I would rather not give them the benefit of the doubt. I would rather say that they are another exploited nation on its way to ruins because the leaders of this nation are greedy for their own gain. The Oil Industry seems to be connected throughout most major and non major industries, even if indirectly.
And notice, our gas prices are finally going down. Hmmm, curious.

Posted by: Shawna at June 30, 2004 08:23 PM

Rowan,

Please give me a straight answer. Are you honestly saying that you think the Iraqi people are not better off now than they were under Saddam?

The article you cite seems closer to comedy than fact. The "judicial" system is worse now than it was under Saddam because "the court system is more clogged than before the war"? Yup, that's what it says. Saddam's judicial system was so much better because it was very efficient at filling the hundreds of mass graves. That is one of the few "key areas" that are worse now than before the war.

Since you seem to have endorsed this article blindly, I can only assume that you would prefer that (1) Saddam were back in power (after all, the Iraqis were better off) and (2) his "judicial" system were running so that the courts would not be "clogged" with individuals who could otherwise be in mass graves.

Is that an accurate assessment of your views?

Posted by: Meaty Fly at July 1, 2004 06:29 PM

The article I cite is the General Accounting Office of the United States Report to Congress. The points raised come from that report. If you have a beef with the report, contact them.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "better off." Certainly their daily lives are not better (per the GAO report). They also have tons of depleted uranium from our bombing and artillery which they will be dealing with for generations.

Currently, they are not even an independent nation, but at best, subrogated to US forces. They have roughly 140,000 foreign forces in their country still acting as an occupation force. Their national resources have been privatized and are under the control of US corporations. The US even spent their oil income before the interim government could take power. Thanks to the invasion, Iraq has become THE PLACE to fight the Americans, and while they didn't have organized terrorist groups before, they do now. The movement towards an independent, elected government is occurring in a power vacuum.

Are they better off without Saddam Hussein? I would say yes. Would they have been better off without the destruction and occupation (not to mention the impact of 11 years of sanctions)? I would say yes.

Before folks go too far off the deep end on Saddam Hussein, it would be a good idea to remember that Hussein was a brutal dictator, but he was a brutal dictator we supported, protected from prosecution from the UN for murdering his own people, and whom we armed (including biological and chemical weapons, and military jets).

Posted by: rowan at July 1, 2004 07:12 PM

sort of like killing british in the revolutionary war and the war of 1812 then joining forces with them in WW1 and WW2 - once an enemy, always an enemy? The same logic can be applied to afghanistan, i.e. we helped bin laden fight a common enemy, the soviets, and therefore created the monster he became ( never mind the fact that once the mujahadeen were supplied with stinger missles, the soviet Hind attack helicopters could not longer take out entire villages and had to pretty much stay close to their bases and heavily armed convoys). And not only did we create bin laden, we subsequently bear responsibility for the taliban taking control in afghanistan - oh the burden of being the perpetual and only villian on the planet! - talk about being ethnocentric ....

Posted by: Goesh at July 1, 2004 08:27 PM

sort of like killing british in the revolutionary war and the war of 1812 then joining forces with them in WW1 and WW2 - once an enemy, always an enemy? The same logic can be applied to afghanistan, i.e. we helped bin laden fight a common enemy, the soviets, and therefore created the monster he became ( never mind the fact that once the mujahadeen were supplied with stinger missles, the soviet Hind attack helicopters could no longer take out entire villages and had to pretty much stay close to their bases and heavily armed convoys). And not only did we create bin laden, we subsequently bear responsibility for the taliban taking control in afghanistan - oh the burden of being the perpetual and only villian on the planet! - talk about being ethnocentric ....

Posted by: Goesh at July 1, 2004 08:27 PM

Rowan,

Let's just stick to one issue: whether Iraqis are better off, whether removing Saddam resulted in a better situation.

If you could rewind the clock and put Saddam back in power so that everything was just as it was prior to the invasion, would you do so?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "better off." Certainly their daily lives are not better (per the GAO report).

But, as I just pointed out, the GAO report is based on things like the court system being "worse" because it is "clogged". You judge whether that is a significant measure of "worse off."

They also have tons of depleted uranium from our bombing and artillery which they will be dealing with for generations.

Okay, there is one demerit. Personally, I think the hundreds of thousands of individuals in mass graves would prefer to face depleted uranium, but perhaps not.

Currently, they are not even an independent nation, but at best, subrogated to US forces. They have roughly 140,000 foreign forces in their country still acting as an occupation force.

You have a very pessimistic view of things. 16 months after the invasion, sovereignty has been handed over: a remarkable feat. Does the fact that the military remains mean it isn't an "independent" nation? Well, by that standard, Japan and Germany are not independent even now.

But even so, the question remains, does independence like Japan and Germany beat life under Saddam?

Your answer:

Are they better off without Saddam Hussein? I would say yes.

So the answer is yes. Iraqis are better off now than under Saddam.

And since they are better off. I assume that, given the chance, you would not rewind the clock so that Saddam was back in power and everything was in its pre-war state. Perhaps it is time to admit that you were wrong, that this war--like the wars that ended slavery, fascism, and Nazism--was a positive accomplishment. I'll leave you with the words of the Iraqi blogger Ali:

Iraq the Model: I was deeply moved by this great man's [Bremer's] words but I could't prevent myself from watching the effect of his words on my friends who some of them were anti-Americans and some were skeptic, although some of them have always shared my optimism. I found that they were touched even more deeply than I was. I turned to one friend who was a committed She'at and who distrusted America all the way. He looked as if he was bewitched, and I asked him, "So, what do you think of this man? Do you still consider him an invader?" My friend smiled, still touched and said, "Absolutely not! He brought tears to my eyes. God bless him."

Another friend approached me. This one was not religious but he was one of the conspiracy theory believers. He put his hands on my shoulders and said smiling, "I must admit that I'm beginning to believe in what you've been telling us for months and I'm beginning to have faith in America. I never thought that they will hand us sovereignty in time. These people have shown that they keep their promises."

Posted by: Meaty Fly at July 1, 2004 09:50 PM

Well, I don't agree that "clogged courts" are an insignificant issue, but there are other issues. Issues such as lack of access to clean water and 77% of Iraqi's not having access to electricity. Nor lack of hospitals and medical care; nor the unaccounted money missing from the treasury.

I think that a false argument is being put forward here. The assumption is that if one doesn't support the preemptive invasion of Iraq (and see that as desirable) that one 1) doesn't care about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's, and 2) is anti-American. I don't know about anyone else, but I do not believe that either of those applies to me.

Mass death, and mass graves
The gassing of the Kurds, and attacks on Kurdish villages. Who gassed the Kurds is subject to some debate, but assuming it was Hussein, the US still continued to support and have good relations with him after this event. It was in the US interest to look the other way and we did.

The massacres in the south and mass graves
The US troops were told to stand down and watch while the Iraqi army attacked the Shiites at the end of the Gulf War. President H.W. Bush, had encouraged the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north. He had promised US support in their efforts to rise up against Hussein. However, when the time came, the US not only did not provide support, we did not provide protection. Imagine, if you will, how the US government might respond to massive armed rebellion inside the US? Do you think that the government would not respond with force - deadly force? Prior to Kent State I would have said no. After that, and in the current environment? I do not doubt that such an uprising would squashed quickly and violently. Please do not think that I am trying to justify what happened. There is no justification for slaughter, and there is no justification for standing by and watching it happen.

