[PLUG-TALK] Chirac's shocker... Iraq.

[none]

On Sat, 2003-12-20 at 16:26, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003, none wrote:
> > Saddham was trying to buy missiles from North Korea.
> 
> There's no evidence of this.  The so-called "intelligence" on the Iraqi
> weapons program was shown to be either falsified or speculation
> contradicted by evidence.
> 
> In other words, it was a lie... either told knowingly by liars or told in
> ignorance by wishful-thinking warmongers.
> 
> > What reason does this country have to try and profit in a region where
> > our allies are already very short with us?
> 
> Money.

And it doesn't cost money to have a military operation?  
> 
> > Saddham wasn't harmless towards this country, or does threatening to
> > kill the President's father not amount to anything?
> 
> Well, when your old friend turns against you and starts killing your
> people with a brutal embargo, you get angry and make some threats.  If
> Bush didn't want to deal with a killer, he shouldn't have helped him take
> office in the first place.  (And recall that he was helped into power
> BECAUSE he was a ruthless killer.)
> 
> > He killed and gassed his own people showing no remorse for it,something
> > an Iraqi has said.
> 
> Right... and when the United States found out about it (right after we
> gave him the materials to do the job), we did nothing and cared very
> little.  It was called a "domestic issue" and none of our business.  This
> started happening back in the early-/mid-eighties, remember.  Iraq was our
> ally at the time and none of that genocide was secret.

So you admit Saddham was a humanitarian nightmere, yet you oppose
our going in and taking him out. How quaint.  In the past we figured
Iran was the greater concern and we arguably didn't consider that
we were creating a monster.  One must also realize that our military
capability is very different today.  If the republicans are so guilty 
of turning their backs on Saddham, is there some reason you're ignoring
the fact that Clinton could have gone after Saddham and didn't?  Why 
did Clinton turn his back?

> > Some plundering your talking about, a number of civilians have been
> > killed.
> 
> I'm talking about the wholesale plundering of a nation as a doorway into a
> region.
> 
> > Saddham could have prevented an attack a long time ago by letting the
> > U.N. weapons inspectors stay in his country.
> 
> I have no idea who fed you this lie.  The Hussein government gave access
> to UN inspectors wherever the mandate allowed.  The inspectors came to the
> conclusion that there were no illegal weapons and that no facilities
> existed to ramp up a weapons program without raising serious red flags way
> in advance.  True, the inspectors were not allowed into areas not covered
> by the UN's mandate, but that's hardly surprising.  If the police came to
> my house with a warrant to search the garage, I'm not going to let them
> look in the basement as well.  I have privacy that must be respected.
> The U.S. called for the removal of the inspectors claiming that they were
> in danger "if war breaks out" (read:  when we attack).
One major problem with your argument is that Saddham's army mostly
deserted him despite having the capability to do far more damage
to the coalition.  Not only that, it's easy to find Iraqis who
are glad that Saddham is gone. Don't ignore the fact that 
Lieberman and other democrats were pro war too.

 
> > Believe it or not, the restoration of infrastructure is important for
> > the Iraqi people where our troops are so outnumbered by the Iraqi
> > population that we are guests in that country.
 
> Right... "the restoration of infrastructure"... there's an interesting
> one.
You can't argue against us restoring Iraq's oil industry because
it's a major part of the Iraqi economy.  If were trying to extract
wealth from Iraq, why are we asking France and Germany to forgive
debts owed by Iraq?

> WHY does Iraq have to be rebuilt?  It's because the nation has been
> systematically broken down by U.S. aggression over the past fifteen years.
> First, the embargo destroyed their foreign-made supplies and limited their
> trade to an unsustainable trickle.  Then ten years of bombing decimated
> the infrastructure that did exist.  Finally, it's a ruined nation that
> needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.  And this will be done by American
> corporations who expect a return on that "investment".  The return will be
> wage-slaves who are happy to get whatever crumbs offered and the natural
> resources of the entire country.

We don't have to contain Saddham anymore, no more embargoes are needed.
This war will save us the billion or so a year we were spending
patrolling Iraqi air space.  There were many programs to bring food
and medicine into Iraq that Saddham has abused over the years.  Will
you ignore Iraqi exiles in our local community looking at returning
to Iraq who tell stories of Saddham killing their relatives?
 
> > Most of the opposition is probably coming from Iran or Pakistan.
> 
> Huh?!?  The opposition is coming from human beings looking outside their
> door and seeing foreigners with guns patrolling their streets.

We will leave when the country is stable.  Anyone who purposely creates
the image of an insecure Iraq will lenghten the coalition presence.
 
