Why You are Wrong to Support This Invasion.
Just came across this. I wrote it
between April 9 - May 14, 2003. With all this revisionist history (lies)
floating around. It's interesting to look back and see what was knowable to
anyone who was paying attention.
April 9, 2003, today on the BBC I saw US Marines
taking down a statue of the dictator who had terrorized the Iraqi people for the
last 2 decades. However, instead of the spontaneous outburst of a newly
liberated people, the toppling of the statue in Baghdad was staged by the US
military and about 150 supporters of Ahmad Chalabi (the leader of the Iraqi
National Congress). Even still, following this feel good publicity stunt, I hope
they will be spared from further bombing by the US and Britain, and hopefully
they will no longer be brutalized by the successor to the Hussein regime. They
deserve to be rid of tyrants; they deserve to be spared from the bombs and
depleted uranium they have endured for the last twelve years at the hands of the
US and Britain; and they deserve to benefit from the riches of their country.
Although the initial images from Baghdad showed Iraqis dancing in the street,
not all are overjoyed. In fact most are weary and many are scared of what comes
next.
On the same day the Marines toppled a statue of Hussein in Baghdad, a group of Iraqi doctors, engineers, and clerics in Basrah went to Hussein's palace, where the British Royal Marines had foolishly set up shop, to seek an audience with the British commander. They went to ask for his help in stopping the lawless gangs that had taken over the city at night. Instead of working with them to restore order and normalcy, the marines rebuffed them in a rude and dismissive fashion, reminiscent I'm sure of the reception many received from Hussein's security forces when they went to the palace to seek favor and assistance from the previous rulers.
Although I'm happy that Iraqi people have a chance to start again, I am concerned about their prospects, and I remain opposed to this invasion and occupation. I think what we'll find after the self-congratulatory happy talk subsides, is that America will be less safe, less solvent, and less respected around the world than before we launched this campaign. And don't forget, this war was all about protecting America and ridding the world of Weapons of Mass Destruction while reducing the ability of terrorists to target our country. To be honest who knows down the road how much better off the Iraqi people will be, better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
Of course there is no denying Hussein was a brutal little mini-me thug of a dictator (unless you're a Reagan era emissary in the 1980's). Sure he was no Hitler, he was no Stalin bent on global or even regional domination, but if you're an Iraqi Kurd, Shiite, or a political dissident he might as well have been. Even though some may welcome the US troops now, they will expect something concrete from their "liberators." The US has promised that they will not turn their back on Iraq, The President promised that we will rebuild Iraq and make it a bastion of western democracy.
The Afghan example.
A year and half ago though, Bush made similar promises in Afghanistan, but increasingly it looks like we will learn the same lessons the former Soviet occupiers learned at the hands of our Mujahideen. A-year-and-a-half after conquering the loose collection of feudal states the world calls Afghanistan, all we can boast is a national government that controls about 70% of Kabul and portions of some major roads. We were warned by the Afghanis that if we did not help rebuild their country that they would come to view us as invaders. Now after eighteen months, major religious leaders inside Afghanistan are calling for jihad against us. And according to aid workers and government officials, without massive sustained international investment, things will only get worse
It's difficult to know what the Bush Administration was thinking prior to Iraq while they were promising not abandon the Afghani people again. But 18 months after toppling the Taliban, Bush's nation-building experiment in Afghanistan is a complete failure. Any objective observer would admit that Afghanistan is a more dangerous place today than before the US invaded; and that is true even for women. According RAWA (The Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan - For those who don't know RAWA has been the only legitimate voice for women in Afghanistan for the last 35 years.) nothing has changed, "They've changed their hats, but their heads are the same." Now admittedly Iraq is not Afghanistan, it has a comparatively intact infrastructure and a functioning state apparatus (re: Baath Party institutions), so Iraq won't be starting from the Stone Age. And Iraq has oil, lots of it, but like so many other poor countries, its vast wealth may prove to be more of a curse than a blessing. What Afghanistan shows Iraq and people around the world is that George W. Bush and his Administration lacks resolve and clearly does not mean what they say. Fast forward to Iraq, forceful words aside, there is absolutely no credible evidence to indicate that the US is seriously committed to rebuilding that war-torn country and sadly, plenty to indicate that they will not.
