First of all, everyone throws around the word "terrorism" without defining it. Essentially, it can mean whatever you want it to mean. If you define it to be killing people for political purposes, that would of course include every military action taken by the United States. So don't use the word without saying what your definition is.
I think people have made way too big of a deal about the mass murders that took place on Sept 11, 2001. Yes, it's the largest mass murder in American history, and that's a big deal. However, that doesn't explain the extreme hyperbolic over reaction of people. There has never been a more absurdly hyperbolic over reaction to anything in the history of the world. All mass murders are tragic to the families of the victims, and the same is true here, except here, they talk about it in this really weird way where they act like it was something other than a mass murder, and use it as an excuse to attack other countries. Why didn't you have this hysterical reaction after other murders, such as the Oklahoma City Bombing, the World Trade Center Bombing, Columbine, Jonesboro, Geoffrey Dahmer, Andrew Cuchanan, the Unabomber, the Menendez brothers, O. J. Simpson, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, etc? Why were none of these other murders, or the fact you have on average 18,000 people murdered every year in the United States, compared to Pearl Harbor, called “acts of war” or “attacks on America”, or used as excuses to attack other countries, killing thousands of people who had nothing to do with it? It's unusual for 3000 people to be murdered by 19 people, but it's not unusual for 3000 people to be murdered by 3000 people, or 2000 people, which happens all the time, and why don't those murder victims receive special honor in speeches by the president, the Superbowl, the Olympics, etc? Why would the family members of these specific 3000 murder victims be more deserving of getting a check from the government, than all the other family members of all the other murder victims in this country? Why would 3000 people killed by 19 people be more horrible or more tragic than 3000 people killed by 2000 people? Every single year, you have about 18,000 people murdered in the United States. Why is the murder of these 3000 people a bigger deal than the murder of the other 18,000 people murdered every year in this country?
Why would the fact that an act of crime took place in this country be an excuse to attack some other country and kill several thousand people in some other country? What if they had used the Oklahoma City Bombing as an excuse to attack Bangladesh and kill several thousand people? Why didn't they use the O.J. Simpson murders as an excuse to start bombing Britain, and kill several thousand people?
What was the excuse for killing thousands of people in Afghanistan? That people inside the United States who committed murder were members of an organization that included other members that were inside another country, and that's an excuse to start bombing another country and killing thousands of people were not even members of that organization? So if Timothy McVeigh was a member of the Boy Scouts, and there are other Boy Scouts in Britain, that's an excuse to start bombing Britain, and killing thousands of people were are not even members of the boy scouts? So you consider it justified to kill anyone who is living in country that contains other people who are members of an organization which in turn contains other members who committed crimes in the United States?
According the current government in Afghanistan which we installed there were 3000 civilians killed by the American bombing, which is more than the number of people killed in the mass murders of Sept 11. The total number of people we killed deliberately is probably several times that. We don't have the exact figure but it's probably about 10,000 people. We dropped these brutal "daisy-cutter" bombs which could kill a thousand people at once. I don't see much more difference killing military versus civilian in Afghanistan since they didn't have much of a distinction anyway. All men in Afghanistan carry guns, no one wears a uniform, no one is really loyal to any specific side, etc. Obviously the average soldier in Afghanistan had absolutely nothing to do with the mass murders that took place on Sept 11. Even the average member of al-Qaeda had absolutely nothing to do with it, and didn't know about it ahead of time, since it is a totally decentralized organization. The only people in Afghanistan who even knew ahead of time about the mass murders were the leadership of al-Qaeda who of course escaped.
So if 3000 people were murdered in the United States, and we respond by killing about 10,000 people, including 3000 civilians, and the people we are killing had absolutely nothing to do the murders, then what exactly is your rationale for claiming that we are in any way morally superior to the original murderers who killed a mere 3000 people on Sept 11? If you’re against the mass murders that took place on Sept 11, 2001, that means you’re against killing thousands of innocent people, which means you’re against the American attack on Afghanistan. If you support the American attack on Afghanistan, then you support deliberately killing thousands of innocent people, which means you support the mass murders that took place on Sept 11, 2001. How can you say you’re against 3000 people being killed on Sept 11, but then support killing 10,000 people in Afghanistan, or 200,000 people in Iraq? The only way you can say it’s bad to kill 3000 people, but good to kill 10,000 people or 200,000 people is if you think killing 3000 people is killing too few people. Therefore, the only way you can be against the mass murders on Sept 11, and support the American attack on Afghanistan or Iraq, is if the only reason you’re against the mass murders that took place on Sept 11 is because you think too few people were killed on Sept 11.
Of course throughout American history, we have slaughtered millions of innocent people, and supported brutal regimes who slaughtered millions of people. In World War II, we dropped atomic bombs on two civilian cities. We are the only country in the world to have actually used nuclear weapons, and that was against a civilian population. Sept 11 was trivial in comparison. In Korea and Vietnam, we fought to get our dictator in there instead of the other guy's dictator. In Vietnam, we slaughtered two million people. In the 1980's, we supported and trained the brutal death squads of El Salvador which slaughtered whole villages and targeted Catholic clergy. In 1973, we arranged a coup d'etat in Chile to overthrow their first democratically elected leader so we could replace him with our puppet.
