1/13/04 – Santa Ana say’s No to the Iraqi War!

On Tuesday, January 13th 2004, the people of Santa Ana, the Orange County Green Party, the Not In Our Name LA Project, Our Lady of Lourdes, OC Peace Coalition, and various other human rights and anti-war groups gathered at fourth and main to march to the Federal Building and demand an end to the war in Iraq. The greatest part of the demonstration was the people of Santa Ana. In the three hours we were out there, the greatest part of the demonstration were the few thousand honks of support and solidarity workers fists. As many people of Santa Ana come from countries that have struggled against militarism and totalitarian governments for generations, it is clear that they do not want a warmonger in office. We demand that Bush pull our American troops out of Iraq and give reparations to the people of Iraq for the terrorism that our government has waged on the people of Iraq. As every premise leading to this war has been disproved, it became clear long before O’Neil blew the whistle that the issue of war with Iraq is mutually exclusive to the war on Terror. The only benefits to this war have been corporate profits in our no new job economic boom. The US has killed more Iraqis than Saddam and the people of Iraq are worse off today then when he was in power (more Iraqis have been killed by this war and the US sanctions than by Saddam). Now that the damage is done, all we can do is offer reparations for our terrorism and give the people of Iraq autonomy. An apology would also be nice.

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

You say:

The US has killed more Iraqis than Saddam and the people of Iraq are worse off today then when he was in power (more Iraqis have been killed by this war and the US sanctions than by Saddam).

I thought the sanctions were imposed by the UN, with French approval, not the US.

Also, would the sanctions not have been lifted if Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions?? Of course, the US has historically been willing to work with Saddam.

Your assertion that the Iraqi people are better off under a dictator than being liberated is, I'm sure, your honest belief. A rare moment of candor from the left!

I also find your calls for "social justice" amusing. Would it not be just to punish Saddam for his genocide against the Kurds?

One of your signs reads "no war" -- does that include the Palestinian war? FARC's war? Or only wars designed to END oppression, rather than increase it?

Santa Ana did NOT say no and "THE" people of Santa Ana did NOT gather anywhere. A handful of people who may or may not have been from Santa Ana had a little protest. There was never any vote where ALL Santa Ana residents said no to anything & nowhere a majority of Santa Ana residents participated in the demonstration.

Stop always trying to claim that the actions of a few represent the opinions or wishes of the majority of residents ina city, country, etc.

First, A. Gore, the sanctions, though they were indeed a UN move, it is clear that it was the United States and Britain that argued for them and vetoed every attempt to get rid of them. “France, China and Russia want sanctions lifted. But they cannot force the issue in the Security Council because the United States and Britain have threatened to veto it.” (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/gensanc/2000/1005deen.htm) and “The US and UK governments always made it clear that they would block any lifting or serious reforming of sanctions as long as Hussein remained in power.” (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm) and “On August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the Security Council passed Resolution 661, imposing comprehensive sanctions on Iraq and establishing a committee to monitor them. Both Iraq and the international community assumed that this embargo would be short lived - no more than six months - because that was in everyone's economic interest. Both sides took initiatives to resolve the conflict but on January 15, 1991 the Security Council endorsed a US-led coalition in a devastating air war which, contrary to just war theory, targeted much of Iraq's civilian infrastructure (e.g., water purification and hydro-electrical plants) for destruction.
(http://peace.mennolink.org/articles/iraqsancthist.html). Further, those sanctions were there because Saddam refused to get rid of his WMDs. So when push came to shove, the US went in to disarm him. The only problem was that when we went in, there weren’t any weapons to disarm. So I pose the question to you, ‘what were the sanctions for again?’ Did the 3,000 children who died every month from curable illnesses because the medicine that they so desperately needed was sanctioned die because their leader had weapons? The burden of justification still remains with the forces that are violating their autonomy (basic moral rule). No, these children died from the secondary consequences of terrorism headed by our country.
To your second ridicules comment about liberation, just prior to the invasion of Kuwait (the invasion that we okayed Iraq to make), there was public education and social health care. Iraq recognized Women’s rights and had a country with employment and low crime. Then after our unjustified invasion (we could have simply said no when they asked us if we would have a problem invading Iraq) and the sanctions (that we pushed for), and in their present state anarchy with fascist occupation, the only thing we have liberated is their oil (which is being sold for one-third of market value). So, maybe you could explain, if the US is doing such a great job at liberation, why are our troops getting shot at and are the people in Iraq taking to the streets to say “US out, Iraq elections now!” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3399383.stm)

Second, Harry, I guess you would have had to be there. Though our group wasn’t the entire population of Santa Ana, the general attitude was clear from the reaction of the people in cars and walking the streets. If you would have read what I said, “In the three hours we were out there, the greatest part of the demonstration were the few thousand honks of support and solidarity workers fists.” In addition to this there were no (I repeat no) negative remarks or jesters. Even in liberal cities there is the occasional thumbs down or middle finger, but on that night there were none, but there were many times the normal show of support. Now if you ever decide to take a statistics course you will understand that this lends strong evidence (about 2,000 - 3,000 yeas and 0 nays is strong evidence in anyone’s book) that the anti-war movement has strong support from the majority of people in Santa Ana. If you still disagree with this, I suggest you write your own statistical probability theory book because your method is far different than any other I have ever studied, and I have done a lot of graduate work in statistical probability.

I am sure I will see you both at the RNC in NYC this August, though I am also sure you and your fellow terrorist supporters will enjoy Bush’s speech from the inside while us morally conscience Americans are outside telling Bush to go back to Texas and retire. The people will not be defeated.

"1planet1people"

What an assine idea.

Anyway, the sanctions were kept in place because Sadam consistently twarted all attempts at INSPECTING FOR wmd.

That he had them has never been in question. Your own simpleminded tribe love to blather on about how WE gave them to him to begin with. So where are they? Certainly you are not so foolish as to believe that he simply destroyed them all yet pretended to have them are you?

Sadam could have had the sanctions lifted at any time.

And beyond the fact that the number of deaths directly attributed to the sanctions is utterly dubious at best, the fact still remains that they are all the product of Sadams greed, avarice and inhumane spirit.

Face it, your beat. Your resoning is filled with holes that anyone could drive a truck through. You might as well be flying a plane into a skyscraper yourself for how pathetic you are.

Thankfully, your irrelevance is your saving grace.

Isn’t it amazing how short some people’s memory is! If I recall correctly, the inspectors were allowed into Iraq and left on US advise just before the 1991 invasion. After leaving the US admitted that they used inspectors to locate bombing targets (violation of international law). Who in their right mind would let confessed spies back into the country? Saddam did right before the latest terrorist attacks on Iraq (idiot!). They were given access to every site the UN asked to see, even Saddam’s bedroom was checked for giant missiles and tubes of nerve agents. If you can remember, we attacked because our president said that Saddam was “t[h]warted” (as you say) our efforts to find WMDs. But he must have done a real good job because almost a year has passed and those tons of nerve agents are still missing. Do you still think they are being hidden in the mobile labs or people are running out the back door with them? No, they are in the secrete nuclear bunkers, aren’t they! Yeah, in those underground cities! The only reason that anyone said that he was playing games is because there wasn’t any evidence that the weapons were there, and Bush knew they were...or did he. Oh, and I guess Bush Sr. lied too when he said he destroyed them all in 1991, not even bringing up the fact that Bush’s right hand man in the beginning has come out and blown the whistle on this entire oil war (though it was no surprise to anyone paying attention). But if you don’t want to see the facts, I guess ignorance is bliss.

"If I recall correctly, the inspectors were allowed into Iraq and left on US advise just before the 1991 invasion. "

You don't recall correctly. They were NOT in Iraq prior to the first Gulf War. They went in as a condition of Ceasefire AFTER the war and were definetly hampered.

"Iraq: A Chronology of UN Inspections
And an Assessment of Their Accomplishments, 1990-2002
An ACA Special Report
In April 1991, as part of the permanent cease-fire agreement ending the Persian Gulf War, the UN Security Council ordered Iraq to eliminate under international supervision its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs, as well as its ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150 kilometers. The Security Council declared that the comprehensive economic sanctions imposed in 1990 on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait would remain in place until Baghdad had fully complied with its weapons requirements.

