<OT> Re: we shall remember them

Mon May 17 11:39:08 PDT 2004

On 20 Oct 2002 at 10:23, Net Llama! boldly uttered: 

> Ya know, i've been trying to stay out of this wildly off topic thread, 
> but i'm getting sucked in anyway.
> 
> What I have completely failed to grasp is the administration's logic 
> (amongst other things).  Mr. Bush has stated that one of the reasons why 
> the US must strike Iraq first is because Iraq has failed to obey the 
> UN's rules & regulations that it had agreed to after the Gulf War.  Yet 
> at the same time, Mr. Bush states if the UN doesn't provide him with a 
> resolution that permits him to strike Iraq, he'll just do it anyway, 
> because the UN risks becoming nothing more than a "society of debators", 
> akin to the League of Nations.
> 
> Can someone explain to me why the US has a right to ignore UN rules, yet 
> Iraq does not?  I have no argument that Hussein is a nut job of the 
> first order, however this sounds like first class hypocricy to me.

Yeah, I'm succumbing to this too, but this is going to be my first 
and last message on this thread.

First of all, let me say my heart goes out to the Australians and my 
thoughts are with them as they suffer from the terrible tragedy in 
Bali.  I sincerely hope that the perpetrators can be identified and 
brought to justice and that such a thing never occurs again.

(Speaking of Australia, how many of you know that the largest 
Australian anti-war demonstration of modern times [50,000 people] 
occurred in Melbourne Australia on October 13?  The newspapers and TV 
networks in the U.S. didn't cover it.)

Now to address the pending war on Iraq.

1) Hypocrisy is right, the U.N. stuff is all just window dressing - 
George II never had any intention of getting U.N. "approval" of 
anything.  As you have correctly noted, the pretext is "complying 
with U.N. resolutions", but in reality it's really unimportant.  If 
U.N. resolutions were so important, we would have sanctioned Israel 
into nonexistence by now for blatantly flouting them, one-after-
another, for the last 50 years. (and no, as many Jews and Israelis 
might prefer you believe, the fact that the USA is often Israel's 
only supporter in the world is not because every other country in the 
world is anti-semitic)

Speaking of hypocrisy - the words of James Baker III, Secretary of 
State of the USA, July 17, 1990 in response to issues culminating in 
the first Gulf War: 

    "The tone of the letter and the implied threat to use force against 
    Kuwait run counter to Iraq's stated policy of seeking to foster Arab 
    unity and peace in the gulf. A central principle of international 
    relations is that disputes should be settled by peaceful means, not 
    through intimidation and threats of the use of force."

http://www.meij.or.jp/text/Gulf%20War/uscable0719.htm

2) The Bush administration has consistently lied and exaggerated 
about the Iraq "threat", in several cases directly contradicting 
reports from its own CIA.  George II and his minions tell Americans 
Iraq could have a bomb in 1 year, while even the head of Israeli 
military intelligence - some of the biggest 'hawks' on such issues in 
the world - says it would take at least 4 years.  There is ABSOLUTELY 
NO EVIDENCE that Iraq has provided much in the way of support or 
influence on Al Qaeda.  For one thing, Iraq, unlike most of its 
neighbors, runs a secular government, in part precisely because they 
are none-too-interested in religious fanatics de-stabilizing the 
country.  Hussein and Al-Qaeda are not remotely natural allies.

(URL wrapped)
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=216363&contrass
ID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

3) OIL.  I'll say it again: OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL.

4) Overthrowing the regime in Iraq would have a disastrous impact on 
the stability of not only the middle east, but the world in general.  
If you want to know my opinion, the real madman is Bush for cooking 
up such a ridiculous scheme.  Almost every significant military 
figure from previous US administrations has specifically come out 
saying that going over there and doing what George II is proposing to 
do is a really stupid idea - including Norman Schwartzkopf, who led 
the first Iraq war perpetrated by George I, and who once said "I want 
every Iraqi soldier bleeding from every orifice".

5) I don't think we would have to wonder what Americans would think 
if a foreign adversary started training anti-government elements in 
the U.S. in tactics to overthrow the U.S. government, and provided 
them with weapons and other support.  This is exactly what the U.S. 
is doing in Iraq, and openly.

I can go on and on, but I will simply leave some URLs:

Republican house member and atomic scientists, among others, 
enumerate bogus Administration claims on Iraq:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul58.html
http://www.fair.org/activism/newshour-iraq.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/23/us.iraq.debate/index.html
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2002/wo/0909rothstein.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,806965,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,812827,00.html

10 things to know about the Middle East, and what can be done about 
terrorism:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11608
http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/terror3.htm

The other side of the story on Iraq:
http://www.mideastfacts.com/index_iraq.html
http://www.cjr.org/year/93/2/iraqgate.asp
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13710
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13749
http://www.coastalpost.com/98/6/4.htm
http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-consp.htm

Why Iraqis won't be welcoming their "liberators":
http://www.iht.com/articles/72785.htm

A formerly proud American who is not celebrating now:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=37&ItemID=2070

The roots of Muslim rage:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm

The myth of the "generous offer" - diplomatic game-playing:
http://www.fair.org/extra/0207/generous.html

George II and the new "hegemonism" - long article but excellent:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/articles/hirsh0902.html

One small quote:

> Bush himself said it best during his campaign in 2000: "Our nation
> stands alone right now in the world in terms of power. And that's why
> we've got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes
> freedom. ... If we are an arrogant nation, they'll view us that way, but
> if we're a humble nation, they'll respect us." The mystery is why the
> Bush administration now thinks it must carry a big stick and speak
> loudly at the same time -- why it feels it must declare its values
> "non-negotiable." That only turns one into the schoolyard bully. And
> bullies always have their comeuppance.

--
Philip J. Koenig                                       pjklist at ekahuna.com
Electric Kahuna Systems -- Computers & Communications for the New Millenium