Semi-Daily Journal

Don't want to scary anybody before the start of the week-end, but Turks will be sending their troops into Northern Iraq:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2874635.stm

So much for the idea that this war will make the Kurds better off than they currently are under their autonomous government. We're going to start missing these no-flight zones...

Some of us, on the other hand, read Laurie Mylroie...

Unlike many conspiracy theories, this one is unlikely to fester forever. In a few weeks or months, we'll likely know if her intriguing speculations-- and the even more unlikely, yet not easily dismissable, theories about an Arab connection to Oklahoma City-- are backed up by documentation in Baghdad.

Why write almost? There is absolutely no evidence that has been produced, falsified or otherwise, to suggest that Saddam is in any way responsible for 9/11. Zip. Nada. Bupkiss.
The furthest Powell went was to argue that Saddam had Al Qaeda members in Kurdistan, and one spending some time in Baghdad. Oh, and that story about training Al Qaeda in chemical warfare. That was tenuous, in a word, and there is still a gulf between that and 9/11.
So please don't do Bush's propaganda work for him, with words like "almost." Someone has to draw the line. Otherwise the lies will just wear you down.

If someone wrote, "There is almost no evidence that Saddam bought uranium from Niger", I'd say, sure! Because in that case, there is indeed evidence. It just happens to be fake.
Since evidently someone has graced this blog with the theory that Arabs were guiding Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma (because, God knows, corn-raised White boys just don't do that sort of thing on their own), I'll just say that this was raised within a day of the attack. CNN broadcast a woman who claimed to have heard two people "with Arab accents" on her CB radio, talking about the attack they'd just committed. Now, it was considerate of the terrorists to use a CB radio to discuss their nefarious plot during their getaway, and astute of the woman to distinguish an Arab accent from another accent, but I particularly value the thoughtfulness of these Arab terrorists, in their getaway, speaking in English instead of their native Arabic.
There is a large bracket of the US population that assumes foreigners speak English when we're not watching. Evidently CNN belongs in that bracket.

"There is a large bracket of the US population that assumes foreigners speak English when we're not watching."

Especially those with heavy, easily recognizable, accents!

"...the World Trade Center atrocity on September 11, 2003."

Er, perhaps you mean 2001? For a moment I thought you were indulging in some sort of speculative fiction.

Synopsis of the evidence linking Iraq to 9/11 and many other terrorist acts:

http://www.dstc.edu.au/ListArchive/eclectika/archive/2003/02/msg00185.html

Synopsis of the evidence linking Iraq to 9/11 and many other terrorist acts:

http://www.dstc.edu.au/ListArchive/eclectika/archive/2003/02/msg00185.html

Of that percentage of Americans who don't want war, how many would want war even if Hussein were in fact proven to be supporting Al Qaeda (as he may well have been)? And how many of them would just go on being anti-war no matter what actual crimes, attacks on the U.S., threats of completely deranged behavior, or generally worrisome phenotypes Hussein displayed?

I'll agree that there are fools in the pro-war movement if you admit that there are at least some cranks in the anti-war one.

More generally, I don't think the real argument is about whether the world will be better if Hussein is forcibly converted to wormfood. It's about whether people trust Chirac more than Bush or vice versa. That disagreement is based on points of view that aren't easily changed by argument (as I have been painfully discovering in many, many rows over the last year).

"Synopsis of the evidence linking Iraq to 9/11 and many other terrorist acts: "

No evidence, just speculation about motives.

Erich suggests, "It's about whether people trust Chirac more than Bush or vice versa." I would suggest that in the spirit of the original post, the basic question is whether we should trust Bush to tell us the truth. Brad points out that Safire has been busy selling the Saddam-Osama connection, but it was Bush who mentioned 9/11 no less than six times in his "ultimatum" speech. With the message discipline in the White House, those mentions were not an accident.

There's a lot of ignorance in the United States about Iraq. How many know that Iraq is a country in which Cristian churches have flourished?

It's true. Saddam even contributes state money to assist with the maintenance of the bricks and mortar.

How many know that Saddam had instituted a national health plan that greatly increased the quality of life for Iraqi's until US sanctions cut off the import of medicines and medical supplies?