Whereas the reconstruction of Afghanistan was a group effort, i.e.: a coalition sanctioned by the United Nations, with 60 or more nations sharing in the cost of reconstruction, in Iraq the US has made a point of cutting out most other nations from participating in the rebuilding effort. Dr. Condoleezza Rice put it bluntly, she said that "America" and Great Britain gave up "life and blood" when they invaded Iraq and because the United Nations did not support them, they would not take the lead role in creating a new Iraqi government. Translation: to the victors go the spoils or to put it in language that any child can understand: mine, mine, mine. Not the sort of language you'd expect of a liberating army. With the US conducting itself like child with hurt feelings by denying nations who opposed their invasion access to the spoils, they are also are limiting the opportunity for these same nations to share in the costs of reconstruction. The Bush Administration explains away its intentional sidelining of financial allies claiming that they are unnecessary because they will use the oil of Iraq "for the betterment of the Iraqi people" (reconstruction). However, James Baker, the Secretary of State for George Bush's father, stated that the current administration is overestimating the existing capacity of the Iraqi petroleum industry. Baker was dismissive of Bush the 43's expectation that oil would alone fuel Iraq's economic engine he but it succinctly, "we do not anticipate a bonanza." After 2 1/2 decades of neglect, Sec. Baker concluded that it will take years to rebuild the capacity of the Iraqi petroleum industry to its peak in 1979. This will leave the US with an enormous bill that we alone will be responsible for, in rebuilding this nation strewn with depleted uranium and broken "American" promises. Such a prospect is not very appealing. If the US fails again to keep its word to the Iraqi people, as it has time and time again with the Afghani people, we will not have stopped terrorism, but fueled it.
Oil will flow like honey.
And what exactly does the Administration's current phrase of the week "Iraqi oil for the betterment of the Iraqi people," actually mean? Surely these nuvo-crusaders now populating Washington aren't suggesting that we help Iraq nationalize its oil industry? Nor do I think they are suggesting that we will invest our tax dollars to develop a truly indigenous Iraqi oil industry. I mean these are the same people that still want to privatize Social Security via the stock market. What's more likely is that they intend to let US oil companies set up front companies (i.e.: wholly owned subsidiaries) that will drop a little change in cups of Iraqis for every barrel of oil they spirit out of the country. If that's the case, not many people -least of all the Iraqis- will buy for a second that their oil is for them. And then there is the most frequently employed model, where oil companies come in, hire a few nationals, pay a pittance in royalties (the terms of which are always dictated by the oil companies themselves), and again the profits flow out. With this almost Stainesque talk of "Iraqi oil for the benefit of the Iraqi people", I would say the Administration wouldn't be audacious enough to let their buddies come in to set up shop to conduct some good ole petroleum plundering, but then agains this is the same combat-shy President that tried to cut $25 billion from the veterans' budget just as he was sending our young men and women into harm's way. So I wouldn't put anything past him.
Protecting America.
And what about "American" security? Do you really think that America is safer from terrorism than before this invasion? Remember what supposedly brought this all about? Just 142 days after 9/11, George W. Bush in his first State of the Union Address identified his ridiculous "Axis of Evil" and said it was "arming to threaten the peace of the world." Apparently thinking himself Churchill, he went on to add that with "weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. " And finally thinking himself Seinfeld (as in Jerry) he said, "We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction." Why is that funny? Pakistan stupid, Pakistan - the bankers to 9/11.
Remember that? Terrorism. That's what this was all about. Following his address various, Administration officials and advisors went on to embellish that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11, that some Iraqi official met some al-Qaida terrorist in some cafe in the Czech Republic. Turns out that wasn't true. Then from the gathering gloom, we learned that Hussein was months away from having a nuclear weapon and he might, just might give it away to terrorists who hate America. Again turns out it was false. The aluminum tubes cited by the President when he chastised the United Nations on September 12, turned out not to be up to specifications. Later, purported letters between the government of Iraq and Niger demonstrating Iraqi interest in purchasing equipment that could be used to make chemical weapons were found to be forged. So again no dice.
But what about chemical and biological weapons? It is true that Iraq has failed to account for a substantial portion of its arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, but 22 days into the invasion and several weeks after the Hussein regime has fallen, none have been found. However, I will not make the mistake that some opponents of the US invasion have made and claim this shows Iraq doesn't have any such weapons. I suspect they do have some, but it's becoming clearer that they are not and more importantly were not, an imminent threat to anybody. For such weapons to be a threat they must be weaponized and they must be easily deployable. Having small or even medium quantities of weapons grade agents buried or otherwise inaccessible doesn't constitute a real and imminent threat. It just doesn't. Now that the US is saying they will not let UNMOVIC back in to finish their inspections, anything the US "finds" will rightly be called into question. So why would they do this? I would certainly hope it's not because Mr. Bush is still throwing a temper tantrum over the perceived disloyalty of "Old Europe"? Get over it.
