BILL JEMAS ON 411 [Archive]

MattBrady

03-06-2003, 06:28 PM

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/Marvel/411_FINAL_t.jpg" width="175" height="263" border="0" align="right">The following is an open letter received from Marvel President Bill Jemas

After reading on-line comic community reactions – positive and negative – to Marvel’s 411 announcement, I wanted to share with all of you, the foreword to the first book.

<center>411 Foreword</center>

<center>“No greater love can a man have, than when he lays down his life for a friend.”</center>

<blockquote>Creators from many different countries and very diverse backgrounds contributed the stories you are about to read. Marvel did not seek to control the content of these books. We just asked for "the 411 on peace."

Yet, as story after story came in from creators, one common theme shone through: Your enemy, even your mortal enemy, is a member of the family of man…a member of your own family. 411 is about people who live by this principle. 411 is about peacemakers: people who make sacrifices in the name of humanity. These are people willing to die to keep all of us – on all sides – alive.

Stories about peacemakers are particularly difficult to tell with America on the brink of war. The part about self-sacrifice is easily understood, because self-sacrifice is, after all, the essence of being a soldier: a Christian soldier sacrificing his life in battle is a hero, just as a Muslim soldier giving his life in battle is a hero. An Iraqi soldier dying for his country is a hero to his people just as an American soldier dying in the name of freedom is a hero to his.

But the theme of sacrifice for the sake of peace, for the sake of all of humanity, is hard for many Americans to accept right now, with the hearts and minds of the body politic rising in a patriotic furor. You see, for any nation to engage in war, the most inhumane human enterprise, its people must believe that their enemy has given up the right to be treated as human beings – in short, that they deserve to die. In wartime, looking for the humanity in your enemy can’t help but be seen – by patriots – as unpatriotic.

I hope that you will read this book in the spirit that the comic creative community intended it. These stories are neither anti-America nor anti-Iraqi, not anti-French nor anti Israeli. 411 is pro-human. It is a tribute to peacemakers, to people who turn the other cheek in the face of violence; people who refuse to lose sight of the fact that their enemies are part of their own community.

Bill Jemas, 3/6/03</blockquote>

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/Marvel/Quitely.jpg" width="300" height="296" border="0" align="left">Like every significant Marvel announcement in the last few years, 411 spurred its share of squabbles within comic book circles, as evidenced by the on-line message boards. It occurred to me, while reading through the 411 posts, that spirited argument plays an important role in keeping a community, like ours, together.

I know that sounds strange, because all that name-calling, finger-pointing and groin-kicking seems pretty divisive at first. But if you step back and look at the industry and art form as a whole, you’ll see hundreds of thousands of people moving in the same general direction with a few hundred of us typing and posting like crazy, trying to keep our flock together.

Internal debate has been part of comics for as long as we have been a community, and the debates have been growing more vociferous the industry has ended its period of stagnation and started to advance. To me, at least, this is all very natural – and very positive.

I try to spur DC to use AOL’s vast resources to help us reach new fans – I do that that by kicking them in the pants, in public, every once in a while. Traditionalists (a.k.a. fan boys) try to encourage Marvel, and me in particular, to uphold the longstanding storytelling traditions – they do that by knocking me in the head when they know I’m looking their way. When any member of the flock gets too far out of line, each of us tries to nudge and nip them back in the “right” direction – in what we feel is the best direction for the community.

I am writing this now to ask you to think about the difference between this electronic “town hall” we have in comics, and the increasingly hysterical rhetoric of war rising all over the world right now. The former tends to keep us all in the fold, working together, and moving forward; the latter is intended to dehumanize our opponents, first to cull them and then to kill them.

Here’s to hoping that our political and spiritual leaders – all of them, all over the world – engage in the kind of discussion that we have in our little land of comics.

[i]For more on 411, click <a href="http://www.newsarama.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=00015 5" target="_blank"> here</a>.

Tom Daylight

03-06-2003, 07:17 PM

Uh, I thought Arun Gandhi was writing the 411 foreword?

leez34

03-06-2003, 07:27 PM

I dislike Jemas as much as anyone, but anyone who thinks this is a bad idea is wrong. War is never right and I will never support it.

Nick Borelli

03-06-2003, 07:29 PM

Marville was awsome, so we should listen to the man!

ummm...err...where am I?
....drugs wearing off...feeling woozy...

I remember now!
It's in the ink! It's in the ink!

Must resist Marvel Comics...

Michael P

03-06-2003, 07:41 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MattBrady:
Your enemy, even your mortal enemy, is a member of the family of man…a member of your own family. <hr /></blockquote>Careful, Bill; that kind of talk can get you arrested these days.

arthur pendragon

03-06-2003, 07:43 PM

I hope readers and retailers respond to this latest IQ test from Marvel.

I'm glad that Jemas is trying to get DC to use their vast resources to reach out to new readers. Calling them AOL comics is only part of the equation, though. I commend Marvel for providing a forum that the comics community can communicate in, and I urge DC to follow suit.

It's not surprising that war fever is sweeping the comics community. After all, in Jemas' own words they're people living in their parent's basement and the closest thing they've got to female companionship is their Elektra comics.

Also, remember when Bill Jemas said in response to the online community's responses to one of his columns at AICN, "The best part was that a few honest, angry, naïve AICN regulars replied to the fake posts with stuff that was funnier and/or remarkably more dumb than anything I could have imagined."

I read the first two issues of Marville(for free, natch)and I think Mr. Jemas underestimates his capacity for insipid imaginings.

Trash talking the competition, retailers, readers, and talent that no longer works for them has served Marvel well, so I hope this foray into the world of peacemakers is met with similar enthusiasm.

Pax

Michael P

03-06-2003, 07:57 PM

Does the back of your hand hurt from making that compliment, art?

Kerouac

03-06-2003, 08:26 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />You see, for any nation to engage in war, the most inhumane human enterprise, its people must believe that their enemy has given up the right to be treated as human beings <hr /></blockquote>Except that, regardless of what you think about Pres. Bush, the removal of Hussein would ALLOW the Iraqi people to be treated as human beings.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> War is never right and I will never support it. <hr /></blockquote>Yes, I'm sure the Jews rescued from concentration camps and the African-Americans freed from slavery as the result of wars would feel the same way (that's sarcastic, btw)...

Matt

Rich Johnston

03-06-2003, 08:56 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kerouac:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />You see, for any nation to engage in war, the most inhumane human enterprise, its people must believe that their enemy has given up the right to be treated as human beings <hr /></blockquote>Except that, regardless of what you think about Pres. Bush, the removal of Hussein would ALLOW the Iraqi people to be treated as human beings.
<hr /></blockquote>Dead human beings, but human beings nevertheless.

jawaplumber

03-06-2003, 09:10 PM

As much as I've come to appreciate, enjoy, and love the Marvel of today (having been a naysayer for some time prior), Bill Jemas still makes my jawa-sense tingle a bit. I have a hard time believing his whole excuse about busting DC's chops because it's for their own good and the industry's own good. I sometimes see stuff like The Call and 411 as a way for Jemas to cash in on current events in the world today, more than the noble act he claims it to be. And in general, I find him obnoxious, egotistical, and his MARVILLE comic to be a huge stinking pile of crapola.

The fact of the matter, however, is that under the guidance of Quesada and Jemas, Marvel is a whole hell of a lot better than it once was. And as unsure as I am about the true intentions behind 411 (at least from Bill Jemas' side of things), it is still a worthy cause and something like this can only be good for comics, and for all of us as human beings. I believe I will now be buying 411. And I say this today as someone who is very pro-war on Iraq. I look forward to finding 411 on the shelves of my local comic book store, and I can look past my personal feelings regarding Bill Jemas to give it my support.

jawaplumber

03-06-2003, 09:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Rich Johnston:
[QUOTE]Dead human beings, but human beings nevertheless.<hr /></blockquote>Just like the dead human beings in the wake of 9/11, and the dead human beings who could be left in the wake of further attacks of terrorism on the United States and other countries. What's it gonna take for other countries to pack us up completely? A bomb directly on 8 Robin Hood Lane, Kingston Vale, London?

Graeme McMillan

03-06-2003, 09:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally written by Bill Jemas:
I am writing this now to ask you to think about the difference between this electronic “town hall” we have in comics, and the increasingly hysterical rhetoric of war rising all over the world right now. The former tends to keep us all in the fold, working together, and moving forward; the latter is intended to dehumanize our opponents, first to cull them and then to kill them.

Here’s to hoping that our political and spiritual leaders – all of them, all over the world – engage in the kind of discussion that we have in our little land of comics.<hr /></blockquote>You won't hear me saying this often, but right on, Mr. J.

I have new respect for the man after reading this.

Kerouac

03-06-2003, 09:35 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Dead human beings, but human beings nevertheless.<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, 'cause it's quite the humanitarian gov't that they live under now. The post-war Iraq would be SUCH a step down, right?

Matt

Jonas.Vesterlund

03-06-2003, 10:16 PM

If Jemas and Quesada always talked like this....but usually they do not.

Now it seems like it was "the others" that started attacked Marvel with harsh words. I have seen plenty of interviews with Mr. Quesada and Mr.Jemas were they sure do not show any respect for ther audience or ther competitors.

Now, who knows maybe they are MUCH nicer guys in reality, who knows.

I used to think "new" Marvel was a great "idea" then slowly, slowly changed my mind.

noitall

03-06-2003, 11:47 PM

QUOTE]Dead human beings, but human beings nevertheless.[/QB][/QUOTE]

This does not make any sense. Take any year,Hussein has killed more Iraqi people than the allied forces of the Gulf war. A little research would save people from self serving statements.Marvel President Bill Jemas, If I believed in what you believe in, I would work for Archie Comics.
Make Love not War.

the_conqueror

03-06-2003, 11:49 PM

This, just like anything else Jemas-related, is pure horseshit.

noitall

03-07-2003, 12:16 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jonas.Vesterlund:
[QB]If Jemas and Quesada always talked like this....but usually they do not.

Now it seems like it was "the others" that started attacked Marvel with harsh words. I have seen plenty of interviews with Mr. Quesada and Mr.Jemas were they sure do not show any respect for ther audience or ther competitors.

Now, who knows maybe they are MUCH nicer guys in reality, who knows.

Just to play tit for tat, Marvel is still waaaaay ahead in the harsh words to others. Which now means to "spur someone on" you can be rude and help them for thier own good too.

wyckedartyst

03-07-2003, 12:29 AM

The bottom line on this project is that artists will be able to express what they're feeling in our little world of comics. Some of the best work imho, were the "heroes"/2 volume 9-11/Moment of Silence tribute books that were created purely from the souls and the hearts of the creators. Events such as September 11th, War, inspire many emotions in many people, and this is just a forum for some of the artists to have their voices heard. If you don't agree with it...simple, don't buy it. Who cares that Jemas is running the show at Marvel...should I stop being a Yankees fan just because Steinbrenner is a tyrant? No, the fact of the matter is that the quality of the product on the field (read: the comics themselves) is what matters to me. Of course, it's just my opinion...I could be wrong.

JayQ

03-07-2003, 02:19 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />This does not make any sense. Take any year,Hussein has killed more Iraqi people than the allied forces of the Gulf war. <hr /></blockquote>As far as I know, a lot of the deaths in Iraq recently have been because of U.N. sanctions. I remember going to a lecture from this person opposed to the sanctions(he's scottish) and it was mention that they cant bring medicene in, do not have proper plumbing, they cant even have lead for pencils. When stuff like medicene or paper was brought it, it was for oil. They were some stats, but I dont remember all that right now. Oh the lecture happened post 9-11. And it could be argued that it was Hussiens fault that those sanctions were imposed, but how far is too far, before it does backfire. And it could be said it has, Saddam is as popular as ever in Iraq.
I mean Im not in favour of the war, but I believe terrorism is a problem. And it all has to do with resources, and the soulution should be that they should be shared. Its like a small population of the world, has the majority of its resources.

Kerouac

03-07-2003, 02:33 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> And it could be said it has, Saddam is as popular as ever in Iraq.
<hr /></blockquote>It's hard to gauge the popularity of someone who has his opponents killed by his death squads. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

That having been said, I will now sit and wait for someone to make the above statement into a joke about Ashcroft and Bush. I'd almost guarantee that I won't have to wait long...

