Debate
Free World: The book
Latest
Commentary
Suggested Websites
Timothy Garton Ash
Iraq!
Iraq has become one of the defining subjects of our time, like Bosnia, Vietnam or Suez. There are two questions, really. Was it right to go in like that? And, quite separately, what should we do about it now? See TGA's Guardian columns on the subject. |
 |
Debate - Page 1/3
Michel Bastian, France
To answer the first question: no it was not right. It was
the worst possible mistake and shouldn´t have happened.
What should we do now? Cross our fingers that a miracle happens and the
Iraqis actually set up a functioning and stable democratic state. Not
very likely you say? You´re right. But, to use a german phrase,
the child has fallen into the well and we need to get it out. It´s
no use whining about it, we need to support democratic efforts in Iraq
by economic and military means. Don´t ask me for details, I haven´t
the foggiest how this is supposed to work. I know, though, that if it
doesn´t, Iraq will revert to a mullah-style regime and we´ll
have even more problems on our hands.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Iraqis display tears of joy as they vote in their first
free elections in over half a century...
ŒThe Cities Were Not Bathed in Blood‚
It was hardly a perfect election. But against all odds, Election Day brought
unexpected hope and gaiety to the streets of Baghdad
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6887461/site/newsweek/
Michel Bastian, France
to Phil Karasick:
> Iraqis display tears of joy as they vote in their first free elections
in over half a century...
‘The Cities Were Not Bathed in Blood∫
It was hardly a perfect election. But against all odds, Election Day brought
unexpected hope and gaiety to the streets of Baghdad
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6887461/site/newsweek/
Well, good for them. Let´s hope it stays that way.
Jakob, Poland
hello again Phil,
I do seriously hope, like all right thinking people throughout the world,
that Iraq is a success and democracy takes root though i'm not sure how
hopeful we should be.
But i stand by the question i asked ages ago. The world is full of non-democratic
countries. If the whole escapade was about spreading democracy, why Iraq?
Nebuchadnezzar , Iraq
No it was not right to go in "like that"... like
by killing 100,000 civilians in order to free them. Democracy is supposed
to be about free choice and lack of coercion. So how can you impose it
upon people by force? There is nothing wrong with supporting democracy
or democratic movements in other countries. A good example is Ukraine
- it was right to finance and otherwise help the Ukrainians. But it is
absolutely wrong to go into a country that one has been pounding the hell
out of, that one has previously bombed to the Stone Age, where one has
already killed millions of children by crippling sanctions and depleted
uranium, where one has used napalm (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/iraqgenocide/HighwayofDeath.html),
and then lie through one's teeth by claiming there are WMDs in Iraq, and
go to war on the pretext of spreading democracy when one is helping the
most brutal dictatorship just across the border.
This was not about democracy. If it was they'd have said it before. But
they didn't. They categorically said that they were fighting in Iraq in
order to make America and Britain safer. They didn't care too hoots about
Iraqi lives. They don't even want to count how many they've killed. They're
more careful when they're killing insects using DDT - they make sure to
count.
Don White, U S of A
1) No. I believe the current government of the U.S. decided
it was in the NATIONAL INTEREST of the U.S. to assure it of a reliable,
affordable supply of petroleum over the next two or three decades. Our
government determined a military presence in the Persian Gulf area was
imperative to make these assurances real. Osama bin Laden furnished the
necessary rationale. WMDs and the abusive Hussein regime were distractions
that served the purposes of the U.S. government well. Well, well enough.
it is also important to keep in mind that most U.S. citizens took personal
affront by the completely disrespectful, audacious airplane attack on
and in America on September 11. 51% of Americans still live by the code
of the West popularized by Zane Grey. This chacterization is especially
true of our president.
2) In 1968, Richard Nixon ran for president on the promise to „end
the war‰ in Vietnam. He refused to say how he would do that and
no none thought to ask him when he would end it. Nixon won (43.2%) over
Humphrey (42.6%), by a slim 812,445 vote margin out of slightly more than
73 million votes cast. (Minor candidates account for the remaining votes.)
Nixon continued the war 6 more years, losing nearly 20,000 U.S. KIAs and
killing perhaps a million Vietnamese. We don‚t count Œcollateral
damage‚ in America.
I said that to say this. America needs a time certain to exit Iraq. I
was hoping to hear John Kerry make such a commitment, say, by the end
of 2006. That has passed, and unless Tony Blair is forced to make such
a pledge to retain his hold on the UK, I fear it may be a long time before
we finally exit Iraq.
There is one generally ignored factor that could force our government
to re-think its ideas of staying or leaving Iraq. That is money. The U.S.
must borrow 20% of its annual expenditures from abroad. Those lenders
will have a lot to say about U.S. foreign policy as they percentage of
foreign held debt rises in the U.S. Treasury mix. Would it not portend
better days ahead if China, which could not force the U.S. out of Vietnam,
was the world power that forced the U.S. out of Iraq? Don‚t forget,
China is now No. 2 in world GDP.
Sam, France
I'm not very optomistic about the situation in Iraq. The
US was wrong to declare a pre-emptive war. That is called attacking. The
loss of life in Iraq has not even been fully documented. Right now, the
Kurds have voted for their own independence in a seperate poll taken after
the vote. That will not please the rest of Iraq, nor will Turkey sit by
and watch the Kurds create a state including one third of Iraq's oil.
Iran has won the most from the vote. The Shias are ensured of getting
the majority of the vote, and they are resolutely pro Iran and against
a secular government. The women in Iraq have just been dealt a major blow
for their future education and freedom.
If Ms. Rice wants to attack another 'loathsome' regime; perhaps she would
do well to look towards Saudi Arabia, or pay attention to what is happening
to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza. A war for human rights?
