The Bush administration has offered three main reasons for war with Iraq. First, Iraq has developed and may possess weapons of mass destruction, has a history of aggression against its neighbors, and has sponsored international terrorism. The administration argues that since Iraq might share such weapons with terrorists, only war can eliminate this threat to the United States. Second, the… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (37)Page 1 of 1 pagesTo the question, do we need to go in to Iraq. I reply, regretably so. Because I believe that no one country should posses ABC weapons. But after this is all over, I believe that we should arrest and try the three stooges, who put us in this situation for treason. I speak of Bush sr., Cheaney and Rumsfeld. If they weren’t distributing bio and chemical weapons in the ‘80’s, we wouldn’t have this problem. Its irresponcibility at its finest. Just a short thought on the matter.
Posted by Ezekial 25:17 on Jan 28, 2003 at 3:00 AM So if no one country should have ‘weapons of mass destruction’ you’d like to declare war on half the world?
But I do definitely agree with you about the American Administrations. If I’m not mistaken they also sent out conventional weapons to various terrorist organizations decades ago so they would help them oust enemies of America.
Finally, which country in the world is a bigger threat(multiple choice)? Iraq, North Korea, America.
Posted by B on Jan 28, 2003 at 11:18 PM I find it appalling that an institution I hold in such high regard repeatedly acknowledges nonsense published by this Khalidi joker. Honestly, there are other ways to express ideology then by employing a professor with such blistering anti-American sentiment.
Posted by Rabindranath on Jan 29, 2003 at 3:22 PM Thank you for your article. At last, someone has given intelligent, coherent form to the argument against the war. You have explained why this war is wrong. I only wish your voice could be heard over the din.
Posted by Barry Ruddell on Jan 29, 2003 at 3:34 PM It’s a scary thought that voicing one’s opinion on anything that does not fall in line with Bush’s ‘nuke the camel jockeys’ swagger is anti american. I don’t believe anything this administration does is in fact patriotic or has anything to do with the values this nation was founded on. It is a sorry state. Thank you for the article, it was insightful.
Posted by A.H. on Jan 29, 2003 at 5:12 PM BE afraid that while these “elected” officials justify the modification of basic civil liberties, in an effort to protect America from “evil”, they are also looking to protect themselves from the world and their own countrymen. I watched the State of the Nation Address yesterday and the following interviews with (Rep) representatives of the house. What I realised was that all the triumphs over various “-isms” GW mentioned, could be reflected in US foreign policy during the 20th century (read: CIA).
As GW said in his address “your enemy is not around you but amongst you”
In Australia, many were shocked at the bombing in Bali and the deaths of so many Australians. How sad it was to see so much fervour amongst my own countrymen in taking up the banner of support for the US in their actions against Iraq. I found it a most convenient incident in assisting our elected officials in justifying their stance with the US. As mentioned in the article, their are many countries with weapons of mass destruction, but they are not forced to disarm, because their weapons are functional. There are also many countries who violate UN sanctions and they are not forced into a submit or suffer the consequences scenario. Look to Israel and Palestine to see how one country with greater power and support can inflict its will on a weaker one. Now multiply this to a world scale and you will see what the US’s real agenda is in creating a space based weapons system and having military personal in so many far flung countries. America and the US are yet to ratify Kyoto. Both rely on oil and other non renewable resources to power their countries. At a time when Saudi Arabia is undergoing major economic problems and a reduction in their oil supplies, Venezuela is selling oil to countries at a reduced rate and controls (12%) of the worlds oil, America’s government (dominated by “oilpeople” (Condaleeza Rice)), is looking to control access to as many sources of this fossil fuel.
As someone once wrote"the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”, not freedom as prescribed by those who control the economy and not so indirectly, the government.
Posted by John on Jan 29, 2003 at 6:26 PM Is it just me? Did I hear George Bush indicate that no other nation in the world should have WMD? Wow, is he getting the non-proliferation bug? Oh, wait, America has the largest number of nuclear weapons in the whole world.
I guess its the old adage, “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Posted by Kelty on Jan 29, 2003 at 8:38 PM Yes Indeed, this war drive has nothing to do with self defence and everything to do with empire building. America’s Founding Fathers are probably rolling over in thier graves.
Posted by Paul Goodman on Jan 29, 2003 at 11:57 PM I’m a 22 year young student (journalism) from holland.
Thing is, no one I know likes America . Why? Because they are forcing their will upon the rest of the world. My government is agreeing to join the US, only because they are scared of it.