> Believe me, I would be the first one out throwing rocks and worst if that
> happened here.  They don't even have to be foreigners.
> 
> > At least Saddham can't order executions anymore.
> 
> No, instead American troops can burn down homes wherever "suspected former
> high-ranking party members are thought to be hiding out".  Realize that
> this is EXACTLY how the executions in Saddam's Iraq were justified to the
> public.  He was killing criminals and people sworn to subvert the nation
> and hurt the Iraqi people.  That is how all state murder is explained
> away.

Tell that to exiles who can easily prove their relatives weren't
criminals.
 
> > Have you ever considered the policy that you only hear the bad and that
> > wages in foreign countries are going to be different than what you earn
> > here because money is worth a different amount there?
> 
> I'm not talking about straight equivalence in dollars to dinar.  I'm
> talking about living wages based on the ability of a person to provide
> food, clothing, shelter, and security for themselves and their families in
> their own cities.

There's no gurantee of a living wage in the U.S.
 
> Germans workers have the highest standard of living in the world.
 
> > I should also mention that the pay for Iraqis is being raised and it
> > could be argued that underpaying people produces incentive for them to
> > build their economy up to a point where they can demand better pay, a
> > situation that can get us out of Iraq.
 
> Wow... so paying them less is GOOD for them!  Of Course!

If that is what it takes to get the Iraqis talking about
social welfare and moving past Saddham where it also gets
them to prefer Iraqi employers over the coalition, don't
be so fast to criticize low pay.  

There is a limit on what the coalition can pay where the
cost of the war has mostly been carried by the United
States in the midst of economic trouble at home.

 
> And that would MEAN SOMETHING if the companies that employed the people of
> Iraq were Iraqi companies that couldn't simply threaten to take their
> business elsewhere when the workers strike for better standards of living.
> Instead, American corporations will just say "fine, you want a raise?
> We'll be looking at new manufacturing space in Pakistan." and instantly
> the government steps in and puts down the worker's rebellion for the sake
> of the national economy.

What is with the extremes of labor or business but no middle ground?
You're trying to sensationalize what's going on as the beginning of
a colonization of the middle east despite the fact that the coalition
has been in Iraq for only a year.  Economies move slowly, what you
do today doesn't show up for two to three years.  It can be argued 
that the recession is Clinton's fault, when Bush started that was 
when Clinton's economic policies took affect.  We have found places
in Iraq where secret programs were in high gear to develop ways to
defeat airport security complete with bombs that would never be
caught by any common metal detector.  

You can't simply say a worker has to be paid a living wage for any kind
of work, it's not that simple.  The wages are being raised, if anything
the administration is talking about an Iraqi military ready to take
over where I've been hearing most criticism as being against that.
International terrorists have killed Iraqi soldiers.  It takes time
to build a strong Iraqi force that can face these terrorists, realize
how much trouble our own U.S. forces are having.
 
> > We did pay for a war where the International community isn't pulling
> > it's weight and we are in recession, consider what you're saying when
> > you knock the pay.
> 
> This is mind-boggling.  The people of the United States paid for a war
> that almost nobody wanted so that a few U.S. corporations could make
> ass-loads of cash.

Prove noone wanted it.  I wanted Saddham gone where I'm sure others 
including Lieberman and Daschle agree with me.


> Remember that the military is really just a method of putting public funds
> into the hands of the wealthy.  The primary purpose of government spending
> is to prop up an economic system that is unsustainable without state
> support.
Tell that to the World War II vets.  Hitler wasn't going to replace
all governments with fascism and exterminate all Jews and Christians.
The Colonial army and navy weren't essential to American becoming
it's own nation, Britain just handed the New World over.

 
> > > > I don't care much for the whole International court concept either
> > > > that was pushed on Bill Moyers.  It's curious that a court selected
> > > > through some unclear procedure is purported to be International.
> > >
> > > The procedure is quite clear.  They have a well-defined process.
> >
> > Whatever.
> 
> Please, dismiss the facts.  Go right ahead.  Spew conjecture and then wave
> away truth.
> 
> > Then tell the audience what a war crime is in their definition?
> 
> "War crime" is a whole class of violations.
Nice dodge.

> > France and Germany didn't want Saddham gone because they had extensive
> > trade with him, I very much doubt that German and French prosecutors
> > could ever be trusted to convict Saddham of war crimes.
> 
> The prosecutors don't do any convicting.  The court would convict based on
> the determination of the justices.  The justices are not in the pay of the
> few companies that had trade relations with Iraq.
Germany and France are very powerful in Europe.  Look at the difficulty
the EU is having forming a new constitution.  We are not alone among
European nations that are having difficulties with France and Germany.
The Czech republic and various former Soviet states come to mind.
 