I think not. The US invaded Iraq to install military bases and to gain
control of the oil there.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
(1) Was it right to go into Iraq: The action taken was
correct, it's the timing that was wrong. I have no problem whatsoever
with invading and liberating Iraq and hanging Sadly Insane Hussein from
the nearest lamp post. However, I would have preferred that we dealt with
Al-Qaeda first and foremost. I prefer my wars one at a time rather than
in bunches.
(2) What should we do about Iraq now: keep doing exactly what we are doing.
We are on the right path, and we need to stay on it. The recent Iraqi
elections were a stunning rebuke to those in the West who claimed that
Iraqis "don't really want democracy", "don't really care
about freedom" or "were perfectly happy living under Saddam
Hussein's 'benevolent dictatorship' ".
The Sunni Muslims who are the core of the insurgency against US forces
and the transitional Iraqi government appear to be getting the message,
too. See below:
washingtonpost.com Highlights
Fearing civil war, Iraq's Sunnis rethink strategy.
Offer to cooperate with new government carries conditions.
BAGHDAD - Influential Sunni Arab leaders of a boycott of last week's elections
expressed a new willingness Friday to engage the coming Iraqi government
and play a role in writing the constitution, in what may represent a strategic
shift in thinking among mainstream anti-occupation groups.
The signs remain tentative, and even advocates of such change suggest
that much will depend on the posture the new government takes toward the
insurgency and the removal of former Baath Party officials from state
institutions. But in statements and interviews, some Sunni leaders said
the sectarian tension that surged ahead of the vote had forced them to
rethink their stance.
Iraqis voted Sunday for seats in a 275-member transitional parliament,
which will appoint the government and draft the constitution this year.
In all likelihood, the parliament will be dominated by members of the
country's Shiite Arab majority and by ethnic Kurdish Sunnis from northern
Iraq, leaving Sunni Arabs and others who oppose the presence of foreign
troops in Iraq with little representation.
"We are taking a conciliatory line because we are frightened that
things may develop into a civil war," said Wamidh Nadhmi, the leader
of the Arab Nationalist Trend and a spokesman for a coalition of Sunni
and Shiite groups that boycotted the election. "The two sides have
come to a conclusion that they have to respect the other side if they
want a unified Iraq."
He cautioned, however, that "perhaps it will not succeed."
The Association of Muslim Scholars, one of the most influential groups,
sent mixed signals this week ˜ saying it would respect the election
results, while arguing that the new government will lack the legitimacy
to draft a constitution. But the sermon Friday at the association's headquarters,
the Um al-Qura mosque, was decidedly conciliatory. Directing most of his
words at the new government, the preacher called Iraq its "trusteeship"
and said the people's welfare was "a great responsibility on your
shoulders."
meeting Thursday at the home of a Sunni elder statesman that brought together
some largely Sunni groups, including those that boycotted the elections,
produced an agreement to participate in drafting the constitution, "without
condition," said Nadhmi, one of those in attendance. A spokesman
for the Iraqi Islamic Party, which withdrew from Sunday's vote but still
was listed on the ballot, said that its members would not enter parliament
but that the party would not object if independent candidates who were
included on its list took seats.
"We're getting the same vibes," a Western diplomat said on condition
of anonymity.
"It's my sense that there are a number of people in the Sunni community
that are trying to build consensus in that community that . . . participation
in the political process would be to the best advantage of the Sunni Arab
community," the diplomat said.
A decision by Sunni Muslim and other anti-occupation groups to engage
the new government and help draft the constitution would mark one of the
most important shifts in Iraq since Saddam Hussein's fall in April 2003.
In the subsequent 22 months, the country's tumultuous politics have often
broken down between groups willing to take part in a U.S.-led process
and those opposed to participation as long as the U.S. military occupied
the country. While the opponents largely came from the Sunni minority,
long the country's most powerful sect, they also included followers of
a militant Shiite Muslim cleric, Moqtada Sadr.
The shift in thinking appears to have arisen from a calculation that the
election may have created a new dynamic in Iraq, as the country slowly
moves past an emphasis on the U.S. occupation and more toward the blueprint
of a future state. The groups do not speak for the insurgency, but the
Association of Muslim Scholars, in particular, holds great sway in the
Sunni Arab community in central and western Iraq, where there are signs
of grass-roots discontent over the boycott.
As part of the dialogue, the community appears to be formulating concrete
political demands that were often missing before. Those demands center
on the presence of 150,000 U.S. troops in the country and the date of
their departure.
"What we're asking for is a conditional timetable," said Ayad
Samarrai, a spokesman for the Iraqi Islamic Party.
"It's not rigid and it's not impossible to achieve," he said
at the party's headquarters, echoing statements made this week by the
Association of Muslim Scholars and Nadhmi's group. "We take into
consideration that some delay might happen, but at least if we have a
plan, we can have the confidence of the people that we are working toward
this goal."
Officials with Sadr's movement took a similar stand Friday in Kufa, the
group's headquarters in southern Iraq.
"I call for all those who backed the elections to demand a formal
schedule for the withdrawal of foreign forces," said a spokesman,
Hashim Abu Raghif, reading a statement in the name of Sadr, who has rarely
appeared since fighting ended in August between his militia and U.S. forces.
"They asked to hold the elections, and they were answered. So let
them end the occupation."
U.S. officials and their Iraqi allies have refused to set a time for a
withdrawal, saying they instead want to wait until Iraqi security forces
can enforce order. Given the uneven track record of the freshly trained
forces, the officials have been loath to set a deadline.
"I just don't think right now that the American government wants
to get in the business of time frames," the diplomat said. "Better
not to make promises that you are not sure that you can keep."