Baghdad agreed to these conditions but for eight years deceived, obstructed, and threatened international inspectors sent to dismantle and verify the destruction of its banned programs. This systematic Iraqi effort to conceal and obscure the true extent of its weapons of mass destruction programs began almost immediately, when Baghdad lied about the status of its programs in its initial declarations and obstructed an inspection team. Iraq continued to harass, hinder, and frustrate inspectors until late 1998, when the inspectors withdrew from Iraq just hours before the United States and the United Kingdom launched three days of military strikes against Iraq for its noncooperation. Since that time, Iraq has permitted only limited inspections of declared nuclear sites but has not yet allowed the return of intrusive inspections to verify that it has lived up to its commitment to get rid of its prohibited weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs.

The inspectors’ job was hampered not only by Iraq but also by key countries on the Security Council whose support for the inspections waned. As time passed, the combination of unending confrontations between weapons inspectors and Iraqi officials; the reported growing humanitarian toll of sanctions on Iraqi civilians; and the economic costs of forgoing exports, imports, and energy deals with a former trading partner, undermined the willingness of China, France, Russia, and others from enforcing the inspections and sanctions regimes against Iraq. Quarrels erupted between these countries, which were sympathetic to Iraq and claimed that it had sufficiently disarmed, and the United States and the United Kingdom, both of which repeatedly contended Baghdad had not fulfilled the obligations laid out in the cease-fire agreement."


http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02.asp


Furthermore, there is no eveidence that the WMD were ever compltetely destroyed and absolutely no eveidence that Bush Sr. has ever said that they were. If anything, the onus is one your side to explain what happened to them if you are convinced they don't exist. The historical record proves he had them but there's no accounting for them.

So where are they? Who knows. They must be somewhere. Trying to reduce the subject to absurdity doesn't wash. There's no talk of "undergraound cities" These things could be hidden FOREVER and forgotten anywhere in that entire region.

It's a very simple equation. They existed. There's no proof they were destroyed (actually much to the contrary). We conclude they still exist. Obviously.

Not finding them yet (or ever) is not in any way proof they don't exist. But I'm sure to your flimsy grasp of logic it is.

By the way, when is this massive oil theft supposed to start? If this was all about oil, what the hell are we waiting for?

Oh, maybe it wasn't

Lemming.

I just wanted to make one more comment about a perversion in the comment by fresca the terrorist. (I admit this now that the following is harsh, I am doing it on purpose because terrorism and the justifications used for it have to be exposed and the people who use them need to be put in their place before they cause harm to others)

“And beyond the fact that the number of deaths directly attributed to the sanctions is utterly dubious at best, the fact still remains that they are all the product of Sadams greed, avarice and inhumane spirit. “

This is a common line of defense, but a sick one. Let me explain, this line of argument says that it is justifiable to take actions on a community because of the political atmosphere of that community. Though I do NOT support any acts of terrorism, this parallel needs to be drawn. We have put dictators in power in all kinds of countries (for example: Chile), we have helped dictators in the middle east stay in power, and had our troops on holy sand in Saudi Arabia against the wishes of the people there (ever wander why most of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi). We have bombed Aspirin factories in Sudan, and were convicted of state sponsored terrorism in the 1980s by the world court for the terror we waged on Nicaragua. If the actions of a government justify retaliation on the people who live in that government, then September 11, 2001 is completely justifiable! Now I am not willing to accept that terrorism is ever justifiable and violence is not the answer, but if you really hold this belief, do not whine about them hitting us, it is the justified black eye that a bully is sure to receive now and then. I hope you see how sick this line of reasoning is and dismiss it with our current terrorist and chief! You really need to learn how to think! Try going to any local community college and take a course on it, it is usually called critical thinking, intro to logic, and is in the English, political science, or philosophy deportment.

Oh...and who ever said he pretended to have WMDs? He has maintained for over a decade that he DIDN’T, or were you asleep during all that?!?!?!?!

Look, everything you are saying was dismissed long ago. You are just having wishful thinking in your fox news mind. As for the spies, you are right, it was post war, but they left were simply not allowed back in. Small detail in a large pot of crap. I wouldn'y have let them in either, are we going to let Bin Laden's group inspect our airports? I don't think so.
"Clinton administration officials acknowledged Thursday that U.S. weapons experts, including some from intelligence agencies, helped U.N. inspectors search for Iraqi weapons. They said information gained during the inspections assisted U.S. military planners but flatly denied the intelligence agents acted as spies." (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9901/07/iraq.un/)

Now here are some things for you to look up, I am just cutting and pasting them because life is too short to keep arguing the same things over and over again.

Before I go, I guess you think that if the UN is behind this and not us, then we must have been doing UN sanctioned enforcement of the no fly zone? Check that out well you are looking stuff up.

(http://www.iowansforpeace.org/writing/iraq_myths.html)
1) "Iraq kicked out the weapons inspectors".

False.
Inspector Richard Butler, believed to be acting on information from the US government about the planning of Operation Desert Fox, pulled out UNSCOM from Iraq without consulting the UN (the organization he was responsible to) shortly before the operation began, with the obvious knowledge that, since Desert Fox used targeting information acquired by the inspectors, they wouldn't be allowed back in. (1)

Full writeup:
http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html


2) "Iraq broke international law by not allowing in the inspectors."

Misleading.
a) The US broke the exact same laws by sending in spies in with the weapons inspectors; even further, we used the targeting information gathered by the inspectors in Operation Desert Fox, ensuring the inspections process was thoroughly discredited and wouldn't be allowed back into Iraq. (2)
b) The US declared that successful weapons inspections would not lift the sanctions, in violation of the UN resolution; the US stated that they would not be lifted as long as Saddam was in power. (3)
c) Israel, as an example, has broken many resolutions by the UN, which the US has continually not enforced. (4)
d) The concept of responding to a breach of international law by breaking international law (by preemptive strikes without explicit UN authorization) is preposterous, not to mention puts us in the same boat as the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and Kaiser Wilhelm II's start of WWI, both of which having far more plausible threats than our supposition on Iraq. (5)

Full writeup:
http://www.cursor.org/stories/mediaamnesia.htm

3) "Iraq gassed its own people."

Misleading.
a) After the US and the UN had already issued reports on Iraq's use of chemical weapons, president Ronald Reagan dispatched his special Middle East envoy at the time, Donald Rumsfeld, in 1983, to reestablish relations with the country that were cut off in the Arab-Israeli war of 1967. (6)
b) Virtually all of these attacks were targeted at Iran (who they were at war with) or PUK (the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, a pro-Iranian rebel group). (7)
c) The most famous attack, against the town of Halabja, was done when Halabja had been occupied by PUK, who was effectively using the town's citizens as human shields. Saddam attacked through the human shields and then condemned the other side for using human shields in the first place (8). Sound familiar?
d) The attack was largely launched from US equipment that we sold them. (9). In fact, they still are assessed to have some, even after the Gulf War.(10).
e) After the attack, the US congress voted to suspend weapons sales to Iraq. Despite such moving arguments, such as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Claiborne Pell's plea, "We cannot be silent to genocide again" (in comparison to how we stayed silent during Hitler's genocide until Pearl Harbor forced us into the war), the White House defeated the resolution (11).
f) Concerning their bioweapons program, we gave them many of their starter cultures (12).

4) "Iraq tried to commit ethnic cleansing."

Misleading.
a) Again, this is another case of "With Our Support", since the Anfal campaign was conducted while the US was supplying Iraq with weapons (including biological and chemical, as mentioned before) and intelligence information. Check out the time period.(13)
b) We've supported, and still do support, many people who've tried to commit ethnic cleansing, amongst many other crimes. (See section 5)
c) As an example for (b), we supported Pol Pot during his murder of 1.6-1.7 million Cambodians and to this day refuse to even admit officially (although freely do off the record) Turkey's widely accepted genocide of 1.5 million Armenians (near a century ago, and we still don't say anything!). Compare this to the 50k-190k Kurds killed (again, with our support) in Anfal.(14)

5) "We have to save Iraq's people from Saddam, as he's been a brutal tyrant".

