Hi guys

So it takes our goofy Prime Minister to remind me of a detail that had not really sunk in regarding the current US vs Iraq vs the UN situation.

The resolution before the Securoty council right now, 1441, that brought the inspectors to Iraq demands only that Iraq disarm. It does not call for a regime change, which I knew, but had forgotten, due the way all the White House representaives make the two inseperable.

Now, as we have discussed on other threads, Saddam Hussein is a cold-blooded murderer, an evil man, the worst kind of dictator and a danger to the citizens of his country, and probably people everywhere. I accept that. But Cretien raises a valid point - where do you stop? Which regimes get to be changed, and who gets to decide this? There are lots of murderous tyrants holding absolute power in many countries. Geez, look at China - and they are one of our biggest trading partners. They also turn a blind eye to baby girls killed at birth for the crime of being female, they have total control over the countries papers, tv and internet. They have summary public executions. Drug dealers have been reported to have been tried in public arenas, found guilty and shot on the spot. Anf that's jsut one rotten regime that I can think of on the spot - there's also N. Korea, and terrible things happening in many African and South / Central American countries.

Is anyone else out there worried that the expressed goal of "regime change" sets up a dubious precendent?

Love,
Terri


Chretien opposes U.S. bid for 'regime change' in Iraq

By SANDRA CORDON

MEXICO CITY (CP) - Prime Minister Jean Chretien said Friday he was surprised that the United States is demanding Iraq not only disarm but change its president as well.

Chretien said the concept of "regime change," as stated by the White House, is a dangerous one and he wondered who would be next and where would it all stop. The idea of removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from office is not part of UN resolution 1441, which requires Iraq to eliminate any biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in its possession. "If it is a changing of regime, it's not what is 1441," Chretien told a news conference.

"And if you start changing regime, where do you stop? This is the problem: who is next? Give me the list, the priority."

Chretien said the disarmament of Iraq is the key issue.

"The official policy is the disarmament of Saddam Hussein," the prime minister said in French.


"I'm surprised to hear now we want to get rid of Saddam Hussein; it's a change of regime. And as far as I am concerned I believe these are very severe consequences because of change of regime."

"I'm OK, I only have 11 months to go," Chretien said, referring to his own plans to step down. "But how about somebody else? So this is a very dangerous concept."

Chretien's strong statement came in response to a question about remarks made in Washington earlier Friday by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

Asked by a reporter whether U.S. President George W. Bush wants both the disarmament of Iraq and exile for Saddam, Fleischer replied: "it's disarmament and regime change."

The reporter then asked Fleischer whether Bush wants to achieve both when he's contemplating military action - even through the United Nations is after only disarmament and not regime change.

"The president has made that plain," Fleischer said.

The U.S. administration has stated since last year that it wants to see a change of regime in Baghdad. But calls for regime change were toned down after Washington decided last fall to seek UN approval before taking military action against Iraq.

The UN Security Council passed resolution 1441 requiring Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction and submit to UN weapons inspections.

The United States, supported by Britain and Spain, put forward a new resolution declaring that Iraq has failed to fully disarm - opening the way for military action. The proposal is opposed by France, Germany and Russia, which proposed an alternate plan calling for further weapons inspections to keep the Iraqi government in check.

The Security Council is currently divided over the matter.

Hi Terri

What Prime Minister Cretien said is one of the things about this war that concerned me the most. I kind of touched on that in Greg's thread when I said it has never been the policy of the U.S. to overthrow any government. At least out in the open. We have worked towards regime changes through the CIA in covort operations. Usually that consisted of arming and training factions within the countries who are opposed to their dictators. Cretien is correct when he asks, "where does it stop?" Maybe that is why North Korea is stepping up their nuclear production. Maybe they figure they are next. I say that jokingly but it may very well be true. I can see the concerns that many countries would have regarding the U.S. overthrowing governments.

It could be argued that none of the other countries with dictators are a threat to the world, at least not at this time. Mostly those dictators oppress their own people, but they don't attack their neighbors and they don't get involved in terrorist acts against the U.S. as Hussein has done.

But this is a major concern I think. It does, as you say, set precedents.

