2.10.2008

Making the Case for War.

The Plague of Revisionist History.

It seems to me that there are more – or simply still – people in the American population who are greatly confused by the actions of our president and administration. More specifically, there is a younger generation, the future, who are using the same techniques of cherry picking and flip-flopping of information to achieve the desired results so that they can sleep better at night, thinking they made the right choice in supporting a wholly corrupt government.

Or is it that simple?

I am always shocked when I see or hear a person from an older generation fall for lies and deceit. Although some do so simply because they lack the ability to change, so they go along with whatever their party or president of choice does, because they can’t do anything else, even if they disagree with policies and actions. The younger crowd has always seemed to be the crowd most ready for change, and easily question the actions of authority figures. The youngest of us – those just graduating high school – have always been the hope of the aforementioned generation, hoping they would join in and not just help initiate change, but be the generation to make the changes last. Lately I have noticed a swarm of this youngest generation behave in the same corrupt manners as our current leaders. Could this be the ultimate backlash of poor role models taking leadership positions? I fully understand the passion and exuberance of youth; I understand the almost desperate need not to just be right, but to defend their parent’s beliefs (believe it or not). But what I can’t understand is the lack of independence, the lack of questioning of authority, the lack of “punk” so to speak.

However, indeed I felt it would be prudent to look, really look, at the events that led up to, and influenced the invasion of Iraq under Bush Jr. Even compared to many of the folks that I read or speak to on a daily basis I found that once you start putting everything together from the multitude of sources that we all use and reference it all makes more sense, so much more sense than it ever did before. From domestic policies, attempted wars, international intervention, UN sanctions and “spies” – the end result is a damning amount of information that does everything but put the president and vice president behind bars. Still yet, some of the information calls into question whether or not we should retroactively hold previous presidents accountable as well, for the parts they played in creating the international quagmire that has resulted in such political negligence.

More than just lost lives, world-wide rebukes, and mounting deficit woes – this action, the most current war our country has waged – has left a gaping hole in international policy that may harm countries and foreign relations for generations to come.

The time has come for individuals to understand the greater ramifications of unchecked national pride, ignorance and indifference towards the policies set forth by united councils – as well as heed the deafening sound of voices world wide, echoing against the now vacant halls of responsible, ethical politicians.

The best place to start would be at the beginning. To fully understand what has happened, why it has happened and what the underlying purpose is, it isn’t good enough to look back over one or two presidential terms – one must go back farther, to the root of the problem. The premise, as it were, is to take a look and un-revise the history that much of America seems not to remember, or even know. Our youth needs to know the whole, uncovered truth if they are to eventually lead this country.

In the Beginning.

In 1990, George H. W. Bush and his cabinet decided, (partially) in concert with the previous Reagan administration to intervene in the invasion of Kuwait by then Dictator Saddam Hussein. This served several purposes, one, the U.S. was looking for a way to help Americans get over the opposition to military intervention, an American sentiment since Vietnam, two Bush needed to boost his popularity as the ’92 elections were fast approaching (what better way than ousting a dictator?), as well as gaining more influence over OPEC than any other country has ever had. Much like the current war in Iraq, Bush and the CIA went after the war in secret. Although the U.N. had placed sanctions against Hussein – sanctions that were working – Bush brought the troop numbers in Iraq up to half a million right after Democrats had gains in congress from the November elections. Much like this time around, the U.S. also sought American popular support by playing up the aspect of “Liberating Kuwait” even though (like this time) the U.S. showed no signs of concern or need to liberate any other country being occupied by a military force, or oppression by a dictator. Again the U.S. brought forth claims of Iraq’s ability to build a nuclear bomb, although once again all intelligence said otherwise. Not only did Iraq need years to build a bomb, they had no delivery method to boot. On August 29th 1990, there had been an opportunity to negotiate Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait, but war–bent–Bush said “No negations.” In January of ’91, Bush convinced Congress to let the U.S. go to war with Iraq. The U.S. gave Hussein an ultimatum, he defied it, and we invaded.

Eventually the U.N.’s sanctions brought a ceasefire from Hussein, and he withdrew from Kuwait. UNSCR 687 (1991) left a laundry list of “things to do “ for Iraq, such as respecting borders for Kuwait, and disarming any potential nuclear weapons, claiming any and all weapons or files etc…

Yet the U.S. continued to follow Hussein straight into Iraq – then for some odd reason stopped short in Baghdad. Bush never did unseat the brutal dictator, even though he had every chance to do so.

Iraq Invasion, Take Two.

Enter in the Clinton Administration. Bush, despite his last ditch attempt to win popularity by invading Iraq lost the election because quite frankly, people didn’t want a war for oil. The population went for the “candidate of change”, a Democrat something new in the Whitehouse. I firmly believe that the hope was for economic surplus, and peace. Granted, Bush did bring the economy back from the depths of the Reagan administration (if you are one to go by GDP’s), but it still wasn’t good enough – not for many people. Even still – the election was lack luster, with an underwhelming amount of voter turnout to support Clinton (or Bush and even fewer voting for Perot).