Some of those mass graves in the south are Iraqi soldiers killed and buried by US forces. I happen to know someone who was part of the "clean up" detail who used bulldozers to dig mass graves and place the corpses of Iraqi soldiers in them during Gulf I.

I am not un-American or anti-American. I am anti-imperialism, and anti-propaganda. I believe that it is my responsibility as a citizen of the United States, and as one who loves this land, to do what I can to hold our nation to its highest values. The argument that we "better" than some dictator because while abusive we aren't as abusive, doesn't cut it with me. Playing to the lowest denominator doesn't work for me. Justifying brutality, illegal action, and "dirty tactics" because the "other guys" are doing it, is not acceptable.

I realize that many, including Meaty Fly, may disagree with me. That's fine, but that's where I stand. If we truly support liberty and freedom for all, then we must not support those who deny it because it's "in our best interests." I do not believe that the "end justifies the means." The sacrificing of our principles, our values, and our highest hopes for our nation, means we no longer hold them - in my opinion. Call me an idealist, but that is where I stand.

When we look at the crimes of Saddam Hussein, it is important to also look at the hand of the US. We too must stand accountable. It is the honorable thing to do. In the US legal system, being an accomplice to murder is a crime. In Iraq under Saddam Hussein, we were an accomplice.

Posted by: rowan at July 2, 2004 08:25 AM

You have an incredible problem seeing what is relevant and irrelevant to a particular issue. Let's just address whether or not removing Saddam was a good thing. That question does not require the resolution of who is to blame for Saddam's rise to power, etc. We can debate that next. Needless to say, I don't agree with you. But let's take it one point at a time. You defend yourself by pulling in a bunch of peripheral issues as a distraction.

The clogged courts represent the spin of a twisted mind (not you:)). Of course there are some ways that you could define success or "better" or "worse" so that things are worse now. Clogged courts is on of these. But the irony is that Saddam's courts were more "efficient" in part because they weren't really courts, but conveyor belts to his mass graves. Obviously we want to see a functioning judicial system, but it is the height of absurdity to in any way shape or form suggest that Saddam's "judicial" system was "better." Better, yeah, at killing people.

The water and electricity examples have to be put in their proper context, a context of improvement and hope. Under Saddam, conditions were more or less going to stay the same. There was no real hope of improvement. Now there is. Do you honestly believe that electricity and water problems will be where they are in 1 or 2 years? This is a temporary state. Your approach is like saying that a homeless person who just received 10 dollars as a handout is "better off" than a new college grad who doesn't have a dime to his name but has a bright future. Yes, in terms of that one measurement, the bum is "better off". But only a fool would actually rather be in the bum's position. The same is true with Iraq. Any reasonable person will freely admit that the Iraqis are better off, even if they are slightly worse off in one material aspect or another. This is because those materials aspects are going to improve rapidly over the next few years.

I think that a false argument is being put forward here. The assumption is that if one doesn't support the preemptive invasion of Iraq (and see that as desirable) that one 1) doesn't care about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's, and 2) is anti-American.

This is preposterous. I never suggested, stated, or implied anything about being "anti-American." The opponents of Saddam's removal are always carrying on about how their patriotism is questioned, yet rarely do I actually see anyone question it.

No, my argument is far simpler. If you admit that the Iraqi people are better off now than they were under Saddam, and you have admitted that, then we can assume that you wouldn't want to rewind the clock and have things in their pre-war state. After all, the pre-war state would mean the restoration of Saddam, which was worse. Therefore, you must admit that the war improved the situation and was a positive event all things considered (insofar as things are better now than they were).

Here is where you bring in the smoke screen. You list a bunch of reasons why (1) we are to blame for what Saddam did or (2) we actually did the things, not Saddam.

Once again, this is an entirely different argument and has nothing to do with the one advanced above.

Britain and France helped increase Hitler's power by selling out Czechoslovakia and failing to back up Poland. When Hitler snapped both of those countries up, his position was much stronger, and he also had the opportunity to commit many atrocities in the process. Britain's weak pacifist leadership at the time contributed to this. But, ultimately, these facts have nothing to do with whether or not toppling Hitler was, all things considered, necessary and worth while.

I don't buy any of your interpretations. But it doesn't matter because they wouldn't change the assessment of whether removing Saddam was good or bad.

So please, let's just take one issue at a time. We can argue about who is to blame for supporting Saddam after we resolve issue one, namely, whether the war was a good thing (it clearly was).

Posted by: Meaty Fly at July 2, 2004 10:24 AM

To make this as convoluted as possible, clearly the Iraqis would be better off with saddam still in place. Take the mass graves for instance. Once Saddams forces were driven away, Iraqis rushed to the sites searching for dead relatives. It was outrageous the way the Iraqi peasantry prevented Human Rights groups from conducting proper forensics on all the decomposed bodies with bullett holes in the back of the heads. They scooped up bones and rushed off to perform burials and prayer services for the victims, which America was responsible for in the first place. Since saddam was not really responsible for the mass killings, it is reasonable to assume that in time he would have allowed his people to reclaim bodies, and the miffed human rights groups would have nothing to complain about. He would have authorized proper forensics to further villify the US - that's the real reason for the invasion - to blame the mass graves in Iraq on saddam's regime.

Secondly, since Saddam had no WMD, the 17 missles and 3 mortars containing sarrin nerve gas, found by Polish forces on 6/23/04, don't really exist.
And since this sarrin nerve gas never existed, no terrorists could disperse it in crowded places in the US. Spreading sarrin on the streets of New York City during the noon hour in hot weather would most likely have resulted in a tactical nuke or two being dropped on saddam. That would have been very bad for the Iraqi people, so clearly they were better off with saddam still in control. Just ask all the Iraqi exiles up in Dearborn, Michigan if you don't believe me!

Posted by: Goesh at July 2, 2004 10:33 AM

Goesh,

Do you think Rowan actually cares about "peace" or is it just a front to ensure that American power doesn't grow any larger?

Have you noticed that she is part of the "peace webring"? Here's their promotional passage:

PEACE. Need we say more? Violence only leads to more violence. An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind. Peace, love, understanding, compassion, pacifism, Mahatma Gandhi, John Lennon, John F Kennedy, Yasser Arafat and every other peace loving member of humanity. Websites about Nobel Peace prize winners like Yasser Arafat are especially welcome, for the place that needs peace more than ever now is Israel.

So Rowan belongs to a "peace" ring that supports and encourages content dedicated to Arafat, a murderous thug.

Meanwhile, she opposes the removal of Saddam, a murderous tyrant, in the name of "peace."

I think I'm beginning to discern a pattern.

