|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
|
So, what does America need for defenses and what s... Confronting Empire "Still, many of us have dark ... ArabNews: US Is Frightening the World "... the d... Public prayer fanatics borrow page from enemy's sc... bush is the hero for a new age? HAHAHAH!!! Its am... "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but ... Random Thoughts: Random Thoughts is a place where ... Wash. Lawmakers Boycott Muslim Prayer Why hasnt t... 1) Think Tanks. I listen to NPR on a pretty regula... Watched the season finale of the bachelorette. I k... Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
Wilco The Flaming Lips The New Radicals John Mayer Zero 7 Dream Theater Radiohead Death Cab for Cutie The Notwist O.S.I. Ani Difranco The Shins Elliott Smith Badly Drawn Boy Chroma Key Coheed and Cambria The Streets Andrew Bird Sufjan Stevens Atom Site Feed 
|
3.07.2003
U.S. Troops Use 9-11 for Inspiration ::shivers:: My nomination for the creepiest article I've read yet. The point of the article seems to be that the military is deliberatly tying the 9/11 attacks, the war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq all together. ``The reason I'm here is Sept. 11,'' said Ensign Robin Barnett, 30, a naval intelligence officer aboard the USS Kitty Hawk, one of three U.S. aircraft carriers operating in the Gulf. ``This person obviously hates the United States of America,'' Barnett said, referring to Saddam." Ouch, I am reminded of the scene in Starship Troopers where the troops head off to fight the Bugs for revenge. What I seem to have a problem with is the logic. I know, you ask, what logic? Well, the logic goes: 1) we have been attacked 2) we dont want to be attacked again 3) therefore, we must attack/prevent anyone that may attack us in the future There is a certain amount of merit to this line of reasoning. For instance, al-Qaida has proven that they have the motive and the will to commit crimes against the United States. They have commited a crime, so the people that have done so should be apprehended and prevented from doing it again. This also happens to be the law in the US as well. After their guilt is proven they will be punished. Ok, fair enough. So now we move onto Iraq. Iraq has not commited any crime against the U.S. They are however in violation of UN resolutions who would then hold the legal authority to enfore them. The Bush administration asserts that the crimes of 9/11 (commited by al-Qaida remember) warrants action against Iraq. The reasoning goes that since one organization commited crimes against us, another with similer characteristics will do so as well. But here's where I get confused. One: because Iraq has never to my knowledge professed a desire to destroy the United States. They have violated laws and commited atrocities in their own "Neighborhood" as Bush puts it, but that is different to my mind. Two, Iraq is not idealogically driven like the 9/11 terrorists were. Iraq is the product of a dictator that is pushing for power in his own country and more power in his region. The way I see it, Sadaam Hussein is an old problem, a egomanical leader that is abusing his power to commit crimes in the name of control. All of his actions fit that mold. On the other hand al-Qaida is driven by a different set of goals. They are not a state like Iraq. Their membership is not based on any sort of geography. The people of Iraq don't always choose to join Saddam, the people in al-Qaida do. They derive their power from opposition to a perceived injustice, much like other extremist groups. Like minded people band together to acheive goals. Anti-American terrorist groups get their support from the feelings of hate towards the U.S. that results in actions or perception of the United States. In large part we are a symbol of power and we are scapegoated for all manner of crimes that we have either commited or not commited. Any action that we take will be used in some way or another for recruiting new members for terrorism. So the goal should be to acheive the results we want: preventing attacks, while at the same time minimizing the amount of hate, fear and resentment. An invasion of Iraq without the clear and legal authority to do so will no doubt play into the hands of anti-american elements. . Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists -- terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people. - President Bush on March 6, 2003 assertion 1) Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes -- true assertion 2) He possesses weapons of terror -- Not Proven assertion 3) He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists -- Not Proven assertion 4) Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country -- Not at all proven, even remotely assertion 5) ...and to all free people -- bald faced assertion and hyperbole What's wrong with this picture is that the case for invading Iraq rests on the last few assertions, which incidently happen to be the weakest. The strongest case seems to be that a history of reckless behavior means that Saddam is so unpredictable that he could do anything. That's possible. So then the burden is to show that Saddam is incapable of rational thought. Which is hard to prove if you look at the events of history. Ambassador Willson and others that witnessed the First Gulf War have stated that Saddam was acting out of cold calculation. That indeed he thought he could get away with the invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. and the U.N. he assumed would not act to forcibly remove him. Gen. WAFIC AL SAMMARAI, Iraqi Military Intelligence: [through interpreter] Saddam thought any reprisals would be limited and would tail off with time. He thought that America's involvement in Vietnam had badly damaged its willingness to use military power. Vietnam had been an outright defeat, militarily and politically. A mistake, but not exactly the action of a madman. If being a hack at foriegn policy was enough to make you a threat "to all free people" then I have a few nominations of my own. So what you had in essence was a leader acting out of self interest. He wanted Kuwait for the money and the oil. He had tried to bluff them into paying him $10 Billion dollars but they had refused. He