In part, the Sunni and nationalist groups may be playing to their own
constituencies. By all accounts, the Sunni turnout was far lower than
that of Shiites and Kurds, although Sunni leaders debate whether that
was a result of intimidation or adherence to calls for a boycott. But
some residents in such Sunni towns as Ramadi and Tikrit have suggested
there may be regrets over the choice. The disappointment seems strongest
in urban areas, which have proved less sympathetic to the insurgency than
the countryside.
The insurgents "made fools of us," said Mahmoud Ghasoub, a businessman
in Baiji, a restive northern town. "They voted to disrupt the elections
but failed. Now we have lost both tracks. We did not vote, nor did they
disrupt the elections."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6916281/
Donald White, USA
1) NO. The Second Punitive Expedition to Iraq, as I label
what our President called ŒOperation Iraqi Freedom‚ was an
exercise of raw power the likes of which America has not engaged in since
1898. Leaving aside our traditional escapades into Central America at
battalion strength levels, the underlying rationale for invading Iraq
was to secure for America a reliable and affordable source of crude oil
for the next two or three decades. Policymakers in both parties accept
that the U.S. needs to have a military presence in the Persian Gulf region
to insure that source of petroleum.
2) I was disappointed John Kerry did not offer the American voters a choice.
I wanted to hear the U.S. would be out of Iraq by the end of 2006. Instead,
Kerry copied Nixon‚s 1968 campaign promise to „end the war‰
in Vietnam, but not explaining how or when. 2004 voters faced with no
real choice, stayed with the incumbent. On a note of surreal optimism,
the U.S. now borrows 20% of its operating budget, half of that from abroad.
The U.S. may be forced to rethink its foreign adventures should foreign
investors grow wary of funding an ever increasing U.S. debt. Ironically,
China, which could not force the U.S. out of Vietnam, may ultimately force
the U.S. to leave Iraq.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, USA
"Sam" in France wrote: "The loss of life
in Iraq has not even been fully documented." It certainly was not
"documented" by a horrendously inaccurate "study"
that wrongly suggested that "100,000 Iraqis had been killed",
which is ludicrous. "Sam" also wrote: "The Shias are ensured
of getting the majority of the vote, and they are resolutely pro Iran
and against a secular government. The women in Iraq have just been dealt
a major blow for their future education and freedom." That strikes
me as a massive assumption on "Sam's" part; it is not factual
and has not been established as such. Grand Ayatolluh Al-Sistani is on
record as favoring the right of Iraqi women to vote.
"Sam" in France also wrote: "If Ms. Rice wants to attack
another 'loathsome' regime....perhaps she would do well to...pay attention
to what is happening to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza."
In my opinion, what is happening to the "hundreds of thousands of
Palestinians in Gaza" is exactly what those so-called "Palestinians"
deserve. If they want to change their situation, they need to understand
and accept the Fact, once and for all, that the State of Israel is here
to stay - FOREVER. This Jewish state stays put - PERIOD.
And "Sam" wrote: "A war for human rights? I think not.
The US invaded Iraq to install military bases and to gain control of the
oil there." The US did not and does not "need" military
bases in Iraq. We already had bases in Saudi Arabia, for the purposes
of deterring another attack by Saddam Hussein. And the US imports less
oil from the Middle East than from non-M.E. sources, including Canada
and Venezuela.
Jakub in NYC (formerly Poland) wrote: "But i stand
by the question i asked ages ago. The world is full of non-democratic
countries. If the whole escapade was about spreading democracy, why Iraq?"
Hello again, Jakub. Yes, the world is full of non-democratic countries.
But now there's one less non-democratic country in the world, and one
more budding democracy. And America is the reason for that.
A democratic Iraq will be less of a threat to other nations. And a democratic
Iraq will be a powerful and positive example, a beacon of freedom in a
region of the world that, other than Israel, has never known anything
but thugs, tyrants and murderous theocracies. A democratic Iraq will be
the greatest barrier to Al-Qaeda that can possibly exist. It will be living
proof that Arabs and Muslims want democracy just as much as people in
the West. And it will be living proof that Arabs and Muslims don't have
to "only" choose between secular dictatorships and Islamic theocratic
dictatorships. There will now be a third choice - genuine democracy.
nebuchadnezzar, Iraq
it's a very expensive way of securing petroleum supplies. Rather than make sure that it has access to lots of oil, why doesn't the US reduce its dependence on oil by cutting down consumption? What's the US going to do when every Chinese man, woman and teenager wishes to own an SUV? If China is on the path to becoming an economic giant then one day there's going to be huge competition between it and the US on access to Mid-East oil which is going to shoot up prices.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
"Nebuchadnezzar" in (allegedly) "Iraq"
wrote: the following: (a) "No it was not right to go in "like
that"... like by killing 100,000 civilians in order to free them.
(b) Democracy is supposed to be about free choice and lack of coercion.
So how can you impose it upon people by force? There is nothing wrong
with supporting democracy or democratic movements in other countries.
(c) But it is absolutely wrong to go into a country.... where one has
already killed millions of children by crippling sanctions and depleted
uranium, (d) where one has used napalm (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/iraqgenocide/HighwayofDeath.html),
and then lie through one's teeth by claiming there are WMDs in Iraq, and
go to war on the pretext of spreading democracy when one is helping the
most brutal dictatorship just across the border."
My comments are as follows:
(a) Kindly "prove" that "100,000 civilians" were killed,
or else withdraw your statements. Start by listing their individual names,
addresses and phone numbers where applicable.
(b) This Iraqi election was indeed done by free choice and was not brought
about by coercion. Millions of Iraqis braved attacks from terrorists in
order to stand in line at polling places and choose their own government.
Nobody "forced" them to do it, they chose of their own free
will to do so. Under Saddam Hussein there was no such thing as "free
choice", only Coercion. Perhaps you are now going to claim that Iraqis
"freely chose"to shoot themselves and throw themselves into
the mass graves of Saddam's opponents?
