This thread is about the American war on Iraq. It's become clear 2 me that we're at a turning point with this situation. Not just Americans and Iraqis, but every1 because this could ultimately affect every1. Yet there has not been much debate on the org, which puzzles me since something huge is unfolding each day.

So, let's talk about it, and make an attempt 2 b civil, which is hard I know (trust me, I know)

If U could possibly state where ur from and if ur a Democrat/Republican/communist/libertarian/nothing that would b cool.

Let the discussion commence.

What's the question?

2the9s said:

Will you hump my leg?

Ok,...... I'll start.

I'm from the U.S...in case u didn't know by now ...and I don't consider myself Democrat or Republican. My opinion is that disarmament of Hussein would not be enough. I think a regime change is necessary. While I question y we are dealing with him at this time in our history, I think it's something that should have been dealt with 11 years ago. Either way, I don't think we should stop looking 4 Bin Laden or the terrorists. But since our administration is so fixated on this right now, I'd have 2 say let's focus on that.

I think that if economic sanctions were lifted, Iraq would still be an unhealthy nation under this man. Hussein is 65, but even when he is gone, I am sure he will have another Saddam Hussein lined up, either that, or it will b total chaos with people fighting 4 control. This is y, in my opinion, there needs 2 b a regime change.

At this point in time the Iraqi people cannot speak out against their government 4 fear that the person they r talking 2 is actually a spy from their own government. The only way they can speak out is if they r put in2 a situation where they r comfortable enough 2 speak their mind truthfully. And the only way 2 do this is 2 change this totalitarian regime in2 a democracy where the people can speak without fear of being killed.

That's the first step. Naturally, there r more than one.

Any thoughts?
[This message was edited Wed Oct 9 19:25:40 PDT 2002 by Nep2nes]

2the9s said:

There is no question. It's a discussion.

What about the larger issues, like what are the implications and consequences of American unilateralism? What will happen to/in Israel? Palestine? Syria? Iran? Pakistan? India? Chechnya? Georgia? Ingushetia? Not to mention Afghanistan, post-Hussein Iraq, and the United States.

This isn't even about oil. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline broke ground last month. That's a done deal. We don't need Iraq oil. We've powerbrokered enough in the region without having to do seize either Iraqi or Kuwaiti oilfields. That's a conspiracy theory I'll leave to WillieThePimp to spell out with his unique brand of Mad magazine level political-think.

As for the suffereing of the Iraqi people, I doubt that is high on W.'s agenda. He and his clan of Vulcans have been arguing against humanitarian adventurism and the "happy talk" of the post cold-world war since Kosovo. They pulled out of the Middle East, distanced themselves from Somalia, etc.. They can't make that argument now.

Why are we even talking about going in?

When George Bush pulls his head out of his ass and answers this question, then debate can start. We are not even there yet as far as I am concerned.






I should've done a preemptive edit.
[This message was edited Wed Oct 9 19:48:12 PDT 2002 by 2the9s]

2the9s said:

I completely agree. I think Bush is a war hawk and is using a rallying cry of patriotism to boost his popularity.

2the9s said:

It's nice 2 c u b serious 4 once, and let that intelligence come out in another 4m. Thank u 4 ur input, 2the9s.

I'm Canadian, left of center on most issues.

I think the War on Iraq is a farce. If you are a friend of the US, it's ok to have a nuclear program now. Just look at India and Pakistan, not to mention Israel. Any of those countries has the power to endanger far more lives than Saddam, but because they are important to the geopolitical interests of the US, they are not presented as a threat to peace.

If you listened to Bush's speech earlier this week, you noticed the humbler, gentler tone. A month ago, Bush was lecturing the world on "showing some backbone", threatening to act unilaterally, etc. This change in tone comes right after polls showed Americans by and large find their prez too aggressive and cowboy-ish and want him to focus a bit more on domestic issues, like the economy. There is no doubt in my mind that the 9/11 anniversary, quickly followed by the arrest of Buffalo muslims (after one year of surveillance, they make their move... ) and a bunch of other news stories were used to orchestrate a swell of support and urgency.