Will the new government be so open minded? Will they be so generous? If it's a typical US backed dictatorship, the answer is no.

Avedisian, one of the most probable outcome of this war will be an accelerated emigration of the christian population, to avoid the backlash from both sunnis and chiites, that integrate the muslim majority, because they have the feeling that Saddam favored to much the christians.

DSW

"Of that percentage of Americans who don't want war, how many would want war even if Hussein were in fact proven to be supporting Al Qaeda (as he may well have been)?"

I'd say about 98% Who cares about the other 2%?

Regarding "as he may well have been", you may as well say that about anybody. The notion that our intelligence services missed Iraq's Al Qaeda connection despite 10 years of close scrutiny is delusional. The Neocons aren't delusional, they're just happy to use gullible people to further their dangerous agenda.

Shame and Humiliation. Given the course of events in Iraq that is what most opponents to war should feel. Contrary to the claims of the predictable lot of fascist sympathizers, enablers and usefull idiots, the coalition has not engaged in carpet bombing of Baghdad, or the destruction of infrastructure, or even the mass killing of enemy soldiers! Indeed we see an armada fighting with 1.75 arms tied behind its back constantly reaffirming their intention to liberate the people of Iraq. Shame and hummiliation on those who protest for the continued subjugation of the innocents in Iraq in order to feed their own pathetic resentment of the US.

Brian:
Aznar, one of the allies of Bush, has always been a sympathiser of fascism, as was to be expected being a fascist in his youth, a member of a fascist favored family under Franco, which was no better to Spain than Saddam is to Iraq, and a member of the political party that reunited most of those who favored the fascist regim. Sure they will be free, since nothing they will be able to do will have a repercussion beyond their country. However, were they to find a way to misbehave in the eyes of their masters, then the story will repeat.

DSW

Antoni,

Do you really believe that Aznar equivalent to Hussein? As your email address has a .es TLD you obviously know much more about the subject than I do, but Aznar was elected and will be gone next year.

Hussein is much more than a fascist. He is a murderer, a tyrant, and a torturer, that kills and rapes as SOP.

The poor people of Iraq have been psychologicaly tortured for 20 years. For most of that time the West didn't give a damn. September 11 revealed that allowing enemies to fester indefinately is not an option. They must be dealt with. States that openly or covertly direct or support threats to American civilians must stop, or they will cease to exist. This is nonnegotiable.

Ultimately other states with simmilar interests to the US will recognize that they have much more to gain through alliance than obstruction.

Brian wrote:

"Shame and hummiliation on those who protest for the continued subjugation of the innocents in Iraq in order to feed their own pathetic resentment of the US."

Tell that to the Pope and other religious leaders who oppose the war on Iraq. There are both strategic and moral objections to the current war. The moral objection is based on the argument that war is a great evil and should be use as only in the face of an imminent threat and when diplomatic measures have been exhausted. There was never an imminent threat to the US and diplomacy was never given a chance. Thus, waging a war under such circumstance is immoral. As John Paul II recently remarked, "He who decides that all pacific means provided by the international law are exhausted, assumes a grave responsibility in front of God, in front of his own conscience and in front of history!"

Shame on you for resorting to McCarthyism in your attacks on those who oppose the war.

Since I am not that accostumed to write English, maybe it was not clear that I was refering to Franco, not to Aznar who simply is an heir. Fascist can accomodate to elections, giving a semblance of democracy, as long as they keep the upper hand. Now look at what you say:

... States that openly or covertly direct or support threats to American civilians must stop, or they will cease to exist. This is nonnegotiable.
Ultimately other states with simmilar interests to the US will recognize that they have much more to gain through alliance than obstruction.

Are you aware that this text is in itself a threat?

I do not trust the USA.

DSW

I thank Instapundit for the following. Gosh, isn’t it nice that an anti-war demonstrator has finally been “shocked back into reality.”

“A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."”

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030321-023627-5923r

"Are you aware that this text is in itself a threat?"

Quit bringing structuralism into every discussion, you Europeans!