We have the international-court, but America doesn’t recognize it as ‘valid’. They even said they would attack Holland if any American had to face trial there. To me this is a decleration of war. And what did my government do? They accepted it.
So basically Bush can do what ever he wants because no one can put them to justice. So who’s the real threat to the world? Some middle-east country or a raging lunatic in a white house in the US?Who knows where it stops? Maybe if Europe starts working together as one power, they will be the next threat. And who will stop the US from attacking us?
The question is not if it’s OK or not for the US to attack Iraq.
The question is: What can we do to stop the US. How do we protect ourselves from a dangerous man like Bush.
Maybe even: How can we make sure the US gets a president who actually got a brain?I like the idea of democracy, the problem is that only the people who crave for power want to be in a government. And a person who craves for power is a danger to it’s own people.
Thus, the world is a dangerous place, but we all know that don’t we?
We can write all we want. We can scream and shout. But what do we mean? We are collateral damage. (A word invented by the US military)
And now to a question where most people start backing away. Bush knew about September 11th. Why didn’t he stop it? It’s convenient to forget it, because it gives him a good cause for war, doesn’t it?
We all know the US created the Taliban, in the war vs the USSR. And left them to rot after the USSR was defeated.
What if (and here I go beyond a point where most people would say it’s too outrageous to go) Bush set the whole thing up?
Hehehe I’m curious about what people will say about that *grin*.
But seriously, isn’t it too convenient? Is there really an Al-quida? Is Osama Bin Laden a US puppet? Now that’s a mind boggler!
This is going towards a conspiracy-theory and since I’m growing up to be a journalist I know I can’t even write those questions down here. But hey, I’m young.
The CIA is know for setting up governments and scape-goats. Everything is possible when a numskull like Bush can be (elected!!!!) president!
Posted by Demian on Jan 30, 2003 at 2:32 PM Keep up the good work Rashid. Even though your story is not suported by facts, It’s true to me.
Respect
Demian
Posted by Demian on Jan 30, 2003 at 2:34 PM Absolutely correct. Well said, and hurrah for you ...but what difference will it make?
Posted by Rick Taylor on Jan 31, 2003 at 12:49 AM Unfortunately, the masses support U.S. military action in Iraq. Their fervent American sentiments, however, reflect their complete lack of knowledge regarding the subject. The U.S. is in fact rooted deep amongst a plethora of contradictions. Notably, the mere mention of how the American constituency could even think of electing a republican president speaks volumes. With nearly 80 % of Americans falling under the label of working class citizens, how ironic that a leader like George W. actually get elected! He shall only work in favor of the upper 20 % who seek to satisfy their voracious appetite for wealth. I encourage the GOP supports of the nation to do some research and maybe most importantly, take an honest look at themselves before blindly advocating an unproductive U.S. military campaign in Iraq.
Posted by Anthony on Jan 31, 2003 at 6:46 PM It’s sad but yu are 100% right, this war is not against Sadam Hussein. it’s against the world, to show the american power, to set an example to the rest of the world that if you are not with them you are against them. This is a war to repay the weapon industry for their financial support to Bush and the Republican party in the last political canpaign. This is a war against the freedom of thinking, against the inteligence of the world and the same americans, because Bush and his partners think that everybody but them are stupids, ignorants, that we do not realize this is a personal matter between the Bush, Jr. and Sr., and Sadam Hussein. This is a war to gain control of the world oil production. One more thing, every day less and less people like USA, and consider this country the number 1 threat to the peace in the world. Very good article Rashid, clear and direct. Congratulations.
Posted by Hernnan on Jan 31, 2003 at 7:30 PM This type of battle needs to be waged against all the aggressor countries of the world who manufacture weapons of mass destruction especially nuclear arsenals. America should be considered on of these countries. This battle can be waged without war. And it needs to be. These regimes can be checked through diplomacy, economic sanctions, and world opinion. I agree with Khalidi on one thing however : noone appointed us the international policeman. Tony Blair is right. We need to show categorical evidence to the World and than the world in solidarity will check Iraq through the actions of the UN. North Korea is definately more dangerous than Iraq. We shouldn’t have a double standard. The same way we are going after Iraq we should combat other nations who are commmitting the same crimes.
As a side note Khalidi’s main purpose of writing this article is to write a diatribe against Isreal.
