The drums or war....

[fable]

Originally posted by Scayde
What they showed was a celebration, not of a victory of war, but rejoicing at the pain of another, for that pain's sake. It was as if we were at war, and they were celebrating the defeat of a hated enemy. No matter what the sentiment is on our foreign policy, we were not at war with anyone in the Middle East.

I think you've pretty much put your finger on it, @Scayde: yes, to some of these people, the US is seen as a belligerent aggressor with whom all right-thinking people are at war. I'm sure Al-Qua'idah sees it this way, and they've said as much, in the past. On the other hand, the average middle-class Arab doesn't like the US, but hardly sees us as engaged in some nefarious exercise under demonic influence to control the world. I strongly suspect the middle-class would say that hubris is our main fault, a belief in our right to do whatever we undertake. They would feel no joy in something like 9/11, but they would understand why it happened.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by fable
I think you've pretty much put your finger on it, @Scayde: yes, to some of these people, the US is seen as a belligerent aggressor with whom all right-thinking people are at war. I'm sure Al-Qua'idah sees it this way, and they've said as much, in the past. On the other hand, the average middle-class Arab doesn't like the US, but hardly sees us as engaged in some nefarious exercise under demonic influence to control the world. I strongly suspect the middle-class would say that hubris is our main fault, a belief in our right to do whatever we undertake. They would feel no joy in something like 9/11, but they would understand why it happened.

It is amazing how often you and I start off at different ends of the question, only to arive at the same place

[fable]

Originally posted by Scayde
It is amazing how often you and I start off at different ends of the question, only to arive at the same place

GMTA.

[Nightmare]

As said before, the war will only make the hatred of the US increase. Also, with the US going after Iraq, who was minding its own business, and ignoring North Korea, which is threatening war (and there is proof that they do have nukes and missiles to deliver them).

I'm betting most Muslims in the middle east feel like they're getting shafted here.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Nightmare
I'm betting most Muslims in the middle east feel like they're getting shafted here.

Not necessarily, the Iraq government and Saddam are a socialist government not a Muslim government and most of the Muslim countries have very little care for what happens to Saddam as long as it doesn't kill off them.

[Nippy]

Originally posted by Aegis
As for the US doing good, well, can you explain the paltry amount the US contributed towards the clean up of Afganistan? Of the estimated $4.5 billion clean up tag, the Americans contributed less then $1 billion, yet they caused the majority of the destruction.[/i]

Oh, I'm sorry, did you want the US to pay any more?! That's nearly a quarter of that clean up bill, and yet you say the US should pay more!? That is frankly, unbelievable. How many other nations had the economic power to meet that much money, and how many nations did it take to gather the rest of the funds?

Don't say the US have done nothing to help nations out, they've done a great deal, and even though in the past, the US has given out weapons and incited coups, the money they pay out more than balances that fact.

I'm curious to see where it was that I alled the Americans a bunch of idiots, and yes, I do believe that Bush is picking up Daddy's war, why else would he inadvertantly switch attention from the search for Bin Ladin to Iraq so swiftly, without making any substantial claims. This war, in all reality, has little to do with the Iraqi threat, but more to do with getting an oil pipeline through Iraq, which is something they've been trying to do since they put Saddam into power. It's a shame that Saddam thought of his country, instead of the Americans in that case.

Oil pipeline? Have you ever thought that he may also be making a stand, and saying that what Iraq has done is wrong?

I would also like to add that I'm glad that UK citizens have thrown their support in with the government, the polls have indicated a pro-war attitude.

And lastly, Aegis, you mention US back-packers having Canadian flags on their bags? I've never even seen that.

[Kayless]

Originally posted by Nippy
And lastly, Aegis, you mention US back-packers having Canadian flags on their bags? I've never even seen that.

I have (well, more or less). Several friends and relatives of mine who travel abroad usually pretend they’re Canadian to avoid the anti-Americanism they’ve encountered in the past when they’re in foreign countries.

[Maharlika]

So I hear...

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Not necessarily, the Iraq government and Saddam are a socialist government not a Muslim government and most of the Muslim countries have very little care for what happens to Saddam as long as it doesn't kill off them.

...others would even say that they are not really that much "connected" to him --- the closest thing they would say is that he says he's a muslim too --- the cynical ones would comment on something like "...a poor example at that."