Even beyond mitigating whatever threat Iraq may pose to the United States, there's the issue of this damage done to our relationship with our longtime allies and the world community as a whole. As for the pretend "coalition of the willing," don't pay any attention to it. The truth is that most of these "partners" are providing less support to this invasion/occupation than either France or Germany. Most of the 36 - 46 nations in this coalition (depending on who's making it up) are providing little more than kind words or overflight permission. Although not mentioned by the pouting little boys in Washington, both France and Germany are allowing overflight. Additionally Germany is allowing ground transit, as well as letting the US use its military medical facilities on German soil to treat US troops injured in the invasion. But back to the issue of our relations with our longtime allies: Does it matter? Are France and Germany yesterday's news, or as Donald Rumsfeld put it, "irrelevant"? Well not if the US is serious about protecting its people from terrorism. So far the only conviction in open court anywhere tied to the events of 9/11 took place Germany. As for France, they along with the Germany have worked closely with US intelligence to capture numerous al-Qaida members since 9/11. Without the assistance of "Old Europe" it is very possible that we would be mourning the loss of even more of our citizens. Alienating our chief allies over a brutal but ultimately petty dictator makes the US less safe, period.
Not Ready for Duty, Sir.
Another important issue regarding our national security is military readiness. Remember on August 3, 2000 when George W. Bush did his rather pathetic impression of a soldier-saluting while he blurted out, "Not ready for duty, sir"? This little bit of theater was intended to illustrate his believe that the US military was over-extended. Then Governor Bush argued that the Clinton's lust for military adventure had made America more vulnerable. It is true that President Bush has asked for the largest increases in military spending in history, but very little of that went into preparing our troops to fight. On the eve of this invasion a study was released claiming that the average annual military income for our combat troops was $16,000/yr. So much for then candidate Bush's promise of a billion dollar pay raise. To actually build a professional, fairly compensated military, the President should have cut a couple of boon doggle weapons systems and maybe even a portion of his tax cut. A sacrifice this President is clearly not ready to make. More importantly though, America's military is significantly smaller than during the even the last gulf war, and a greater percentage of them are committed overseas than in recent memory. Although the trouncing of Iraq and Afghanistan were designed to give the American people the impression that our military machine is invincible. It is a serious question how much farther we can extend our reach and still reasonably defend our national borders.
And what about our economy? Bush, his Republican minions, and even the weak-ass Democrats try to separate, or as Clinton would say "compartmentalize" the domestic economic situation from our military conquests, but that is simply impossible. Although deficit spending may be fun, it can also be dangerous. Many wars, the cold war is an excellent case in point, have failed not because one side was defeated on the battle field, but because they were defeated at the bank. And seeing that Bush's modus operandi is to play the bully instead of the statesman, this is not a war we can walk away from. Because when a bully walks away from a fight he is not seen as a peacemaker, he's seen a weak. Being the bully is what Bush has confronted every obstacle, only this time, instead of just himself, he's made our whole nation a global bully. And incase the Bushies haven't figured it out yet, waging non-stop military aggression is not cheap. By using government resources as his personal party favors instead of focusing restoring the basics, he runs the risk of not being able to finish what he has started. And if this happens, we are screwed.
The truth is I have not seen anyone make a case for this invasion/occupation that even passes as plausible. When you sort out the lies, the distortion, and the misinformation, you're left with a bunch of nothing. Yes Hussein is a bad man, so what. Does he even make the top 10 or top 5 of the current bad man list? How does he compare to the ruling Junta in Burma? Or to the Communist Party in China? How does Hussein's "gasing his own people" in Halabja compare with Indonesian government's slaughter of 1/3 of the entire population of East Timor (over 700,000 civilians killed), and the ongoing brutal repression in Aceh and Papua? Or what about the murder of thousands of trade unionists in Colombia in recent years and the displacement of 1.2 million people mostly by the Colombia military and their para-military forces? And I won't even mention what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, because most people in this country simply don't care. My point is, yes he's a very bad man, but again so what. Is it fair to ask families to send their sons and daughters into harm's way to take out a middling baddie who is no threat to us? The answer of course is no, that's why we heard all this other nonsense in the run-up to the war. However, I must again stress why we undertook this war, and why we undertook the war in Afghanistan, 9/11 - to make America safe from future 9/11's. So ask you, is America safer now than before we started invading these weak nations? And if we had to could we respond to a real threat, a significant threat if were to emerge tomorrow? Where would we get the resources? If you are honest with yourself and if you put patriotism over party, the answer is inescapable. The answer is no we are not safer, and because of this war it will become harder and harder to defend this nation and stand up against real threats to our national security, and that is why you were wrong to support this invasion.