Let's remember all the people who here have sneered at the idea that there could ever be an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. You are days away from being refuted for good-- though no doubt you'll be like the Alger Hiss crowd and others who, even in the face of Venona and everything else, still deny that there was a Soviet connection to so many things and people the far Left was proud of.

Brian wrote, "Shame and Humiliation. Given the course of events in Iraq that is what most opponents to war should feel. Contrary to the claims of the predictable lot of fascist sympathizers, enablers and usefull idiots, the coalition has not engaged in carpet bombing of Baghdad, or the destruction of infrastructure, or even the mass killing of enemy soldiers!"

I opposed the war, and I never thought it likely that mass killings would occur.

Rather, I opposed the war because
(a) Bush et al. have consistently lied about their reasons for going to war;
(b) post-war reconstruction is likely (not guaranteed) to be extremely messy, with strife continuing within Iraq as a definite possible outcome;
(c) as an American who has observed his government's foreign policy actions for more than a decade now, I don't see much in the historical record to cause me to be sanguine about the sincerity of Bush et al.'s pledges to create a democratic Iraq;
(d)"States that openly or covertly direct or support threats to American civilians must stop, or they will cease to exist. This is nonnegotiable" is rank hypocrisy, as we have found it fit to murder or be an accomplice to murder, or look the other way, of civilians in other states when it suits our interests;
(e) Iraq seemed like less of a threat than either (i) Saudi support for Islamic fundamentalism, (ii) Pakistani export of nuclear technology to North Korea...

Mike G. wrote, "Let's remember all the people who here have sneered at the idea that there could ever be an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. You are days away from being refuted for good--".

Huh? I never thought it was impossible that there was an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Rather,
(a) a *strong* connection was, and is, unlikely if not impossible;
(b) a *weak* connection doesn't really mean anything---by that standard, anytime we infiltrate a group and don't bring it down right away, you could say we are connected;
(c) there already is a *proven* connection between the US and bin Laden, namely US support for him in the conflict in Afghanistan;
(d) there is an abundance of support for Al Qaeda from certain Saudi and Pakistani elements, yet we're bombing Iraq, not those countries;
(e) it's not impossible that the US would forge documents in an attempt to fraudulently create an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection...

That there has been _communication_ between Saddam Hussein and AlQaeda is obvious, and no doubt proofs of such attempts will be trotted out by those eager to justify the invasion ex post. However, I seriously doubt any such legitimate proofs will confirm that Hussein was even thinking of giving WMD's to AlQaeda. Think about it. If you are a murderously paranoid dictator who strings people up if you think they might be a threat to you, are you really going to give nerve agents or smallpox to a shadowy terrorist organization, especially a fundamentalist one which hates all secularist governments? Do you really trust that they will use such weapons just against your enemies? Did our foreign policy establishment give Sarin or Anthrax to the Mujahedin in the hope that it would be used against Soviet troops in Afghanistan? We weren't that stupid, and neither is Saddam Hussein.

"(e) it's not impossible that the US would forge documents in an attempt to fraudulently create an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection..."

In the face of the worldwide opposition to the invasion, not to mention any future attacks against other Muslim coutries, I might even be willing to put money on this.

SJF:
(c) there already is a *proven* connection between the US and bin Laden, namely US support for him in the conflict in Afghanistan;

In fact I seems to remember that the Bush family was on very good terms with Ben Laden family. Some even claim that Ossama and G.W. Bush were business associates.

DSW

""Are you aware that this text is in itself a threat?"

Quit bringing structuralism into every discussion, you Europeans!"

Indeed, this is why France,Germany, and the the other nations of the Old Europe are is such deep doo doo. These folks are not able to think and follow a logical argument. The intellectual viruses of postmodernism and deconstructionism have warped their intellects.

"(e) it's not impossible that the US would forge documents in an attempt to fraudulently create an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection..."

In the face of the worldwide opposition to the invasion, not to mention any future attacks against other Muslim coutries, I might even be willing to put money on this."

Have you told Oliver Stone about your concerns? I'm sure he will be glad to spin a nice conspiracy theory for your benefit.

"72 Hour" David Thompson:
Your prediction of the length of this war was 100% incorrect. I am curious to see the mix of words you use in trying to deny this.