Love, Connie

I posted this in a thread but it's about a plan to change all the Arab countires. I don't see my thread?

OH man, too too much to talk about but oh so important.

This web site shows how to get involved with some direct action.

www.bordc.org

40 cities, towns, and communities including Hampton and Seattle have signed up for this service to ask their Senators to tell them what are changes from bills with constitutional impact and how they are being implemented into their areas.

I now believe that we as a people are at a dark and scary place in history and all other activities of our lives should be suspended until we get control of our government and stop this monster from creating the conditions of the demise of our constitution.

It is not a debate. It is happening and it is accelerating and it is destroying people's lives.

This is the PBS http://www.pbs.org/now/index.html site.
There's tons of stuff and a must read.

what the heck, I'll post it here...so far, its taking 315,000 troops to "oust Saddam".

(more troops deployed)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/03/sprj.irq.main/index.html

I heard a comment made earlier saying Thursday is D-day.
Time will soon tell.

Hi!

I think that all of you have heard about the proposal made by the president of the UAE Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahayan made during the recent Arab Summit in Cairo. He has called for the resignation of Saddam Hussein as the only opportunity to avoid the war. It's a fantastic opportunity for Saddam to leave Iraq without being judicially pursued although he's a criminal of the worst kind.

Most of the other Arab leaders think the same but are to afraid to speak openly about it.

I think that the idea of introducing democracy in this region is not really going to work. Especially not in Iraq.

In the North of Iraq Kurds are the majority, in the South Shiites are the majority and there is a minority of Sunni muslims in Baghdad, plus there are some Christians and other minorities all over Iraq.

If there would be a democratic election in post Saddam Iraq, the majority of Shiites will probably win because they would be supported by Iran. Shiite goverment in Iraq would not be accepted by Americans or other neighboring countries because it could be yet another threat.

To put Sunni goverment Americans would have to use non democratic methods.

In Iraq's history every ruler has come to power by force!

Iraqi people definitely want a change to their tragic situation, so if they see that Americans are coming with something clever and different, they would welcome them.

I'm still not sure what plans Americans have for the post war Iraq and if those plans are going to work in this region.

We all most keep in mind that most of the Arabs resent United States for supporting Israel.
The war in Iraq would increase the regional instability and fuel calls for political changes.

People (especially younger generations) do need change, but maybe not the kind Americans want, the Western style democracy.. they are definitely not ready for it in this part of the world. Trust me! You don't live here so you have no clue how brain washed by religion are so many people in this part of the world. You have no clue about poverty in some of the Arab countries. And poverty has made some young people a potential prey for militant Islam.

It's a very difficult and complicated situation. I hope there is some kind of solution.

El

Hi

I think it would be far more comforting to everyone regarding this war and the ousting of Hussein IF the Bush administration had a concrete plan regarding the government of Iraq. We only have to look at Afghanistan and what is happening there after the US "liberation" of that country. I imagine it would be the same. As El knows so well, there are so many different factions in the Middle East.

Americans have an arrogant attitude about our form of government. We tend to assume the rest of the world wants to live as we live and be like us. Our form of democracy is not what all the rest of the world necessarily wants. The people of the Middle East have their own culture. Our government has historically forced their culture down the throats of all those nations and peoples they have "liberated". Maybe the people of the Middle East don't want a Burger King and McDonalds on every corner.

Eleonora, what was it like after the US "liberated" Kuwait? Are the people of Kuwait on the whole pro or anti-American? Maybe you can write an article for Metamorphosis to give us your thoughts on all this.

I came across a good article regarding US "liberation". It is kind of sarcastic but very true:

http://www.counterpunch.org/gorman1210.html

With Liberators Like These, Who Needs Conquerors?
by TOM GORMAN

"We've never been a nation of conquerors; we're a nation of liberators," said our learned President last week, in response to polls in Turkey and Pakistan, perhaps the most important US allies in the so-called "War on Terror," that showed growing antipathy toward the US.

Who could disagree? After all, the historical record of American liberation policy is quite clear.