Misleading.
a) Supporting brutal tyrants has been an integral part of US history. Here's a few alphabetically by last name:

Colonel Hugo Banzer, Fulgencio Batista, Sir Hassanal Bolkiah, P. W. Botha, General Humberto Branco, Vinicio Cerezo, Chiang Kai-Shek, Roberto Suazo Cordova, Ngo Dinh Diem, General Samuel Doe, Francois & Jean Claude Duvalier, General Francisco Franco, Adolf Hitler, Hussan II, Ferdinand Marcos, Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez, Mobutu Sese Seko, General Manuel Noriega, Turgut Ozal, Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, George Papadopoulos, Park Chung Hee, General Augusto Pinochet, General Sitiveni Rabuka, General Efrain Rios Mont, Antionio De Oliveira Salazar, Halie Selassie, Ian Smith, Anastasio Somoza, Sr. and Jr., Alfredo Stroessner, General Suharto, Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, General Jorge Rafael Videla, Mohammed Zia Ul-Haq. (15)

b) Present human rights violators with comparable per-capita records to Saddam Hussein include Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan and many others. Per capita, our new Northern Alliance allies have far *worse* records than Saddam Hussein. For more details, check Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and their publicly available records. (16)
c) In general, the only thing the Iraqi people seem to hate more than they hate Saddam is the American government and military. (17)

6) "Iraq refuses to accept the return of weapons inspectors in exchange for the lifting of sanctions and no attack".

False.
Iraq has continually offered to allow the return of weapons inspectors in exchange for precisely those two conditions. Just recently, they accepted acceptors under all of the UN restrictions *without* even those two guarantees. The US has been, instead of gladly helping, working to stop the inspectors from getting into Iraq, so that we can pass our new, preposterously unacceptable resolution to enable us to attack Iraq anyways. (18)

7) Saddam is developing weapons of mass destruction.

Unlikely.
a) As negligible as this is (see #7), all available evidence to date has shown little to no development of weapons of mass destruction. As an example, Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector in Iraq - a gulf-war veteran and Republican who voted for Bush, who resigned for what he considered not being allowed to inspect enough sites by the US government - has repeatedly testify that all available evidence, from not only the US but even Iraq's enemies such as Israel, shows no continued WMD development. Ritter is hardly the only one who was there making these claims. (19)
b) Iraq has done no measurable development of long-range delivery systems since the last Gulf. There has not been a single long-range ballistics missile test launch from Iraq during this time (20), and it is virtually impossible to do significant development on a missile program without this. If you doubt this, look at the rate of missile test failures from a similar tech country, Iran, who *has* been testing their missiles. (21)
c) If there was any evidence to these actions, why on earth would the Bush administration not present it to make their case for war? It has presented nothing but speculation thusfar.
d) As Richard Butler, the former head of UNSCOM, stated, it's more than a little bit hypocritical to condemn a nation for developing a small number of WMD for "national security" when we develop thousands of times as many for the same reason; nor could Butler address the issue of why Israel is freely allowed to keep and develop many times as many WMD despite breech of security council resolutions. (22)
e) The only tangible piece of evidence offered by the Bush administration to support WMD development - the shipment of aluminum tubes supposedly to be used as gas centrifuge rotors - falls apart since the tubes are not suitable for welding. The IAEA disagrees as well with the Bush administration. (23) Is this all they have to offer? Before the Gulf War, in a brief period of time Iraq was caught importing many dozens of types of equipment pieces with no doubt as to their use in WMD. Even then, it was very, very far from success. (24)

8) "If Saddam gets WMD, he won't hesitate to use it without prior provocation".

Unlikely.
It seems preposterous to assume that the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) applies to everyone in the world, from our western allies to leaders of unstable former Soviet republics who don't even know where all of their weapons are, everyone that is except Saddam Hussein (who has continually, throughout his whole life, shown if anything a concern only for himself). And no, using chemical weapons during wartime against a group that didn't have any (PUK, Iran) does not quality as "Mutually Assured Destruction", in the exact same way that "Mutually Assured Destruction" didn't apply to the United States when it bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Almost universally, however, weapons of mass destruction have been developed for deterrence. Did the Soviet Union use their nuclear weapons to bomb us as soon as they got them? What about our enemies, the Chinese? Did anyone?

9) "Iraq is dangerous to its neighbors."

False.
Iraq's neighbors have almost all expressed opposition to the attack. Most have much to lose from an attack, from dissent amongst their populace weakening their already tenuous rules, to, such as the case of Turkey, inciting of revolts amongst their own Kurdish populations. (25)

10) "War is good for the economy. It will help our situation out."

False.
War is effectively "putting money on your credit cards". War gives a temporary boost to the economy by spending the country into debt; it doesn't create money from nowhere, and it is far worse that most other spending-stimulus methods because what it produces is promptly destroyed (munitions, etc), vs. permanent infrastructure development. For example, in n 80 billion dollar war, you're stimulating the economy by putting in 80 billion dollars, for which the work it funds gets destroyed. For 80 billion dollars, however, you could stimulate the economy exactly the same by producing 80 billion dollars of things that are useful to the country - renewable energy power plants, education, health, etc - things that aren't wasted. In the first Gulf War, we started in a strong economy, had 80% of the war paid for by our allies, and still went into a depression afterwards. Now, we're in a teetering economy and have minimal allies in this conflict (and many nations with flatly stated opposition). The math isn't very hard on what will happen.

11. "Saddam uses his own people as human shields"

Misleading.
a) How does one hold a city without having troops inside a city? Can you hold a city, say, from 50 miles away? Of course not. If New York was invaded and attempted to be seized, would you *not* expect the US army to move in to try and prevent this?
b) The US classifies in war everything from police stations to government facilities to power to water to radio/television transmission of all types to fuel depots (including gas stations) to fuel tankers to buildings (including apartments) which house leaders at different levels to dams to... well, you get the picture. Using these criteria on our own country, picture what percentage of the city you live in would be hit, and how many civilians would be killed by the shrapnel, falling debris, etc. (26)
c) The US tends to make these accusations right after it shoots through the "shields". Think back - when was the last case you heard about where the US averted an attack because innocent people were there? Can you even think of one? How moral is this when such aversions are rarely done, in the name of "efficiency"? If civilian lives are worth nothing in the pursuit of the goal, then we're dangerously close to having the same level of morality as those who crash planes into skyscrapers and government buildings to strike at the US government.

12. "Iraq will give his weapons he develops to terrorists."

Unlikely.
a) Why would Saddam Hussein give weapons critical to his maintaining of power to groups he doesn't control? It would be lose-lose - any attacks they did would still be blamed on them by an administration eager to link Iraq to attacks, but they wouldn't be able to control their use for their own benefit (something a country that thinks it is going to be attacked would find critical). Furthermore, most of the groups we find dangerous want to set off a holy war between the Arab world and the US. What a better way to start such a war than to attack the US with whatever supposed "weapon of mass destruction" he gave them, thus ensuring Saddam's destruction? (28)
b) In the few times in history where Saddam gave weapons to a group he didn't exert direct authority over, they were anything but WMD. (29)
c) Most fundamentalist groups oppose Saddam's secular state, in addition to many of his policies, including al-Qaeda. In fact, Osama bin Laden initially tried to rally the Saudis against Saddam, and even sent a letter to the Saudi royal family encouraging them to let him bring in his mujahadiin army against his forces. (30). Besides, paranoid dictators aren't famous for giving their best weapons (or any weapons at all) to groups who want to destroy them.
d) If this is in reference to the money he gives to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, you might also want to talk to allied countries like Saudi Arabia about their doing of the same thing (31). The Palestinian cause is a very popular one in the Arab world (this is beyond the scope of this FAQ); it is unreasonable to expect that Arab countries won't support the Palestinians, and it's unreasonable to expect that the people of Iraq or the successive government won't continue to behave with the same sympathies that their entire region has. Do note the difference in the type of aid being considered, however, as the Palestinians most advanced weapons currently are homemade grenades and low-quality homemade rockets. (32) Compare that to Israel's weaponry (33).
e) If this is in reference to Iraq's supposed assassination attempt of President George H. W. Bush, please realize that that case hinged entirely on how much you trust confessions from a country that had a vested interest in promoting discord between the US and Iraq, and uses torture on prisoners, with one of the accused even showing up for trial with fresh marks across his body. (34)
f) If you don't trust me, trust major Iraq war proponent and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Williams: "Is there any link between al-Qa'ida, Iraq, and terrorist groups in Britain?" Blair: "No." Williams: "So, the US government knows of no link, either?" Blair (bluntly): "I've said what I've said, and I don't think I can add to it." (35)

13. "Iraq supported the Sept. 11th attacks."