Matt

Monkey in a Wheelchair

03-07-2003, 02:51 AM

You mean because Ashcroft and Bush are the same thing as Hussein? That IS funny. Thanks for pointing that out for us. You're all right, man.
-- chip

wraith

03-07-2003, 02:59 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JayQ:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />This does not make any sense. Take any year,Hussein has killed more Iraqi people than the allied forces of the Gulf war. <hr /></blockquote>As far as I know, a lot of the deaths in Iraq recently have been because of U.N. sanctions. I remember going to a lecture from this person opposed to the sanctions(he's scottish) and it was mention that they cant bring medicene in, do not have proper plumbing, they cant even have lead for pencils. When stuff like medicene or paper was brought it, it was for oil. They were some stats, but I dont remember all that right now. Oh the lecture happened post 9-11. And it could be argued that it was Hussiens fault that those sanctions were imposed, but how far is too far, before it does backfire. And it could be said it has, Saddam is as popular as ever in Iraq.
I mean Im not in favour of the war, but I believe terrorism is a problem. And it all has to do with resources, and the soulution should be that they should be shared. Its like a small population of the world, has the majority of its resources.<hr /></blockquote>Well from what I've heard from someone who is friends with an american newspaper reporter, saddam is anything BUT popular with the iraquie people. The people of iraq are NOT allowed to say ANYTHING bad about saddam out in public to a newspaper journalist, but they have found ways to express how much they HATE him in very discreet ways out of the watchful eye of the iraquie army.

I should also point out that a lot of the anti-american/anti-war marches are organize and led by people who are members of the communist party, and that their reasons for protesting have less to do with the war on iraq and more to do with them spousing/trying to get across their own political views. Let's be honest here for a minute, do you think you would have all of thes anti-war protest, if china or cuba were invading iraq? I sure as hell don't think so. The bottom line is that MOST of those anti-war protestors are full of CRAP.

BTW, Jemas and quesada are both full of CRAP, and the 411 book is going to flop, despite how much media attention this book may get.

Kerouac

03-07-2003, 03:03 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> You mean because Ashcroft and Bush are the same thing as Hussein? That IS funny. Thanks for pointing that out for us. You're all right, man.
<hr /></blockquote>Actually, I'm a pretty Republican kinda guy. I just find political rhetoric a bit tiresome, since both sides basically say the same things over and over about each other. When I said that about Hussein's thugs, I laughed and thought to myself, "Man, I give it five minutes, even at this hour, before someone says something about how Bush and Ashcroft are fascists, etc." I just thought it was worth pointing out that I could see the joke coming. I'm right behind Bush on opening up a war on Iraq, so don't declare me "all right" just yet, I suppose. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Matt

Rich Johnston

03-07-2003, 03:51 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jawaplumber:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Rich Johnston:
[QUOTE]Dead human beings, but human beings nevertheless.<hr /></blockquote>Just like the dead human beings in the wake of 9/11, and the dead human beings who could be left in the wake of further attacks of terrorism on the United States and other countries. What's it gonna take for other countries to pack us up completely? A bomb directly on 8 Robin Hood Lane, Kingston Vale, London?<hr /></blockquote>You really should think before you speak. London? Terrorism? Ever heard of the IRA?

I've been bombed before when I lived in Ealing, and been close to bombs that went off a couple of times.

I would not support a bombing of Ireland on that basis. Or a bombing of New York, where the IRA received so much funding. Or Mexico, which doesn't have many links with the IRA, but hey, it's on the same continent as the USA.

Again, what links to 9/11 and Iraq are you bringing up this time? Do remember that not only has Osama slagged off Hussein over the last couple of decades but, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Osama offered to assassinate Hussein on behalf of the Saudis.

Rich Johnston

03-07-2003, 03:55 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kerouac:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Dead human beings, but human beings nevertheless.<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, 'cause it's quite the humanitarian gov't that they live under now. The post-war Iraq would be SUCH a step down, right?

Matt<hr /></blockquote>And the usual straw man argument. Anti-war is not pro-Iraq. Some of the biggest voices against the war are those who have protested loudly against Iraq for twenty years... including the time when the West backed him and sold him chemical and biological weapons.

Rich Johnston

03-07-2003, 03:58 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by noitall:
QUOTE]Dead human beings, but human beings nevertheless.<hr /></blockquote>This does not make any sense. Take any year,Hussein has killed more Iraqi people than the allied forces of the Gulf war. A little research would save people from self serving statements.Marvel President Bill Jemas, If I believed in what you believe in, I would work for Archie Comics.
Make Love not War.[/QB][/QUOTE]

As would realising that a war to drive Iraw out of Kuwait is going to be a lot lot less bloody than a war to despose the regime of Iraq. We're talking an estimated Iraqi death count of over a hundred thousand here.

Being anti-war with Iraq is also not the same as being a pacifist. I quite happily supported action in Kososvo. But this is very different.

JayQ

03-07-2003, 04:00 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Well from what I've heard from someone who is friends with an american newspaper reporter, saddam is anything BUT popular with the iraquie people. The people of iraq are NOT allowed to say ANYTHING bad about saddam out in public to a newspaper journalist, but they have found ways to express how much they HATE him in very discreet ways out of the watchful eye of the iraquie army.
<hr /></blockquote>I stand corrected :D

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Let's be honest here for a minute, do you think you would have all of thes anti-war protest, if china or cuba were invading iraq? <hr /></blockquote>I think its more the fear of what America can do thats causing a lot of these protests.America is the most powerful nation on the planet. That and I think people are protesting because the real reason why they are going to war. Is it because of the oil or because of the threat of Iraq? I dont really know the answer.
Just my humble opinion

Mogwai

03-07-2003, 05:45 AM

I don't believe that any individual or Government doesn't agree with the fact that Hussain is a threat and should be removed from power. However, the idea of a war makes no sence to me. People want to free the Iraqi people by KILLING the Iraqi people. And we aren't just talking just soldiers, in the bombing raids there will undoubtedly be civilian casualties as well.

I don't believe that America or the UK have any evidence of weapons of mass destruction and they, as with the supposed "links" to Al-Quaeda, are simply an excuse. The US administration's motivation is oil. The UK governments motivation is trying to keep in favour with the Bush.

If either or both governments go it alone and do not secure UN backing, where will it end? Which country will be next? What about India or Pakistan who, not only have nuclear weapons, but are always on the verge of using them against one another. Surely those that already have weapons of mass detruction are far more dangerous than those that are years away from developing them.

And of it the purpose of this war is to free an oppressed people, what about China or most of Africa or any number of other countries across the world? Surely these need to be freed to?

If the UK and US governments are so intent on being a global police force and policy maker for other nations, then surely they have to pick the targets that present the biggest threat to other nations or that countries own people?

Anyway, great piece by Mr. Jemas. I have to say I hadn't heard of this, but I am very much looking forward to it now.

Lee

theodoros

03-07-2003, 06:16 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by wraith:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JayQ:
[qb]
I should also point out that a lot of the anti-american/anti-war marches are organize and led by people who are members of the communist party.<hr /></blockquote>My belly hurts... I laughed so much that it hurts. Do you still believe that the communists are the new-old enemy of the States? That they want you to... to... whatever you think that they want you to do?

HEAD HURTS TOO NOW!!!

theodoros

03-07-2003, 06:30 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mogwai:

<hr /></blockquote>You really have my respect.

By the way, i am going to read it maybe in my comic book shop, but I am not going to buy it. If the profit is going somewhere with a good cause, maybe...

Maybe it's time for Marvel to bring us back "War is Hell"? Does anyone remember this title? This is a good idea! Jemas pay me noooooooooooow!!

I think it's a good idea to publish it.

Clem Snide

03-07-2003, 06:39 AM

War on Iraq would primarily be a war of attrition waged against civilians, as has generally been the case.

Spend the money waging war on the sub-Saharan AIDS Holocaust, instead.

Incidentally, Rich J. seems to be taking stick partially on account of his UK residency. In point of fact, the grotesque homunculus Tony Blair is perhaps the most offensive participant in this affair, so don't assume that an anti-war stance means anti-US.

I'm hoping that Martin Sheen is correct, and that Blair's stance "has finished him in politics".

Robert Donovan

03-07-2003, 06:55 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Rich Johnston:
Some of the biggest voices against the war are those who have protested loudly against Iraq for twenty years... including the time when the West backed him and sold him chemical and biological weapons.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>This is what's so pathetic about the latest 'Why we must re-arrange the sand in Iraq' argument, of course... We KNOW that Saddam is an evil man who tortures and kills his own people. We know because WE told YOU that for all those years he was one of the West's best buddies and you were quite happy to flog him arms.</li> You didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people then, but now all of a sudden you do, despite the only real difference between Saddam now and Saddam then being that the latter always did what America told him to? Yeah, your humanitarian concern is *really convincing*...

Robert Donovan
</li> Actually, I think the pro-war camp could really make their various past associations with Saddam work for them:

'But Mr Rumsfield, how do you know he's got these weapons?'
'Because we sold them to him. Next question!'

El Argentino

03-07-2003, 07:29 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> should also point out that a lot of the anti-american/anti-war marches are organize and led by people who are members of the communist party <hr /></blockquote>BWAAAA-HAA-HA!!!!! Very Funny!!! ha,ha

Stop the chat about human beings, Bush don't care, it's all about the oil, OIL.
And remenber THIS: this year is the OIL, in the future will be WATER.

I don't have nothing against the people from ISRAEL, but how much people was killed from PALESTINA, eh? Mr Bush? human beings here too?, and EE.UU don't stop to send money and arms to ISRAEL.

I live in ARGENTINA, south America (No fanboy, South America is not a Country), so we get the news from different perspectives to see the "other side" so, please, people stop to eat the CNN crap and get a NOAM CHOMSKY book.

DON'T KILL FOR OIL!!! :mad: :mad:

IcarusX

03-07-2003, 08:39 AM

Who are we kidding this sod would have Saddam write a chapter if it got him more press......

Stuart Moore

03-07-2003, 09:33 AM

Let's not forget the Kurds, who effectively have their own democratic government in northern Iraq -- the kind of government we're supposedly interested in setting up in that country. We fought the Gulf War partly on their behalf; now, as part of our proposed deal with Turkey, we're talking about turning them over, lock stock and barrel, to the Turks, their enemies. (Most recent details here: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/international/middleeast/07KURD.html)" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/international/middleeast/07KURD.html)</a>

Turkey, of course, also has a democratic government -- and 90% of its people are opposed to helping us in our military action, despite our longstanding alliance.

Two democracies: One hates us, and we're talking about deliberately destroying the other. We've managed to piss off most of our allies in the course of this endeavor. And the rest of the world is supposed to trust that we're doing this to bring enlightened democratic principles to the Arab world?

Best,
Stuart

Karl Hamner

03-07-2003, 09:40 AM

If oil is the goal, why the hell did we leave in the first place? During the first Gulf War, 15 0f 18 provinces came under opposition control. It was only after Hussein signed the CEASEFIRE AGREEMENT that he was able to deploy helicopter gunships to wrest back control of the provinces. Prior to the ceasefire they would have been shot down by allied air power.

mario boon

03-07-2003, 10:30 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Karl Hamner:
If oil is the goal, why the hell did we leave in the first place? During the first Gulf War, 15 0f 18 provinces came under opposition control. It was only after Hussein signed the CEASEFIRE AGREEMENT that he was able to deploy helicopter gunships to wrest back control of the provinces. Prior to the ceasefire they would have been shot down by allied air power.<hr /></blockquote>Because the first Gulf War was about liberating kuwait. And it was such a succes the armies were so much deeper than they expected.
And remember the US allowed Saddam to crash the rebellion in the South by not helping the sunnites in their uprising against Saddam. The still feel betrayed by the US.
Dubya now says they must attack Iraq because they feel the US security is threatened by Iraq. Is Israel an American State now? Because that is Saddam's prime enemy and that's why he supports families from Palestinian suicide bombers like the Irish community in the US funded the IRA

gmull528

03-07-2003, 10:33 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Rich Johnston:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kerouac:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />You see, for any nation to engage in war, the most inhumane human enterprise, its people must believe that their enemy has given up the right to be treated as human beings <hr /></blockquote>Except that, regardless of what you think about Pres. Bush, the removal of Hussein would ALLOW the Iraqi people to be treated as human beings.
<hr /></blockquote>Dead human beings, but human beings nevertheless.<hr /></blockquote>Right. After all, the Iraqis are just brown-skinned Arabs, far inferior to us and not deserving of the freedoms and justice and dignity that we all take for granted. So who cares if their leaders gas them, experiment on them, rip their tongues out, and rip babies out of their mothers' wombs. To interfere with all that could get messy and kill a few of them and a few of us, and God forbid that any of us should die for the sake of our fellow human beings - which the Iraqis are not, of course, since they are just Arabs and can take torture and gassing a lot better than we can. No, we must rely on absolutes. War never solves any problem. It just interferes with our pleasures. Keep the Iraqis and the other oppressed peoples off of our TVs, please. We want to read our comic books in safety and tranquility and blessed denial. Peace, brothers.

aphterburn

03-07-2003, 10:49 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Rich Johnston:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kerouac:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Dead human beings, but human beings nevertheless.<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, 'cause it's quite the humanitarian gov't that they live under now. The post-war Iraq would be SUCH a step down, right?