In Afghanistan, a pro-Western leader started instituting reforms such as teaching women to read. Islamic fundamentalists started blowing up the schools. For some unknown reason, we decided to support the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, and gave them billions of dollars of weapons. We taught them how to engage in terrorism, and told them "God is on your side". This forced the previously pro-Western leader to go to the Soviet Union and beg for their assistance. The Soviets were dragged into the war against their will. We supported the people who later became the Taliban, and also supported Osoma bin Ladin.
In Nicaragua, the people later called the Contras had previously ruled the country but were so brutal, they were overthrown by their own people. We then tried to put these thugs back in power. We called them "freedom fighters", and illegally funded them by selling weapons to Iran, and also with drug money. We ran the School of the Americas where we trained the most notorious thugs and drug lords of Latin America. We supported and propped up bloodthirsty regimes all over the planet from Indonesia to Nigeria. We slaughtered a minimum of 100,000 people in Iraq, and probably much more than that. Throughout the Cold War, we threatened the world with our vast nuclear arsenal ready to cause the extinction of human species.
It is so silly to hear a president, who was not democratically elected, since his opponent received half a million more votes, who has installed a puppet government in Afghanistan, and who has used police state tactics to detain people within the U.S. and Guantanamo Bay without charges, including U.S. citizens captured in the United States, say "They hate us because we love freedom and democracy", when no member of al-Qaeda ever said anything like that. Bush from his bunker following September 11, 2001, said “In the war against terrorism, we're going to hunt down these evil-doers wherever they are, no matter how long it takes.” It should not take long, as more terrorists are given training and sanctuary in the United States than anywhere on Earth. They include mass murderers, torturers, former and future tyrants and assorted international criminals. General Jose Guillermo Garcia has lived comfortably in Florida since the 1990's. He was head of El Salvador's military during the 1980's when death squads with ties to the army murdered thousands of people. General Prosper Avril, the Haitian dictator, liked to display the bloodied victims of his torture on television. When he was overthrown, he was flown to Florida by the U.S. Government. Thiounn Prasith, Pol Pot's henchman and apologist at the United Nations, lives in New York. General Mansour Moharari, who ran the Shah of Iran's notorious prisons, is wanted in Iran, but untroubled in the United States. Al-Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan were kindergartens compared with the world's leading university of terrorism at Fort Benning in Georgia. Known until recently as the School of the Americas, it trained tyrants and some 60,000 Latin American special forces, paramilitaries and intelligence agents in the black arts of terrorism. We supported the people who later became the Taliban. We used to strongly support Saddam Hussein.
Whenever we take military action, we regularly bomb civilian targets such as government buildings, bridges, factories, etc. During the Persian Gulf War, we deliberately bombed all the government buildings, TV stations, factories, sewage treatment plants, power stations, roads, bridges, etc. Of course, we knew those places were filled only with civilians. Don’t give me that crap pretending we don’t deliberately target civilians. If we bomb the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture killing a couple hundred civilians, what do you call that? If you bomb a location that you know ahead of time contains only civilians, that is delibrately killing civilians. At one point during the Persian Gulf War, we deliberately bombed what we knew was a civilian bomb shelter, killing 300 civilians.
If you were against killing thousands of people, would you convey that by killing a couple thousand additional people? If you were against killing thousands of innocent people, why would you express that by waving the flag of a country that has slaughtered millions of innocent people, and just recently killed thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan? For someone to express supposed outrage over killing thousands of innocent people by actually waving an American flag is so hypocritical as to be obscene.
We were just so angry about the fact that 3000 people were murdered that we needed to kill thousands of additional people to make ourselves feel better, and the fact that the thousands of people we killed had nothing to do with the original murders was considered a trivial detail.
I really don't think campaign in Afghanistan will do much to decrease the likelihood of future terrorism in the United States since al-Qaeda is a decentralized loose knit confederation of networks of autonomous cells scattered all over the world. If there was a terrorist or a sleeper cell inside the United States, why would they be less likely to do it because we bombed Afghanistan? If anything, they would be more likely to do it.
Let’s say someone commits mass murder in this country. The government would put the person on trial. If they are convicted, they might then kill them. I would be against that, because you are doing the exact same thing they did. Nonetheless, that is considered acceptable in our society, although not in any other democratic country.
Let’s say however, someone committed mass murder, and our government decided to kill them without having a trial at all. People would be outraged. That would totally unconstitutional. It’s hard to imagine someone supporting that.
Now imagine the following scenario. Someone commits mass murder in this country. Then the government decides to kill, without trial, not that person, but instead someone else who had nothing to do with it. Let’s say they are not even falsely accusing that second person of having anything to do with it. Rather, everyone openly admits that the second person had nothing to do it. Despite that, the government just kills them anyway. Could you imagine the outrage? You can’t even imagine that happening, it would be so outrageous and unbelievable.
Now imagine the same thing, except instead of the government killing, without trial, one person, whom they admit had nothing to do with the crime, instead the government kills several thousand people whom they admit had nothing to do with the crime. Someone commits mass murder in this country. Then the government decides to kill, without trial, not that person, but instead several thousand other people who had nothing to do with it. Everyone admits they had nothing to do with the crime, but they just decided to kill them anyway. That would be so beyond unbelievable. They would be so beyond the pale. It’s hard to even imagine that as a hypothetical.
