---

Total Jackass wrote:

I appreciate that Winston has risked Carpal Tunnel to expand upon his ideas, which I had not previously been able to derive.

Maybe I've just been immersed in that kind of stuff too long. I thought they were obvious points. I guess it's good that I know what I need to make clear in the future.

Concerns present before 9/11 and still true today:

There you go using that "true" word again. If something is true — in the sense of "true" that merits and armed invasion — you should be able to find some evidence supporting it.

• Saddam continues to hide and stockpile chemical, biological, and conventional weapons.

Status: Lie

This "information" is only available from known liars. Furthermore, it is contradicted by the most authoritative possible source:

• Saddam continues his quest for nuclear weapons.

Status: Lie

Again, brought to you by the People Who Lie.

• Saddam continues his quest for nuclear weapons.

Status: Lie

• Saddam continues to direct his country's resources -- significant because of the oil revenues -- towards the procurement of these weapons.

(see above)

• Saddam has no interest in allowing inspectors to do the only thing that inspectors are equipped to do -- that being verifying that a country is disarming.

(see above)

• Saddam runs a police state whose cornerstone for compliance is torture.

Status: True

The same is true of: Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Israeli Occupied Territories. I care about police states that use torture, and because I care I'm not going to allow the issue to be cynically co-opted by the Bush Petrocracy.

If Saddam's Iraq is a "Police State," then what are we?

• The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Iraq's prisons are virtually empty.


• In 1970, the combination of crime and political executions made it the most "deadly" year in Iraq's history. The murder rate — again, including political executions — was still lower than the murder rate in the US today.

Describe what constitutes a "police state." It should make for a nice introduction to the USA PATRIOT act.

For the last time (hopefully): If I believed that our intervention in Iraq would make things better (even accidentally), I would support it. It didn't last time, and I haven't seen a credible argument that it will this time. There's no democratic regime ready to take over. The closest thing is KDP-controlled Kurdish areas and there's already so much ugliness brewing there that I've lost all hope. If the Turks don't extend their reign of US-approved murder and torture into the area, then the Kurds will create their own. A few weeks ago, Kurds attacked a group of Assyrians in Kirkuk. Their offense? Building a church. Oh yeah, things are lookin' up for Iraq. Send in the Marines!

Concerns amplified since 9/11:

If your level of concern for any of these issues changed at all on 9/11, then it just shows that you weren't paying attention. The 1½ years since that date have not been conducive to a passive acquisition of actual understanding.

See above, again. "Saddam continues his quest for nuclear weapons," is something George Bush and Friends say on CNN. They have cited two general source: IAEA officials, who have publically reiterated that Bush's claims are the exact opposite of theirs and that they are based on forged, vaporous, or otherwise manufactured "evidence." This has been pointed out to you over, and over, and over, and over, and over.

Just tell me, Jackass, because I need closure on this: are you really, really stupid, or just basically dishonest? Or is there a new "Post-9/11" rationale that makes the tireless repetition of discreditted assertions acceptable?

• Weapons of such destruction in the hands of tyrants who support terrorist tactics generate such a threat that the cost of inaction is greater threat than that of action.

Well, I figured that we should wait until 2004 and remove Bush from office peacefully, but you do raise a good point.

• Bush is a tyrant.
• He has supported terrorist tactics.
• His regime does posses nuclear weapons.
• Bush has threatened to use them, even without the provocation of a nuclear threat.
• In 1945, the US struck two civilian targets with nuclear weapons, in admitted act of terrorism (The US was at war, but chose to hit non-military targets, placing it in material breach of binding international resolutions, and it did so to deliberately cause terror amongst non-combatants &Mdash; something that obviously calls for a pre-emptive strike, like, say, a bombing raid on Pearl Harbor. Oh, it's all so clear to me now...)