False.
The only piece of evidence that supposedly tied Iraq to the attacks has since been denied by the Czechs (who provided the information) and the CIA, as a misidentification (the CIA places him in the US at the time). Even if the US hadn't dismissed the supposed "leaving his terror cell to go to Prague for a bit then coming back" and the Czechs hadn't denied it, the entire case was based on 1 person who, after seeing a picture of Atta, decided that the picture looked like someone he saw meeting with al-Ani. That's *it*.(36). Any further evidence that might exist has not been presented to the American public - seemingly a highly improbable thing from an administration trying to make the case for an attack. Likewise, the method the anthrax was aerosolized, of the three known methods (the method used by the US, the method used by the former Soviet Union, and the method used by Iraq) has been determined to be the method used by the US, and the strain determined to be the Ames strain (named after Ames, IA where it was developed). (37)


14. "Iraq invaded Kuwait."

Misleading.

After a decade of receiving a tremendous level of US support, in which the US had allowed Saddam to get away with everything using chemical weapons to heavy-handed oppressive tactics without so much as even a lull in weapons sales, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq (April Glaspie) pretty much gave Saddam the "go-ahead" to invade Kuwait, stating that the US has "no opinion the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait", after stating "I have a direct instruction from the President to seek better relations with Iraq." (38). The State Department refused to comment on its accuracy; seeing as it is absolutely in the state department's interests to expose such a libel if it were not true - everything from making Saddam look bad to covering up such initial US support for Iraq - the only reasonable conclusion is that the release is correct.

15. Who cares, the new resolution gives us the right to attack Iraq at will.

False.
a) Do you remember why France and Russia were taking so long before agreeing to sign it (despite the intense pressure of a country with near half of the world's total military spending and an economy about the size of all of Europe combined behind it)? It was specifically to remove triggers that would allow the US to decide if it felt that Iraq was in violation and could attack at will. (39). There is no reason to believe that they would have changed their stance.
b) The resolution we tried to force upon Iraq was completely unreasonable - something that no nation could ever reasonably be expected to allow. France and Russia managed to get it softened, thankfully. Note now that the resolution itself (referenced) explicitly requires the security council to reconvene to decide a course of action, and does *not* authorize war in any way. (39)





References:

I supply just a few references available from a quick search of the internet; I searched in each case until I got bored or didn't see fit to search any more. Even the most simplistic of searches of news sites will yield many more articles. The past is the past, and it does not change, short of an Orwellian Memory Hole. Seek the truth for yourself if I have not provided enough references in each case to satiate your curiosity - you'll be surprised at what you find.

1 & 2) CNN: Jan 10, 1999: "Warnings over UNSCOM were ignored, weapons inspector says"; http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9901/10/un.iraq/
CNN: Jan 8, 1999: "U.N. Weapons Chief Questions U.S. About Involvement In UNSCOM"; http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9901/08/iraq.un/
CNN: Jan 16, 2001: "Standoff over arms inspectors leads to another strike in the Gulf"; http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/unfinished/war/index3.html
CNN: Jul 19, 2001: "Ex-UN inspector in Iraq: U.S. Set Up Air Raids"; http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/07/18/un.inspector/
CNN: Dec 23, 1998: "Baghdad bans U.N. aircraft from landing"; http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/23/iraq.cohen.01/
BBC: Mar 23, 1999: "UNSCOM 'infiltrated by spies'"; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/301168.stm
CNN: Dec 16, 1998: "Iraq attacked in 'Operation Desert Fox'"; http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/16/iraq.strike.03/
PBS: "Spying on Saddam"; http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/interviews/ritter.html (last few sections)
Federation of American Scientists: Jan 11, 1999: "U.S. Opinion Roundup"; http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/01/990111-iraq5.htm

3) The Guardian: Oct 8, 2002: "Inspection As Invasion"; http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,806585,00.html
Many quotes referenced at: http://207.238.152.36/topics/sanctions/iraq.htm
International Trade Reporter: May 29, 1991 (quotes from George H.W. Bush and Robert Gates)
Wall Street Journal: Aug 27, 1999
Financial Times: Jan 17, 2001
New York Times: May 21, 1991
Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1997/03/bmd970327b.htm (Transcript of Madeline Albright speech)
USA Today: Oct. 02, 2002: "Powell: Saddam Can Avert Ouster"; http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-10-02-powell_x.htm

4) List of resolutions against Israel: http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html
You can look up each resolution on the UN's site at: http://www.un.org/search/

5) Article 2 of the UN charter: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm

6) MSNBC: "Rumsfeld key player in Iraq policy shift"; http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp
Associated Press via the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: Sep 30, 2002 : "US helped Iraq start bioweapons program"; http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3336472.html
Washington Post: Dec. 30, 2002: "U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup"; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52241-2002Dec29.html Democracy Now!: August 5th, 2002: "The Saddam In Rumsfeld's Closet"; http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20020805.html (full text report at http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm)
Washington Report: Dec 30, 1985: "Iraq's Nizar Hamdoon"; http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/123085/851230012b.html

7 & 8) Human Rights Watch: 1993: "First Anfal -- The Siege of Sergalou and Bergalou, February 23-March 19, 1988"; http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFAL3.htm

9) Washington Post: Dec. 30, 2002: "U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup"; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52241-2002Dec29.html Democracy Now!: August 5th, 2002: "The Saddam In Rumsfeld's Closet"; http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20020805.html (full text report at http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm)
References: The LA Times, 1991

10) Jane's Intelligence Review: Jan, 2002: "Iraq retains ability to quell revolts".

11) United States Senate: Jun 24, 1988: "S. Res 408" http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/rva/1002/1002201.htm
United States Senate: Jun 24, 1988: "Technical Corrections Act of 1988, S. 2238" http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/rva/1002/1002364.htm
Democracy Now!: August 5th, 2002: "The Saddam In Rumsfeld's Closet"; http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20020805.html (full text report at http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm)

12) Charleston Gazette: Sep 27, 2002: "Will the US reap what it has sown? Byrd asks"; http://www.wvgazette.com/display_story.php3?sid=2002092614&format=prn

13) BBC: Nov 3, 2001: "Iraqi Kurds' Story of Expulsion"; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1614239.stm
Encyclopedia Britannica: 1999: "The Kurds: People without a country"; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1614239.stm

14) "Encyclopedia of Genocide": Dec. 1999, Prof. Israel Charny, Executive Director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem).
BBC: Apr 14, 2000: "Pol Pot: Life of a tyrant"; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/78988.stm
St. Petersburg Times: May 3, 2002: "Remembering the deaths of 1.7-million Cambodians"; http://www.sptimes.com/News/050300/NIE/Remembering_the_death.shtml
Reuters: Oct 3, 2002: "Grieving Cambodians Call for Khmer Rouge Trials"; http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/news/world/4201998.htm

15) Brief summaries of each dictator's relationship with the US and what they were famous for, available at: "Friendly Dictators"; http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html
To get more detail, go to http://www.hrw.org (Human Rights Watch) or http://www.amnesty.org/search.html (Amnesty International) and enter the dictator's name in the search box to return a list of their human rights violations; use a google search of news sites; or, use a nexis-lexis search.
As an example, here's a few articles on Hugo Banzer (the first on the list of dictators), both historic and recent: http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/amr/bolivia!Open; http://www.boliviantimes.com/2001/ed03/other/banzer.htm; http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2001-11-16/pols_capitol.html

16) The Toronto Star: Oct 7, 2001: "Unholy Alliance"; (Rawa Mirror: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22unholy+alliance%22+laden)
Human Rights Watch: Oct 2001: "Military Assistance to the Afghan Opposition"; http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1005.htm
Human Rights Watch: "Search for: Uzbekistan"; http://docs.hrw.org/cgi-bin/htsearch?words=uzbekistan&config=all&method=and&format=builtin-long; More specifically, as an example of the results that come up, here's the 2000 report: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/uzbek/

17) The New York Times: October 4, 2002: "The Stones of Baghdad"; http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/04/opinion/04KRIS.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