However, that’s not hypothetical at all. In fact that’s exactly what happened. A mass murder was committed. Because of that, our government decided to kill several thousand people whom they admit had absolutely nothing to do with it. Obviously, the soldiers in Afghanistan had absolutely nothing to do with the mass murderers that were committed on Sept 11. This was so beyond outrageous. It is beyond disbelief that something like this could actually happen.
You can’t punish the people who committed mass murder on Sept 11 since they’re dead. It was a mass murder-suicide. If you could find someone else who was involved in some way in the mass murders, and you had enough evidence of their involvement, you would put them on trial, and if they’re convicted, give them life in prison. Worse then that, would be if you were to then kill them, since you would doing the same thing they did. Worse then that, would be if you were to kill them without having a trial first. Worse than that, would be if you were to kill, without trial, someone who had nothing to do with the mass murders, but rather was just a member of the same organization as the mass murders. The average members of al-Qaeda had no knowledge of the mass murderers on Sept 11. Worse than that, would be if you were to kill someone who is not even a member of an organization that had other members who committed mass murder. The average soldier in Afghanistan was not a member of al-Qaeda, and obviously had absolutely nothing to do with the mass murders. Worse than that, would be if you were to kill not one but thousand people whom you admit had absolutely nothing to do with the mass murders. However, that’s exactly what we did. If a crime takes place, do you then kill several thousand people whom you admit had absolutely nothing to do with the crime? Does someone deserve to die just because they are a soldier for a country that contains within it members of a criminal organization that contains other members who committed mass murder in the United States? From now on, should we kill thousands of people in any country that contains a person who is a member of an organization that contains another member who committed a crime in the United States?
Of course, we killed large numbers of civilians in Afghanistan. We don’t know the exact figure. However, in Afghanistan, unlike western countries, they don’t have a definite distinction between military and civilian. All men carry a gun, the soldiers don’t have uniforms, etc. However, I don’t see why it makes any difference whether someone is military or civilian anyway. I don’t think it’s worse to kill civilian than military. Why would be alright to kill someone just because they have given occupation? We attacked their country. You then tell those soldiers, “It’s alright for me to kill you because you’re a soldier for a country that I decided to attack”. If I murdered a member of the U.S. Army, would that be alright because I’m killing a member of the military? What does someone’s occupation have to do with whether it’s alright to kill them?
Lastly, I want to respond to one of the most absurdly ridiculous things I’ve heard on this subject. You often hear people saying “We’re at war”, and you assume that they are talking about the fact we attacked Afghanistan. However, I remember people saying “We’re at war” before we attacked Afghanistan. What war were we in then? It slowly dawns on you that some people were saying “We’re at war” for no reason other than the fact than an act of crime took place in the United States. The mass murders of Sept 11 were an act of crime, not an act of war. There was absolutely nothing military about it. Before Sept 11, it would never ever have crossed anyone’s mind in their wildest dreams that you might possibly refer to a crime as an “act of war” or an “attack on this country” if the criminal had such and such motive. The idea that a crime could possibly be considered an “act of war” based on the motive of criminal would never have ever ever have crossed anyone’s mind in their wildest dreams ever. It would never have occurred to anyone to suggest something as absurdly ludicrous and ridiculous as that. It bares no resemblance to any concept of definition of “act of war” to have ever existed previous. The idea that if someone commits a crime in this country, to then call the crime, an “attack on America”, based solely on the motive or ideology of criminal is absolutely insane. You could say any crime is an “attack on America” since any crime involves flouting our legal system, our social conventions, trying to hurt our citizens, etc.
When there was the first World Trade Center Bombing in 1993, it never occurred to anyone in their wildest dreams to refer to it as an “act of war” or an “attack on this country”. Nothing as ridiculous as that, crossed anyone’s mind. Everyone acknowledged the obvious, which is that it was what it was, act of crime. Those responsible were put on trial in a court of law. They were convicted and sent to jail. Fortunately, we didn’t decide to kill a couple thousand people who had nothing to do with the crime.
The American attack on Afghanistan was a totally unprovoked attack on another country. Why would the fact that an act of crime took place in the United States be a reason to attack another country that had nothing to do with it? The Persian Gulf War was a totally unprovoked attack on another country. Why would one country attacking another country be a reason for us to attack the first country? However, no one would ever deny that the upcoming American attack on Iraq is a totally unprovoked attack on another country. Everyone admits that. The proponents of the war admit it when they use the “pre-emptive”. Everyone, including the proponents, admit that it’s a totally unprovoked attack on another country. In that case, it’s hard to figure out why we’re doing it, since every reason given was obviously made up to try to get support for the war.
Every excuse for attacking is based on bogus accusations which are actually a thousand times more true for the United States.
One excuse for attacking Iraq is that they won't let in weapon inspectors.
First of all, Iraq has agreed to unfettered weapons inspectors with no restrictions or conditions, which is what we asked for, and is more than we would ever agree to. I dare say the United States would never agree to give unrestricted unconditional access to every corner of our country, including our top secret military installations, and the White House, to foreigners whose stated purpose is to determine every detail of our military, much less foreign officials from a country that has publicly stated that they fully intend to launch an unprovoked military attack on the United States, and overthrow our government.
