PDA

View Full Version : The Iraqi and the little peacenik


FrogMan
03-29-2003, 04:34 PM
Maybe you've heard about this, maybe you've not. I'm talking about an exchange, on the air of a Seattle radio, between an Iraqi-American caller and a spokeperson for United for Peace and Justice, named Andrea Buffa.

If you have and/or don't care, you can go on and read the next thread. But if you haven't heard it or read the transcript, I think it's worth your time. It's about Mohammed, an expatriot Iraqi, now living in America. He asked Ms Buffa one simple question, which she never answers: How exactly will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq? I'm not pro-war, who can be, but gotta admit that I see Mohammed's point perfectly.

Here's the link to the audio file. It's a 2.5 Mb (approx.) MP3 file.
http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

Here's a link to the talk show host's website:
KVI Seattle - Brian Suits (http://kvi.com/x2977.xml?ParentPageID=x3259&ContentID=x3503&Layout=KVI.xsl&AdGroupID=x3248)

Finally, below is the transcript of the exchange, as found on this site:
KVI exchange transcript (http://users.rcn.com/wcitymike/transcript.html)

If this has already been presented or discussed to death in the past, I'm sorry for wasting bandwidth. I couldn't find anything about it by doign a search.

Later, FrogMan
=========================================

KVI Transcript: Andrea Buffa on Bryan Suits

What follows is a transcript of an exchange between Mohammed, an Iraqi-American caller, and Andrea Buffa, a spokesperson for United for Peace and Justice, on a talk radio show on Seattle's KVI (570 AM) hosted by Bryan Suits.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mohammed: How exactly will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?

[Six-second pause.]

Andrea Buffa: Um, again, what I need to say is …

Andrea (with Mohammed): … that regime change … listen, regime change, regime change has been issued to the Iraqi …
Mohammed (with Andrea): No, you are now obfuscating ... how exactly will leaving Saddam …

Andrea: … people. How will b … how will bombing Iraq help bring peace into …

Andrea (with Mohammed): and bombing thousands of people and killing thousands of innocent people and …
Mohammed (with Andrea): I will explain it to you, if you would like me to answer your question, since you are choosing not to answer mine.

Bryan Suits: Okay, let him, let him …

Bryan (with Mohammed): … let him explain, let Mohammed explain how bombing will work …
Mohammed (with Bryan): Since you are choosing, since you are choosing to play ping pong, and not answer my question, little girl, I will answer yours. There will be civilian deaths in the war. Saddam has killed two million people. There are families here in this country who lost twenty or thirty people on one day in a gas attack by Saddam Hussein, little girl.

Andrea (faintly in background): Ha ha …

Mohammed: And I will tell you this: yes, civilians will die. My cousins will die, maybe, Allah forbid. But here is a certainty that you do not understand in your simplistic, nickelodeon diplomacy, is that you are guaranteed to have civilians die under Saddam. So now, you try again to answer my question, without playing the ping-pong: how does leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?

[Two-second pause.]

Andrea: I mean, I guess what folks who listen to this show are saying, or who are calling in —

Mohammed: I am not asking what folks listening to this show say …

Andrea: You know —

Mohammed: Can you answer the question, little girl?

Andrea: Ha ha ha …

Mohammed: Oh, now you laugh at people dying?

Mohammed (with Andrea): You are unable to answer the question.
Andrea (with Mohammed): Well, no, what I'm, what I'm laughing at …

Andrea: … is that it seems like you need to, um, personally …

Andrea (with Mohammed): … attack me to make your point …
Mohammed (with Andrea): I do not want advice from you.

Mohammed: I am not giving …

Mohammed (with Bryan): … you advice …
Bryan (with Mohammed): Well, I have, I have …

Andrea (with Mohammed): So, what I want to say …
Mohammed (with Andrea): I am answering your question …

Bryan: Here, well, Mohammed, Mohammed, let me, let me pose it this way: Andrea, I have the feeling that if you just answer his question, he'll be happy.

Andrea: Ha ha ha ha …

Bryan: And I'm, by the way, I'm not baited by your laughter.

Mohammed: You know that …

Mohammed (with Andrea): … laughter in the background?
Andrea (with Mohammed): You know, what I believe is that bombing and killing people …

Andrea (with Mohammed): … is not going to bring peace and justice. What I, what I also believe is there are, there are other alternatives if we can pursue …
Mohammed (with Andrea): You can't answer the question. You are a joke. You are a joke. You cannot answer the question. You cannot answer the question. You are a joke.

Andrea: Ah —

Mohammed (with Bryan): You are a joke. I will give you one more chance, and then I never listen to a word you say again, you chirping bird.
Bryan (with Mohammed): How, how, how …

Bryan: … will promoting peace … how can you promote peace and justice without removing Saddam?

