I hate being right

Your profile says you're from the Netherlands so I'm going to assume that is your government... If I'm wrong ignore the following.If I am right, then you can't really say anything. The Dutch government had no balls at all during the Iraq fiasco. It sat on the fence until the war started, then declared itself in support of the US. And is now about to, or in the process of, sending troops to Iraq to help the US occupation which has exhibited no plans on how to actually help the Iraqis.I realize that the majority of people in the Netherlands were critical of the US and the war. But the Dutch government played along with the US just as well as any of the rest.This was particularly embarrassing to me since I have always held the Dutch government up as a more rational government. Well maybe it's mainly Balkenende's fault, but in the US it's Bush's fault. Which means it is the government's fault of both countries equally.To my mind the only governments who did right in this conflict were: France, Germany, Russia, Canada, and Belgium. For Pete's sake even Belgium showed more cahones then the Netherlands!------------------
holmes

Rrhain was correct in stating that it may be the Iraqis were afraid of what the US would use.And as it turns out they were more than likely correct.As the war was just beginning, the Guardian had an article on the US's intended use of chemical-weapons in Iraq.
Chemical hypocrites | George Monbiot | The GuardianObviously those were "non-lethal" but in sufficient quantities? And either way the Iraqis would have to protect themselves from such gases just the same.I was always surprised that that bit of information never became the major uproar it should have been.------------------
holmes

US troops--- fearing chemical attack--- were issued protective gear. As anyone who watched the continuing coverage of the Iraq War should know, our soldiers did not wear that gear unless there was an imminent threat of attack.Alarms would sound, orders would come and soldiers would don the gear until such time as they didn't have to anymore.I can only assume that Iraqis would be no different. That kind of gear is incredibly uncomfortable and greatly reduces combat capability (unless chemicals are in the air).------------------
holmes

No offense, but you obviously don't know how protective gear is used in the military, or why. Check out Rrhain's more lengthy description (right above this one) for a good explanation.In short, the point of the military is to move fast and strike hard. People in protective gear do neither. Only when a strike is thought imminent, or highly likely in certain areas, would troops consider using such things.As it is a general criticized Bush for having encumbered his troopsby forcing them to haul such gear around and wasting their time with donning that gear everytime a missile was headed their way, if the administration had no real evidence Iraq had such weapons.------------------
holmes

By all accounts Saddam Hussein is still very much alive.It is almost beyond question he survived the war itself. His assured demise was claimed at least 3 different times by army intel until they finally started looking like Baghdad Bob (the Iraqi info minister).There is a possibility he died sometime afterward in any number of missile strikes on cars roaming around Iraq.But this is unlikely as even US sources of info have said he is still among the living. Just this week the army announced it is closing in and thinks it has him pined somewhere in Tikrit. It is doubtful they would say this if they didn't think he was alive.In fact, some US official (maybe Rice?) this week said that he is likely to be caught as he is running out of money and had very few friends to begin with, while Osama Bin Laden still has lots of money and lots of friends. Why our government has then wasted so much time and effort pursuing Saddam, rather than Osama (who was behind 9-11 and still poses a greater threat) that official did not say.If Saddam really wanted to stay alive and untouched by the military he should have had plastic surgery to look like the Iraqi info minister. That guy was so low on the totem pole he was actually turned away by US forces when he tried to hand himself in.------------------
holmes