It all began when the European forbears of the US liberated the native population from their land. No longer would Indians suffer under the yoke of actually having to be free, undiseased, and alive. Then, to work this liberated land, Europeans liberated Africans from their abject lives of culture and community to be brought to America to grow rice, tobacco, and cotton.

Unsatisfied with the liberation of just the southeastern portion of North America, in 1812 the US sought to liberate Canada. This noble attempt failed, but trained many of the brave Americans who liberated Florida from the Spanish, reliberating many slaves who had fled their liberation in Georgia for the tyranny of freedom. Many of these escaped slaves joined up with the Seminole tribes in Florida in their stubborn resistance to US liberation, which would have brought these native people to freedom in the Midwest.

The American thirst for liberation was only partly quenched by an invasion of Mexico. Liberating a third of the territory of this republic served to bolster those who believed in their divine responsibility to continue and spread the liberation of African slaves from a life of leisure. (Being the gentlemen that they were, slave owners were willing to endure the shame of not working.) With the central portion of the continent now liberated from any competing European or mestizo threats, the native population could not, and did not, last much longer in the face of American freedom.

Thankfully, the US was not satisfied with mere continental liberation. Near the end of the 1800s, Americans liberated Hawaii from its chosen government before liberating the people of Puerto Rico and Cuba so that they could be freely exploited by American business. The people of the Philippines, liberated from Spanish tyranny, at first refused the liberation provided by the US. After a time, however, this Catholic society and its democratic leaders realized the benefits of having hundreds of thousands of its citizens slaughtered in order to welcome the Christianity and democracy brought by the US.

Theodore Roosevelt (whom we might call "The Great Liberator") realized that America's drive for liberation was stymied by the lack of a Central American canal. After helping to liberate Panama from Colombia, he was able to liberate the Canal Zone itself. With the canal completed, the US could continue its liberation quest unfettered. Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Mexico were just a few of the nations who received the largesse of American liberation in the early 1900s.

During the 1930s, the US feared that Japanese liberation policy in East Asia was conflicting with its own desire for freedom in that region. This conflict grew to where the US felt the need to liberate Japan of its oil supply, driving the Japanese to attack the US. (Most likely, the attack on Pearl Harbor was accompanied with Japanese propaganda about how they were liberators rather than conquerors, but this should be taken with a grain of salt. After all, one cannot trust a militaristic society.) The US continued its struggle for liberation in Japan, even making the supreme sacrifice of the genocidal bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (not to mention the glorious firebombing of Tokyo months earlier).

In the European theater, the US waited until mid-1944 to begin to liberate Europe from Nazi oppression, wanting to wait until the Soviets and Germans had liberated millions of each other from the burden of breathing. This "delayed liberation" policy also allowed Hitler to continue his own liberations against millions of Jews.

After the "Good War" ended, the US, stayed hands-on in many parts of the world: Mohammed Mossadegh was liberated from his democratically-elected position as Prime Minister of Iran; Jacobo Arbenz was freed from the horror of being democratically elected in Guatemala; Patrice Lumumba was emancipated not just from his position as leader of Zaire, but also from his need to continue living; Salvador Allende of Chile benefited from a similar policy of liberation

At this time, the US also saw the need to outsource many of its liberation activities. The government of Indonesia was liberated so that it could commit genocide in East Timor. The Contras were funded so that they could liberate schools and hospitals in Nicaragua by blowing them up. The US funded Turkey in its desire to liberate its Kurdish minority. Saddam Hussein received American support in his noble desire to liberate the oil resources of Iraq. Hussein even made the sacrifice of "gassing his own people" to ally himself with the liberationists. And, lest we forget, the US continues selflessly to fund the government of Israel in its dream of liberating the "promised land" form those who have only the specious claim of hundreds of years of residency.

Vietnam is a sad memory for those fans of American liberation policy. Despite murdering millions of people in Southeast Asia, poisoning the ecosystem, and destroying the infrastructure, the US failed to win the "hearts and minds" of the people they brutalized.

This defeat would not keep the US down for long, though. In 1991, the US liberated the people of Kuwait so that they could return to life under a reactionary monarchy. In the process, the people of Iraq were deliberately liberated from their clean water supplies. The next decade would be spent by the US pushing liberation through bombings and sanctions, yet the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis remain unappreciative.

