Posted on 08/11/2002 10:45:14 PM PDT by GalvestonBeachcomber
Arthur Miller, not my favorite playwright, is nevertheless opening a new play in Minnesota, "Resurrection Blues," which attempts to satirize the vicious and absurd state the world has gotten itself into recently.
And the world certainly has ventured into the absurd. Marxist guerrillas setting off bombs to protest the inauguration of Colombia's new president kill mostly the poor in Bogot slums. We, of course, kill 500,000 Iraqi children because they (presumably the children) won't overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Saddam's neighbors say publicly and directly to the president that they oppose an American attack and do not feel threatened by Saddam, and how does the president reply? In the most absurd fashion, like a dummy cut off from all outside communications, he says, "Saddam is a threat to his neighbors," while 6 feet away one of those neighbors, Jordan's King Abdullah, had come specifically to urge Bush not to attack Iraq.
When I look at some of Bush's statements I find it impossible to imagine Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman or Dwight Eisenhower making them. I cannot imagine any of the three flatly contradicting a guest in the presence of the guest on a matter of fact on which the guest obviously has the most direct knowledge. How does Mr. Bush know better than the king of Jordan that Iraq is a threat to Jordan?
There is no end to absurdity. Mr. Bush's position is, in a screwball way, a compliment to Saddam Hussein. Deterrence worked against Josef Stalin, one of the greatest mass murderers in human history, even though he was armed with a million times more weapons of mass destruction than Iraq, but, in Mr. Bush's view, it will not work against Saddam.
Then, too, there is the absurdity of the United States simply deciding on its own that the government of a sovereign nation has to be changed by force. How would you feel if the president of China announced that the United States was part of an axis of evil, was a threat to its neighbors, had gassed its own people (Davidians at Waco) and therefore China was going to see to it that there is a change of regime in the United States?
The other day, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld simply stated, without any evidence, that members of al-Qaida are in Iraq. A few facts: The government of Iraq is secular and views Islamist fundamentalists such as al-Qaida as vermin; The New York Times has reported that some outside fundamentalists, possibly al-Qaida, have moved into the Kurdish areas of Iraq. The Kurds, split among communists, nationalists and fundamentalists, are "America's allies," with an 80-year-history of failed revolts — not a few of them because the United States cut and ran, as the CIA did most recently in northern Iraq.
I personally was glad to see that Saudi Arabia flatly said "no" to any American military action against Iraq based on Saudi soil. When we have a president who seems unable to listen to advice, who seems almost inhuman in his ability to repeat obvious falsehoods, then we have to rely on other countries to force some restraint.
We have no reason whatsoever to go to war with Iraq. Iraq is not a threat to its neighbors or to us. No evidence whatsoever has been found linking Iraq to any terrorist act against the United States in the past decade. And who governs Iraq is none of our business.
I don't know what the real reason is for Mr. Bush's determination to go to war with Iraq. Probably it has to do with oil. Iraq has more oil reserves than any country on earth except Saudi Arabia. If it could get its oil production back to its prewar level, the world price of oil would certainly drop. It can't get its production back up, however, because we won't allow it to buy the equipment necessary.
In retrospect, I wish we had had a better choice in the last presidential race. Our foreign affairs should not resemble the theater of the absurd.
I thought Charlie retired?
Anyway, he should have.
If Iraq is building arsenals of biological and chemical weapons, and accumulating fissionable plutonium (as defectors have recently reported) then we need to deal with Iraq now. It's like preventive maintenance for the USA. Waiting for a very serious terror attack and then retaliating seems like a maliciously stupid plan.
Charlie sounds here like the kind of guy who waits until his car engine siezes up before he figures it's time to change the oil. How very disappointing - - Charlie used to be one of my favorites.
Then, too, there is the absurdity of the United States simply deciding on its own that the government of a sovereign nation has to be changed by force. How would you feel if the president of China announced that the United States was part of an axis of evil, was a threat to its neighbors, had gassed its own people (Davidians at Waco) and therefore China was going to see to it that there is a change of regime in the United States? .
