From the Teen Mania discussion board. Quoted text in bold.
LukeK:
Anyhow I can understand your disbelief of the proof for war. I think there is quite a bit of evidence that the government is not showing the public or the media due to it's sensitive nature.
This is a very poor excuse; it reminds me of the rationale given by some people of why the government hasn't confirmed that UFO's exist.
If such evidence existed, there is no excuse for it to be withheld from the U.N., since that is the body responsible for enforcing its own resolutions - not the US through unilateral action. Not to mention, that that would probably taken care of this little problem of few countries believing the US claims. Releasing that information (if it existed) would place our country at a great advantage compared to the current situation.
Mr. Hussein has already proven that he was in violation of UN mandates. He used 6 SCUD missles yesterday and today, which he already denied possession of.
Citation, please. Just so you know, I've been sitting in front of a TV running CNN for the past two days, sporadically watching MSNBC and BBC World, and scanning the wires and tens of news sources online. So let's go put "scud" in the Google news search engine, and see what references to the current war come out...
Apart from the few small-town papers that are making the same mistake that you are, there has been no mention of these 6 "Scud" missles. Despite the colloquial usage of the word I've heard of among Kuwaitis and soldiers, all missles used by Iraq are not "scud" missles, nor are all missiles banned by UN resolution. As was noted recently before the war began, Iraq is permitted to have missiles with a range of less than 150 km, leading to the destruction of some missles that violated that limit in tests. Television coverage of one of the missiles that landed in the Kuwaiti desert specifically showed and mentioned that it was a rather crude, short-range homegrown missile which Iraq is allowed to possess.
The Los Angeles Times also reported that the claim that a Scud was launched at Kuwait was withdrawn.
The fact is that the UN does not back up it's own resolutions leaving other countries to do the dirty work for them.
Gulf War I was one of many counterexamples. Perhaps you can be forgiven if you're too young to clearly remember that. I personally remember staying in a hotel full of French soldiers in Riyadh at the time, and bumping into personnel from a whole bunch of countries there, working closely with U.S. Central Command.
It's not like that this time; why not?
France is not just a 'fair-weather friend', they are absolutely set on counteracting ANYTHING the US does regardless of the resolution's actual merits.
I would be most interested in how you support this claim. To me, it's much more likely that the French are much more familiar with dealing with the Arab world, are understanding of the culture and the pitfalls of military involvement there, and are simply not willing to go along with an action without firm evidence both that the UN resolution is being violated and that going to war is a necessary and effective way of dealing with the situation.
This is exactly the time when our leaders should be listening to, and not condemning European leaders who just might know what they're talking about. Unfortunately what the Europeans say is inconvenient, and stands in the way of plans that have been cooking for years, as have the UN inspectors, to the point that they've been cast in the media, in one case, as incompetent perverts.
As for the theory of metaphor and it's applicability here, I'll say this: your insistence that "6 scud missiles" were launched and violate the agreement is an expression of the "Saddam as nefarious villain" metaphor, in which Saddam *must* be guilty of violating *every* agreement *all* the time. The facts will always diverge from this cartoonish image, and the assumptions based on that image will at times be wrong, since cartoons shouldn't be confused with real life.
As for Powell's speech and PowerPoint presentation before the Security Council, I saw it live, and it left me saying, "you gotta be kidding - is that all he's got to show?" That was supposed to be a justification for war, and it didn't stack up to that level.
Posted by Mike Doughney at March 22, 2003 04:14 AM | TrackBackOriginal Post:
The fact is that the UN does not back up it's own resolutions leaving other countries to do the dirty work for them.
Michael's Response:
Gulf War I was one of many counterexamples. Perhaps you can be forgiven if you're too young to clearly remember that. I personally remember staying in a hotel full of French soldiers in Riyadh at the time, and bumping into personnel from a whole bunch of countries there, working closely with U.S. Central Command.
It's not like that this time; why not?
My Response to Michael:
I was in the USAF at the time of the Gulf War, and while I didn't have the pleasure of going to the Gulf, I do know a few things about why we where there and with whom.
First of all, we were NOT there as UN forces. We were NOT there as NATO forces. We were there as US forces with a wide spectrum of allies who supported our cause to get Saddam out of Kuwait.
So, what's different this time? Saddam hasn't directly bullied any one, that's the number one reason our allies from the last war are not supporting us on this one.
Does this change the fact that Saddam has NOT complied with the cease fire treaty? No. Does this alter the fact that Saddam has not complied with numerous UN resolutions since the cease fire? No.