Which brings us to the present liberation campaign, mentioned by President Bush in his comments on Wednesday. "And I would ask the skeptics [of America's policy of liberation] to look at Afghanistan, where not only this country rout [sic] the Taliban, which was one of the most barbaric regimes in the history of mankind, but thanks to our strength and our compassion, many young girls now go to school for the first time." Yes, the US helped the Afghan people be free from the despotic rule of the Taliban (many of whom gained power with the help of the US in their struggle for liberation against the Russians, who, ironically, are our new allies in the struggle against the "terrorism" represented by the former Afghan leaders, demonstrating American willingness to suffer the most horrendous rhetorical and moral whiplash to defend freedom wherever it is threatened, cognitive dissonance be damned.) Now Afghans have the luxury to live in terror of dozens of regional warlords. The estimated 3000 Afghan civilians killed by American bombs are the best-known recipient of American liberation; less well known, due most probably to American modesty in its role as a liberator, is how many thousands of people in the Afghan countryside died when the US demanded a halt to UN food relief in September 2001.

If these are the results of American "strength and compassion," as President Bush would have it, the people of the world should indeed be very thankful that the US is not in fact a "nation of conquerors."

Tom Gorman lives in Glendale, California. He welcomes comments at tgorman222@hotmail.com.

Love, Connie

When Saddam attacked Kuwait, he was "liberating" it, remember? Same when the Chinese attacked Tibet to "liberate" it from oppression by the Dalai Lama.

The article you quoted was indeed sarcastic, Connie ... and at points even unfairly one-sided ... but I think it did make its major point quite well: conquerors ALWAYS describe themselves as liberators. And when they do so, they lie. In both logic and historical fact, conquest is NOT liberation. Surely we are all clear-minded enough to see that!

Love,
Greg

Hi everybody!

Well, I was thinking about what could be a possible solution for the post war Iraq that would satisfied everybody.
Maybe a return of a modern monarchy? Iraqi royal family are Sunni and they would probably be accepted internationally.

This is just an idea, honestly I have no clue what are the American plans exactly?

Kuwait was occupied by Iraqis and I don't think that that situation is comparable to the other American liberation wars.
Americans indeed liberated Kuwait, no doubt in my mind or anybody else minds here. And Kuwaitis are forever grateful to Americans for that. Let's always keep that in mind!

Let me tell you, young Kuwaitis are very much like young people all over the world, they listen to Western music, watch satellite TV, they chat on the Internet, roam the malls, love junk food, etc..... BUT, still there are MANY who still pray 5 times a day and go to mosque on Friday.

This very conservative society is stuggling to find certain balance between deep seated traditional tribal and religious values and the modern Western style life.

I'm not really sure if they still know what they really want.

Listen guys, this is only my humble opinion, maybe I'm not competent to talk about this subject. I would rather talk about Kuwait in general.

Kuwaitis are heirs of a rich collection of cultural influences, the result of their closeness to the cultural frontiers of Persian and Arab society and the very strong trading tradition, which has brought them into contact with many other cultures.
Very important is the beduine tradition who also left stamp on Kwt life, especially the beduin influence is strong in the goverment and the family life and can be seen as strong sense of hospitality, loyalty.

Kwt dialect is the mixture of Iraqi and peninsular Arabic with the Persian and Indian influences.

The modern Kuwait is the business country, but before the discovery of oil, the country was famous for its pearl trade and trade in general was the single most important activity.
Kuwaitis always find opportunities to make profit and many will open small business. Even the beduins participate in this predominantly business oriented climate.
Business is the blood of Kuwaitis.

Very important thing to mention is the strenght of the family life, from the beduin to the urban Kuwaitis, the family is the central point of their lives. Families do provide a comforting net for the individuals. Very important is the respect toward the older members of the family.

In their attitude toward Western culture Kuwaitis do show strong ambivalence. They do admire successful and strong Western countries, like USA, EU, but are also strongly suspicious of Westerners.
Kuwaitis pick quickly on new technologies and innovations from the West, they choose and use...they send their children to foriegn British and American private schools all over the country, and to Western universities, but they still think that their social and moral strenght is much stronger than in Western countries.