Yeah, that seems pretty dire. Oh wait, we were talking about Iraq. Sometimes I get confused. I agree with this statement. We should definitely address threats. Let's check on that:
Perhaps you might find Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity more credible. These are ex-CIA guys who opposed the invasion. That's right, some of the same people who've overthrown legitimate democracies and installed brutal dictators for over 50 years oppose this war. These are not peaceniks or bleeding-hearts. These are spooks who know where the bodies are buried. Here's their statement:

http://www.counterpunch.org/vips02082003.html

• Saddam will only throw bones at teams of disarmament inspectors, even with the imminent threat of hundreds of thousands of troops poised to take him out.

Oh, well, Saddam throws bones at everybody, Jackass. He's got such an abundant supply of them, thanks to the 500,000 - 1,000,000 deaths inflicted on the citizens of Iraq (who, last time I checked, were not evil tyrants).

But you're right, it certainly is hard to believe that he's not complying with the inspections process when he's got Mechanized Death breathing staring him in the face. I mean, I found it hard to believe that the Iraqis weren't complying when with the inspections when the inspections teams said that the Iraqis were complying, but now that you mention this detail — yeah, only an idiot would believe that the Iraqis are hindering the inspections process.

So while the Bush Administration includes but downplays the oil-supply-stability issue, Winston makes this issue his central -- his only -- premise, insisting that the other concerns are spun out for p.r. purposes.

Yes. That is a completely true statement. Hurrah.

Many of [the historical] details [of previous oil-driven policy] may be true, and if so they do call into question the ethics of previous administrations. But making a case for guilt by association of G.W.Bush will not prove that his actions now are all about oil.

Dismissing my assertions as "guilt by association" is a new height of ignorance/duplicty for you, Jackass. It's just plain guilt. I don't have to associate these people with the lying, backstabbing, traiterous bastards who got us into this mess in 1991. They're the exact same people. Only the guy playing George Bush has changed. That's it. Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld — they're all back. It's like The Gulf War Reunion Special. All we need is a musical guest.

Instead, one only has to answer these two questions:

Why am I so sure that "one" has to do more than provide better answers than Jackass? He's like a creationist. If he has an answer, he declares victory, even if that answer is provably false.

1. If an administration has a single-minded focus on oil supply stabalization, then would they believe that military tactics were and are the most sure-fire way of obtaining this objective?
2. Do the other seven reasons for action I've listed above really matter to Bush, and to America?

I've tried to answer the first question by pointing out how, for Bush 41, all the money and resources and risks of oil wells being set ablaze doesn't seem to line up with Bush's alleged accomplishment of getting a single, large oil well transferred over to Kuwait.

It was a good try, too, Jackass, but a failed attempt.

Money and resources? Dick Cheney's Halliburton made a fortune rebuilding Kuwaiti and Iraqi oil production. If anything, the money and resources needed to fix the oil wells were incentive.

Risks? Heavily mitigated. Oil reserves, I pointed out. Also, consider the fact that Saudi Arabia can produce a sufficient supply on its own, but it's a risk. Long term strategy: diversify supplies. Short term strategy: Troops in Saudi Arabia. The official reason for those troops being there was to deter Saddam Hussein from invading Saudi Arabia, but there isn't one shred of evidence that he ever intended to. Instead, the evidence suggests that threat was invented for the purpose of getting the American and Saudi people to approve a US military presence in that country.

"Bush's alleged accomplishment of getting a single, large oil well tranferred over to Kuwait."

OK, Jackass, we speak English here, not Newspeak. First, it wasn't an alleged accomplishment, is was an actual accomplishment — unless you have evidence that this transfer didn't occur. "Single, large oil well" sounds pretty trivial, I admit, but an accurate description of the Rumaila asset is "the 2nd largest oil field in the world." It's like calling the Hope Diamond, "a piece of jewelry." Third, is wasn't the only accomplishment; Saddam Hussein and Iraq, the most powerful country on the Arabian peninsula that wasn't on a US leash, lost its autonomy. How convenient.

Do the other seven reasons for action I've listed above really matter to Bush, and to America?