We have to ask ourselves a couple of questions. One is at what point does belonging to a treaty organization like the UN stop being of a benefit to us? When, the organization says that they will help the people of the planet, and then do nothing about it? What good is an organization that does that? Every year at Halloween, children in this country collect money for UNICEF, yet where was the UN in the civil war in Seirra Leone? Children were kidnapped and forced to carry weapons for the rebels and to act as human shields for the rebels. Where was the UN in the genocide action in Rwanda? Where was the UN when warlords in Somalia stole food sent for the children of that famine ravaged country?
The only UN action that we have been involved in lately was in Bosnia, and the UN screwed that up so badly that control was transferred to NATO. NATO was the orginaztion that captured Pres. Slobadan Milosovich and turned him over to the World Court for trial for Acts agianst Humanity.
The second question we have to ask ourselves, is do we, as Americans, have the guts to stand up and say, "this is wrong" and then follow up our words--not with more empty threats (like the French), but with action. Even if it means American lives will be lost. Even if it means that we lose a few "fair weather friends". Even if it means a cost of Billions of dollars. I would much rather live in a country where our government says what it does, and does what it says. I am proud to live in America where the government's morals are the same as my own.
Posted by: Kevin Clayborn on March 25, 2003 11:29 AMSee my response to this comment.
Posted by: Mike Doughney on March 26, 2003 10:42 PMIf there is a European country that should have faith that invading forces are in Iraq to liberate (and not pillage and steal), it should be France.
If Germany and Russia take an Anti-US stance, we expect that from old enemies who might be a little friendlier over time. We can shrug them off as doing just what we might expect. If England had turned against us, that too would have been easier to take. The US never had to invade England to deliver it back to it's citizens.
But France is different. And had France just announced it's Anti-war attitude, and left it at that, it might be easier to take. But there are dirty little secrets.
1. France used the threat of non-acceptance into the EU to get Turkey to not allow the US to take the Northern route into Iraq. Would lives have been saved? Maybe. But a determined and active series of efforts directly against US intent. That seems much more cold and calculating.
What would it take for the US to do the same thing to France? Wouldn't that be seen by French people as a virtual act of cold war?
2. France's own rightist Le Pen, and his wife are friends of Saddam. Let me say that another way -- the standout nationalist of French politics still, today, are expressing their enjoyment of their friendship with Saddam Hussain.
3. The "No Blood For Oil" anti-war chant appears to apply to French relationships with Iraq far more than with US relationships with Iraq. What is up with that? French involvement with Iraq has been active and profitable for France. France has benefitted highly from the Food For Oil program, essentially getting a non-market price for what it wanted.
4. The Anti-War marchers are not all the peace proponents that they first appear to be on American TV. There are Anti-US folks in the crowd, who want violence, but they want it imposed on the US. There are others who wish harm to Jews, no matter where they live -- in France no less!! There were the flags of Palestine and Iraq in those peace marches. I had to switch to Euro-News to see them.
5. The desecration of the graves. The bloodying of the eyes of the Lady Liberty replica. Regular Americans, many who don't have more than a few years of high school, are reviled by these symbols. The graves desecration is the only action on the above list that the President or anyone apologizing for.
There is something France is not telling the US. It would be much better for this old, and seemingly broken, friendship, if the French would just start getting honest and telling their old ex-friends about what the motivation is and what the French goals are.
The bland pap that the President and the politicians are speaking doesn't fit with the way the government has acted. None of it explains why the large marches, carrying all of the horrible anti-semetic and anti-us baggage, is happening. Are the true peace lovers so low in number or are they so weak they cannot expel the miscreants? Or maybe the true peace lovers have found their friends? Better that France and the French people tell the Americans just what these motivations are.
I wonder where the French Partisans of 50 years ago would stand on this issue. Would they see the US as Hitler? Or would they see Saddam as Hitler?
Partisan
When they poured across the border
I was cautioned to surrender,
this I could not do;
I took my gun and vanished.
I have changed my name so often,
I`ve lost my wife and children
but I have many friends,
and some of them are with me.
An old woman gave us shelter,
Kept us hidden in the garret,
then the soldiers came;
she died without a whisper.
There were three of us this morning
I`m the only one this evening
but I must go on;
the frontiers are my prison.
Oh, the wind, the wind is blowing,
through the graves the wind is blowing,
freedom soon will come;
then we`ll come from the shadows.
The Germans were at my home
They said, "Sign yourself,"
But I am not afraid
I have retaken my soul.
I`ve changed names a hundred times
I have lost wife and children
But I have so many friends
I have all of France
An old man, in an attic
Hid us for the night
The Germans captured him
He died without surprise.
Oh, the wind, the wind is blowing,
through the graves the wind is blowing,
freedom soon will come;
then we`ll come from the shadows.