.
.
We have no reason whatsoever to go to war with Iraq. Iraq is not a threat to its neighbors or to us. No evidence whatsoever has been found linking Iraq to any terrorist act against the United States in the past decade. And who governs Iraq is none of our business.
O God, destroy the Jews, the Christians, the tyrant Jews, the usurper Jews and the vile Christians
We have no every reason to go to war with Iraq Islam.
Islam, since 9/11- over 3,000 served and counting!
GalvestonBeachcomber: I am sure you meant to reply to the ad hominers, since I agree with Charley. But don't expect anything other than name calling. Charley's reasoning appears to be beyond them.
How would you feel if the president of China announced that the United States was part of an axis of evil, was a threat to its neighbors, had gassed its own people (Davidians at Waco) and therefore China was going to see to it that there is a change of regime in the United States?
Perhaps if Pres. Bush dissolved the Congress, instituted martial law, and gassed a bunch of people in Michigan in response to their uprising....maybe you'd be pleased to have the Chinese military support an armed revolt???
I support the French intervening for regime change in the first revolution. I kinda think it was a good thing that the Allies marched to Berlin in WWII, rather than settling for containment of Hitler after liberating the rest of Europe.
Perhaps yourself and Chas have not completely thought out your position in the face of history.
How would you feel if the president of China announced that the United States was part of an axis of evil, was a threat to its neighbors, had gassed its own people (Davidians at Waco) and therefore China was going to see to it that there is a change of regime in the United States?
Uh, Charlie...they do precisely that all the time. Remember the Cold War? The "irresistable tide of history?" They may be quieter about these days but I don't think the Chinese government is any less Marxist than it used to be...
Does that mean it's ok to attack Saudi- I'll settle for that...
The nation of Islam has no national boundaries- this is a western concept- "nation". Allah comes above the concept of nation to the Islamists and they will tell you this time and time again. That little guy in Indonesia growing rice and going to the mosque? He states himself that he is at a state of war with Israel simply because the Palestinians are. They feel this way right across the Muslim world. Every single devout Muslim is already at a state of war with you. It doesn't matter whether you see it or not- they'll be coming for you eventually.
I just used that because it was the first thing I came across in ten seconds time to point to the irrational barbarians that are Muslims. They have declared war on us- it doesn't matter whether we declare war back or not. When we talk about "sovereignty", you must understand, the Muslim doesn't view this the same way as you do. There is only one nation- that of Islam and they are commanded by their god not to rest until the entire world is an Islamic one.
Saddam finances martyrdom operations in Israel- this has been amply demonstrated. A recent bomb in a university in Israel killed American citizens- therefore, Saddam is responsible for this. But he is also responsible for much much more. Just think about what's going to happen when he finally develops a usable nuclear device and arranges to have it passed on to one of the radical terrorist groups out there.
My question to you would be what would be your criteria for going to war with Saddam? Is there any situation where you would see the need for a preemptive strike? Would you concede that not every bit of intelligence that the gov't comes across should be broadcast to the public? Would you concede that there might be a situation where the need for a preemptive strike is necessary but the exact reasons for it cannot be disclosed?
Also, when have we ever stopped being at war with Iraq? It's not like we'll be starting a war with them. We've been at war with them since 1990. Our warplanes patrol their "sovereign skies" every single day. There's nothing new here.
But in my view, Iraq isn't even the big tamale- it's just a conveniant place to start. I won't be satisfied until Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, "Palestine" and Pakistan have ceased to exist. I'm agnostic, but I pray every day (in case their is a god listening) that those nations will be struck from the map. The way the Islamic barabarians celebrate when the latest homicide bomber kills?- That's me the day we nuke Baghdad, Riyadh, Teheran etc... I'll be making that tongue trilling noise and passing out candy in the streets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.