Posted by: Meaty Fly at July 2, 2004 11:01 AM

The photography business in Iraq:
This clearly has suffered since the americans and their allies invaded. Unfortunately saddam had many traitors and people like the kuwaitis who were trying to turn Iraqi women into 10 Dinar whores, after all, they are dogs as he pointed out in his court appearance. Anyway, Human nature being what it is, people don't readily want to admit to their evil deeds. Pictures had to be taken of those arrested and proof of their interrogation shown in order to get paid for ferreting out traitors. To put the proper spin on this, the literal tonnage of pictures of all the traitors accounts for a pretty penny in the photography industry, which thanks to bush is now about defunct. Just one more economic reason why the Iraqis would be better off with saddam still in power.

Posted by: goesh at July 2, 2004 11:07 AM

I truly don not believe that I deserve the diatribe that is going on here. Smoke screen? Please. If you want to get simplistic, talking about Saddam no longer being in power in isolation of everything else, is like trying to talk about whether he was a brutal dictator without talking about the vile actions he took against his own people.

Also simplistic, is the idea that the only way to remove Hussein was to invade the country an blow it to pieces.

The people of Iraq are suffering. They suffered under Hussein. They truly suffered under the sanctions. And they are suffering now, partially because of the war we brought to their door, and partially because of the power vacuum that has been created.

And what about those "weapons of mass destruction." You might be interested in looking at the USA Today article Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq which says and I quote:

Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent, but it is not clear what period the weapons came from, the Defense Ministry said Thursday.

...

"There is no doubt that the warheads contain chemical weapons," Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski told TVN24. "The problem is what period they came from, whether the (Persian) Gulf War or earlier, and whether they were usable, partly usable or not at all."

Another dozen were found later in June and were being tested in Baghdad and the United States, he said.

"Some of them are very corroded. They are probably not usable, but are dangerous to the local environment," Szmajdzinski said.

....

Officials at the time stopped short of claiming the munition was definite evidence of a large weapons stockpile in prewar Iraq or evidence of recent production by Saddam Hussein's regime.

Two war heads (14 total with the others that were found) with unusable sarin gas. Yep, that's worth destroying a country for. Heck, N. Korea has, an estimated, six nuclear warheads on missiles that can reach the United States. For that matter, so does Pakistan.

But that's not the issue is it? I see that those claiming I am obfuscating can't stay on the "simple" topic of whether the Iraqi's are better off without Saddam Hussein. Why? Because one can't argue people are better off without arguing why. And you can't argue why without examining the cost of removing him.

I have made no claim that I support the government of Saddam Hussein, or even viewed it in any kind of a favorable light. I find it interesting, that people can argue that the Iraqi's are "better off" without Hussein without 1) specifying what exactly that means, and 2) arguing that the costs (human costs) of that "removal" don't count. Such an argument essentially boils down to "we should remove brutal dictators regardless of the costs because the people will be better off." If that is the stand, and it is a viable point to argue, then the people of the United States had best be willing to spend lots of money and lots of blood to make that happen, because there are numerous brutal rulers. The groans over the economic costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan to the US (and our internal systems such as education, social services, and domestic safety to name a few) are minisvule compared to the cost of invading multiple nations to remove brutal dictators and then rebuild and reshape those nations.

If it is good for Iraq, then how about Sudan where millions of people are at risk from the genocidal war? How about Saudia Arabia? How about Cuba? The list goes on and on. If our "job" is to remove dictators, then that is a different war than the "war on terrorism" is it not?

I am not a pacifist. I believe there are times to fight. I also believe that there are many other options than war. Soldiers will tell you that wars happen when diplomacy fails. Wars are a last resort and a sign of failure - not a sign of victory.

Posted by: rowan at July 2, 2004 12:49 PM

Rowan,

Let's test the relevance of your arguments. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you are 100% correct that (1) the U.S. shares the blame for what Saddam did and (2) Saddam posed no threat at all to Americans.

Okay? Now, even under those facts, the question remains: are the Iraqis better off or not now that Saddam is gone. I've already conceded, for the sake of argument, the points above. So no need to launch into an argument about our blame for Saddam's behavior.

In any case, you already answered the question with a "yes."

This statement of yours is relevant:

The people of Iraq are suffering. They suffered under Hussein. They truly suffered under the sanctions. And they are suffering now, partially because of the war we brought to their door, and partially because of the power vacuum that has been created.

In analyzing this, we need to determine whether there will be more suffering in a democratic Iraq over the next few decades than there would have been under a totalitarian Iraq. The consequences of action and inaction aren't frozen in time but extend into the future.

First, UNICEF estimated that 60,000 civilians (per year) were dying early deaths in the years before the war. I've read 37,000 per year elsewhere, but it probably depends on the period measured.

Second, the peacenik www.iraqbodycount.net estimates the number of Iraqi civilian deaths as 9,000 to 11,000 since the start of the war (from a few weeks ago). Given the nature of the counters, odds are this is an inflated number.

Now, if you and the other peace-loving opponents of Saddam's removal had their way (and if UNICEF can be believed), somewhere between 37,000 to 60,000 Iraqi civilians would have died in the past year. Instead, a mere 9,000 to 11,000 died.

Moreover, in a democratic Iraq those numbers are going to decline over time. Under Saddam, the mass graves would have continued to fill (but, hey, the "judicial" system would have been much, much better!).

Now, the next question is whether, in the absence of sanctions, death rates would have been lower. I find that very doubtful. Without the first war and subsequent sanctions, Kuwait would be under Saddam's rule. And Saddam killed far more than 9,000 to 11,000 per year in plain executions. I don't have any statistics, but I have to assume that even in the absence of sanctions, Saddam would have killed more than the number of dead as a result of the war.

What is odd is your own amnesia. You just admitted that Iraqis are, all things considered better off, and then you turn around and say,

Yep, that's worth destroying a country for.

What? It is odd that our "destruction" of the country resulted in what you admit to be a better situation than before: a fledgling democracy with a hope for a better future. If this is "destruction", let's have more of it.

I have made no claim that I support the government of Saddam Hussein, or even viewed it in any kind of a favorable light. I find it interesting, that people can argue that the Iraqi's are "better off" without Hussein without 1) specifying what exactly that means, and 2) arguing that the costs (human costs) of that "removal" don't count. Such an argument essentially boils down to "we should remove brutal dictators regardless of the costs because the people will be better off."

Rowan, you have a post here that says it is not true that the Iraqis are better off. Then you admit that they are better off but still refer to that improvement as the "destruction" of Iraq. And they you san that my claims suggest we should topple tyrants everywhere, when all I'm doing is challenging your assertion that the Iraqis are worse off. They aren't. They are better off and you know it.

I am not a pacifist. I believe there are times to fight.

Please give me an example of a war you think was, all things considered, a good war.

Soldiers will tell you that wars happen when diplomacy fails. Wars are a last resort and a sign of failure - not a sign of victory.

Soldiers don't say that, peaceniks do. The history of man is nothing but war punctuated with transitory periods of peace. To say that wars only occur when diplomacy fails is to completely ignore what has actually happened in history. Iraq has been full of chaos and war literally for all of history. The Romans fought the Persians there for 600 years. There was chaos long before America ever touched the region, yet you insist on blaming the chaos there on America, or on a failure of diplomacy. History says otherwise.

Posted by: Meaty Fly at July 2, 2004 01:54 PM

Only Peaceniks!