Second of all, Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction. If Saddam Hussein ever had them, he would have used them during the Persian Gulf War. The fact he didn't use them, proves he didn’t have chemical or biological weapons. If he didn't have them then, he certainly didn't any time since then, since that's when he had the most he ever had. He doesn't want to let weapons inspectors in because he wants to hide the fact he DOESN'T have weapons of mass destruction.
I remember during the Persian Gulf War, Saddam Hussein boasting he had a “devastating weapon that would terrify our enemies and delight our friends”. Despite that, no chemical biological weapons were ever used. First of all, this proves that he pretends to have weapons that he does not. In fact, that bizarre statement sounds almost like he’s pretending to have some sort of science-fiction weapon. Second of all, could you imagine the same man that made that statement NOT using everything he had? Could you imagine him holding back? During the Persian Gulf War, he wanted to win very badly, and certainly used everything he had against us. The fact that no chemical or biological weapons were used, proves that he had no such thing in his possession. Of course, he wanted very badly for people to think he had chemical or biological weapons, and he still does.
Part of the confusion seems to derive from the fact that today, unlike any previous time or in any other context, people seem to be using the phrase “chemical weapons” or “biological weapons” to refer to just the toxic chemicals or biological agents themselves. A steel drum full of hazardous materials is not a chemical weapon. In order to turn it into a chemical weapon, you have to weaponize it. You need to design a way of putting it in a warhead on a missile that is designed to explode up in the air, in such a way as to allow the material to rain down on the enemy. This is actually extremely difficult, from an engineering point, and is by far, the most difficult aspect of developing chemical weapons. Iraq never had the technical ability to develop any such capability, and we freely admitted that during the Persian Gulf War. I remember during a pentagon briefing, during the Persian Gulf War, a reporter asked about the possibility of chemical or biological weapons, and the spokesman said they were taking every precaution, but were not actually concerned about it, because they knew he did not have a delivery system. At that time, we admitted that he did not have the technological ability to put chemicals in the warhead of a missile. Whenever a scud missile hit, people would frantically put on gas masks, but no one in the military or the White House was ever concerned, but they knew he did not actually have chemical weapons. In other words, during the Persian Gulf War, we openly admitted that he did not have chemical or biological weapons, which was proven correct, since he never used any such thing, proving he didn’t have them. Not only that, but after the Persian Gulf War, we destroyed all of the toxic chemicals or biological agents he had, so he didn’t even have that anymore.
I wish I had a penny each time I heard someone say that Saddam “gassed his own people”. You can say it a thousand times but it never happened. First of all, the people gassed were Kurds. The man is not a Kurd. He’s an Arab. Therefore, if he killed them, he wasn’t killing his own people. Second of all, it is far from an established fact that they were killed by Saddam at all. Halabja is a Kurdish town where, on March 16, 1988, Saddam is accused of massacring his own citizens with poison gas. Halabja was attacked in the closing weeks of the Iran-Iraq War, when two Kurdish guerrilla groups sided against Saddam. It lies just inside Iraq's border with Iran, and the Iranians had mounted an offensive in the region. Halabja was thus contested territory. The Kurds were apparently killed with cyanogen chloride. Iraq had no history of using or possessing that specific agent, whereas the Iranians did, and used it frequently. A week after the attack, U. S. State Department spokesman Charles Redman said, “There are indications that Iran may also have used chemical artillery shells in this fighting. We call on Iran and Iraq to desist immediately from the use of any chemical weapons." At any rate, everyone at the time seemed to recognize this tragic accident to be part of the Iran-Iraq War, unlike today, where everyone harps on the claims that he “gassed his own people” with the emphasis on “own people”, although of course, they’re not his people, anyway. It sounds to me that some civilians living near the border got caught in the crossfire in a battle in an international war, and it’s very possible that the Kurds were actually killed by the Iranians. Also, no one in the United States in 1988, claimed that the incident was cause for the United States to attack Iraq, and overthrow its government, so why would it be a cause to do that 14 years later? To say that the death of a hundred people 14 years ago is reason to deliberately kill a couple hundred thousand additional people doesn’t make any sense. How many Kurds have been killed by our ally Turkey, which we never criticize? When unarmed people are shot and killed by American police, does that count as a country killing its own people? The gas chamber is one of the methods of execution used in the United States, so does that count as gassing our people?
Is the United States going to let weapons inspectors in to prove we don't have weapons of mass destruction? Well, that's a joke since we have more weapons of mass destruction than any country in the world. We have a hundred times as many nuclear warheads as necessary to cause the extinction of the human species. We openly admit that without trace of apology. Also, we're the only country in the world to have actually used nuclear weapons, not once but twice, against civilian populations, and we haven't apologized for that either. Also, throughout the Cold War, we were on hair trigger, poised to unleash nuclear holocaust on the world.
Another excuse is that Iraq has "attacked all its neighbors" or is a "threat to its neighbors".
