catapult magazine

Now that there seem to be no chemical weapons in Iraq, we’re told that they’re in Syria. Is Syria next? Where will Syria move their chemical weapons to if they are invaded? Iran? I can’t believe the American people will buy this shit. Why does nobody ask questions about American chemical weapons? We have huge stashes—and then we act surprised when we find gas masks in Iraqi trenches. Can anyone explain to me why America still has chemical weapons (in violation of international law of course)?

Obviously, Dan, it takes longer than 6 months to get rid of chemical weapons. The distinction here, however, are the various facilities both myself and Jason (thanks for the detailed info, by the way) have talked about that are dedicated to the elimination of these weapons in the U.S.

Where are such facilities in Iraq?

What I’m looking for is indication of intention and progression towards destroying those weapons. I see none of that in Iraq.

Mr. Blix thought he was seeing progress, but what does he know? The CIA knows more and we should trust them.

Now that is a quintessentially snotty comment, don’t you think?

Hans Blix also expressed frustration with Saddam’s regime for not being helpful enough. In a Time Magazine interview before the war, Blix expressed doubts that his team would make much further progress with more time—I know Time Magazine is an American journal, but many of Blix’s comments were direct quotations, so I’m taking their word for it. : )

I don’t think you’re being arrogant or snotty, Dan. But why do you consistently assume Americans, as a whole, are unquestioning when it comes to their government’s spin on things? It’s my experience that American people often have their antennae raised pretty high, looking for inconsistencies and asking for proof (after all, aren’t we the country that produced Art Bell—is Matt Drudge an American?). Why do you choose to take this angle that Americans are dooped by their government rather than accept the fact that many Americans have weighed the arguments and have decided that the war in Iraq is worth supporting? Why do you suspect Americans (who have as much-if not more-access to media sources as any other country) of naivete over and against the peoples of Syria or Russia—nations whose own media presents a very heavy-handed slant, in some cases ignoring historically important news items altogether?

Again, I apologize that my tone has been such. Concerning the CIA comment, grant, I was referencing a comment from someone before the war started that if the CIA says there are WMD in Iraq, they must know something we don’t know, so we should trust the CIA rather than the weapons inspectors. That one, at least, is straight out of the mouth of the horse, so to speak.

As you noted, I’m frustrated that such a high percentage of Americans believe the rhetoric of this administration. And frankly, I don’t understand why. There is the possibility grant mentions that Americans have weighed all their options and made a rational choice, but it’s got to be more than that. Supporting the troops when you’re against the war is not rational. It might be a legitimate stance to take, but it doesn’t make much sense. I feel Americans have been bullied into supporting the war, the conditions for which were created by the Bush administration. It was not Hussein who escalated the tensions in the last year but Bush. It was not the desert’s fault that it was getting really hot in Kuwait, and the invasion had to happen in April. So all the hurry was artificial. There was time for diplomacy. But diplomacy was never on the table. I feel Bush has capitalized on America’s feelings of 9/11 to attack Iraq. It feels good just to be doing something, right? To get rid of some Arab dictator even if he bears no responsiblity for 9/11. I’m simplifying things here, but my point is that this is not a very rational affair.

I understand that it’s nice to free the Iraqi people, but I don’t understand why Americans can’t see the duplicity of so much of it. By the admission of the members of the administration, this invasion is only tangentially related to the well-being of the Iraqi people—it is about American interests. Did anyone read the manifesto posted by Adam a month ago or so? It says nothing about the freedom and prosperity of non-Americans. The objective is American freedom and prosperity.

I dug the link up for you: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
signed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al.

That is what I feel so many American’s don’t see or don’t want to see. It is MORALLY nicer to think about freeing Iraqis than to think about all the money that will come back to America as a result of this in the coming years. It is so much nicer to think that Bush is right and that he is really doing this for the benefit of the Iraqi people, than to think that there might have been good reasons for the hesitancy of most of the security council.

The biggest lie of the administration was to somehow insinuate a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Call me condescending if you will, but in this, I believe Americans have been truly deceived, if I am to believe the polls. In reality Hussein opposed Islamic fundamentalists, especially Bin Laden; and Bin Ladin hates secular Arab rulers, especially Saddam Hussein. There are other good reasons to invade Iraq, but how can anyone believe this one?