Hoke Recently I gave a talk to a local service club on Veterans Day during which I outlined the United States policy with regard to the use of military forces. I was encouraged to make this information more widely known, so that is the essence of this article.

When and under what circumstances our young men and women answer the call to arms and enter mortal combat has never been the choice of those in uniform. That is a decision made by the civilian leadership normally referred as the "National Command Authority".

Our National policy regarding the use of military forces is clear and simple. It is:

* The military is an extension of the diplomatic table.
* It is to be used only when diplomacy fails.
* It's purpose is to destroy the enemy's will and/or ability to wage war.
* For every military engagement, there must be a diplomatic settlement.

This policy had it genesis during the Revolutionary War and was formalized shortly after the Civil War.

Air Combat Information Group Quote:

On 2003-05-02 11:50, Hajoreh wrote:
Yes, but what to do when diplomacy fails?

Try, try again. Diplomacy is never truly over.

The North wants recognition & regime security. Starting a war definitely won't help in this regard.

Brig. General Cocroft "War is the extension of policy when diplomacy fails,"

Death figures from the Iraq Body Count are deaths only as a direct consequence of war - killed or died from injuries - and therefore not a comparable mortality count. I do appreciate the statistcs you cited however.

I am not going to get into a debate on what a "good" or "just" war is. Particularly with someone who clearly thinks that diplomacy is a side issue, and that war is a natural and necessary event.

Posted by: rowan at July 2, 2004 05:04 PM

Rowan,

I spent the time to put together a reasoned argument. Personally, I think I have you in a corner. And now you are going to try to slide out of the debate by saying,

I am not going to get into a debate on what a "good" or "just" war is. Particularly with someone who clearly thinks that diplomacy is a side issue, and that war is a natural and necessary event.

First, I don't think diplomacy is a side issue. It is important. But I don't think that wars simply happen when diplomacy fails. Wars preceded diplomacy (there are documented wars between groups of Chimpanzees), and there are many, many examples in history where one side simply attacked the other and diplomacy played no part in the events at all. I stand corrected on the issue of whether any military person has made those statements. They are, however, a policy, not a discription of how war and diplomacy have actually interracted in history.

Second, is there really any doubt that war is natural and necessary in at least some situations? Can you please tell me of any period in the history of man that has not had constant wars? I am open to your argument, but it seems like an odd one. War has always been a constant through time. What reasons do we have to believe that war is not every bit as normal a part of life as peace?

But really, the main thing is that none of this has to do with the arguments above about whether Iraq is better off. THAT is the issue. Okay, so my statistics aren't dispositive of the issue. They do provide a basis for further debate.

If you think you still have a chance of holding your ground, please put forth a further argument.

Posted by: Meaty Fly at July 2, 2004 06:34 PM

Oh, and Rowan,

While you are at it, please help me understand how a person devoted to peace is part of a webring that associates "peace" with the activities of Arafat. Arafat is a terrorist. There is nothing peaceful about him. What gives?

Posted by: Meaty Fly at July 2, 2004 06:41 PM

We do not know what is going to happen to the Iraqis. We do not know the future. What we can do is take a look at the past and the present and try to learn from history. We can try to anticipate the future. The questions we can ask ourselves are « what are the countries where the United-States took military actions. What were the official purposes of these actions at these moments. What was behind these official purposes. Which are the countries where a successful democracy was put in place from the outside, following to the military actions. Then which are the countries where human rights were respected, following to these military actions. Which are the countries that were free of an occupation taking the resources of the invaded country. Which countries were not similar to a colonized country. What happened to the people of these countries.

First, Japan and Germany.
A European friend writes to me the following concerning the huge American military bases still in place after so many years in these two countries and what it means for these two countries. I will soon translate it to Rowan. You still can roughly translate it now at this address :

http://babelfish.altavista.com/cgi-bin/translate?

« ni l’Allemagne , ni le Japon ne sont, aujourd’hui encore, des pays indépendants. C’est miraculeux que l’Allemagne, pays encore occupé par les troupes américaines, ait, pour la première fois osé s’opposer à l’occupant américain en refusant de s’associer à la guerre en Irak. Mais la limitation de la souveraineté a fait qu’elle a n’a pu empêcher l’Amérique d’utiliser librement les troupes et le matériel de ses bases pour les envoyer en Irak. Voilà un exemple de souveraineté limitée.

Il y a dans ces 2 pays principalement de gigantesques bases et infrastructures américaines ( ce sont les anciens vaincus de la guerre de 1940) . Mais il y en a également dans tous les autres pays européens sauf en France. C’est le Général de Gaulle qui a demandé aux Américains de partir. C’est en vertu de cette occupation que Bush peut prétendre que l’Amérique est « une puissance européenne ». A Ankara, récemment, personne n’a osé affronter Bush ( à cause de l’Otan et des bases militaires), sauf J.Chirac , car la France est la seule nation non occupée d’Europe . Depuis lors, les Américains ont signé avec chaque pays européen des traités qui pérennisent et institutionnalisent leur présence, si bien que les États ne peuvent plus simplement demander aux Américains de plier bagages. La rupture d’un traité international est un acte majeur aux conséquences graves. Cette occupation est un des drames de l’Europe.

Il faudra beaucoup de courage à l’Allemagne pour , un jour , se libérer totalement du poids de sa défaite et de la présence des troupes étrangères sur son sol. Elles ne sont plus des troupes d’occupation qui administrent directement le pays, comme c’est le cas en Irak. Mais elles sont là, en pays conquis, et agissent sur le sol allemand librement et sans même informer le gouvernement allemand. Sans compter le lobbying secret et permanent ici et là. C’est cela la souveraineté limitée. »

Next, the other countries – it is not an exhaustive list. See the following web site:
http://usgohome.free.fr/interventions.htm

(Sorry for it is a web site written in French, and sorry for my poor English.)

American military interventions in the world since 1846.

Interventions Américaines dans le monde depuis 1846 (non-exhaustif)

« Quelques usages de la force armée américaine à l’étranger 1798-1945 » présentant quelques-unes des 103 « opérations extérieures » américaines avant l’intervention américaine à Cuba. Liste "enrichie" par l'actualité.

1846- Mexique.
A l’issue d’une guerre qu’ils avaient programmées et provoquée, les USA s’emparent de la moitié du territoire mexicain. Ce territoire conquis s’appelle aujourd’hui : la Californie, le Nevada, l’Utah, l’Arizona, le Nouveau-Mexique, le Colorado (en partie).

1852-1853- Argentine.
Les « marines » débarquent et s’installent à Buenos-Aires pour protéger les « intérêts » américains face à une révolution.*

1853- Nicaragua.
« protection » des citoyens et intérêts américains pendant des troubles politiques.

1853-1854- Japon.
Plan « d’ouverture du Japon » et expédition Perry qui conduit, avec les navires de guerre américains, à forcer le Japon à ouvrir ses ports aux États-Unis.*

1853-1854- Ryukyu et Iles Bonin.
Attendant une réponse du Japon l’autorisant à se rendre dans ce pays, le contre-amiral américain Perry, opère une démonstration navale de force et débarque par deux fois. Il obtient des autorités de Naha, sur l’île d’Okinawa, la gestion d’une concession minière. Il opère la même démonstration de force dans les îles de Bonin afin d’obtenir des facilités commerciales.*

1854- Nicaragua.
Pour « venger » une offense faite au ministre-résident américain en poste au Nicaragua : destruction de la vile de Greytown (San Juan del Norte)*

1855- Uruguay.
Les marines américaines et européennes débarquent pour « protéger » les intérêts américains au cours d’une tentative de révolution à Montevideo.