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that the "seven reasons" matter to president Bush. I mean, they obviously matter in some way, because he's spent his entire presidency spouting a litany of duplicitous misrepresentations and blatant fabrications trying to get people to believe these "seven reasons." I think the well-documented campaign of deceit and propaganda makes it blindingly obvious that Bush doesn't "care" about these reasons in the sense of "he thinks they are genuine concerns."

As far as the American people go, yes, I believe they are genuinely concerned. That's why it angers me to see them lied to. If the American people have cause for concern, the cause should be addressed, and the concern remedied. If the concern is based on a lie, the remedy is exposing the lie. A widespread or sincere belief in a lie does not make it a truth.

Many Americans are concerned about gay people being school teachers because they believe the gay teachers will "recruit" children into "the homosexual lifestyle." Should we A) educate these well-meaning folks that people enter the "homosexual lifestyle" because they are sexually attracted to people of their own gender or B) persecute homosexuals by barring them from the teaching profession? If you picked B, then we should invade Iraq!

Finally, the opinion of the American people no longer matters. If you think it does, I have some unpleasant facts to introduce you do. Now, I've introduced you to a lot of facts already, and you've been very rude to them — snubbing them, and making fun of their hairstyles, and the like — and it's hurt their feelings. However, these are some particularly unpleasant facts, so I really don't care as much.

Similarly, Bush 43 is risking his entire Presidency on this crisis.

As opposed to risking it on:

• Not meeting any of his campaign promises on education
• Not meeting any of his promises on social security
• Not having a viable economic strategy
• Pushing through a tax cut for the rich in the middle of a weak economy.

I think the only other choice he has, besides Iraq, is risking his entire Presidency on a country music career and I don't think his singing voice is that good.

Including spending much of the past 5 months trying to get the rest of the U.N. Security Council to live up to the unanimously voted Resolution 1441.

Yeah! How many times do you have to lie to these people before they'll go along with you? Sheesh! What do they think we've been doing? Do they think we've just been massing troops on Iraq's border for an invasion we planned all along, while we fished for a plausible excuse that will get the UN to greenlight our attack?

He's waited and waited, giving Saddam opportunity to wire up all those 'production-stabalizing' wells, like he did the last time around.

I don't have my Newspeak dictionary handy. Does "waited" mean "lied"? And as far as Saddam blowing up oil wells: even if that's true, I'm sure Halliburton would be overjoyed to rebuild everything. In fact, the best place for a lot of Bush's cabinet to be in a couple years might be out of office and back in their oil companies where they can really get all the goodies they shook loose from the oil tree during these four years. And that's not all:
Cheney, Rumsfeld, as well as several wealthy Saudis connected to Al Qaeda are involved in Carlylse. I'd tell you to check it out, but they took down their web site when it started getting a lot of hits after 9/11. (I guess they figured that whole "web" fad was over.)

I've also tried to present, over all my previous emails, why these other seven reasons are so important for all free nations to act upon.

Here's a helpful tip: include supporting facts. You've done a fine job explaining why we should be worried about a country that would give WMDs to terrorists, but you haven't bothered to demonstrate that Iraq is likely to be one of those countries. Everything you write starts with an implicity "Assume that everything Bush says is true." That's a tough request. I've read a lot of articles in the last month and I honestly can't think of a single case where Bush hasn't lied.

Not one. I'm serious. If you can provide an example from the last year where Bush has made a significant statement regarding his personal beliefs and intentions, that is provably true, in its entirety, I'd like to know about it.

Ironically, I can cite you examples where Saddam Hussein was branded a liar, when he was telling the truth. For example, the reason the weapons inspections process broke down in 1998 was that Iraq, after 4 years of patiently waiting for the UN to act on their complaints, finally put its foot down and demanded an end to the US using the inspection mission as a cover for unauthorized covert activity. Of course, Saddam was called a liar and we made vigorous denials that any spying was being done under the cover of the inspections process.

But Saddam Hussein wasn't lying. We were spying, in violation of the agreement. Think about it. We're supposed to buy a lot of the hype because of what a big fat liar Saddam Hussein is, and he has a better record of honesty than George W. Bush. Amazing!