18) The Toronto Star: Sep 17, 2002: "Bush Now Has To Refuse To Take 'Yes' For An Answer"; http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1026145289767
BBC: Sep 20, 2002: "US threat to stop Iraq inspections"; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/americas/2269462.stm
The Guardian: Oct 3, 2002: "US hardline on Iraq leaves full-scale invasion a 'hair-trigger' away"; http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,803471,00.html
The Guardian: Oct 8, 2002: "Inspection As Invasion"; http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,806585,00.html

19) BBC: Oct 1, 1998: "Reprimand for weapons inspector"; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/184691.stm
Sydney Morning Herald: Aug 31, 2002: "Road Map to a War"; http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2002/08/30/1030508125048.htm
CNN: Sep 9, 2002: "Interview With Scott Ritter"; http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/09/ltm.14.html
Sunday Herald: Sep 8 2002: "How did Iraq get its weapons? We sold them"; http://www.sundayherald.com/print27572

20) Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/index.html (Read the individual reports and linked intelligence analyses from various US governmental and non-governmental sources))

21) Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/index.html (Read the individual reports and linked intelligence analyses from various US governmental and non-governmental sources))

22) Sydney Morning Herald: Oct 3, 2002: "Butler accuses US of nuclear hypocrisy"; http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/03/1033538680140.html

23) Washington Post: Sep 19, 2002: "Evidence on Iraq Challenged"; http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36348-2002Sep18?language=printer
Washington Post: Jan 24, 2003: "U.S. Claim on Iraqi Nuclear Program Is Called Into Question"; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35360-2003Jan23.html

24) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Mar 1991, Vol 47, No. 2, pp 16-25: "Making the bomb"; http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1991/m91/m91albright1.html
The Federation of American Scientists: "IAEA and Iraqi Nuclear Weapons"; http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/iaea.htm

25) Fox News: July 22, 2002: "Turkey Warns of Lengthy Iraq War"; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58294,00.html
The Christian Science Monitor: Jan 16, 2002: "Turkey's Iraq troubles"; http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0116/p21s1-coop.html
Arizona Daily Star: Aug 27, 2002: "Qatar rules out help for any US war on Iraq"; http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:p2WYMq4amEwC:www.dailystar.com.lb/27_08_02/art4.asp&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (cache); http://www.dailystar.com.lb/27_08_02/art4.asp (orig)
St. Petersburg Times: Aug 28, 2002: "Saudi war stance unchanged after Bush meeting"; http://www.sptimes.com/2002/08/28/news_pf/Worldandnation/Saudi_war_stance_unch.shtml
Kansas City Star: Aug 28, 2002: "Iraq seeks support in Syria, China, as U.S. allies counsel restraint"; http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/3950726.htm
The Guardian: Aug 28, 2002: "Attack on Iraq would create chaos in Middle East, Egypt Cautions US"; http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,781753,00.html
BBC: Sep 4, 2002: "Arab Nations Discuss US War Threats"; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2235736.stm
Arizona Daily Star: Sep 4, 2002: "Gulf states tell US to drop Iraq war plans"; http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:mRdBeVNtu-0C:www.dailystar.com.lb/04_09_02/art18.asp&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (cache); http://www.dailystar.com.lb/04_09_02/art18.asp (orig); Also, from the India Times; http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?art_Id=21078403
The Detroit News: Jun 21, 2002: "US Ally Turkey Opposes War on Iraq"; http://www.detnews.com/2002/editorial/0206/23/a09-520246.htm
BBC: Aug 3, 2002: "Bush dismisses Iraq inspection offer"; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2170275.stm
BBC: Jan 3, 2003: "Iraq war talk stokes Jordanian fears"; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2623599.stm
The Christian Science Monitor: Jan 24, 2003: "Turkey hosts antiwar summit";

26 & 27) As just one example, the war on Afghanistan. An article analyzing targets from the war in Afghanistan with 89 references in the summary alone is available at http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm - "Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan". This documents many, many cases, but if not sufficient, please email me at daystar_setting@myself.com and I will gladly provide many more.

28) President Bush's "Brink Of War" letter to Saddam Hussein, presented by Secretary Of State James Baker to Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz in Geneva, January 9, 1991. Also, interview with H. Martin Lancaster, Special Advisor to the President and the Director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Washington, October 2, 1995; Bob Woodward, The Commanders, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991. Referenced in: (Air Force:) http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ssi/chemwp.txt ; (Army:) http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usassi/ssipubs/pubs97/chemwpns/chemwpns.pdf
I don't think a reference needs to be given on the matter that Iraq, while having such WMD, did not use them in the Gulf War.

29) United States Department of State, 2001: "Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)"; http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/mek.htm
MEK references: http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/bibs/tergps/tgmek.htm
Yahoo News: April 3, 2002: "Iraq increases payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers"; http://ca.news.yahoo.com/020403/6/lgee.html
Office of the Secretary of State, 1991: "Patterns Of Global Terrorism"; http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_90/sponsored.html (hosted by the Federation of American Scientists)
Congressional Research Service: Feb 13, 2002: "Terrorism: Near Eastern Groups and State Sponsors"; http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31119.pdf

30) The New York Times: Sep 30, 2002: "Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda are not allies"; http://meadev.nic.in/ind-ter/for-med/30Saddam.htm (cache); http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F40E15F63F5C0C738FDDA00894DA404482 (orig)
PBS: "A Biography of Osama Bin Laden"; http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/bio.html

31) Washington Times: May 8, 2002: "Saudi Adviser: Bombers Families Get Money"; http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020508-890486.htm
Sydney Morning Herald: Apr 14, 2002: "Gulf Aid For Palestinians As Saudis Raise $160 Million"; "http://www.smh.com.au/breaking/2002/04/14/FFXK7MLSZZC.html
AP/Jerusalem Post: Apr 14, 2002: "Saudi Ambassador Glorifies Suicide Bombers"; http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/04/14/LatestNews/LatestNews.46906.html

32) Islam Online: May 29, 2002: "A May 2002 Interview with the Hamas Commander of the al-Qassam Brigades, Salah Shehadeh"; http://www.islam-online.net/arabic/politics/2002/05/article25.shtml (translation by Memri at: http://www.memri.de/uebersetzungen_analysen/themen/islamistische_ideologie/isl_shehadeh_25_07_02.pdf )
AFP/Space Daily: Jan 28, 2002: "Missile Proliferation May Accelerate Middle East Developments"; http://www.spacedaily.com/news/missiles-02a.html
Time: Jan 13, 2002: "Postmarked Tehran"; http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,193521,00.html

33) Center For Strategic and International Studies: Dec 27, 1998: "Military Balance In The Middle East - V: Arab Israeli Balance - Overview: Force Trends, Major Arms, and Qualitative Trends"; http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/mbmeVAI122798.pdf

34) The New Yorker: (Jan 11? Nov 1?), 1993: "A Case Not Closed"; http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02

35) The Independent: Jan. 22, 2003: "The Sketch: Blair astonishes onlookers with frank answer to Parliament's greybeards"; http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/simon_carr/story.jsp?story=371597

36 & 36) The Telegraph: Dec 18, 2002: "Iraq link to Sept. 11 attack and anthrax is ruled out"; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/18/wirq18.xml
The New York Times: Oct 21, 2002: "Prague Discounts an Iraqi Meeting"; http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/21/international/21PRAG.html
The Washington Post: May 1, 2002: "No Link Between Hijacker, Iraq Found, U.S. Says"; http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11966-2002Apr30?language=printer

37) For a *huge* list of Anthrax references and links (310 of them at last check), Check section #13 at: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/#anthrax. The page also has an excellent analysis and summaries of all of the released data.

38) The New York Times: Sep 23, 1990: "Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting With U.S. Envoy"; (Mirror) http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

39) The Guardian: Nov 11, 2002: "To War Or Not To War"; http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,837830,00.html
Christian Science Monitor: Oct 30, 2002: "At The U.N., It's Not Just About Iraq"; http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1030/p01s03-uspo.html
Salon: Nov. 8. 2002: "U.N. adopts new Iraq resolution"; http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2002/11/08/resolution/
MSNBC: Nov 10, 2002"Iraq Signals Shift, U.S. Plays Hardball"; http://www.msnbc.com/news/821736.asp?0si=-

40) Guardian: Oct 3, 2002: "US Hardline On Iraq Leaves Full-Scale Invasion A 'Hair-Trigger' Away"; http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,803471,00.html
UN Resolution 1441 (2002): "The Situation Between Iraq and Kuwait"; http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?OpenAgent&DS=S/RES/1441%20(2002)&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC

I too have studied statistics, and I know "cooked" data when I see it. Taking your 3-hour time frame and your minimum claimed number of 2000 support honks or thumbs up, that equates to an affirmative response every 5.5 seconds CONTINUOUSLY for 3 hours with NO negative responses. You are saying that 2000 cars drove by or people walked by your location and every single one indicated approval?