But it's not really working -- people still want to know what the hell is going on with the economy, and Bush has very little interest in talking about that, having squandered a large surplus on a pathetic tax cut that was supposed to stimulate the economy. Well... did it? No... The reality is that this was one of the most wasteful and ineffective attempt at stimulating the economy. Today, Wall Street closed where it was five years ago.

Imagine for an instant that there was no war on terrorism, no villain like Saddam or Bin Laden. What would be the big story? "It's the economy, stupid"... yeah, exactly, but even though Americans think it's the economy, the media is filled with Iraq this and Iraq that.

This isn't the first time in the history of the world that a superpower is "under threat". The US and the USSR both had their enemies throughout the Cold War : each other and a bunch of other countries and movements. The war on terrorism has given the US a convenient excuse to intervene whereever it wants in the name of safeguarding its security. Yet it just lived through a cold war... It's post-9/11, and the enemy could be anywhere and do anytihing. It's the phantom menace, and like all spooky things, it can be used to scare even when it's not really hiding right under the bed. Did you hear that the US found time out of its busy Afghanistan campaign to secure the construction of a pipeline? Some old story --- noble causes are invoked, a war is won and the final result is better access to oil.

Isn't that great?

Moonbeam said:

Can u expand on this? lol...since war seems inevitable at this point, what do u think should happen? Disarmament or regime change? Do u think Iraq should allow weapons inspectors in? If we do not deal with Hussein right now, would u want him taken care of at a later point in history?

There r some questions 4 ya.
[This message was edited Wed Oct 9 19:53:20 PDT 2002 by Nep2nes]

Nep2nes said:

Nep2nes said:

I think the war would be fruitless. There are so many other issues. The Middle East is more of a hotbed now than it has been throughout its entire history. How can we clamor for peace in Israel while at the same time march into Iraq with a less-than-dignified agenda and not expect to further exacerbate the situation? Israel/Palestine needs to be addressed first, before Iraq, before Afghanistan, etc. It all lies there.

I do not think that it is a good idea to go to war with Iraq. It is a very difficult situation to deal with, but America should not be allowed to act against any nation without provocation. Attack without provocation is terrorism. An attack without hard evidence that the opposing nation is planning an attack is unwise. I could agree with action if there was 100% solid proof that Iraq played a part in the terrorist actions on September 11th, but no solid proof has been produced.

Do I believe that Iraq is a problem to the world? Yes. Iraq has been known to torture their own people and they have a record of using biological and chemical weapons. BUT - they have not used those on America. I would agree that the United Nations should disarm Iraq, but this should be done without the use of force.

Here is an interesting read from the Libertarian Party:

http://www.lp.org/press/a...record=611

I think the United States should pursue actions via the United Nations. If Saddam fails to let the inspectors back in then the UN should support a regime change with the US obviously leading the effort. I have no problem with the US taking Saddam out but Bush certainly does come across as a war monger. The UN approach is ideal so that we can at least have SOME backing from the international community.

Remember Bush's speech after 9/11? It seemed he was ready to take out ANYBODY that simply didn't agree with him. "Your either with us or against us" I think was his quote.

as much as i hate to get serious on a neps thread, here it goes..


1) CIA/MILITARY *and* BUSH ADMIN people have started leaking to the media how much of a non-eminent threat Iraq really is. A CIA report just released confirms that Saddam is a good 10 years away from attaining weapons of mass destruction. All dissenters within the government have been quieted. Why? For fear of coming off unpatriotic possibly? Whatever the case, a recent report showed that many of those in the Military and Bush's own Admin dont buy Iraq as an eminent threat.

2) No Evidence linking Iraq to Al Quida- Why is it that the media doesn't pick up on this fact? Following intelligence briefings, time and time again Congressman (from both parties) have gone to the podium to point out that there is no connection. Yet Bush continues to drill this issue during speeches (many which are actually campaign fundraising speeches..what happened to changing the tone of politics? ) Finding evidence has now become Bush' Administrations top priority (insiders say)...instead of the economy, healthcare, social security or..homeland security...yup, Bush is ...