The fact remains that however hopeful the American populace was, the Clinton administration just seemed better at keeping its misdeeds under wraps. For the purpose of this essay, and without getting too far into the Clinton administration’s doings, even Clinton sought to go after the Middle East. In fact, both the Bush administration’s invasion and the Clinton administration’s decision to go into Iraq after sanction violations seem to be the reoccurring nightmare playing over and over again in American history.

Have we lost the ability to learn from past mistakes?

Apparently not, as Clinton decided to bomb Baghdad for four days following sanction violations. At least however, Clinton didn’t opt to send ground troops and occupy Iraq. He also at the very least, called back American planes after U.N. Secretary - General Annan had made last minute negotiations with Hussein. The other theory that is floating around is that the bombings were also linked to Hussein’s clumsy attempt at assassinating president Bush. The rhetoric comes into play when you listen to Clinton’s speeches about Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. It is so similar to the rhetoric we hear now that the mention of September 11th is the only way to tell the difference. (Well, that and the ability to articulate coherent thoughts.) To read Clinton’s address and the reasoning behind the bombing click here.

The Axis of Evil, and the War on Terror.

After Bush Jr. was appointed the presidency, and sworn into office the inevitable happened. The backlash of previous years, and systematic invasions of the Middle East had finally come to a head, and exactly eleven years to the very date his father swore to create a New World Order, and invade the Middle East in the same breath, they took their revenge. Coincidence? Again, I'll say I think not. That not withstanding however, Our government saw the perfect opportunity to take what they have coveted for so many years.

The Middle East has been seen as the "Key to the World" by many nations, throughout centuries, for a variety of reasons. This has not changed, and the US has long been aiming for a greater presence in OPEC, to line Big Oil's profit pockets, and to guarantee that oil production will bend to our needs, above others. This attack, with the world's sympathy as our strongest ally, opened up the possibility of attacking Iraq, and then moving forward to other countries under the guise of altruistic attempts to rid the world of its "Axis of Evil".

The debate as to whether or not our government allowed, caused, or encouraged the September 11th attacks is immaterial here, because it happened, and no amount of theorizing will change that fact. One can speculate, but the end results remain the same.

There is a reason we, the US have been so far unsuccessful in the invasion of Iraq, prior to the terrorist attacks. In fact, there are several. One big reason is that we, the US no matter how badly Hussein behaved, counted on his political alliance throughout many decades, for a variety of politically and financially motivated reasons. We, the US also had no real, tangible way to get in, stay in, and move forward to other parts of the Middle East without stirring up too many questions. Therefore, Islamic based terror attacks became the perfect justification for the US to invade, and occupy the Middle East.

Bush and his administration immediately undertook the task of compiling several justifications for invading. One justification, and still considered the biggest one, was the need to hunt down terrorists. Hence, our invasion into Afghanistan, which until recently barely hit the main stream media as major news, many people didn't even realize we, or Al-Queda were there. The US also used the rumor of terrorist cells, and terrorist sympathizers hiding in Iraq as excuse number one, for invasion into Iraq. Because the UN, and several major hurdles in the US throughout the departments and the country doubted the validity of the US's accusation that Hussein was harboring Bin Laden and/or his affiliates, they fell back on previous reports and less than cooperative behavior by Hussein with regards to weapons of varying sorts. Most notably, the "weapons of mass destruction" that never were. When Clinton was in office, and indeed long before that Hussein had used biological and chemical weapons against his neighboring countries, including Iran. Hussein had also defied the UN's sanctions against him, and repeatedly refused access to the UN inspectors. This became a leverage point for the Bush administration, and they used it for all it was worth. The third, and increasingly more desperate emotive reason, was that Hussein was a heinous dictator, known for torture and other abhorrent, inhumane acts. This was never a real reason, was hardly ever mentioned in UN meetings or briefings, and lived in the realm of news programs, public speeches, and presidential press releases to gain momentum, and support at home.

The UN, US, and a great deal of Sanctions.

In 2002 after the attacks, the US began pressuring the UN to allow an invasion into Iraq, as a means to destroy the world of terrorists. The UN, and all but four countries (including the US) made it clear that violence was not to be used. The UN allows the use of force for only two reasons;

Article 42, or the authorized use of force

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.


And article 51, or the use of self defense in a time of immediate, and impending danger.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


With that in mind, the US tried as hard as it could to convince the members of the UN that "preemptive self defense was appropriate, and should be allowed. The US was largely outvoted, and the UN began anew with sanctions issuances to Hussein.

Hussein began cooperating.

On December 30th 2002, the UN issued another sanction, stating that they requested 180 days to look over the new documentation from Hussein, and the inspectors and requested that all members of the UN abide by their request. Most members felt that the sanctions were working, and the UN wanted enough time to make a thorough determination.

Instead of abiding by that sanction, the US began deploying ships to Iraq, fully equipped for war on January 6th, 2003, just seven days into the requested time. The US understood that it lacked the international support to go to war, and so decided to use force without UN approval.

