This War Will Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism

[Brad]

From The Onion:

Point-Counterpoint: The War On Iraq

This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism

By Nathan Eckert

George W. Bush may think that a war against Iraq is the solution to our problems, but the reality is, it will only serve to create far more.

This war will not put an end to anti-Americanism; it will fan the flames of hatred even higher. It will not end the threat of weapons of mass destruction; it will make possible their further proliferation. And it will not lay the groundwork for the flourishing of democracy throughout the Mideast; it will harden the resolve of Arab states to drive out all Western (i.e. U.S.) influence.

If you thought Osama bin Laden was bad, just wait until the countless children who become orphaned by U.S. bombs in the coming weeks are all grown up. Do you think they will forget what country dropped the bombs that killed their parents? In 10 or 15 years, we will look back fondly on the days when there were only a few thousand Middle Easterners dedicated to destroying the U.S. and willing to die for the fundamentalist cause. From this war, a million bin Ladens will bloom.

And what exactly is our endgame here? Do we really believe that we can install Gen. Tommy Franks as the ruler of Iraq? Is our arrogance and hubris so great that we actually believe that a U.S. provisional military regime will be welcomed with open arms by the Iraqi people? Democracy cannot possibly thrive under coercion. To take over a country and impose one's own system of government without regard for the people of that country is the very antithesis of democracy. And it is doomed to fail.

A war against Iraq is not only morally wrong, it will be an unmitigated disaster.

No It Won't

By Bob Sheffer

No it won't.

It just won't. None of that will happen.

You're getting worked up over nothing. Everything is going to be fine. So just relax, okay? You're really overreacting.

"This war will not put an end to anti-Americanism; it will fan the flames of hatred even higher"?

It won't.

"It will harden the resolve of Arab states to drive out all Western (i.e. U.S.) influence"?

Not really.

"A war against Iraq is not only morally wrong, it will be an unmitigated disaster"?

Sorry, no, I disagree.

"To take over a country and impose one's own system of government without regard for the people of that country is the very antithesis of democracy"?

You are completely wrong.

Trust me, it's all going to work out perfect. Nothing bad is going to happen. It's all under control.

Why do you keep saying these things? I can tell when there's trouble looming, and I really don't sense that right now. We're in control of this situation, and we know what we're doing. So stop being so pessimistic.

Look, you've been proven wrong, so stop talking. You've had your say already.

Be quiet, okay? Everything's fine.

You're wrong.

[theshark8777]

Even though it did come from the Onion, I agree with what most of the first argument. I think it very well may destablize the middle east, and could make more Arabs mad at us. I mean it's policy like this that got us in this mess in the first place.

[TJL]

Originally posted by theshark8777
I think it very well may destablize the middle east, and could make more Arabs mad at us.

Like they weren't pissed off at us before?

[theshark8777]

Thats why I said more...

[Brad]

I wasn't trying to start a debate with this post (but I should have probably expected one). I was just posting it because it's funny. Here's another funny Onion article.

Bush Bravely Leads 3rd Infantry Into Battle



Above: A weary Bush marches through enemy
territory near the Iraq-Kuwait border.

IRAQ-KUWAIT BORDER—As the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division began its ground assault on Iraq Monday, President Bush marched alongside the front-line soldiers, bravely putting his own life on the line for his country by personally participating in the attack.

"Bush is the real deal, and when he talks about fighting for freedom, he means it," said Pvt. Tom Scharpling, 21. "He'd never ask one of us grunts to take any risks for our country that he wasn't willing to take himself."

According to reports from the front, many of the soldiers were initially suspicious of the president, doubtful that an Ivy Leaguer who once used powerful family connections to avoid service in Vietnam had what it took to face enemy fire head-on. However, Bush—or, as his fellow soldiers nicknamed him in a spirit of battlefield camaraderie, 'Big Tex'—quickly overcame the platoon's reluctance to having a "fancy-pants Yalie" in its ranks.

"Bush is the best soldier I've ever had the honor of fighting alongside," said Pvt. Jon Benjamin, 23. "I'd take a bullet for that man, because I know he'd take one for me if he had to."