> Remember that ALL of the trade between Iraq and Germany and Iraq and
> France in the past ten years is less than what Haliburton alone expects to
> make off of Iraq in the next five years.

Wrong.  Haliburton won't be there five years from now either.
 
> > > And if you don't have an international court of justice, you have war.
> > > There must be a civil place to resolve grievances outside a particular
> > > nation's bias.
> >
> War will always be.
 
> So long as there are people like you, yes.  We're working on changing that
> by teaching civility.  It's a long process.

The U.N. passed twelve resolutions regarding Iraq and let Iraq suffer
under Sanctions where help attempted via oil for food and medicine was
repeatedly misappropriated.  The Saddham government didn't care at all
about the welfare of the Iraqi people.  What kind of leader forces
everyone to have his image under pain of death displayed to feed his
ego?  War is a spiritual problem that cannot be eradicated by a
natural solution.
 
> > Bureaucracy and multilateralism neither obsolete war nor do they provide
> > an affective means to wage war.
> 
> Arguing in court before a consensually assigned panel is a much better
> alternative than blowing each others brains out and destroying the land.

Talk went on long enough, only action could end years of sanctions. 
Noone in the world claims that Saddham can be trusted, the Iraqi people
don't deserve to suffer under sanctions intended to control and contain
him.
 
> However, it doesn't ensure the victory of the largest army, so the U.S. is
> opposed to it as a matter of policy.

If we really are using our army for colonial expansion we could blow 
any international court away.

> If you wage war you fight to win, or you don't fight at all.
> I'll take the latter.

You're a peace nik then.



 
> > The pope isn't for peace at any price despite what the Catholic Sentinel
> > publishes these days.
 
> Right... you know the Pope better than the Vatican papers.

You don't know the pope mister there's no free will.  You haven't
read any official Vatican statement on Iraq either.
 
> By the way, the Pope SPECIFICALLY CONDEMNED the bombings in Iraq and the
> Sudan as criminal aggression.
 
> > He is concerned about preemptive strikes where I must say the president
> > offered that as a reason for going into Iraq, but it really isn't.
> > This invasion is in reality the end of the Persian Gulf War.
 
> There was no declaration of war.  It was a criminal violation of UN
> Charter.

We had U.N. authorization to go in through the twelve resolutions
that have been passed regarding Iraq.

> > If Bush believes in what he is doing, truly believes, not backing
> > down takes real courage.
 
> It doesn't take courage to do whatever you want if you're rich and control
> more guns than anyone in the history of the world.

I'm sure the Chinese have us beat.
 
> > Instead, he believes they need to stay for now and has said if he isn't
> > reelected that he'll simply return to his Crawford Ranch to let the next
> > guy take over.
> 
> Right... he's super rich and will continue to be super rich.  The more
> work he does in Iraq, the richer he and his cronies will be.  The more
> programs and systems that are set up to perpetuate his wealth and the
> oppression of people, the longer it'll take to dismantle those systems.
> (And they will see a half-step back to our former freedom as a "victory",
> not realizing they are still many steps worse off than they were before
> the neo-conservatives/liberals took control.)
> 
> > We are a democracy ( representative republic ).
> 
> Sort of.  If you can do what the wealthiest 1% tell you to do, then you
> can run for office with a chance of getting elected.
 
> > In all your angst over Bush have you ever given him the benefit of the
> > doubt considering that he's the only president chosen by the court
> > because of a tie?
> 
> Huh?!?  Do you have any idea what happened in Bush v. Gore?  Do you
> understand the basis of that case or the outcome?  Essentially, the court
> set their own deadline for recounts and then failed to meet that deadline
> and let the decision stand.

If there's a problem with the court that isn't Bush's fault.
 
> Justice Scalia issued a court order to halt the recounts on the grounds
> that such a recount would harm the Bush presidency, should it come out
> against him.  (Demonstrable harm is a requirement for issuing an
> injunction.)  Justice Scalia totally ignored the fact that if the recount
> did not come out in Bush's favor, there would be no Bush Presidency to
> harm!

Ballot boxes were not properly secured in New Mexico, bums were
paid by gore sympathizers to vote for Gore...  Bush took the
largest number of states.  For a long time every state has needed
an extra electoral vote so that a candidate can't win with
only four states.  People who voted for Buchanan mistakenly could 
have asked for clarification of the ballot, did they?  Florida
consistently messes up in Presidential elections.  At least the
military votes were counted, there's nothing quite like 
a citizen defending a country and not getting to vote in
the presidential election.
 