That's right the good 'ol USA took care of that butcher all right. We gave Saddam munitions, including that very mustard gas he used on Kurds! Heck, Rumsfeld gave him the weapons with a smile, and when Saddam gassed those kurds he told people angry with Saddam to get bent.You do realize every hack cliched opinion you expressed in your post has already been shot to hell in this thread? Yes, look at Hitler and Saddam and BinLaden... they all believed that war is hell, but sometimes it's the only way. That's why people have to think different from them to preserve peace in this world.The fact is no one was in a position of appeasing Saddam, ala Chamberlain. International forces (real international forces) kicked his lame tyrannical ass out of the country he tried to take over. No one was giving him territory.It might be noted that he only attacked that country because the US had granted him so much power and essentially a greenlight to do so (Bush sr really fumbled on that one).Grand Munchausian dreams aside, please tell me what actual threat Saddam posed to any country? What was the necessary reason to end peace, and wage war against that country at this time?He was contained and diminishing in power, and unlikely to aid Islamic extremists UNLESS we went to war.Now that we have thrown him out of power by killing over 10 thousand human beings, at least 5000 of which were completely innocent, and had no plan to protect the Iraqis in the aftermath of war--- so stranding them without basic utilities and humanitarian services--- please explain why this war was so good for anyone.To have made the claims you made before the war would at least have been excusable, at this point it is extraordinary. Crafters of the war (except Bush politicians) are admitting this war was a fiasco, and probably unnecessary.There is no question Iraq has been destabilized and even the "good 'ol USA and allies" are unable to dig ourselves out of the mire we jumped into.This is without question.No joke, your entire post looks like some German in late 1944 saying how wonderful Hitler's strategy was, and how necessary it was for peace an prosperity in the world.Can't you read the writing on the wall... or at least the newspapers?Or was this just a post that finally showed up, 4 months late?------------------
holmes

Ahhhh, back from lunch and I realized I had a bit more to say. Have you heard about the shock soldiers (aka the involuntary "human shields" of Bush foreign policy) got after the invasion? They found the common Iraqi roundly loathed the invasion and occupation by Americans, though they are glad Saddam has been pushed out, were not in favor of the method employed, and feel this has left them worse off.My question to you defender is since most Iraqis are definitely of the opinion that they hate the American occupation, and can point quite easily to the dead, injured, and distraught Iraqis that US forces have created-- and continue to create--- does this mean some other country can now invade to cast off OUR regime?After all, as long as the new invaders kill less Iraqis than we did, and repair infrastructure faster, according to your formula that would makes them righteous. If these new invaders happen to be Islamic than they would certainly have greater support than American forces.My guess is you will only apply your logic in half measures.By the way, I'm aware of the irony that I find myself defending some basic Xtian principles by a poster with the nic defenderofthefaith. Exactly what faith are you the defender of?------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-09-2003]

Like the 10,000+ Iraqis lying dead, and the millions of Iraqis suffering to even greater degrees than they had under Saddam?I notice you never answered my question. Your formula would excuse anyone, including the French, from rolling in and attacking us. For the 10.000+ dead, or the millions of suffering Iraqis who say they want us out now? Most Iraqis say they are worse off now than before.And who are you to speak for them? You wrote complaining about your terrible NZ government which is about to oppress your people by taxing the farts of cows. So should the US decide to get on that and "free" your people by dropping bombs all over your houses, taking over the government, and then shooting anyone who says they don't want the government we'd install? That's the first correct assessment you have made. Saddam was all about staying in power for himself. NOT directing Islamic fundamentalist attacks against the US, or any other attack which might rob him of his empire.And the answer to a man like this was to bomb the innocent population he was dominating, and put ourselves in his place?At this point don't you get part of the reason he was so domineering? He was using an iron fist, as we are now, to impose one government on an extremely divided nation, and preventing Islamic fundamentalists from botching up the works.In fact that's the reason the US armed him. And by the way France was no bigger ally of Saddam than anyone else. They recently had more oil contracts. Gee, after bombing Iraq futher back into the stone age now we do.Guess who had more contracts with the Taliban? **cough** Dick Cheney**cough cough**. Maybe that's why we nailed Saddam harder than BinLaden. We already had financial control of Afghanistan.What's really stupid to me is none of you get that even when a true Iraqi government is installed, according to our models, that doesn't mean jack.Didn't any of this interest you enough to pick up some history books, or do some digging on the net? This has all been done before.Lawrence, as in Lawrence of Arabia fame, helped the British destroy the "horrible" Iraqi government about 100 years ago. They even used planes to "shock and awe" Iraqis into submission. Heck, they even installed a good 'ol puppet government.Guess what? It didn't work then and the Iraqis eventually overthrew that government which was going to be the model of governments in that region forever. Then the long years of strife between all ethnic and religious divisions, gave us Saddam.I'm trying to figure out why anyone thinks they are about to be better off any time soon. Is the money suddenly going to be spread to everyone? Or the few we put into power? Are they going to continue having socialized medical, or will we strip them of that to match the great capitalist medical system the US has (and then sell them healthcare)?As it is, we have broken international laws by saying their oil revenues will pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. BY LAW an invading and occupying power must assume all costs of reconstruction. That means we are stealing from the Iraqis and their future.That means they get a less rosy future and much more poverty, so we don't have to foot the bill for the damage.This said, Saddam's removal did present an OPPORTUNITY for change for the better. That I will freely admit. But we had no plan on how to maximize that opportunity to benefit Iraqis (for god's sake we have even housed our headquarter's in Saddam's palaces), and unless a less biased organizing structure comes into play, I don't see how it's going to play any different than when Britain "freed" them 100 years ago.By the way I don't know if you heard that during this invasion, some Iraqis who were happy to see US forces actually tried stoning British forces, because of their lingering feelings of hostility from the British occupation. And that was like 100 years ago!I really hope the international community can rescue this fiasco, because the Iraqis deserve better than the treatment they've had for a long long long time. With very few exceptions, most major Xtian leaders pronounced this war unnecessary and against the teachings of Christ.Do you know something they don't know? How is slaughtering people to install a new regime and ensure OUR regime stays in place (that's what we are doing now) any better than what he did? We don't use as cruel of methods to kill the ones we need to eliminate?How does any of this fit with Christ's teachings?------------------
holmes

