Obviously, the U.S. has been making them, but the U.S. government is full of known liars. There is no reason to trust anything they say.
The point is that not even the CIA can make a valid case that Iraq poses a serious threat. Dude, seriously, nobody believes that shit, not even people living in Kuwait or Iran, who are strongly opposed to a U.S. invasion. You are a shmuck if you believe it.
I wonder if you really do believe it, or if you are just using it to justify a war. What are your motivations? Do you have something to gain from this war? Or do you just want to see the pretty pictures of bombs and missiles lighting up the Baghdad skyline?
I believe that past actions give a good clue to future actions. E.g., someone who has committed a series of racist actions is apt to commit more of them. Well, Saddam has made a series of unprovoked attacks on neighboring countries, so he’s apt to do it again.
Do I have something to gain? Well, I lost two acquaintances in the World Trade Center and a friend lost his son. It’s all too easy for me to imagine a similar attack using nuclear weapons. It’s even easier to imagine a nuclear attack on Israel or Iran. What I have to gain is avoiding such an attack.
Even more likely is the blackmail aspect. Heaven only knows what Saddam would do if he had a nuclear arsenal. You can stick your head in the ground like an ostrich and say it’ll never happen, but the adults are dealing with the problem.
If you care anything about the people who lost their lives on 9/11/01, you would try to work toward preventing similar future attacks, instead of supporting actions that will guarantee many more.
Attacks from whom? The Iraqis? Well, no doubt “regime change” will accomplish that! A coalition government of Exxon, British Petroleum and Gaspro is unlikely to harbor such thoughts.
Attacks from the Al-Queda? Well, clearly as Iraq has no demonstrable connection with Al-Queda, “regime change” will have no preventative effect. There isn’t any real good reason to believe that Saddam’s fate will enflame them. either. But will they use if for propaganda? Sure. Will they piously and hypocriticaly shed crocodile tears for thier dear departed Muslim brother, Saddam bin Laden, the Saladin of Iraq? Sure.
I’ll throw in my two cents here, just because I can.
War is the most horrific thing that befalls mankind. It is our species at its absolute worst. Until you’ve gone you never really know the pain and suffering that war brings. It isn’t a movie where the dead walk up and go out for a smoke break after their scene, where the plot thickens and everything gets resolved in a two hour time. War has ramifications for generations and often causes more problems than it fixes.
With that in mind, when you support a war, ask yourself if you would be willing to go to basic training, become a groundpounder, be given an M-16, be shipped out to Kuwait, wait a very tense week while you see if combat orders come down, then be told to advance under enemy fire and kill the man on the other side. Don’t support something you aren’t willing to work for.
As for my opinion on this mess–well, what I think doesn’t matter. Whatever goals Bush has in mind will be rendered null and void in my mind if I get shipped out. There are no principles in combat and philosophy takes a back seat. I do what I’m told and that is the end of the matter.
Chumpsky as much as I agree with your overall view, statistics that purport to demonstrate direct American complicity with the death of a million Iranians are bogus. This kind of Bushwa is what they do. Not us.
Why is it bogus? The U.S. provided vast support to Saddam during the 80’s when he was killing lots Iranians.
However, the point is not so much that the U.S. was involved, which it was, but that the U.S. was not opposed to Saddam when he was committing by far his worst atrocities in invading Iran, gassing Kurds and so on. In fact, many of the exact same people who were in the White House in the 80’s, helping Saddam, are now guiding U.S. policy, such as Rumsfeld, Powell, and Cheney.
If you are against Saddam’s atrocities then it is insane to put the very same people who supported them in charge of an unprovoked invasion. These guys are ruthless killers who mean no good for the rest of us. It is the U.S. who poses by far the greatest threat to world peace today, and they must be stopped.
While I agree with most of your post, I found this last statement very disturbing.
The “I was just following orders” defense didn’t work at Nuremburg, and it doesn’t work now. You are responsible for your actions, whether you are given orders or not. In fact, you have an obligation to disobey an illegal order.
The reason we have so many wars is because people do follow orders and don’t think for themselves. The guys in charge tell their soldiers to go kill, and they kill and die so that these guys can make millions of dollars.
This puts me in mind of a quote from Einstein:
“He who joyfully marches to music rank and file,has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake,since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.This disgrace to civilation should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is no different than murder.”
Well. Chumpsky its the presumption of quantatative analysis. So many: x, the number of Iranians killed. Y the number of Iranians who would not have been killed if the US had not tilted in the direction of Iraq.
Just in lurking in this thread, I am getting woefully tired of Chumpsky pulling hysterical quasi-statistics out of his ass like this.
Military force worked with decisive force against the Barbary pirates.
It worked to some degree against Pancho Villa, a true terrorist, though Pershing never achieved his objective of capturing Villa.
Pershing had better luck in the Philippines, however, not only crushing Moro terrorists but winning hearts and minds among Moro political and religious leaders who were innocent of terrorism.
For one who bandies about the “liar” label with such ease, Chumpsky, you sure do show yourself up to be an ignorant little hothead.
On the other hand, you do have the chance to put your money where your mouth is:Canadians go to Baghdad as ‘human shields’. I demand that you answer whether or not you’ll join these idealistic young people in their quest to prevent war. And if you are not willing, sirrah, demonstrate how that does not make you a hypocrite.
Ok. Let’s say Chump goes to Baghdad and Saddam’s secret police cut his throat, mustard gas him, chain him to a imaginary nuclear weapon and detonate it, take your pick, while simultaniously being accidentally hit by a US bombing run. Donald Rumsfeld - “We thought he was the Chinese embassy.”
Exactly how does he ‘prevent war’ by doing this? All he did was become a smoking pile of biomass.
Wheras if he picks up a M-16, he is unquestionably supporting the war in the most direct fashion possible, and his efforts can be easily gauged.
Now in the first case I’m sure his sacrifice would be reported, but as he didn’t have to be there, most people would just write him off as stupid and enabling Hussein. However, if there was a large organization of people that sent tens of thousands of American citizens into Iraq, that might make a difference, but who’s got the money and political will to do that? It’s one thing to spread the word in the states to march on Washington, but it’s another to buy 10,000+ people plane tickets to the Middle East…
…on second thought, steerage. (Cue ominous drumming, pan to cave, Bin Laden plotting. “We must destroy those hippie planes!”)
barton, that may well have been the most incoherent post I have ever seen in Great Debates, and that’s saying something. God’s honest truth, I have no idea what your point is, or if you even have one.
We have been getting a number of “reported posts” because Chumpsky repeatedly referred to people as “liars.” Well, while just sitting there and calling somebody a “liar” may not be the best debating tactic, nor is it against the rules in Great Debates. “Liar” is not considered an “insult” like “idiot” or “moron” or “schmuck.”
Which brings us to what Chumpsky IS getting a warning about. Twice he has said:
That IS considered to be a direct insult and as such is against the rules of Great Debates. So, Chumpsky, cool it. Now.
Just to throw my opinion in while we’ve got a mini-hijack going on . . . if somebody called me an “idiot” or even “schmuck” in a real life conversation, I wouldn’t like it but could take it in stride. But if somebody repeatedly called me a “liar”, I would be sorely tempted to punch him in the face. I consider that label an insult and more than an insult. It’s an accusation that I am a person who has no integrity or ethics. Calling someone a liar is an ad hominem attack in my book.