(c) The economic sanctions against Iraq were not "crippling"
at all whatsoever except for the ways in which Sadly Insane Hussein personally
MADE them crippling on the Iraqi people (never on himself or his followers,
of course -- Saddam always had enough imported French wines, French and
German luxury automobiles, porno movies, palaces, etc. while his countrymen
starved).
The sanctions on Iraq were approved by the U.N. precisely because Saddam
Hussein refused to comply with the terms his generals signed at the end
of the 1990-1991 Gulf War. Had Saddam merely and simply complied with
the terms of the agreements he signed, sanctions would never have been
necessary. The blame for those sanctions rests squarely on Saddam, for
his actions that brought sanctions down upon Iraq. In addition, the blame
for any hardship that resulted from the sanctions rests solely and squarely
on Saddam and his regime alone. As "Nebuchadnezzar" apparently
is unaware, Saddam‚s government decided on the goods it wanted,
who should provide them, and who could buy Iraqi oil. The U.N. Security
Council committee overseeing sanctions merely monitored the contracts
(and badly, at that).
Saddam Hussein had no "right" whatsoever to launch imperialist
aggression against tiny helpless Kuwait. Had he not done so and triggered
the conflict, there would never have been any need for sanctions or military
action whatsoever.
(d) The claims made in the article cited about so-called "napalm"
usage at the alleged "Highway of death" are a load of garbage,
and "Nebuchadnezzar's" claims are falsehoods. I suggest that
he offer some "proof" that "napalm" was ever used
against Iraqi vehicles at the alleged "Highway of Death", or
else withdraw his false claims. Apparently "Nebuchadnezzar"
did not even bother to read the article he cites; it offers no "proof"
that "napalm" was ever used, and even the article he "cites"
states only that evidence "suggests" the use of napalm. It doesn't
say it "proves" anything, because as usual it has no proof --
only slanderous accusations and Lies.
Furthermore, many of the additional "claims" made in the article
"Nebuchadnezzar" cites, are nothing more than flimsy Lies. To
begin with, a retreating enemy army is still a totally legitimate target.
Furthermore, "nebuchadnezzar's" claim that "There are,
in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian
and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending siege of Kuwait City
and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces" is wholely fraudulent. The
suggestion that Kuwaitis would be fleeing the impending liberation of
their own capital of Kuwait City is so ludicrous, it could only be invented
by someone in serious need of mind-altering medications. Contrary to the
alleged "strong indications" that "Nebuchadnezzar"
cites, there was overwhelming evidence at the time that the "civilian
vehicles" mentioned as being on the alleged "Highway of Death"
were, in fact, vehicles stolen from the Kuwaiti people by fleeing Saddam-ite
troops and Saddam-loving Palestinians and filled with stolen goods looted
from Kuwait by the imperialist aggressor Iraqis and their Saddam-loving
supporters the "Palestinians".
Nebuchadnezzar" in (allegedly) "Iraq" wrote:
the following: (a) "No it was not right to go in "like that"...
like by killing 100,000 civilians in order to free them. (b) Democracy
is supposed to be about free choice and lack of coercion. So how can you
impose it upon people by force? There is nothing wrong with supporting
democracy or democratic movements in other countries. (c) But it is absolutely
wrong to go into a country.... where one has already killed millions of
children by crippling sanctions and depleted uranium, (d) where one has
used napalm (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/iraqgenocide/HighwayofDeath.html),
and then lie through one's teeth by claiming there are WMDs in Iraq, and
go to war on the pretext of spreading democracy when one is helping the
most brutal dictatorship just across the border."
My comments are as follows:
(a) Kindly "prove" that "100,000 civilians" were killed,
or else withdraw your statements. Start by listing their individual names,
addresses and phone numbers where applicable.
(b) This Iraqi election was indeed done by free choice and was not brought
about by coercion. Millions of Iraqis braved attacks from terrorists in
order to stand in line at polling places and choose their own government.
Nobody "forced" them to do it, they chose of their own free
will to do so. Under Saddam Hussein there was no such thing as "free
choice", only Coercion. Perhaps you are now going to claim that Iraqis
"freely chose"to shoot themselves and throw themselves into
the mass graves of Saddam's opponents?
(c) The economic sanctions against Iraq were not "crippling"
at all whatsoever except for the ways in which Sadly Insane Hussein personally
MADE them crippling on the Iraqi people (never on himself or his followers,
of course -- Saddam always had enough imported French wines, French and
German luxury automobiles, porno movies, palaces, etc. while his countrymen
starved).
The sanctions on Iraq were approved by the U.N. precisely
because Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the terms his generals signed
at the end of the 1990-1991 Gulf War. Had Saddam merely and simply complied
with the terms of the agreements he signed, sanctions would never have
been necessary. The blame for those sanctions rests squarely on Saddam,
for his actions that brought sanctions down upon Iraq. In addition, the
blame for any hardship that resulted from the sanctions rests solely and
squarely on Saddam and his regime alone. As "Nebuchadnezzar"
apparently is unaware, Saddam‚s government decided on the goods
it wanted, who should provide them, and who could buy Iraqi oil. The U.N.
Security Council committee overseeing sanctions merely monitored the contracts
(and badly, at that).
Saddam Hussein had no "right" whatsoever to launch imperialist
aggression against tiny helpless Kuwait. Had he not done so and triggered
the conflict, there would never have been any need for sanctions or military
action whatsoever.
(d) The claims made in the article cited about so-called "napalm"
usage at the alleged "Highway of death" are a load of garbage,
and "Nebuchadnezzar's" claims are falsehoods. I suggest that
he offer some "proof" that "napalm" was ever used
against Iraqi vehicles at the alleged "Highway of Death", or
else withdraw his false claims. Apparently "Nebuchadnezzar"
did not even bother to read the article he cites; it offers no "proof"
that "napalm" was ever used, and even the article he "cites"
states only that evidence "suggests" the use of napalm. It doesn't
say it "proves" anything, because as usual it has no proof --
only slanderous accusations and Lies.