And now it seems we're on the eve of an invasion. I cannot at this time elaborate more on answering these two questions, and I doubt this newsgroup wants me to.

If by "elaborate" you mean "repeat more Bush administration fabrications," then no, we don't want you to. We can all get Fox News for ourselves.

I'm curious to know what events would have to transpire for Winston to admit that his judgment has been wrong.

Fair enough.

What if Iraqi citizens really do publicly express their appreciation for liberation?

Do you mean before or after CNN moves their crew to the next hotspot? In early 2002, we sure heard all kinds of success stories that proved that Bush did the Right Thing and that opponents of his Afghanistan strategy were wrong. I never changed my opinion. I looked pretty stupid in the glow of those early news reports. Of course, if you look at Afghanistan now, it's pretty much exactly what I predicted. Nobody's talking about it though, so I don't get the "I told you so" opportunities I so richly deserve.

I'm sure the Arabs cheered the conquering British soldiers in 1918. Read up on 1920.

Or if Saddam uses on our soldiers the chemical or biological weapons he has so often claimed he does not have?

What would that prove?

I never said that Saddam Hussein had no CBW, just that his stockpile wasn't a threat to us or his neighbors.

Here's a question for you, Jackass: if the US were invaded by an enemy army — in violation of international law — and the army was overrunning us by commiting blatent violations of the Geneva Convention, would it be acceptable to use our NBC weaponry to defend ourselves? I'm just curious, seeing as how you seem to have such a passion for bestowing Iraq with the same rights and freedoms America has. I assume that means the right to defend its borders against unprovoked and unauthorized attack.

We aren't attacking "Saddam Hussein." "Saddam Hussein" is not going to be firing any bullets and "Saddam Hussein" is not going to be launching any artillery, CBW or otherwise. There are 22 million other people in Iraq. Those are the people who will be killed by our forces. You're correct that Saddam Hussein has taken away most of their rights. Why are we the Good Guys when we take away what few they have left with no promise that they'll get any of them back?

Or if many more details about Iraq's nuclear weapons program come out?

If they're anything like the details that have been coming out steadily for the last 10 years, I think I'll be fine with it. I don't know what you think they're going to find, but I guess it doesn't matter, as you've shown a willingness to believe just about anything.

Or Iraq is caught harboring scores of known terrorists?

That's pretty vague. America harbors known terrorists. After WWII, more Nazi's ended up on the CIA payroll than on trial at Nuremburg. More to the point, Iraq is harboring known terrorist groups that operate in Turkey (PKK), Iran (MKO), and probably others. We have known SCIRI, IRA, and PLO members in the US, not to mention all the ex-Nazi's brought in by the Republicans over the years.

If Iraq is actively supporting Al Qaeda, I'd find that interesting.

I'm not saying that all these scenarios will come to pass. I'm just publicly wondering exactly how many things have to happen that fly in the face of his current world-view for Winston to eventually come to terms with his misjudgment of the Bush Administration's motives.

In 1991, when I told people that the Gulf War was really about oil, people said I was nuts, and that it was about liberating Kuwait. I can't believe anyone still clings to that illusion. Even the Reaganite Hawks weren't buying it at the time:
IF Iraq ends up with:

• A stable, independant, elected government,
• National control of its oil
• Return of territory "granted" to Kuwait
• Adequate national defense (no NBC weapons, though)

...I'll feel foolish. Frankly, I'd rather feel foolish than vindicated; it would be a small price to pay. On the other hand, if the hawks are responsible for hundreds of thousand more sick American veterans, the further degradation of the Iraqi people, years of regional conflict, or an increase in anti-American terrorism, they will have reason to feel deeply ashamed.

But if they had a capacity for shame, we'd live in a different world.

I, for one, agree to radically re-examine my own world view should a significant amount of the following occur: Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil reserves get moved into posession of U.S.-run energy companies.

This is already the case.

No further evidence of hidden Iraqi chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs surfaces.