The only other countries that Iraq has ever attacked was Iran and Kuwait. In the first case, we didn't have any sympathy for Iranians so we didn't mind that. In the second case, the world fought a huge giant war to reverse the invasion which indicates how unforgivable rest of the world thinks it is for a larger country to launch a totally unprovoked attack against a smaller weaker country, totally taking over all its territory, and overthrowing its government, even if the smaller country is not the nicest country in the world, which tells you why the rest of the world is against an American attack on Iraq. Iraq has not taken any aggressive action against anyone in the last ten years. Think of all the aggressive actions that the United States has taken during that same span of time.
Imagine the following scenario. Tomorrow morning you turn on CNN, and there's breaking news. Iraq has just invaded Kuwait! Could you imagine that happening? See how ridiculous that hypothetical is? No one could imagine that happening. The idea of Iraq invading Kuwait today is unimaginable. If no one could imagine Iraq attacking Kuwait, no one could imagine Iraq attacking any other country. If Iraq is not a threat to Kuwait, it's not a threat to any other country.
Now, compare that to the United States. The United States attacks more countries than any country in history. We are constantly attacking other countries. With the one exception of Pearl Harbor, every military action ever taken by the United States, from the colonial times to right now, has been us attacking other countries. We are always the aggressor. From colonial times to right now, every military action we’ve ever been involved in has been us attacking other countries, with the one exception of Pearl Harbor. I have actually heard people against the war in Iraq say “The United States doesn’t attack other countries”. That’s the biggest lie ever told. The United States attacks other countries more than any other country in the history of the world. You can't even make a list of all the countries we attacked or invaded since World War II. We slaughtered two million people in Vietnam. We slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the Persian Gulf War. You had Lebanon, Grenada, Libya, Panama, the Persian Gulf War, all the subsequent times we bombed Iraq, and Bosnia. Then just since the Clinton administration, you had Somalia, Haiti, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Serbia. In addition, you have all the wars we promoted and fought through our surrogates around the world. We killed thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan. We are about to launch a totally unprovoked attack on Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Then some people claim we should attack Iraq because there's al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Actually, that is very unlikely. Those that fled Afghanistan went to Pakistan. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Ladin have been bitter enemies that always hated each other. Al-Qaeda hates Iraq since it's a secular country that would normally be a lap dog of the West. Iraq hates Islamic fundamentalists since they fear an Islamic revolution like happened in Iran. Iraq, a secular dictarorship, and Al-Qaeda, a band of Islamic fundamentalists, are bitter enemies. Since Iraq is an oppressive dictatorship, they can effectively keep Islamic terrorists out of their country. Also, Saddam Hussein would never give weapons to anybody since he wants power only for himself, and trusts no one else.
Now compare that to the United States. Since we are an open society, al-Qaeda members can operate freely in this country. They can freely enter this country, since we encourage immigrants to come here. I'm sure there are far more al-Qaeda in the United States than Iraq.
Iraq violates U.N. resolutions.
It's ironic that the same right wing people who normally have contempt for the United Nations, and who made it clear that we are going to attack Iraq even if the United Nations, and the rest of the world is against us, also cite violations of the U.N. resolutions as a reason to attack Iraq. Iraq may violate U.N. resolutions, but so does the United States, and we would do it much more if we didn't have a veto on the U.N. Security Council, especially if the U.N. ordered us to surrender our sovereignty, and endure humiliating intrusive weapons inspections the way Iraq has been ordered to do. Of course, the idea of the United States agreeing to weapons inspections to prove we don't have weapons of mass destruction is ridiculous on the face of it since we openly admit that we have weapons of mass destruction. It's easy enough to sit perched on your throne, and condemn others to death for violating the orders of the king, when you, the king, don't have to answer to anyone. It's easy enough to condemn others for violating U.N. resolutions, when you have a veto on the Security Council.
It also should be noted that that Israel is in direct violation of numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions, including resolutions 242, 267, 271, 348 and 480, among many others. I don't hear anyone in the United States saying that we should therefore attack Israel and overthrow their government. So if our allies flagrantly violate U.N. resolutions, we support the violations and condemn the U. N. for daring to pass resolutions our allies don't like, but if someone we don't like does the same thing, we claim it's a reason to launch an unprovoked military attack on the country, overthrow their government, and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
In short, the reasons given for attacking Iraq are totally false. However, if you took the false accusations against Iraq, and multiplied them by a thousand, you would have the truth about the United States which we don't deny. Would it therefore be morally justified for some other country to attack the United States, and overthrow our government?
There are a group of right-wing hawks in this country that are absolutely obsessed with attacking Iraq, and will say whatever they think will make us attack Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with Sept 11, but when you had Sept 11, they said, oh, Iraq must have been behind Sept 11. Therefore, we have to attack Iraq. When you had the anthrax scare, they said, oh, Iraq must be behind the anthrax. Therefore, we have to attack Iraq. Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction, but they just make up the claim that Iraq does, and therefore we have to attack Iraq. However, they never suggest that we attack all the other countries that really do have chemical or biological weapons.