Matt<hr /></blockquote>And the usual straw man argument. Anti-war is not pro-Iraq. Some of the biggest voices against the war are those who have protested loudly against Iraq for twenty years... including the time when the West backed him and sold him chemical and biological weapons.<hr /></blockquote>Straw man's argument? Well, let's give them a ribbon for protesting against Iraq for all the good it did. Hussein doesn't give two shits on a horse's head how much you loudly protest against him. The guy's not moving and he's NOT cooperating. So how do you propose we fix this situation hmm? Tickle him out of there?

Barry

03-07-2003, 10:55 AM

Hey Bill,

If you want us to start taking you and your projects seriously, how 'bout you and Joe start acting like you deserve it.

'Nuff said.

saiyanspider

03-07-2003, 11:01 AM

>>Yes, I'm sure the Jews rescued from concentration camps and the African-Americans freed from slavery as the result of wars would feel the same way (that's sarcastic, btw)...<<

yeah but those wars were about something. this one is just about oil

some_bloke

03-07-2003, 11:17 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Clem Snide:
 the grotesque homunculus Tony Blair<hr /></blockquote>I'd just like to congratulate you on that excellent turn of phrase!

And yes, I think it's a dead cert that blair will be out of power at the next election. Assuming he lasts that long. Labour's last best hope is to fling him as far out to sea as they can. Otherwise Charles Kennedy will be mopping the floor with votes.

beverins

03-07-2003, 11:20 AM

This war is senseless, and those who think that we are "liberating" the people of Iraq are badly mis-led by the speeches on TV. Since when has Bush been interested in humanitarian causes? Any cursory examination of his record in office shows that he doesn't give a rat's a$$ about humanitarian causes. Keeping the environment safe, as an example, is perhaps the greatest humanitarian cause of them all. He's just about destroyed the Clean Air Act for starters. All he cares about is money and the power that comes with money.

As for the "government" that will be installed once Saddam is dead.. guess what it will be? No, not a democracy. It's going to be a Dictatorship once again, under the leadership of a certain General Tommy Franks. Will he be the Benign Dictator? Who knows?

Of course, all the people in Iraq who will have had mothers, sons, daughters, fathers, brothers, even pets killed in our attack will then have reason to get angry with us. Dare we say that terrorism will get WORSE, and now they will come after us like they do Israel? Or how about like the IRA in London? You want that happening in the USA? It will, if we go through with this war.

gmull528

03-07-2003, 11:23 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by saiyanspider:
>>Yes, I'm sure the Jews rescued from concentration camps and the African-Americans freed from slavery as the result of wars would feel the same way (that's sarcastic, btw)...<<

yeah but those wars were about something. this one is just about oil<hr /></blockquote>Well, that's a nice, easy cliche answer to why we're going to war again. I guess that believing a lazy-minded cliche saves you the time it would take to look at Bush's actions from all sides.

Bush knows that this enterprise will possibly cost him the election. I think that it will, but I also think that he really believes he's doing it to protect the country - in other words, he thinks it's his duty. That's what I believe after having read tons of opinions and analyses from all quarters. I admit to my own biases as well. And Thomas Friedman is a major influence.

I think that this "war for oil" bit is simple-minded and just too easy.

My conclusion is that liberating Iraq is the right thing to do but that the Bush team has mismanaged things so far by being arrogant. So, in my opinion, we have the right policy but the wrong administration to carry it out. A smarter president would have the UN on our side by now.

beverins

03-07-2003, 11:31 AM

The only way to prevent a Vicious Circle like what is experienced in Israel now is to not start one in the first place.

Bombing Saddam to smitheereens may look cool on TV, but it will only create more problems.

Go back to playing Battlefield 1942 or SOCOM Navy Seals, fanboys. Real life is vastly different. It's not just about Kill 'Em All and Sort 'Em Out Later, this has very real consequences for everyone on this planet.

AND... AND.... even if you can argue that attacking Saddam is right and just (not even the Pope thinks it is, but hey, who's the Pope, eh? Just some guy in a robe...), you cannot argue that Bush's policy of Pre-Emptive Self Defense is anything but a very dangerous, world-unbalancing policy. Basically, the danger of this is that if we feel threatened, we will lash out at those that make us feel threatened.

Guess who's feeling threatened right about now?

North Korea. Which has Nukes that can reach "the western USA". They're feeling pretty antsy to Pre-Emptively Self Defend against the USA... and then the dominoes start falling. We nuke them back, china and russia nuke us, we nuke them back, and suddely Mad Max is a historical Dramatization rather than scifi..... ;-)

beverins

03-07-2003, 11:36 AM

Oil is hardly a cliche answer. Why, then, are we now hurriedly building a pipeline in Afghanistan after so many years? Hmmm? Talban was against it, right? Well, gee... Funny coincidence, that the Taliban "had to go" isn't it? And we still haven't caught bin Laden, that slippery devil. Hm...

No, oil is part of the equation, and the sooner you realize it, the better.

xdemon

03-07-2003, 11:40 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Michael P:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MattBrady:
Your enemy, even your mortal enemy, is a member of the family of man…a member of your own family. <hr /></blockquote>Careful, Bill; that kind of talk can get you arrested these days.<hr /></blockquote>As long as it's not on a t-shirt you wear to the mall! :D

theodoros

03-07-2003, 11:45 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by gmull528:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by saiyanspider:
>>Yes, I'm sure the Jews rescued from concentration camps and the African-Americans freed from slavery as the result of wars would feel the same way (that's sarcastic, btw)...<<

yeah but those wars were about something. this one is just about oil<hr /></blockquote>Well, that's a nice, easy cliche answer to why we're going to war again. I guess that believing a lazy-minded cliche saves you the time it would take to look at Bush's actions from all sides.

Bush knows that this enterprise will possibly cost him the election. I think that it will, but I also think that he really believes he's doing it to protect the country - in other words, he thinks it's his duty. That's what I believe after having read tons of opinions and analyses from all quarters. I admit to my own biases as well. And Thomas Friedman is a major influence.

I think that this "war for oil" bit is simple-minded and just too easy.

My conclusion is that liberating Iraq is the right thing to do but that the Bush team has mismanaged things so far by being arrogant. So, in my opinion, we have the right policy but the wrong administration to carry it out. A smarter president would have the UN on our side by now.<hr /></blockquote>I don't think that Bush is the real president in USA. There are people behind him that are telling him to make war. He is just a "Action Figure" (collect them all). He is just a person, not the real planet ruler.

As for the oil, it's just oil. We need it. Use greek oil in your salad. It's good for your health.... HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAH

Of course he doesnt' do it to protect his country. As for loosing the elections, everyone remembers that he never won any elections. People didn't care, didn't vote, couldn't find a winner.

You people forget too easy... too easy!

Are we going to talk about 411? I am not going to buy it. It's an opportunity for the year, next year everyone will sell it for 1$.

saiyanspider

03-07-2003, 12:03 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Michael P:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MattBrady:
Your enemy, even your mortal enemy, is a member of the family of man…a member of your own family.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Careful, Bill; that kind of talk can get you arrested these days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As long as it's not on a t-shirt you wear to the mall!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA

Stuart Moore

03-07-2003, 12:07 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by gmull528:

[/qb]<hr /></blockquote>Dead human beings, but human beings nevertheless.[/qb][/QUOTE]Right. After all, the Iraqis are just brown-skinned Arabs, far inferior to us and not deserving of the freedoms and justice and dignity that we all take for granted. So who cares if their leaders gas them, experiment on them, rip their tongues out, and rip babies out of their mothers' wombs. To interfere with all that could get messy and kill a few of them and a few of us, and God forbid that any of us should die for the sake of our fellow human beings - which the Iraqis are not, of course, since they are just Arabs and can take torture and gassing a lot better than we can. No, we must rely on absolutes. War never solves any problem. It just interferes with our pleasures. Keep the Iraqis and the other oppressed peoples off of our TVs, please. We want to read our comic books in safety and tranquility and blessed denial. Peace, brothers.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Why don't you ask the Arabs what they want? Not just the Iraqis -- the Turks and the Kurds. And why don't we "liberate" the Saudis, who live under a very similarly oppressive government to Iraq, and who spawned Al-Qaeda in the first place? Because they're our "friends"?

This is not about the liberation of Iraq, and I don't think it's just about oil either (though that definitely plays a part). This is about an expansionist American government wanting to make a grand colonialist statement about the might of the U.S. in the new world order. Trouble is, they're not just wrong, they're incompetent -- and increasingly NOT supported in this by the majority of the American people. Whether I agree with this administration or not (which, obviously, I don't), I wouldn't trust them to invade Delaware competently, let alone Iraq.

Best,
Stuart

Barry

03-07-2003, 12:14 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by gmull528:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Rich Johnston:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kerouac:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />You see, for any nation to engage in war, the most inhumane human enterprise, its people must believe that their enemy has given up the right to be treated as human beings <hr /></blockquote>Except that, regardless of what you think about Pres. Bush, the removal of Hussein would ALLOW the Iraqi people to be treated as human beings.
<hr /></blockquote>Dead human beings, but human beings nevertheless.<hr /></blockquote>Right. After all, the Iraqis are just brown-skinned Arabs, far inferior to us and not deserving of the freedoms and justice and dignity that we all take for granted. So who cares if their leaders gas them, experiment on them, rip their tongues out, and rip babies out of their mothers' wombs. To interfere with all that could get messy and kill a few of them and a few of us, and God forbid that any of us should die for the sake of our fellow human beings - which the Iraqis are not, of course, since they are just Arabs and can take torture and gassing a lot better than we can. No, we must rely on absolutes. War never solves any problem. It just interferes with our pleasures. Keep the Iraqis and the other oppressed peoples off of our TVs, please. We want to read our comic books in safety and tranquility and blessed denial. Peace, brothers.<hr /></blockquote>So I guess our next target is China or North Korea perhaps? Because, you know, they're big on the human rights and not carrying the nuclear weapons.

OF COURSE WE'RE NOT!! Why? Because we can't win! But we'll pretty much kick Iraq's ass. In terms we can all understand, it's called "Being a bully."

Remember, this has nothing to do with protecting America, ending terrorism or human rights. It's all about making the idiot in chief and his impotent administration look good in the wake of 9/11. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being naiive.

Nakedmanatee

03-07-2003, 12:21 PM

If nothing else is accomplished by 411, at least it's provoked healthy (and sometimes not-so-healthy) debate on the war in Iraq and war in general. Which, I think, is a pretty decent topic to be talking about. (As long as we bring it back around to the comic... Nothing like being on-topic, now is there.) <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
I don't think anyone that understands war is ever really for it. Which scares me about Dubya. I don't think he really understands it... He seems quite eager for it, actually.
But that doesn't mean that war isn't sometimes inescapable or even necessary. WWII, the Civil War, and oh yeah, that little shindig known as the Revolutionary War. (We were such little terrorists.)
Death is a natural thing. Killing someone... well, that takes either some deep forethought, enough to argue that it's worth doing to defy God, or no thought at all in complete obliviousness to the Holy Dude. People who think from time to time should always question it.
Me, I'm not so sure that this war in Iraq should be #1 on our "To Do" list. Frankly, I'm a little freaked out that the biggest reason we seem to be getting ready to spank the guy is because one day, Dubya announced that we should. Like one day, it mysteriously became the most important thing. I don't get it. It wasn't like one day Saddam was suddenly more evil than last Tuesday.
Do I think it has something to do with oil. Maybe. Maybe not. Dubya doesn't help by coming from Texas oil. And it REALLY doesn't help that he gets a hard-on anytime anyone mentions Alaska wilderness to him.
But in lieu of any different, dangerous behaviour from Saddam (the dictator isn't doing anything that he wasn't doing a couple years back), I have to look elsewhere for the reasons why our President would want to attack Iraq, like, yesterday.
Whatever happened to the time-honored "Don't tread on me"? "Speak softly and carry a big stick and "Don't start none, won't be none"? Now a more applicable summation of feelings might be "Make my day"?
I have a feeling that, as silly as it sounds, it might have something to do with Captain Marvel syndrome. (See! I'm talking about comics!) Without spoiling the last few issues of Captain Marvel, let me just say that lil' Dubya might just feel a need to prove to Daddy (and the world) that he can get the bad guys.
And well shoot, I don't know where that Osama guy is, I do know EXACTLY where that Saddam guy is. Problem solved and the Prez gets his trophy. (And besides all that, it takes all them pesky headlines off of the econonmy, which, by the way, ain't lookin' so hot.
I know that there are some conservatives out there that will support George W. Bush no matter what. Who will argue the benefits of the war just because, well, he's their *guy*, for pete's sake. I would ask them this...If Al Gore were President and making the *exact same choices*, would you support him? Or would you be tearing him down, paving way for a voice of reason?
Let me validate my geek credentials by closing with a Lord of the Rings quote.