You might want that to read "No further credible evidence". I know that credibility isn't a requirement for you yet, but I'm urging you to join us on the "reality" bandwagon. There's plenty of room, seeing as how so few American's are on board.

Scientists freed from Saddam's threats of torture do not give grizzly details of Saddam's Modus Operandi, up through and including his threats to them about cooperating with the recent "inspections process."

What has that got to do with anything? Why don't you add "Saddam turns out not to have a mustache." Saddam Hussein committed his worst atrocities under the watchful gaze of the Reagan Administration, which had normalized relations in 1984. The Reagan Administration sold him the chemicals to make his nerve gas and gave him intelligence data so he'd know where to deploy it. Why is it suddenly a burning issue? We had our opportunities to take the moral high ground and we passed on all of them. This is the same group of people that was responsible before, Alan. Not "Republicans" but the exact same individuals.

The U.S. and its allies do not devote major effort to building a peaceful representative government in Iraq.

Well, Jackass, of course they have to build the peaceful representative government in Iraq before they can run it. Don't worry, I'm sure all the oil companies will have full representation!

No officially approved harboring of terrorists within Iraq's borders are uncovered.

I doubt Henry Kissinger will set foot there.

And finally, if the Iraqi people, who have genuine reason to be suspicious of America's intentions, don't show a similar amount of the same appreciation that has been shown for our recent efforts to spread freedom in the former Communist Bloc, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, and in Afghanistan.

I have no doubt, that a similar amount of appreciation for American efforts is forthcoming.

Winston has written, somewhat cryptically, in an earlier posting:

"A lot of people like Fascist rule. It makes a lot of stuff simpler.

"Like, usually, you don't have to remember when the Jewish holidays are anymore."

Regarding the first sentence, I'm of the optimistic bend. And I think that even with decades of living under tyranny, people yearn to be free.

How free? Jean Kirkpatrick coined a distinction between "totalitarian" and "authoritarian" and the only actual difference is that totalitarian regimes are evil and poor, and authoritarian regimes are prosperous and not too evil to ally with. Iraq became a decent place to live for the first time in its history in the first 10 years of Ba'ath Party rule. It wasn't a free place by any stretch of the imagination. There were plenty of human rights abuses, but things were easing up as the economy improved. While the Shah of Iran was squandering his nation's wealth, Saddam Hussein was building roads and hospitals and schools. When Saddam Hussein because President in 1979, he was relatively popular. There were all sorts of reasons why his popularity would wane over the years, but we've eclipsed most of them.

The Shi'a Muslims in the south were really pissed off when his expelled Ayatollah Khomeini in 1977, and had another Ayatollah put to death in 1980. After years of brutal war with their Shi'a brothers in Iran, and then the betrayal of the rebellion by the Americans in 1991, the Shi'ite Iraqis are widely convinced that, warts and all, Saddam Hussien isn't such a bad deal. He has certainly done better for them than we ever have.

I know you think we will do better for them. Even if we really, really wanted to, they might not give us the chance.

I'm not sure where Winston is going with the second sentence

People support authoritarian figures to make them feel safe. The tent is usually not a big one and some group always gets shafted — and the Jews have had more than their share of turns as shaftee. Still, no one seems to mind as long as it's not them and "The trains run on time."

Saddam, who fancies himself as the reincarnation of Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar, surrendered Gulf War I on Purim 12 years ago. Tonight, on Purim, he gets perhaps his final opportunity to spare many of his people from the consequences of his actions.

The actions that have devestated Iraq were ours, not his.

I pray he takes it.

He doesn't have any options, Alan. He didn't last time, he doesn't this time. The policy is, and has been since 1991, "Regime Change." The weapons crap is just window dressing. Starting soon, hundreds of thousands more innocent, non-combatant Iraqs will be blown apart by US ordinance with cool-sounding names.

We'll all watch on TV.

And as the piles of smouldering bodies light up our video displays, millions of ignorant, deluded, self-important, smug assholes will shake their heads and go, "Why did Saddam let this happen?"

If you're going to pray for something, I suggest you pray it's not as bad in Hell as they say it is.