However, it goes beyond that, because these right-wing nuts actually have to audacity to insult the intelligence of the American people by actually claiming that it might be possible for Iraq to actually get a hold of nuclear weapons, which is sheer loony toons nonsense. The most you could say is that one time Iraq was trying to build a peaceful nuclear power plant, and Israelis blew it up while it was under construction. I’m sure most countries in the world would love to have nuclear weapons. How come only 8 countries out of 200 countries in the world have nuclear weapons? Why don’t Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Indonesia, or Nigeria have nuclear weapons? The reason is because it’s extremely difficult to develop nuclear weapons. Iraq is probably the least likely country in the world to ever get a hold of nuclear weapons. There is no such thing as an Iraqi physicist. That’s an oxymoron. It’s an impoverished third world nation with no indigenous scientific background or technical expertise needed for developing nuclear weapons, no fissionable material, and no resources needed for developing nuclear weapons. They are under sanctions, and the embargo. They have had weapons inspectors explore every inch of their country. We have military air craft flying constant patrols over the country, and we bomb Iraq every so often with little fan fare. We have spy satellites, and they are the microscope of world scrutiny. Developing nuclear weapons is way out of their league. It’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise. If nuclear weapons were easy enough to develop that Iraq could get them, then three quarters of the countries of the world would already have them. Of course, aside from that, if Iraq hypothetically did have nuclear weapons, which would never happen anyway, it’s a ludicrous hypothetical, they would never use them, or even threaten to use them, since if they did, they would be utterly destroyed. The only thing Saddam Hussein cares about is his own survival, and he would never do anything that might jeopardize it.
What really illustrates the obsession of the right-wing hawks to make up excuses to attack Iraq, no matter how ludicrous, is when they actually suggested that there was a living American MIA left over from the Persian Gulf War being held in Iraq, the obvious implication being now we have to attack Iraq because we have to get our guy back. This is really loony tunes stuff. We’re in “Elvis is alive” territory. Aside from being cruel to the family, this illustrates their fanatical desperation to think up any excuse they can of, no matter how ridiculous, to attack Iraq.
One of the justified arguments against attacking Iraq is that it would be very difficult. To counter this, the hawks make up the claim that it would be very easy. Some of them claim it would be a cake walk. All of you have to do is show up, and the mere presence of the Americans will cause the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam Hussein. This sounds like the Bay of Pigs. They know that’s totally bogus, but they hope it will silence critics of the war. In reality, this coming war will be ten times more difficult than the Persian Gulf War. Last time, all you had to do was kick the Iraqi troops out of that one tiny little area called Kuwait. Even so, it was a huge undertaking that involved killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. This next war will be vastly more difficult. Instead of gaining control of just the tiny area called Kuwait, you would have to gain control over the entire country of Iraq, and then overthrow the government. You can bet that Saddam Hussein will fight bitterly until the very end. You would have to fight in urban warfare under grueling conditions with skyrocketing civilian causalities against a determined enemy willing to fight a long term guerilla campaign against the foreign occupiers.
It also reveals an utter contradiction in their argument. On one hand they are claiming that Iraq is so weak, that we would be able to defeat them very easily, without breaking a sweat. At the exact same time, they claim that Iraq is so strong and powerful that they are threat to the United States, or a threat to the world. Which is it? Those are two things are opposites. Yet, they manage to claim them both simultaneously. Obviously, that’s not possible. What is possible is for there to exist a small third world country on the other side of the world that is no threat to us but that we would not be able to easily subdue if we invaded their country. Obviously, the North Vietnamese were not capable of sailing across the Pacific Ocean and attacking the United States, although when we invaded their country, we lost the war.
Another fantasy promoted by the hawks for the sole purpose to encouraging support for the war, is that after Saddam, you would have democracy in Iraq. I don’t know what they’ve been smoking. Iraq is the least likely country in the Middle East to ever achieve democracy, which is a strong statement. In reality, there are four possible scenarios for a post-Saddam Iraq.
1. Another Iraqi general, perhaps Saddam’s son or brother, seizes control, and creates another military dictatorship identical or worse than the present one.
2. The country fractures into three countries, a vestigial Iraq, the Kurds in the north, and the Shiites in the south, that are at constant war with each other.
3. The country degenerates into total anarchy with no government at all, similar to Lebanon in the 1980’s, or Somalia in the 1990’s, with warlords at constant war with each other.
4. The United States puts a million troops in Iraq on a permanent basis in order maintain some semblance of order, and keeps them there permanently with no end game and no exit strategy.
I don’t know why any of these four scenarios would be so much preferable to the present situation as to justify slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Of course, when these right-wing nuts claim they want democracy in Iraq, that’s an outright lie. The United States greatly prefers third world countries to be dictatorships rather than democracies. If they are democracy, they might elect someone we don’t like, and then we have to arrange a coup in order to get our puppet dictator in there, like we did in Chile.
Listen, could you imagine Iraq invading Kuwait today? Of course, not. That would be unimaginable. Well, if Iraq is no threat to Kuwait, it’s no threat to any other country in the region, and it’s certainly no threat to the United States which is on the other side of the planet. Despite that, Vice-president Dick Cheney referred to Iraq as a “mortal threat” to the United States. This statement is utterly preposterous and absurd on the face of it, but it would be accurate to turn it around and apply it to the United States, since unlike Iraq, we do pose a threat to countries on the other side of the planet, and we are a mortal threat to Iraq.