Proving himself a worthy foot soldier, Bush has earned the respect of his fellow front-line combatants with acts of courage and heroism that one soldier called "a truly inspiring example of one man's commitment to the cause of liberty."

"Just yesterday, George stormed an Iraqi machine-gun nest when our sergeant took one in the belly," Pvt. Scott "Lumpy" Fellers, 20, told reporters. "We were pinned down, cut off from our division, and it looked like curtains for us all. Thankfully, George was there. He ran through heavy artillery fire and lobbed a grenade right into their bunker. If it hadn't been for him, God knows how many of us would've been coming home in body bags."

"It's not just any president who would risk his life like the nation's men in uniform do," Fellers added. "God bless him and everything he stands for."

Bush's courage, sources say, was evident from the earliest stages of the war's planning. Though the Pentagon initially wanted an air war with minimal ground combat, Bush quickly dismissed this strategy, insisting that the only way a true and lasting victory could be achieved was to go in and fight—dune by dune, village by village—until Iraq was finally free.

White House sources say Bush's decision to place his own life on the line for his country met with resistance from top military leaders.

"The Joint Chiefs of Staff kept telling him, 'Mr. President, we beg you—stay here in Washington, where it's safe.' But George was having none of it," said Maj. Gen. Buford Blount, commander of the 3rd Infantry. "He was adamant that if our boys overseas were going to risk their lives for liberty, he was going to do the same. And, by God, he proved himself a man of his word."

The president has only been in battle for less than a week, but he has already proven himself more than willing to put himself in the line of fire.

"The president carried me through an enemy minefield after my arm had been blown off by a mortar shell, blazing away with his pistol as he delivered me to safety," Pvt. Chris Adair said. "Then, after he'd gotten me to a medic, he went all the way back through that same minefield—carrying a 40-pound bag of ice the whole way—to retrieve my severed arm so the doctors could sew it back on. Now, thanks to President Bush, I'll still be able to play piano for the church choir back home in Appleton, just like I promised Grandma. He is truly an American hero."

Adair's comments were echoed by many of the soldiers fighting alongside Bush.

"I used to be cynical about politicians who are born into privilege and wealth. I thought, 'Sure, they talk a good game about our duty to protect democracy, but when push comes to shove, they'd rather send off the nation's poor, uneducated, and underprivileged to do the fighting for them,'" said Pvt. Frank Elkins, 19. "I always figured they'd rather see somebody else die in some foreign land than make that sacrifice themselves. But now I know I was wrong."

"There may be some folks out there, born silver spoon in hand, who'd act that way, but that ain't Bush. No, that ain't Bush," Elkins said. "He ain't no fortunate son."

[Fleet]

Originally posted by AKA
I wasn't trying to start a debate with this post (but I should have probably expected one). I was just posting it because it's funny. Here's another funny Onion article.

Bush Bravely Leads 3rd Infantry Into Battle

What's really funny is I keep thinking back to Clinton. If he was in that picture, he would be running in the opposite direction.
Back to the U.S.! At least Bush actually did serve (in the Air National Guard); the only one Clinton served was Monica Lewinsky!

[Janice]

Originally posted by Fleet
the only one Clinton served was Monica Lewinsky!

How soon we forget. There was Gennifer Flowers, the other one I can't remember, the Paula Jones deal...etc, etc.
He was one horny toad.

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Fleet

What's really funny is I keep thinking back to Clinton. If he was in that picture, he would be running in the opposite direction.
Back to the U.S.! At least Bush actually did serve (in the Air National Guard); the only one Clinton served was Monica Lewinsky!

I imagine your anti-clinton stance is getting just as annoying to me as my anti-Bush is getting to you.

I agree that the War in Iraq will only serve to anger more muslims and bring more terrorist sentiment crashing down on us. I can't understand the way George W Bush's mind works. What has he told himself that would make him believe the world would be safer if saddam were dead?


