Rebuffed president recklessly saddles up for war

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-09 02:27pm

Rebuffed president recklessly saddles up for war

LINDA MCQUAIG

Is there nothing that can stop this man from recklessly using his weapons of mass destruction? Apparently not. George Bush made it clear in his televised appearance Thursday night that he's finished with "diplomacy" and is keen to get on with the bombing.

No wonder he's had it with diplomacy. Countries just weren't capitulating. Take Turkey. Washington offered $26 billion in grants and loans just for permission to use Turkey's soil briefly to deploy U.S. troops against Iraq.

That probably works out to about a million dollars a square foot! But those ungrateful Turks turned him down. (When an impoverished nation turns down $26 billion, you get a sense of the depth of resistance to this U.S. war.)

Then there's the annoying behaviour of those no-name countries with temporary seats on the U.N. Security Council.

In a surprising show of gutsiness, poor nations like Mexico, Cameroon, Angola — even dirt-poor Guinea — have been unwilling to knuckle under to the demands of the U.S., despite the fact that Washington effectively controls the IMF and the World Bank, upon which they depend for survival. No surrender monkeys in that crowd.

One shudders to think of what kind of punishment will be in store for the likes of little Guinea for its uppity behaviour against the big boss-man.

Mexico, another heel-dragger, got a hint of how it may pay for its lack of capitulation.

In an interview with Copley News Service last week, Bush said he didn't expect there'd be any "significant retribution" from Washington if Mexico voted against war, but he drew attention to "an interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French ... a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people."

The president went on to say that if Mexico or others vote against the U.S., "there will be a certain sense of discipline."

It is mind-boggling that an American president has become such a cartoon figure of swaggering, threatening gunmanship — a kind of Cecil Rhodes and John Wayne rolled into one — and it helps explain the outpouring of anger over this war around the world.

But while Bush's cowboy bravado gives a whole new look to the exercise of U.S. power in the world, it would be misleading to see what's going on now as a complete break with past American foreign policy.

Washington has a long history of intervening in the affairs of other countries, with the oil-rich Persian Gulf being a key focus of past interventions. So, yes, it's not only about oil this time, it's often been about oil.

Even former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, who recently won the Nobel Peace Prize and who opposes war with Iraq, declared in 1980 that Washington would not tolerate a hostile state getting into a position where it could threaten America's access to the Gulf. (That "Carter doctrine" followed the popular overthrow of the Shah of Iran, who had been installed by a U.S.-engineered coup in the early 1950s.)

And U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney made it clear that oil was front and centre in the U.S. decision to go to war against Iraq the first time. Cheney, who served as secretary of defence in that war, explained to the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1991 that, after invading Kuwait, Iraq controlled 20 per cent of the world's oil reserves.

Cheney said that this — and the possibility that Iraq would invade Saudi Arabia — put Saddam Hussein "clearly in a position to dictate the future of worldwide energy policy and that gave him a stranglehold on our economy and on that of most other nations of the world as well."

The "stranglehold" image is apt. Because of the acute importance of oil to the modern world, whoever controls the massive reserves of the Gulf effectively has a stranglehold on the global economy. But, as Michael Klare argued last month in the U.S. academic journal, Foreign Policy in Focus, it is Washington that maintains a stranglehold over the global economy through its dominant position in the Gulf.

Washington's dominance in the Gulf has long been made possible by its close ties to Saudi Arabia, which has about 25 per cent of the world's oil reserves. But with the U.S.-Saudi relationship strained after growing evidence of Saudi connections to Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, the need to control Iraq's oil has taken on new significance.

"Iraq is the only country in the world with sufficient reserves to balance Saudi Arabia," notes Klare.

So Bush wants the war to begin. While the U.N. continues its hapless search for elusive weapons, Bush is keen to get on with implementing a long-standing U.S. agenda, cowboy-style.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-09 02:31pm

Another good article:

Arrogant Bush sets stage for final U.N. showdown

HAROON SIDDIQUI

George W. Bush has brought the world to the brink of one war and plunged it into another: the war that he is hell-bent on unleashing on Iraq, and the other on the diplomatic front, where he has torpedoed the Atlantic alliance, undermined moderate Muslim allies and is about to sink the system of international law that has helped govern the world since World War II.

For this, we can blame Saddam Hussein, of course, but also America — more precisely, the Bush administration. Its unmatched arrogance, staggering dishonesty and extraordinary incompetence at international relations have set the stage for the coming week's showdown, not between enemies but friends.

