As I pointed out, I don't believe that Iraq was a direct threat to the physical security of the United States, ie, I don't think they were going to drop paratroopers and lob nukes at us. A confrontation of some sort was inevitable because it sems we had three choices: let the situation sit as it was; call it off and leave Saddam alone; or try to allow for more sanctions or negotiations, ie, ratchet up existing pressure.The Kernel wrote:Why was a final confrontation with Iraq inevitable? Iraq is no threat to the United States, nor was it ever post-Desert Storm.
Ratcheting up existing pressure was politically untenable, since Saddam had turned America into teh universal bad guy by exploiting the suffering of his people, even though he had recourse to help them (oil-for-food/smart sanctions). So that wouldn't work.
Let the situation sit as it was-- a tense standoff with both sides hostile to each other-- while Iraqi suffering continued to play into the hands of Saddam's propaganda. See above.
Let Saddam go and display to the rest of the Middle East that Saddam stood firm while America blinked. The man becomes a hero and the next Nasser is created, a regional strongman who will push the limits of civilized behavior. We've already seen what he was capable of-- the chemical warfare wit Iran, invading Kuwait, bombing Israel, and mass graves of political disidents. So it's not like his kind of power was an unknown quanity.
We'd invested 13 years of sanctions, no-fly zones, and so on, all in the hopes of seeing through the UN resultions and the treaties that Saddam signed. Letting it all drop was not politically feasable.
You mentioned how the world was practically singing "Kum By Ya" with us during the Clinton years... I believe in a recent 60 Minuites interview even Clinton Himself agreed with the descision on "the Iraq thing" as he called it...
Well, I never made a comment about those dictators, did I? Wait... I did say that I thought the Yugoslavian mission was a good idea but poorly executed, and even though I disliked Clinton as much as you dislike Bush, I didn't want to see unecesary suffering by any party involved... I think Yugoslavia sits only on huge stockpiles of nonexistium.And don't even bother trying to moralize the situation, you know as well as I do that there are plenty of countries out there with ruthless dictators that we ignore that don't happen to be sitting on a huge supply of precious resources.
The world sat by and let Rwanda burn, Kofi Anan scolded the entire community for not only did we sit and watch, so did the French and all the other wonderful people of the world. I don't like the way we select and choose, it makes for a schitzophrenic foreign policy. It was wrong to support folks like, say, Pinochet and Mobuto Sese Seko, but we did. Every country has its share of dirty politics-- it's a fact. I don't like it, but I think in Iraq we are at least making an attempt to right a wrong that we allowed to fester.
You seem to be warming up the old "no blood for oil" chant. Save it. I'm sorry to say but as long as the economy of the entire planet turns on oil, then it is a valid strategic resource that will occassionally invite war. It used to be spice and opium. So sponge up your tears and buy a hybrid car-- I plan to-- and be a consumer who makes the world less dependent on our need to make dirty deals with asholes in the Middle East.
How is it decided when it is "absolutely necessary"? We were already involved in the internal affairs of Iraq, nearly up to our necks. 1991-2003... lessee... 12 years, 8 years of which was during the Clinton administration and there were sanctions, no-fly zones, and starvations. But that was okay since it was during Clinton's era, and the world liked us then. Basically, after committing ourselves to "Regime Change" in Iraq (that was a Clinton comment, remember?) for 12 years, we had to shit or get off the pot.Sure, why not? It is not our job to get involved in the internal politics of other nations unless it is absolutely necessary. There are plenty of worse dictators than Saddam to chase down after all.
Um, actually, it was stipulated in the treaty that ended the Gulf War in 1991, that failure to provide access to the WMD sites would mean a resumption of hostilities. So, in a word, yeah."Kernel" wrote:So that justifies a full fledged invasion and occupation?"Coyote" wrote:Or what else? Saddam had proven remarkably resistent to any negotiation. He had no WMDs but why was he so vehement about refusing the inspectors then, and restricting their movements? The UN, EU, and others were convinced he was hiding something...
Turns out Saddam didn't have any WMDs as near as we can tell. Then he was a double dumb-shit for not making it obvious, thus forestalling the invasion and saving all those lives. Still seems to me the responsibility rested with him. I hate to break the news to you, but not every bad descision on the face of this world originates from America.
Actually, we displayed a great deal of patience for twelve years, remember also that from 1998 to 2001 or so the UN inspectors were kicked out after... horrors! Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in Operation Desert Fox for failure to comply with UN Inspectors!. Say it ain't so, Joe!give me a fucking break, if we attacked everyone that violated UN security resolutions, Israel would be a radioactive crater right now.
Don't believe me, believe a French guy!:"kernel" wrote:Once again, you speak from total ignorace of Moore's thesis. At no time during F-9/11 did he make the point that Saddam was a good guy.But folks like Moore or others never mention this. No, all the misery here is 100% George W. Bush's fault. Not a mention of Saddam's abuses, the mass graves, chemical warfare, etc.
Maybe you'll believe the French Guy. After all, he's definitely not pro-Bush. Have another review here: http://www.theiowachannel.com/entertain ... etail.html"A French Philosopher who saw the Fucking Movie" wrote: Even less kind was France's superstar philosopher, Bernard-Henri Levy, who dismissed "Fahrenheit 9/11" as dishonest.
"When Michael Moore describes Iraq, before the American intervention, as a sort of oasis of peace and happiness, where people flew kites .... there wasn't only that," Levy said on RTL radio.
Levy noted that he opposed the war and considers Bush a "catastrophe for America." But, he added: "Saddam Hussein was also a horrible dictator. And that is not in the film of Michael Moore."