May 14, 2003
On the same day the Marines toppled a statue of Hussein in Baghdad, a group of Iraqi doctors, engineers, and clerics in Basrah went to Hussein's palace, where the British Royal Marines had foolishly set up shop, to seek an audience with the British commander. They went to ask for his help in stopping the lawless gangs that had taken over the city at night. Instead of working with them to restore order and normalcy, the marines rebuffed them in a rude and dismissive fashion, reminiscent I'm sure of the reception many received from Hussein's security forces when they went to the palace to seek favor and assistance from the previous rulers.
Although I'm happy that Iraqi people have a chance to start again, I am concerned about their prospects, and I remain opposed to this invasion and occupation. I think what we'll find after the self-congratulatory happy talk subsides, is that America will be less safe, less solvent, and less respected around the world than before we launched this campaign. And don't forget, this war was all about protecting America and ridding the world of Weapons of Mass Destruction while reducing the ability of terrorists to target our country. To be honest who knows down the road how much better off the Iraqi people will be, better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
Of course there is no denying Hussein was a brutal little mini-me thug of a dictator (unless you're a Reagan era emissary in the 1980's). Sure he was no Hitler, he was no Stalin bent on global or even regional domination, but if you're an Iraqi Kurd, Shiite, or a political dissident he might as well have been. Even though some may welcome the US troops now, they will expect something concrete from their "liberators." The US has promised that they will not turn their back on Iraq, The President promised that we will rebuild Iraq and make it a bastion of western democracy.
The Afghan example.
A year and half ago though, Bush made similar promises in Afghanistan, but increasingly it looks like we will learn the same lessons the former Soviet occupiers learned at the hands of our Mujahideen. A-year-and-a-half after conquering the loose collection of feudal states the world calls Afghanistan, all we can boast is a national government that controls about 70% of Kabul and portions of some major roads. We were warned by the Afghanis that if we did not help rebuild their country that they would come to view us as invaders. Now after eighteen months, major religious leaders inside Afghanistan are calling for jihad against us. And according to aid workers and government officials, without massive sustained international investment, things will only get worse
It's difficult to know what the Bush Administration was thinking prior to Iraq while they were promising not abandon the Afghani people again. But 18 months after toppling the Taliban, Bush's nation-building experiment in Afghanistan is a complete failure. Any objective observer would admit that Afghanistan is a more dangerous place today than before the US invaded; and that is true even for women. According RAWA (The Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan - For those who don't know RAWA has been the only legitimate voice for women in Afghanistan for the last 35 years.) nothing has changed, "They've changed their hats, but their heads are the same." Now admittedly Iraq is not Afghanistan, it has a comparatively intact infrastructure and a functioning state apparatus (re: Baath Party institutions), so Iraq won't be starting from the Stone Age. And Iraq has oil, lots of it, but like so many other poor countries, its vast wealth may prove to be more of a curse than a blessing. What Afghanistan shows Iraq and people around the world is that George W. Bush and his Administration lacks resolve and clearly does not mean what they say. Fast forward to Iraq, forceful words aside, there is absolutely no credible evidence to indicate that the US is seriously committed to rebuilding that war-torn country and sadly, plenty to indicate that they will not.
Whereas the reconstruction of Afghanistan was a group effort, i.e.: a coalition sanctioned by the United Nations, with 60 or more nations sharing in the cost of reconstruction, in Iraq the US has made a point of cutting out most other nations from participating in the rebuilding effort. Dr. Condoleezza Rice put it bluntly, she said that "America" and Great Britain gave up "life and blood" when they invaded Iraq and because the United Nations did not support them, they would not take the lead role in creating a new Iraqi government. Translation: to the victors go the spoils or to put it in language that any child can understand: mine, mine, mine. Not the sort of language you'd expect of a liberating army. With the US conducting itself like child with hurt feelings by denying nations who opposed their invasion access to the spoils, they are also are limiting the opportunity for these same nations to share in the costs of reconstruction. The Bush Administration explains away its intentional sidelining of financial allies claiming that they are unnecessary because they will use the oil of Iraq "for the betterment of the Iraqi people" (reconstruction). However, James Baker, the Secretary of State for George Bush's father, stated that the current administration is overestimating the existing capacity of the Iraqi petroleum industry. Baker was dismissive of Bush the 43's expectation that oil would alone fuel Iraq's economic engine he but it succinctly, "we do not anticipate a bonanza." After 2 1/2 decades of neglect, Sec. Baker concluded that it will take years to rebuild the capacity of the Iraqi petroleum industry to its peak in 1979. This will leave the US with an enormous bill that we alone will be responsible for, in rebuilding this nation strewn with depleted uranium and broken "American" promises. Such a prospect is not very appealing. If the US fails again to keep its word to the Iraqi people, as it has time and time again with the Afghani people, we will not have stopped terrorism, but fueled it.
