quote:

---

03/20/2003

Well, it appears that the war has begun.

A lot of people have been asking me in interviews what I think of this. They generally start the questioning by stating that they are under the assumption that I am pro-invasion. Back when anti-globalization protests were the thing to do, I would get asked questions about it and they would be led off with stated assumptions that I am "pro-globalization," So before I become the Rush Limbaugh of indie-rock I am going to state clearly what I, personally, think of this turn of events.

First of all, I am not feeling the four principles of your average anti-war protester. As I see them, they are:

1. No War For Oil.
This war is not for oil, people. It is for an even more dangerous, rare, and slippery commodity: "stability." If anyone is acting with Petroleum Lust in their hearts, it is the French, Russians, and Chinese. France controls almost a quarter of Iraq's imports and a French oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated deals to explore the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields, which are estimated to hold about 25% of Iraq's oil reserves. Russia's Lukoil (who is currently negotiating more deals with Hussein's government) and China's National Petroleum Corporation also have exploration and development arrangements, and the Iraqis have a multi-billion-dollar debt to the Russians dating back to the Iran-Iraq war. These countries want Saddam to stay in power so they can cash in on those arrangements, and that, my friends, is what genuine amorality in the name of oil is about--turning a blind eye to the shenanigans of regional despots in exchange for a steady flow of crude. America has done that, for sure, and we still do it. We have a healthy track record of averting our eyes from abusive tyrants' misdeeds so we can get at their nation's natural resources. Lots of countries do it. But we aren't doing it in this situation, amazingly enough.
Also, let me remind all that everyone thought the Kuwait war was for "oil" but we really didn't get any oil out of it at all. That oil stayed nationalized and we didn't get shit. (Kind of ungrateful when you think about it...)

2. We shouldn't fight the Iraqi people.
This logic is just wack. It transfers easily to the war against the Nazis. A lot of Germans died. Should we not have fought the Nazis because of that?

3. We are flouting the UN.
We've done it before--in Kosovo. That's right, we blew off the UN to get involved and stop the ethnic cleansing (and remember who were saving in that situation: Muslims!) Why? Because Russia, historically obstinate in their protection of ethnic Serbs, would surely have vetoed any invasion on our part. We eventually badgered NATO into giving us some kind of international thumbs-up, but even that wasn't easy. If you genuinely feel passionate about the primacy of UN procedure, then I want you to be able to stand up with the courage of your conviction and say "fuck the Kosovars, what is important is UN procedure, and we violated it, and that was wrong, no matter how many deaths we prevented." Try it in the privacy of your own home and let me know how it feels. I doubt you'll feel too good doing it.
Thanks to all armchair editors who noted my abuse of the word 'flaunt.' -ed

4. Americans just don't want to. I don't accept this. TAmerican people were not wild about getting involved in WWII until Pearl Harbor--at which point Hitler had comfortably occupied most of Europe and North Africa and was bombing the tar out of London. Prominent Americans like Charles Lindburgh and Joe Kennedy were virulently against that war. Am I drawing parallels to World War II from this situation? Not directly. I'm merely pointing out that popular opposition, in and of itself, is not something I accept. I need reasons, and you should, too.

I reacted quite badly to a... rebuttal, or whatever, from pitchforkmedia.com. Interestingly enough, I got the most criticism for doing that--people felt it wasn't classy. That's fair. So, I am adding on my response to some of their... arguments.

5. Give the inspectors more time.
Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on the Iranis and his own Shiite and Kurdish citizens. This no one disputes. (Well, maybe I shouldn't speak for pitchforkmedia.com...)It was totally out in the open. Then he told inspectors to fuck off for ten years. It is blowing my mind that the left is basically giving this guy the benefit of the doubt--that in the last ten years, after he used them on his own people and then routinely told inspectors to shove it, that he for some reason got rid of the weapons.
This obsession for letting "inspectors do their work" is shocking. No one seemed to care when, for ten years, the man who would not let the "inspectors do their work" is Saddam Hussein. After he used the weapons openly.
I mean, does this upset anyone besides Donald Rumsfeld and me?
I told one kid that e-mailed in this point (and bravo to all anti-war folks who sent in thoughtful and learned and non-abusive rejoinders, this one being from Mr. Nadev Carmel) that I would bet him. He seems to have declined... anyone else?

6. George Bush Halliburton Cheney Texas Oil Blah Blah Blah
That's how it sounds to me. Does anyone really think Dubya declared war on Iraq so we could knock over buildings that his friends' construction companies could fix up? If so, well, OK, we'll have to see where things go. But it doesn't really address any of the deeper geopolitical issues, it's just obsessing with oligarchic conspiracy notions that don't necessarily have anything to do with the issues at hand.