It has since come to the surface that the majority, if not all, of the information used to convince the world that this war was justified was either a shameless lie, "bad information", lack of proper intelligence and interdepartmental communication, ignored reports, and political slight of hand.

And yet, the much of the American public is still in the dark.

More to come...

Links:
UN Charters
Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy
International Law of Iraq War

{Note, some references were lost when transferring the information from one computer to this one. Citations and sources will be added, as soon as they are found.}

Related links:
Same Old Battle, Different Century
Do As You're Sold, the Mindless Mantra of America
Troubled Times
The End of Democracy As We Know It
Lesser of Two Evils
Hell Hath No Fury Like a Woman Scorned
Dancin' With a Demon

31 comments:

RickB said...

Seems like a relevant point to invite you to this
march19-blogswarm.blogspot.com
leave a comment to get signed up.

Anok said...

Thanks Rick, I left a message just a second ago.

How's your Mum doing?

RickB said...

Excellent.
Progressing well, in fact taking her to a physio check up tomorrow and my cooking hasn't killed her yet either.

Anok said...

Thats good to hear!

Tamera said...

Wow. Yepp, this was pretty straight forward. Beside the fact that we now know of the lies given..I have often had the feeling that they just wanted a foot in the door of that region. For several reasons. And, yes. A reason to stay, also. So many make up conspiracy theories, mixing everything in that is possible, and all that they can find. Sometimes the truth lies more correctly in simplistic linear reasoning, such as the points you raise. When I write "simplistic", I mean it in the highest of regards. It is getting rid of the unnecessary, so that the necessary may speak (Hans Hofmann). I'll be waiting for the rest to come!

theaspiringhorseplayer said...

Dangit!!! I had a long response all typed out and stupid Open-ID failed with my wordpress sign on!

Excellent post, Anok. Very well researched and very engaging. This is the kind of thing our kids should be reading about and doing critical thinking on in school rather than memorizing the date of the battle of Hastings.

As you know, I hail from a right-leaning family with a proud military tradition. It may surprise you (or it may not) to learn that we believe the Iraq invasion to have been the greatest blunder of the modern era. I could tell going in that it was the same old schtick we always do when we want to excercise military force. We have a proud history of bending the truth to encite public support for military actions. Remember the USS Maine (Spanish-American War), or does anyone really believe we were "pantsed" by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor anymore with so much evidence available that we knew they were coming, knew they were practicinb for a Pearl attack, and even knew the moment the 7 carrier task force left the Kurile islands?

I think what we are seeing is a result of how handcuffed democracies can be (which is a good thing in my opinion - the handcuffing that is) when they wish to excercise military action. They've got to dupe the public to a certain extent, and their efforts are eerily similar to what Orwell mentioned in 1984 when folks would watch the "5 minute hate" newsreels about their enemies in Asia.

Afghanistan I fully supported. I could see the strategic need to try and flush out senior Al Qaeda leadership. But Iraq? C'mon. They were probably the one country in the whole region we COULD predict, so why disrupt them?

I'm not sure I'm totally sold on the whole OPEC thing with Iraq though. I tend to think a "war for oil" would look a bit different. Not to mention Saudi Arabia would seem to be a better target for such a war. I think it was always about flexing our muscle and establishing bases of operation.

I've actually heard (and don't have my sources available) that Saddam actually asked our ambassador if we would have a problem if he made a move into Kuwait, and that our guys responded "no." Very interesting.

Anyhow, I wish to applaud you for the best article I've read in a blog EVER. Bar none - this is tops. You've outdone yourself and shown that your ability to think crticially about the most pressing issue of our time exceeds even my own expectations of you - which is really saying something considering I already think the absolute world of you.

Can I get off-topic a bit here? I've got bad ADHD and the talk of "revisionist history" lit the flame inside me about two things unrelated to our current war, but related to previous wars.

I'm a Civil War history buff and live near Gettysburg. A few years ago they brought out filmmaker Ken Burns (he spoke at Clinton's last campaign speech to the Democratic National Committee and is famous for his films "The Civil War" and his WW2 film "The War") to give the dedication speech for the final regimental monument that will ever be erected on the field.

The monument was to the 1st Delaware volunteers. I grew up near the counties these guys were formed from and knew their story well. They were ironic in that Delaware still allowed slavery, yet was part of the Union. The counties that the 1st was from were very pro-slavery, yet were against succession. Imagine my horror than when I had to listen to Burns go on about how they were "Freedom fighters" (it turns out a relative of his was in the 1st Delaware and he apparently prefers thinking of him as a "freedom fightre" rather than the slave-owner he actually was)????

I challenged him and got into a bit of an argument with him over it. Burns seemed to think that since they took part in a struggle that ultimately provided freedom for millions, that he could gloss over the fact that they were slaveholders themselves.

I told him I thought that was disingenuous and that it was revisionist history. "Celebrate them for what they really did and who they really were" was my admonishment. They were largely first generation german immigrants who were willing to risk their lives for the "idea" of a country that they had not even been born in. Isn't that enough? Why make them into perfect little 1960's neo-liberals just to make yourself feel better about them?