Actually this is a reply to both wounded king and MrHambre. I simply chose H because he was the last person to say the above, and since I have always been in agreement with him (and love his writing) I am curious about this departure.I do not understand why criticizing them is like shooting fish in a barrel.Historically they are no more or less guilty than any other nation, specifically with regard to Iraq.What's more, the position they took on Iraq was the most intelligent position championing peace and rule of law, over the fallacies of war and chaos, that I have seen in some time.The speech that Villepin gave at the UN (which resulted in one of the only standing ovations by any speech given at the UN) was brilliant. And it wasn't just a showpiece.They have maintained a consistent course which has actually made me turn from being a French-humbugger (In a tour of Europe I actually avoided France), to wishing I was from France. The statements and positions the French have taken made Powell and Bush look like scared yokels picking off anything that moves in their neighbors yard because they're afraid of an invasion from mars.Perhaps the best word I can use to describe their action is... sane.Kofi Annan has also impressed me with his ultra-cool head in the tactics of debate and coalition building (more so than the French). But the reasoning on approaches to the world's problems... sanity.Maybe I missed something. What have the French done, other than inventing mimes, and being cranky and a bit pretentious that makes them in any sense guilty of something worthy of ACTUAL criticism?I might remind some of the rightwing true patriots that without the French we wouldn't have a United States at all.I was actually wondering when all the lunatics renaming fries and pouring out wine, were going to realize the statue of liberty was French. I thought it would be an apt sign of the times if we tore it down and sent it back to them out of spite for not agreeing with us. And then of course spitting on all the founding fathers for being French-lovers.------------------
holmes

Sacre bleu, I remember Napoleon, but exactly how much worse was he to other Europeans than our "democratic" government was to the Native Americans?If anything at least the French can say they got swindled by a singular power hungry madman. Who can the Americans point to but themselves for what amounts to a nearly successful genocidal campaign against the "savages" of whose very existence our forefathers lamented.In fact, didn't we go on our little genocide after buying the lands from Napoleon? I don't remember the US trying to stop him either.So what it looks like to me is that at the same time we were pals with Nap, we were commiting the same exact atrocities he was... only by fighting a relatively unarmed opponent we were much more successful.I'm not an apologist for French history, it's bad and bloody. I'm just trying to figure out how it can be so easy to pick on them, given our own "savage" history.On a side note--- I hope this debate isn't souring things between us MrH. If I seem too harsh in a response, just let me know. I think you are quite brilliant and witty and don't want to risk accidentally offending you over some trivial topic like France.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-11-2003]

Ah that makes more sense to me. And yeah I still have the normal kneejerk American giggle at the cultural idiosyncracies of the French. But I've become a lot more sensitive of claims they are cowardly or into things just for the money.------------------
holmes