[fable]

Originally posted by Nippy
Oil pipeline? Have you ever thought that he may also be making a stand, and saying that what Iraq has done is wrong?

It's impossible to truly understand alll the motives involved when powerful nations decide to invade smaller, poorly defended ones. When Brezhnev invaded Afghanistan, we had the historical perspective of the Stainlist years and could point out that the USSR was trying to create a southern Communist buffer state, just as they had developed Western ones in the past. But without precedent, things are much murkier. I haven't the slightest idea why Russia has allowed Chechnya to become a torturer's playground for their military, for example, and far more learned people than myself have speculated in dozens of directions on this.

As for the US invasion of Iraq, there are a number of signposts that lead people (including myself) to believe Dubya's administration is after the oil. Each in itself in hardly conclusive. Together, they tend to add up.

First, after the US invaded Iraq following the Kuwaiti War, Iraq provided reparations to the US involving an enormous amount of oil credits. These credits contined for ten years, and helped Clinton (who did many things wrong, but possessed a superb eye for economic management) cut the enormous federal deficit. Suddenly, those credits are no longer available, meaning that US federal oil reserves in the future are going to have to be paid for in the future. Considering Bush's desire to cut taxes without raising alternative sources of revenue, this is a Bad Thing.

Second, Dubya's administration has a surprising number of first- and second-rank executives who came in from the fossil fuels industry (including Bush himself): 41 in all, more than all the previous US administrations, together. Cheney, in formulating the national energy policy that Bush has endorsed, recommended "that the President make energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy." In developing this national policy, Cheney met with oil industry officials, and refused to meet with any other energy lobbying groups.

Third, there has been confirmation of the adminstration's focus on Iraqi oil from extremely reputable outside sources--namely, the oil industry, itself. The Wall Street Journal (hardly a bastion of liberal sensibilities) reported a couple of months ago that high-ranking officials from the Whilte House, State and Defense Departments have been meeting informally but regularly with executives of ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, etc, to discuss how drilling would be divided up in Iraq after the war. Even Larry Goldstein, President of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, informed the WSJ, "If we go to war, it's not about oil. But the day the war ends, it has everything to do with oil."

Fourth, the reasons provided by Dubya's administration for invading Iraq have been remarkably specious and unfocused for a government that has an earthshaking amount of money and brainpower at its disposal. We've been offered theatrics galore, but no facts. And despite being told that Hussein is another Hitler and that (my favorite Dubya quote) "He tried to kill my daddy," no White House spokesperson has yet to explain what Hussein is doing that forces invasion at this time, which he hasn't been doing for the last decade. Claims that Iraq has been involved with Al-Qua'idah have not only failed to produce evidence, but were explicitly denied by Bush himself in public before the administration decided to pursue its war strategy. Nor does it make good sense. Hussein is a secularist who has deliberately stamped on religious fundamentalists in the past, and gone to war with fundamentalist regimes, supported by US money.

Fifth, Iraq possesses the second largest known oil reserves in the world. Even in their currently repressed state, where the UN allows the production of only a relatively small amount of oil, they still pump roughly 1.5 million barrels of crude a day. American oil officials glowingly stated that Iraq could produce 6 million barrels a day with the right investment and control.

These are some of the more obvious reasons that lead many people, including myself, to sum up Dubya's Iraqi invasion policy with the phrase, "He wants the oil fields." I've heard still further reasons, but found them unconvincing conspiracy theories. I'm not in the habit of playing tower-of-card games when trying to second guess government actions. The best way to figure out the reasoning behind policies is to gather all available evidence; and to me, what evidence we've got points to those rich oil fields in Iraq.

[HighLordDave]

Saddam considers himself a Sunni Muslim, although as I've said before, he is a very secular guy. He likes to drink (a lot from what I've read), for example.

He is, however, very good at playing the Islam card when it suits his needs. Whatever his actual behaviour or beliefs, he portrays himself as a Muslim martyr being attacked by the infidel Great Satan. Consequently, he is magnet for anti-American Muslims who are looking for someone, anyone, to rally behind.