Another "revisionist" part of the field that bugs me is Little Round Top. Everything was fine until a decade ago when they made the film "Gettysburg" - ever since the place is packed with folks who refuse to accept that things might have happened a bit differently than what is portrayed in the film.

In the film (based off a fictionaly novel called "the Killer Angels")- Col. Josua L.Chamberlain and his 20th Maine play a vital role in the story, defending the left flank of the Union army from savage, unending attacks by the "whole damn reb army" that is "trying to work around our flanks" and if they had been succesfully "the whole line would've collapsed." We'll get to that in a moment as it's far from true.

In one pivotal scene, the 20th Maine and Chamberlain are out of ammo, exhausted, and on the brink of annhiliation. Chamberlain, knowing they have no bullets, orders a grand bayonet charge downhill into the advancing rebels.

It's ballsy stuff, and a memorable scene that has been the subject of numerous paintings ever sine.

Trouble is, it didn't happen like that. For starters, Little Round Top was a sideshow of the fighting on Day 2. Lee was deceiving the Yanks by attacking the flank first, causing them to send reinforcements and weaken their defenses further down the line, namely over the ground of Cemetary Ridge - this is where the coup de grace was too have fallen on the Yanks. Never mind that the only troops who attacked the 20th maine were of Law's Alabama Brigade - who had marched over 30 miles THAT DAY and were so exhausted and without water that the men were feinting prior to going into battle.

Somehow I'm supposed to suspend disbelief and think that if these fresh Maine troops entrenched behind fat rocks in a highly defensible position were not able to hold off a few hundred starving, exhausted, dehydrated Alabamians, that the whole flank of the Federal Army would've collapsed.

Wow...we must be supermen, us Alabamians then! :)

Why this bugs me is because Chamberlain's first battlefield report makes no mention of the bayonet charge. There was an "advance" by the color guard to bring some of their own wounded back within the lines. Years later, when he was running for political office, he concocted he story and as he was a gifted writer, put it into words that have created this fanciful legend.

His 2nd in command, Major Ellis Spears, argued that the "bayonet charge" nevre took place, or that Chamberlain never ordered it. Further, evidence shows Chamberlain took credit for taking prisoners that were clearly captured by other commands.

And yet, busloads of tourists get off to see the spot where the "bayonet charge" took place.

It baffles the mind. I can only imagine folks showed up at the Alamo for years after the John Wayne film wanting to know where Davey Crocket had been killed trying to blow up the powder supplies. Remember how they killed him off like that? The family of the guy that actually died doing that sued John Wayne's production company for defamation of their relatives character for revising the story and giving credit to Wayne/Crocket rather than his relative (I want to say it was A. Dickinson but I could be wrong).

I should stop here. Verbose has been given new meaning with my reply.

Excellent article and do keep up the good work!

Mark Stoneman said...

I don't think anyone disputes the fact, that we entered the war under false pretenses. I think the only possible area of disagreement is the extent to which the Bush administration deliberately deceived the public. Even there, it is plausible that Bush & Co. actually believed there was a security threat, even as they perceived other advantages to going to war. The deception was then a cynical means to ensuring that the public went along with the war.

We do need to look at this stuff, but I also feel that it is important to think about the situation now in Iraq, the US, and international politics. My own interest has been in the disconnect between our administration's ambitions and the small price it's been asking those of us not in the military to pay.

Of course, this ties into its whole move to war in the first place. It thought it could do things fast and on the cheap, and now it's going to have to pay the piper, unless people decide to blame everything on the next administration.

Anok said...

Tamera, thank you for your reply! I really got into investigating the timeline - and to be fair I also wanted to point out to folks that it's not all Bush and cronies who are responsible.

Kdawg, Wow! you and I both, very long writers LOL. Thank you for the kind words, and I'm glad I could inspire such memories of arguing with Burns (I wish I could have been a fly on the wall for that one!).

One note about OPEC, because I didn't get into in depth (I'm sure I will) - the idea is that the US wants to have a larger say in OPEC decisions, and while Iraq isn't the first place one would think of to accomplish this, you have to remember, it is only the entry point. In some ways Iraq was an easy target. As its now plain to see, we have other plans to move into other areas...as well as using Iraq (the easiest target by far) as a show of military force. Its a combo of economic and military coercion, in my opinion.

Besides, our country is in bed with Saudi Arabia, and i doubt we are that dumb, to launch an attack there LOL.

As for the civil war...yeah I so did a short bit unearthing the glorified revisionist history - although not from a military standpoint. It gets under my skin to no end!

Stone man, I should clarify that the entire reason I started researching, and writing about this was spawned from a conversation I had with a 17 year old kid. The extent to which the revisionist history is working flabbergasts me. There is a nitpicking and pigeonholing of facts combined with falsifications, and half truths has set into motion an entire generation (well, maybe not entire) to support future actions, based on past biased.

So while I think I am somewhat preaching to the choir - I really, strongly feel that making educated decisions about what to do now (which I agree is of the utmost importance) has to be done so with full recognition of why we went in in the first place.