However, I propose you spend your time in another way. Considering you are always so sure of your positions and considering this prediction was so erroneous. Please - spend some time considering your other world views and question yourself as to their accuracy. You might find it to be an enlightening process even if you don't change your mind.

"Shame and Humiliation. Given the course of events in Iraq that is what most opponents to war should feel. Contrary to the claims of the predictable lot of fascist sympathizers, enablers and usefull idiots, the coalition has not engaged in carpet bombing of Baghdad, or the destruction of infrastructure, or even the mass killing....."

I am one who is opposed to this war and yet is pro-military in general and who believes that there is something real to the concept of a just and necessary war.

One of the reasons (just one of the reasons) I oppose this war is that I do not believe it can be quickly or easily won without mass bombing and mass destruction of enemy troops and ordnance.

However, this approach will lead to large numbers of civilian causalties, which is bad for the long-term game plan as well as short term-support here and abroad.

What is occurring militarily now will lead to a prolonged conflict, more US causalties, and will permit the formation of anti-US militias after Saddam is gone.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The quagmire is down the road (though a battle for Bahgdad could be pretty bad). Many Iraqi's who are glad to see the beginning of the end for Saddam are professing that they are not necessarily pleased that it has come about in this fashion and that they will want the US to get out of Iraq ASAP; which, of course we won't do.

Anyhow, as for WMDs....don't worry about them. They never existed post 1998 in any quantity and/or aren't coupled to a delivery system that could render them effective.

And there aren't any of foriegn origin here in the states. They would have been used by now.

""72 Hour" David Thompson:
Your prediction of the length of this war was 100% incorrect. I am curious to see the mix of words you use in trying to deny this."

I didn't take into consideration the moral decency of the Bush administration. We are delaying victory out of a desire to limit unnecessary deaths. This war would have indeed been over in the first eight hours if we were willing to seriously bomb Baghdad. Please note that our military has not dropped any of the super big bombs.

"Please - spend some time considering your other world views and question yourself as to their accuracy. You might find it to be an enlightening process even if you don't change your mind."

Gosh, what a difference a few days make!:

""Bill Clinton deserves a lot of credit"

I give you credit DT. I didn't think you were capable of typing the words.
Posted by: Dan on March 18, 2003 02:24 PM

“I give you credit DT. I didn't think you were capable of typing the words.”

I have always praised Bill Clinton for saving lives in the Balkans. He also showed more guts on trade issues than Bush has up to now---and I’ve said so a number of times on this blog. And I believe that Clinton has a higher I.Q. than does George W. Bush. It is therefore a tragedy than the former President squandered his gifts due to his inability to impose self discipline on himself. I did my best to warn Conservatives that their blind hatred for Clinton was backfiring. Needless to add, few listened to me.

I well remember an article about a guy hired in Washington. DC (long before the Monica Lewinsky fiasco) whose only purpose in life was to fax off information to the media blasting President Clinton. After all, one has to understand that salaries and rented space are very expensive in the national capitol. This seemed downright weird to me and common sense dictated that I was not alone in reaching this conclusion. Unfortunately, the Clinton haters didn't see that their train was running off the track.
Posted by: David Thomson on March 18, 2003 06:26 PM"

"72 hour Thompson" is going to be wrong about the stock market as well. Note the 200 point drop this a.m.
All that recent buying was not based on fundementals, but on irrational exuberance over the dream of a quick victory. Gold is up too and oil.....

There *must* be a place for DT in the Bush press corps.

I have zero belief that Saddam would ever disarm on his own.

He only begrudgingly reopened his country to UN required inspections when 200,000 plus U.S. and British troops were stationed on his doorstep.

The Security Council threatened severe consequences if there wasn't complete and total compliance with those inspections in 1441.

There wasn't complete and total compliance with those inspections.

In fact, no attempt was made to account for proscribed weapons which we know existed.

Saddam simply said that we should take his word for it that he had destroyed all of his proscribed weapons in the intervening years.

In light of Saddam's failure to meet the demands of 1441, several Security Council members said that the inspections were working and that they just need more time.