3) The AfterShow- So what happens *after* we take out Saddam? Not only do we have to worry about further instability in the region (see 2the9s post) but the US will have to maintain a military presence *and* spend billions of dollars rebuilding and maintaining the nation...I don't even want to get into the fact that this would be the best Anti-American Ad money can buy...I can already see Al Quida wetting their lips at the chance to wave their finger to the rest of the region, "look how bad these American mutherf*ckers are...Join us to fight the infantiles!!!" which, since Bush doesn't seem to have a hold on homeland security will end up making us more susceptible to additional terror attacks...


ohh..and don't forget, this is all being done because, "don't forget, these are the same guys that tried to kill my daddy" -Dubya

BattierBeMyDaddy said:

lmao

Moonbeam said:

not only his popularity, but his chance of getting re-elected...i can just hear a speech that makes reference to the war on terrorism, and how "we're not done yet. keep me in the White House, so we can finish..."

as outkast said

"Bombs Over Baghdad"

I wholeheartedly concur with both the posts of 2the9s and SkletonKee on this issue.

You know what made me laugh a couple of days ago? I was watching the brilliant satire "Bob Roberts" which is set at the time of Desert Storm.

In the movie they showed some footage from the war and it shocked me how the same bullshit rhetoric was being used now i.e "Sources say that Saddam could have nuclear capability within 6 months". Isn't that the same shit we are hearing now?

Where is the proof? This is just propoganda. People have short memories.

Nep2nes, how can the USA oversee a regime change? What sort of regime? Surely you are not suggesting some form of democracy? That will never work. Just how high do you want the anti-American sentiment to run in the Middle East?

he may have nuclear capability...but dropping a nuke off the ass-end of a camel ain't gonna do much damage outside Iraq...

i saw an article a few weeks ago that detailed Saddam's arsenal. his army is one-third the size it was during the Gulf War. he's got 300 planes at his disposal...of which 100 are inoperable. most of them are Cold War-era MiG's. i think it said maybe less than 50 Scud missiles left, and those are his longest-range weapon. let's face it, we've got cutting-edge technology, and he's got a pile of shit cobbled together from surplus sales. not to mention the fact that when his boys are staring down the barrel of an US Army tank, they'll be waving the white flag in no time. remember, ten years ago, some of his army was so ill-prepared they wore tennis shoes into battle, and they were resorting to drinking water from their tank's radiators...
[This message was edited Wed Oct 9 22:40:30 PDT 2002 by twonabomber]

twonabomber said:

Indeed. Hopefully I won't have to put 3 stamps on my absentee ballot again in 2004 to vote against him.

Why not... , the worst, and not only, imo is this catastrophic embargo who has ruined this people (Hussein & his clique don't seem to be affect of starvation and don't give a fuck about "their" people sufferings either, the exception is probably Tarek Aziz...)
I've heard (by Alexandre Adler, the best french foreign affairs expert) , that Saddam's son who must succeed to him is really completely mad, worst that his father.
[This message was edited Thu Oct 10 15:38:04 PDT 2002 by jnoel]

IceNine said:

Good response. Level headed.


You know, I don't know if ya'lls have seen the report about how the US Military in the 60's and/or 70's actually USED BIOLOGICAL and CHEMICAL weapons on their own men and women in the forces and ON CIVILIAN popolations in Alaska or somewhere.

It was just featured on one of the nightly corporate news shows.

Now, along with the series in the History channel about how animals such as dolphins, seals, pigeons were used as military tools...

...man, it's just all to diabolical really.

Just teach the babies before Disney does or MTV.

That's all I have to say...and my signature screams it.


...
[This message was edited Thu Oct 10 1:37:10 PDT 2002 by FlyingCloudPassenger]

Moonbeam said:

You know I try not to get caught up in discussions like this because they always turn ugly; but let me bring up this one point to the "peace-mongers" of the org. How would you feel if muslim terrorists used an Iraqi made radiological bomb and exploded it in your neighborhood? Or how would you feel if muslim terrorists working in an elemantary school down the street from your house laced the food which the kids were eating with a strain of the smallpox virus which was developed in Iraq? Or how about muslim terrorists put powdered weapons grade anthrax (refined in Iraq of course) into the air conditioning system at your local mall? I promise you that the so called "peace mongers" wouldnt be quite as understanding. This is exactly what Bush is trying prevent. There is solid and credible proof that Iraq has and is developing the proverbial weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore if you check your history you will see that as a condition of the end of the Gulf War; Iraq agreeded to cease its production of WMD`s and to destroy all of its WMD`s and all systems which could be used to deliver them (IE ballistic missles which Iraq still has). Once again may I point out that Iraq is in direct violation of its agreement. Thus America and the UN has the legal right to go back in and take any action necessary to make Iraq comply with those resloutions. Those of you who ARE NOT in the know can cry about Bush being a war monger, or finishing daddies work, or invading Iraq for oil. However for those of us that ARE IN the know we realize that Hussien poses a serious threat to stability in the region and a serious threat to America and its intrests. Furthermore I take great OFFENSE at the fact that Hussein has been financing terrorists attacks in Isreal. Would Moonbeam please explain the rationale to me where a Meglomanic leader gives the family of so called susicide-bombers $25,000 dollars each as a token of the "grace of allah"??? Furthermore back in 1988 Hussien used chemical weapons on his own people and killed around 3500 of them. LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN, THE MAN GASSED 3500 INNOCENT IRAQI CITIZENS. I find it hard to belive that people tolerate this guy. Drop a FUCKIN nuke on Baghdad and end the problem. Most people in the Western world need to realize that Hussein, Arafat, and most foreign muslims do not like the West (IE America and Europe). Furthermore they whole-heartedly believe that anything bad that happens to America (or the West for that matter) is a good thing; especially if a fellow muslim is the cause of that harm. The profound differences in our cultures and our lack of understanding towards each other (IE muslims and the West) do nothing but compound the problem. Alas the problem isnt religion it is the neo-politicalstylizing of the issue.

And for the record (1) Im not Jewish (2) Im not talking to hear myself talk. I have a double minor in Modern Military History and Modern Military Theory which involve waaay too many political science courses so I know a little bit about what Im talking about (3) IM A DIE-HARD AND PROUD REPUBLICAN TO THE BONE & (4) Nep2nes you rule!!!

PS. Sorry about the spelling but Im way too tired to proof read. Peace.

funkbible said:

But this hasn't happened, has it? This is pure paranoid scare-mongering and exactly the kind of hysterical rhetoric that Bush has relied upon so far, if I may say so. Your argument in favour of bombing the crap out of more piss-poor people seems to revolve around what Iraq or Muslims in general, or really anyone that you don't like or that looks suspicious MIGHT do.

Anyway, if someone wanted to create biological weapons to attack American civilians, it would be easier and cheaper to do it in the US.



No, there really isn't. I've not seen any - have you? This "solid and credible" seems a lot less solid and a lot less credible by the day. And if there was - it should handled through the United Nations and not through unprovoked military action. Saddam Hussein is an intelligent man - he knows Iraq is not in a position to win a war at the moment.



Whoop-dee-doo, so America hasn't broken any international conventions recently, such as humans rights, treatment of prisoners of war etc? Your phrase "any action necessary" is the worrying bit - do you seriously believe that your country has the right to attack anyone they perceive as a possible threat?



More empty rhetoric. America doesn't give two shits about stability in the region. You guys didn't even know the name of most of the countries in that region before September 11th of last year. What you are really saying is, that by virtue of being unAmerican, militant, and difficult to deal with at the negotiating table Saddam Hussein is a "serious threat to America and its interests". So what - most of the world thinks your president is a lunatic who stole the election through a farcical excuse for democratic process, I'd consider him to be a greater "threat to America and its interests". Bear in mind too that "protecting our country and our interests" is an excuse any hostile invader uses to justify their actions.



Why does that offend you? You've been funding Israelis armies for years and providing them with weaponry, training, intel and money. If one was of a political standpoint that believed the struggle of the Palestinian people to be a righteous one (as, for example Irish people felt about our struggle against British occupation) and one large nation known for its appalling foreign policy was sticking its nose in and funding the enemy (Israel) why WOULDN'T you try to help the Palestinian cause in some way?



You might find many Iraqi people also want to see the guy out of power, but that doesn't mean they want their country attacked and bombed to kingdom come. Ever consider asking the Iraqi people what THEY want?