Frodo: It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance.
Gandalf: Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.

gmull528

03-07-2003, 12:26 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by gmull528:

<hr /></blockquote>Dead human beings, but human beings nevertheless.[/qb]<hr /></blockquote>Right. After all, the Iraqis are just brown-skinned Arabs, far inferior to us and not deserving of the freedoms and justice and dignity that we all take for granted. So who cares if their leaders gas them, experiment on them, rip their tongues out, and rip babies out of their mothers' wombs. To interfere with all that could get messy and kill a few of them and a few of us, and God forbid that any of us should die for the sake of our fellow human beings - which the Iraqis are not, of course, since they are just Arabs and can take torture and gassing a lot better than we can. No, we must rely on absolutes. War never solves any problem. It just interferes with our pleasures. Keep the Iraqis and the other oppressed peoples off of our TVs, please. We want to read our comic books in safety and tranquility and blessed denial. Peace, brothers.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Why don't you ask the Arabs what they want? Not just the Iraqis -- the Turks and the Kurds. And why don't we "liberate" the Saudis, who live under a very similarly oppressive government to Iraq, and who spawned Al-Qaeda in the first place? Because they're our "friends"?

This is not about the liberation of Iraq, and I don't think it's just about oil either (though that definitely plays a part). This is about an expansionist American government wanting to make a grand colonialist statement about the might of the U.S. in the new world order. Trouble is, they're not just wrong, they're incompetent -- and increasingly NOT supported in this by the majority of the American people. Whether I agree with this administration or not (which, obviously, I don't), I wouldn't trust them to invade Delaware competently.

Best,
Stuart[/QB][/QUOTE]

I think it's obvious that the administration is ham-fisted, wrong-headed, and in many instances downright dangerous. But I don't think that the opinion of the Arab street is what we should necessarily looking at. The Arab street is quite convinced that 9/11 was planned and perpetrated by the Jews. My heart is in the liberation of Iraq, but my head tells me that this administration will likely blow it. On the other hand, what cost will the "peace" bring? North Korea with nukes is bad enough. North Korea and Saddam with nukes sounds worse. A phony peace can exact future costs that might have us looking back on today's fears with nostalgia. There are no easy answers here. Every action taken has to be a leap of faith.

Nakedmanatee

03-07-2003, 12:28 PM

And furthermore, doesn't my fluffy toilet paper quote in my sig line say all that there is to say?
I thought so.

Dave, retiring to his leather chair, smoking a pipe and sipping a glass of brandy.

Holy Diver

03-07-2003, 12:56 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by gmull528:
After all, the Iraqis are just brown-skinned Arabs, far inferior to us and not deserving of the freedoms and justice and dignity that we all take for granted. So who cares if their leaders gas them, experiment on them, rip their tongues out, and rip babies out of their mothers' wombs...Keep the Iraqis and the other oppressed peoples off of our TVs, please.<hr /></blockquote>Spare me. Perhaps I am off base here, but charging those opposing war with being unconcerned for the Iraqi people seems mildly hypocritical, especially since many of it's most vocal opponents are people who spoke out against Saddam when the U.S. supported him in committing his worst crimes in the 1980s (though that's misleading. I haven't really seen evidence that the American public knew about and supported the atrocities committed by Saddam when Reagan and Bush supported him) or opposed the support Washington gave the ARENA government in El Salvador, or a similar such regime in Guatemala that brutally slaughtered Mayans, ordinary peasants, priests, union leaders, anyone who was brave enough to stick up for human rights.

Here's why I find the war on Iraq questionable: each successive U.S. administration since the second World War has made questionable policy choices that make me doubtful about each foreign endeavour announced by Washington. Yes, the support leant to Western Europe and Japan in rebuilding their post-War economies largely had a good effects, though South Korea and Taiwan were more mixed given the repressive nature of the governments that existed there til the 1980s due to movements for democracy (better than North Korea or Mao's China I suppose).

On the other hand, in the name of fighting Communism they deposed a liberal reformist government in Guatemala in the 1950s and helped to install a dictatorship that only got successive worst and more brutal as time went on and was continually supported by each subsequent administration in Washington. In the 1980s the campaign launched by the military govenment on the country was virtually genodical - destroying entire villages, forced relocations, massive displacement of populations, all in the name of fighting a Marxist guerilla movmement that only grew as more and more middle-of-the-road reformers were wiped out by death squads (most of which were killed in the 60s). The case is similar in El Salvador, Uruguay, Chile, Argentina. Johnson, Nixon, and Carter were all willing to lend support to Suharto's bloody regime which after killing tens of thousands of people after taking power in 1968, invaded East Timor illegally and subjected its people to a loving bloodbath. Throughout the 1980s Reagan was even supporting Aparthied.

Now take Bush Jr. Perhaps he's not a war criminal like these guys but look at what happened in Afghanistan. They used the Northern Alliance as a proxy army to oust the Taliban and then bomb the area heavily. And then what? As near as I can tell the put a virtual non-entity into power, scuttle the nomination of the former King, who from what I have heard at least had enough clout to keep the warlords controlled after a fashion. This non-entity - Hamid Karzhai, by the way, depends upon U.S. soldiers for body guards and his power extends only to the capital. As near as I can tell nothing has been done in the way of "rebuilding" Afghanistan as Rumsfeld promised. In fact it seems like Junior is ignoring the mess he left there and going on to fight another war that is extraordinarily unpopular on the basis of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein. Hussein's a vicious tyrant and mass murder to be sure, but his reach doesn't extend far and haven't seen much credible evidence that he has a strong arsenal waiting in the wings, and with enough invasive inspections over a long-enough period of time as happened up until 1998 he won't. On the other hand, the Bush administration has made it clear it doesn't really care whether or not this option has been exhausted. It has constantly set unrealistic standards for the inspections to work and as their recent statements show, they probably regarded the UN as a sheen of legitimacy. So why, given the history of U.S. foriegn policy and Bush's handling of Afghanistan should I trust an invasion of Iraq to bring relief and the values and institutions of the European Enlightenment to the Iraqis? Bush and his many successors have made it abundantly clear that they do not care about this or who they step on overseas, so I would trust edging out Saddam slowly and easing the sanctions so that Iraqs can develop the will to resist as his regime decays. (The kind of will that spawned Solidarity in Poland or overthrew Ceausescu in Romania.)

And the worst part about this is that domestically America, the nation in general, seems to be far better than the policies that its leaders have tended to propagate in the past (and present).

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by wraith:
I should also point out that a lot of the anti-american/anti-war marches are organize and led by people who are members of the communist party, and that their reasons for protesting have less to do with the war on iraq and more to do with them spousing/trying to get across their own political views. Let's be honest here for a minute, do you think you would have all of thes anti-war protest, if china or cuba were invading iraq? I sure as hell don't think so. The bottom line is that MOST of those anti-war protestors are full of CRAP.<hr /></blockquote>Yes. In the protests organized by the International Action Centre and A.N.S.W.E.R. are more for espousing the dodgy political views of the neo Stalinist Worker's World Party (though not the Communist Party), at least in so much as the leaders attempt to. Since I haven't seen a mass wave of Marxism-Leninism On the other hand the WWP does not control or direct the entire anti-war movement and I have heard many anti-war types complain about how WWP treats anti-war protestors. Over her in Saskatoon the communists have nothing to do with the anti-war protests which mainly local unions and churches have organized. (The only 'far left' group involved is Club Red and Black, who are good natured anarchists who show documentaries and host talks at the university for free, with a free discussion thereafter) I suggest you examine the situation more closely before tarring the entire anti-war movement with the taint of Leninism.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
Let's not forget the Kurds, who effectively have their own democratic government in northern Iraq -- the kind of government we're supposedly interested in setting up in that country. We fought the Gulf War partly on their behalf; now, as part of our proposed deal with Turkey, we're talking about turning them over, lock stock and barrel, to the Turks, their enemies. (Most recent details here: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/international/middleeast/07KURD.html)" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/international/middleeast/07KURD.html)</a>

Turkey, of course, also has a democratic government -- and 90% of its people are opposed to helping us in our military action, despite our longstanding alliance.<hr /></blockquote>I've actually heard that in practise there is very little about the Turkish government that is democratic (even in so far as our in perfect parliamentary/electoral systems go), but for the most part I agree with you. Turkey has violently suppressed its own Turkish government throughout the 80s and the 90s. From what I heard it did that with much of Washington's continuing to lend aid to the country. I doubt Turkey's rulers are going to allow the Kurds to have their own autonomous state since it could inflame the aspirations of the ones back home.

BTW, to add to your articles here's some more stuff on just how complicated the situation in Kurdistan is:

<a href="http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/03/03/7946973" target="_blank">http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/03/03/7946973</a>

<a href="http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/dec96kurdi.htm" target="_blank">http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/dec96kurdi.htm</a>

<a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060" target="_blank">http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060</a>

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Two democracies: One hates us, and we're talking about deliberately destroying the other. We've managed to piss off most of our allies in the course of this endeavor. And the rest of the world is supposed to trust that we're doing this to bring enlightened democratic principles to the Arab world?<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, it sucks. :(

That said I will pick 411 now just to see what all the hub-bub is about.

1.5

03-07-2003, 01:18 PM

I must say that this is some of the most intelligent and courteous discussion I have heard about this war yet anywhere. People ,for the most part, are putting forth valid arguements for both view and,again for the most part, not getting nasty with each other which is a very difficult thing to do when talking about things people feel truly passionate about.

that said I am against THIS war. For the most part wars don't solve things. But when a war is fought that HAS to be fought for lack of any other options and to stop the slaughter of civilians/expansion of evil regimes, then what comes from it can truly be revolutionary and benign.

Hussien is an evil man from what we have been told. But going to war against his PEOPLE isn't the answer. There has to be a way to bring him down. Either by sanctions or, and i know this sounds like an impossible movie-type solution, an assasination. As much as the idea of an assasination troubles me it is the only sure fire to to end his rule. I don't know, i dont have the answer, i wish i did cause then i would be president, but i dont. But just because u dont know the RIGHT answer doesn't mean you can't recognize the WRONG answer.

As for 411. I like the idea. Its something different, and the creators attached add to my belief that it will be a good if not great comic. thats my peace. thanks for reading it.

Veteran porn gaffer,

1.5

Chris Galdieri

03-07-2003, 01:57 PM

----------

gmull528

03-07-2003, 02:05 PM

I want to make it clear that I'm not arguing that Bush and Blair are only, or even mainly, motivated by the desire to free the Iraqis from a brutal dictator. Bush and Blair are career politicians, and they're risking their political lives on this confrontation. Either they're both suicidal or they both believe that there are important security interests at stake that override their instincts to stay alive in the polls. One of them might be a suicidal loon but surely not both of them. It would make no sense.

I am saying that my own personal hope is for their liberation, that it becomes a real consequence of this calamity that is about to occur.

It is no revelation to point out that the USA, Britain, Israel, France, or just about any other major democracy you can name has a history of doing bad things at one time or another just because those bad things seemed expedient at the time. The western democracies have a number of serious crimes to their discredit. Enlightenment, civilization, and education do not preclude the possibility of arrogance, delusion, or denial ... or paradoxically of barbarism.

I still want Saddam ousted. And I don't see how anything other than force will accomplish that. If someone can convince me that leaving him alone won't carry any future costs - costs that are just as unwelcome as the costs of the war will likely be if not worse - I'll be happy to be converted. But right now, I think we're damned if we do and possibly more damned if we don't.

Hdefined

03-07-2003, 03:45 PM

Does this mean if we buy the book, the whole online community can get along? Keen!

bye bill

Holy Diver

03-07-2003, 03:52 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chris Galdieri:
So is there anyone from the "peace" side of things who ACTUALLY believes Iraq is not in material breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1441?<hr /></blockquote>Possibly the Ramsey Clark and the leaders of the WWP, but who gives a fuck about them?

JimHughs4

03-07-2003, 04:09 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chris Galdieri:
So is there anyone from the "peace" side of things who ACTUALLY believes Iraq is not in material breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1441?<hr /></blockquote>I believe Iraq is in violation, but I'm not willing to spend the lives of thousands of people on the basis of what I think. Our president, and by extension his administration, have done a piss-poor job of proving anything.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of war when a) we're asked for help and b) it's vital to our nation's interests. But somebody better start showing facts before they ask me to pick up a rifle. JH

Holy Diver

03-07-2003, 04:12 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by gmull528:
I still want Saddam ousted. And I don't see how anything other than force will accomplish that. If someone can convince me that leaving him alone won't carry any future costs - costs that are just as unwelcome as the costs of the war will likely be if not worse - I'll be happy to be converted. But right now, I think we're damned if we do and possibly more damned if we don't.<hr /></blockquote>All good points but what about "leaving him alone"? That's not what the peace side has argued (at least as far as I have seen so I could be wrong). They have argued that Bush and Blair are pushing to war without even having properly exhausted all options. The inspections regime, which were actually surprisingly effective up until Richard Butler withdrew inspectors over an anticipated bombing of Iraq by US and UK forces, hasn't really been exhausted since it works by applying constant pressure on Saddam. Instead the Bush administration presses for these greatly unrealistic timelines and then declares that he'll go off and invade before this the inspections have really gotten off the ground. Besides the no-fly zones have allowed the Kurds at least some strong measure of autonomy from Saddam's government. You don't think his power can slowly be chipped at the way it was with Eastern Bloc Europe and thus avoid great bloodshed?