7. This is revenge, on behalf of his dad.
I love this one. Dubya's dad totally won, remember? What is there for Dubya to avenge? Luckily I don't hear this one too often because it's just goofy.

So do I think we should do this? Well, depends on what "this" is. If "this" is "kill Saddam and then go home," oh God no. The very idea is terrifying and we will suffer for it someday. But if the idea of "this" is "give this nation a kick start towards freedom, while helping Afghanistan back up on its feet and finessing Iran towards its inevitable course to liberalizing," well, yeah, actually, I am. Americans have suffered for too long because of the events of the Middle East, events that really aren't that much of our doing. We've supported some dictators and eased others into power, but we never had much choice in these countries. (The vacuum of good leadership in the Arab world in the last century is truly tragic--Sadat, Ataturk and Katami notwithstanding.) We weren't the Turks, who ruled the region for 500 years, and we weren't the French and British, who stepped into the post-Ottoman breach for a much shorter period of time. We give Israel a lot of money, but we give Egypt almost as much (three billion a year to two billion a year) so the constant Arab cries of favoritism on our part aren't that convincing. I, having done some amateur but concerted investigation into the history of the Middle East, am hard pressed to really say that the problems facing the region--particularly those of the Arabs--is really America's to account for, so much that it justifies persistant terrorist attacks upon Americans here and abroad.

I will never forget, on September 11, watching CNN and seeing an interview with a little Palestinian boy. He was supposedly celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center (whatever) and they asked him why he hates America or whatever. His response was basically: Because they always help the Israelis, and they never come help us. Why won't they come help us? It was heartbreaking.

I realized that that kid thinks of America as a superhero, a dude with a big "A" on his chest and a cape, that can swoop down and lift him out of his miserable, doomed life. And when Captain America doesn't show up--or seems to be hanging out on the other side of the checkpoint--he's fucking pissed.

If this is going to work, we gotta put on the superhero costume and do it right, and the war is just one tiny little move in that direction. Dubya has done a spectacularly bad job at firing this nation up to do so, and that's a real problem. His diplomatic track record (especially pre 9/11) is really screwing things up too. But... I have to say that I think the core goal here is not a bad one.

So yeah, I'm down--if the follow through is correct. And as Winston Churchill said, "America always does the right thing, after exhausting all other possibilities," so there is no guarantee that the follow through will be at all correct. And that scares me. And that, folks, is what I think about the whole thing.

-T

---

[ March 23, 2003: Message edited by: nose over tail ]

quote:

---

Originally said by some retard:

1. No War For Oil.
This war is not for oil, people. It is for an even more dangerous, rare, and slippery commodity: "stability."

---

***Buzzz*** wrong.

Everybody knows that the most stable political regime is dictatorship. As for stability of this power keg, middle east, just take a look at what's happening in Jordania, Egypt, Barhein... Now thousands of dudes wanna fight for Saddam. Hussein might as well thanx dubya for that.

quote:

---

If anyone is acting with Petroleum Lust in their hearts, it is the French, Russians, and Chinese. France controls almost a quarter of Iraq's imports and a French oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated deals to explore the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields, which are estimated to hold about 25% of Iraq's oil reserves.

---

quote:

---

--turning a blind eye to the shenanigans of regional despots in exchange for a steady flow of crude. America has done that, for sure, and we still do it. We have a healthy track record of averting our eyes from abusive tyrants' misdeeds so we can get at their nation's natural resources. Lots of countries do it. But we aren't doing it in this situation, amazingly enough.

---

quote:

---

Also, let me remind all that everyone thought the Kuwait war was for "oil" but we really didn't get any oil out of it at all. That oil stayed nationalized and we didn't get shit. (Kind of ungrateful when you think about it...)

---

quote:

---

2. We shouldn't fight the Iraqi people.
This logic is just wack. It transfers easily to the war against the Nazis. A lot of Germans died. Should we not have fought the Nazis because of that?

---

quote:

---

3. We are flouting the UN.
We've done it before--in Kosovo. That's right, we blew off the UN to get involved and stop the ethnic cleansing (and remember who were saving in that situation: Muslims!) Why? Because Russia, historically obstinate in their protection of ethnic Serbs, would surely have vetoed any invasion on our part. We eventually badgered NATO into giving us some kind of international thumbs-up, but even that wasn't easy.

---

quote:

---

4. Americans just don't want to. I don't accept this. TAmerican people were not wild about getting involved in WWII until Pearl Harbor--at which point Hitler had comfortably occupied most of Europe and North Africa and was bombing the tar out of London. Prominent Americans like Charles Lindburgh and Joe Kennedy were virulently against that war. Am I drawing parallels to World War II from this situation? Not directly. I'm merely pointing out that popular opposition, in and of itself, is not something I accept. I need reasons, and you should, too.