What a ridiculous statement.



Yeah! So let's nuke all the people we don't understand! "Sorry Mister Muslim, I don't know why you hate us, we're the good guys! Have a nuke for your troubles". There are very good and valid reasons why America is hated around the world and most of it is to do with foreign policy. Using nuclear weapons on innocent people (as you suggest) wouldn't do anything to further incriminate the US and demonize and villify your country further will it? No I'm sure it wouldn't...

Ian

First of all Nep, nice to say from you discuss the topic with manners, but you are known around here for flaming people who are proving you wrong. So I hope you will be a woman of your word this time. Now abou the issue. In the analysis of Paul Street this speaks against a war in Iraq:

* Contrary to the claims of Bush junior, Don Rumsfeld, Condaleeza Rice and Tony
Blair, there is no significant evidence linking Iraq to terrorist conspiracies against the
United States, now or in the past. In addition, Saddam Hussein is a longtime enemy
of Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists of the bin-Laden variety.

* An attack against Iraq will squander what's left of the global good will America
garnered in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks. There is virtual
consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time.

* A pre-emptive war against Iraq is utterly contrary to international law and morality
and dubious even under the American Constitution. It would set a horrific standard
and serve as a dangerous model for future international behavior.

* There are plenty of states besides Iraq with terrible rulers who have done and do
horrible things to "their own people." Does the US propose to attack and change the
governments of these countless other nations? Of course not, particularly since
many of the worst violator states - Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and
Columbia, to name just a few - are heavily supplied and assisted by the US.

* There are plenty of states that possess more weapons of mass destruction than
Iraq. Does Bush intend to invade Israel (known to possess hundreds of nuclear
warheads), Pakistan, or India?

* The US is the only nation that has ever actually used nuclear weapons - twice and
both times without reasonable justification, if such a thing exists for the use of such
sinister devices on civilian populations. It currently possesses and keeps at the
ready more thermonuclear warheads than the rest of the world combined. It refuses
to honor international treaties by permitting its own weapons programs to be
inspected by international experts. In the last three years, moreover, America has
violated international law by bombing four states - Serbia, Iraq, Sudan, and
Afghanistan. America has also waged radioactive war twice since 1990, deploying
munitions containing depleted uranium in the Gulf and Kosovo wars, producing
significant measurable increases in child leukemia and birth defect rates in Iraq and
Serbia. Should the US be preemptively invaded, by virtue of its unrivalled
possession, development, and record of using weapons of mass destruction?

* The horrible actions that Saddam carried out against technical citizens of Iraq
(dissident Iraqi Kurds) and to which Bush and Rumsfeld obsessively refer (how many
more times must we hear Dubya, Rummy, Condi, and Tony make disingenuous
expressions of horror at the fact that "he gassed his own people"? ) were conducted
with the full approval of the US policymakers, who viewed Hussein as a valued
Persian Gulf ally prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Indeed, the US and its imperial
junior partner England were the leading suppliers of Iraq's chemical and biological
weapons during the 1980s.

* Hussein poses little real threat to the world or even to the region. According to
former United Nations Special Commission chief inspector Scott Ritter, Iraq has
been essentially "disarmed from a qualitative standpoint." Even Kuwaiti and Israeli
analysts have acknowledged that Iraq no longer poses a serious danger. Moreover,
to the supreme disappointment of Bush, who revealingly claimed to "see an
opportunity through the tears" just two days after 9-11 (yes, an opportunity to launch
wars planned before the Twin Towers fell), Hussein has acceded to White House
demands for intrusive and unrestricted military and weapons inspections, far beyond
the elementary requirements of national sovereignty.

* The best way to get Saddam's dreaded weapons into in to the hands of terrorists or
otherwise in play is precisely to threaten his existence. It is only with nothing left to
lose that Saddam would likely unleash his biological and chemical materials,
whatever they be, possibly provoking havoc in the region. There is no evidence that
Hussein is suicidal, which he would have to be to conduct a significant operation
against the US.

* A war on Iraq will distract American and world attention and resources away from
the urgent need to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict in an equitable fashion.

