Let's listen to Anthony Quainton, the U.S. ambassador to Nicaragua from 1982 to 1984. (this is from 3/25/02 WP) ...After a decade of Sandinista rule and a decade of post-Sandinista democracy, Nicaragua remains deeply divided, struggling to find its economic way in an increasingly globalized world. Class distinctions and poverty remain; corruption is rife. Per capita gross national product has scarcely risen. Nicaragua's dependence on primary product exports is essentially unchanged. There are now almost twice as many Nicaraguans as there were in 1982, and economically they are little better off now than 20 years ago. One major reason is that the United States, having helped to reestablish democracy there in 1990, failed to follow through with adequate aid to support that newly restored freedom. Nicaragua has been the victim of competing ideological visions. In the Reagan years, America pursued an agenda of freedom in the world: free elections, free markets, freedom of religion, of association and expression. All were restored in Nicaragua. These are goals to which America remains attached and to which we continue to give priority in the war against terrorism. The Sandinistas did not share our commitment to freedom. They dismissed it as an irrelevant bourgeois preoccupation. For them, the preeminent value of the revolution was justice -- justice for Nicaragua's poor and oppressed. They argued that justice was about literacy, education, rural health -- and that true freedom was to be found in "popular" revolutionary organizations, not in parliamentary democracy. This debate goes on today, and it is not merely a tired replay of the arguments of cold warriors and communist revolutionaries. In the post-9/11 world, politicians are debating whether America should seek to liberate regimes oppressed by unregenerate Korean Stalinists, Iranian religious fanatics and Iraqi megalomaniacs, and, if so, how? Clearly, many would say that removing these regimes is part of the imperative of freedom -- an obligation the United States owes itself and the world. Yet, even if we succeed in bringing freedom to Iraq, Iran and North Korea, and perhaps later to Sudan, Somalia and Libya, we will be confronted with the extraordinary challenge of how to create just societies on the ruins of injustice and oppression. In a world where almost half of the population lives on less than $ 2 per day, and in which our national contribution to poverty eradication through both government aid and private philanthropy is only 1.3 percent of our gross national product, we can hardly claim that we are sufficiently generous or concerned. We know that violence is one of the fruits of despair. If we truly care about reducing the breeding ground for terrorism, we must broaden our horizons beyond the worthwhile and vital promotion of freedom to include a much greater effort to create conditions of justice in the developing world. That effort will require a several-fold increase in bilateral and multilateral aid as well as sustained support for institutional reform, transparency and anti-corruption efforts. The American public needs to understand that aid contributes to our national security as well as to our global moral leadership. That, surely, is the lesson to be learned from the unhappy legacy of the war against Sandinismo which began 20 years ago.
http://polyconomics.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2138 "Our politicians are only beginning to ask themselves the question you pose. Why are the Europeans so unconcerned about the threat from Iraq? Why is there universal opposition – except for Israel – to a U.S. military strike to replace Saddam Hussein?"
right.... Flipping through the last few pages... Is that about them camel-jockeys in Iraq or some %^#@^$ in Central America. Focus roundeyes...Focus....
If this doesn't give pause for thought I don't know what does: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/09/iraq.urban.war/index.html
That is pretty scary. All I could think of when I first started reading that was Somalia, but this would be on a much grander scale.
dick armey's thoughts... http://www.iht.com/articles/67305.html Some quotes from House majority leader, Representative Dick Armey about an attack on Iraq.... "If we try to act against Saddam Hussein, as obnoxious as he is, without proper provocation, we will not have the support of other nation states who might do so," Armey said Thursday in Des Moines during a campaign swing for a House candidate. "I don't believe that America will justifiably make an unprovoked attack on another nation," Armey said. "It would not be consistent with what we have been as a nation or what we should be as a nation." "My own view would be to let him bluster, let him rant and rave all he wants and let that be a matter between he and his own country," Armey said in response to a reporter's question. "As long as he behaves himself within his own borders, we should not be addressing any attack or resources against him."