Do you mean facetious like Rumsfeld and Cheney claiming we must go to war because Saddam is a horrible tyrant for using weapons they sold to him, against people that we wanted him to kill at the time?Facetious like Powell visiting those same people Rumsfeld helped Hussein murder and announce that they were the reason we went to war? Lying to them that the US had protested Iraq's actions at the time (historians quickly took exception to that)? And that the WORLD should have removed Saddam sooner?Facetious like various US officials visiting dug up mass graves of 1000's of Iraqis that are at least 10 years old and pointing to that as the reason we went to war, while ignoring the mass graves being dug for the 1000's of fresh Iraqi corpses we just created?Facetious like claiming that if weapons inspectors hadn't found anything in 3 months they were never going to find them because it would be really easy without Saddam's interference, then turning around and 6 months after gaining control of Iraq saying it'll take time to find weapons?Facetious like claiming that war is the quickest path to peace, that it will lead to greater stability in Iraq, and that it will decrease religious fundamentalist strongholds there?Facetious like claiming that this has nothing to do with oil, then protecting ONLY oil resources, and instead of keeping it for Iraqis, selling it off to pay for the reconstruction efforts which is in violation of international law?Yeah, Chirac allowed the sale of a nuclear reactor to Iraq. Israel and Iran (both of which were its adversaries) wanted to destroy it. And ultimately did so.But let me ask you this as you snub Chirac. He said the war would destabilize Iraq and lead to needless loss of life, particularly since the reasons to go to war that Bush and Blair were citing (the WMDs) may not even be real. He advocated continued and reinforced UN measures to make sure Saddam stayed put and defanged.This was his "claim" regarding humanitarian concerns.Whether you think he meant them or not (nevermind countless other nations said the same thing), didn't he turn out right?Didn't we throw a war for what turns out to be no reason except to install a government which will be under our thumb, and grab oil revenues?There are no WMDs. Not even a hint of them (and believe me I expected them to find at least leftovers to a weapons program). And now our leaders have conpletely backed off that claim and say it was all about freeing them from a tyrant.Only now there is more discord and chaos then ever. And even if we manage to get a government installed there will be no removing the fundamentalist elements we were supposed to be worried about!There was a time when war was considered the last option of peaceful nations. Under Sharon/Bush/BinLaden we now see this sanity has been overthrown. Now it is "war is necessary to have peace." In other words, screw diplomacy because it is too slow and you might not get what you want. Since WE are blessed by God our weapons will crush THE ENEMY BEFORE HE CAN GAIN POWER TO STRIKE! The new peace:eternal war!------------------
holmes

There were many other things I could have put on the list, but clipped due to an attempt at brevity and some things slipping my mind.Watching the news over lunch I had a total V8 moment about something else I should have had on the list.How about the entire Bush administration hyping Saddam and 9-11 at the same time, until the issues became synonymous, even telling troops that this invasion would be a result of 9-11, yet this week announcing to 70% of the American public (what the other 20+% knew all along)... Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11!------------------
holmes

Actually it was yesterday, and perhaps repeated once again today that Bush came clean on his Iraq claim. That's why the news at lunch reminded me. They had a clip of Bush telling reporters that Iraq had no direct role in 9-11... of course he did add that they had ties to Al-Queda.Nevermind of course that it was revealed more recently that by "ties with Al-Queda" Wolfowitz or one of his associates admitted it was really only one guy and he was not a lieutenant of BinLaden's but more of a loose associate. Some lowranking AQ soldiers did come to train in Iraq with the knowledge of Iraqi intelligence, but ahem they also trained in the US with the knowledge of US intelligence.Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.------------------
holmes

Rei, you seem so tuned into everything I'm tuned into. I think... I think... I think I'm falling in love.hehehehIf you have anything to say about the Israeli-Palestinian issue (especially backing me up on Sharon's atrocities) I'd love to see what you have to say in the "I don't understand the Palestinian situation" thread.But to keep this post on topic, while rrhain may be right that torture did occur, you are so right that it is the same torture going on everywhere in that part of the world (and the US "renders" prisoners to that area for that very reason). Uzbhekistan's leader has the Hussein boys beat by some degree... But hey he's our friend on the war on terror so who are you to question his methods?Knowing that you like the Onion, have you ever read "Get your war on"? The site is at
www.mnftiu.cc | David Rees and his various projects
Just click on the "Get your war on" link. That guy is on top of things and he's hilarious. He's the only comedian I know dealing with Uzbhekistan at all.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-25-2003]