> Furthermore, recounts aside, there are the issues with the gross
> misalignment of polls and actual election results that indicate either
> elections tampering or criminally negligent election managment.  And
> lastly, but perhaps most importantly, there is the issue of tens of
> thousands of people being illegally scrubbed from the voter rolls and not
> allowed to voice their opinion at all.
> 
> This is only going to be magnified when the voting systems are all
> electronic.  (See the recent elections in Alabama and California for fine
> examples.)

Don't you mean there are many Europeans and dead people trying to vote
in this country?  Exit polls are statistical models, hopefully exit
polls will be banned in all future presidential elections.  There's
no doubt in the last presidential race that the totals fluctuated
between Bush and Gore having a lead.  Recounts are so expensive and
if the vote is extremely close the accuracy required makes them even
more expensive.  It's better for the nation if two candidates are 
within 1% to 3% of each other to call it a tie and let the court 
decide.
 
> > He came in with a recession against him, a late start in office, and
> > then shortly after he had the September 11th crisis to contend with.
> 
> A late start in office?  He was sworn in the third week of January like
> every president of the past century (except the ones taking over for
> deceased or resigned presidents, of course... of which there were four in
> the past 100 years or so).
> 
> > Need I remind you that there are democrats, namely Lieberman, who are
> > for the war in Iraq?
> 
> Do I care what Democrats think?  (And Lieberman is a Democrat in name
> only.)
 
> It's called democracy.  It's not your business to tell other people
> how to run their country.

> And Saddham Hussein wasn't killing people who disagreed with him?
 
> And Katherine Harris wasn't silencing people in her own way?
 
> And Tony Blair doesn't get to call elections when he's on top and stop
> them when he's less favored?
 
> And we don't have, in this country, a system of criminalizing the
> lifestyles of the impoverished and then removing their ability to vote
> because they are criminals?
Jim Crow laws have been gone for a long time.  If you are an eighteen
year old or older American citizen you can vote.
 
> And Hussein wasn't installed with American support and supported for years
> without a peep?
 
> In a true Islamic state their are religious police who control attire
> and enforce certain rituals, or am I mistaken?
 
> You're not mistaken.  But you're sorely mistaken if you think that Saddam
> Hussein was the leader of an Islamic state.  He was regularly condemned by
> the people of the region for being secular.
So that automatically makes anything he did right because he's not
religious?

> The hallmarks of representative government include freedom of religion,
> tolerance, and a government focused on improving social welfare.
 
> No, the hallmarks of a representative government are representing the
> people of the governed region.  If those people are single-mindedly
> intolerant, then the government will be so.  If those people believe that
> improving social welfare is best done by suppressing the people and giving
> all the public money to private interests, then that is what the
> government will do.

Talk is cheap.  Wanna compete with lobbyists?  Do it, don't whine
to me.
 
> But it is not our job to make sure the rest of the world has governments
> that are of the style we like.

Sure, we should just get rich ignoring starving people under a despot.
 
> > Is it because we removed a government that has anyone who disagrees with
> > it put to death or tortured?
 
> So far, that's what we've been doing there... putting to death those that
> disagree with American rule.
We haven't killed Saddham, and we are about to risk giving the Iraqis
a chance to exhonerate him.
 
> > The president went in on grounds that Saddham is harmful to his own
> > people and bent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
 
We all know that he said that.
The president can't necessary reveal a smoking gun every time he/she
wants to take military action, we wouldn't want the president to
sacrifice strategy for political approval.
 
> The first part is a lie because it was known that he was harmful to the
> minorities in his country for years and MANY nations' leaders are
> systematically brutalizing and killing their minorities (China is a pretty
> good example of this), but the U.S. does nothing.

China has a fifth of the world's population, we don't want ever want to
be at war with China.  Free market capitalism has been having a positive
affect in China.  
 
> The second part is a lie because the UN inspectors and the CIA said
> otherwise.
> 
> > He abused the oil for food program.
 
> Look at that program, for God's sake, and tell me that this isn't all
> about taking control of the nation's natural resources.
Wrong, the sale of oil was embargoed where this program allowed the
embargo to be violated if the profits earned were put towards 
acquiring food and medicine.
 
> "We'll let you starve, unless you give us oil!"

Oil is Iraq's major source of income.  Regardless what we do,
the sale of Oil is presently how Iraq can acquire food and
medicine.  It's a desert there, maybe genetically engineered
crops will improve agriculture there so that it
can become less dependant on other nations.
 
> > Any nation that does not seek to improve the social welfare of it's own
> > people does not deserve to be recognized.
 
> Recall that pre-1991, Iraq had the highest standard of living and the
> highest quality of life in the Persian Gulf region.
For who, Saddham?  Explain those opulent palaces, does their existence
improve the welfare of the poorest Iraqi?  Iraq was a great nation and
it can be again.
 