Posted by tif on Feb 1, 2003 at 7:34 PM The only thing I would like to comment on in this analysis is Khalidi’s need to bring in Israel. Professor Khalidi, I know you know better: Iraq, since Osiraq, has been the last worry on Israel’s mind. Iraq, especially since the first Gulf War (which was fought to protect Saudi Arabia’s hegenomy by Bush I) made a weak Iraq, which posed little to no threat to Israel. If anything, Iran is by far a more realistic threat--and Israeli officials made that quite clear from the second Bush started talking about war. If anything, Israel, who will have to stay out of the fighting and absorb the potentially horrible blows Iraq is preparing for it, wants the War over with as soon as possible so it can put away the gas-masks.
You know as well as I do that the Saudi royal family, whose ties are particularly strong to the Bush royal family, has felt threatened by Sadaam for nearly two decades, and was very upset when the US did not remove him from power the first time around.
Please, Prof Khalidi, although you have a certain ideology, you don’t have to stick in Israel every time there is a problem in the region. Think before you publish. It’s ok not to bring up Israel at every turn.
Posted by Ariel Beery on Feb 1, 2003 at 8:04 PM You have got to be kidding me? Israeli hegemony? At that point alone, it’s time to shut down the ole thinking cap and start laughing at the ensuing and blindly rabid liberal tirade. What a joke!
And if the US was so buddy-buddy with Saddam in the 80s and helped to arm the man, doesn’t it make us that much more responsible to disarm him?
While I am not a all-forces-march fan of the coming war, I am glad we have a president who will take action. The UN is a failure at acting as a global policeman. When Clinton urged for action in the Balkans, the rest of the UN scoffed. A bloodbattle ensued. Now, what is the issue? No, it’s not enforcing UN mandates. It’s simply a matter of waiting and seeing how badly a nation disobeyed them. Limp-wristed politics and a pat on the wrist.
Khalidi is wrong to say that Iraq poses no threat to the US and its allies. Dead wrong. To rely on Saddam only giving to terrorist organizations that won’t attack the US is just foolishness.
As for the hackneyed old argument that this is about oil, bah! First, no one is going to be fooled into thinking that a new Iraqi regime will supply the stability to provide us with steady stream of Iraqi oil. Besides, within ten years hydrogen powered cars will be emerging on the market, and it will be time to destroy the trade deficit.
Posted by Mike Aragon on Feb 2, 2003 at 6:36 AM Unfortunately, Bush is turning the populace of the world against the USA ... It is only their governments who repeat the “mantra” of support because we are proping up their regimes ... the majority of their people are against the agressive role the USA has taken. I only hope we are not starting something more devastating than we could ever imagine. I am 55 years old and Bush’s seeming obsession to go to war frightens me to the bone.
Posted by tom daniels on Feb 2, 2003 at 10:36 PM This is a most unserious attack on the arguments for an Iraqi war. You admit that Saddam has had nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs and has chemical weapons against his own people. Then you just discount the obvious implication of these statements by claiming that “most credible observers” believe that we can discount the idea that Saddam will grasp at even more destructive weapons. Can you provide an argument why you believe this? A link or two to the supposedly “credible experts?”
What of the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons we know he held when he kicked the inspectors out in 1998? Can you be so absolutely sure of the infallibility of your “credible experts” that you are willing to risk the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens? If my children succumb to an Anthrax attack launched by Iraqi-supplied terrorists, how will your “credible experts” give them back to me? This glib reliance on unnamed “experts” strikes me as extremely irresponsible.
Posted by WildMonk on Feb 3, 2003 at 11:36 PM ...continued…
Without arguing why it bolsters your case, you point to the support initially provided by the US in Saddam’s war with Iran. Worse yet, you don’t just ignore the rapid deterioration of US/Iraqi relations after 1998, you actively seek to paint a false picture of Saddam being “in bed” with the first Bush administration. This is simply not true and a picture of Rumsfeld in Baghdad doesn’t change that fact. The US *was* turning against Iraq by the late 1980s and diplomatic visits by Rumsfeld and others were part of the building diplomatic pressure to get Hussein to stand down from his territorial ambitions (although, in this, we admittedly botched things in a very big way).
I understand that in the present forum, it is easy to simply preach to the choir. But if your intention in writing this piece was actually to pursuade the undecided, your unserious tone and glib elision of important foundational arguments has defeated your intent.
Worse yet, your casual equivalence between elected democracies like Israel and India with barbarous regimes like those in Iraq and North Korea speaks volumes about the fundamental vacuity of your argument. We may not like the fact that India has acquired these weapons but the argument is not and has never been that we have a responsibility to attack any nation building such weapons.
