell, why not!!!

We all sat around while Britian inserted Israel a Jewish state in a Arab dominated part of the world so Britian could protect the Suez canal and it's just newly found oil reservers in the middle-east.

We all sat around while western oil companies one British and two American were screwing over the Arab oil producing countries to the tune of $2 a barrel, hence OPEC.

We all sat around when Britian and the US supported a coup to overthrow the democratically elected president of Iran who was not western oil campany friendly. Enter the Shah of Iran.

We all sat around while the Reagan took Saddam off the terrorist list and then supplied him with Sarin Gas and Anthrax and the technology to produce more in an effort to control the instability created by the Shah of Iran.

We all sat around by while Britian had occuping troops in Ireland and ironically the IRA's main funding came from the US.

We all sat while the Bush Sr supported Pinochet who was murdering thousands and that dirty little assassination by the CIA and Kissenger.

We all sat around when the US Army was training freedom fighter at the SOA and then sending them to El Salvadore where they were killing thousands of civillians per month.

The world is a hypocritical dirty little place.

Find that morale high ground when you can!

[Dowding]

We all sat around by while Britian had occuping troops in Ireland and ironically the IRA's main funding came from the US.

I suggest you check your sources. 60% of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland (not Ireland) want to remain as part of the UK. I don't call that an army of occupation.

[Wanker]

Originally posted by Nash
banana, old friend... I respectfully disagree.

Hiya Nash, my Canadian friend


It seems that Saburo(among others) is in disagreement with me because they think we have broken the mold by punishing the crime before the actual crime is comitted. Sort of the "Minority Report" syndrome.

I beg to differ. But first, let me concede that the WMD issue is the "excuse du jour" of the Bush administration. Fair enough. I agree that if that wasn't a concern, they would've used some other excuse to justify topling Saddam's regime. Let's face it, since Bush Sr. didn't finish the job at hand in 1991, it's been on the U.S.'s "to do" list. We are now just finally getting around to finishing up what should've been taken care of in '91.

Now then, back to my point of why I support this war. Let's take, just for argument's sake, WMD out of the picture. Even if you pretend that 9/11 didn't happen, there is still sufficient reason why Saddam must go. He has a proven track record of creating instability in the region. He has invaded Iran and Kuwait already. Left alone, who's to say that he wouldn't have gone on to invade other so-called "Islamic brother nations"?

Yes, America is very sensitive to having our supply of oil placed in danger, and that is an unfortunate indiosyncracy of the American nation(we like big, gas-guzzling cars...we are wasteful, etc.). But there it is. That's the reality that we are living with at the moment. While I concede that oil does play a part in this scenario, it is not the only issue. When you combine Saddam's potential to invade his neighbors if left alone, and the possible Israeli retaliation if he were to get to close to Isreal....it makes me shudder.

Even if you agree that Saddam poses a threat to the stability in the middle east, then we get to whether to leave the solution up to diplomacy and inspections, or armed military intervention. In this case, based on how little has been accomplished in 12 years, I think it's been demonstrated that diplomacy doesn't work on dictators. The Iraqi's have been playing the UN like a fiddle for 12 years. The fact that only the US and it's small band of Allies realizes this, is a sad reminder that the lessons of Munich in 1938 have not been taken to heart. At that time, the Allies thought  diplomacy would work on "you-know-who" as well.

Fact: Saddam invaded Iran
Fact: Saddam invaded Kuwait
Fact: Saddam has used WMD previously
Fact: Saddam is a potential menace to middle east stability
Opinion: Saddam could potentially invade another country or provide terrorists with the WMD they need to kill Americans.
Opinion: Terrorists will continue to try to kill Americans, regardless of whether we overthrow Saddam or not.
Opinion: Unfortunately, diplomacy didn't work. It's time for a military solution.

[Wanker]

Originally posted by Torque
"To sit idly by and let Saddam continue to build weapons of mass destruction for later use against the world would be criminal. To be sure, Iraq poses little or not threat to the world at large today. But since America, Great Britain, Australia and Portugal seem to have learned from history, it is up to us to lead the way and do what needs to be done."


Hell, why not!!!

We all sat around while Britian inserted Israel a Jewish state in a Arab dominated part of the world so Britian could protect the Suez canal and it's just newly found oil reservers in the middle-east.

We all sat around while western oil companies one British and two American were screwing over the Arab oil producing countries to the tune of $2 a barrel, hence OPEC.

We all sat around when Britian and the US supported a coup to overthrow the democratically elected president of Iran who was not western oil campany friendly. Enter the Shah of Iran.

We all sat around while the Reagan took Saddam off the terrorist list and then supplied him with Sarin Gas and Anthrax and the technology to produce more in an effort to control the instability created by the Shah of Iran.

We all sat around by while Britian had occuping troops in Ireland and ironically the IRA's main funding came from the US.

We all sat while the Bush Sr supported Pinochet who was murdering thousands and that dirty little assassination by the CIA and Kissenger.

We all sat around when the US Army was training freedom fighter at the SOA and then sending them to El Salvadore where they were killing thousands of civillians per month.

The world is a hypocritical dirty little place.

Find that morale high ground when you can!

I agree, Torque. But then again, one could go through every country's dirty laundry basket and find things like that. I noticed that you left off a few good things the Americans have been known for doing. But then, maybe a balanced view was not your intent.

[Toad]

Unless there is some sort of miracle within the next day or two, there's going to be an invasion of Iraq.

You never know, Saddam may just haul butt for Libya with the best 72 virgins he can find and his $20 Billion stashed in Switzerland. He may decide to take the real and ready virgins over the ephemeral promised ones. We can hope, but it isn't likely.

Bush might back down; but it isn't likely.

So, there's going to be a war almost certainly.

The who, what, where, when and why and historical recriminations have all be thrashed about soundly. Nothing really left to say that would be new.

So now it is time.

Time for people and nations to decide whether they stand with the dictator or not.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by ghostdancer
As for the idea of a smoking gun .. the Israeli's bombed a "suspected" nuclear facility created for developing the ability to make nuclear weapons.

[/b]
What I would consider a threshold from prima facie to satisfactory proof is much lower.  The fact that the plant exists and the Israeli's could point to it is sufficient enough.

We on the other hand can point at nothing but rumors and tapes that are vague in meaning at best.  Our position does not even meet prima facie.

He has a history of using whatever means he has at his disposal to accomplish his goals and then trying to gain access to more deadlier weaponry.

[/b]

Let me ask...what do you believe his goals have been for the past 12years?  Do you believe that he has been planning a way to be able to invade any of his neighbors?  You do agree that he has been militarily marginalized.  What would a first strike offensive use of WMD get Saddam?  It would get him out of power and dead.  Personally, I think he has been trying avoid that from happening.

The question is simple are we willing to gamble that if he ever does develop it and he was desperately trying that he won't use it or pass it on to another to use.

Please tell me one group that Saddam would trust enough to pass WMD for them to use against the US?  It ain't Al Qaeda...they are just as likely to use some of the material provided against Saddam and he knows that.

The US currently lives under that gamble everyday and will continue to after Saddam is gone.  There are sources of WMD from the former Soviet bloc countries and other weapons suppliers such as NK which have a much higher risk of providing WMDs such as VX to organizations hostile to the US.  Using force to remove Saddam will not significantly decrease the risk of WMD proliferation to hostile organizations.  On the contrary, it will create a new funding to buy those weapons from other sources and a new cadre of terrorist recruits willing to utilize them.

[ra]

Find that morale high ground when you can!

Is there any room left up there?