Many Kuwaitis are deeply religious, Islam is penetrating every aspect of life, from courteous phrases to marriages and death.
I don't know any Kuwaiti publicly declared atheist or even agnostic! But I do know some of Kuwaitis in my social circles who don't belive in God or Islam.
They would neve ever dare to go out in public with their ideas, never!

Kuwaitis do mix with foreigners, but outsiders are rarely invited into family homes and family circles.

Phew, that was the long one, I hope that your mental picture of this small desert country is more clear now.

I don't want to enter into some kind of a political debate, that was not the point of my first post on this thread, I was just thinking loudly.

Oops, it's Midnight! Time to go to sleep!

Have a nice day guys!
El

Thanks for that glimpse of Kuwaiti culture and values, El ... that was great!

And for the record, I DO agree that the expulsion of invading Irag from Kuwait was a liberation, no doubt about it. But that was NOT also a war of conquest, it was a true ouster of an aggressive invading army ... and there was no thought of the US military sticking around afterward to install a new regime in Kuwait. Different ball of wax!

Thanks again for the glimpses of your culture, I think dialog of that kind that helps us all to understand the different cultures of the world is VERY important to the process of moving toward a peaceful, tolerant and cooperative world.

Love,
Greg

Thanks, El that gives me a better understanding of what life is like in Kuwait. Much like it is here, only too much violence in our American society. I think that is because we don't have those strong religious ties and the family values that Kuwait people have. Not on the whole anyway.

Greg, I agree with you about there being a difference between the liberation of Kuwait and Iraq. That's what makes me nervous about what the repercussions of this war in Iraq might be. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Saddam Hussein is looked upon as a hero by the fanatical groups in the Middle East because of the way he has stood up to the U.S. If the U.S. just goes in there and ousts him from Iraq it seems to me it is only going to stir up those fanatical groups all the more.

Jwhop said that the U.S. has ousted world leaders overtly in the past and cited WWll, Hitler and Japan as examples. To me that was different too. Those were World Wars. I don't recall any time in my lifetime where the U.S. has overtly gone to war with the intention of overthrowing a regime. Covertly, yes. I know this creates more suffering for the Iraqi people, but can't the U.S. , along with it's allies, do the same to Iraq and Hussein that we did to Libya and Kaddafi? Use trade sanctions? The U.S. is not dependent on Iraqi oil but I think Great Britain and European countries are. Is that why they can't apply trade sanctions? I am just trying to understand all this because something deep inside me tells me that this war is wrong and it may be the beginning of something none of us wants, another World War.

Love, Connie

Exactly, Connie! Our role in WWII was a defensive one against attackers bent on conquering the world ... and who had already launched their attacks and were pursuing their conquest overtly with military might. Different scenario entirely.

And not least, WWII was anything BUT a unilateral action taken in defiance of the will of our allies!

The problem with sanctions is that they hurt the people of Iraq more than they cramp Saddam's ambitions. The sanctions already in place have caused great suffering among the civilian population ... Saddam could care less!

I don't know what the best solution to the Saddam problem is, and I don't think anyone else knows for sure either, at this point. But I think that things like major international initiatives to curb the trade in WMD (as jwhop has validly pointed out, other nations, even Western nations, are earning profits from covertly arming Saddam), coupled with firm containment and relentless pressure, support of internal anti-saddam forces in Iraq, and other such approaches can certainly defuse any immediate threat from Saddam, while allowing meaningful and effective international strategies time to develop. And it may well be that at some point there really IS no alternative to direct military intervention under true international consensus and cooperation. This CAN be done with concerted cooperative effort among the community of nations ... no one wants to see an armed madman loose in the world ... but no one wants the US to assume the role of cowboy gunslinger that considers itself above the law and thumbs its nose at the rest of the world community. That policy is BOUND to backfire in many dangerous ways!

Love,
Greg

Hi guys!

I don't know if you've heard about the Extraordinary Islamic Summit Wednesday... I'm sure that you have. If not you would read about it.