A little worthy note: Before the US attacked Iraq, the opinion of Saddam in the Middle East was that he was a tyrant and a loser. Now, to many, he is a hero for standing up to a Super Power! His legend will live long after his death.
Most Iarqis have no love for Saddam. But they have no love for the US, either. Think about it.

[brownsocks]

i think this will harden arab hatred for the west i mean they came and killed a bunch of peoples parents in pointless acts of terror now all those children of the men and wemon who died will grow up hating all arabs and with good reason to hate a few but they won't realize that it wasn't all of them just like irai's will think about he west

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Max Whittaker
I imagine your anti-clinton stance is getting just as annoying to me as my anti-Bush is getting to you.

>>>>There is a difference. Clinton had dozens of scandals to deal with. He made a world-wide embarrasment of the United States. He bombed countries to divert attention from his 40 scandals. In other words, (trying to) defend Clinton is a waste of energy because he is obviously corrupt (maybe that's why he was disbarred).>>>>

I agree that the War in Iraq will only serve to anger more muslims and bring more terrorist sentiment crashing down on us. I can't understand the way George W Bush's mind works. What has he told himself that would make him believe the world would be safer if saddam were dead?

>>>>Not just Saddam, but the al Qaeda operating in Iraq. In fact, just yesterday I heard this: (From the State Dep't)... Iraqi intelligence officials planned terrorist attacks against U.S. interests in foreign countries. Not only would the world will be safer when Saddam is dead, so will Iraqi citizens.>>>>

Most Iarqis have no love for Saddam. But they have no love for the US, either. Think about it.

>>>>When we liberate Iraq, the Iraqis will be VERY grateful, just like the people in Afghanistan appreciate that the U.S. liberated them. Some Iraqi P.O.W.'s are saying they are glad that the U.S. is going in to take out Saddam. Other Iraqi P.O.W.'s said to the U.S. soldiers, to quote, "what took you so long." That does not sound like they don't like the U.S.! If Saddam isn't removed, he will just keep on killing more Iraqis.>>>>

[Max Whittaker]

Sure, Fleet. Of course the Iraqi people will be grateful for us liberating them. I'm sure we will be thanked a dozen times over... on the first day. But what happens on the "second day", so to speak? When we move on to conquer Iran or North Korea, they will feel that we once again betrayed them.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Max Whittaker
Sure, Fleet. Of course the Iraqi people will be grateful for us liberating them. I'm sure we will be thanked a dozen times over... on the first day. But what happens on the "second day", so to speak? When we move on to conquer Iran or North Korea, they will feel that we once again betrayed them.

I think they will be so happy they are now living in freedom that they won't care what we do! BTW, the U.S. does not "conquer" a country. We liberate (like Afgahnistan) or remove a dangerous leader (like Tojo of Japan or Hitler of Germany or Saddam or Iraq). Conquer would better describe, again, Hitler or Tojo. Nobody knows yet what will happen with regards to North Korea or Iran. But, would be so terrible if those people are liberated?

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Fleet

I think they will be so happy they are now living in freedom that they won't care what we do!

If we move on to those other countries to quickly, the Iraqis won't live in freedom for long. We'll need to rebuild and stabilize the region first. That could take generations.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Max Whittaker
If we move on to those other countries to quickly, the Iraqis won't live in freedom for long. We'll need to rebuild and stabilize the region first. That could take generations.

As was proved when the #3 most wanted terrorist was caught while we were preparing to go into Iraq (and, when we also bombed suspected al Qaeda hide-outs in Afghanistan), the U.S. can do two or even more things at once.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet

I think they will be so happy they are now living in freedom that they won't care what we do! BTW, the U.S. does not "conquer" a country. We liberate (like Afgahnistan) or remove a dangerous leader (like Tojo of Japan or Hitler of Germany or Saddam or Iraq). Conquer would better describe, again, Hitler or Tojo. Nobody knows yet what will happen with regards to North Korea or Iran. But, would be so terrible if those people are liberated?