That, my friend, is beyond statistical belief. Where is your proof? Nowhere in any of the pictures you posted do I see a steady stream of cars or large numbers of pedestrians (or even any pedestrians)! Especially on a Tuesday night after dark in a downtown area. It's going to take alot more than just your word for me to accept your "version" of statistics.

We were at fourth and main, the assumption you made about a honk on average of every 5 seconds is correct, that was the amazing part! There were sprits where there were several honks within a few seconds, and of course with the light, there were periods where we had to wait 8 to 10 seconds for them. And if you don't think that Main Street in Santa Ana has that much traffic, you obviously haven’t been there. Most of the pictures that I took were of the people from the street. Further, I would like to know what kind of 'proof' would satisfy you? The next rally we do there, I could always bring a digital recorder and verify it, but that would be a rather large file. Even if there were only a few hundred honks (a drastic understatement), a random sample only needs to be above 30 people to show statistical frequencies, so this line of argument you are pursuing is merely splitting hairs.

We were at fourth and main, the assumption you made about a honk on average of every 5 seconds is correct, that was the amazing part! There were sprits where there were several honks within a few seconds, and of course with the light, there were periods where we had to wait 8 to 10 seconds for them. And if you don't think that Main Street in Santa Ana has that much traffic, you obviously haven’t been there. Most of the pictures that I took were of the people from the street. Even if there were only a few hundred honks (a drastic understatement), if a normal statistical distribution is what we seek, we only need 30 samples (Center Limit Theorem: When sample size n is greater than or equal to 30, the sampling distribution of sample means is a bell-shaped distribution (i.e. a normal distribution) a random sample to have a only needs to be above 30 people to show statistical frequencies. There are other methods as well, but a few hundred yeas and no nays, still maintains the strength I suggested earlier, so this line of argument you are pursuing is merely splitting hairs. For sake of argument (I didn’t sit there and count) I will say (for sake of argument) that there were at least one thousand signs of support and not more than three thousand, with NO signs of opposition. Further, I would like to know what kind of 'proof' would satisfy you? If you like, you could always attend the next rally there and see for yourself. The idea that no proof is ever good enough is expected, there wasn’t anything Iraq could do to prove to your president that it didn’t have WMDs, though now that we have taken over that country, brought in the best inspectors with the best technology on the planet (one inspector said on Pacifica Radio that his machine would detect it if biological weapons were buried a half mile underground 12 months ago, even if they weren’t there anymore) we NOW know they didn’t and Saddam was being honest.

What I'd like to know is this:

Why are you so desperately supporting such an evil man? To the point of denying he's evil, even?

What color is the sky in your world?

The comment was rejected because it is too unbelieving that someone thinks Saddam was wronged.

*** This comment was posted from an IP associated with a disruptive poster. The MD5 hash of their IP is dcbfebfbdce. This value is the same even if the user uses another name. Only posters deemed disruptive by the editorial collective will have this text appended to their posts. We apologize for any erroneous misidentifications.

Dear 1Protestor with only a Neuron,

Why do you support the US of A then? Instead of wasting time with you, I will recommend a book of facts. It is called Killing Hope...

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2TNVJLBWB6&isbn=1567512526&itm=1

If you are smart enough to understand what you are reading, then I would love to hear what you have to say about the United States when you are done. If you think HE is soooo evil, you must really hate us because we make him look like an amateur! Based on what you just said, you are either ignorant (not an insult, I was a ignorant republican once, then I opened up my eyes and looked around), or you have a double standard. I can not blame the ignorant, I can only educate them, but if it is a double standard that you hold, then you are part of the problem we are fighting against and my mission will be done when the world knows you for the hypocrite you are. For the record, most of the really bad stuff he has done has been under the cohesion of the US. While he has done other things on his own, I don’t think we should set a standard of invasion for it. We violated the UN treaty when we attacked Iraq without the support of the security council, by the standards of our president there should be bombers in our skies and UN troops searching through OUR stuff! If we enforce the rules we should also be subject to them!

You do realize that the USA was convicted of state sponsored terrorism in the 1980s against Nicaragua by the international courts, though we participated in the trial we ignored the ruling to pay reparations for damages caused and are still in violation of that ruling. What would have happened if the tables were reversed? Might does not make right, that is fallacious so don’t even try to go there.

For the record there is justified reasons to invade, like if a person is actively killing innocent people. The problem with Iraq is that the human rights groups there were clear that the violations had ceased in the late 1990s and were not actively happening. If Clinton had invaded while they were still going on, there would have been a much better case for war.

...a hate Americ rant piece.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that America is snow-white pure.

Yet books like Blum's only serve to reinforce in a certain mindset the notion that America is evil. He's made quite a comfortable living doing that.

You call me ignorant because I don't share you view of an evil America? So be it. Not like your opinion means anything to me, anyway. So save your efforts; your mission to save me from my beliefs is going to be a grand waste of time.

Because America may not be prefect, but it is the best game in town.

I'm sorry you feel the way you do. But you should be aware that few countries in the world tolerate the kind of dissent you practice. In many, you would be killed...including the Palestine you support to passionately.

Think about that.

nonanarchist

*** This comment was posted from an IP associated with a disruptive poster. The MD5 hash of their IP is dcbfebfbdce. This value is the same even if the user uses another name. Only posters deemed disruptive by the editorial collective will have this text appended to their posts. We apologize for any erroneous misidentifications.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Human-rights-violations-in-Iraq

'In 2002, a resolution sponsored by the European Union was adopted by the Commission for Human Rights, which stated that there had been no improvement in the human rights crisis in Iraq. The statement condemned President Saddam Hussein's government for its "systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law". The resolution demanded that Iraq immediately put an end to its "summary and arbitrary executions... the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances".'

Interesting. If the abuses had stopped, why would the Commission for Human rights call for an end to Saddam's violations?

You wrote: "For the record there is justified reasons to invade, like if a person is actively killing innocent people."

So that means you now support the war, right?

nonanarchist

*** This comment was posted from an IP associated with a disruptive poster. The MD5 hash of their IP is dcbfebfbdce. This value is the same even if the user uses another name. Only posters deemed disruptive by the editorial collective will have this text appended to their posts. We apologize for any erroneous misidentifications.

This is the last post from me for this story.......

The justification for war is made when:
First, it is established that innocent people are being killed
Second, there is no other way to stop the killing then to go to war
Third, when war is waged, it will not kill or harm innocent people
Fourth, the harm that is caused to the parities that are currently carrying out atrocities does not exceed the harm that they are causing to others.

Your party will say, “he gassed his own people”, but the evidence shows that these actions were in the past and not currently happening. If you believe you should hold a government accountable for past actions, you have enough work with Native Americans and people here of African heritage that it is too soon to worry about other governments. The history argument does not work if the government in question has already ceased in the actions that they once did. If you do want to consider the history, you must also consider the terror we caused to the citizens of Iraq by targeting medical and health supplies through sanctions. One of the things our sanctions did was attack their water supply by sanctioning chemicals needed to sanitize the water. Deaths among children were four times higher than pre-sanctioned times accounting from water-borne disease. Read our own government’s survey evaluating it for the safety of our troops. (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/water_use/water_use_s02.htm#A.%20%20Water-Borne%20Diseases%20and%20Contaminants)

There were still political prisoners and executions, but from 1999 to 2003, these numbers were fairly small. The total numbers of disappeared persons in Iraq over the past twenty years amounts to an estimated 200,000 people. Current executions were fair less then before, though I do not have the exact figure, I would be surprised if it exceeded a few hundred a year. Though I do not agree with it, I must recognize that these people were considered criminals, and our very own president signed the death warrant to around three hundred American citizens so I don’t think the two people are much different, except Saddam had the guts to participate in his evil actions while our president let others do it for him the way he assigns people to steal the oil.

