|
Phoenix
|
Yes, the French did not used to be this way, and I doubt all of the French people feel as Chirac does. I do on the otherhand think this entire thread has gotten way off topic, but seing as the current topic has changed I might suggest that some of you ease off on the America-bashing here. Mojo is definitely in the wrong for taking a swipe at Poles, but calling Americans "racist pricks" isn't casting anyone in much different light either. Which Americans are racist? The black ones? The white ones? Those descended from the American Indian? Or from east India? Hispanic Americans? Or those who are a mix of many ethnic backgrounds? America is a melting pot of many races, nationalities, and cultures, so how can an entire country, who allows all to vote regardless of race and hold jobs, be called racist? It is ironic that if America is so bat that so many people want to get into the USA, and are willing to risk their lives on leaky rafts and barely seaworthy smuggling ships to do so, yet very few seem to want to get out? That is, except for fools who think that camping out at power plants in Iraq, strumming a guitar like it's the 1960's again are going to offer much protection from a 2,000lb laser-guided bomb. They know what they're in for, so I certainly hope nobody cries when they get gibbed all over the generators. Oh well, I suppose that will cleanse a bit of stupidity from the human gene pool if they get blown up. Darwinism at work, right? I can't say I'm really pleased though. I do not take pleasure in the loss of life, no matter how much of an idiot it is that happens to be attached to it.
The world is in a state where two things are certain right now. The first is that Iraq is going to be invaded by the US, Brittish, and Austrailian militaries if Saddam doesn't go into exile, UN resolution or not, and no amount of protesting or political opposition from France, Germany, Russia, or China is going to stop it. Countries I might add that have a much larger vested economic interest in Iraq than the US ever did. It was France, after all, that sold Iraq the nuclear reactor that the now deceased Ramon blew up when Israel decided that Saddam with nukes was a bad idea. It is Russia who arms Iraq with many weapons. There are documented paper trails to all four of these countries who THEMSELVES are violating the very UN resolution that was imposed at the end of the Gulf War that was agreed to by Iraq as terms of surrender. The UN sanctions (read: UN, not US) were imposed because Iraq violated those terms. Iraq kicked out the weapons inspectors the first time because Saddam obviously wanted to develop his weapons without their presence. He wanted them out, now he wants them back in? Let's be realistic here, that's a stall tactic and he's been leading them on wild goose chases since they've been back. Now he's saying "Oh look, we found this so we'll let you have it" every time the heat is put on him? Don't be naive people. Saddam is stalling for time by "turning up" very minor weapons he DENIED having in the first place. A shell here, a rocket there, but never anything substantial since that would damn him publicly to the world, and all of this because he knows that as long as he can stall for time and as long as the United Nations stays divided HE'S running the show, not them. He's making a mockery of the United Nations, and the entire inspection process has become a keystone cops bughunt that it's not supposed to be, and now you have a handful of protesters (yes, a handful, not the hundreds of thousands the media would have you believe) all pointing fingers at the US and Brittain, specifically Bush and Blair, for having the guts to stand up and call a spade a spade and be willing to do something about it? Let's review the facts here instead of the rhetoric, and see who's really to blame:
1) Saddam invaded Kuwait, and was driven out by a coalition of nations, not just the USA, even if the US provided the bulk of the military arm of it.
2) Saddam gassed the Kurds in the north with chemical weapon poisons and killed a LOT of people. Regardless of where he got them, he used them on people in his own country.
3) People who fled Iraq following the failed uprising against Saddam after the gulf war tell of over a hundred thousand people executed. These are Iraqi nationals who have said this, and these were Iraqi people who were killed.
4) Every defector from Iraq at present speaks of a desire of the Iraqi people to get rid of Saddam. THEY do not want him running their country. Why should anyone else?
5) The United Nations passed legally binding resolutions, 14 of them so far since 1991, declaring that Saddam has to get rid of ALL chemical, biological, and nuclear (if any) weapons and provide proof of this. The most recent says Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it fails to comply. This burden rests on IRAQ to show proof that it no longer has such weapons, as it has been repeated countless times, not for the US, Britain, or God-knows-whatever-land to ferret out what Saddam's hiding and show proof to the world that he's in violation. The inspectors have themselves said they are NOT a detective agency and Iraq must cooperate fully with them. Blix has indicated repeatedly that Iraq is being "less than cooperative."