1859- Chine.
Intervention américaine destinée à protéger les intérêts américains à Shanghai.

1860- Angola.
Intervention en Afrique occidentale portugaise pour assurer la sécurité des citoyens et des biens américains pendant une révolte indigène à Kissembo.

1893- Hawaii.
Sous couvert officiel de protéger les vies et les biens des américains, cette intervention visa à mettre en place un gouvernement provisoire sous l’autorité de Sanford D. Dole.

1894- Nicaragua.
Intervention pour protéger les intérêts américains à Bluefields à la suite d’une révolution.

1898- Cuba.
Sous prétexte de libérer l’île de la tutelle espagnole, les USA s’installent et imposent une base militaire, la possibilités d’investissements financiers américains et un droit d’intervention dans les affaires intérieures du pays.

1898- Porto-Rico, Hawaii, Wake, Guam.
Sous prétexte de défaire la tutelle espagnole, les USA s’installent et imposent une base militaire, la possibilités d’investissements financiers américains et un droit d’intervention dans les affaires intérieures du pays.

1898- Philippines.
L’archipel est vendu aux USA par l’Espagne (décembre 1898), les philippins se soulèvent contre les États-Unis (février 1899), les USA envoie 70 000 militaires qui mettront trois ans pour mater le soulèvement (des milliers de pertes).

1903- Colombie.
Les États-Unis fomentent une « révolution » à l’issue de laquelle ils créent de toute pièce la république de Panama qui lui assure le contrôle du célèbre canal et des bénéfices énormes qu’il génère.

1915- Haïti.
Nouvelle intervention et occupation des troupes américaines pour… 19 ans.

1916- République Dominicaine.
Quatrième intervention et maintien des troupes américaines pour… 8 ans.

1926- Nicaragua.
Nouvelle intervention et expédition de 5000 militaires pour contrer une révolution.

1945-46- Chine.
Les USA bombardent la Chine.

1946- Philippines.
Colonie américaine jusqu’à l’occupation japonaise, les Philippines accèdent à leur indépendance en 1946 en concédant aux USA un droit illimité d’exploitation des ressources naturelles du pays au titre des dommages de guerre. Jusqu’en 1992 les USA conservent 23 bases militaires et participent à la répression des opposants communistes ou musulmans.

1947- Grèce.
Les américains volent au secours de la dictature de droite mise en place par les britanniques et menacée par la guérilla de gauche. Les USA livrent 74 000 tonnes de matériels militaires et d’armements et envoient 250 « conseillers » militaires sur le terrain, assurant ainsi la victoire des force de droite en 1949.

1950- Porto Rico.
Les troupes américaines qui stationnent en permanence écrasent un mouvement d’indépendance. 2 ans plus tard Porto Rico se voit accorder le délicieux statut « d‘État libre associé aux États-Unis »

1950- Corée.
Les armées de la Corée du Nord franchissent le 38ème parallèle et pénètrent en Corée du Sud. A la « demande » des Nations-Unies qu’ils dominent très largement, les USA « acceptent » d’aider à repousser l’agression armée. 2 millions de coréens trouvent la mort au cours de cette guerre.

1950-53- Chine.
Les USA bombardent la Chine.

1953- Iran.
Un coup d’État orchestré par la CIA est mené par l’armée et les grands propriétaires fonciers après que les britanniques aient organisés le boycott des compagnies pétrolières iraniennes suite à leur nationalisation en 1951. Les USA vont alors soutenir pendant les 25 ans qui suivent l’homme fort du pays, le Chah d’Iran. Celui-ci devra s’enfuir en 1978 devant le raz-de-marée de la révolution islamique. (2 ans plus tard, en 1980, la guerre entre l’Iran et l’Irak sera une aubaine pour les industries d’armements, notamment américaines).

1954- Guatemala.
Des mercenaires entraînés par la CIA au Honduras et au Nicaragua renversent, avec l’aide de l’aviation américaine, le gouvernement le plus démocratique que le Guatemala ait jamais connu.

1958- Liban.
Des milliers de « marines » sont envoyés au Liban pour empêcher le renversement du gouvernement pro-américain et protéger les intérêts américains dans cette région riche en ressources pétrolières.

1958- Indonésie.
Les USA bombardent l'Indonésie.

1960- Guatemala.
Les USA bombardent le Guatemala.

1961- Cuba.
Armés et entraînés par la CIA, plus de 1000 exilés cubains débarquent dans la baie des cochons avec l’espoir de provoquer une rébellion contre le gouvernement castriste en place très populaire. Le soulèvement n’a pas lieu, les mercenaires sont rejetés à la mer, les USA frappe d’embargo Cuba. En 2002 l’embargo américain dure encore.

1961-1972- Vietnam.
Pendant 11 ans les USA, prenant le relais de l’armée française, utilisent tout leur arsenal militaire y compris chimique pour venir à bout d’un mouvement révolutionnaire nationaliste d’indépendance. La guerre la plus longue dans laquelle se sont embarqués les USA fera des millions de morts vietnamiens et américains sans succès pour le plus puissant des pays de la planète.

1961-1972- Laos Cambodge-
Bien qu’officiellement pas en guerre avec ces deux pays, les USA y effectuèrent d’incessantes attaques aériennes et d’innombrables massacres de populations.

1964- Panama.
Les « marines » qui protègent les intérêts des administrations américaines du canal de Panama écrasent une révolte visant à nationaliser ce secteur stratégique. Après avoir protéger et utiliser le dictateur panaméen Noriega pour leurs attaques contre le Nicaragua sandiniste, les USA s’en débarrassent. 26 000 soldats américains envahissent le pays sous couvert de le faire comparaître devant les tribunaux américains pour trafic de drogue. Des centaines de civils périssent sous les bombardements.

1964- Congo.
Les USA bombardent le Congo.

1965- Indonésie.
Prétextant une tentative de coup d’état des communistes pourtant proches du pouvoir de Sukarno, une opération militaire sanglante dont les dirigeants sont téléguidés par la CIA est menée. Des centaines de milliers d’indonésiens sont victimes d’une chasse à l’opposant, la longue et meurtrière carrière de l’homme de paille américain Suharto commence pour culminer au Timor-oriental.

1965- République Dominicaine.
Sous le couvert de l’ « Organisation des États Américains », les USA interviennent militairement pour contrer une prétendue menace communiste. La bataille de Saint-Domingue fait quelque 10 000 victimes.

1965- Pérou.
Les USA bombardent le Pérou.

1967-69- Guatemala.
Les USA bombardent le Guatemala.

1970- Oman.
Épaulées par les « conseillers » américains, les troupes iraniennes tentent d’envahir le sultanat.

1970- Proche Orient.
Implication militaire des USA auprès d’Israël dans les guerres qui ont lieu dans cette région du globe.