I suppose I can't convince you of another path anyways, though I disagree that opponents of war were necessarily arguing as to leave Saddam alone.

Holy Diver

03-07-2003, 04:16 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JimHughs4:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chris Galdieri:
So is there anyone from the "peace" side of things who ACTUALLY believes Iraq is not in material breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1441?<hr /></blockquote>I believe Iraq is in violation, but I'm not willing to spend the lives of thousands of people on the basis of what I think. Our president, and by extension his administration, have done a piss-poor job of proving anything.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of war when a) we're asked for help and b) it's vital to our nation's interests. But somebody better start showing facts before they ask me to pick up a rifle. JH<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, I think it's a question of whether this material breach necessitates a messy endeavour such as invasion. I don't see how Saddam has the power necessary to make himself a threat in the region that many have portrayed him to be.

gmull528

03-07-2003, 04:39 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Holy Diver:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by gmull528:
I still want Saddam ousted. And I don't see how anything other than force will accomplish that. If someone can convince me that leaving him alone won't carry any future costs - costs that are just as unwelcome as the costs of the war will likely be if not worse - I'll be happy to be converted. But right now, I think we're damned if we do and possibly more damned if we don't.<hr /></blockquote>All good points but what about "leaving him alone"? That's not what the peace side has argued (at least as far as I have seen so I could be wrong). They have argued that Bush and Blair are pushing to war without even having properly exhausted all options. The inspections regime, which were actually surprisingly effective up until Richard Butler withdrew inspectors over an anticipated bombing of Iraq by US and UK forces, hasn't really been exhausted since it works by applying constant pressure on Saddam. Instead the Bush administration presses for these greatly unrealistic timelines and then declares that he'll go off and invade before this the inspections have really gotten off the ground. Besides the no-fly zones have allowed the Kurds at least some strong measure of autonomy from Saddam's government. You don't think his power can slowly be chipped at the way it was with Eastern Bloc Europe and thus avoid great bloodshed?

I suppose I can't convince you of another path anyways, though I disagree that opponents of war were necessarily arguing as to leave Saddam alone.<hr /></blockquote>No, I can be convinced if the rest of the world will show that it's really serious. One thing that brought on the current crisis is that the world looked the other way while Saddam and his various trading partners violated the sanctions year after year. Sanctions are a terrible idea to begin (the same goes for US policy against Cuba), but if the world community has no will or intention to enforce, even against Saddam Hussein, then what's the point? Saddam has probably taken in billion of dollars for his own personal use during the 12-year sanctions regime. The Iraqi people don't get any of it, but who really gives a shit? Not the countries who keep winking and looking the other way.

If we're going to contain the bastard, then let's contain the bastard. If not, then we all should just remove the sanctions and wash our dirty hands of it. Then so much for the UN's effectiveness as an enforcer of international will, as though that weren't already a farce when countries like Sudan are accorded the same honors as a country like Sweden or Norway.

jawaplumber

03-07-2003, 05:12 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Rich Johnston:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jawaplumber:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Rich Johnston:
[QUOTE]Dead human beings, but human beings nevertheless.<hr /></blockquote>Just like the dead human beings in the wake of 9/11, and the dead human beings who could be left in the wake of further attacks of terrorism on the United States and other countries. What's it gonna take for other countries to pack us up completely? A bomb directly on 8 Robin Hood Lane, Kingston Vale, London?<hr /></blockquote>You really should think before you speak. London? Terrorism? Ever heard of the IRA?

I've been bombed before when I lived in Ealing, and been close to bombs that went off a couple of times.

I would not support a bombing of Ireland on that basis. Or a bombing of New York, where the IRA received so much funding. Or Mexico, which doesn't have many links with the IRA, but hey, it's on the same continent as the USA.

Again, what links to 9/11 and Iraq are you bringing up this time? Do remember that not only has Osama slagged off Hussein over the last couple of decades but, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Osama offered to assassinate Hussein on behalf of the Saudis.<hr /></blockquote>First of all, I will apologize for coming off as though I were assuming you didn't have personal experience with terrorism. However, I don't think it would have been fair for me to assume that just because you live in the UK you have said experience, either. And I don't really see it as fair of you to expect it of me, as well. After all, I live in New York state and I wasn't in the city when the bombing of 9/11 occurred.

Also, you say it isn't proper to make a comparison/connection between the events of 9/11 and Iraq, but I don't really see the IRA being comparable to the Iraqi or Al Qaeda. First of all, with Iraq and Al Qaeda, we are talking about nuclear weapons. Did the IRA have nukes that could wreak serious havoc on the entire world? There's a big difference in the threats posed by each.

I really should think before I speak, eh? Can't believe I'm taking crap from the Michael Musto of the comic book industry...

Brian Jacks

03-07-2003, 06:38 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Holy Diver:
Yeah, I think it's a question of whether this material breach necessitates a messy endeavour such as invasion.

Listen, if UN Security Council resolutions are allowed to be breached without serious consequences, including the use of force, then there's no reason for the UN to even exist. They were completely useless in stopping the slaughters in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Rwanda; if they refuse to stop the current slaughter in Iraq then they've become completely irrelevant.

I don't see how Saddam has the power necessary to make himself a threat in the region that many have portrayed him to be.

Then, no offense, you haven't done your studying. All of Iraq's neighbors feel pressure coming out of Baghdad, and he still wields one of the strongest militaries in the region. The danger is amplified by his ownership of biological and chemical weapon stockpiles. And while his links to Al Qaeda are debated, his links to other terrorist groups are not. Saddam has his hand in dozens of groups, and even possesses a terrorist training facility that contains a Boeing 707 fuselage. And that's just external threats; he continues to murder thousands of his own people every year, and is one of the worst human rights abusers on the planet. We allowed this sort of stuff to happen to the Jews to WWII; we can't afford to remain silent again when we have the power and ability to stop it. With North Korea we don't, with Iraq we do.

And for those who claim the sanctions are responsible for the misery of Iraq's population, Iraq generates BILLIONS of dollars yearly from sales of oil under the "Oil For Food" program. If Saddam has enough revenue to fund his extravagant palaces and to send $25,000 dollars to the family of every Palestinian suicide bomber, then he surely has enough to provide for the care of own people. The fact is he choses not to, and latches onto the sanctions as a propaganda device, which in turn is eagerly eaten up and accepted by those naive individuals who are more inclined to trust a murdering tyrant than the United States.<hr /></blockquote>

Muir

03-07-2003, 07:17 PM

I think anti-war protesters accept that Hussein does not have his people's interests at heart and that something needs to be done.

However, does this something necessarily equate with war?

And why does Bush feel he has the moral authority to override the UN security council's decisions. If America, 'leader of the free world', does not respect the decisions of the UN and act within its mandates, why should we expect Iraq to?

exredleg

03-07-2003, 07:26 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MattBrady:
<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/Marvel/411_FINAL_t.jpg" width="175" height="263" border="0" align="right">The following is an open letter received from Marvel President Bill Jemas

Your enemy, even your mortal enemy, is a member of the family of man…a member of your own family. 411 is about people who live by this principle. 411 is about peacemakers: people who make sacrifices in the name of humanity. These are people willing to die to keep all of us – on all sides – alive.

[A} Christian soldier sacrificing his life in battle is a hero, just as a Muslim soldier giving his life in battle is a hero. An Iraqi soldier dying for his country is a hero to his people just as an American soldier dying in the name of freedom is a hero to his.

[i]For more on 411, click <a href="http://www.newsarama.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=00015 5" target="_blank"> here</a>.<hr /></blockquote>Were the terrorists who "died in battle" when they killed 3,000 innocents "heroes" since they gave their lives for their cause?

Were Iraqi soldiers who died in the campaigns against the Kurds "heroes" because they "died in battle?"

Were the Nazis who "died in battle" defending concentration camps from advancing U.S. troops during WWII "heroes" because they "died in battle?"

Mr. Jemas, you are certainly entitled to your opinion ... even if it is naive. I also find it a little hypocritical after Marvel's release of its post-9/11 Heroes book and all the post 9/11-hoopola associated with the initial relaese of your The Call mini-series (that was certainly the impression I got as I watched Joe Quesada hawking the books on TV morning news shows).

Well Mr. Jemas, while I defend your right to voice your opinion ... I am going to exercise my right not to buy this 411 book, and encourage other not to buy it, either.

As a matter of fact, I'm dropping the few remaining Marvel titles I buy. There are a few I enjoy (even after you came to head Marvel), but when I take a good hard look at your line, I can do without them.

gmull528

03-07-2003, 07:34 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Brian Jacks:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Holy Diver:
Yeah, I think it's a question of whether this material breach necessitates a messy endeavour such as invasion.

Listen, if UN Security Council resolutions are allowed to be breached without serious consequences, including the use of force, then there's no reason for the UN to even exist. They were completely useless in stopping the slaughters in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Rwanda; if they refuse to stop the current slaughter in Iraq then they've become completely irrelevant.
<hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote>Yes, it this was the lack of seriousness in the UN that helped bring the world to it's current dreadful situation. But after Rwanda, it's no surprise. Why would anyone be afraid of a debating society, especially one in which hypocritical, posturing French bureaucrats and their constituent arms merchants play such a major role? I wouldn't mind being lectured to by the Scandanavians, but the French have no business feeling superior to anyone.

Rich Johnston

03-07-2003, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by jawaplumber:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />
Also, you say it isn't proper to make a comparison/connection between the events of 9/11 and Iraq, but I don't really see the IRA being comparable to the Iraqi or Al Qaeda. First of all, with Iraq and Al Qaeda, we are talking about nuclear weapons. Did the IRA have nukes that could wreak serious havoc on the entire world? There's a big difference in the threats posed by each.
<hr /></blockquote>How did you do that sentence, take two things and merge them? I never said the IRA had anything to do with Iraq or Al Qaeda.

Also, there have been no allegations that Al Qaeda have nukes, and scant evidence that Iraq does.

As for danger, who has actually used nukes against another country before?

 <blockquote>quote:<hr />

I really should think before I speak, eh? Can't believe I'm taking crap from the Michael Musto of the comic book industry...<hr /></blockquote>Explain your reference please.

Kerouac

03-07-2003, 08:27 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> yeah but those wars were about something. this one is just about oil<hr /></blockquote>I disagree with you about the oil, but my point was that it's insane to speak in absolutes like "war is never right." That's like saying "Violence never solves anything," a statement that opening a history book will prove to be utter bullshit. Violence solves ANYTHING, it just may not solve it in the manner that you'd like it to. Now, I'm not saying that every situation should be solved by war, but I think there's a time and a place for it and it's naive and, quite frankly, asinine to suggest otherwise. That's all I'm saying.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I don't think that Bush is the real president in USA. There are people behind him that are telling him to make war.<hr /></blockquote>I hate to break it to you, but basically every American president these days is going to be little more than a mouthpiece for his party's agenda. Gore would have been no different.

Matt

QCCBob

03-07-2003, 08:42 PM

Bringing this back toward comics a little, I find this whole thing facsinating. The posters who generally support Marvel in their irresponsible publishing schemes, lies, and contract violations are also for leaving Saddam with his irresponsible government, lies, and treaty violations alone. You people really don't believe that ANYONE should actually have to keep their word or pay any consequences for their misdeeds. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

Barry

03-07-2003, 09:01 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by QCCBob:
Bringing this back toward comics a little, I find this whole thing facsinating. The posters who generally support Marvel in their irresponsible publishing schemes, lies, and contract violations are also for leaving Saddam with his irresponsible government, lies, and treaty violations alone. You people really don't believe that ANYONE should actually have to keep their word or pay any consequences for their misdeeds. :(<hr /></blockquote>First of all, nobody is suggesting we go to war for Marvel, so nice try, but no.

Secondly, if what you've just written qualifies as reasons to go to war, I think we should start in our own backyard, say Cuba, then move on to China, North Korea, Vietnam and pretty much every state in the mideast.

Really, let's just take it upon ourselves to oust every government out there that we have issues with. Because that's what the folks brainwashed by the Bush administration seem to think we should do with Iraq.

Lord Julius

03-07-2003, 10:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Barry:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr /> <hr /></blockquote>First of all, nobody is suggesting we go to war for Marvel, so nice try, but no.

Secondly, if what you've just written qualifies as reasons to go to war, I think we should start in our own backyard, say Cuba, then move on to China, North Korea, Vietnam and pretty much every state in the mideast.