We invaded Iraq for many reasons, one of which I already agreed to was oil. Getting rid of Saddam as an annoying prick was another. The fact that even the French thought he had WMDs but were unwilling to do anything about it factors in there, unfortunately it was chosen as the main reason. Freeing the Iraqi people may have been low on GWBs list of priorities, but even GWB could not be blind to the political advantages of such an act-- so even if it weas done as a cynical ploy, the results are that the people are rid of a evil dictator."da Kernel" wrote:All of which is irrelevent to the issue here which is that Bush did not invade Iraq to free its people, nor are they better off under the new regime, despite your protests to the contrary.
Many Iraqis are indeed better off now than they were before, although certain Baathist officials are no longer living as pretty as they were. You'd be dismayed, I'm sure, at how optimistic many Iraqis are these days. But what the fuck do I know, I have met several dozen actual Iraqis and spoke with them about political subjects of the Middle East. You've had the chance to chit chat with...?
The people ARE frustrated that the power, water, and other things don't magically get lined with gold overnight. They are frustrated and we are the most obvious and immediate object of frustration for them. But if the people were truly as angry as you seem to imply, we'd have much, much more rebellion and fighting than we have, and we wouldn't have the ratio of 9 out of 10 insurgents being foreigners rather than locals.Kernel" wrote:Saddam's propeganda machine is gone, yet widespread hatred of the American occupation is widespread. Do you think this feeling was formed in a vaccuum?
And do you think that Hezbollah's warm fuzzy feelings about Moore was formed in a vacum?
Ahh, so it is better to say that evil Coyote wants to suppress 'valid video documentation' in order to stifle criticism... when all else fails, imply the other guy may be a Nazi. Bah, Michael Moore's portrayal of troops in the scene I used as an example is the same "free speech" as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. By presenting a certain image in certain ways, one can lead others to conclusions that are not necesarily based on fact. You are able to "lie" by only telling part of the story."Kernel" wrote:Ahh, I see, so it is better to supress valid video documentation because you feel it threatens the war movement. Obviously you have no concept of what freedom of speech is about do you?
If Michael Moore took a picture of a Iraqi corpse on the side of the road.... and then used images of troops in a far-away base camp laughing at a joke their commander told them... and Moore splices those footages together and made it appear that the troops were laughing hysterically at the mangled corpse, then is that "valid video documentary"? Is that proper use or full abuse of the "Freedom Of Speech"? Freedom comes with responsibility, and as a "seroious documentarian" (ahem) Moore has a responsibility to the truth.
Would you feel that a "fair representation" of America was being made if you found that a "documentarian" of Moore's caliber were going to remote villages in India, showing them nothing but footage of Ku Klux Klan rallies and saying "this is America"?
Either actually watch the movie or shut the fuck up about it
Well, if that is the way you feel about it, then
Either enlist and get over here, or you have no right to have an opinion about the war
Actually I don't believe that... see, I find it funny that Moore is allowed to say as he chooses ... you get to have an opinion about a war you've not been to... but I don't seem to get an opinion about the movie until I've seen it... (did these scenes I describe not happen at all? Was there some way to put a "happy spin" on the hooded prisoner that I haven't heard of? Please enlighten me). I intend to see the movie (when I can get it for free at the library).
But I also saw Bowling for Columbine and found it to be full of half-truths and misleads as well (other threads have beat this to death already). It also appears that I am not the only person to have a negative impression of the movie based on what I've heard so far about it.
Leith, the truck driver who I rode with one day knew the most English. He would translate bits of conversations from the other drivers. One day as the convoy was halted for a roadside bomb he heard two other drivers talking, a Shia'a and a Christian-- "Why do they want to atack the Americans?" one driver asked, "They are good guys, helping us"."Kernel" wrote:Blah, blah, blah, more speculation on your part based on third hand information. Got any real examples to provide?
Ali, the driver I rode with in our fourth run, pointed to a model of the Haram al-Sharif and said, "you know this?" "Haram al-Sahrif," I replied, "Palestine." Actuially, it is in th eOld City of Jerusalem and while the Dome is controlled by the PA, it is on Israeli land. "Yes, Palestine," he said, and put his hands together, side-by-side, "Palestine and Israel" "Salaam," I said, which means 'Peace'. "Salaam" he replied, his hands still together (only for a second... he was driving, after all)...
Hassam (I think that was his name) who's truck was blown up in a car bomb attack... came back to work with us despite the threats made to him. He claims to be "unafraid" of them and proud to be working with us.
Face it, I have probably mixed with more Iraqis than you and Moore combined. I'm sorry to inform you that many people here like us. Oh, sure, we get the bombings and the mortar attack (I mised one by 100 feet just 6 days ago). I tell you this because in the flood of news and tales of hate and death and murder, there actually are decent things going on here. I hope your perceptions are not shattered.
After all, no one ever reads a review about a movie with the intent to see if it is worth their while to go see it or not. You could try looking at some dissenting opinions as well, too....you could hold back on forming an opinion about it until actually watching it like a rational person might do...
You're the one throwing down the gauntlet, why don't you invite him? And I use others arguments because I was given the impression that I needed to back up some of my statements with outside sources.If Chris Hitchens wants to defend that interpretation at SDN I'd be glad to blast him to bits over it. In the meantime, how about you stop using other people's arguments?
There you go again with the Nazi angle. Where did I say "censor"? I sayid "use giood judgement" and don't claim bald propaganda as "documentary". I remember implying that Moore had a right to his opinion of Bush, did I not?Right, so now we should censor films based on what might incite terrorism (read: disension against the state). Welcome to a totalitarian dictatorship.
You have got to be fucking joking. Just because there is a moral rationalization that is possible for the Iraq war doesn't make it right, nor does it make it the agenda of those fighting the war....
I don't know what's really in their minds, so I can't say. But i stick by my statements that we are doing the right thing here.