Posted by WildMonk on Feb 3, 2003 at 11:37 PM ...Continued…
With respect to Israel and the UN, you again speak with two faces. Israel has made legitimate efforts to share territory with the Palestinians after having taken that territory in a defensive war; they have tried to trade “land for peace.” In this they are quite rare in history. You say that UN resolutions are ignored in Israel’s case but enforced in Iraq’s. In saying this, you ignore the fact that Israel’s attempts to meet its obligations have been met with murderous violence. We *both* know that simply bending unconditionally to the UN mandate would effectively place Israel at the mercy of those that wish it erased from the map.
Indeed, the contrast between these two nations could not be more stark. Had Saddam obeyed the terms of the UN resolutions passed at the end of the war - if he had advanced his people’s interests peacefully rather than pursued a strategy of personal aggrandizement - his people would be far better off today. Were Israel to unconditionally follow the mandate given to it by the UN, she would be faced with levels of violence even more horrific than those it faces today. There is not a single member of Hamas in Palestine that doesn’t draw the map to include all of Isreal and the occupied territories. Thus, when you say that we cannot force a tyrant to bend because we refuse to destroy a democracy under the same UN banner, I do not hear an argument, I hear a political slogan.
Wild Monk
Posted by WildMonk on Feb 3, 2003 at 11:38 PM Well said. With the way Bush is doing things, Iraq will just be the beginning.
Posted by Jenn Seguin on Feb 6, 2003 at 2:11 PM Applause,applause. I’m glad someone had the nerve to write what they really think.
I think that if every citizen took a long hard look at what we’re supposedly fighting for, instead of staring blindly and agreeing with everything the Bush Adminstration/US MEDIA puts on the table, most people would agree that war is NOT the most intellagent thing to do right now. And to the remarks made about this being anti-american: I think the most patriotic thing to do is to SPEAK OUT against the atrocities that are taking place in this country today, not only for the good of the American people, but the millions of people across the globe that will be harmed if/when the Bush orders an attack on Iraq. Bush and his administration are gathering whatever bait they have- no matter if the facts are true or false- dangling them in front of the American media like steak in front of a pack of lions. The media is feeding off the hysteria of 9-11, so that somehow it its “ok” to wage a war against Iraq for its evil doing. Nevermind the fact that there is no proof that Al Quadia and Iraq are connected. Might I also add that “its evil-doing” is the very same situations that Iraq was into when they were our friends 20 years ago. Funny how we could turn a blind eye to it then, but suddenly with the US economy going down and the need to resources (CHEAP OIL) going up, suddenly bombing Iraq is a great idea.
Anyway, I agree, AS A PATRIOTIC AMERICAN, that war is not the answer, and hope that more people speak up and let the world know that Bush does not speak for this country as a whole.
Posted by Lesley on Feb 6, 2003 at 3:55 PM Lesley,
Why is it that you assume everyone else is stupid? Why do you think that only you and people who agree with you aren’t “staring blindly and agreeing with everything the Bush Adminstration/US MEDIA puts on the table”?
What “atrocities that are taking place in this country today” are you talking about? Are there gas chambers being filled with Arabs in Galvaston? Concentration camps filled with slave-labor Muslims in Cincinatti? How do you ever expect to convince someone that you see the truth when you write such baseless, transparently false drivel?
“but the millions of people across the globe that will be harmed...”
Millions of people?? Like the 3 million Afghanis that Chomsky said would die if America tried to liberate Afghanistan? Have you learned *nothing* from recent history?
“Bush and his administration are gathering whatever bait they have- no matter if the facts are true or false...”
So, recordings of Iraqi soldiers discussing the concealment of weapons is not concrete evidence? Videotapes of trucks carting away material before inspectors arrive is not concrete evidence? What would it take to convince you? Oh, never mind, you live a comfortable little life scratching and sucking at the teat of democratic capitalism so nothing can convince you that the Islamofascists truly desire your death for their cause.
“the media is feeding off the hysteria of 9-11”
So, 3000 people are incinerated in a single day to feed that apocalyptic fantasies of thuggish fundamentalists and all you can do is blame American “hysteria”?
“Might I also add that “its evil-doing” is the very same situations that Iraq was into when they were our friends 20 years ago.”
Ah, it is always interesting how those who are so smug in their convictions of everyone else’s stupidity know so little history (nice grammer, as well). Saddam’s relationship with Washington began decaying precisely when he embarked on this path. He was originally supported as a bulwark against Iran. He was abandoned as his thuggish ambition expanded further. What part of this do you not understand?