Oil will flow like honey.
And what exactly does the Administration's current phrase of the week "Iraqi oil for the betterment of the Iraqi people," actually mean? Surely these nuvo-crusaders now populating Washington aren't suggesting that we help Iraq nationalize its oil industry? Nor do I think they are suggesting that we will invest our tax dollars to develop a truly indigenous Iraqi oil industry. I mean these are the same people that still want to privatize Social Security via the stock market. What's more likely is that they intend to let US oil companies set up front companies (i.e.: wholly owned subsidiaries) that will drop a little change in cups of Iraqis for every barrel of oil they spirit out of the country. If that's the case, not many people -least of all the Iraqis- will buy for a second that their oil is for them. And then there is the most frequently employed model, where oil companies come in, hire a few nationals, pay a pittance in royalties (the terms of which are always dictated by the oil companies themselves), and again the profits flow out. With this almost Stainesque talk of "Iraqi oil for the benefit of the Iraqi people", I would say the Administration wouldn't be audacious enough to let their buddies come in to set up shop to conduct some good ole petroleum plundering, but then agains this is the same combat-shy President that tried to cut $25 billion from the veterans' budget just as he was sending our young men and women into harm's way. So I wouldn't put anything past him.
Protecting America.
And what about "American" security? Do you really think that America is safer from terrorism than before this invasion? Remember what supposedly brought this all about? Just 142 days after 9/11, George W. Bush in his first State of the Union Address identified his ridiculous "Axis of Evil" and said it was "arming to threaten the peace of the world." Apparently thinking himself Churchill, he went on to add that with "weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. " And finally thinking himself Seinfeld (as in Jerry) he said, "We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction." Why is that funny? Pakistan stupid, Pakistan - the bankers to 9/11.
Remember that? Terrorism. That's what this was all about. Following his address various, Administration officials and advisors went on to embellish that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11, that some Iraqi official met some al-Qaida terrorist in some cafe in the Czech Republic. Turns out that wasn't true. Then from the gathering gloom, we learned that Hussein was months away from having a nuclear weapon and he might, just might give it away to terrorists who hate America. Again turns out it was false. The aluminum tubes cited by the President when he chastised the United Nations on September 12, turned out not to be up to specifications. Later, purported letters between the government of Iraq and Niger demonstrating Iraqi interest in purchasing equipment that could be used to make chemical weapons were found to be forged. So again no dice.
But what about chemical and biological weapons? It is true that Iraq has failed to account for a substantial portion of its arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, but 22 days into the invasion and several weeks after the Hussein regime has fallen, none have been found. However, I will not make the mistake that some opponents of the US invasion have made and claim this shows Iraq doesn't have any such weapons. I suspect they do have some, but it's becoming clearer that they are not and more importantly were not, an imminent threat to anybody. For such weapons to be a threat they must be weaponized and they must be easily deployable. Having small or even medium quantities of weapons grade agents buried or otherwise inaccessible doesn't constitute a real and imminent threat. It just doesn't. Now that the US is saying they will not let UNMOVIC back in to finish their inspections, anything the US "finds" will rightly be called into question. So why would they do this? I would certainly hope it's not because Mr. Bush is still throwing a temper tantrum over the perceived disloyalty of "Old Europe"? Get over it.