Consider a guy like convicted felon and Christian minister Jim Bakker. His lifestyle was very un-Christian, but to the millions of people who gave money and devoted themselves to his PTL Ministry , he was the embodiment of all that was right within Christendom (at least until the sex and money scandals toppled his empire and landed him in prison). People followed Bakker because they wanted to believe he was a good guy doing God's work and they were either ignorant of way he used their money and preyed upon their gullibility.

Hussein is very much the same way. He controls all of the press in Iraq, so the people there follow him mostly out of fear but partly out of ignorance. All they know is that the Christian armies of the United States are about to kick down the door and invade their country. He is portraying this war to his own people and the Arab world not as an attack upon a rogue state, but an attack upon Islam. Whether or not that is Dubya's motivation is immaterial; people will believe what they want to believe if that gives them justification to hate America more.

[VoodooDali]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Saddam considers himself a Sunni Muslim, although as I've said before, he is a very secular guy. He likes to drink (a lot from what I've read), for example.

He is, however, very good at playing the Islam card when it suits his needs. Whatever his actual behaviour or beliefs, he portrays himself as a Muslim martyr being attacked by the infidel Great Satan. Consequently, he is magnet for anti-American Muslims who are looking for someone, anyone, to rally behind.

Consider a guy like convicted felon and Christian minister Jim Bakker. His lifestyle was very un-Christian, but to the millions of people who gave money and devoted themselves to his PTL Ministry , he was the embodiment of all that was right within Christendom (at least until the sex and money scandals toppled his empire and landed him in prison). People followed Bakker because they wanted to believe he was a good guy doing God's work and they were either ignorant of way he used their money and preyed upon their gullibility.

Hussein is very much the same way. He controls all of the press in Iraq, so the people there follow him mostly out of fear but partly out of ignorance. All they know is that the Christian armies of the United States are about to kick down the door and invade their country. He is portraying this war to his own people and the Arab world not as an attack upon a rogue state, but an attack upon Islam. Whether or not that is Dubya's motivation is immaterial; people will believe what they want to believe if that gives them justification to hate America more.

Bush Parallel:
Bush portrays himself as a "Cowboy" out to reek vengeance on the "evildoers." Consequently, he is magnet for anti-arab Americans who are looking for someone, anyone, to rally behind. All of the press in the US is corporate-controlled, so people follow Bush mostly out of ignorance, but partly out of a fear that not to do so is "Anti-American". I was amazed to watch a stupid segment on CNN Headline News this morning where they were interviewing country-western star Travis Tritt - the large headline next to Travis said: "Travis Tritt responds to Dixie Chicks Anti-American statements". I looked at that headline and thought, wait a minute! Their statements were anti-war and anti-Bush, but anti-american???? Anyway, that's a prime example of the propaganda being hurled at unsuspecting citizens these days.
Bush is portraying this war not as a unilateral, imperialist attempt at regime change and oil-field takeover, but as overthrowing a "Hitler" and defending "freedom."
And the last parallel: whatever the real reasons for this war, the majority of Americans have, in an unspoken, possibly unconscious racist way, lumped all arab-speaking people together, and want to see some of them "pay" for 9/11, and would really be happy if the earth were rid of all of them. (I have heard this sentiment in too many online game sessions, on the streets, in the bars, etc.)

[CM]

Saddam isnt Muslim. From what i know is he is Ba'hai. Which isnt an Islamic sect. It is a heretic sect, along the lines of Alwaties (in Syria) and Ahmadies (in Pakistan). He says he is Sunni, but the political ideology of his party is purely secular and socialist. Many dont support Saddam because he is a sunni muslim. Rather he is the leader of an Islamic nation that is being attacked. The reaction/support for saddam is only natural.

[fable]

Originally posted by CM
Saddam isnt Muslim. From what i know is he is Ba'hai.

I've read a bit about the Ba'hais, and Hussein is as much a Ba'hai in his ideology as Nixon was a Quaker, or Dubya a Methodist. IMO, it doesn't matter what your parents believed, or what you believed in your youth. What matters is what you believe in now, and what beliefs your actions demonstrate.

I don't mean this as a contradiction to you, Fas. I'm just trying to point out that Hussein isn't truly a Ba'hai, and Dubya isn't truly a Methodist. Neither illustrates a life abiding by the religious principles he professes.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by Scayde
I do not have the answers to my own questions.