Really, let's just take it upon ourselves to oust every government out there that we have issues with. Because that's what the folks brainwashed by the Bush administration seem to think we should do with Iraq.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>I agree with you Barry, If we as a country are truly concerned with spreading "freedom" (or atleast our version of it)around the globe then where's the consistency? Why focus so much attention on Iraq and give absolutely no notice to the current situation in the Sudan where if you just mention the name Jesus you will most likely be killed on the spot for spreading "christian propaganda"

jawaplumber

03-07-2003, 10:26 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rich Johnston:

[/qb]How did you do that sentence, take two things and merge them? I never said the IRA had anything to do with Iraq or Al Qaeda.
[qb] [QUOTE]

Perhaps I misunderstood but I felt you were trying to compare the IRA to Al Qaeda, and if so, I felt the comparison was hard to make, based on the level of threat each poses to innocent people.

You know what? This really isn't worth the bother of going back and forth. I don't agree with you, and you obviously don't agree with me, and I highly doubt we'll convince each other to switch viewpoints, so I'm bowing out. I come here to talk comics. I talk enough about politics with friends and family who I can be face to face with, with no confusion due to lack of inflection of voice and the ability to explain a misunderstood opinion in the midst of a conversation.

As for the Michael Musto reference, he's a gossip columnist...a very annoying gossip columnist for the Village Voice, and he often shows up on E! Entertainment Television and various pop culture documentaries. So, there ya go, you can draw your own conclusions from there as it regards my opinion of your rumor column and your interviews <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Kal-el

03-08-2003, 12:06 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Barry:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by QCCBob:
Bringing this back toward comics a little, I find this whole thing facsinating. The posters who generally support Marvel in their irresponsible publishing schemes, lies, and contract violations are also for leaving Saddam with his irresponsible government, lies, and treaty violations alone. You people really don't believe that ANYONE should actually have to keep their word or pay any consequences for their misdeeds. :( <hr /></blockquote>First of all, nobody is suggesting we go to war for Marvel, so nice try, but no.

Secondly, if what you've just written qualifies as reasons to go to war, I think we should start in our own backyard, say Cuba, then move on to China, North Korea, Vietnam and pretty much every state in the mideast.

Really, let's just take it upon ourselves to oust every government out there that we have issues with. Because that's what the folks brainwashed by the Bush administration seem to think we should do with Iraq.<hr /></blockquote>The US is doing what it needs to do to ensure it stays safe. No one thinks Saddam is going to invade the US, but if you think he isn't aiding terrorist you are being naive. If you actually read Bob's post he is stating that the same posters that are OK with Marvel breaking a contract are also OK with Iraq doing the same. In what world did you read he said go to war for Marvel :rolleyes: ? It's not the US that has control over if this war will happen or not, it's Iraq. I also put much blame for the coming war on the protestors. The protestors showed Saddam that we were divided and if he simply stalled some and made some petty effort the protesters would say, "wait some more". If the UN and the people stood united and firm in their convictions that he was to disarm, I think he would have made a full effort to do so, but when he is thanking the protesters for their support, he plays them and they fall for it.

Kal-el

03-08-2003, 12:18 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Lord Julius:
[QUOTE]I agree with you Barry, If we as a country are truly concerned with spreading "freedom" (or atleast our version of it)around the globe then where's the consistency? Why focus so much attention on Iraq and give absolutely no notice to the current situation in the Sudan where if you just mention the name Jesus you will most likely be killed on the spot for spreading "christian propaganda"<hr /></blockquote>We are going after Saddam now because HE agreed during the first war to disarm or we would have marched right into the capital and taken it. He broke his promise and we gave him 12 years of chances to comply. If he can not account for his weapons including the anthrax they state they lost, he can not remain in power and has to go. He agreed to this. We are going after Iraq and not the Sudan because Iraq has the best chance of handing a weapon to a terrorist to use on US soil. Why I hate that individuals are killed for their words in other countries (I wouldn't go to Sudan), that's why I am glad I live in America were my speech is protected. Oh, yeah before you say so are the protestors speech, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Kal-el

03-08-2003, 12:26 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />

OF COURSE WE'RE NOT!! Why? Because we can't win! But we'll pretty much kick Iraq's ass. In terms we can all understand, it's called "Being a bully."

Remember, this has nothing to do with protecting America, ending terrorism or human rights. It's all about making the idiot in chief and his impotent administration look good in the wake of 9/11. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being naiive.<hr /></blockquote>Wasn't Iraq the bully when it gassed the Kuhrds? Or when he invaded Iran? And he agreed to disarm and the US is the bully? Wow, so if you break a law or someone holds you to an agreement that YOU back out of, they aren't making you responsible, they are being a bully? Just so we're clear. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

noitall

03-08-2003, 03:00 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Karl Hamner:
If oil is the goal, why the hell did we leave in the first place? During the first Gulf War, 15 0f 18 provinces came under opposition control. It was only after Hussein signed the CEASEFIRE AGREEMENT that he was able to deploy helicopter gunships to wrest back control of the provinces. Prior to the ceasefire they would have been shot down by allied air power.<hr /></blockquote>I have the same question.

Steve Viscusi

03-08-2003, 03:08 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kal-el:
Wasn't Iraq the bully when it gassed the Kuhrds? Or when he invaded Iran?<hr /></blockquote>Kurds yes, Iran no. Especially considering he was being prodded (and supported by us) to go to war.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />And he agreed to disarm and the US is the bully? Wow, so if you break a law or someone holds you to an agreement that YOU back out of, they aren't making you responsible, they are being a bully? Just so we're clear. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>First they are in violation of U.N. resolutions, not US. So the descision should ultimately come down to the U.N., which is what most everyone (counting the entire world) supports.

Second of all after we push the U.N. to enforce those resolutions (or when we go ourselves with all the countries we have bribed) and we finish in Iraq, are we going to enforce other U.N. resolutions that countries are in violation of? Namely Turkey, Cyprus, Morrocco, and Israel. Do you support using military force to make them comply with U.N. sanctions?

How about this since another of the reasons we are using to justify going into Iraq, besides the U.N. resolution one, is that they support terrorist. Well after we're done with them we should then move into Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, and Sudan. All those countries support terrorism so they should be next.

Mogwai

03-08-2003, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by Kal-El:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> We are going after Saddam now because HE agreed during the first war to disarm or we would have marched right into the capital and taken it. He broke his promise and we gave him 12 years of chances to comply <hr /></blockquote>But surely the timing must bother you? With massive, global and internal support the US go into Afghanistan and remove the Taliban from power while hunting Bin Ladin. Then, almost immediately after, the US government tell the world that Iraq is in violation of various UN directives and linked to Al-Quaeda.

If Iraq has broken these agreements, then I very much doubt it would have happened over night. Why is Bush so desperate to remove Hussain now, after 12 years have passed since the ‘war’?

I live the UK so I may be wrong here, but I got the impression that prior to September the 11th, Bush was very much out of favour with the electorate. Then those tragic events occurred and Bush received over whelming support for his stance against Al-Quaeda.

It is a well known fact that there is a 'feel good' factor with the average person when their country go to war. I remember watching many interviews with Americans on TV where they were evangelizing how good going to war with Iraq made them feel.

I believe that the reason Bush is desperate for war is because he believes it will save his administration and distract people from the economic problems the US face.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If he can not account for his weapons including the anthrax they state they lost, he can not remain in power and has to go.<hr /></blockquote>At the height of the cold war, Russia produced 100 nuclear weapons that were built into brief cases. Only 50 or so of these can be accounted for. By your logic we need to go teach Russia a lesson. I doubt that there is a single country that can account for all of their weapons of mass destruction. All it takes is a miss filing of an invoice and woops where’d that missile go?

War is not the answer. If the UK and the US attack Iraq and go against the wishes of the UN and every other country, I am afraid that it will quickly escalate out of control. Didn’t Nostradamus say that the middle east would be the ground for world war three or something?

Lee

fukkuUS

03-08-2003, 08:46 AM

<post deleted by Matt[/b] if you can't make your point without insults and rabid profanity, head somewhere else.

This is Op/Ed, so you're all free to opinionize (yes, I know I made that up), as much as you want, but keep it civil.

MattB

little kon-el

03-08-2003, 10:57 AM

what it comes down to is this:

war, any violence, is a failure. jemas is admirable when he says that he won't support the war because he sees that war itself is a faulty endevor.

i know, i know. we are talking with them and they aren't listening to us. that's still a failure. and to resort to war means that together we cannot see another way out.

alan moore once wrote that war is a failure of imagination. when we all cannot concieve of a better way and communicate that way together, then we have all failed. once we resort to war, we have all failed. even when we win a war, someone is coming home in body bags, someone will be without a child, or lose a loved one.

i do support our boys abroad, but i support peace even more. we should all strive for peace by finding other ways other than violence to solve our problems.

411 is a step in that direction. it's a piece that imagines different ways out of violent situations, in a medium known for violence.

i applaud jemas for his efforts, and hope that comics (in general) are heading in this direction towards finding different resolutions to difficult problems. comics is the simplest medium to convey these messages...one step above a 'zine and one step below a movie short. i'd like to think we can be a medium of imagination, communication, and peace in these troubled times.

little kon-el

Stuart Moore

03-08-2003, 10:58 AM

"Wasn't Iraq the bully when it gassed the Kuhrds?"

You mean the same Kurds whose democratic government we're planning to destroy when we turn them over to the Turks, their enemies? (See NY Times article referenced earlier in this thread.)

This is not a simple matter of "Take out a dictator and his people will be free." It's complicated! Any serious actions have a whole host of consequences throughout the region. And the Bush administration seems to have no understanding or regard for that.

Best,
Stuart

Chris Galdieri

03-08-2003, 12:31 PM

----------

Kal-el

03-08-2003, 01:38 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stuart Moore:

This is not a simple matter of "Take out a dictator and his people will be free." It's complicated! Any serious actions have a whole host of consequences throughout the region. And the Bush administration seems to have no understanding or regard for that.

Best,
Stuart<hr /></blockquote>I agree actions have consequences, but so does no action and time is an issue. If the US goes in and finds nothing, that's it Bush is over and it will take generations for the US to build up any credibility. If the US is right and there are weapons and programs in place, that will mean something as well. Tuesday we will know if the UN is a stong force and has teeth with it's resolutions or is a nice tourist atraction.

Kal-el

03-08-2003, 01:49 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mogwai:
Originally posted by Kal-El:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> We are going after Saddam now because HE agreed during the first war to disarm or we would have marched right into the capital and taken it. He broke his promise and we gave him 12 years of chances to comply <hr /></blockquote>But surely the timing must bother you? With massive, global and internal support the US go into Afghanistan and remove the Taliban from power while hunting Bin Ladin. Then, almost immediately after, the US government tell the world that Iraq is in violation of various UN directives and linked to Al-Quaeda.

If Iraq has broken these agreements, then I very much doubt it would have happened over night. Why is Bush so desperate to remove Hussain now, after 12 years have passed since the ‘war’?

I live the UK so I may be wrong here, but I got the impression that prior to September the 11th, Bush was very much out of favour with the electorate. Then those tragic events occurred and Bush received over whelming support for his stance against Al-Quaeda.

I believe that the reason Bush is desperate for war is because he believes it will save his administration and distract people from the economic problems the US face.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If he can not account for his weapons including the anthrax they state they lost, he can not remain in power and has to go.<hr /></blockquote>At the height of the cold war, Russia produced 100 nuclear weapons that were built into brief cases. Only 50 or so of these can be accounted for. By your logic we need to go teach Russia a lesson. I doubt that there is a single country that can account for all of their weapons of mass destruction. All it takes is a miss filing of an invoice and woops where’d that missile go?

Lee<hr /></blockquote>The only problem I have with the timing is that is should have happened sooner. 9/11 showed us what haappens with inaction. After that event the cries were "why wasn't something done before this?" and now that the US is attempting to make that happen the cries are "what are you doing?" Iraq argreed to account for all weapons and disarm, personally I am more concerned about quarts of anthrax than missles. Antharax is a lot easier to move an hide. He's had 12 years to look in a country the size of California, he could have accounted for them even if there was a "whoops".

arthur pendragon

03-08-2003, 08:26 PM

They fight, they bite.
They fight and bite and fight.
Bite bite bite
Figh fight fight
The Itchy and Scratchy show! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

theodoros

03-09-2003, 04:39 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by arthur pendragon:
They fight, they bite.
They fight and bite and fight.
Bite bite bite
Figh fight fight
The Itchy and Scratchy show! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>My stomach hurts from the laughings.
This is my type of joke.

I am not going to buy the 411. Maybe if the money are going for a good non-american cause. In a year it's going to cost 1$.

Stuart Moore

03-09-2003, 08:07 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chris Galdieri:
Stuart,

Do you believe that Iraq is not in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441?