Furthermore, many of the additional "claims" made in the article
"Nebuchadnezzar" cites, are nothing more than flimsy Lies. To
begin with, a retreating enemy army is still a totally legitimate target.
Furthermore, "nebuchadnezzar's" claim that "There are,
in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian
and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending siege of Kuwait City
and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces" is wholely fraudulent. The
suggestion that Kuwaitis would be fleeing the impending liberation of
their own capital of Kuwait City is so ludicrous, it could only be invented
by someone in serious need of mind-altering medications. Contrary to the
alleged "strong indications" that "Nebuchadnezzar"
cites, there was overwhelming evidence at the time that the "civilian
vehicles" mentioned as being on the alleged "Highway of Death"
were, in fact, vehicles stolen from the Kuwaiti people by fleeing Saddam-ite
troops and Saddam-loving Palestinians and filled with stolen goods looted
from Kuwait by the imperialist aggressor Iraqis and their Saddam-loving
supporters the "Palestinians", who stabbed in the back the Kuwaiti
people who had taken them in and who had given them good jobs at good
wages.
On an outcome of the Iraqi election see http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/13/iraq.main/index.html
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
With the Liberation of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, life is at last returning to the marshes of Iraq's "Garden of Eden"..... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6998715/
William Jenden, USA
No, of course it was not proper for the "coalition"
to go into Iraq in the manner it did. I'm not saying ousting Saddam was
wrong, but I am saying that the manner in which it was done negatively
impacted the chances of success.
We went into Iraq with nothing remotely resembling world consensus. I
saw no evidence of any imminent danger, and, evidently, neither did the
rest of the world.
Obtaining world support for invasion would have given the coalition moral
authority and improved the chances of success, but Mr. Bush felt world
support was unnecessary. Only now is he looking for that support, which
he so sorely needs to get out of the trouble he has gotten all of us into.
The issue, of course, is what can be done now to "fix" Iraq
as it seems pretty clear America and Britain won't be able to do it on
their own. The coalition wants to train Iraqi troops and leave with the
hope of keeping a couple of militry bases and is asking for European support.
Admittedly, Europe has an interest in a stable Iraq, but helping America
now would simply enable America to behave in the same manner with Iran,
Syria, North Korea, etc. If I were Europe, I would let America stay mired
in Iraq and let Mr. Bush - and unfortuantely those involved in the conflict
- pay for his bad decision.
I don't relish the thought of such a suggestion, but in the long run it
would be better for America, Britain, and the rest of Europe if Mr. Bush
learned a little humility on the limits of exercising power unilaterally,
and kept his silly ideas about power and his war on a verb occupied in
Iraq rather than allowing him the opportunity to expand his plan to other
parts of the world. Don't think for a minute that Mr. Bush has been humbled
by the failures in Iraq. He hasn't and to assist him in getting out Iraq
will just allow him to do greater harm elsewhere. His whole life has been
a series of someone getting him out of trouble of one sorts only to wander
into even greater trouble. Letting Mr. Bush get out of Iraq without paying
the full costs will simply enable him to do even greater harm to the world,
including America. Perhaps a little "tough love" would, in the
long run, encourage a more mulitlateralist approach to foreign affairs.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
The Liberation of Iraq and the success of Iraq's first
democratic elections appears to be having a snowballing effect throughout
the region... as Pres. George Bush had predicted it would.
EGYPTIAN LEADER ORDERS ELECTION AMENDMENT
Mubarak paves way for multi-candidate elections in September.
CAIRO, Egypt - In a surprise and dramatic reversal, President Hosni Mubarak
took a first significant step Saturday toward democratic reform in the
world's most populous Arab country, ordering the constitution changed
to allow presidential challengers on the ballot this fall.
An open election has long been a demand of the opposition but was repeatedly
rejected by the ruling party, with Mubarak only last month dismissing
calls for reform as "futile."
The sudden shift was the first sign from the key U.S. ally that it was
ready to participate in the democratic evolution in the Middle East, particularly
historic elections in Iraq and the Palestinian territories. Mubarak's
government has faced increasingly vocal opposition at home and growing
friction with the United States over the lack of reform.
"We have moved a mountain," said Rifaat el-Said, leader of the
opposition Tagammu party. "This should open the gate for other democratic
reforms."
Touting "freedom and democracy," Mubarak told an audience at
Menoufia University, north of Cairo, that he asked parliament and the
consultative Shura Council to amend the constitution's Article 76 on presidential
elections.
The changes would set a direct vote "giving the chance for political
parties to run" and "providing guarantees that allow more than
one candidate for the people to choose among them," Mubarak said.
The audience broke into applause, with some shouting, "Long live
Mubarak, mentor of freedom and democracy!" Others recited verses
of poetry praising the government.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7034848/
Ray Vickery, Canada
Phil Karasick argues that folks must somehow "prove"
the estimate of Iraqi dead that Lancet published. I assume that he knows
full well that this is impossible, that the United States, the occupying
power, has refused to keep count of Iraqi dead. They count only the deaths
of people who matter, Americans, and their alter egos, Israelis. The rest
of us are disposable. He must be aware that the first goal of Americans
when attacking an Iraqi city is to seize the hospitals, to ensure no records
of dead and wounded can be kept.
He knows that the 100 000 figure is wrong: will he then tell us what the
correct figure is, for it would be only by knowing this that he could
know the published figure to be wrong. He might also tell us where he
gets his figures from, as the published study was careful to clarify its
methodology.