So, yeah, it is a little redundant, six years after the fact and all....but the opinions of the youth based on misinformation scares the crap out of me. So, I write! Hopefully, they will read.

Sundown media concepts said...

Amazing prose though I disagree with most of it as you clearly write with a predetermined purpose. I always thought Iraq was more about strategy and positioning (a staging grounds towards controlling the volatile middle east) then it was about Iraq being an actual threat. Obviously politicians and generals need reasons other than that for war. I imagine most were surprised that the stock piles of mustard gas were not there. Other reasons –absolutely – but to say complete deception is just as suggestive of propaganda as to what you purportedly resent.

Anok said...

Thanks SDM (Yes, I know who you are...thanks for stopping in!)

I do write with a predetermined purpose! (Don't we all?) Although it's probably not as biased as you may believe. As I said above, I have made sure to acknowledge the multitude of factors during, and before the invasion.

I also agree with you to some extent - I think where we disagree is in the intent behind the political and military strategies. To say its to gain control of a volatile Middle East is only telling a half-truth. The US has never been that altruistic.

I would day that we have been offered deception on a sliding scale, half truths and distorted facts are a form of deception. In fact it is a very powerful form of deception, and thus far more dangerous than an outright lie.

For example: Stating that Iraq housed terrorists as a way to get UN approval.

What actually was fact was:

Hussein has long allowed some, mild groups or cells of extremists to live in Iraq, but he never allowed them to engage in activities in Iraq, nor were they tied to Al-Qeada.

Muslim extremists sought to take down (or punish) the US.

Hussein has biological weapons, at one point.

What the citizens heard was: Hussein allows terrorists to live in Iraq, Hussein is a dictator, the Middle East hates westerners and wants us all dead, and Hussein used biological weapons, and may have WMD's.

How it worked -

Citizens took what they heard, as twisted information - the government and the media made sure to outline certain facts - and yes they were facts - but frame them in such a manner that people automatically assumed that "terrorist" meant "Bin Laden", that "Muslim/Middle East" meant "terrorism and hatred" and that "biological weapons from a decade prior" meant "WMD's right now" .

I also wrote about this in my "Xenophobia" post - the misuse of facts to render a wanted outcome.

It is really, really dangerous, in my opinion because there is enough fact that people tend to believe it with our reasoning out those pesky details.

Or, in my lingo, it's bedazzled with bullshit.

Anok said...

Edit, that should say "had biological weapons" not has.

Dave Dubya said...

Excellent post, Anok.

Of course, the rationale for war in Iraq was based on lies and deception. In fact, the deception was so complete that the November 2004 election was decided when HALF the people of the US STILL BELIEVED Iraq had the WMD's.

This was after Hans Blix proclaimed his near certain doubts about the WMD's. This was after the Iraq Survey Group released the Duelfer Report in October. Remember when the headlines deceptively told us, "We were all wrong"?

That's how effective the propaganda was.

Besides the neocon influence to dominate and militarily occupy the Middle East, and the outright self-interests of crony war-profiteers, the other obvious reason for the invasion was to assure the re-election of George "The War President" Bush.

His intentions were quite clearly illustrated in an interview before he became president.

“One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.” – George W. Bush 1999

It was his idea all along to be a "War President".

a very public sociologist said...

Good stuff, Anok, The ruling class and its friends will always try and revise history for their own purposes. Just an example, here in Britain we used to often here the government claim the attacks of 9/11 were "unprovoked" and the result of hate filled bigots disgusted at the "decadence" (ie freedom) of the west. Quite conveniently and at a stroke it writes out US meddling in the Middle East. It lies completely outside of mainstream political thinking, so anyone bringing them up are derided as providing succour to our enemies, or as conspiraloons.

The truth is always a weapon. That's why we must be ever vigilant.

an average patriot said...

Anok
Very good! Our Patriotism and love for America has been used against us for years and years. Never by someone who did not care how we felt or how obvious his lies are. World War is Bush's goal. I mapped it yesterday and it is getting close now.
The middle east is the key. That is why he attacked Iraq to get in the middle east. You can't just threaten Muslims. You have to fight them to the end and he knew it.
Everything Bush has done was to set up his new world order world war and Russsia sees the set up. I started with that yesterday but what the hell is wrong with most American's? Why can't they see the obvious? They are all going to drag us and the world down with them.

Anok said...

Dave Dubya, Jim, as always - I agree, but you guys knew that!

PhilBC, thanks for stopping in, it's nice to see you. Yes, we should be vigilant! It's also nice to hear opinions from the other side of the pond, so to speak.

By the way, thanks again for turning me on to statcounter, it is a BIG difference from my other stat tracker.

Renegade Eye said...

If you are an Iraqi born after 1991, you have never had peace one day in your life.

sonia said...

If you are an Iraqi born after 1991, you have never had peace one day in your life.,

Completely false bullshit.

If you are an Iraqi born after 1979, you have never had peace one day in your life. Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1979. US was a Johnny-Come-Lately in a cycle of violence that started much earlier.