“Funny how we could turn a blind eye to it then, but suddenly with the US economy going down and the need to resources (CHEAP OIL) going up, suddenly bombing Iraq is a great idea. “
If we wanted CHEAP OIL we would simply lift the embargo. It stays in place because we pursue a policy of attempting to contain his evil.
Posted by WildMonk on Feb 6, 2003 at 4:38 PM Oh, one other thing. If you think Saddam is not linked to al queda, better take a look at this article…
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=376141
Posted by WildMonk on Feb 6, 2003 at 6:34 PM .......OK. IRAQ HAS NOT ATTACKED US. IT HAS NOT ATTACKED ITS NEIGHBORS. IT HAS NOT ATTACKED ANYONE WITH BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. MEANWHILE: OUR ECONOMY IS IN THE TOILET. WE NOW HAVE A DEFICIT AGAIN. WE HAVE RECORD UNEMPLOYMENT. MAYBE THIS JUST ISN’T A GOOD TIME TO START ANOTHER WAR; CAN WE COME BACK LATER WHEN SOMEONE SMART IS RUNNING OUR COUNTRY?.........
Posted by Bobby on Feb 9, 2003 at 2:19 AM Bobby,
You write:
“.......OK. IRAQ HAS NOT ATTACKED US. “
True. That is the source of the controversy behind the strategy of “pre-emption” that Bush has laid out. Afghanistan hadn’t attacked the U.S. either but, on 9/11, agents who trained and were supported from there did so in a big way. Would you have decried an effort to defang OBL before 9/11?
“IT HAS NOT ATTACKED ANYONE WITH BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. “
Umm...ever hear of Iran? Also, do you purposely ignore chem weapons or is it an oversight?
“MEANWHILE: OUR ECONOMY IS IN THE TOILET. “
Every other country on earth would *love* to have an economy as “in the toilet” as ours. We have higher expectations and certainly can do better. But “in the toilet” is a ridiculous overstatement.
“WE HAVE RECORD UNEMPLOYMENT. “
??? Are you 12 years old? Despite having risen from its all-time historical low a few years back, our unemployment rate is still extremely low by historical standards. Indeed, save the late 1990s, you’d have to go back to the 1960s to find rates anywhere near this low.
“MAYBE THIS JUST ISN’T A GOOD TIME TO START ANOTHER WAR; CAN WE COME BACK LATER WHEN SOMEONE SMART IS RUNNING OUR COUNTRY?.........”
Ah, the coup de grace. Nice touch: witty, original, biting, incisive. Do you have a blog where I can read more?
Posted by WildMonk on Feb 9, 2003 at 8:18 AM Yes, sad to say, but American hegemony puts more money in the hands of those who believe everything is fair in business and in war. America is fast becoming a fascist state with the mantel of control placed squarely on the shoulders of those who buy the vote-American corporations. It is
the docrine of the golden rule, ie,
those who have the gold make the rules. And everyone knows global oil reserves are dwindling. Whoever controls the oil fields over the next 20 yrs, controls the world money.Is there any other explanation of why we bombed Afganistan when most the money, brains, support and membership of al qaida is in Saudi Arabia? We drove the Taliban out of power because they would not allow American and UK (mostly) oil interests control of Afgan oil reserves. No, George W didn’t mention the Saudis because the Bush family and the Saudi royal family have been business partners for many long years. In fact congress came up with millions of dollars of educational grant money a few months ago. The day Geo W signed the bill his little brother was there with his application in hand to get the money. (Gee, how did he know so soon? A little lesson in insider trading, perhaps. Something Geo W knows so well.) So, where’d Bush the Younger take all that grant money?
To Saudi Arabia of course.The patrician class in this country led by the Bush family should be reminded that even a war that puts money into their own companies and their contributors’, does not benefit the impoverished. Bush’s new tax plan seeks to take even what little the lower class has. Bush and his cronies want total control of the masses, hence the Bill-of-Rights-busting Patriot Act.
If the lower classes are kept impoverished; if the middle class is kept frantically working and mindlessly entertained; if our news services keep us uninformed; if no man’s home is his castle none of us are safe.We could feed the hungry of the world; educate the people and demand that domestic corporations keep a certain percentage of jobs here. People of all nations would all want to live here with the blessings of freedom.
We could take our pick of the brightest minds on earth. Or we
could just ram our corporate ideology down everyone’s throats and annihilate all those who stand in our way. Hmm, which is cheaper?
Posted by Marita on Feb 11, 2003 at 2:27 PM Marita,
That little bit of sarcasm was beautiful!