Chris<hr /></blockquote>This is the line that President Bush repeats over and over again, to distract from the fact that the course of action he's proposing is (a) unwarranted; (b) part of an extremist political agenda; (c) a distraction from a devastating domestic policy that makes a few rich people richer while destroying the economy; and (d) incredibly harmful to world peace.

As I and all rational people who oppose this war have said: Of course they're in violation of 1441. Dozens of countries around the world are in violation of various points of international law -- including, much more dangerously, North Korea. Many of them have oppressive regimes that should be taken out, including our "friends," Saudi Arabia.

We can't invade them all, and we shouldn't. That's what we're talking about -- invasion of a non-expansionist nation that has not attacked us.

You deal with these countries in a wide variety of ways. War is a late option, and preemptive war is a very, very dangerous and morally questionable one.

Besides, the kind of arrogant "diplomacy" that this administration practices makes it hard to have any faith in them at all. Their most recent move has been to alienate Russia, Europe, and (good move) Britain over the Israel/Palestine crisis in a misguided attempt to sway their votes on the new Iraq resolution. Details: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/international/middleeast/09PEAC.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/international/middleeast/09PEAC.html</a>

Best,
Stuart

Darth Khanus

03-09-2003, 08:27 AM

Who actually believes that America has the right to bomb another country? Saddam is an evil man, but you'll be hard pressed to convince me that he's not in good company with the likes of other rulers in the world. Weapons of mass destruction? Give me a break. So America and the UK have weapons of mass convenience? Let's remind ourselves of which nation bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I'm totally with Stuart Moore on this. The U.S is looking to expand its powerbase and develop itself into a colonial imperial power. And yes, let's talk about post-war shall we? America has such a fascinating track record in 'helping' other nations and then leaving them in a total mess. (Afghanistan, although to be fair when hasn't it been a mess?). Divide and Rule, a handy tip from the old British empire. Does anybody really trust Bush and his masters, Cheney and Rumsfield to handle this efficiently? Anyone? Anyone?

Let's discuss the Iraqi people, I mean, hey, we'll be doing them a favour right? Yeah, whilst Saddam sits comfortably in his palace killing the odd guard HIS people are suffering. Yes that is his responsibility, but please let's not forget that senior U.N delegates have resigned in protest at the unrealistic sanctions imposed on Iraq, citing blatant disregard for human rights.

Why aren't we going after Korea? It's not a soft target? Has no oil? Does not fit the strategy? All of the above? Why not Israel? (Ooooh, mentioned a nation which continues to ignore U.N sanctions and still ENJOYS massive financial support from the U.S)

If the U.S wants to police the world, it should start with it's own illegally elected government.

Chris Galdieri

03-09-2003, 10:09 AM

----------

Darth Khanus

03-09-2003, 11:16 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Galdieri:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
[qb]This is the line that President Bush repeats over and over again,

Well, yeah, what with that being the point and all.

What the phony "peace" movement always wants to dance around is the undisputed fact that Iraq is forbidden to have weapons of mass destruction as a result of agreements it entered into at the end of Gulf War I, that the precious United Nations passed a resolution giving Iraq one last chance to comply before facing "serious consequences," and that, having failed to comply, the time has come to enforce those consequences.
<hr /></blockquote>'Phoney peace protests'? Where do you get off telling people what they believe in is phoney?

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> to distract from the fact that the course of action he's proposing is (a) unwarranted; (b) part of an extremist political agenda; (c) a distraction from a devastating domestic policy that makes a few rich people richer while destroying the economy; and (d) incredibly harmful to world peace.

a) You're wrong. b) Ditto. c) If it weren't for digital technology the record would have broken. d) A hella lot less harmful than allowing a lunatic dictator to possess proscribed weapons of mass destruction.
<hr /></blockquote>I've said it before, weapons of mass destruction is an insulting term as U.S, India, Pakistan, U.K, etc all have it but, hey that's ok. Oh, actually when India and Pakistan declared their nuclear power, the West expressed concerns because it's just not right for 'third world' countries to have what the West have, right?

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> As I and all rational people who oppose this war have said: Of course they're in violation of 1441. Dozens of countries around the world are in violation of various points of international law -- including, much more dangerously, North Korea. Many of them have oppressive regimes that should be taken out, including our "friends," Saudi Arabia.

So because we can't do everything, we shouldn't do anything?

Has it occured to you that we're treating North Korea differently because in that case the crazy dictator already HAS nuclear weapons?
<hr /></blockquote>So we should BOMB a country that doesn't but run scared of a country that DOES?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />We can't invade them all, and we shouldn't. That's what we're talking about -- invasion of a non-expansionist nation that has not attacked us.

Except for all the times it's invaded its neighbors, attacked us in the past, threatened us, and so on?
<hr /></blockquote>When has Iraq attacked the U.S? Iraq invaded Kuwait at the behest of the Americans, a fact that is increasingly being swept under the carpet.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />You deal with these countries in a wide variety of ways. War is a late option, and preemptive war is a very, very dangerous and morally questionable one.

I'd say twelve years is pretty damn late already.

<hr /></blockquote>Come on, can't you see that this is just totally immoral? Who gives America the right to decide these things? Why are you forgetting what America did to Hiroshima? Wasn't that using weapons of mass destruction? Why do America continue to support Israel when it defiantly ignores U.N sanctions? One rule for one and one for another?

Holy Diver

03-09-2003, 12:50 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Darth Khanus:
When has Iraq attacked the U.S? Iraq invaded Kuwait at the behest of the Americans, a fact that is increasingly being swept under the carpet.<hr /></blockquote>Uh, no that is not what happened. What happened was that the Bush I administration made it explicitly clear to Kuwait that they would back them in any conflict with Iraq. It was obvious that tensions were arising between the two nations for sometime up until the Gulf War. On the other hand it only adopted a vague line on the matter with Iraq stating that it had no opinion on its disputes with Kuwait and . That's not the same as Iraq invading at Washington's behest, though it does show a surprising direlection of one's responsibility to their allies by not clearly warning an antagonist country (and one that is also a client so to speak) to back off. It would have saved Kuwait much trouble and suffering.

Darth Khanus

03-09-2003, 01:13 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Holy Diver:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Darth Khanus:
When has Iraq attacked the U.S? Iraq invaded Kuwait at the behest of the Americans, a fact that is increasingly being swept under the carpet.<hr /></blockquote>Uh, no that is not what happened. What happened was that the Bush I administration made it explicitly clear to Kuwait that they would back them in any conflict with Iraq. It was obvious that tensions were arising between the two nations for sometime up until the Gulf War. On the other hand it only adopted a vague line on the matter with Iraq stating that it had no opinion on its disputes with Kuwait and . That's not the same as Iraq invading at Washington's behest, though it does show a surprising direlection of one's responsibility to their allies by not clearly warning an antagonist country (and one that is also a client so to speak) to back off. It would have saved Kuwait much trouble and suffering.<hr /></blockquote>Yes, you're right, bad choice of words on my part but it does illustrate the hypocrisy of the whole thing.

Let me just point out I'm not anti-American...I just find it hard to swallow that they feel they can bully the world into siding with them (ask Turkey) and obtaining the moral high ground.

Holy Diver

03-09-2003, 01:15 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Darth Khanus:
Let me just point out I'm not anti-American...<hr /></blockquote>It never occurred to me really. Perhaps if you started attacking Americans in general with insults and stereotypes as people tend to do with the the French then you would be anti-American. As near as I can tell you are merely attacking Bush's foreign policy.

Stuart Moore

03-09-2003, 01:45 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chris Galdieri:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
This is the line that President Bush repeats over and over again,

Well, yeah, what with that being the point and all.
Chris<hr /></blockquote>I think the other posters have pretty successfully argued with the rest of your statements, but I can't let this stand. No, it's not the point. It's just the only point Bush would like people to think about.

Let's say you steal a bag of chips from my house. I go after you with a loaded machine gun. The neighbors try to stop me and all I'll say, over and over again, is "Do you deny that he stole a bag of chips from my house?" Somehow the neighbors don't understand that that doesn't give me the moral and legal right to kill you, your family, and a few neighbors who get caught in the crossfire. Who's wrong here? Who's the one acting out of proportion, and creating a dangerous world?

And I agree that anyone who labels the peace demonstrations "phony" doesn't know what he's talking about. I went to the one in New York, and I'd say 90% of the demonstrators were concerned, ordinary people. The vast majority of the European population opposes this war. Are you saying the demonstrations are put-ons orchestrated by Saddam Hussein (who is not supported by, I'd say just about any of the protestors)? Or are you saying the demonstrators don't really believe what they're marching for? I don't think either position is remotely defensible.

I am a patriot, by the way. I live in a free society because I believe we can build a better world through example, by comporting ourselves with dignity, compassion, and intelligence. I don't see any of that coming from the White House right now -- so, as a patriot, it's my duty to speak out.

I haven't been seriously politically active for twenty years, because there hasn't been a situation this bizarre, unreal, shameful, and dangerous in all that time. Now is the time for people of conscience, in this country and abroad, to act. It may not change Bush's mind -- nothing does, it seems. But at least we can let the world know that we hope to do better next time.

Best,
Stuart

Stuart Moore

03-09-2003, 01:53 PM

One more thing:

I said: "(c) a distraction from a devastating domestic policy that makes a few rich people richer while destroying the economy;

And you replied: "c) If it weren't for digital technology the record would have broken. "

Very funny, very clever. But it doesn't refute the facts. This administration is, has been, and continues to be an economic disaster, benefiting only a few of the rich. That's why Bush won't get reelected, regardless of what he does in Iraq.

Best,
Stuart

Chris Galdieri

03-09-2003, 04:36 PM

----------

Chris Galdieri

03-09-2003, 04:47 PM

------------

Kal-el

03-10-2003, 08:35 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stuart Moore:

I haven't been seriously politically active for twenty years, because there hasn't been a situation this bizarre, unreal, shameful, and dangerous in all that time. Now is the time for people of conscience, in this country and abroad, to act. It may not change Bush's mind -- nothing does, it seems. But at least we can let the world know that we hope to do better next time.

Best,
Stuart<hr /></blockquote>These situations weren't shameful when Clinton was in office?
BOMBING IRAQ,SUDAN,SERBIA,AFGHANISTAN & CHINA(Embassies are soveriegn territory)

DEPLOYING TROOPS TO HAITI, WITHOUT THE PUBLIC'S APPROVAL.

ABANDONING TROOPS IN SOMALIA, WATCHING AMERICAN SERVICE MEN DIE TO BE DRAGGED THROUGH THE STREETS BY THE SAVAGE MINIONS OF AL QAEDA.

TERROR ATTACKS ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, EMPIRE STATE BUILDING, WHITE HOUSE, U.S. AIRLINES, U.S. EMBASSIES, AND THE U.S.S. COLE.

SEX ASSUALT DEPOSITIONS

IMPEACHMENT
...and holding a country to it's word is.

Stuart Moore

03-10-2003, 09:02 AM

Of course they were serious. But none of them invoked a dangerous, arrogant doctrine of preemptive action that could lead to World War III and, even if not, the deaths of millions around the globe. Directly attributable to the actions, coming very soon, taken by George W. Bush.

Best,
Stuart

QCCBob

03-10-2003, 12:13 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
Of course they were serious. But none of them invoked a dangerous, arrogant doctrine of preemptive action that could lead to World War III and, even if not, the deaths of millions around the globe. Directly attributable to the actions, coming very soon, taken by George W. Bush.<hr /></blockquote>As opposed to the 9/11 attack that happened because wonderful peace loving people like Pres. Clinton decided NOT to defend the people and property of the US like our embassies and the USS Cole. Yup, sitting back and letting the scum of the Earth do whatever they please regardless of international law has worked really well for us in the past. Yes, Mr. Moore, I know, it's all our fault. Isn't it always?

Stuart Moore

03-10-2003, 01:15 PM

Of course it's not all our fault. I'd say it's "not our fault" more often than it is. But isn't it sometimes? And isn't it the duty of citizens to point out when it is?

I think I'm through with this discussion...a lot of good points have been aired on both sides, but nobody's changing anybody else's mind. The Bush supporters are frustrated because the rest of the world won't come around to their extremist point of view, and the anti-war people are frustrated because the President won't listen to the people of his, or anyone else's, country. It's not a happy situation all around. Hopefully most of us will live through it...