They are hard and uncomfortable questions, but they are issues that we as a nation must confront. Outside the issue of blame, which as I said before is cut and dry, we must look ourselves in the mirror and ask if there is anything we have done that would make people hate us so much that they would be willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill us. Then we must decide what we are going to do about it.

The United States has done a lot of things in the world that aren't nice; we step on peoples's toes left and right and it is absurd to think that we can get by with it without any consequences. At the same time, we do many good deeds around the world that are unheralded or are taken for granted and we must accept that no one is going to pat us on the back in each instance.

The world is becoming smaller and smaller. Isolationism will not work, nor will unilateralism. We live in a time of a world-wide economy, multi-national corporations and international interests. The United States is the most powerful country on the face of the earth and we have too much invested overseas to shut down our borders and withdraw amongst ourselves.

Recognising that, we must realise that our neighbours won't always see things the way we do and that their national interests will differ from ours. The United States military is designed to project our power anywhere in the world and enforce our will, despite the will of others. We do things because we can, and no one else has the means to stop us.

At the same time, we must recognise that just because we sit at the top of the hill, we can't be the world's bully any more than we can be the world's policeman. It's working for us right now, but eventually Dubya's bullheadedness will backfire on us.

Some people will hate us regardless of what we do. Some people will love us regardless of what we do. Some people don't give a damn what we do.

I believe that we as a nation must evaluate our approach to dealing with the rest of the world. I don't believe for a minute that we should try to make everyone happy, but I think that in some cases we've used vinegar when honey would have been better.

I don't have any answers either, but it is my belief that it starts with reflection and a commitment to not only our own safety and prosperity, but the safety and prosperity of everyone on the planet. Instead of thinking in terms of "us" and "them", I think we need to be thinking of partnerships between us and the other nations of the world. We are the world's leader, whether we like it or not. We can use our influence to advance ourselves at the expense of others, or we can use that same influence to bring everyone together and advance at the same time.

[InfiniteNature]