1973- Chili.
Suite à la réforme agraire et aux nationalisations, les États-Unis, par l’intermédiaire de la CIA et de la firme ITT, fomentent un coup d’état militaire qui conduit à l’extermination du Président élu de gauche Salvador Allende. Des milliers de morts, de femmes et d’enfants torturés, de disparus et l’installation de la dictature d’extrême-droite du général Pinochet, conseillé par la CIA.

1975-1999- Timor Oriental.
Les USA soutiennent sans faillir l’invasion et l’annexion conduite par l’Indonésie de Suharto. Un tiers de la population est décimée en près de 25 années. Alors qu’en 1999 lors d’un référendum, 80% de la population du Timor-oriental choisit l’indépendance, les USA soutiennent les exactions et la terreur de milices téléguidées par l’armée indonésienne qui s’opposent à l’indépendance. Les États-Unis finissent par accepter, sous la pression internationale, l’idée d’une force de maintien de la Paix de l’ONU.

1980-1990- Salvador.
Les USA s’engagent militairement aux côté des forces gouvernementales, de l’oligarchie au pouvoir et des « escadrons de la mort » pour contrer la guérilla de gauche. En 1980, l’archevêque Romero, très populaire chez les pauvres, est assassiné par des hommes proches de la CIA. En dix ans, la guerre civile fait 100 000 morts.

1981-1988- Nicaragua.
Les USA n’acceptent pas la série de réformes que les Sandinistes arrivés au pouvoir en 1979 engagent. Les États-Unis apportent leur soutien aux « contras » basé au Honduras. En 1986, le scandale de l’Irangate révèle que le produit financier des ventes d’armes américaines à l’Iran a servi a financer les groupes terroristes de la « contra ».

1982-1984- Liban.
Les troupes phalangistes du Liban soutenu par Israël et les USA expulsent et massacres les palestiniens.

1983- Grenade.
Embourbés au Liban, les États-Unis font une démonstration de force en envahissant la minuscule île de la Grenade prétextant de la sécurité de quelques citoyens américains. Huit ans plus tard, le « Wall Street Journal » qualifie cette démonstration « d’invasion des banques », l’île était en fait devenue un paradis pour la fraude financière et l’évasion fiscale.

1986- Libye.
L’aviation américaine bombarde des villes libyennes, faisant des centaines de victimes parmi les civils et les officiels.

1986- Les USA sont condamnés pour "usage illégal de la force" contre le Nicaragua par la Cour internationale de justice de La Haye .

1989- Philippines.
L’aviation américaine prête main-forte aux forces gouvernementales pour contrecarrer un des nombreux coup d’État contre la présidente Corazon Aquino, farouche opposante aux communistes et aux indépendantistes musulmans.

1989- Panama.
Les USA bombardent le Panama.

1991- Irak.
Allié précieux des États-Unis dans la région durant de longues années, Saddam Hussein envahit le Koweït sans en référer à la superpuissance. Les USA, n’acceptant pas de perdre le contrôle sur une partie des ressources pétrolières du Golfe, déclarent la guerre à l’Irak en janvier 1991 et mettent en place une coalition militaire internationale qui, avec le soutien de l’ONU, libère le Koweït. L’Irak est placé sous embargo.

1994- Haïti.
Ayant occupé Haïti de 1915 à 1934 puis soutenu les deux effroyables dictatures de François et Jean-Claude Duvalier de 1957 à 1986, les USA se montrent favorables au renversement par coup d’état en 1991 du premier président élu du pays le père Aristide. Parmi les militaires impliqués dans le coup d’état, le colonel François formé, comme les dictateurs latino-américains Noriega et d’Aubuisson, dans la même académie militaire américaine. Trois ans plus tard les États-Unis interviennent militairement pour remettre en scelle le Président déchu.

1998- Irak.
Les USA et l’Angleterre reprennent leurs bombardements sur l’Irak et se fixent comme objectif l’élimination physique de Saddam Hussein et la mise en place d’un gouvernement de remplacement.

1998- Soudan.
L’armée américaine détruit par missiles des usines pharmaceutiques supposées servir de lieux de production d’armement chimique à des fins terroristes.

1999- Yougoslavie.
Au mois de mars, sous l’impulsion des États-Unis, l’OTAN bombarde le Kosovo et la Serbie ou s’opposent l’Armée de Libération du Kosovo qui depuis 1998 mène des opérations de guérilla et les forces de polices serbes qui, de leur côté, prennent en otage les populations civiles. Des centaines de bombes à uranium appauvris sont testées par les USA.

2001- Afghanistan.
Suite aux attentats meurtriers commis le 11 septembre aux États-Unis et attribués à l’organisation Al-Qaida dirigée par Oussama Ben Laden (ancien agent de la CIA soutenu pendant de longues années par les USA dans la guerre contre les communistes, milliardaire et actionnaire de sociétés pétrolières) les États-Unis forment une coalition, implantent des bases au Pakistan et bombardent massivement le pays. Les talibans islamistes sont renversés, les USA ne parviennent pas à imposer leur « protégé » (l’ancien roi), un gouvernement de transition est mis en place, les prisonniers de guerre se voient déniés par les USA les droits internationaux reconnus par les conventions internationales, certains prisonniers sont déportés sur la base militaire américaine de Guantanamo et subissent un régime d’exception contraire aux principes internationaux et à la législation américaine elle-même. Derrière ces événements les USA légitiment leur allié dictateur du Pakistan, assurent peu à peu leur mainmise sur le transit des ressources naturelles régionales.

2002- Corée.
Les États-Unis placent ce pays au nombre des composantes de "l’Axe du Mal", nouvelle doctrine militaro-mystique de mise en place de "guerres préventives" contre tous ceux qui ne s'alignent pas sur les USA

2002- Irak.
Les États-Unis font pression sur la communauté internationale pour lancer un corps expéditionnaire en Irak visant au renversement de Saddam Hussein, à l’instauration d’un gouvernement favorable à leurs intérêts, à l’obtention des principales parts de marchés de la reconstruction du pays après bombardements, à l’octroi de concessions sur les immenses ressources pétrolières du pays. Fin 2002, les USA et leurs alliés anglais ont massés des dizaines de milliers de soldats sur-équipés sur place, prêts à une offensive.

2003- Irak.
Les États-Unis se placent hors la Loi internationale et les décisions de l'ONU et envahissent dans la nuit du 19 au 20 Mars, avec le soutien de l'Angleterre, l'Irak. Un déluge de feu s'abat sur le pays et la population dont déjà près de 500 000 personnes sont mortes en 10 ans du fait du blocus économique (800 missiles Tomahawk, 23 000 bombes à uranium, à fragmentation, mini-nucléaire). Un mouvement mondial d'opposition à la guerre et à l'agression militaire des États-Unis se développe en faveur de la Paix et pour le respect du droit international. La majorité des pays de la planète condamnent l'agression américaine contre un pays souverain. Par cet acte les USA ouvre la voix dangereuse et criminelle à la doctrine de la guerre préventive permettant d'attaquer tout pays ne se soumettant pas à la conception impérialiste américaine.