The official reason for the war is that Iraq won’t let weapons inspectors in. Of course, Iraq has endured a more humiliating regime of weapons inspection than any country in history, and the United Nations inspectors, including many Americans, such as Scott Ritter, agree that they do not have any weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein never used chemical or biological weapons during the Persian Gulf War, which proves he didn’t have them at that time. If he didn’t have then, when he was at the pinnacle of his power, he certainly doesn’t have them now. Of course, the United States has more nuclear weapons then any other country in the world, and I don’t think we’re claiming that it would therefore be justified for some other country to attack the United States, and overthrow our government. Furthermore, Vice-president Dick Cheney gave a speech the purpose of which was to make sure that if Saddam Hussein were to agree to let weapon inspectors in, and let them go anywhere they wanted, that no mamsy pamsey liberals would try to use that an excuse to oppose an American attack on Iraq. He made it perfectly clear that we were going to attack Iraq even if they let in weapons inspectors, and let them go anywhere, and even if we are opposed by all other countries in the world.
Obviously, the fact that we are going to launch a totally unproved military attack on Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with so-called “weapons of mass destruction”. I’m amazed that anyone even thinks that has something to do with why we’re doing it. These same right-wing conservatives have been absolutely obsessed with attacking Iraq since the end of the Persian Gulf War, and it’s only within the last couple months that they stumbled upon the bogus claim of weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to do it. If you look at everything they say, you can get a sense of their utter desperation to come up with any excuse whatsoever to attack Iraq, no matter how ridiculous. They just ran through dozens of ridiculous excuses to attack Iraq, and just through trial and error, they stumbled upon one that appears to have been effective at persuading other people to go along with their long standing obsession with attacking Iraq.
They just make up outright lies to get public support for attacking Iraq. Before the Persian Gulf War, they made up an outright lie that when the Iraqis invaded Kuwait, they pulled premature babies out of incubators, and threw them on the floor, which was an outright lie. Nothing like that ever happened. It was a delibrate fabrication invented by the Bush White House to drum up public support for the war. They are doing a similar thing here. The current Bush White House made up an outright lie that there was a meeting between Sept 11 terrorist Mohammad Atta and Iraqi officials in Prague. No such meeting ever took place. It's just an outright lie. It was a delibrate fabrication invented by the Bush White House to drum up support for the war. Why would you believe anything else these people say?
All of this begs the question as to why these right wing hawks actually want to attack Iraq in the first place. All the reasons they publicly give are designed only to persuade other people to support the war. They start with the premise of wanting to attack Iraq, and then try to think of excuses to do so. Well, what actually is their reason for wanting to attack Iraq? These same right wing conservatives supported brutal regimes all over the world much worse than Iraq, such the death squads of El Salvador, the rebels in Afghanistan who later became the Taliban, Indonesia, etc. I suspect they would be overjoyed, and declare victory, if Saddam Hussein was replaced by some blood thirsty dictator infinitely worse. What exactly is the origin of personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein?
This is especially ironic considering that the United States, and these same right-wing hawks, specifically, used to be strong supporters of Saddam Hussein. In March 1981, U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he saw the possibility of improved ties with Baghdad and approvingly noted that Iraq was concerned by "the behavior of Soviet imperialism in the Middle Eastern area." The U.S. then approved the sale to Iraq of five Boeing jetliners, and sent a deputy assistant secretary of state to Baghdad for talks. The U.S. removed Iraq from its notoriously selective list of nations supporting international terrorism, and Washington extended a $400 million credit guarantee for U.S. exports to Iraq. In November 1984, the U.S. and Iraq restored diplomatic relations, which had been ruptured in 1967.
The Persian Gulf War was officially fought to restore one of the only absolute monarchies on the planet, and was actually fought so Americans would have to pay so much for gasoline, and for that we slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. At the time, everyone made it perfectly clear, that our goal was only to “liberate” Kuwait, not that the actual people in Kuwait are any more free now than they were under Iraqi rule, and everyone made it perfectly clear that we were not intending to oust Saddam Hussein. This is for the practical reason that would be extremely difficult to do this, much more difficult that pushing the Iraqi soldiers out of the Kuwait. President George Bush Sr., everyone at the White House, both houses of Congress, both political parties, the State Department, the Pentagon, the United Nations, all our allies in Europe and the Middle East, all agreed in a dramatic consensus that our goal was to liberate Kuwait, and not to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and everyone publicly stated this policy on all the television shows every chance they got. George Bush spent a lot of his time reassuring people he was not planning on “going to Baghdad”. Inside the White House, not one advisor even privately opposed this policy. Almost all Americans understood this, and therefore declared victory after the Emir was restored to his throne, and the U.S. troops polished the gold toilet seats in his palace. The American people were so jubilant that we had slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people, that they were dancing in the streets, and George Bush’s approval rating shot up to 92%.
However, there was a group of right wing conservatives were not celebrating, basically because they thought the war was over too quickly, and that we had killed too few people. There was a small group of right wing conservatives who for some totally incomprehensible reason, had gotten it in their heads that our actual goal was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Despite what everyone in the government had said before, during, and after the war, they had always just assumed that of course we were planning on going to Baghdad to string up Saddam Hussein. They just assumed that on their own without anyone telling them that. This band of right wing conservatives were genuinely absolutely flabbergasted when the war ended, and we did not go to Baghdad. These people, who on their own decided that that was one of our goals, thought that the war was a failure because we did not achieve what they decided was one of our goals. They did not allow themselves to enjoy the victory celebrations.
