- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 1,837
- Reaction score
- 0
Here's a good comment i found on the "other" domain site:
"
I "wish" the neo-cons currently running the U.S. goverenment were not realizing a very old plan to extend American control over the middle east.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/fea.../ma_273_01.html
Take a look at the now infamous 2000 report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," where some of the most prominent neocons lay down the blueprint for "to shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests."
http://www.newamericancentury.org/p...ionsreports.htm
In the above report, the neo-cons agreed the road to achieving their goals "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic nd catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."
Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, but he is one of dozens around the world. If you were to embark on a military crusade to save people from oppression, you'd have to attack North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, and half the countries in Africa. And if you're out to save the Kurds, don't forget to rescue the Kurds in Turkey, whom are reported to have it just as bad as the Kurds in Iraq.
As for Hussein's crimes against humanity--real and heinous as they are--were was the U.S. administration when these crimes where at their worst during the 1980's? They were making handshake deals with Saddam (see the classic picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein in the 1980's), and American companies were selling him most of his chemical and biological weapons. But he was "our" bad guy then, in the fight against militant Islam in Iran, so that was okay.
And now, after 12 years of draconian sanctions, where military analysts routinely agree that the Iraqi army is a shadow of its pre-Gulf war self and no threat to its neighbours, where US and UK planes have been bombing in the no-fly zones almost daily, where there has been no credible link established between Hussein and 9-11 or Al Quaeda, now, suddenly, Hussein is such a massive and imminent threat to the middle east, America, and global security that he must be removed immediately.
No. Hussein is a straw man in all this...yes, brutal, but such an overwhelming threat that the sanctity of borders must be violated and a sovereign nation attacked? This sets a tremendously dangerous precedent, and will enormously benefit Bin Laden (a real threat to America) by driving hundreds of impoverished young Muslim men over the edge and into the embrace of Islamic fanaticism.
I think pundit William Pfaff captured the true problem in this whole matter best in a recent article:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unchecked American global power has precipitously lost appeal. From World War II to the collapse of the Soviet Union the United States exercised international leadership with responsible policies and sensitivity to the demands of alliance. For this reason there has until now been relatively little concern at its emergence as the world's sole superpower. The United States continued to possess the confidence of the international community. The Bush administration has managed in this Iraq affair to undermine if not destroy the American offer of benevolent and responsible international hegemony. It has made the United Nations seem more relevant than ever.
One may add that by so doing it has perhaps done a favor not only to the world but to the United States itself. I myself am not of the opinion that the values of the American republic would survive the possession of absolute power. "
"
I "wish" the neo-cons currently running the U.S. goverenment were not realizing a very old plan to extend American control over the middle east.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/fea.../ma_273_01.html
Take a look at the now infamous 2000 report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," where some of the most prominent neocons lay down the blueprint for "to shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests."
http://www.newamericancentury.org/p...ionsreports.htm
In the above report, the neo-cons agreed the road to achieving their goals "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic nd catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."
Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, but he is one of dozens around the world. If you were to embark on a military crusade to save people from oppression, you'd have to attack North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, and half the countries in Africa. And if you're out to save the Kurds, don't forget to rescue the Kurds in Turkey, whom are reported to have it just as bad as the Kurds in Iraq.
As for Hussein's crimes against humanity--real and heinous as they are--were was the U.S. administration when these crimes where at their worst during the 1980's? They were making handshake deals with Saddam (see the classic picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein in the 1980's), and American companies were selling him most of his chemical and biological weapons. But he was "our" bad guy then, in the fight against militant Islam in Iran, so that was okay.
And now, after 12 years of draconian sanctions, where military analysts routinely agree that the Iraqi army is a shadow of its pre-Gulf war self and no threat to its neighbours, where US and UK planes have been bombing in the no-fly zones almost daily, where there has been no credible link established between Hussein and 9-11 or Al Quaeda, now, suddenly, Hussein is such a massive and imminent threat to the middle east, America, and global security that he must be removed immediately.
No. Hussein is a straw man in all this...yes, brutal, but such an overwhelming threat that the sanctity of borders must be violated and a sovereign nation attacked? This sets a tremendously dangerous precedent, and will enormously benefit Bin Laden (a real threat to America) by driving hundreds of impoverished young Muslim men over the edge and into the embrace of Islamic fanaticism.
I think pundit William Pfaff captured the true problem in this whole matter best in a recent article:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unchecked American global power has precipitously lost appeal. From World War II to the collapse of the Soviet Union the United States exercised international leadership with responsible policies and sensitivity to the demands of alliance. For this reason there has until now been relatively little concern at its emergence as the world's sole superpower. The United States continued to possess the confidence of the international community. The Bush administration has managed in this Iraq affair to undermine if not destroy the American offer of benevolent and responsible international hegemony. It has made the United Nations seem more relevant than ever.
One may add that by so doing it has perhaps done a favor not only to the world but to the United States itself. I myself am not of the opinion that the values of the American republic would survive the possession of absolute power. "
