Wimps, weasels and monkeys - the US media view of 'perfidious France'

Guardian ^ | 2/11/03 | Gary Younge in New York and Jon Henley in Paris

[Burkeman1]

Iraq is not a major sponser of state funded terrorism- less so than our "noble ally" the Saudis. But let's just go ahead anyway- full speed ahead and damn the consequences. No exit plan at all, no clear objective. How long will we be there? Will Iraq be used to launch another war? Will the taking out of Sadaam reduce or increase the chances of further 9/11's on American soil in the future? Have one of these questions been answered? Will my son be serving in a base in Iraq 20 years from now? Or will it be Saudi Arabia or Iran or Syria? Will the chances of a suitcase nuke being let off in New York be more or less likely after a war with Iraq? Can Rumsfeld tell me no, it won't happen if we take Iraq? Can Powell? Can National Review or the Weekly Standard? Why have we done next to nothing to stop immigration much less illegal immigration into this country? Why are 80 year old grandmothers from Wisconsin being searched at our airports while Muhammed and friends go right by? When this nation is first serious about protecting it's citizens then maybe I will take seriously these calls for "regime changes" all over the middle east.

[Burkeman1]

What exactley was our interest in WWI?

[Burkeman1]

We don't have to worry about NATO any longer. It is a shell and in name only. It died during Clinton's Kosovo bombing campaign which violated the NATO charter itself and kick started the idea of a common Euro defense force which will be a reality in a few months.

[Kip Lange]

Iraq is not a major sponser of state funded terrorism

Riiiiiiight.

of a common Euro defense force which will be a reality in a few months

Riiiiiiiiiight.

No exit plan at all, no clear objective. How long will we be there? Will Iraq be used to launch another war? Will the taking out of Sadaam reduce or increase the chances of further 9/11's on American soil in the future? Have one of these questions been answered?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/795319/posts -- among many others. Do a search on here for "post saddam iraq plans". *bonk*

Oh, by the way, I have a lovely bridge in Brooklyn to offer you...

[Burkeman1]

Nice article. If you believe we will be there for a year or less - as the article suggested - I have a small land purchase to sell you- it is called the Louisanna territories. Considering the fact that we have huge permanent bases in both Bosnian and Kosovo (not to mention Macedonia) and show no signs of leaving- and that we still have bases in rich countries like Japan and South Korea would you be willing to amend your statement?

[Burkeman1]

Funny- as well- how Powell barely even tried to connect Iraq to 9/11 much less any terrorism outside of Iraq. Again- Iraq is not a major sponser of terrorism. Sarcasm is not evidence.

[Kip Lange]

would you be willing to amend your statement

Absolutely not. The administration does not want to spend any time nation-building in Iraq at all. Having a base in a country is also not exactly the equivalent of "occupying" it.

[Kip Lange]

Funny- as well- how Powell barely even tried to connect Iraq to 9/11 much less any terrorism outside of Iraq. Again- Iraq is not a major sponser of terrorism. Sarcasm is not evidence.

I'd say he presented a pretty strong case. Where's your evidence for Iraq being a peaceful nation that DOESN'T sponsor (get a spellchecker) terrorism?

I'll show you the evidence in a couple of months. Rather, you'll be INUNDATED with evidence after we go in there and find what Saddam really has hidden away. Methinks you'll be eating your words then. ;-)

Sarcasm isn't evidence, yes, but it sure is a fun way to upset fools.

[Burkeman1]

So all the papers written by the neo cons about using Iraq as a larger base of operations in the entire region are nonsense? We are just gonna go change leaders, destroy the WMD's, and leave within a year or so and democracy is gonna take root? Do you also believe you can commune with your dead relatives by going on the John Edwards show? What if the Iraqi's elect a radical Islamic fundamentalist to lead them (like Algeria did and we were quiet when the Algerian military staged a coup and waged a war that has cost 200,000 lives in the past 5 years)? Yeah- we are just gonna stay for a year.

[Burkeman1]

Darkness at Noon- I am supposed to present evidence that they are not guilty? Wow. How far we have fallen.

[weegee]

Don't know who coined the term, but here's another graphic for the thread:

[Kip Lange]

I repeat: We will be in there and out of there quickly. We don't want to nation-build; we don't want to be perceived as nation-building. Period. End paragraph.

[Kip Lange]

Right. Where was the evidence that the Japanese were going to strike (directly) at Pearl Harbor? The extent of Hitler's concentration camps weren't exposed until the end of the war. For people like you, there is NOTHING that will prove the case, short of another massive attack on America, accompanied by loudspeakers blaring that Al Qaeda is tied to Iraq -- and even then you might not buy it. Is that what you want? Iraqi-trained al-Qaeda agents to commit another atrocity the size and scope of 9-11 so we can give you more "proof"?

[Burkeman1]

Can I ask why you are so sure of this limited engagement of US troops in Iraq? What in our nation's past convinces you that we won't be there long?

[Kip Lange]

The last Gulf War? ;-) (when only 30% of our smart-weapons were hitting targets...now they're hitting 80% and upwards...)

[Burkeman1]

Actually no evidence that Japan was going to attack. But would Americans have supported a war against Japan without Pearl Harbor? Would they have suffered 300,000 dead for a "premptive" war against Japan? No- no way- America had had enough of being used in WWI with 53 thousand dead and were solidly against war on December 6th 1941. Pearl Harbor made Roosevelt's day and gave him what he wanted- war with Japan and eventually Germany (Hitler was stupid enough to declare war first). Your argument is moot. Again- Iraq has not even been plausibly connected to 9/11 by Powell. What is this war about?

As for Hitler's camps? We didn't go to war for that at all- not in the slightest. In fact Roosevelt knew more about Stalin's mass murders than he did about Hitlers in 1941 when we allied that with that SOB. You actually think we went to war against Germany to save the Jews?

[Miss Marple]

We occupied Germany from 1945 to 1949. The Japanese Occupation lasted from 1945 to 1952. In the case of Japan, we had to completely redo their government, providing a constitution and a legislative body, as well as completely redo their banking system, infrastructure, etc.

You will notice that we terminated our occupation of both countries fairly quickly, and this was in the time when occupation was EXPECTED and there was no angst about nation-building.

The United States does not desire colonies. Taking the words of Bill Kristol as public policy of the Bush administration is a bit silly. Kristol is on the outside looking in, and his opinion isn't particularly valued at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[Burkeman1]

The war is gonna last about a week. Iraq will fall. But smart weapons don't occupy countries. Again- why do you think we will be there for only a year or less- given our history over the last 50 years?

[Kip Lange]

Because we DON'T WANT TO OCCUPY IRAQ? ;-)

[Burkeman1]

We did a good job on the Japanese banking system didn't we? A fraud since it was started. As for Germany and Japan- both countries had a solid culture and were ethnically homegenous. And we still have troops in Japan. Iraq is not either. Germany had extensive democratic experience and was a Western nation. Japan was western in many ways as well but still fuedal asian in other ways- but still one ethnic group with a common history and identity. The Muslem world is not that at all. In fact- the only thing the unifies them is Islam- wich is fundamentally anti Western and anti progress. To think it is going to be a repeat of the post WWII occupations is abject nonsense. In fact look at Al Queda- it has within it's ranks- polynesians and Arabs- black africans, English converts,- in short the only thing that unifies these disparate ethnic groups is this bizarre barbaric religion. To think we are going to bring western ways to these many tribes and groups when the only thing that unifies them is an anti western religion is absolute folly.