6) Iraq ADMITTED to having over 4000 TONS of VX nerve gas back in the 90's. It takes only 1 drop to kill a full grown man. Now they claim to be unable to provide proof of it's destruction since "that evidence was destroyed", and that's only the tip of the iceberg of what they claimed to have a few years ago and now are saying they do not have. Are you willing to take them at their word? Does this kind of weaponry in Saddam's hands, or worse, Al Qaida's, Islamic Jihad's, or Hamas's hands not disturb you?
7) George Bush and the Bush Administration has been actively seeking UN support for enforcement of the resolution that was UNANIMOUSLY agreed to by the UN security council last year so far by diplomatic means with a military buildup as pressure and as a last resort if those means fail. Obviously since diplomatic enforcement has failed military enforcement becomes the only alternative. If war was the only desired option there would be no push in the UN for a consensus at all, even if it's the only remaing option at this point other than turning tail and going home.
 The only alternative to militarily removing Hussein and his weapons is to leave them in place. Inspections DO NOT work, this was proven in the 90's when Saddam kicked out the inspectors (which he can just as easily do again if the US pulls anchor and goes home). The end result of that is continued development of these weapons and their being sold to terrorist agencies who will use them on anyone, anywhere, even those opposed to war. Also it will show that the UN is toothless and ineffective, as it has been at anything dealing with enforcement of resolutions for the past twelve years and counting.
9) Leaving Saddam in power will embolden EVERY terrorist in the world, making the US and the UN, and all of Europe appear to be gutless cowards. Potential terrorists only respect the threat of deadly force, and the only way terrorists can be "negotiated" with is at the end of a gun. Dead terrorists can't hurt anybody anymore. Live terrorists emboldened by perceived cowardice could then use biological agents to attack the world's food supply if armed by a rogue state, which would affect all nations, not just the US. Mass famine is not a good thing. Nuclear weapons in downtown NY, DC, London, Berlin, or Paris aren't much better, nor is nerve gas in a subway tunnel.
10) The USA has exhausted every diplomatic channel with the UN security council to enforce their own resolution and now is left with the following options: Enforce the resolution itself by invading and toppling Saddam now, risking casualties from chemical or biological weapons in the process, or allow him to continue in power to eventually develop nuclear weapons and face that kind of weaponry when he again attempts what he did with Kuwait, only this time with Israel, Turkey, Jordan, or who knows what other country in the crosshairs. Saddam has attacked Israel before, and don't forget that Qusay is ten times WORSE than Saddam, and stands to inherit all that "daddy" has. If Iraq attacks Israel, unprovoked, with nuclear weapons it WILL start a regional war, but this time with Israel declaring war on Iraq, followed by Arab states declaring war on Israel. Say hello to WWIII, Israel DOES have nukes, over 400 of them, and they've admitted to this. Taking out Saddam now could easily PREVENT this. Does ANYONE like the idea of a regional war, possibly nuclear, in the middle east?
11) If the protests against war are indeed against war, the quickest way to avoid war is if the entire world condemns Saddam's barbary and overwhelming world opinion and political pressure is leveled at him to step down and dismantle his weapons programs. Since the world is instead divided, with the protestors intent only on attacking Bush and Blair, this only feeds Saddam's boldness to defy the UN resolutions and make a mockery of the entire system. War is inevitable as a result of this, and the protests are only acting to divide the world, not unite it. This is counter-productive to the goal of preventing war, and illogical if preventing war is the only thing desired. Banners saying "Saddam disarm now, do it for your people", etc, have yet to be seen anywhere in any of these protests. Just who is the bad guy here anyway in the UN's eyes?