Kuwait was attacked and verbally abused once again by the representatives of Saddam Hussein, showing that their real intentions toward Kwt are still insane and very aggressive! Iraq described Kwt as a "small" among other insults. Iraqis accused Kwt of conspiracy, etc. etc...

This kind of aggressive and abnormal behavior is a rule during every Arab conference.

Kuwait has been called names by some Arabs countries in the past too, the most frequent is "being a US colony".

Many people are accusing America of becoming an imperialistic power, well, that could mean that Kuwait indeed is already an American colony... I honestly don't think so!

Kuwait was never deprived of its sovereign power to decide what to do. All the internal or external decisions have been taken without consulting America or any other country.

Nobody has taken away Kwt power to think and to take decisions as it is usually under colonial rule.

Kwt and USA share the joint interests and they do have to co-exist.

El

Could we finally lay aside the lie that the US is advocating or planning a unilateral war in Iraq? France, Germany and Russia ARE NOT the rest of the world, even if they do occupy their own dream world where reason and logic aren't permitted to intrude.

This is a partial list of America's coalition partners, each supporting the US with whatever they can contribute.

Poland, The Czech Republic, Hungary, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Kuwait
Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Britain, Australia, probably Turkey and others who aren't making their decisions public at this point.

Watch closely as other nations jump on the bandwagon when it looks like the jump off is imminent.

jwhop

Well jwhop, I've heard a LOT of reason and logic concerning the disadvantages of pressing forward an immediate attack on Iraq ... both with regard to doubts about its urgent necessity AND with regard to potentially devastating consequences (including political destabilization of the middle east, backlash strengthening of worldwide terrorism due to anger at the U.S., and significant unresolved questions about the real agendas behind the war which AT THE VERY LEAST deserve to be openly aired and discussed if we want to maintain even a pretense of this being an action motivated by spreading "democratic" principles in the world.) However, if you wish to assert that any people or governments who are not standing in line behind Bush saying "yowsa, massah supreme leader" are by definition "living in a dream world where reason and logic aren't permitted to intrude," well I suppose you can do that ... though I'd point out that such an assertion is itself neither reasonable nor logical!

No, France, Germany and Russia are not "the rest of the world" ... nor are they by ANY stretch of the imagination the only opponents of this "no more words, attack now" agenda. They are just the Security council members who are legally empowered - by the U.N. charter which we signed and agreed to abide by - to veto a resolution authorizing an internationally sanctioned attack.

If the U.S. proceeds to attack without such international authorization, it WILL be unilateral in that it will be entirely the decision of the US administration to initiate it, under US military command, and with the post-war disposition of Iraq up to the US administration (regardless of what "input" we might take into consideration from other sources.) That's unilateral enough for me to draw a clear and unambiguous distinction between unilateral military action versus action by international consensus and cooperation.

Love,
Greg

Greg

You and everyone else is welcome to speculate on what "might" happen in the wake of an invasion of Iraq. You can characterize US motives as a grab for oil, grab for land, payback for an attempt on the President's fathers life or any of the myriad theories floated by those opposed to action against Saddam Hussein.

You can say nothing would be done in the area without direct US involvement and you would be right but please don't make war on the English language by declaring this a unilateral action by the US. It may sound good to your ears and it's a nice talking point, along with "no blood for oil" but it defies reality. Using your definition of unilateral, removing Saddam's army from Kuwait was a unilateral action too. The definition of unilateral is not connected to UN approval, the approval of France, Russia, Germany or any other nation or nations.

Your speculations about the real reason behind the looming war with Iraq are just that, speculation. Neither has there been any news blackout or lack of discussion. The fact that the President hasn't personally asked for your opinion or that he should ask every American and presumably every person on earth, judging by some of the posts here, to vote or give him counsel or advice concerning Iraq is no indication he is somehow doing violence to the US Constitution.

Finally, the US needs no consensus of the nations of the world or the UN security council to protect our security. We never needed that and any attempt to make it seem somehow illegal, underhanded, sinister, imperial or in any way out of the ordinary flies in the face of the Constitution. The US is the authority on our security needs. The day that ceases to be true is the day the Constitution has been overthrown.

jwhop