Since then, these right wing conservatives have just felt like the war was “not finished”, which is ridiculous since from the point of view of everyone else, it was obviously finished. Nonetheless, these right wing conservatives just have it in their heads that the Persian Gulf War is “not finished”, and they need for us to “finish the war”, according to their definition, before they will allow themselves to belatedly celebrate the American victory in the Persian Gulf War. Since then, this lack of closure has been a thorn in their side, and they think it’s humiliating to the United States, although this humiliation exists only inside their own heads. They just can’t relax because they feel like there is this thing out there that is unfinished. It’s like in classical music, when the music builds up to a crescendo, and then there is a pause with tension in the air, as you’re waiting for the next note, and then you have the next note which releases the tension. These people are like that. They are stuck in that pause, suffering from that tension which can’t be released until you finish it. Another example is let’s say you’re doing house work or yard work, and your wife asks you to come sit down and relax. Even if you sit down, you just can’t relax, because the house work or yard work is not finished. You can’t relax until it’s finished. That’s what these right wing hawks are like. They can’t relax until they decide the Persian Gulf War is finished. Of course, this whole thing is utterly ridiculous since everyone else in the world agrees that the Persian Gulf War was finished ten years ago.
The rhetoric of these right-wing hawks that are obsessed with Iraq has become so irrational and bizarre that it sounds like a satire or a spoof of the neo-cons. People are using the phrase “self-defense” to refer to a totally unprovoked military attack on another country that is no threat to anyone. It’s like saying that Japan was acting in self-defense when they bombed Pearl Harbor, that Hitler was acting in self-defense when he invaded Poland, or Iraq was acting in self-defense when they invaded Kuwait. On Hannity and Colmes, the host Sean Hannity said, “Iraq is a threat to civilization” which sounds a line from a skit on Saturday Night Live. It is exactly the same as if he said “Gambia is a threat to civilization”. Even the anti-war people talk about “containing Iraq”, which is exactly the same as if they talked about “containing Gambia”. Why would anyone use the word “contain” to refer to Iraq any more than Gambia? Neither of them are a threat to any other country. There is nothing to contain. Of course only one percent of Americans have ever heard of Gambia, which is the same percentage of Americans who had heard of Iraq before Iraq invaded Kuwait, and would be the same percentage of Americans who would have heard of Iraq today if the first president George Bush had not attacked Iraq last time.
Shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait, we told them that we don’t take sides in border disputes in the Middle East. Let’s say we had stuck to that position. Let’s say shortly after Iraq invaded Kuwait, George Bush got on television and said that we can buy oil from Iraq as easily as we can buy it from Kuwait, the Kuwaiti people are no less free now then they were under the rule of the Emir, and we have no treaty obligations to Kuwait, and therefore we’re not going risk American lives getting involved in a war on the other side of the world that has absolutely nothing to do with us. Kuwait is the maximum that Iraq could have taken over so there was never any threat to Saudi Arabia, so we never send U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait would be talked about in the news for a few days, and then, with no new developments, the media would move onto the next story. There would never be any Persian Gulf War. Almost all of the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis we killed would still be alive. Since the militant Islamic fundamentalists were particularly offended by the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, it’s quite possible you would not have had Sept 11. Iraq would have quietly annexed Kuwait, the same way we annexed parts of Mexico and Hawaii. Kuwait would become 19th province of Iraq, and few in the west would shed any tears for it. The people in Kuwait would not be treated any worse then they had ever been treated before. They would not be any less free then they were under the heel of the Emir. The whole thing would be totally forgotten, and never talked about, like East Timor. That’s it. That would be the end of it. Only one percent of Americans today would have ever heard Iraq or Saddam Hussein.
Even though there would never have been any Persian Gulf War, sporadic bombings over the past decade, no-fly zones, or weapons inspections, it would be the same as every other country in the world in that regard, and like all the other countries in the world, no one would ever be suggesting that they were a threat to the United States, or to any other country. There would be nothing to set Saddam Hussein apart from all the other dictators in the world. Iraq would not have weapons of mass destruction, and would not be a threat to anyone, same as in real life today. The only difference would be that no one would be pretending otherwise. If only one percent of Americans had ever heard of Iraq, and the last time Iraq was mentioned in the news was 11 years ago, obviously, there would not be a single person in the United States today suggesting that the United States should suddenly launch a totally unprovoked military attack on Iraq, and overthrow their government. That would never ever cross the mind of a single person alive anywhere in the world. That goes without saying. It would sound as ridiculous as someone suggesting that we should suddenly attack Gambia. With no Persian Gulf War, these right wing hawks would never have developed this mental illness where they are obsessed with Iraq. No one would be pretending Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. No one would ever feel the need to invent the fantasy that Iraq could possibly get nuclear weapons or any other such nonsense. No one would ever suggest that if a country did have weapons of mass destruction, that alone would be a reason to attack the country, and overthrow their government. Therefore, it is a great misfortune to the world that the first president George Bush ever attacked Iraq, or sent U.S. troops to the Middle East. The right-wing hawks themselves would actually be much happier, and calm and relaxed, since they would not have their panties in a bunch about what they perceive to be an unfinished war.
Jeffery Winkler