Best,
Stuart

Holy Diver

03-10-2003, 05:31 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Brian Jacks:
Listen, if UN Security Council resolutions are allowed to be breached without serious consequences, including the use of force, then there's no reason for the UN to even exist. They were completely useless in stopping the slaughters in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Rwanda; if they refuse to stop the current slaughter in Iraq then they've become completely irrelevant.<hr /></blockquote>Agreed. So after that should an invasion force be sent to Israel and Turkey for their stubborn refusal to comply with UN resolutions that have resulted in serious human rights violations? Should sanctions be placed on the United States for blocking several of these resolutions or its failure to pay Nicaragua £12 billion as ordered by the World Court in reparations for its mining of Nicaragua’s harbours during the 1980s and its training and supplying of the terrorist Contra forces? (Who were ordered by the CIA to start attacking civilians, and have contributed the most to civilian casualties during the fighting in Nicaragua throughout the 1980s.) I think the UN resolutions should not be breaches without serious consequences, but it’s not just Iraq who has been undermining the UN for some time now. That’s my problem with Bush proclaiming that UN resolutions should be enforced

<a href="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2417" target="_blank">http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2417</a>

By-the-way I came across this interesting tidbit on the collapse of the first inspections regime.

From: <a href="http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm#2" target="_blank">http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm#2</a>

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Towards the end of 1998, the legitimacy of the sanctions/disarmament regime was enormously compromised by evidence that the United States had used the UN weapons inspection teams of UNSCOM to carry out espionage and covert action. (29) UNSCOM issued an alarmist report about the state of Iraq’s disarmament, said to have been strongly influenced by US pressure. In December, the US and the UK threatened to attack Iraq, to force compliance with the inspections. With military action imminent, the Chairman of UNSCOM, Richard Butler, ordered the weapons inspectors withdrawn. US-UK aerial attacks, beginning on December 16, continued for four days. (30) Discredited UNSCOM was never to return.<hr /></blockquote>Interesting how the first inspections regime was rendered irrelevant by the actions of the American and British governments who are now pushing

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Then, no offense, you haven't done your studying. All of Iraq's neighbors feel pressure coming out of Baghdad, and he still wields one of the strongest militaries in the region.<hr /></blockquote>Well I apologize about this then, but like I said I have not read anything on how much Saddam has threatened his neighbours in the Middle East. If could name anything where I could read up on the matter, especially demonstrating that much of the Middle East does feel seriously threatened by Iraq, that would be greatly appreciated. Last I heard the Iraqi military had severely decayed due to the Gulf War and the persistent economic sanctions. Furthermore, with the exception of Israel I haven’t exactly seen anything that shows that many countries in the region seem all that threatened by Saddam. In fact, Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia originally have shown great reservations about a war being launched.

BTW; I have been working on this for a few days now, and as of the latest news the UK and US have 25,000 troops in the region. Saddam is now effectively contained. He’d have to be suicidal to try anything.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The danger is amplified by his ownership of biological and chemical weapon stockpiles.<hr /></blockquote>Which have not been proven to continue to exist in significant amounts. Last time the inspectors were in there, I heard they were rather effective in eliminating about 90 to 95 percent of Iraq’s weapon producing capabilities (this includes nukes, chemical and biological weapons). They haven’t proven that Iraq has recovered these capabilities to any great degree and Powell was only able to provide artist sketches of what the alleged mobile chemical weapons factories looked like. Even when the CIA or MI5 comes out with a report on Iraq’s weapons it only states potential capacity in these areas and I hear numerous reports of pressure being put on these agencies to write a report more in line with the Bush or Blair government’s stance.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />And while his links to Al Qaeda are debated, his links to other terrorist groups are not. Saddam has his hand in dozens of groups, and even possesses a terrorist training facility that contains a Boeing 707 fuselage.<hr /></blockquote>Do these connections still remain? It is interesting that in the Bush administrations hurried struggle to prove a link between Al-Qaeda but mentions nothing about his connections to the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq or the Kurdistan Worker’s Party. In the case of the latter Saddam seems ready to totally jettison any links with them

<blockquote>quote:<hr />And that's just external threats; he continues
to murder thousands of his own people every year, and is one of the worst human rights abusers on the planet. We allowed this sort of stuff to happen to the Jews to WWII; we can't afford to remain silent again when we have the power and ability to stop it. With North Korea we don't, with Iraq we do.<hr /></blockquote>One of the better reasons to go to war, but I have my reservations on this. For one thing, I’m not sure that this is such a great guarantee since the. The Bush administration hasn’t even used its own power to stem human rights violations by the Israeli government whose armed forces commit serious human rights violations against Palestinian civilians? (which I might add has only fuelled the virulent racism that drives groups like Hamas and Hezbollah by depriving Palestinians of seemingly any legitimate recourse for dealing with the occupation) In Israel’s case this could been done much more easily through economic and diplomatic rather than blunt military action, yet Bush continues to uncritically support Ariel Sharon heedless of the fact that by taking the course of action I mentioned he could go a long way to undermining support for terrorism by removing one of the big grievances that exist against America in the Middle East. (And it is a legitimate grievance, even if it used as a rallying banner by utterly illegitimate terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda.) I’ve already made my points here about a repeated history of unconcern by past administrations for human rights elsewhere, and I should and my problems with Bush’s handling of Afghanistan so I am not met with much confidence on what post-Saddam Iraq is going to look like.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />And for those who claim the sanctions are responsible for the misery of Iraq's population, Iraq generates BILLIONS of dollars yearly from sales of oil under the "Oil For Food" program. If Saddam has enough revenue to fund his extravagant palaces and to send $25,000 dollars to the family of every Palestinian suicide bomber, then he surely has enough to provide for the care of own people.<hr /></blockquote>Okay, you mind explaining why UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator Denis Halliday resigned from the "Oil For Food" program in 1998 citing failure by design? Halliday had to smuggle in medicine to treat a girl for leukemia, and I might add illegally according to the sanctions placed on Iraq. As Halliday stated, he had to breach "my own economic sanctions so to speak." Hans von Sponeck, once Senior United Nations representative in Iraq, resigned on similar grounds in February 2000. Sponeck himself, pointed out that Oil For Food's revenues never exceeded $180 per person annually, which was a tiny fraction of the cost for merely surviving. Furthermore, the Oil for Food's revenues are controlled by the Security Council and purchases are approved by a special sanctions committee. This means that the Security Council effectively decides what to do with the revenues drawn in by the Oil For Food program.

It's also interesting to note that while the U.S. State Department's <a href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/16176.htm" target="_blank">site</a> claims that Saddamn "held his people hostage" in not accepting Oil For Food's predecessors, Resolutions 706 and 712, the Security Council had a fair amount of complicity in the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. It set a cap on the oil sales and earmarked a third for war reparations to Kuwait, weapons inspectors, and UN administrative costs. After deductions this would yield $1.1 billion in revenue for humanitarian purposes, but apparently was a small fraction of the estimate made for essential spending.

And regarding your point on the Iraqi Government's obviously lax humanitarian priorities:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The US and the UK also accused the Iraqi leader of various kinds of malfeasance that deepened his people’s economic and social crisis. The accusations charged that Saddam built presidential palaces, a stadium and a lavish safari park, while his people were suffering, and that he built an artificial lake during a drought. (68) Many of the charges appear to be true and reflect the Iraqi government’s lax humanitarian priorities. However, these projects appear to have cost only a small portion of the country’s vast needs for humanitarian supplies and capital re-building. While outrageous, they fall far short of providing by themselves an explanation for Iraq’s humanitarian emergency. (69)

... In fact, the World Health Organization had urged the Iraqi government to increase its buffer stocks because of uneven and unpredictable supply chains, while computerization of records (likewise recommended by the UN) had temporarily slowed deliveries. Lack of transportation equipment, due to the sanctions, also slowed delivery of medicines at this time.

....UN reports have repeatedly stated that Iraq has acceptably carried out the Oil-for-Food distribution plan (which must be previously approved by the Security Council).<hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:<hr />The fact is he chooses not to, and latches onto the sanctions as a propaganda device, which in turn is eagerly eaten up and accepted by those naive individuals who are more inclined to trust a murdering tyrant than the United States.<hr /></blockquote>Who are these naive individuals that are “more inclined to trust a murdering tyrant than the United States" whom you speak of? Most of those who oppose the war also accept that Saddam is, for all intents and purposes, a monster, but have differing views as to how to deal with him. Perhaps those who oppose the war, myself included, are naive in that we think armed force is not necessary for dealing with Saddam, but you are seriously distorting my position by implying that I "trust" such a man. The only way in which Saddam ever co-operates is by threatening him with invasion and slowly applying more and more pressure upon him so he complies with the UN sanctions out of self-interest. I trust neither Saddam not the American government. The former for obvious reasons, the latter due to a history of practising a cynical and immoral foreign policy which included aiding the Ba’ath Party in its rise to power and courting Saddam while he began to violently purge his own party, even before the war with Iran started. This same government, through a succession of different elected administrations supported governments like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pinochet’s Chile, D’Anubission’s El Salvador, Suharto’s Indonesia, the dictatorships in Guatemala from the 1950s to the 1980s, allowing some of the of most terrible conditions to exist in said countries…so forgive me if I am feeling cynical about the sincerity of Junior when he states he wants to liberate the people of Iraq or that the situation will be a great deal better. The U.S. military has already used depleted uranium in shells and armour, which once exploded or splintered produces fragments that can be inhaled through the air or ingested through the water supply. This has led to a massive rise birth deformities and cancer in Iraq. It’s just astounding. And though I am not sure what Gulf War Syndrome could be attributed to (I am guessing depleted Uranium, though I think I have heard something about Saddam deploying chemical weapons during the Gulf War ) I find it interesting that the U.S. government has shown itself unwilling to take of these Gulf War veterans even though they basically went and risked their lives in one of their conflicts.

Holy Diver

03-10-2003, 05:32 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kal-el:
The only problem I have with the timing is that is should have happened sooner. 9/11 showed us what haappens with inaction.<hr /></blockquote>So explain how Iraq not disarming led to 9/11? I do not see how Saddam having certain weapons was the main cause of the atrocities committed by Al-Qaeda upon the World Trade Centre since its existence is more tied up to Muhajadeen of the Soviet-Afghan war in particular and socio-economic conditions in the Arab world in general.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />After that event the cries were "why wasn't something done before this?" and now that the US is attempting to make that happen the cries are "what are you doing?"<hr /></blockquote>And who exactly are asking these questions? I think a better question to ask is what course action should have been taken before this terrorist act happened

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> As opposed to the 9/11 attack that happened because wonderful peace loving people like Pres. Clinton decided NOT to defend the people and property of the US like our embassies and the USS Cole. <hr /></blockquote>People constantly complain about the peace effort by referring to 9/11 attacks even though that bastard Saddam had nothing to do with them. I would like to see some actual cause-and-effect here. Al-Qaeda drew much of its support and recruits from Saudi Arabi and Afghanistan (before the Taliban were disposed) and feeds off of the misery caused by an autocratic monarchy and massive gaps between rich and poor. In situations like these you might get principled reformers like Chico Mendes or the British labour party. However, if suppression is sufficient to close off any reasonable and peaceful attempts to change the situation the banner of social reform may be taken up by more extreme forces on the political spectrum. Latin America is an illustrative example of this. In the case of Guatemala after the overthrow of President Jacobo Arbenz's government, the regime led by Castillo Armas and supported by the Eisenhower administration proceeded to purge all leftists from political and civil life. This did not merely include Communists but also any reformers left to the far right, who by the 1960s were being murdered by death squads. And what happened? Well you had the growth of revolutionary guerrilla armies since all other options of changing a totally unacceptable system were closed off through violence. The case is similar for El Salvador (whose right-wing government nearly collapsed in the 80s if not for Reagan’s support because), Cuba, Columbia, and can even apply to the Middle East as well. Take Palestine for example. The reason groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, as well as phenomena like suicide bombings continue to exist is not merely due to an irrational hatred for the west and Jews…well yes it is but there are other things involved. For one thing, the continued policy repression by the IDF, including the draconian curfews, the demolishing of homes, the further deprivation of Palestinians of land to live on – along with the miserable economic conditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip – Palestinians are mostly left with little to no recourse but resort to violence, or at least they don’t see much else in the way of recourse. This can also apply to Saudi Arabia, where those looking for change may be frustrated by the situation but were presented with no other alternative but a bunch of religious fanatics and scumbags like Bin Laden. And the U.S. has not only supported the Saudi regime, but hostility to it has been raised by the troops stationed in the region since the Gulf War. This doesn’t justify the suicide bombings, and it certainly doesn’t justify 9-11. It does however justify honestly looking at American foreign policy and altering a lot of policies which could defuse some of the resentment there and truly make a long term effort to ensuring the United States is not targeted.

And I am with Stuart. Bush is nuts. He’s devoting his troops to fight an unpopular and dangerous war in Iraq – even as Saddam is starting to demur under the pressure and co-operate more and more to save his but, yet there is talk of pulling out U.S. troops from South Korea even though Kim Il Jong is getting more and more brazen and a deterrent is needed the most. (Of course the U.S. government didn’t fully meet its commitments under the 1994 agreement either, only pouring the first foundation for the light reactor by August of 2002 when the agreement stated a light water reactor capacity of 2,000 MW(e) by 2003 – something the papers never seem to mention) I too can only pray that we all come out of this alive.