Andrea (with Bryan): Okay, and I also just want to say that although you are, um …
Bryan (with Andrea): That's his question. It's real simple, Andrea.

Andrea: And what I'm saying … ha ha ha …

Bryan: You're not answ …

Bryan (with Mohammed and Andrea): Ha ha ha …
Mohammed (with Andrea and Bryan): Listen to the …
Andrea (with Bryan and Mohammed): No!

Mohammed (with Bryan): … laughter of this little bird …
Bryan (with Mohammed): Hey, [exhales], I …

Andrea (with Mohammed): … you guys …
Mohammed (with Andrea): … who justifies herself.

Andrea (with Bryan): Well first, I don't think, I don't think …
Bryan (with Andrea): I don't know, I don't … I'm trying so hard, Andrea.

Andrea: I don't think that, you know, calling somebody a little bird is going to help address the serious questions that millions of …

Andrea (with Mohammed): … people are worried about …
Mohammed (with Andrea): You do not answer the serious questions.

Andrea: … millions of people are worried about the consequences of a war, okay? Millions of …

Mohammed (with Andrea): No, I am not okay …
Andrea (with Mohammed): … people are worried about the …

Mohammed: … with you not answering the question.

Andrea:… bombing and killing many people and millions of people are worried about …

Andrea (with Bryan): …increasing security for us, the people in the United States if we go to war, and additionally, I don't, um …

Bryan (with Andrea): Sure, sure, sure, I, we're, we're, we're retreading the same territory, the, the, yeah, we're retreading …

Bryan (with Mohammed): … but you're not, you're not …
Mohammed (with Bryan): You're a posturing little girl.

Bryan (with Andrea): You're, you're not answering the question, Andrea.
Andrea (with Bryan): Ha ha ha.

Bryan: Andrea, Andrea, you can continue to petutantly gale …

Andrea: Well …

Bryan (with Andrea): … in laughter, but you're, you have to admit …
Andrea (with Bryan): I'm, I'm …

Bryan (with Andrea): … you're not answering his question. It's a simple question …
Andrea (with Bryan): … well, I'm, I'm laughing at him calling me a little girl …

Andrea (with Bryan): … and I think that you guys are being …
Bryan (with Andrea): You're coming off, you're coming off like my 9-year-old niece.

[Brief silence.]

Andrea: The only, it seems like the only focus that we can have here is Saddam Hussein, and the fact is that Iraq …

Andrea (with Mohammed and Bryan): … and that the people …
Mohammed (with Andrea and Bryan): That is the focus of the war.
Bryan (with Andrea and Mohammed): Well … the …

Andrea (with Mohammed): … who are going to be killed in the bombing campaign …
Mohammed (with Andrea): Do you understand one thing about anything?

Andrea (with Mohammed and Bryan): … and what I said before is that …
Mohammed (with Andrea and Bryan): That is the focus of the war.
Bryan (with Andrea and Mohammed): Cur — cur — curiously, Andrea, you're …

Andrea: … there are alternatives, and …

Bryan: Yeah, alright, but curiously, you're talking to a guy from Iraq, and you're telling him that peace and justice will somehow remove the guy that is the reason he had to emigrate here. [Pause.] Is that what you're saying?

Andrea: What I'm saying is that …

Mohammed: Now, she repeats herself again …

Andrea: … is that true peace and justice for the Iraqi people through international law, through diplomacy …

Mohammed (with Andrea): International law has failed, Andrea.
Andrea (with Mohammed): … through pressure, through …

Andrea: … various, um, different initiatives. If we can pursue them in North Korea, if we can pursue them in Israel and Palestine, and all over the world, we can pursue them in Iraq.

Mohammed (with Bryan): And can I say one more …
Bryan (with Mohammed): Go …

Mohammed (with Bryan and Andrea): … thing before I go …
Andrea (with Bryan and Mohammed): And, and I also …
Bryan (with Andrea and Mohammed): No, no, no, no …

Andrea (with Bryan): No! I …
Bryan (with Andrea): An-, An-, Andrea, Mohammed has to go, he's a …

Andrea (with Bryan): Ha ha ha ha ha …
Bryan (with Andrea): … caller, he gets to go …

Bryan: … You've been on for the, uh, for 45 minutes.

Mohammed (with Bryan): I'm going to be, I …
Bryan (with Mohammed): Go ahead, ahead …

Mohammed: One more thing, please, Bryan.

Bryan: Yeah, go ahead.

Mohammed: If you, if you personally end up going to the Gulf, Allah will bless you, because Saddam is a pretend Muslim, and everybody knows this.

Bryan: Yeah.