France, Russia and China are threatening to use their Security Council veto against an Anglo-American resolution indirectly authorizing war. They had been hoping Bush would back off to avert a crisis. He gave his answer Thursday night: Go ahead, make my day!

In forcing the vote, the president must hope the veto-bearing dissenters will blink, abstain and let America have its way.

If they don't, he will be aiming for nine votes out of 15 and — notwithstanding the veto(es) — claim a dubious "mandate of the majority" to invade Iraq.

No leader, let alone an American president, should have boxed himself like this — arguing first that there was no need for U.N. authorization, then asking for one and, being denied one, barrelling ahead unilaterally, partly because he has 250,000 impatient troops on standby halfway around the world raring to go.

A similar clumsiness has marked the administration's constantly shifting case for invading Iraq, by hook or crook.

First, it was about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Then, about the gullibility of the United Nations inspectors to his machinations.

But with the inspectors swatting away many baseless American charges, and successfully beginning to destroy banned missiles, it is no longer about those weapons per se. Now, it is about the American read of Saddam's "intent" on getting rid of them.

Off and on, it has also been about getting Saddam, dead or alive — or perhaps not. He can stay if he disarms. No, he can't. He should be exiled.

Lately, it has also been about Saddam's links to Al Qaeda — a thoroughly discredited allegation pursued nonetheless in a shameless exploitation of the American people's understandable post-Sept. 11 fears.

Since last week, the Bush mission has also been about establishing democracy in Iraq and liberating Iraqis from Saddam's tyranny — the strongest moral point in the American arsenal but totally ineffective in light of its own past patronage of the tyrant, its callous discounting of Iraqi suffering under economic sanctions and the fact that its bombs will kill many Iraqis before freeing them.

American disdain for international law is also on display in the stepped-up bombing of Iraqi defences in and around the north and south no-fly zones.

The zones were created for the protection of Shiites and Kurds from Saddam, not for warfare against him. The Anglo-American bombing there since December, 1998, has itself been questionable — in that it had no specific U.N. mandate. Lately, the bombers have been taking out surface-to-surface missiles and rockets that might reach American troops in neighbouring Kuwait.

So, the war has begun before it has begun.

Anyone questioning any of this is deemed an appeaser of a new Hitler. Never mind that the analogy is utterly false: The Fuehrer was marching across Europe as Neville Chamberlain twiddled, while Saddam is surrounded.

Critics are routinely called anti-American. They are insulted and have their integrity and motives questioned. The millions of anti-war marchers are foolish. France is an aging beauty unaware of its wrinkles. Turkey is a bazaar where the haggling never ends. Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix is a retiree who does not want to return to Sweden as the man who caused a war.

Meanwhile, the simplest and the most profound questions remain unanswered: Why war now, especially when it lacks international legitimacy, both in law and in the court of world public opinion? Why abandon the inspections precisely when they are beginning to work? Why risk the entire U.N. system? Why risk geopolitical upheaval? More importantly, why risk inflicting a humanitarian catastrophe on an already crushed people?

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-03-09 02:31pm

His attitude may create a multi-arab coallition against the USA

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-09 02:42pm

Montcalm wrote:His attitude may create a multi-arab coallition against the USA

When hell freezes over. Game theory pretty much prohibits conspiracies of the weak against the strong.

What Shrubby will do, however, is tarnish or destroy what's left of America's global reputation for at least a generation.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-03-09 02:43pm

Just too let you know the Arabs have been in a very loose Confederacy for the past few years. Maybe they'll use this as an excuse for OPEC and make some money.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-09 02:53pm

Hmm, the first one states that Turkey is impoverished. WTF? Not exactly impoverished...

Those articles say nothing but anti-war opinions without supprorting facts, other than select half quotes.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-09 02:58pm

NF_Utvol wrote:Hmm, the first one states that Turkey is impoverished. WTF? Not exactly impoverished...

Those articles say nothing but anti-war opinions without supprorting facts, other than select half quotes.

Which is more than the pro-war opinions give.

And Turkey IS impoverished.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-09 03:05pm

To be entirely honest this war is 12 years too late. We should have done this in 91. The UN has already been proven to be a piece of shit when it comes to settling international and intranational issues like WMD and ehtnic cleansing. Sanctions don't work thats been proven. Either the UN shapes up and gets some fucking balls or it shuts the fuck up and stops complaining about things it has tried to solve and failed.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-09 03:05pm

Ooh, antiwar editorials. Like I couldn't have read the Philadelphia Inquirer and gotten the same thing.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-09 03:10pm

RedImperator wrote:Ooh, antiwar editorials. Like I couldn't have read the Philadelphia Inquirer and gotten the same thing.