Even beyond mitigating whatever threat Iraq may pose to the United States, there's the issue of this damage done to our relationship with our longtime allies and the world community as a whole. As for the pretend "coalition of the willing," don't pay any attention to it. The truth is that most of these "partners" are providing less support to this invasion/occupation than either France or Germany. Most of the 36 - 46 nations in this coalition (depending on who's making it up) are providing little more than kind words or overflight permission. Although not mentioned by the pouting little boys in Washington, both France and Germany are allowing overflight. Additionally Germany is allowing ground transit, as well as letting the US use its military medical facilities on German soil to treat US troops injured in the invasion. But back to the issue of our relations with our longtime allies: Does it matter? Are France and Germany yesterday's news, or as Donald Rumsfeld put it, "irrelevant"? Well not if the US is serious about protecting its people from terrorism. So far the only conviction in open court anywhere tied to the events of 9/11 took place Germany. As for France, they along with the Germany have worked closely with US intelligence to capture numerous al-Qaida members since 9/11. Without the assistance of "Old Europe" it is very possible that we would be mourning the loss of even more of our citizens. Alienating our chief allies over a brutal but ultimately petty dictator makes the US less safe, period.
Not Ready for Duty, Sir.
Another important issue regarding our national security is military readiness. Remember on August 3, 2000 when George W. Bush did his rather pathetic impression of a soldier-saluting while he blurted out, "Not ready for duty, sir"? This little bit of theater was intended to illustrate his believe that the US military was over-extended. Then Governor Bush argued that the Clinton's lust for military adventure had made America more vulnerable. It is true that President Bush has asked for the largest increases in military spending in history, but very little of that went into preparing our troops to fight. On the eve of this invasion a study was released claiming that the average annual military income for our combat troops was $16,000/yr. So much for then candidate Bush's promise of a billion dollar pay raise. To actually build a professional, fairly compensated military, the President should have cut a couple of boon doggle weapons systems and maybe even a portion of his tax cut. A sacrifice this President is clearly not ready to make. More importantly though, America's military is significantly smaller than during the even the last gulf war, and a greater percentage of them are committed overseas than in recent memory. Although the trouncing of Iraq and Afghanistan were designed to give the American people the impression that our military machine is invincible. It is a serious question how much farther we can extend our reach and still reasonably defend our national borders.
And what about our economy? Bush, his Republican minions, and even the weak-ass Democrats try to separate, or as Clinton would say "compartmentalize" the domestic economic situation from our military conquests, but that is simply impossible. Although deficit spending may be fun, it can also be dangerous. Many wars, the cold war is an excellent case in point, have failed not because one side was defeated on the battle field, but because they were defeated at the bank. And seeing that Bush's modus operandi is to play the bully instead of the statesman, this is not a war we can walk away from. Because when a bully walks away from a fight he is not seen as a peacemaker, he's seen a weak. Being the bully is what Bush has confronted every obstacle, only this time, instead of just himself, he's made our whole nation a global bully. And incase the Bushies haven't figured it out yet, waging non-stop military aggression is not cheap. By using government resources as his personal party favors instead of focusing restoring the basics, he runs the risk of not being able to finish what he has started. And if this happens, we are screwed.
The truth is I have not seen anyone make a case for this invasion/occupation that even passes as plausible. When you sort out the lies, the distortion, and the misinformation, you're left with a bunch of nothing. Yes Hussein is a bad man, so what. Does he even make the top 10 or top 5 of the current bad man list? How does he compare to the ruling Junta in Burma? Or to the Communist Party in China? How does Hussein's "gasing his own people" in Halabja compare with Indonesian government's slaughter of 1/3 of the entire population of East Timor (over 700,000 civilians killed), and the ongoing brutal repression in Aceh and Papua? Or what about the murder of thousands of trade unionists in Colombia in recent years and the displacement of 1.2 million people mostly by the Colombia military and their para-military forces? And I won't even mention what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, because most people in this country simply don't care. My point is, yes he's a very bad man, but again so what. Is it fair to ask families to send their sons and daughters into harm's way to take out a middling baddie who is no threat to us? The answer of course is no, that's why we heard all this other nonsense in the run-up to the war. However, I must again stress why we undertook this war, and why we undertook the war in Afghanistan, 9/11 - to make America safe from future 9/11's. So ask you, is America safer now than before we started invading these weak nations? And if we had to could we respond to a real threat, a significant threat if were to emerge tomorrow? Where would we get the resources? If you are honest with yourself and if you put patriotism over party, the answer is inescapable. The answer is no we are not safer, and because of this war it will become harder and harder to defend this nation and stand up against real threats to our national security, and that is why you were wrong to support this invasion.
May 14, 2003
Posted: Thu - August 25, 2005 at 11:31 AM
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
XML/RSS Feed
Archives
ibloggers web ring
Site Meter Web Counter
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Aug 25, 2005 11:47 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Aug 25, 2005 11:47 AM