Perhaps he gets his figures by divine revelation˜perhaps a tribal
diety speaks to him out of a burning bush, or a bottle of bourbon.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Ray Vickery in Soviet Canuckistan wrote: "Phil Karasick
argues that folks must somehow "prove" the estimate of Iraqi
dead that Lancet published. I assume that he knows full well that this
is impossible, that the United States, the occupying power, has refused
to keep count of Iraqi dead." If someone is going to "claim"
that "100,000 Iraqis died", then the onus is clearly on the
person making that claim to either be able to prove it, or else Shut Up.
I assume that Mr. Vickery knows full well that if there is allegedly no
count being kept of Iraqi dead, then obviously no one can presume to claim
with any supposed "authority" that "100,000 Iraqis have
died". Perhaps Mr. Vickery would care to tell us where he gets the
idea that "the first goal of Americans when attacking an Iraqi city
is to seize the hospitals, to ensure no records of dead and wounded can
be kept", since he offers no "evidence" or "proof"
of his "claim", only "ass-umptions" that he presents
as "facts" when they are not "facts" at all, merely
his malevolent opinions.
Mr. Vickery further stated: "(a) He knows that the 100 000 figure
is wrong: will he then tell us what the correct figure is, for it would
be only by knowing this that he could know the published figure to be
wrong. (b) He might also tell us where he gets his figures from, as the
published study was careful to clarify its methodology. (c) Perhaps he
gets his figures by divine revelation, perhaps a tribal diety speaks to
him out of a burning bush, or a bottle of bourbon." I have the following
responses: (a) Yes, I indeed know that the "100,000 Iraqi deaths"
figure is wrong. Yes, the published study carefully documented its fraudulent
methodology, which is why the study's methodology was so easily found
to be fraudulent. If Mr. Vickery had ever actually bothered to "read"
the reference to the study, he just might (but probably would not have)
noticed the following:
"The finding is certain to generate intense controversy, since the
Bush administration has not estimated civilian casualties from the conflict,
and"... (the capital letters are mine for emphasis) "INDEPENDENT
GROUPS HAVE PUT THE NUMBER AT MOST IN THE TENS OF THOUSANDS."
....
"Mr. Lipscomb" (one of the study particpants - PK) "works
on a Web site called www.iraqbodycount.net. That project, which collates
only media-reported deaths...." (the capital letters are mine for
emphasis) "CURRENTLY PUTS THE DEATH TOLL AT JUST UNDER 17,000".
....
(Again, the capital letters for emphasis are mine).
"SOME OF THOSE KILLED MAY HAVE BEEN INSURGENTS RATHER THAN CIVILIANS,
THE AUTHORS NOTED. ALSO, THE RISE IN MORTALITY INCLUDED A RISE IN MURDERS
AND SOME DEATHS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DETERIORATION OF MEDICAL CARE".
(In other words, the insurgents were not "innocents" and they
needed killing).
... And, most interesting,
"EDITORS OF THE JOURNAL DECIDED NOT TO WAIT FOR THE LANCET'S NORMAL
PUBLICATION DATE NEXT WEEK, BUT INSTEAD TO PLACE THE RESEARCH ONLINE FRIDAY,
APPARENTLY SO IT COULD CIRCULATE BEFORE THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION".
Translation: Not only was the alleged "study" fraudulent in
its methodology, it was furthermore nothing more than a political document
released by an acerbically anti-Bush group and timed and intended to influence
the U.S. Presidential elections, just as the English newspaper "The
Guardian" attempted to interfere in and influence the U.S. Presidential
elections by buying an Ohio voters' list and asking British leftists to
write to Americans to ask them to vote for Kerry.
In short: The "study" of civilian deaths is as much of a "crock-umentary"
as "Fahrenheit 9/11".
(b) http://www.iraqbodycount.net
(c) Perhaps Mr. Vickery is still depressed and sulking at the thought
that the Cold War is over and Communism/Socialism lost. Perhaps he is
too lazy to be bothered doing his own research, and so he therefore relies
on insults. Perhaps he still believes that Canada actually "won"
the War of 1812. Perhaps a Rematch could be arranged.
Ray Vickery in Canada wrote: "They count only the
deaths of people who matter, Americans, and their alter egos, Israelis."
Perhaps Mr. Vickery will actually have the gumption to admit that the
source of his comments are his hatred of the State of Israel and indeed,
quite likely, his hatred and dislike of all Jews.
Perhaps in his zeal for all things to do with the United Nations, he will
spend some time reviewing the following:
The Avalon Project at Yale Law School
Declaration of Israel's Independence 1948
Issued at Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948 (5th of Iyar, 5708)
The land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their
spiritual, religious and national identity was formed. Here they achieved
independence and created a culture of national and universal significance.
Here they wrote and gave the Bible to the world.
Exiled from Palestine, the Jewish people remained faithful to it in all
the countries of their dispersion, never ceasing to pray and hope for
their return and the restoration of their national freedom.
Impelled by this historic association, Jews strove throughout the centuries
to go back to the land of their fathers and regain their statehood. In
recent decades they returned in masses. They reclaimed the wilderness,
revived their language, built cities and villages and established a vigorous
and ever-growing community with its own economic and cultural life. They
sought peace yet were ever prepared to defend themselves. They brought
the blessing of progress to all inhabitants of the country.
In the year 1897 the First Zionist Congress, inspired by Theodor Herzl's
vision of the Jewish State, proclaimed the right of the Jewish people
to national revival in their own country.
This right was acknowledged by the Balfour Declaration of November 2,
1917, and re-affirmed by the Mandate of the League of Nations, which gave
explicit international recognition to the historic connection of the Jewish
people with Palestine and their right to reconstitute their National Home.