Now the reason I don’t support this war (or most the wars we wage) is that we have a cowardly way of waging it that causes more civilian causalities. We like to let the bombs do the fighting and then we clean up the mess with our courageous troops. The better our technology gets in making WMDs, the easier it is to kill. We use cluster bombs and mines, which present a greater danger to the people then the enemy poses. The first gulf war killed 100,000 innocent civilians and this latest one killed around 8,000 and wounded around 500,000. This is more innocent people killed then the last few years Saddam was in power. The wars waged up until a few hundred years ago were fought by soldiers on a battlefield and involved few civilians. Wars today are too dangerous and should be avoided if at all possible. Further, Saddam was slowing getting better. It is obvious that by the time we invaded, he had disarmed, his human rights record became comparable to Bush’s (not very good, but better than it was before) and this shows that the international body had influence. I honestly didn’t think we would go to war, I believed it was a fire under his feet, and it may do good, but then duba did it, and I was disappointed. The sanctions were bad (they didn’t influence him, but hurt the people) but the pressure on him did do good. The decisive factor is that we are not justified in using more force (today) then he uses (today). Further, if we were justified in doing what we did (I still maintain that the costs to Iraqis was too great), then we go in, get him, and leave. We do not have any right to dictate their future just like England didn’t have a right to dictate ours. If our actions are good, they will like us, if not, they won’t, but it is our actions that decide how we are looked at and the strongest puppet government in Iraq will not change that so we should stop trying. People have a right to autonomy and no other people have a right to take that away. So no, I didn’t support this war (we could have accomplished a free Iraq without it) and no I never support foreign occupation. If you want to know why, go rent the old 80’s flick “Wolverine”, because that is an American story about Iraq!

I was at the Santa Ana demo. Great event! Lots of honks! Lots of love!

...those who were responsible for the deaths of Native Americans and the who was responsible for the gassing of Kurds is this:

He who gassed the Kurds is still alive...and thankfully, in custody where he will face justice.

I don't hold present governments responsible for the actions of past governments. Rather a waste of time, don't you think?

Basically, your whole premise boils down to this:

"Saddam was only killing his own people; it was none of our business."

Nice attitude. Go explain that to an Iraqi and see how grateful he/she is. Say how you wouldn't mind the plastic shredders, acid baths, mass graves, and rape squads continuing.

I'm sure the Iraqi you talk to would just be falling all over him/herself to thank you for your understanding.

nonanarchist

*** This comment was posted from an IP associated with a disruptive poster. The MD5 hash of their IP is dcbfebfbdce. This value is the same even if the user uses another name. Only posters deemed disruptive by the editorial collective will have this text appended to their posts. We apologize for any erroneous misidentifications.

1st, Bush Sr. paid him to do it (check historical records because I know for a fact we gave him trade status and money right after it) so if we are going to go after Saddam, the pres ought to send his dad down the same road, and second, Bush jr. has killed around three hundred of his own people in the great state of Texas. Why are you so critical of their country and so blind to your own, you are a Hippocratic. I am willing to bet that you believe in that manifest destiny crap. Also, your attacks on Blum are in bad form, what exactly is wrong with his book? It is written in a factual manner and if all you can say is that it presents a bad image about the US of A, then I am sorry, we have one because I can not find any incorrect facts in there. If you attack someone's work and are going to do it critically, you must either say what is wrong with it (either haw is the argument invalid or what premises are incorrect making the argument unsound). If you can't do this, you have to accept it or risk being illogical and accept that you hold the weaker argument of the two. So I challenge your little mind now, tell me how his arguments are invalid or specifically which of his facts are incorrect.

The stupidest thing is that Saddam's treatment of his people has nothing to with our willingness to go in there. If we are going to enforce a speeding law we don’t pull over a car doing five over when others are doing 30 over. Even if we only look at the Middle East (not even mentioning Africa or Eastern Europe) you have terrible atrocities going on all over the place. Saudi Arabia and the treatment of criminals and women, the mass Genocide that Israel carries out on its own native populations, and countless other countries. When you hear the right say, "this was to free the Iraqi people" what they are really saying is, "it is about the oil, but every reason we gave you was wrong and he did once do things to his people, so I guess it is about that now." If we really carried about people, we would be more engaged in Afghanistan where the capital is barley under control and war lords have turned the country into pre-talliban hell. Unfortunately, now that the oil pipeline issue is settled, the people are on their own and the only things our soldiers do is hunt resistance fighters.

Last, I am confused on why you are here? If it is to slow up a movement, okay, I was suppose to chase some numbers about chartering a bus and advertise about a banner drop yesterday and I got wrapped up in debating you, so I give you a little credit. But isn’t it stressful to always be doing what you are doing. If you have all this free time (at a meeting last night people knew who you were and told me I was wasting my time, apparently you have no life and spend great amounts of time doing this stuff), why don’t you take a class or something? Take courses on Latin American politics and our relations with them, or on the history of the Native Americans, or on critical thinking. The more educated you become the less of a pain in the side you will be because you will begin to see why you are so wrong and why your double standard makes no sense at all. As for me, I am a progressive with stuff to do, so as a sacrifice for the movement I am going to choose to ignore you (an option on this page) and keep myself focused on the importance of bringing my friends home from Iraq before they wind up in body bags. As a last word, if you are so gun hoe about Iraq, get on a plane and go do it you da** self! Our troops are killing themselves it is so bad there, while my guess about you is that you are a well to do white person driving a truck or SUV. Wealthy people wage war; poor people die in them.

A few minor points:

You can't ignore me. It took about 10 seconds for me to render that oh-so-openminded option useless. Besides, it seems rather cowardly to use the feature so you don't get exposed to ideas that differ from your own. Bet you a dollar NONE of the so-called trolls use it. I don't, and never will. Because I'm not afraid of differing viewpoints. Why are you?

Bush killed 300 people? Sure. Never mind the fact that all were criminals convicted by a jury of their peers. I'm curious why you think a serial rapist/murderer, for instance, is less deserving of death than an innocent Iraqi.

What's a Hypocratic? I will assume you meant hypocrite. And no, I'm not. I have never said America is perfect. I did, however, say it's the best game in town. Sorry you don't feel that way. As far as Blum's work goes, I'm sure it's fairly accurate. Nevertheless, its use by the America-hating Left taints it for me. People who decide to hate America, and then look for reasons to do so, use Blum, Chomsky, and similar work which concentrates exclusively on bad things America has done to fuel their hatred. Pass, thanks. Oh, and I'm not concerned about your opinion of the logic of my argument. Dum de dum. So you can keep your misplaced arrogance to yourself, okay?

You need to make up your mind about the war. Your reasons keep changing. You said you would support the war if Saddam's human rights abuses, which you claimed stopped in the late '90s, were still occurring. When shown proof that they were still going on in 2002, you changed your tune. Which is it, huh?

Why am I here, you ask? Originally, I showed up to debate politics and the war...only to find that no one here was interested in debate. They only wanted blind acceptance of the conspiracy theory du jour; reasonable debate need not apply. So, now I come here to present my opinions, post a few things that counter the usual nonsense found here, and to have a few laughs. I don't care if I stopped your bus-chartering and banner-dropping preparations. You see, I believe you have the right to peaceably assemble in public with like-minded people and express yourself. I believe it so much I have sworn to protect your rights with my life, if necessary. Would you do the same, I wonder...?

The funniest part of your last post was the bit where you claim I will come over to your side if only I educate myself. Ha! Believe it or not ( and I don't care either way...it changes nothing), I am an educated person. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that people may look at the same data and come to different conclusions? Such arrogance....such unwarranted arrogance. It's that arrogance that makes you think that since I disagree with you, I must therefore be uneducated. I do have to give you credit, though...you didn't claim I was a government agent or mentally deficient, as is the usual reaction on IMC. Good for you!

I am white. (I'm curious why you think that has any relevance.) I am by no means wealthy; no one joins the military to get rich. I drive a minivan that gets reasonably good mileage. I also ride a bicycle that gets unlimited mileage. Sorry I don't seem to fit any of your preconceived notions. I am in the USAF and am subject to deployment overseas at any time. If called, I will go, and go proudly. If not, I will serve to the best of my abilities where I'm at.

There you have it, 1Planet. I am an educated, sensitive, caring person whose life is full with family, career, church, and hobbies. One of those hobbies is political websites like this one. Thanks for your concern, but my life is quite full and satisfying.

Next meeting, tell everybody nonanarchist says "Hey!"