Or the National Inquirer for that matter...

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-03-09 03:48pm

Why don't we jsut ptu a 20 Billion dollar bounty on Saddam's head and be done with it?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-09 04:46pm

Admiral Johnason wrote:Why don't we jsut ptu a 20 Billion dollar bounty on Saddam's head and be done with it?

It's not enough to kill him. They want to install a puppet government, control the territory, and ensure that it will be compliant to their demands in future.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-09 04:51pm

Admiral Johnason wrote:Why don't we jsut ptu a 20 Billion dollar bounty on Saddam's head and be done with it?

Well, we could offer Saddam the 60 billion a wars expected to cost to give us the country. However that’s not going to work. Nor will killing Saddam alone. His son would be far worse, and most of the people who could seize power after words are his equal at best.

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-03-09 04:53pm

I guess you are right guys. Seriously, do you think that we should have waited a few more years and wait for Saddam to pull his guard down and then go after him?

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-09 04:56pm

kojikun wrote:To be entirely honest this war is 12 years too late. We should have done this in 91.

Amen to that!

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-03-09 04:56pm

Just a thought, if all these countries are so opposed to war, then why don't they send their military into Iraq to help defend Bagdad? The U.S. and the British are serious enough to disarm Saddam, yet these hippie nations are obviously not serious enough to defend him.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-09 04:58pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Just a thought, if all these countries are so opposed to war, then why don't they send their military into Iraq to help defend Bagdad? The U.S. and the British are serious enough to disarm Saddam, yet these hippie nations are obviously not serious enough to defend him.

How would legions of Frenchmen waving white flags slow down the American war effort?

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-03-09 05:01pm

I don't want to know how.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-03-09 05:02pm

Defend Iraq? um no. I think they are opposed to war on both principle and economic grounds. They would like to stop war period, not fight in one.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-09 05:02pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Wicked Pilot wrote:Just a thought, if all these countries are so opposed to war, then why don't they send their military into Iraq to help defend Bagdad? The U.S. and the British are serious enough to disarm Saddam, yet these hippie nations are obviously not serious enough to defend him.
How would legions of Frenchmen waving white flags slow down the American war effort?

They might trip over their dropped guns.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-09 05:03pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Wicked Pilot wrote:Just a thought, if all these countries are so opposed to war, then why don't they send their military into Iraq to help defend Bagdad? The U.S. and the British are serious enough to disarm Saddam, yet these hippie nations are obviously not serious enough to defend him.
How would legions of Frenchmen waving white flags slow down the American war effort?

Now that's funny!

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-03-09 06:25pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Defend Iraq? um no. I think they are opposed to war on both principle and economic grounds. They would like to stop war period, not fight in one.

*snort* Currently, French troops are in 'peace keeping' operations in the Ivory Coast. Ask the rebels there, if they think the French are against the idea of war. Their 'moral' opposition to war is some what lacking, and we know that Germany, France, and some others have big oil deals with Iraq. Their moral, principle, and economic grounds against war are very shallow.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-03-09 06:30pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Admiral Johnason wrote:Why don't we jsut ptu a 20 Billion dollar bounty on Saddam's head and be done with it?
It's not enough to kill him. They want to install a puppet government, control the territory, and ensure that it will be compliant to their demands in future.

Calling it a "puppet government" may be a bit much. So long as the new Iraqi government is friendly to the US, and compliant with most US foreign policy, that will probably be enough.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-09 06:31pm

(sigh) to be perfectly serious, this war is about economics. And from that perspective, France and Germany have the same basic motivations that the Americans do; to protect their own economic interests. There is nothing alien or incomprehensible about their actions. Those who say it's about morality are buying into a line; the more realistic people understand that it's about money, and it's the same deal with France and Germany.

All of the other self-proclaimed motivations from both sides are bullshit. America wants to ensure that no country has the power to shut down their economy at a whim, which is what they fear Iraq will be able to do if left unchecked. France and Germany are more concerned with short-term economic impact of a war against Iraq. In both cases, we're dealing with what some people call "realpolitik", and it doesn't smell as nice as the flowery justifications both sides give for their positions.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-09 06:52pm

It's not enough to kill him. They want to install a puppet government, control the territory, and ensure that it will be compliant to their demands in future.

Need I remind you that the United Nations will take strong part in the post-war peacekeeping and subsequent nation-building?

As for "it's not enough to kill [Saddam]," you're right. We can't take the chance that he's got a clear line of sucession to Uday or another of his sons. We've got to establish a permenant, meaningful government in Baghdad or risk just as serious a threat as Hussein himself down the road.