The Nazi holocaust, which engulfed millions of Jews in Europe, proved
anew the urgency of the re-establishment of the Jewish state, which would
solve the problem of Jewish homelessness by opening the gates to all Jews
and lifting the Jewish people to equality in in the family of nations.
The survivors of the European catastrophe, as well as Jews from other
lands, proclaiming their right to a life of dignity, freedom and labor,
and undeterred by hazards, hardships and obstacles, have tried unceasingly
to enter Palestine.
In the Second World War the Jewish people in Palestine made a full contribution
in the struggle of the freedom-loving nations against the Nazi evil. The
sacrifices of their soldiers and the efforts of their workers gained them
title to rank with the peoples who founded the United Nations.
On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted
a Resolution for the establishment of an independent Jewish State in Palestine,
and called upon the inhabitants of the country to take such steps as may
be necessary on their part to put the plan into effect.
This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people
to establish their independent State may not be revoked. It is, moreover,
the self-evident right of the Jewish people to be a nation, as all other
nations, in its own sovereign State.
ACCORDINGLY, WE, the members of the National Council, representing the
Jewish people in Palestine and the Zionist movement of the world, met
together in solemn assembly today, the day of the termination of the British
mandate for Palestine, by virtue of the natural and historic right of
the Jewish and of the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United
Nations,
HEREBY PROCLAIM the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to
be called ISRAEL.
WE HEREBY DECLARE that as from the termination of the Mandate at midnight,
this night of the 14th and 15th May, 1948, and until the setting up of
the duly elected bodies of the State in accordance with a Constitution,
to be drawn up by a Constituent Assembly not later than the first day
of October, 1948, the present National Council shall act as the provisional
administration, shall constitute the Provisional Government of the State
of Israel.
THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open to the immigration of Jews from all countries
of their dispersion; will promote the development of the country for the
benefit of all its inhabitants; will be based on the precepts of liberty,
justice and peace taught by the Hebrew Prophets; will uphold the full
social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction
of race, creed or sex; will guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship,
education and culture; will safeguard the sanctity and inviolability of
the shrines and Holy Places of all religions; and will dedicate itself
to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be ready to cooperate with the organs and representatives
of the United Nations in the implementation of the Resolution of the Assembly
of November 29, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the Economic
Union over the whole of Palestine.
We appeal to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building
of its State and to admit Israel into the family of nations.
In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants
of the State of Israel to return to the ways of peace and play their part
in the development of the State, with full and equal citizenship and due
representation in its bodies and institutions - provisional or permanent.
We offer peace and unity to all the neighboring states and their peoples,
and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the
common good of all.
Our call goes out the the Jewish people all over the world to rally to
our side in the task of immigration and development and to stand by us
in the great struggle for the fulfillment of the dream of generations
- the redemption of Israel.
With trust in Almighty God, we set our hand to this Declaration, at this
Session of the Provisional State Council, in the city of Tel Aviv, on
this Sabbath eve, the fifth of Iyar, 5708, the fourteenth day of May,
1948.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/israel.htm
Ray Vickery, Canada
While in large measure, Phil Karasick's comments speak
for themselves, I feel obliged to answer is charge that I hate "the
State of Israel and indeed, quite likely...of all Jews. " This is
simply untrue, and once again, I'm interested about what the source of
his information could be. Once again, it could be divine revelation from
a tribal god.
I do have a distaste for the ad hominem argument, and feel that, in civilized
discoourse, people just have to agree not to do this sort of thing.
A summary of the Lancet article is available online, and I think anyone
who hasn't seen it might want to have a look.
The Israeli 1948 declaration is interesting. One should note that the
United States recognized the State of Israel seventeen minutes after this
declaration was released. The UN, at the time, if memory serves, hoped
to create one nation, embracing both Jews and Arabs, but the United States
(and the Soviet Union) made this impossible.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
I, too, think it would be a very good idea for people to
view the Lancet article online. I also think it would be a very good idea
for anyone reading the online article who is not so sufficently irrational
as to be emotionally inflamed and unable to view the material objectively,
to ask the Lancet article's creators some hard questions.
The first and foremost question I would ask is:
How could any reasonably intelligent person possibly take seriously a
"study" that examined less than 1,000 families in Iraq (a country
with a population of over 20 million people) and then tried to extrapolate
and project its conclusions onto the entire country of Iraq as a whole?
The tiny size alone of the sample group, as well as the obviously biased
and tainted nature of the sample, render the alleged "study"'s
conclusions to be too flawed to be taken seriously.
This is borne out by the "researchers" having made no mention
of whether the people they interviewed were Sunni Arabs (those most closely
associated with Saddam Hussein and who benefitted the most from Saddam's
brutal rule, in a country where they are the minority); Shi'ite Arabs
(those who, along with the Kurds, were nost heavily repressed by Saddam's
regime), Kurds, Turkmen or others. Obviously, those most directly associated
with the terrorist insurgency are going to suffer significantly higher
casualties. That is as it should be.
Yes, the US recognized the State of Israel seventeen minutes after the
declaration of Israel's founding was released. Mr. Vickery says that "one
should note" this fact (of which I take great pride as an American).
However, he fails to state what "conclusion" one should draw
as a result of "noting" it. Perhaps he thinks the conclusion
should be simply inferred. Or perhaps he thinks that by simply saying
"one should note" that fact, without stating what if any conclusion
"one" should draw from that fact, the result would be a "conclusion"
that is supposedly simultaneously "obvious" and yet so odious
that he chooses not to state it publicly for fear of proving with his
statements that he is indeed anti-Israel, as well as anti-Jewish.