*** This comment was posted from an IP associated with a disruptive poster. The MD5 hash of their IP is dcbfebfbdce. This value is the same even if the user uses another name. Only posters deemed disruptive by the editorial collective will have this text appended to their posts. We apologize for any erroneous misidentifications.

The honks you heard at the demo were people laughng at you. You don't understand how ridiculous you look to ordinary people. Serioulsy, you are seen as a bunch of freaks by mainstream America.

Whenever I see demonstrators like you I look around and see other people pointing and laughing.

In the litter of uncontrolled ideas and subjects outside the gate keepers of corporate media, in the dark and cool shadows of anonymity, there exists the creatures we call trolls. Shielded by the distance and lightspeed connections from the direct scrutiny of their audience, they come in all sizes or shapes; forming from the busy tap of keys, driven by an overwhelming urge to command the CRT cloaked as some wizard or warrior of light and truth as only they perceive it while resting on their formidable buttox. They use the News wire as a shooting gallery or litter box or propaganda board.
They depend on the ignorance of the the reader.
They have help with data searches and access to much support labor in the way of select intelligence reports. Almost as if they were in fact working with certain intelligence assets or agencies.
Some of them spend much time in digging for information about regular 'leftist' posters on this board.
The regular trolls are single minded in the extreme and serve as cruel evil and blase' parrots carrying the latest attempted slogan. We can see what moves a afoot in the dynamics of shadow operations by observing their propaganda.

Yo Bearney - people like 1Planet make you laugh? People like you make me cry. I suppose you would have laughed at protestors of the Vietnam War, and at Civil Rights protestors, or basically anyone who has the intellectual capacity and personal courage to question the status quo and speak out against what they believe to be immoral.

I thank God every day there are people in this world who do care enough to think and question and take action - especially when those people help me to see a side of an issue I had previously been blind to - thanks in no small part to mainstream media.

Nationalism is for zombies. Just because you live in a country where you can indulge in a life of blissful ignorance, just because you've got it good - you refuse to consider the plight of others, empathy is too much to ask of you - and those who conscientiously object to the exploitation of the powerless are simply objects of entertainment to you? You are an ugly American.

And FYI: Mainstream America is derided by the intelligent, and only a moron would proclaim their allegiance with mainstream America as if it were something to be proud of.

Inspection as invasion

The US has been seeking to prevent a resolution of the Iraq crisis for the past eight years

George Monbiot
Tuesday October 8, 2002
The Guardian

There is little that those of us who oppose the coming war with Iraq can now do to prevent it. George Bush has staked his credibility on the project; he has mid-term elections to consider, oil supplies to secure and a flagging war on terror to revive. Our voices are as little heeded in the White House as the singing of the birds.

Our role is now, perhaps, confined to the modest but necessary task of demonstrating the withdrawal of our consent, while seeking to undermine the moral confidence which could turn the attack on Iraq into a war against all those states perceived to offend US strategic interests. No task is more urgent than to expose the two astonishing lies contained in George Bush's radio address on Saturday, namely that "the United States does not desire military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war" and "we hope that Iraq complies with the world's demands". Mr Bush appears to have done everything in his power to prevent Iraq from complying with the world's demands, while ensuring that military conflict becomes inevitable.

On July 4 this year, Kofi Annan, the secretary-general of the United Nations, began negotiating with Iraq over the return of UN weapons inspectors. Iraq had resisted UN inspections for three and a half years, but now it felt the screw turning, and appeared to be on the point of capitulation. On July 5, the Pentagon leaked its war plan to the New York Times. The US, a Pentagon official revealed, was preparing "a major air campaign and land invasion" to "topple President Saddam Hussein". The talks immediately collapsed.

Ten days ago, they were about to resume. Hans Blix, the head of the UN inspections body, was due to meet Iraqi officials in Vienna, to discuss the practicalities of re-entering the country. The US airforce launched bombing raids on Basra, in southern Iraq, destroying a radar system. As the Russian government pointed out, the attack could scarcely have been better designed to scupper the talks. But this time the Iraqis, mindful of the consequences of excluding the inspectors, kept talking. Last Tuesday, they agreed to let the UN back in. The State Department immediately announced, with more candour than elegance, that it would "go into thwart mode".

It wasn't bluffing. The following day, it leaked the draft resolution on inspections it was placing before the UN Security Council. This resembles nothing so much as a plan for unopposed invasion. The decisions about which sites should be "inspected" would no longer be made by the UN alone, but also by "any permanent member of the security council", such as the United States. The people inspecting these sites could also be chosen by the US, and they would enjoy "unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq" and "the right to free, unrestricted and immediate movement" within Iraq, "including unrestricted access to presidential sites". They would be permitted to establish "regional bases and operating bases throughout Iraq", where they would be "accompanied... by sufficient US security forces to protect them". They would have the right to declare exclusion zones, no-fly zones and "ground and air transit corridors". They would be allowed to fly and land as many planes, helicopters and surveillance drones in Iraq as they want, to set up "encrypted communication" networks and to seize "any equipment" they choose to lay hands on.

The resolution, in other words, could not have failed to remind Iraq of the alleged infiltration of the UN team in 1996. Both the Iraqi government and the former inspector Scott Ritter maintain that the weapons inspectors were joined that year by CIA covert operations specialists, who used the UN's special access to collect information and encourage the republican guard to launch a coup. On Thursday, Britain and the United States instructed the weapons inspectors not to enter Iraq until the new resolution has been adopted.

As Milan Rai's new book War Plan Iraq documents, the US has been undermining disarmament for years. The UN's principal means of persuasion was paragraph 22 of the security council's resolution 687, which promised that economic sanctions would be lifted once Iraq ceased to possess weapons of mass destruction. But in April 1994, Warren Christopher, the US secretary of state, unilaterally withdrew this promise, removing Iraq's main incentive to comply. Three years later his successor, Madeleine Albright, insisted that sanctions would not be lifted while Saddam remained in power.

The US government maintains that Saddam Hussein expelled the UN inspectors from Iraq in 1998, but this is not true. On October 30 1998, the US rejected a new UN proposal by again refusing to lift the oil embargo if Iraq disarmed. On the following day, the Iraqi government announced that it would cease to cooperate with the inspectors. In fact it permitted them to continue working, and over the next six weeks they completed around 300 operations.

On December 14, Richard Butler, the head of the inspection team, published a curiously contradictory report. The body of the report recorded that over the past month "the majority of the inspections of facilities and sites under the ongoing monitoring system were carried out with Iraq's cooperation", but his well-publicised conclusion was that "no progress" had been made. Russia and China accused Butler of bias. On December 15, the US ambassador to the UN warned him that his team should leave Iraq for its own safety. Butler pulled out, and on the following day the US started bombing Iraq.

From that point on, Saddam Hussein refused to allow UN inspectors to return. At the end of last year, Jose Bustani, the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, proposed a means of resolving the crisis. His organisation had not been involved in the messy business of 1998, so he offered to send in his own inspectors, and complete the job the UN had almost finished. The US responded by demanding Bustani's dismissal. The other member states agreed to depose him only after the United States threatened to destroy the organisation if he stayed. Now Hans Blix, the head of the new UN inspectorate, may also be feeling the heat. On Tuesday he insisted that he would take his orders only from the security council. On Thursday, after an hour-long meeting with US officials, he agreed with the Americans that there should be no inspections until a new resolution had been approved.

For the past eight years the US, with Britain's help, appears to have been seeking to prevent a resolution of the crisis in Iraq. It is almost as if Iraq has been kept on ice, as a necessary enemy to be warmed up whenever the occasion demands. Today, as the economy slides and Bin Laden's latest mocking message suggests that the war on terrorism has so far failed, an enemy which can be located and bombed is more necessary than ever. A just war can be pursued only when all peaceful means have been exhausted. In this case, the peaceful means have been averted.

NonAnarchist,

You say it is okay for Bush to have okayed the killing of people because they were convicted of crimes in our country. While Sadam says its okay to kill people because they were convicted of crimes in his country. I am confused on the difference? Is it only that Bush is white so Bush is right, or is there another standard that sets these two types of capital punishment apart? And don’t give me that, its okay for us because we are America and not for them because their not crap. Capital punishment is either morally tolerable, which seems to negate the negativity you hold against Iraq, or it is immoral, which damns your president.