> ALL of the destruction in that nation has happened because of aggression
> and embargo and blockade led by the United States.
The U.N. hasn't been involved?  We should have invaded Iraq 12 years ago
to depose Saddham, but the past is behind us and always will be so move
on already.

 
> > France and Germany wouldn't go in because they were trading with Iraq
> > and probably don't want a free Iraq for fear it will negatively impact
> > their trade arrangements.  France and Germany were incapabling of
> > questioning Saddham and arguably still are.
 
> Um, you'll find that this is exactly why the United States turned against
> Saddam Hussein in the first place.
We invaded because we are sick and tired of U.N. resolution upon U.N.
resolution where a decade is more than long enough to put a problem
off and impose embargos instead of solving the issue already.

 
> > We killed two of his sons who were known as torturers.
 
> Suspected torturers.  They were not tried and were never offered the
> chance to bring evidence in their own defense.  This is a gross violation
> of what we consider to be fundamental rights.
There is documented torture and victims who can testify to atrocities.
They evaded arrest and threatened the lives of coalition troops, 
there is no way to try them because they chose death.


 
> Our troops are pulling back from the cities and there is work being done
> to build a new Iraqi military to take over from them.
 
> A loyalist military that will look more like the average Iraqi, but be
> controlled from Washington.  It's an attempt to add a layer of abstraction
> that confuses the people.

That would explain why these automatons are demanding higher pay.

 
> > There is an Iraqi governing council.
> 
> Hand-picked by Washington and very friendly to U.S. interests.
> 
> > We are not targeting civilians, but there have been many clashes where
> > terrorists want civilian casualties in order to create outrage against
> > American troops.
 
> You're just looking for reasons to believe the people of Iraq are not
> trying to protect themselves from foreign occupation.  There is no
> evidence of that.  It's all propaganda.

The Iraqi military capable of repelling the coalition largely chose not
to.  Providing medicine and food to Iraq civilians isn't propaganda,
coalition forces really are doing this.
 
> And by all means, keep foreign transnational corporations OUT of the
> rebuilding process.  That is only going to turn Iraq into a slave
> state for the United States and Britain.
>
> You're paranoid and delusional.
 
> Ha ha.  Cute.
 
> But you'll find that this is a pattern repeated throughout recent U.S.
> history.  I'm not talking about bogeymen, here.  I'm not saying that
> people are out to get me or that there is some vast conspiracy or that
> Saddam Hussein is hiding at PSU (a front for Al-Qaeda, heh).  There's
> nothing absurd in my statements.

You're close minded.  You're so anti war that you wear colored glasses.
Whether or not there are Al-Queada cells in Portland is another
discussion.


> > Sometimes you need a big corporation to get the job done.
> 
> And what is "the job" and WHY does it need to "get done"?
> 
> > Do you really think Iran, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, and Syria will idly
> > stand by if we make Iraq our colony?
> 
> Do you really think their combined forces are a mote in the eye of the
> most terrifying force ever assembled on Earth?
Yes, we aren't invincible and we aren't the greatest power in the world.
China is.
 
> We've brought food to a nation that was starving and our troops have put
> down their weapons many times to give food to children, people they can
> trust.
 
> Do you know WHY they were starving?  There was an embargo led by the
> United States that ruined their economy.  There was regular U.S. bombings
> of their infrastructure that prevented any internal development.
 
> It's like cutting someone open and then telling them they should be
> thankful that you gave them stitches.
An air campaign isn't precise enough, so we have troops on the ground
inside Iraq.

 > > Not only that, our troops have switched to more of a policing role
> > attempting to build comraderie when they can by engaging civilians in
> > outdoor games.
 
> Well, they're hurt.  Now's the time to show a little "kindness" (though
> not respect... the kindness you might show a child).
How do you treat children?
 
> This is classic brainwashing.  The soldiers become the saviors and the
> people forget that the soldiers are the reason they were suffering in the
> first place.
Trusting the U.S. presence is wrong?
 
> > We have brought modern medicine to many Iraqis who had nothing and we
> > are working on the infrastructure, we are even rerepairing electrical,
> > water, and sever when necessary.

> WOW!  We're undoing some tiny amount of the damage that we did?  How
> amazingly humanitarian!
$87 billion isn't pocket change.
 
> The medicine was withheld by our embargo.  The infrastructure (including
> electrical, water, and sewer systems) were destroyed by our bombs.
Saddham didn't like well fires?  Terrorists haven't attacked the
infrastructure blaming the coalition for the damage?

<snip>