I suggest that Mr. Vickery spend some time studying the actual and factual
history of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The UN had never "hoped to
create one nation, embracing both Jews and Arabs", nor did the United
States ever "make this impossible". The UN at the time clearly
intended from the very beginning to create two separate and equal nations,
one for Jews and one for Arabs. The reason this was impossible had nothing
to do with the United States. Rather, this was due to the fact that while
Israel accepted the rights of Arab states to coexist peacefully, the Arab
nations violently refused (and still refuse, to this day) to accept the
right of Israel to exist peacefully as a nation, and went to war intending
to destroy the State of Israel - four times, in four separate wars, in
fact.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
RE: Mr. Vickery and his comment that "The UN, at the
time, if memory serves, hoped to create one nation, embracing both Jews
and Arabs, but the United States (and the Soviet Union) made this impossible."
Here is some related information that will hopefully help him and others
to better understand the actual events of history as they relate to the
founding of the State of Israel.
see - PALESTINE FACTS http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_un_role.php
Ray Vickery in Soviet Canuckistan wrote: "I do have
a distaste for the ad hominem argument, and feel that, in civilized discourse,
people just have to agree not to do this sort of thing."
Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer
to the contentions made.
Ray Vickery previously wrote of me: "Perhaps he gets his figures
by divine revelation...perhaps a tribal diety speaks to him out of a burning
bush, or a bottle of bourbon."
To quote the Sages, "I think..." (Mr. Vickery) "doth protest
too much."
Mr. Ray Vickery wrote: "I do have a distaste for the
ad hominem argument, and feel that, in civilized discoourse, people just
have to agree not to do this sort of thing."
Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer
to the contentions made.
If Mr. Vickery doesn't like ad hominem arguments, perhaps he should avoid
launching such arguments in the first place. Contending, as he did, that
I obtained my facts through "divine revelation from a tribal god",
from a "tribal diety" who "speaks to him out of a burning
bush" or from "a bottle of bourbon", certainly qualifies
as an ad hominem argument in my book. As US Pres. Harry Truman once stated
so eloquently, if you can't stand the heat then stay out of the kitchen.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Here is an update about the situation in Iraq:
RECENT CRACKDOWN IN IRAQ PARALYZES INSURGENT CELL - see http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002198494_insurgents06.html
Ray Vickery, Canada
No. My reference to the burbon article wasn't an ad hominem
argument, it was sarcasm. Quite different.
When I oppose Israeli policy and someone states in reply that I obviously
hate Israel and possibly all Jews, that is quite clearly presenting an
argument, but the argument is based on who I (purportedly) am rather than
what I said. If what I say is valid, it is valid even if I am the most
awful person on earth: if it is invalid, it is invalid even if I am the
most wonderful person on earth.
Okay?
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
I have noticed that Mr. Vickery seems to be in the habit
of making a substantial number of history-related claims that have turned
out to be incorrect. (I.E. claiming that the "the UN, at the time,
hoped to create one nation, embracing both Jews and Arabs, but the United
States (and the Soviet Union) made this impossible", claiming that
the dropping of The Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki "had nothing to
do with ending the war or saving American lives", etc).
I have also noticed that before making these false, incorrect and misleading
claims, Mr. Vickery tends to preface them with the words "if memory
serves correct".
This leads me to surmise that Mr. Vickery's difficulty lies in one of
two areas: (a) he learned the facts of History correctly at some point
in his life but now is not remembering them clearly, or (b) he never learned
the facts of History correctly in the first place.
The first possibility may be attributable to a breaking down of the memory
synapses and connections that often affects ones' body as we age. As a
possible solution, there are a number of excellent memory training and
memory retention techniques available which may be of some help to Mr.
Vickery.
The second possibility may be attributable to a general lack of knowledge
on the part of Mr. Vickery regarding the subject areas being discussed,
possibly combined with a rigid, dogmatic and emphatic disinclination and
refusal to accept Facts that may contradict Mr. Vickery's core beliefs.
As a possible solution, the Internet is filled with historical records
on almost any subject, so finding out the Truth of History is generally
a simple matter of exercising due diligence and doing thorough and proper
research.
Here is a good place to start, as well as an excellent search tool for
Mr. Vickery to use:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en
I hope these techniques and tools are useful and helpful to Mr. Vickery.
(No need to thank me, I am happy to help).
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Ray Vickery wrote: "If what I say is valid, it is
valid even if I am the most awful person on earth: if it is invalid, it
is invalid even if I am the most wonderful person on earth."
That's fine, but I would be interested in seeing your percentage of valid
comments exceed your percentage of invalid comments, regardless of whether
you are the most wonderful person on Earth or the most awful person on
Earth. For someone so seemingly well-educated, you seem to make a very
high percentage of statements that turn out to be incorrect.
As Vice-President Walter Mondale once claimed of President Reagan, "It's
not what he don't know that's the problem; it's what he 'thinks' he knows
that just ain't so!!!"
Michel Bastian, France
text: To Phil Karasick:
> The second possibility may be attributable to a general lack of knowledge
on the part of Mr. Vickery regarding the subject areas being discussed,
possibly combined with a rigid, dogmatic and emphatic disinclination and
refusal to accept Facts that may contradict Mr. Vickery's core beliefs.
That´s pretty steep coming from someone who had to be taught the
basics of his own country´s political system and constitution on
this very board. What was that proverb with the glasshouse and the stones
again, Phil?
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "That´s pretty steep coming
from someone who had to be taught the basics of his own country´s
political system and constitution on this very board."
Well, Michel, there's no question that you are well-informed about some
things. But claiming that you "taught me the basics of my own country's
political system and constitution on this very much" is assuming
a bit too much credit on your part for something you didn't actually do.
I was and still am quite familiar with the US political system and constitution.
And contrary to one of your comments, the US Congress previously has rewritten
US Supreme Court decisions and likely will do so again, too. I'd be happy
to supply the evidence (something I think I generally do), but a Google
search turned up far too many hits for me to parse through individually,
so I'll have to get back to you on that.