Posted by: MD from Canada at July 2, 2004 07:40 PM

Thank you MD for adding to the dialog. I would also recommend The Center for Cooperative Research - History of US Interventions

Also note that I said DIALOG. I do not debate. I hate the entire concept of debate because it creates artificial "sides" focused around a positional argument rather than a discussion. Second, it is a win/lose situation. As far as I am concerned debates are worthless. I am not interested in "defending" my "position."

Fly, I do not feel "backed into a corner," nor do I feel that I should continue to "fight" because I might "lose" or "win." My not wanting to go into just war, or even continue the discussion is because you want a debate, and you want to "win"

You misinterpretted my statement about better off without Hussein. I think that people are better off without brutal dictators, or those who style themselves to have total authority at the expense of their populations - dictatorship or not. It does not mean think the Iraqi's are better off as an colony of the United States. Britain already tried that and gave it up.

The US public (and the world) was told that Hussein needed to be removed because he had weapons of mass destruction, that he was actively connected to Al Qaeda, and posed an imminent threat to the US (and our allies). Saving the people of Iraq from Hussein didn't come up until the other justifications had started to crumble. They were not the reason for engaging in preemptive war, nor was there any attempt to convince the American public that was why we were violating international law to engage in preemptive war. The people of Iraq were an "Oh, by the way..." Certainly since the original reason (imminent threat to the US) was definitely not true, the primary justification has been "saving the people of Iraq." Certainly a noble cause. But I have said before and I say again, that you cannot install a democratic government. Democracy is of the people - not imposed by an other nation. But I digress.

Fly calls Iraq a "fledgling democracy." I'm sorry, but it doesn't qualify as that yet. The people have had no voice whatsoever in the running of Iraq to this point. Maybe they will after elections and maybe not, but to call Iraq a democracy at this point is inaccurate in my opinion.

Yes, human history is full of wars. And human history is full of atrocity. Human history is full of cruelty and destruction. However, that does not legitimate their continuation as far as I am concerned. What is a "just war?" In my opinion, it is a war of self defense. I think that is the bottom line for most people, and why the Bush administration sold the invasion of Iraq on the basis of the threat of imminent attack on US shores. If you have a "just war" you don't have to lie to get the people's support. My second consideration for at least protective intervention (which some might classify as war) is to stop genocide.

Fly asks why I am part of a web ring where one of the sites supports Arafat. I don't support Arafat, and I don't support terrorism any more than I support the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It is a pretty diverse web ring, and I have absolutely no control over the membership. I am also listed in the "Lefty Directory." I don't know howe my site ended up there but it did. It has a bunch of anarchist sites, and I am not an anarchist.

I do not support Arafat. I am old enough to have spent my early years with the image of Arafat as today's bin Laden and Hussein. The US government, alsong with Britain, France,and Israel, recognized Arafat as the legitimate leader of Palestine. Now through the vagaries of whoever (right or wrong) he is labeled as supporting "terrorism." I do support the right of Palestinians to exist, thrive, and have their sovereignty. I also support the right of Israel to exist, thrive, and have its sovereignty. The same is true for the people of Iraq.

It remains to be seen what will become of Iraq. Right now that future is a huge question mark and so it is impossible to say whether ultimately they will be "better off." If we look at current events in Afghanistan, then Iraq has a very rough road ahead - and oil resources that are desired by others. At this point, they are essentially defensless as a nation. That should be of concern to those interested in giving the Iraqi people a chance at creating a government and recreating a society.

If we look at outcomes of other US "interventions" (as MD contributed) then that too makes the future a question mark. I do not believe that the removal of Hussein by preemptive (and basically unilateral) invasion has left the people of Iraq in a better position. Further, I think it has made the people of the US less safe, and tremendously undermined our position in the world. There is a saying that the most important thing a person has is their good name. I think the same is true of nations.

So there are my thoughts - not my arguments for debate.

Posted by: rowan at July 2, 2004 08:37 PM

MD is right - as we used to say years ago, right on, man! America is so evil and aggressive that nobody immigrates here anymore. The last time anyone immigrated to America was in 1999 - a family of Bolivian coal miners arrived in august, or was it november, MD?? Help me out here, I want to be factual too. The US has saved alot of money by not having to fund immigration services anymore. See??? there is a bright side to being evil and aggressive after all. Ewww! Who would want to come to America?
There will be no viva le ellis island, not while I'm logged on, by god!

Posted by: goesh at July 2, 2004 08:44 PM

It was nice of MD not to embarass any American readers by pointing out what happened to the Native Americans when the boat people landed and began to move West. I could tell right off that he is not a fan of Horace Greeley. The Indians were all killed, sacraficed to Capitalism - if any had been left alive, Liberals would be taking up their cause and defending the oppression they would be experiencing, had they not all been killed that is. That's why Liberals are so quick to take up the cause for 3rd world nations being picked on and dominated by America - there are no indigenous people here.

It was nice of MD not to mention the School of the Americas too - and just for that, I won't speak of the horrendous rise in antisemitism occuring in France, or what is really going on in the Ivory Coast either.

Rowan - any objections to an occasional poem being thrown into the mix here in your forum?

Posted by: goesh at July 2, 2004 09:08 PM

Just a comment on one thing Rowan said: I'm not so sure the US is hated anymore than we have been in the past - we certainly are more aware via real time communication. I will never forget when richard nixon as vice president made a trip to south america and got stoned by a mob. In retrospect, it was hilarious. They had surrounded his car and were pelting it with rocks and pounding on it with their fists - he looked like a trapped rat sitting in that car - it was the same look he had years later when the Watergate hearings were happening. Tricky Dick.

An open question, and change of subject: will the US bungle humanitarian efforts in Sudan, like we did in Somalia? Why can't we take a whole bunch of helicopters and launch them from a carrier carrying huge pallets of rice/wheat/cooking oil with some 1st aid supplies and blankets and simply drop them off? Amazing how we can invade a nation, rightly or wrongly so, yet cant rush in with food pallets to refugee camps of starving people using the same technology.......

Posted by: goesh at July 2, 2004 09:30 PM

Goesh, I would agree wholeheartedly that the ability to provide humanitarian relief virtually anywhere is more than possible in this day and age. I think it's a matter of priorities, not abilities. Or maybe it's that old term "interests." As you note though, Darfur situation is bigger than humanitarian since the people are being burned out of their homes. But still, there is no reason they should be starving and dying in the refugee camps.

Posted by: rowan at July 2, 2004 10:07 PM

well then it would appear some marines are needed to stop the butchery where they can and allow the refugees to at least be free of attack in their camps - a battalion with some air support could go a long ways

Posted by: goesh at July 3, 2004 04:55 PM

Some updates for those following this conversation.

The munitions suspected of containing mustard or sarin gas do not. See 7/03/04 SpaceWar, Warheads found in Iraq not chemical weapons, military says.

Meaty Fly is a self-proclaimed "right-wing atheist and strong proponent of the war." He or she also, took the opportunity to bash Uncommon Thought while participating in dialog on this site. "That's what happened to me today when I flapped my fly-wings into the Uncommon Thoughts Journal, a shit-like pile of nonsense just begging for an ass-slapping." These quotes are from "Meaty's" site. So heads up, Meaty only shows up to pretend to engage in dialog. Please feel free to out him if he shows up on other sites.