Aren't inspections designed to show compliance not enforce it?

Didn't Saddam have 12 years to disarm?

Didn't the U.S. say going into 1441 that it was a shot across the bow that the end was near for Saddam's non-compliance?

Didn't the U.S. impress upon the Security Council that the U.S. was prepared to make Saddam comply if the Council shirked its responsibility to do so?

Did the Security Council pass a secret resolution calling for Saddam's permanent containment?

Are we supposed to believe that we could have trusted Saddam to remain passive with his WMD because he just wants to die in his bed?

Some of the logic is confusing. I can see how people would be confused by it!

Stan, what WMDs?

Given the amount of proven false information regarding WMDs in Iraq - supplied by the Bush and Blair admin.s - how can you still be sure that any exist at all?

Even if we accept the possibility that a small amount of WMDs do, in fact, exist in a weaponized form that renders them potentially effective, we must then take a leap of faith that Saddam's regime would use them in an offensive manner. And that, if they were used in such a manner, that they would cause sufficient damage to turn the tide of a war of aggression; something that did not occur during the Iran/Iraq war.

I don't believe that the above can be asserted at all with any degree of certainty. And this is what it is all about. Given cost/benefit analysis (risk/benefit) it probably would be better to let sleeping dogs lie. Most evidence that points to the scenario that justifies war -according to Bush - to be the most unlikely.

If merely the priciple of enforcing UN resolutions is important enough to start a war, then would you advocate handing Isreal (in violation of several UN resolutions) an ultimatum as well?

The fact that Saddam atttacked Kuwait is irrelevant as he did so with US consent, as was the case in his war against Iran. By the way, the nudge and wink from our State Dept. that clinched Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was an obvious, but effective trap. It gave the US the needed imperative to begin its military build up in the OPEC region. A build up that has increased steadily to present.

Furthermore, the belief that this war is about WMDs and UN resolutions is, itself, a fabrication of the Bush misinformation machine. Clearly, the admin. has ulterior motives. As Kissinger said, leaving the oil wealth of that region to the Arabs is simply too dangerous to American interests. This viewpoint is reiterated in several key documents developed by key members of the Bush admin. even before Bush was elected (or at least placed in office).

Stan, Joe, DT,... all are victims of the misinformation campaign. Every block of evidence upon which they build the case for supporting war has been proven to be false or exists as an unsubstantiated assertion. None consider the full body of information that is readily available and that can be substantiated - such as the Bush admin's drive to increase military control of the Middle East and other regions - nor do they attempt to consider the ramifications of such validated evidence.

Personnaly, I would like to see an honest discussion of the real issues involved(eg) Imperialism is an approach that we can and should consider. Oil is important to our economy so we need to sieze the window of opportunity provided by the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet Union while we are still the dominant force in the world to set up a long term infrastructure of miltary bases in support of quasi-colonial regimes in the region. Saddam is in the way, he is producing oil below capacity, he has made contracts with Europeans unfavorable to us, he is leading the trend to transact in Euros, he is a likely target to begin the process due to his record of blatant human rights violations, he can be defeated militarily now that inspections and GWI have weakened him, etc, etc......

This approach, I could respect. But please don't propagate a bunch of unsubstatiated BS about national security via terrorism that at least 50% of the world can see right through. It's embarassing to say the least!

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=275074&displayTypeCd=1&sideCd=1&contrassID=2

A link provided by JPS on another thread shows that Isrealis expect the conflict to expand. I believe that Bush is counting on enough of an uprising in the Arab street to justify - one way or another - regime change in a number of Arab countries.

Note that it is all steeped in the rhetoric of preserving national security by eliminating unfriendly gov'ts with possible WMDs.

How long will we allow this formula excuse for US imperialism to yield the grim fruit of war?

no saddam no weapons of mass destruction.
WHo the fuck is going to clean up th DU rounds littered all over Iraq since the first iraq war.
The yanks can have all the oil the want, do what they want and sleep easy at night.
I think...i know... that the worlds going to be a very dangerous place for american civilians and military personell
Sleep easy my litle cherubs the grim reaper might be around the corner...and he cares very little about American might