Hi Guys and Gals
Check out the viability of arguing with a warmonger.> From: Rafael A. Velasquez
> Subject: A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO AN INQUISITIVE CITIZEN
>
> A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR
> TO AN INQUISITIVE CITIZEN
>
> Inquisitive Citizen (IC): Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
>
> WarMonger (WM): We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of
Security
> Council Resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate
Security
> Council resolutions.
>
> IC: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in
violation of
> more Security Council resolutions than Iraq.
>
> WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq
could
> have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking
gun could
> well be a mushroom cloud over NY.
>
> IC: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the UN weapons inspectors said
Iraq had no
> nuclear weapons.
>
> WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
>
> IC: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for
attacking us
> or our allies with such weapons.
>
> WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather
terrorists
> networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
>
> IC: But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological
> materials?
> We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?
>
> WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that
has an
> undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early
> eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a
power-hungry,
> lunatic murderer.
>
> IC: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry,
lunatic
> murderer?
>
> WM: The issue is not what we sold to Saddam, but rather what Saddam
did. He
> is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on K*, know
about and
> green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
>
> WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could
sell its
> biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama bin Laden
himself
> released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us,
proving a
> partnership between the two.
>
> IC: Osama bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to
kill him?
>
> WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama bin Laden
on the
> tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily
be a
> partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we attack
> immediately.
>
> IC: Is this the same audio tape where Osama bin Laden calls Saddam a
> "secular
> infidel"?
>
> WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell
presented
> a
> strong case against Iraq.
>
> IC: He did?
>
> WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory
in
> Iraq.
>
> IC: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of
Iraq
> controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
>
> WM: And a British intelligence report...
>
> IC: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate
student
> paper?
>
> WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
>
> IC: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
>
> WM: And reports of Iraquis scuttling and hiding evidence from
inspectors...
>
> IC: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the UN's Chief Weapons
Inspector,
> Hans Blix?
>
> WM: Yes, but there is plently of other hard evidence that cannot be
revealed
> because it would compromise our security.
>
> IC: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass
> dectruction
> in Iraq?
>
> WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find
evidence.
> You're missing the point.
>
> IC: So what is the point?
>
> WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution
1441
> threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the Security
Council
> will
> become an irrelevant debating society.
>
> IC: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security
Council?
>
> WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us. Of course!
>
> IC: And what if it does rule against us?
>
> WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade
Iraq.
>
> IC: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
>
> WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Spain, for starters.
>
> IC: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of
billions
> of dollars.
>
> WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
>
> IC: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
>
> WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its
will by
> electing leaders to make decisions.
>
> IC: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is
> important?
>
> WM: Yes.
>
> IC: But doesn't the Constitution say only Congress can declare war?
>
> WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our president, because
he's
> acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's
the
> bottom
> line.
>
> IC: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are
not
> patriotic?
>
> WM: I never said that.
>
> IC: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
>
> WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of
mass
> destruction that threaten us and our allies.
>
> IC: But the UN inspectors have not been able to find any such
weapons.
>
> WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
>
> IC: You know this? How?
>
> WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are
still
> unaccounted for.
>
> IC: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
>
> WM: Precisely.
>
> IC: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would
degrade to an
> unusable state over ten years.
>
> WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
>
> IC: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons
exist, we
> must invade?
>
> WM: Exactly.
>
> IC: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical,
> biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can
reach the
> west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND
threatened to
> turn America into a sea of fire.
>
> WM: That's a diplomatic issue.
>
> IC: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
>
> WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot
allow the
> UN
> inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying,
deceiving, and
> denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of
millions.
>
> IC: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
>
> WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
>
> IC: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical
Muslim
> sentiments against us, and further decrease our security?
>
> WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way
we
> live.
> Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
>
> IC: But every one has admitted there is no evidence linking Saddam
Hussein
> or
> Iraq with the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Almost every one of the
alleged
> terrorists were from our "ally" Saudi Arabia, none were from Iraq.
>
> WM: Yes, but this is not just about terrorist attacks. It's about
our
> national security.
>
> IC: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security,
> color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Aren't they supposed
to
> protect us? And don't these change the way we live?
>
> WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
>
> IC: I do. I'd like to know why are we invading Iraq?
>
> WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has
called on
> Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now
face the
> consequences.
>
> IC: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as
find a
> peaceful solution, would we have an obligation to listen?
>
> WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
>
> IC: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
>
> WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
>
> IC: So, we have an an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
>
> WM: Well, I meant the majority of the Security Council.
>
> IC: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the
Security
> Council?
>
> WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
>
> IC: In which case?
>
> WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
>
> IC: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us
at all?
>
> WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
>
> IC: That makes no sense.
>
> WM: Look, if you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe
France,
> with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to
boycott
> their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
>
> IC: I give up!
>
> (Source: Unknown)
>

[InfiniteNature]

Oh yes and one more article from Molly Ivins osted on Sun, Mar. 16, 2003

Who's next on the insult list?

By Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate
OK, sign me up for the Bush program. I'm aboard. Who else can we insult,
offend, bribe, blackmail, threaten, intimidate, wiretap or otherwise
infuriate?
Getting the Canadians, who are famous for their phlegm, seriously mad at us
took real work. Our latest ploy in that direction was to contemptuously
reject their compromise that had a few more days' delay in it than the
British-U.S. version. Then, when our version didn't fly, we decided on a few
more days' delay ourselves -- without, of course, the contempt.
Then, to add to the festivities of "Let's Tick Off the Next-Door Neighbors
Week," we started leaning on President Vicente Fox of Mexico. Our ambassador
to Mexico, Tony Garza, said: "Will American attitudes be placated by half-
steps or three-quarter steps? I kind of doubt it." An unnamed
American "diplomat" was quoted as saying it could "stir up feelings" here if
Mexico voted against us, and does Mexico "want to stir the fires of jingoism
during a war?"
President Bush said: "I don't expect there to be significant retribution from
the government [what's significant?], but there might be a reaction like the
interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French, a
backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people."
For those who oppose the United States, "there will be a certain sense of
discipline."
George W. Bush in chains and black leather. Why should we care that the
overwhelming majority of the Mexican people are opposed to this war? To hell
with democracy in Mexico -- we're for democracy in Iraq.
That's us: If you don't give us everything we want, you're with the
terrorists. Anyone who questions anything we do is supporting Saddam Hussein,
and dissent is treason. I love it.
Next up, Tony Blair, the first casualty of the war. How very smart to fall
out with our closest ally. Nice going by Donald Rumsfeld, suggesting that we
can't count on the Brits. They've already got 45,000 troops in the Middle
East.
We've already ticked off the pope, and now a tiff with Israel -- outstanding.
But we haven't done anything to Paraguay yet. How about doing something to
annoy the Paraguayans? We could have Rumsfeld make one of his statesmanlike
remarks such as, "Nyah, nyah, Asuncion stinks."
And why leave out Mali? Mali is a silly name for a country. This is fun.
Let's go insult some goobers in the South Pacific, too -- say, Tonga. Don't
leave out the Scots. Their guys wear skirts. Burkina Faso -- now there's a
dump. Only morons would name their capital Ouagadougou. Hee-hee. This is more
fun than junior high school.
A French journalist observed in horrified wonder Tuesday: "Mon Dieu, Bush has
made Jacques Chirac into a hero. Jacques Chirac!" What a little miracle-man
that George W. Bush is. He has that wonder-working power.
One can hardly say enough about the courageous action of the U.S. House
Administration Committee in renaming french fries "freedom fries" at the
House cafeteria. In these critical times, it's good to know we can count on
House Republicans. They'll teach those cheese-eating surrender monkeys a
thing or two.
(Guys, did you really have to just hand the French this one? That has to be
the slowest pitch on record.)
This was in addition to Republicans trading tasteless anti-French jokes
publicly during a hearing with Colin Powell. Just for the record, there are
6,000 French troops currently serving as peacekeepers in Afghanistan and the
Balkans. As they keep watch in places they'd rather not be, I'm sure they all
appreciate your gestures. Likewise, the Germans -- described by Rumsfeld as
a "pariah state" -- have 10,000 troops in Afghanistan and the Balkans.
Have you ever seen such amazing arrogance wedded to such awesome incompetence?
Chickens coming home to roost all around. Turns out the reason that some of
the African nations are sticking with the French is because they get more in
foreign aid from the French than they do from us. Thank you, Jesse Helms, for
your many years of work destroying American aid programs.
Of course, we don't need the United Nations. Why should we worry about
peacekeeping, nation-building or international cooperation on global problems
when we can buy our friends, bully our allies and bomb everybody else? What a
glorious future.
_____

Molly Ivins writes for Creators Syndicate. 5777 W. Century Blvd., Suite 700,
Los Angeles, CA 90045

[CM]

Originally posted by fable
I've read a bit about the Ba'hais, and Hussein is as much a Ba'hai in his ideology as Nixon was a Quaker, or Dubya a Methodist. IMO, it doesn't matter what your parents believed, or what you believed in your youth. What matters is what you believe in now, and what beliefs your actions demonstrate.

I don't mean this as a contradiction to you, Fas. I'm just trying to point out that Hussein isn't truly a Ba'hai, and Dubya isn't truly a Methodist. Neither illustrates a life abiding by the religious principles he professes.

No problemo Fable. Saddam is known for being so much when he is nothing but a criminal. I have heard he is sunni, shia, druze you name it. It doesnt really matter now. He is dead no matter what. However i would not call the man a muslim. Sunni or Shia.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by CM
However i would not call the man a muslim. Sunni or Shia.

It's all about the spin. He portrays himself as a Muslim, his propaganda portrays him as a Muslim and the anti-American elements in the the Arab world portray him as a Muslim. Regardless of his actual faith (or lack thereof), many people will perceive Dubya's war as a Crusade and will see it in terms of Christianity vs. Islam. I believe this to be Hussein's intent, as he has virtually no other source of sympathy or backing from anyone in the world.

[fable]

Wonderful piece by Molly Ivins, @InfiniteNature. I especially enjoyed that remark about Chirac being made a hero by Bush. It's true, too. Chirac is a wealthy, corrupt technocrat, who has only avoided being brought up on some very damaging corruption charges by his position in the French government. He's extremely disliked, and doesn't even raise a great deal of enthusiasm among his own party faithfuls. He won the last time only because the French were offered a choice between Chirac and the far-right extremist, Jean-Marie Le Pen. Even the Socialists were demanding a vote for Chirac at the time.

And now, his popularity is over 80%, thanks to Dubya and Donald Rumsfeldt, who probably sharpens the teeth of pitbulls in his spare time.

[InfiniteNature]

Hey all check out this piece I found on Tolkien and his position on war. Hope this link works, if not sorry.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro3.html