Posted by: rowan at July 4, 2004 07:08 AM

Rowan,

I do enjoy debating. I also think that pitting one's ideas against one's ideological opponents is an excellent way to learn. If you want to call it "dialogue", that's fine. Dialogue it is.

I'm sorry if you were offended about the "ass-slapping" line, but you must admit that there is something deeply absurd and disingenuous about participation in a "peace-ring" dedicated to content on Yasser Arafat. Terrorism is not "peace." You are associating yourself with terrorist sympathizers. I don't feel particularly well disposed to terrorists or their sympathizers and enablers. You say you don't control the content of the peace-ring, but you do allow your site to be associated with it. That suggests to me at least a tacit approval of the mission statement.

I'm still trying to decide if you are actually a well-meaning but naive "pacifist," or whether you know full well what this "peace-ring" is all about but are still arguing against the war because you actually do hope for an Arafat/Saddam victory. Let's look closer at your assertions.

On the one hand, you concede that the Iraqis are better off without Saddam. On the other, you regret that Saddam was removed. The only way I can reconcile these two positions is by assuming what you are too afraid to just come out and say: you would rather have a weaker America than a more prosperous Iraq. You would like to see the Iraqis prosper but not if it corresponds with an increase in American power. For this reason, you grudgingly admit that the Iraqis are better off but nevertheless regret the liberation, which resulted in increased U.S. influence in the region.

You allude to "other" methods of removing Saddam, but, naturally, you present no alternatives. You oppose (1) removing Saddam by force and (2) containing him with sanctions. You present no third alternative yet insist that there must be one. Ah yes, there is always "dialogue," the code word for engaged inaction that protects the status quo.

Now, your latest ploy is to try to portray Iraq as a "colony," a deeply pessimistic and insultingly ethnocentric position. I wonder what the Japanese, Koreans, and Germans would think of an American claiming that they lived in an American "colony". It is actually rather arrogant. The presence of American troops is an absolute necessity for stability for the foreseeable future. The day will come when they will pull out. But their presence does not imply a "colony" any more than it does in Japan and Germany. No more, no less.

I just realized that you have once again backtracked:

I do not believe that the removal of Hussein by preemptive (and basically unilateral) invasion has left the people of Iraq in a better position.

In a previous post, you admitted they were better off. What the hell is going on?

But I'll indulge you. Let's agree that Iraq, Japan, Germany, and South Korea are all U.S. "colonies." Okay? How does this change your assessment of the simple question of whether the Iraqis are better off under Saddam or in a Japan-like U.S. colony? There still is no comparison. These American "colonies" are all prosperous, with citizens living lives much preferable to life under Saddam.

Then you launch into your usual list of completely irrelevant claims:

1. We went to war over WMD, not liberation
2. We went to war because of an Al Qaeda connection
3. The U.S. violated international law

I disagree with all your claims, but it simply doesn't matter. I'll accept them all for the sake of argument. What then? The question still remains. Are the Iraqis better off now than under Saddam? You said no in your post and now you admit yes. These peripheral issue have no bearing on the present question.

What is a "just war?" In my opinion, it is a war of self defense.

I assume, therefore, that you don't think the war against Germany was "just." After all, the Germans hadn't attacked the U.S.

My second consideration for at least protective intervention (which some might classify as war) is to stop genocide.

Perhaps you think WWII was justified to stop genocide. But, to mirror your "logic," the U.S. public wasn't convinced to go to war against Germany on those grounds. In fact, few if any troops even knew about the holocaust until they discovered the concentration camps.

Therefore, I'm going to have to assume that you did not think defeating Hitler was justified.

That's fine, but be honest about it so I can see what kind of views you really hold.

Posted by: Meaty Fly at July 4, 2004 05:09 PM

First, the "peace ring." I do not belong to it because of Arafat, nor do I see Arafat as a focus. If you look at the other sites in the ring - even do a search on Arafat - you won't get one hit. At least I never have.

Second, I did not back track on whether Iraqi's are better off. You keep quoting only part of what I said. Here is the full quote:

Are they better off without Saddam Hussein? I would say yes. Would they have been better off without the destruction and occupation (not to mention the impact of 11 years of sanctions)? I would say yes.

In other words, the part you insist on ignoring says that I do not think the Iraqi's are better off

In regards to Hitler, we should have joined the war to fight Hitler, but we did not(as you note). We went to war because of the attack by Japan. The US was the only other nation with an institutionalized eugenics program. The US was also quite anti-semitic. In fact, the war didn't change that. At the end of the war, German POWs in the US were offered the opportunity to stay in the US. Jews who had been brought into (or escaped into) the country to save their lives, were sent back to Germany.

I truly could care less at this point whether you understand my views or not, or whether you think I am naive or not. The two posts at your site make clear that you are not "dialoging" on UTJ because you want to "pitting one's ideas against one's ideological opponents is an excellent way to learn." Your posts on your site are clearly trashing. They would not lead anyone else who reads your site to enter into discussion either - and you know it. You are quite clear about your purpose, it is not to enter discussion. I quote YOUR post at YOUR site:

It is odd how much pleasure there is in the deliberate hunt for annoyances. You'd think the mind seeks only pleasure, which is true, but the pleasure can lie in the discovery of the gross, disgusting, or laughably despicable.

That's what happened to me today when I flapped my fly-wings into the Uncommon Thoughts Journal, a shit-like pile of nonsense just begging for an ass-slapping.

First, I felt an odd twist of glee coupled with revulsion when I realized that the journal is part of the "Peace Webring." I hovered for a moment to take in the scene, which included,

PEACE. Need we say more? Violence only leads to more violence. An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind. Peace, love, understanding, compassion, pacifism, Mahatma Gandhi, John Lennon, John F Kennedy, Yasser Arafat and every other peace loving member of humanity. Websites about Nobel Peace prize winners like Yasser Arafat are especially welcome, for the place that needs peace more than ever now is Israel.

The "peace" ring wants content dedicated to a murderous thug named Yasser Arafat. This will, apparently, help bring "peace" to Israel. I'd have better luck killing sharks with a butter knife than pinning down my feelings about the people who honestly believe that Arafat and his infitada represent a peaceful solution to Israel's problems.

Peace on whose terms? Peace at what cost? Certainly not on terms that leave Israel in existence.

Do you truly think, that I am concerned about what you think about UTJ or myself? Why would I have to prove anything to someone is deliberately dishonest and misrepresenting themselves? I hope you enjoyed slumming around in the "gross, disgusting, or laughably despicable."

Posted by: rowan at July 4, 2004 06:22 PM

Rowan,

Okay, I've erased the post. Sorry to have offended you.

You say that the Iraqis are not better off, which means that life was either better under Saddam or essentially the same.

I can only shake my head and move on.

Bye for now.

Posted by: Meaty Fly at July 5, 2004 03:15 PM

Meaty,
I believe we can agree to disagree. Removing the post from your site was a courteous thing to do, and revises my opinion of your intent upwards.

Posted by: rowan at July 5, 2004 04:39 PM