It will also distract the US and the world from the difficult task of preventing further
attacks by Al Qaeda and other shadowy non-territorial terror networks. According to
Scowcroft, "the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the
strategy, costs, and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our
war on terrorism."

* American troops will be put at risk by an invasion of Iraq. Some will come home in
body bags, something understood by military authorities, some of whom served time
in Vietnam, but which does not concern the administration's well stocked coop of
"chicken-hawks" from Bush junior on down.

* If the US does manage to unseat Hussein, US forces will have to remain in Iraq for
untold years, carrying out an expensive, difficult, and risky nation-building project.

* A war against Iraq will very possibly generate catastrophic side effects for the US,
including a dangerous de-stabilization of the entire Middle East, a massive upsurge
of virulent anti-Americanism in the Islamic world, and possibly even war between the
two nuclear powers of the Sub-Continent. "If the US is seen as turning its back on
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" in order to settle old scores with Saddam, Scowcroft
has warned, "there would be an explosion of rage against us. We would be seen as
ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is seen as a
narrow American interest. Even without Israeli involvement, the results could well
destabilize Arab regimes in the region, ironically facilitating one of Saddam's
strategic objectives" (Scowcroft should have added: to facilitate one of Osama
bin-Laden's core objectives). In short, war on Iraq will do more than divert Americans
from proper prosecution of the "war on terrorism;" it will also breed thousands of new
anti-American terrorists.


Nothing more to add.

divo02 said:

We did that with the inspections. All these other countries want us 2 play by the old rules--the ones that Saddam has been scoffing at 4 the past 11 years by not allowing inspectors in.

It is obvious, 2 my mind, that something additional needs 2 b done. We cannot, as Congressman McDermott said "take Iraq 4 their word." That's absurd.

We must remember that b4 Hitler started moving in2 other nations, he did a lot of great things 4 Germany. B4 the sanctions Saddam built a hospital, did all these great things. In fact, UNICEF almost took them off their list of people who need help. But then the sanctions happened and things have gone downhill in Iraq since. Yet that has not affected Hussein in any way, with his 8 palaces. If Hussein wants the sanctions lifted, he has the power 2 do it. But his situation is self-imposed. And he doesn't care because he doesn't suffer.

U may ask y do sanctions if he was in the process of rebuilding his country, but Hitler did the same thing 4 his country but then he took over this country and that country, and we were going 4 a policy of appeasement. Hussein going in2 Kuwait was a parallel thing u could say, because if he had gotten Kuwait he would have expanded, who knows what would have happened.


.
[This message was edited Thu Oct 10 7:00:34 PDT 2002 by Nep2nes]

Nep2nes said:

there are no *facts* in your statement...its all all a hypothosis...dont you agree that America needs concrete *facts* before going to war? after all, many people could look at what Bush is proposing and say the man is hell bent on being the next hilter...

this is what scares me most about our country right now..nobody is debating this with facts...its all rhetoric..

funkbible's post is a perfect example of this.

Soulpower those arguments are well known….
Sometimes ago I would have been agree with you but there is a time when we have to do with what we’ve got
In a Perfect World instead of Bush, Blair, Chirac, Poutine and the chinese leader, don’t know his name, we would have clones of Ghandi, Martin Luther King and the Dalaï Lama .
Of course Bush thinks about his re-election
Yes, there is probably a freudien thing with his obsession with Saddam
A war with Iraq won’t solve the palestinian/ israelian conflict, poverty in Africa either, pollution , crappy music, Nathasha’s mentals problems etc
No, there is no connection between Saddam and Bin Laden’s fan club, Bin Laden hates Saddam, Iraq was at war with the fundamentalist Iranian regime with the sympathy and military help of Occidental countries (France.. there is still a mighty lobby pro Hussein)
No, Saddam’s regime is not a threat for the USA or for Israel,because they know that the second that they would try something against these 2 countries they would be changed into dust & so, would lose everything
The « war for oil » argument doesn’t work, oil compagnies, traders etc don’t want war, they like a quiet military dictatorship

It does help the Bush administration, but it’s true that S H is an evil dictator in the great tradition of the fucked-up ones
« His » people is dying slowly of the embargo
All his opposants, even peaceful well especially peaceful, have been/ are tortured and killed...