attacked figuring the US wouldn't want to get involved. Bush however saw the opportunity to take down one of the largest militaries in the Middle East and deal with Saddam and his potential power in the region. RICHARD HAAS: Saddam probably figured the Arab world and the world at large would bitch and moan for a couple of days and then people would get used to it and the world would essentially learn to live with it. And the United States, which had left Lebanon a decade before, and so forth, was not going to do anything. And even if the United States wanted to do something, the local Arabs would never do anything. They would never work with the United States and stand up to Saddam. So I think Saddam took the pretty intelligent decision that he could probably get away with it. So there goes assertion number one. Which is the building block for all the others. Without the basis for an irrational killer with his finger on the button there goes alot of the rest of the arguement. He possesses weapons of terror Ok, This is the sticky one, where we get into a game of he said, she said. Iraq maintains that it destroyed it WMD's and the United States says that they still have these weapons and that they are hiding them. On the issue of nuclear weapons: "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq," International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in a report to the U.N. Security Council. Iraq says that it destroyed the weapons facilities, the inspectors states that he sees no evidence of the revival. Does that mean that there is no chance that Iraq has nuclear weapons? No, but the onus of proof does shift to the accuser in this case. After all we can't prove that Mexico doesn't have nuclear weapons as well. All that we can establish is a high level of certainty. For Iraq however the bar has been placed very high. On the issue of chemical and biological weapons there is a difference. For as I understand it, the manufacture and storage of these weapon types is much easier. So here we have an issue proof again. But with a higher level of uncertainty. So the other question goes back to the willingness of Saddam to use these weapons against the United States. To do so he would have to have the willingness and the quantity. I don't think that there is a willingness. And to those that bring up 9/11 they say that we didnt know that al-Qaida was going to do anything to us. Well that's not true: "And when people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us before 9/11?" Former Tenn senator and actor Fred Thompson in a recent television ad supporting the invasion of Iraq. In fact there had been a previous attempt to blow up the very same World Trade Center buildings before with speculation that Osama Bin Laden may have been involved. It is said that Ramzi Yousef trained in terrorist training camps in Pakistan. In the interview that CBS did with ABDUL RAHMAN YASIN , a participant in the first WTC bombings he says that he was recruited by Yousef to bomb Jewish neighborhoods in New York for revenge for what the Palastinians and Saudis were suffering through. He was eventually released by the FBI and he fled to Iraq where his family was from. There are some that suggest that this links the government of Iraq with terrorist activities in the U.S. STAHL: Do you think that Iraq was involved in the '93 bombing? POLLACK: I've seen the CIA and FBI reports, and there is nothing in them to suggest the Iraqis were themselves involved in the '93 World Trade Center attack. Of course, it still may be true. But once again it is a matter of proof. THE POWELL ARGUEMENT: It goes like this: 1441 said that Iraq must disarm or face the wrath of the U.N. and since they have not disarmed then they should be attacked and Saddam should be deposed. In a nutshell. This is true. But it squarely puts the legal authority of an invasion into the hands of the UN. They get to decide the timetable for disarmament and they must decide if the resolution is indeed enforced. This decision will be made by the Security Council and this is the cause of the ruckus going on at this moment. Several members of the UNSC have decided that they do not wish to proceed with the military enforcement of the resolution, but would instead proceed with more inspections. The United States thinks otherwise and is pushing for a second vote that would give them the legal means to enforce the resolution. For the US to attack Iraq without the UN support it would send the clear message that the US was determined to invade but was going through the security council to gain legitimacy. The calls that the UN will lose relavance if they choose not to follow the wills of US are absurd to say the least. Akin to saying that any democratic body must act in a prescribed manner. The manner in which the UNSC makes decision should be based on the wishes of the member states. As long as it does so it will remain relavant as a decision making body. However as soon as it is perceived to be the instrument of powerful government to do their bidding it will lose all trace of ligitimacy. Such may already be the case. I would argue that only by stopping the US at this point would sustain the status of the UN in the eyes of the non-western powers. My personal opinion is that the Security Council is not a democractic body by its very makeup. It was designed to serve the interests of the permanent members. They can always wield a veto to any resolution that threatens their interests. The US has done so for decades but now faces the possibilty that other permanent members see their interests as divergent to the United States. Thus the call for "relavance". I feel that some members of the Security council are not just acting out of a sense of morality or justice but are in fact acting out of their own self-interest. They are concerned that further control of energy resources will put the US in a better position to dictate terms of trade agreements and foriegn government policies. Not to mention the economic ransom that some may feel at having to come to the United States for their energy. But that is a nutshell is my analysis of the Invasion of Iraq situation. If I missed anything let me know. satumma@hotmail.com | |
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
