Interesting Gulf War News

[GPrime1]

Good point, Saddam is a dangerous man, his actions in the past have been inhumane to say the least. He is a threat and he should be taken from power, but the fact is the US had that opporunity 12 years ago and they didn't follow through with it. I guess it should also be pointed out that the US had a lot to do with giving him a lot of that power. I mean, when they were supporting him against Iran, were they doing so to fight for democracy? Or how about the other half dozen or so countries over the last 60 years that the US has taken down one dictator and replaced him with another. I'm just tired of the US declaring a fight for democracy and freedom when it feels like it and when the situation they're in calls for that kind of rhetoric to gather support and justify their means.

 

[MuppetsRule]

True, the U.S. did support Saddam in their war against Iran. That was a different time and era however. It was in the height of the cold war when the U.S. was looking for political influence in that part of the world as opposed to communist Russia's influence. We were also opposed to the regime of Ayatolah Khomeini (sp?). That was then, this is now. The politics of the world are constantly changing and every country, not just the U.S., changes its alliances accordingly.

As far as having an opportunity to remove Saddam 12 years ago during the Gulf War, you are right. I wish we would have continued on to Baghdad. It would have saved a lot of lives (lives lost becuase Hussein's brutal regime, Iraqi children's lives lost because tough economic sanctions, lives lost in the upcoming military action). However, it should also be noted that the U.N. resolution and the reason for action was to remove Iraq from Kuwait and that's it. The first President Bush should be credited for holding back and sticking to that resolution and hoping that a diplomatic solution could have been found to deal with Hussein. His advisors also worked very hard to put together a very fragile coalition of neighboring nations. Had they continued and pressed to remove Hussein then it is very possible that that coalition would have fallen apart.

It is ironic that some of the same people that are against this war are bemoaning the fact that we didn't expand the last war. They are against the fact that the U.S. will be going against the will of the U.N. this time, but are now wishing that the U.S. would have gone against the U.N. resolution 12 years ago.

I guess my point is, that countries, like individuals, change their alliances and idealogies according to current events and what fits their current needs.

 

[GPrime1]

I'm not exactly against military action, but I'm not exactly for it either. For myself it's more a questioning of the reasons behind it and the consequences of any kind of action taken, not just from Iraq. I think Saddam's proposal to debate with Bush would have been a great opportunity to listen to the real issues at hand and see what kind of arguments either side had and how they held up. But alas....Also the efficacy of the UN in international politics comes to the forefront once again as you've pointed out. What function does it serve if the evidence and decisions surrounding this issue are not enough to aid in creating an open global community that is capable of some form of dialogue? If the US govt is capable of adhering to them on certain occasions, why is that different in this instance?

 

[frogboy4]

Other Axis of Evil Wannabes by John Cleese

by John Cleese

Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the Axis of Evil, Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the “Axis of Just as Evil,” which they said would be more evil than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of in his State of the Union address. Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. “Right. They are Just as Evil... in their dreams!” declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. “Everybody knows we’re the best evils... best at being evil...we’re the best.”
.
Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil. “They told us it was full,” said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. “An Axis can’t have more than three countries,” explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. “This is not my rule, it’s tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So you can only have three, and a secret handshake. Ours is wicked cool.”
.
International reaction to Bush’s Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered. Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the Axis of Somewhat Evil, forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the Axis of Occasionally Evil, while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable.
.
With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the Axis of Countries That Aren’t the Worst But Certainly Won’t Be Asked to Host the Olympics; Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Some Nasty Thoughts About America, while Scotland, New Zealand and Spain established the Axis of Countries That Be Allowed to Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick.
.
“That’s not a threat, really, just something we like to do,” said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell. While wondering if the other nations of the world weren’t perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axes, although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in “Guay,” accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges. Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn’t want to join any Axis, but privately, world leaders said that’s only because no one asked them.

(Reprinted after Nate sent it to me. Thank, Nate. I don't think he wanted to get political, but we all have room for Cleese!)

 

[Boober_Gorg]

Cleese is not the only Python to comment on our situation, thankfully.