---

quote:

---

Then he told inspectors to fuck off for ten years.

---

quote:

---

after he used them on his own people

---

quote:

---

I mean, does this upset anyone besides Donald Rumsfeld and me?

---

quote:

---

6. George Bush Halliburton Cheney Texas Oil Blah Blah Blah
That's how it sounds to me. Does anyone really think Dubya declared war on Iraq so we could knock over buildings that his friends' construction companies could fix up? If so, well, OK, we'll have to see where things go. But it doesn't really address any of the deeper geopolitical issues, it's just obsessing with oligarchic conspiracy notions that don't necessarily have anything to do with the issues at hand.

---

quote:

---

Dubya's dad totally won, remember?

---

quote:

---

The vacuum of good leadership in the Arab world in the last century is truly tragic--Sadat, Ataturk and Katami notwithstanding.

---

quote:

---

I will never forget, on September 11, watching CNN[...]

---

quote:

---

[...]and seeing an interview with a little Palestinian boy. He was supposedly celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center (whatever) and they asked him why he hates America or whatever. His response was basically: Because they always help the Israelis, and they never come help us. Why won't they come help us? It was heartbreaking.

I realized that that kid thinks of America as a superhero, a dude with a big "A" on his chest and a cape, that can swoop down and lift him out of his miserable, doomed life. And when Captain America doesn't show up--or seems to be hanging out on the other side of the checkpoint--he's fucking pissed.

---

The palestian boy's reaction is biased. I don't agree with it at all. Though, I can understand it. This boy's got a big enemy called Israel. He's seen many of his friends, much of his family directly or indirectly suffer from Israeli oppression. He grew up in the hatred of Israel. He knows the US is the biggest ally of Israel in the world and that without their help, Israel wouldn't be that strong. The situation there is terrible indeed. And many arab countries think the US don't act against Israel because they're allies. Hence the terrible reaction of the palestinian. See how now Saddam says the amrican attack is a sionist attack. To rally them. They're the martyr people. And as long as they stay martyr that would provide a fresh batch of terrorists every year.

quote:

---

So yeah, I'm down--if the follow through is correct. And as Winston Churchill said, "America always does the right thing, after exhausting all other possibilities," so there is no guarantee that the follow through will be at all correct. And that scares me. And that, folks, is what I think about the whole thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nose over tail:
i found this to be a good read and a nice antithesis to all of the "war sucks blah blah blah" essays.

[ March 23, 2003: Message edited by: nose over tail ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NSA:
I think the pictures of seeing free Iraqi's tearing down pictures and statues of Sadaam and running to greet the advancing US Military is cause enough for us to be there.

---

I've seen those images. I've also seen the images where a bombed hotel in tikrit strangely kept all the pictures pn the remaining walls, intact.
I've seen some french tv images where most of the time iraqis cussed at Bush.
I'm suspicious of every report that can be used as a weapon in the war of manipulation.

I mostly trust freelancers who, despite the danger, provide us with more trustful info.

The couple of corpses I've seen so far just gross me out a bit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Colonel Klink:

And I think you should put a link to this thread, where you found the quoted text. For his info. ANd cuz I spent an awfully long time typing this. So the guy'd better know about it

---

quote:

---

Americans have suffered for too long because of the events of the Middle East, events that really aren't that much of our doing. We've supported some dictators and eased others into power, but we never had much choice in these countries.

---

i can't even begin to say what's wrong with this statement. america sticks it's chubby little fingers into every pie it possibly can.

"Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera 'told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

Another example from Sunday's UK Guardian out of the Iraqi city of Safwan: "As the passengers spotted European faces, one boy grinned and put his thumb up. The other nervously waved a white flag. The mixed messages defined the moment: Thank you. We love you. Please don't kill us.... Afraid that the US and Britain will abandon them, the people of Safwan did not touch the portraits and murals of Saddam Hussein hanging everywhere. It was left to the marines to tear them down.

"It did not mean there was not heartfelt gladness at the marines' arrival. Ajami Saadoun Khlis, whose son and brother were executed under the Saddam regime, sobbed like a child on the shoulder of the Guardian's Egyptian translator. He mopped the tears but they kept coming. 'You just arrived,' he said. 'You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave.'" This is what our marines are seeing, and once these people know we'll stay as long as they need us, they will express themselves more and more in these terms.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID= 20030321-023627-5923r

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story /0,2763,919642,00.html

[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: NSA ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ruddegar:

i can't even begin to say what's wrong with this statement. america sticks it's chubby little fingers into every pie it possibly can.

america has not exhausted every possibility before engaging in this war.

---