History has a lesson, one that is often overlooked. Often times the right thing to do, and what needs to be done at the time is unpopular at the time, but historically the world benefits in the long run from unpopular but correct action. It is a test of character to take a beating and do what's right anyway. Tony Blair understands this, I think that perhaps many nations in Eastern Europe understand this as well having been trodden over by the iron boot of the Soviet Union for so long. Dictators intent on murderous conquest and oppression of liberty cannot be appeased or coddled, they can only be toppled. They tried appeasement with Hitler in the 1930's, and the result was millions of people dead. Saddam is just such a dictator. Bush is not, contrary to some of the claims, since he can be replaced with democratic election. Many have accused Bush of knowing beforehand about the 9/11 attacks, and doing nothing to prevent them. I will not debate the validity of such accusations here, but now Bush knows about the threat Saddam poses, and yet when confronted with acting to prevent this, is again attacked. I find no logic in this. Saddam himself has shown Hitler and Stalin as his role models. A former general who took part in the uprising against Saddam and later fled the country said he would get up in the morning, look in the mirror and say "Heil Hitler!" jokingly at himself. No amount of negotiation or political pressure, even the threat of war and the resulting civilian casualties has changed Saddam's mind about what he wants to do. Do you REALLY want this man in power? Do you trust Saddam Hussein? Would you want this man running YOUR country? As for North Korea, there's an old expression that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Kim Jong Il is doing a lot of squeaking right now, and not much else. Anyone ever think he might be bluffing? He wants attention. Saddam, on the other hand, is developing things covertly. The loud braggart is all mouth, and is rarely a threat, however the stealthy assassin is lethal and intent on that lethality. Keep this in mind when thinking about the difference between North Korea and Iraq.
I have some hard questions for you all. To all those who do not like George Bush and his "unilateral" approach, what about Bill Clinton when the USA "unilaterally" launched attacks against the serbs, and parked aircraft carriers and, under Clinton's order, launched missiles "unprovoked" into Sudan and Afghanistan? Where is the condemnation for that? Where is the condemnation for the US under Clinton handing nuclear reactors to North Korea, if North Korea is now such a threat that everyone claims they are? Where is the condemnation of Saddam Hussein gassing his own people with chemical weapons? Or for invading Kuwait in the first place? I've heard all the accusations leveled at the USA and George Bush in particular for misconduct and bullying, now I'm leveling MY accusations at all of you who are doing the accusing. Where are the facts for your accusations? I've laid out the generally accepted facts regarding Iraq, that is, accepted unless you're a member of the French, German, Chinese, or Russian parlaiments or are living in Wonderland somewhere. Truth is in the eye of the beholder, after all. Show us all the evidence of these conspiracy theories regarding the US wanting oil, and the US causing this and that, if you have any that is. All I hear is words, angry words, and baseless words blaming the USA and George Bush for all the worlds evils. Is it because Bush is rich? Or that he's a Republican and not a Democrat? Or because he does come from "big oil"? Is personal dislike the root of these accusations? Damn the country for the character of the King, so to speak? Or is it because the USA is a rich and powerful country, the last super-power, and as such the "have-nots" of the world are jealous? And if the USA and people like Bush are indeed evil, then I suggest you all take up your righteous swords and cut out this evil, since obviously you're in the right and the USA is as much a threat as, no, more of a threat to the world as the terrorists and extremists are. But then who's to say you're right? After all, if there is no "absolute right" then the USA is just as right for following its policies as you are for thinking it's in the wrong, isn't it? Are you merely choosing targets of political convenience for your self-righteous moral high-ground? That is, guilt by opinion and damn the facts unless you can fit them to match your preconceptions? Funny, that mentality is often referred to as "lynch mob". I would only ask you to examine your standards and see if you are applying them evenly to ALL of the variables here, or you run the risk of being guilty of the very things that you are accusing others of doing.
I am not attempting to absolve the USA of any past wrongs, history can be its own judge of that, nor am I defending Bush and saying he is completely blameless either. All nations, and every individual on this earth has blood on their hands for one thing or another. Still, there should be no "Oh yeah, but the USA did this" counterpoints to the above statements. Justifying one evil by pointing out another solves nothing, and absolves neither of wrongdoing. Answer me these questions honestly if you can. Otherwise, think about the points I bring up if you're willing to let go of this apparent hatred for the USA. I'm tired of seeing America bashed repeatedly for everything, along with Israel, so I'm going to take up my own gauntlet here and issue you this challenge. If America is so wrong always as you say, tell me then, who is right in this? And what would you have them do, if all that you are willing to do yourselves is nothing at all except accuse? Complacency leads to slavery. We would all be wise to remember that. That is all I have to say about this. End of rant.
|