I'm losing patience with my neighbours, Mr Bush
by Terry Jones
Sunday January 26, 2003
The Observer

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I!

For some time now I've been really pi**ed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.

As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.

Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours.

They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!

And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.

That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.

Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq.

Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.

Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?

It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out.

My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.

Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.

It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.

 

[sarah_yzma]

i write speeches over foreign affairs, and I am with our president 100%

now whether we are for war or not is irrelovent...we are going.

Saddam is an odd man that needs to be stopped....his rise to power is spookingly similar to Hitler's....

sure no one WANTS war, but ya know...i don't wanna get attacked by someone our country had the chance to get rid of...

and don't talk out against Bush...just ask the dixie chicks!

Sarah

 

[EmmyMik]

Boober_Gorg

Originally posted by Boober_Gorg
I'm losing patience with my neighbours, Mr Bush
by Terry Jones
Sunday January 26, 2003
The Observer
[/B]

<snip>

That's an awesome article. I printed it out a few months ago, and lost it.

Thanks for posting!

 

[frogboy4]

I agree with you Sarah. I wish there were another realistic answer, but none exists. The inspections were a charade. Iraq received 48 hours notice for all inspections. That's effective. I pray that the loss of life will be minimal. The UN has become an irrelevant absentee parent who sets up rules but doesn't enforce effective consequences for fear of being the bad guy.

I support the troops and our nation's leaders - especially President Bush. I think it's a shame how much of the anti-war rhetoric turns into insulting partisan politics. Bush isn't the best speaker, but he's far from stupid. He has proven his strength and wisdom in the past two years and (although I tend disagree with him sometimes) I have faith in his abilities.

On another note, the thought that Sean Penn and Martin Sheen know more about the issue than the rest of us is insulting. Famous people need to exercise more responsibility with their words. They certainly have a right to voice their opinions- but we should have equal voices. Their rants really seem to be one-sided and heavy-handed. What are their qualifications for being a mouthpiece? It's times like this that it is clear we value the wrong kind of people in this country. I'd rather hear dissent from someone in the know than a spoiled actor who makes millions of dollars a year.

That being said, I think the past two comic editorials were a responsible and respectful way of making views known without forcing the issue.

I also think people are hiding behind the guise of peace with ulterior motives. One just has to walk through a “peace” protest (riot) in San Francisco to get what I mean. Picket signs with anti-Semitic statements, signs that focus on Bush as a person instead of his effect on the war, even signs saying Bush is an alien for cripes’ sake. What is that?

You must understand that when you see San Francisco protestors on the news, many of them would march to get pink stars placed on the American flag. They are rebels without a clue. They loot stores and harass tourists as they shop. They continually tie up traffic in the financial district and selfishly block hardworking people from getting to work. How does that help but to screw up our city’s already jacked economy? Is our Governor Davis or the Federal Government going to bail us out? I don’t think so. These people have gone mad. And by the way, Danny Glover doesn’t live here. What is he doing speaking at every rally? I understand the right to publicly dissent, but this destructive behavior is criminal.

Sorry for the rant. Just angers me how people in this city expect every minority to latch on to the cause of the moment. I stand behind Bush and pray that our troops make it home safe.

 

[ryhoyarbie]

Saddam is an odd man that needs to be stopped....

funny..people have been saying that for about 12 years now....and george bush senior had a good shot to get him and bush decided not to...and now we're back at the beginning..

ryan

 

[CraigD]

It annoys me how a lot of Americans seem to believe this war is the U.S.A. vs Saddam.

You seem to be forgetting about the other countries involved as your allies, notably my country Australia.

Australia has always been behind the US when it has come to ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, but it makes me wonder if most Americans even realise this.

I don't know if I even support this war yet. Like a lot of people, I have mixed feelings.

A lot of Americans just need to realise that they're not the only country in the world. I mean, the majority probably couldn't even name our Prime Minister (maybe even Britain's) without looking it up.

I don't want to sound anti-American by saying this. I just want credit given where it's due. After all, Australia is renowned for having the best SAS troops in the world and will play a major part in this war.


Craig