These are two stories about what you keep referring to as the now "liberated Afghanistan". There are twenty more stories, just as bleak, that you could read on links to this link.

http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/betray.htm

Afghanistan has been well and truly betrayed

The Herald (Glasgow), February 26, 2003
David Hayman, head of operations, Spirit Aid, 45 King Street, Glasgow.

I HAVE just returned from the last country we went to war with, barely 16 months ago, Afghanistan. I spent a month there taking in medical aid to 13 mountain villages that collectively go by the name of Sheik-Jalaal. Out of a population of 5000, 50% were children and they were dying. Dying of tuberculosis, diphtheria, malaria, whooping cough, gastroenteritis, and URI. They haven't seen a doctor in 24 years! I arranged and paid for teams of doctors, nurses, and drivers. I bought thousands of pounds worth of medicines, and the Halo Trust (the mine-clearing organisation) loaned me a fleet of two ambulances and two Land Rovers.

....
At the end of the day, though, what I managed to achieve was but a sticking -plaster on the wounds of that beleaguered and forgotten country. Wasn't this the country that Tony Blair and George Bush pledged, in the same breath that announced war, that the people of Afghanistan would not be forgotten? Well, I can say after two visits to Afghanistan that they are not only forgotten but well and truly betrayed. The country is on its knees: roads, bridges, tunnels, schools, homes, hospitals, and farmlands are reduced to rubble and dust. It is one of the most heavily land-mined countries in the world. Only 5% of the rural population have access to clean water, 17% have access to medical services, 13% have access to education, 25% of all children are dead by the age of five. Life expectancy is 43. An estimated three million people are still in refugee camps in Iran and Pakistan, let alone the hundreds of thousands of internally displaced peoples. This country is in a mess and if anyone tells me that millions of dollars worth of aid is getting into this country then I will gladly take them to Afghanistan and point out the brutal truth. The people are dying! And we are turning a blind eye.

The people are dying and we are heading off to war with yet another country that hasn't bombed us or attacked us. How can we even contemplate creating another, inevitable, humanitarian disaster when the evidence of Saddam Hussein's threat to us all has yet to be proven? Surely, at the start of our 21st century, we should have evolved beyond the point where we reduce a country and a people to dust, for the flimsiest of excuses. War is the failure of politics! War is the failure of diplomacy! It is the absence of wisdom and understanding. The humanitarian crises, the desperation of the children, the betrayal of a people I witnessed in Afghanistan must not be repeated. Not in our name, Mr Blair.

Afghan warlords killing at will

The Age (Australia), February 1, 2003
By Ahmed Rashid - Lahore

The United Nations has condemned all the nations and agencies involved in Afghanistan for failing to curb warlords and clamp down on arbitrary executions.

The report calls for an international commission of inquiry backed by the international community.

Another report, by the International Crisis Group, strongly criticises Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the UN, America and Western coalition forces for not taking steps to improve human rights.

Western and Afghan leaders have said that, to preserve the fragile stability in the country, the pursuit of justice was not an option at present. In reply, both reports say that unless human rights issues are dealt with, national reconciliation will never take place, the warlords will remain in power and movement towards democracy will be impaired.

Asma Jahangir, who reports for the UN on unlawful killings, has called for an independent and international commission that would "undertake . . . a stocktaking of grave human rights violations in the past that could constitute a catalogue of crimes against humanity". Her as yet unpublished report will be presented next month at the UN annual meeting on human rights in Geneva.It calls for much greater international assistance in rebuilding the Afghan judicial system, strengthening the country's human rights commission and making respect for human rights a key part of Western policy.

The report details widespread killings by the Taliban and the former Northern Alliance. Ms Jahangir detailed how civilians continued to be killed, jailed, tortured and intimidated by warlords.

The International Crisis Group, which issued its report this week, demanded President Karzai remove Supreme Court Chief Justice Fazl Hadi Shinwari. He has banned cable television and has given judgments against the full participation of women in social and political life. The report said the cleric, 80, was unversed in secular law and "has expanded the number of Supreme Court judges from nine to 137, many of whom are also unqualified in secular law". Afghanistan has an Islamic and secular legal system.