Re: dick armey's thoughts... Excuse me whilst I laugh at his name . OK, let's carry on being serious now.
eneste's post had me thinking, so I updated the famous protest song for today. You can find the original lyrics on Country Joe McDonald site, http://www.countryjoe.com/game.htm . Actually, the site has a whole lot of other versions of the song at http://www.countryjoe.com/fixins.htm . It looks like I'm the first to make an Iraq version. Maybe I should send it to him. ------------------ Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again. He's gonna get this country back in the black, And he gonna use the oil underneath Iraq. So turn off the tube and pick up a gun, We're gonna have a whole lotta fun. And it's one, two, three, What are we fighting for? Bush is lookin' for a little payback Against the dictator of Iraq And it's five, six, seven, Open up the Persian Straits, And while your kids go to fight and die, Your patriotic duty is to buy. Well come on Rumsfeld, let's move fast; Your big chance has come at last. Our nation has one export at least - It's sendin' armed force to the Middle East. And you know that victory is only whole, When the king's under corporate control. (chorus) Well, come on Wall Street, shake those blues, Send futures up on this happy news. We have a new offensive style of self defense Should spark a little consumer confidence. Just pray that news of a dive bomb attack Isn't talkin' 'bout the NASDAQ. (chorus) Well, come on mothers across the nation, Iraq is your boy's destination. Come on fathers, no time to decide, It takes weeks for recruits to get qualified. Be the first one on your block To have your boy come home in a box.
Somebody should mail both Saddam (can be reached here: http://www.uruklink.net/mofa/) and Bush (can be reached here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/) and invite them to come over to BigSoccer to discuss this issue out. Anyone speaks arabic?
Anyone read this CNN online report: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/10/iraq.us/index.html Take it for what it's worth, but I hope it turns out to be true. Best case scenario at this time, provided some bigger nutjob doesn't take his place.
I for one support the war on Saddam Hussien. Containment is not enough for this man. I honestly believe that weapons of mass destruction are being developed, and stored. If we attack it will be an urban fight consisting of small arms and rpg's. Hussein will then have to decide weather to use the chemical warfare tha we know him to have in his own cities. If he does that type of scorched earth tactics, the european community will side heavily with the US. Any leader that gasses his own people in an attempt to thwart a military attack, will only solidify the need for his disposal. The a stable democracy must be set up in Iraq. Only once has two democracies have fought against each other. That was in WWII, US and UK against Norway.
Aside from the dubious nature of the rest of your post.. Am I missing some 'in' joke? Surely you're not serious.
The problem is that with any big military action, combined with the latest acts of stupidity in Israel and Palestine, headbangers like Bin Laden and Hussein will say "look the US is obviously persecuting Arabs. They support Israel and destroy Iraq etc.". That would cause many problems as the leader of a new post-Hussein Iraq would be seen as a US puppet. More people would be suicide bombers as well.
Wait, I dont get this! this is the first time I want to US to kick the crap out of another nation using military and now you americans show doubts? What the hell? This is the first time war would make sense (ending the stupid sanctions) and the US is shaking because it could cost lifes (this is for sure, this war would be the toughest since Vietnam). And even the military sais they are not getting enough recruits since 9/11, whats up with your patriotism? Or do you simply like playing AmericasArmyOnline and throwing bombs from a mile away? (hey, this post is not meant to anoy you and neither to make fun of the victims of 9/11, it is purely a humoristic provokation okay!)
> Anyone read this CNN online report > [report about how Saddam is weak and can be > overthrown easily] The Iraqi opposition "groups" quoted in the article are the most worthless, untrustworthy individuals imaginable. They have no power and do not represent anyone in Iraq. They will say whatever it takes in order to appear useful to the west so that they might get some power when we do the dirty work for them.
> Any leader that gasses his own people in an > attempt to thwart a military attack, will only > solidify the need for his disposal. This happened two decades ago. What happened in the last year that made this important? (I already have an answer, but I want to hear one from a "pro-war for a moral reason" person.)
If you would know the real background of the story you should be slightly more calm. Last time it was the West to mobilise two opposition groups and PROMISED support. They did keep their promise but the US didnt. Those opposition were terribly slaugthered by Saddam and are now under costant surpression. I wonder what what you guys learn at school? Only the 2004433 presidents and then you can go home?
As a Singaporean, I am very glad that the US was willing to shed its blood to protect us from the red threat at a time when the region had no credible defense force to speak of. I dunno about you, but I do not want to live under a communist government. If the Vietcong et al had not been stopped, they would have roared all the way down the Malaysian Penisular to Singapore, 'liberating' the people in support of the local communist gangs like the Malaysian Communist Party. There was a lot of unrest in those days, with a great deal caused by those very same communists. So the domino effect theory applied very much to the region in those days. Not so much now, of course, but it still pays to be vigilant.