So, you say the Iraqi people are free now regardless of the interests of the Washington hawks. True, but like I’ve said many times, what I cannot imagine is a world essentially ruled by Washington—not necessarily by military force, but also by other types of pressure. This notion does not seem to bother Americans much, even though the serves eventually to undermine the freedom of the non-American world. Correct me if I’m wrong. This is why I’m always trying to introduce how “the rest of the world” might feel about this. Because I feel Americans are often intentionally or unintentionally unaware of the good ideas that exist outside the borders of the USA. The wide diversity of sources for current events in the United States are famously meager in covering foreign affairs and especially foreign perspectives.

Another beef I have, as you know, is that the administration constantly criticises multi-lateral organizations it can’t dominate as being ineffective—truly, they do become ineffective when the United States jumps ship, and Bush’s words become true. The indifference of the American people to their government’s international cowboy swagger, as it is often referred to in Europe, is disturbing to me.

So there’s my bit. Now I’m sure I’ve offended everyone here. laurencer, you can kick me off if the FBI is causing you any trouble for my sake :)

Here’s an article about the terrorist American special forces picked up in Iraq yesterday.
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030416.uabba0416_2/BNStory/International

One doesn’t normally invade a country to capture a guy who had a role in comandeering a ship in 1985, and has since said he regrets having done it. So instead of assuming anything or generalizing, I’ll ask the question: Isn’t the administration being deceitful in pretending this guy is somehow Al Qaida-related and that his capture helps to create a more secure America?

Saddam is a notorious supporter of violence against Westerners and Israelis. Rewarding $10,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Believing someone like Saddam should be allowed to rule any country is outrageous to me.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030321/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_palestinian_gaza_1

I’d rather talk about the uninformed public though. On both sides of almost any issue you will find a combination of well-informed individuals and sheep. Both sides tend to assume the opposing side is comprised mostly of the later.

This has been very true about this war. Anti-war types sees only the Rush Limbaugh disciples and gun-toting rednecks that would rather carpet bomb Iraq than waste time protecting civilians and those who support the war see the other side as a bunch of intellectuals that believe Europe is superior in thought to America on every issue or those or rainbow screwing hippies that believe military action is never necessary in any situation.

(I just edited this message to make the link clickable)

Concerning the United States deciding that Hussein is too outrageous to rule a country: There are plenty of other leaders around the world who we should be outraged about. Let’s get them all, especially the ones in places that have no strategic interest to America. That would prove that this is truly a philanthropic affair designed to win hearts and minds.

motorhappy, you’re right that uninformed and well-informed people are on both sides. Maybe that’s not the issue then. Maybe it just doesn’t bother Americans that the world is now a world where their country calls the shots and can act with impunity. I guess this perspective makes sense since American power benefits American citizens. It just means that you/I have to get used to being hated. Next 9/11 will illicit less sympathy, I’m guessing.

Seems to me that much of the anti-US sentiment is not in reaction to us doing evil things, but much more to the fact that we are such an individualist nation. The Kyoto accords are a good example of that. Comprimizing a little for the benefit of the world community would not have hurt us much, but would have helped the world a great deal. We didn’t comprimize, though, because we didn’t have to. We are the big country with the power so we can do whtever we feel like.

I love my country and I love the good things it has done for the world, but I wish we would be a bit more community minded — more like a world leader than a cowboy riding off alone.

Dan – So, what about in 1999, when Canada continued its commercial operations in Sudan and turned a blind eye to the Khartoum regime’s atrocities … when Talisman Energy, Inc., of Calgary, fueled the war in Sudan by undermining U.S. efforts to isolate the Muslim fundamentalist government in Khartoum? Canada was exploiting Sudan’s oilfields with the help of this Muslim extremist regime. Refused to put sanctions on the country.

And what’s up with Canada taking on this identity of “peacekeeping,” when as of January 2003, Canada ranked 31st in contributions to UN Peacekeeping missions. This puts Canada behind countries like Ireland, Fiji and Nepal. Huh? The largest Canadian contributions to international peacekeeping have been in the Balkans, where it’s NATO that’s responsible for stabilizing the former Yugoslavia, not the UN.

I don’t understand the huge chip on some people’s shoulders, just because America is the topic du jour. The war discussion is overly-vehement and anti-American on one side. I sincerely don’t believe anyone who offers up any words of defense for the United States takes such an offensive (I mean that in two ways) stance. I’m tired of being on the defensive. So, let’s talk about Canada for awhile, Dan.

mrsanniep, I could add to your list of Canadian sins. I live here, so I know. But what’s your point? Last time I checked, it wasn’t Canada that invaded Iraq. Which is why we were having this discussion.