A definition of an idiot is somebody performing the same action and expecting a different result. The leftists have been performing the same action (supporting bloodthirsty Third World madmen) since 1917 (from Lenin to Stalin to Castro to Lumumba to Allende to Pol Pot to Saddam to Chavez) and expected that the latest incarnation will finally save humanity from Yankee imperialism.

If you really want to make life better for everyone - kill your "heros". They are the source of all evil, not Bush.

Anok said...

Sonia, the US has supported Hussein since the 50's, both republican and democrat. We have been involved in Iraq politics for over 50 years - so please, do your homework before claiming it's all "lefties" or that US involvement has only been since the 80's.

We supported the coup that eventually put Hussein in power, we supported Hussein after he was in power - in fact, WE are the reason Hussein was able to wreak such havoc in Iran by allowing him (Via vetoing UN sanctions against Hussein) to use biological weapons.

Come one Sonia, you know if you comment on my blog - you have to know the facts!

sonia said...

You want facts, I will give you facts:

Saddam Hussein only came to power in 1979, so your statement "the US has supported Hussein since the 50's." is a incorrect.

We have been involved in Iraq politics for over 50 years. We supported the coup that eventually put Hussein in power. We supported Hussein after he was in power - in fact, WE are the reason Hussein was able to wreak such havoc in Iran by allowing him (Via vetoing UN sanctions against Hussein) to use biological weapons..

If by "we", you mean "leftists and rightists", you are absolutely correct. Soviet Union has sent as many weapons to Saddam as USA. Soviet Union vetoed those same sanctions.

But there is a difference. The rightists finally realized the criminal nature of Saddam's regime and decided to remove him from power in 2003.

What did leftists do ? They protested around the world, trying everything to prevent the removal of Saddam from power.

That's why I hate leftists. Rightists are bad enough, but leftists are far worse.

Anok said...

Originally Hussein has been linked to an assassination attempt on Iraq's Qasim in 1959, (under Eisenhower, a republican) after joining the Baath party and his assassination was successful in 1963, although Hussein was not implicated. (It has been attributed as a coup from the Baath party). His ties with the CIA were known, as well as the funding of the assassination of Qasim. Hussein had been brought back from Cairo, and put into a position of power (and interrogator, then head of intelligence no less) when they systematically killed of communists, whose names were supplied by none other than...the US. His party then suffered a small coup, and came back from it in 1968. Hussein's cousin and mentor Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr had come to power, with his cousin close behind. At this point, the Baath party tried to create good relations with the communists, which irritated Nixon to no end, and he tried to stir up trouble using Shah's Iran to cause trouble with the Iraqi Kurds. This became expensive, and the Shah backed out, leaving Iraqi Kurdistan open for invasion by the Baath party. (Ordered by Hussein). The Us had to back out, trying to blame the whole thing on the Shah and the Shah alone, and at that point solidified Hussein's reign.

Later on Reagan and Rumsfeld (Again, republicans!) began giving Hussein diplomatic encouragement through a close relationship with the US.

At this point the common enemy was no longer communist Russia, but Iran and Syria. After a while it gets hard to keep straight. And although we condemned Hussein's use and creation of chemical weapons, we only did so on paper. We continued to look the other way with Hussein, which [the ingredients] were now being supplied to him by US pharmaceutical companies.

After that, during the Iran Iraq war, we supplied the Iraqis with money, arms, military intelligence
etc...which is how the monster Bin Laden and his Jihadists were created and funded. At least, for the most part. We also kept Iran from having Iraq condemned at the UN for use of chemical weapons.

But we didn't support him.

After the Gulf war, (1991) we again looked the other way as he decimated the Shiites and Kurds who tried to overthrow Hussein. (This is Bush seniors legacy!)

We only supported this entire regime to get rid of Qasim, whom we were afraid would stop exporting oil to us, and go back on the Baghdad pact of 1955. Then to throw off communism, and then to control Iran, and back to oil and development etc etc etc....

We looked the other way for a long time. Until, of course, we couldn't any longer.

We created this monster, and I'm not talking about Bin Laden. We only went in to take control because we had lost it through foreign relations.

Foreign relations that we should never had in the first place.

It doesn't really take much time to look this stuff up Sonia. The republicans had been his BIGGEST cheerleaders, kept him in power, sent him money - and although he wasn't a dictator, technically in the 50's, we was in power. His cousin was running the show, and he was behind the scenes as head of intelligence.

That may be splitting hairs, Sonia - but the truth of the matter is that we supported him, we supported torture, we supported dictatorship. We put him in power, we kept him there, and it was the right, the republicans who allowed the worst offenses, during their terms! And then when we decided to overthrow him - he was already cooperating with the UN, and was little more than a defunct dictator.

I seriously, seriously disagree with your opinions on this Sonia, because the facts you are using to assert your point are not only false, but way too biased.

I know you don't like "the left" but you have to realize and admit that they messed up, and our most current mistake, the Iraq war - does not, in any way shape or form have anything to do with overthrowing a dictator. Even hard right wingers admit that.

sonia said...

I seriously, seriously disagree with your opinions on this Sonia, because the facts you are using to assert your point are not only false, but way too biased.

Which fact that I have stated is false ?