“We drove the Taliban out of power because they would not allow American and UK (mostly) oil interests control of Afgan oil reserves.”
A nice touch since the average reader probably has no clue that there are no known oil reserves in Afghanistan.
“People of all nations would all want to live here with the blessings of freedom. “
This is how you really tied up all of the irony in one neat package. Nice post!
Posted by WildMonk on Feb 11, 2003 at 6:23 PM Whether or not we have a war with Iraq, American’s will not have any friends outside our own country. It’s sad that we are being over populated with immigrants from other countries who hate our culture, language and freedoms. They refuse to simulate into our culture yet we bend over backwards to make their decisions easier to live by. They have all these opinions about our government and how much they hate us and yet we continue to kiss their butts, instill “diversity” among the white population and are in fear of being called a racist if we chose to speak of our oppinions. I’m Mexican and see this all around me, at work and in school. I understand your point of view and how you are against the US attacking Iraq. You are so lucky you have the freedom of expression and that you are able to write articles like these without fear of the Bush Administration stoning you or enforcing their beliefs on you. I don’t know about you but I certainly don’t want to be another little person in a big country fearful of leaving my house and helping a Dictator obtain 100% of his Presidency vote.
Posted by CJD on Feb 11, 2003 at 7:29 PM very thought provoking, would like to hear some solutions on how to make the world’s people respect other people and governments. would like to spend more money and attention on improving the living conditions for people everywhere. would like to hear how to promote civil and hunman rights in every country. would like to see autocratic governments give more freedom to their people. are the governments here for the people or are the people here for the governements ruled by the few or a dictator. i am fairly ceratin that you may have an approach, but then how would we implement the change in the world that every person has rights, not just the elite or those that hold their people hostage with tyranical governemnts.
Posted by mark o'drobinak on Feb 12, 2003 at 12:37 AM Mark O’Drobinak asks “how to make the world’s people respect other people . . . improve living conditions . . . promote civil rights” etc. One way would be for more states to honour the principles laid down in the United Nations Charter - beginning with the USA.
Posted by Carlos on Feb 14, 2003 at 4:56 PM i have a strange feeling we are getting very close to a point in our history that is going to write history or at least a large protion of it.we’ve learned nothing over time but the need to want more and never be satisfied even over our own greed.
hopefully the NEXT overevolved animal finds some really kewl stuff of ours in their archeological digs.
next.
Posted by stinky on Feb 25, 2003 at 10:26 PM To the fools who claim we’re going to war with Iraq for oil: exactly how is bombing Saddam back to the Stone Age going to help us acquire oil? Here are some facts for you: 1) Less than 11% US oil imports come from the Persian Gulf. 2) Our top oil providers are Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Mexico, in that order. Hey, maybe we should just bomb Mexico so we can control their oil AND take care of the illegal immigration problem. Maybe Rashid and his warped view of the world actually believes that is the inevitable next step.
By the way, when the Iraqi people are thanking us for liberating them, be sure to pat yourselves on the back… oh wait, you’ll probably still be sitting on your hands…
Posted by Drews on Feb 28, 2003 at 1:07 AM I now am pretty sure that if Saddam had blown his brains out while being interviewed by Dan Rather, Bush would still be heading for war. Nevertheless when the war crimes tribunals begin, everyone should be tried who had anything to do with the WMD. No, not just the one who has them, but the ones who sold or gave them to him. Do we not believe that dealers should serve longer sentences than buyers? WMDs do much more harm than does cannabis, and the dealer gets more time than the buyer.
Posted by Dot Dedman on Mar 3, 2003 at 6:06 PM I think that the reason that Bush is going to war in Iraq are
1) Control of Iraq’s oil
2) Create an American Empire
3) Distract our attention from the real problems at home mainly the ecomomy
4) An excuse to encrease military spending at the expense of education and social spending
5) To further subvert and undermine civil-liberties as was done in the USA-PATRIOT Act
Posted by Michael S. Smith on Mar 18, 2003 at 6:19 PM All I have to say is look at the U.S. relationship with China/Japan in WWII, look at Vietnam/Cold War and the answers are clear as to why this war is persued/going on
Posted by Giles on Apr 13, 2004 at 10:44 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Rashid Khalidi
- Fallujah 101
A history lesson about the town we are currently destroying. - No Justice, No Peace
The battle for Baghdad may be over, but the war is only getting more dangerous - Attack Iraq?
The real reasons and the likely consequences of the next war
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
