Rask
You asked some pages back,why,when I raised the question of Bush's open approval of our former president(a bad muther****er)while at the same time baying for Saddam's(another bad mother****er) blood,why I was ignoring the fact that the US gives a lot of money in aid to countries like Kenya.Here's the answer:
The aid doesn't matter to all the political dissidents(and their families-dissidents killed,not entire families,I'm avoiding a misunderstanding)killed under Moi's rule.The aid doesn't matter to the thousands murdered(and thousands more displaced-imagine being a refugee in your own country) during state-sponsored "tribal clashes" for living in regions that were percieved as anti-govt.(there was very little real support for govt. anywhere.In some places,famine relief food was used as leverage.A starving man has very little thought about democracy and ****).The aid doesn't matter to the millions of us who have to live in abject poverty and in very harsh economic conditions,in no small part due to the economic sabotage this man wrought on this country.
Simply put,the fact that Saddam is a SOAB is not a reason Bush can give to your average Kenyan as reason for going to war.I'll go circular and mention this again:
Last year around October,Bush(perhaps it was one of his famous gaffes?I doubt he's that ignorant) referred to Moi as a "...good and strong leader...".
If you'd like a small glimpse of the kind of man Moi was,just go to google,and in the search engine type in "wagalla massacres."
Then you'll understand why when Bush(and you too,you keep raising this question)raises the question of the wretched of Iraq,my face can't help crease up.
Btw,I'm not blaming the US for what we went through.Not at all.I'm just pointing out my frame of mind when you go "so and so is such an evil man,who should be removed from power blah blah blah...."
And as Lordatherings(this is your new name,Mr.Circles:).I am creative,huh?)pointed out(in reference to how resources are diverted in a totalitarian police state-and for a while we were that)just because you give aid doesn't necessarily mean it reaches where you thought it was meant to go.
Seeing as I'm anti Moi,I'm not expected to mention his good points.The truth is,the man had none.His sychophants were praising him for handing over power to the election winner peacefully.WTF?!?That is standard procedure!It's nothing to thank a guy for.And if that's the only "good" thing his cronies see,it should give you an idea of what was good about him then.
And would I have wanted America to intervene and depose Moi for us?
HELL ****ING NO!!
We'll deal with it.
And we dealt with it.(Can you hear the opera music rising?)
OK.
Back to the main issue.
You tell me(us in general,me in particular,since I raised the question)that the reason we haven't heard a lot of talk about deposing Saddam all these years(years which,you contend,he's always been in violation of the agreement ending the war,an agreement which you also state stated that his penalty for vilation is his removal from power-does it say what was to be done after that?)is because there was no political will.That Clinton wasn't going to throw away his career away just to make sure Saddam,as big a threat as you say he is,was out of power,for violationg that said agreement.Not to mention Hillary's and Gore's careers.
I wonder how saving the world from such a disaster as Saddam is(or will become,if,according to you,we give him more time)would destroy a man's political career.I'm not an expert on American politics,so I'd need your insights on that one.Other than that,I can't help wonder whether if doing it was going destroy a man's career,then wouldn't doing it make another man's career?Just wondering(need enlightment,I already SOS'd you).As in more than anthing else,it's a career move,forget about the issues.
I'm going to read that thing you gave a link to.Closely.Then I'll come back.
And while we're on the agreement,it seems to me the agreement never dealt with te details of what would and what wouldn't comprise a violation.Coz what I'm mostly reading is weapons that have not been accounted for.If both parties(the UN and Iraq)are agreed that at point X in time,Iraq had Y such and such missiles,and then P were destroyed,meaning Iraq still has Y-P missiles,but can only account for M missiles,where M is a lot less than Y-P,what is so hard about asking them directly?What is so hard?They did sign the agreement,so at least we're still on talking terms,right?
Generally speaking,this thing looks to me like you have this guy on parole.Then a cop is sent to his house to see if he has weapons(a parole violation).The cop isn't saying anything conclusively concrete(three barretas in the bedroom,a magnum in the basement,blah blah).But the chief back at the precints is yelling "...bring him in!bring him in!i know he's in violtion and is going to go on shooting spree and murder his neighbours....we better deal with before it's too late..."
Suppose the convict had seven barretas and two magnums before arrest.Then when he was released,he handed over two barretas and a magnum to the cops.So,he still has a question or two to answer.True,Rask and co.,true.But a judge wouldn't put him back in for that.The prosecution would have to provide concrete evidence of his parole violation.He isn't guilty until he proves himself innocent.He's innocent until the prosecution proves him guilty.That should be the state of affairs to justify a war.
Lordatherings
I've put the notion of war for oil out of the head.And looked at it from a war on terror perspective.Here's what I see:
Everyone understood Afghanistan.For a very simple reason.They were shielding one Osama bin Laden.And in case you didn't know,Osama was(still is,as far as I know)the prime suspect behind the WTC bombings.And again in case you didn't know,WTC was the largest attack on American soil(so large it's funny to call it terrorism,war would be the word)since the WW2.Perfect sense to me.
No one complained.No one.
So,when did this "...Afghanistan was first,Iraq is next..." business begin?And if that is so,tell me about tha terrorist training camps Saddam is funding.Tell me how many wanted suspected terrorists(note that suspicion isn't necessarily guilt,but often it is)Saddam has given assylum.And so on and so forth.if it's war against terror,if you give a case as you had against the Taliban(or nearest offer),I'm with you all the way.
And if then this is war on terror,what's the connection with that war and Iraq not having complied with the agreement ending the Gulf war?And this is not sacarsm or rebuttal,it's an honest question.Coz even if I may have no effect on the grand scheme of things,I wanna know wussup.So when my grandkids ask me about it(like I ask my grandma about WW2)I'll be able to answer.
About the Ba'ath party wanting one united Arab nation?So what.Organizations with all sorts of ideologies walk this planet.I hear the nazi party is still there somewhere.
And if Saddam was to have,in Rask's words,"...an ugly nuclear stick to wave at her neighbours and have whatever he wants...",he knows,you know,I know,that if Saddam was to even report to have dreamt of having an idea about attacking anyone,that would be the end of him.
In my opinion(as flawed,biased,circular:) as it may be)Saddam isn't going to engage in any form of "acreage enhancement",commonly known as gobbling smaller neighbours.
[Edited by kingdavid on 03-13-2003 at 05:26 AM]