You are biased, not me. You continue to deny Soviet involvement in Saddam's rise to power, not me. You are denying left's attempt to stop Saddam's overthrow in 2003, not me.

Instead, you throw a smokescreens of true, but irrelevant (and incomplete - the whole Soviet involvement is absent from your account) facts that have nothing to do with my assertion, which is THIS: Right and Left (US and Soviets) created Saddam TOGETHER. Only the Right realized its mistake and overthrew him. The Left tried everything to prevent the Right of setting the things right.

And you were against the overthrow of Saddam in 2003. So you have no right to criticize Rumsfeld for supporting Saddam in 1984. Rumsfeld corrected his mistake in 2003. You never did.

Anok said...

Sonia, I'm talking about the right and left in America - not the US and the Soviet Union - although you're wrong, I did mention Russia's involvement briefly. And no, the communist party had no part in Hussein's rise - because the US was funding his regime to fight against communism. I'm not sure where you are getting your facts, Sonia. (He did, however turn and work with communists at a later date - that however has little to do with his "rise" to power.)

I'm talking about republicans and democrats. I'm talking about the US's involvement in creating the monster we so "heroically" took down when he was weak, and cooperating with sanctions. I'm talking about how overthrowing a dictator was never mentioned - not once - to the UN as a reason to invade. It was never our intention to overthrow him because he is a dictator. The invasion has much larger reasons than that - Sonia I thought you were keen enough to understand that.

Rumsfeld, and all the other cronies weren't "correcting" any mistakes Sonia. They were playing the political game. If we cared about dictators we would be invading a lot of countries whose dictators are doing a lot worse than Hussein was doing when we invaded.

The US isn't that altruistic.

For the record, the MAJORITY of the world opposed this invasion. Only four (out of ALL of the countries) countries including the US voted in support of invasion, and one of them Mexico, only supported an invasion with UN approval.

France, Sonia, did not support the invasion. (keep that in mind). It was the UK, the US, and Spain. So no it wasn't just the left that opposed this war. There were protests around the globe against this war.

It was the whole damn world, Sonia. You're wrong, and you're missing the forest for a few, dead trees. You want so badly to blame the left for the world ills, when some of the most brutal violence in this world has happened at the hands of the right, or at least occurred under their watchful eye while they turn the other cheek for a profit or out of sheer indifference the suffering of humans in the world.

My points were not irrelevant either, they are history. History is important. Thats the entire point of this post. To remind people to look at current events with a keen eye on what has happened before it.

sonia said...

You're wrong, and you're missing the forest for a few, dead trees. You want so badly to blame the left for the world ills, when some of the most brutal violence in this world has happened at the hands of the right.

You don't even realize how wrong you are. Unless what you call "right", I call "left". If, for example, Kabila (the butcher of Congo and former Che's student) is "right" according to you, then our disagreement is just about definitions.

Anok said...

I think our disagreement lies not in the what is "right and left" but rather what is "right and wrong".

If the "right" was nearly as righteous as some make it out to be (including you) than all of these evils that happen supposedly at the hands of the left would never have happened, or at the very lest wouldn't have gotten very far.

Yet, the greed and indifference that fuels politics always seem to get in the way of morals and social responsibility.

Tell me, Sonia - which countries have amassed the most wealth in the world? In these countries tell me Sonia, who owns the majority of the wealth? In these countries Sonia, tell me how they amassed that wealth? Where do they get their money? Which devil have they slept with for the sake of a greasy buck? Which brutal dictator have they let go unchecked and unchallenged because that dictator happens to control or own a great deal of some asset they will benefit from?

Tell me, who is more evil, a madman, or a sane man who lets a madman run free, so long as it profits him?

It really is time that people started looking into these matters with a cool, critical eye. History, real history, doesn't lie.

Our government has always kept demons on a leash. And if we couldn't, we just didn't get involved unless we absolutely had to. We didn't get involved unless we got hurt, financially, physically...the well being of others didn't mean a damn thing.

sonia said...

which countries have amassed the most wealth in the world?

That's the countries that did something RIGHT. Those countries should be encouraged. We should celebrate countries like Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Chile, Ireland. They are shining examples for the rest of the world to emulate.

Countries that did something LEFT have destroyed their economies all by themselves. Venezuela is a mess because of Chavez, not because of Exxon. Zimbabwe is a mess because of Mugabe, not because of Nike. Iraq was a mess because of Saddam, not because of Coca Cola.

It really is time that people started looking into these matters with a cool, critical eye.

Exactly. Cool, critical eye - meaning that instead of feeling sorry for the lazy and the poor, you give them a kick in the ass (and a loan). South Korea was starving in the mid-50's. Today, they are booming. If they can do it, every country can do it.

History, real history, doesn't lie.

Unfortunately, there are far too many historians who are horrible liars. They cover up the crimes of the leftist totalitarian dictatorships, they widely exaggerate the crimes of right-wing dictatorships, they ignore the real economic succcesses of right-wing capitalist countries and they falsely assign blame.

Tell me, who is more evil, a madman, or a sane man who lets a madman run free, so long as it profits him?