If this war frees this country, the minorities like the kurds etc, who are we to say that it would be a bad thing ?
Most of the muslims / arabs of the world, even Palestinian I think, in reality don’t give a fuck about Saddam, they know that he’s not really a muslim and he is responsible for the tortures and the murders (well it seems that « torture » and « murder » are siamese twins) of many muslim leaders in his country , they care mostly about the Iraqi people
There was and is still a great tradition of secularity in Iraq, 5% of the population are christians and they live peacefully with the rest , even during the Gulf War there wasn’t too much hostility towards them
After the dead of the present regime, this country will be able to live again
Of course it won’t be straight away Paradise Democracy and Mtv
[This message was edited Thu Oct 10 14:01:54 PDT 2002 by jnoel]
[This message was edited Thu Oct 10 23:10:22 PDT 2002 by jnoel]

Libertarian Party Press Releases

October 8, 2002

Beware of government propaganda, Libertarians say

As Americans consider the merits of the case against Iraq as laid out by President Bush on Monday night, they should keep these five words in mind, Libertarians say: Babies being pulled from incubators.

The explosive allegation that Iraqi troops had invaded a Kuwaiti hospital in 1990, pulled babies from incubators and left them on the floor to die - a charge made on national TV by Bush's father - later turned out to be patently false government propaganda.

"There's no way for ordinary Americans to determine whether all of Mr. Bush's claims about Iraq are true," said Libertarian Party Communications Director George Getz. "But we do know that past presidents have told the public bald-faced lies in order to whip up war hysteria."

Seeking to shore up public and congressional support for a resolution authorizing him to use force against Iraq, President Bush warned the nation on Monday that Saddam is a "murderous tyrant" who poses an immediate threat to U.S. lives. Bush repeated claims that Saddam is developing weapons of mass destruction, has invaded his neighbors, and has repressed his own people.

Bush also listed several specific acts of cruelty that he says were perpetrated by Saddam: that rivals have been decapitated; that women have been "systematically raped"; and that "political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured."

While it's understandable for Americans to be horrified by such allegations, Libertarians are urging the nation not to accept the charges uncritically.

"As Bush continues to build the case for invading Iraq, it's important to remember that politicians itching for war often have been less than candid with the public," Getz said.

One example is the notorious babies-being-pulled-from-incubators hoax that was perpetrated in 1990 by a Washington public relations firm, with a little help from Bush's father, President George Bush.

"As the elder Bush tried to rally public support for pushing Iraqi troops out Kuwait, he recounted the horrors that occurred when Iraqi troops invaded a hospital in Kuwait City," Getz said. "In a nationally televised speech, the president said: 'Babies have been ripped off of incubators and those incubators [were] shipped off to Baghdad.'

"There's only problem with the story," Getz continued: "It wasn't true. It had been fabricated by Hill & Knowlton, a PR firm that had been paid $10.7 million by the government of Kuwait to sway U.S. public opinion in favor of the war.

"Understandably, the story outraged the public and helped advance the march toward a war that claimed 148 American lives."

And George Bush isn't the only president to have employed wartime propaganda to trick the public, Getz noted. Lyndon Johnson's claim that the North Vietnamese fired on a U.S. ship in the Gulf on Tonkin in 1964 was instrumental in getting the Senate to vote for a war resolution, though historians now agree that the shooting incident never happened.

"Over 58,000 U.S. servicemen were killed in the Vietnam War, a tragedy that might not have happened if an unscrupulous U.S. president had not lied to the American people," Getz said.

That's why the American people have every right to demand proof from the president as he tries to persuade them to risk the lives of their sons and daughters in a battle against Iraq, Libertarians say.

"Do the satellite photos that Bush mentioned in his speech last night really show the construction of a nuclear power plant outside Baghdad? Did Iraqi intelligence agents really meet with senior al Qaeda operatives? Does Saddam really behead his political opponents and torture children in front of their parents?

"We may never know. But we do know that before presidents launch military attacks against foreign nations, they sometimes launch propaganda attacks against the American people."