The madman is more evil. He is the source of the problem. The sane man is only a consequence of that original problem. At least the actions of the sane man, while cynical and mean, profit somebody (his family, his friends). The actions of the madmen profit nobody. You need to kill the madman. Killing the sane man is pointless. Half a dozen of sane men will rise in his place, because it's so profitable. It's an unavoidable evil. But the madman is avoidable.

To use a medical analogy, the madman is the cause and the sane profiteeer is a symptom. Only stupid doctors treat symptoms. Smart doctors treat the causes of the disese.

Dave Dubya said...

I'm not sure I want to get in the middle of this, but the madman and sane man scenario is a shaky analogy.

What is "mad" about seeking power and advancing your self interests regardless of the butchery? What is "sane" about profiting from death and human suffering caused by the other? They both benefit from the same evil. Neither is necessarily psychotic or sane.

It is about right and wrong. The two are partners in evil and both are indefensible.

If this issue really is simply about right v. left, then that would force you to defend either Hitler or Stalin, wouldn't it?

The world and history will judge Bush to be both the violent “madman” and the cruel “sane” profiteer of war.

Anok said...

Sonia, I'm not sure you understood my questions. The top economic countries in the world aren't the ones you mentioned. The US, the UK, China, etc...are the world financial superpowers. Thats what I was asking. We amassed our finances and wealth on the backs of the poor, and by allowing dictators throughout history to maintain their position of total authoritarian and brutal control over their country.

You don't think we get our money an dpower by killing all of the dictators, do you? They control their country's natural resources, AKA assets such as oil, diamonds, and weapons purchases. We lend money to brutal governments to train "armies" like we did in Iraq (which, erm, ended up being al-queda) and then make our money by charging high interest fees. We stop short of taking down other violent governments because of financial loss (not of the country per se, but of the top one percent's interests.)

As for the madman/sane man analogy, again you've missed the point.

When I say madman - I'm talking actually insane. You don't honestly believe brutal dictators have all their marbles, do you?

The violence of madmen is a problem, but the indifference of good men allow it to happen. To make your medical analogy work, you would have to equate the madmen to the disease and the symptoms, and the good men (the sane men who allow this behavior) to the doctor who fails, or refuses to eradicate the disease.

Those who can do something to stop the ills of the world but refuse to do so are far more dangerous because they are acting by not acting, full well knowing that it is wrong. That is much scarier.

And the US does that all the time.

With regard to historians, you are right many are terrible liars - the lies of revisionist history we are taught in school is a great example of that. That fact doesn't negate the fact that the truth is out there - you simply have to want to find it. You do have to search, research, and cross reference. But to me, it's worth it. It is my opinion however, that most don't want to know the truth.

Dave Dubya - see my explanation above. When I was speaking of madmen, I literally meant mad. I'm just finishing up a post about that very subject, actually. (Not sparked by this debate, it's something I started writing a few days ago. But seeing as I am not at home posting full writings has become more difficult!)

Anok said...

Oh, one more thing to add to my reply to Sonia - many "left" or left leaning countries are wildly successful, happy, healthy places to live. Places that have "socialist" or "socialistic" health care, education, employment practices, social programs etc....

They aren't global finance superpowers, but their overall wealth is spread out among the populace better. Places like Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland and so forth.

So really, those who have gone "left" with some modicum of common sense and a lack of madmen for leaders have actually done better than our financial capitalistic superpowers, whose wealth is distributed among the top earners, and the rest barely scrape the poverty limit, millions go sans healthcare, education, or access to any social amenities.

Demonizing the poor as being "lazy" people on the left of things is buying into the scam of the caste system. In a capitalistic system, the entire setup creates castes, it cannot survive or exist without there being a poor caste - and it's not because of laziness. It is simply the system. Not everyone can be rich. (But in a socialistic system, everyone can be comfortable, and well taken care of - and still incredibly productive as a society).

Tamera said...

And, some of these countries, Anok, are extremely wealthy, such as Norway (because of their oil fund). Yet, this fund is in savings, and there is strict regulation on how and when it can be used. This is to protect from corruption.

I will tell you this. After working in the health care system over there, I am much more looking forward to retiring over there, rather than here. I know the system, and it is coordinated and quality. I do not even have to think about insurance problems, and my boys can look forward to their University degree, which is free for them. Every young person that wishes to get their college education, can.

sonia said...

Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland

All right, if these are "leftist" countries according to you, everything is fine. It's just a definition problem....

It's just too bad Chavez and Mugabe aren't trying to imitate Iceland, Denmark or Switzerland. Maybe they aren't "leftist" after all. But in that case, why are the leftists around the world defending and supporting them ?

Anok said...

Sonia, your last comment has all but shut me up LOL.

I would love to know what you consider to be "left", "right" dictatorships, totalitarians, and fascists?

I certainly see the countries I mentioned to be to the left of the US, although they are certainly to the right of hardline Communist Dictatorships.

Hmmm, you've really thrown me for a loop, and it's a nice surprise, at that! I think we probably agree on more than we allow ourselves to admit.