Mohammed: And for the listeners who hear this girl, and she thinks I insult her with the term, I do not insult her. Being a little girl is natural. We all start out children, and we learn and grow. But she has no point lecturing me on what will happen in Iraq, or lecturing you. This is why this so-called peace movement … they cannot even justify their own name. And I will remind you, if they leave Saddam in power they guarantee death … if he is removed, there will be some, but for a short time — and the Iraqi people are ready, and they will welcome the Americans, including if, Allah forbid, Bryan, uh, Suites, go. So, Andrea, do not take it as being an insult that you are a little girl. You are simply not ready for the adult world. Thank you, Bryan.

Bryan: Uh, thank you, Mohammed. What he's referring to, Andrea, is that tomorrow …

Andrea: I —

Bryan: … tomorrow night is my final night here on KVI. My, uh, I'm, I'm being called up by the Army National Guard. I was in the first Desert Storm. I pray to God I'm not in the second one. I just wonder, as they say, in 10 years … will people shake my hand and say 'thanks for my freedom', or will they shake your hand? Neither you nor I know.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

astralhaze
03-29-2003, 05:29 PM
This was posted previously and it still has the same minimal importance it had then.

JeffNights
03-29-2003, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by astralhaze
This was posted previously and it still has the same minimal importance it had then.

That statement is quite ridiculous......it shows how these poeple who protest war for the good if the Iraqi people really dont have a freaking clue...on every talk show or radio program i've taken in not one exiled iraqi has said Saddam is good for that country. He needs to go. take it from the people that lived there and have family there. Astral, quite simply your reply was absoultely ignorant,

MylesKnight
03-29-2003, 07:41 PM
I didn't see the previous post on this.. Thanks for the info FrogMan.

I have to think this Andrea lady is a solid example of the thought process, or shall I say lack there of, behind the majority of the Anti-War folks out there.

Everyone should read this transcript and/or listen to that audio soundbite.

John Galt
03-29-2003, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by JeffNights
That statement is quite ridiculous......it shows how these poeple who protest war for the good if the Iraqi people really dont have a freaking clue...on every talk show or radio program i've taken in not one exiled iraqi has said Saddam is good for that country. He needs to go. take it from the people that lived there and have family there. Astral, quite simply your reply was absoultely ignorant,

astralhaze was right and you can read the other thread to understand why. Calling him ignorant is nonsense. The anti-war faction is not pro-Saddam, we just happen to believe in alternatives. If you are curious what they are, read the other thread.

Killebrew
03-29-2003, 08:31 PM
I love the way the DJ, Army 2nd Lieutenant Bryan Suits, pretends to actually search for genuine answers in this "debate".

JonInMiddleGA
03-29-2003, 08:59 PM
I hadn't seen this before you posted it, nor had I heard it mentioned anywhere else. So I thank you for taking the time to do so, it was beautiful.

astralhaze
03-29-2003, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by JeffNights
That statement is quite ridiculous......it shows how these poeple who protest war for the good if the Iraqi people really dont have a freaking clue...on every talk show or radio program i've taken in not one exiled iraqi has said Saddam is good for that country. He needs to go. take it from the people that lived there and have family there. Astral, quite simply your reply was absoultely ignorant,

No, it shows that the person who was on that radio show doesn't have a clue. Period. On top of that, the host used the Bill O'Reilly tactic of interviewing. Get someone who knows little about the subject, badger them repeatedly and cut them off whenever they try to say something.

CamEdwards
03-29-2003, 10:35 PM
Astral, she's a spokeperson for United for Peace and Justice. I hardly think that group would put her in a position to speak to the media if she didn't know what she was talking about.

If you think you could do a better job, let me know and I'll give you the number to call into my show. I'm having an Iraqi American on the program Monday morning.

astralhaze
03-29-2003, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by CamEdwards
Astral, she's a spokeperson for United for Peace and Justice. I hardly think that group would put her in a position to speak to the media if she didn't know what she was talking about.

If you think you could do a better job, let me know and I'll give you the number to call into my show. I'm having an Iraqi American on the program Monday morning.

She didn't know what she was talking about. That doesn't mean that no one in the peace movement does. Or, perhaps, she did know what she was talking about and just wasn't allowed to speak. If you notice, both the host and the caller kept shouting her down anytime she would try to say something.

As for your radio show, I am not a public speaker and would end up looking even worse than she did.

Tarkus
03-29-2003, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by astralhaze
She didn't know what she was talking about. That doesn't mean that no one in the peace movement does. Or, perhaps, she did know what she was talking about and just wasn't allowed to speak. If you notice, both the host and the caller kept shouting her down anytime she would try to say something.

They were shouting her down because she wasn't answering the question that was asked. She was just going into some canned statement she'd probably said a thousand times.

Originally posted by astralhaze
As for your radio show, I am not a public speaker and would end up looking even worse than she did.
I'm not touching this one with a ten-foot pole. :D

Tarkus

Tarkus
03-29-2003, 10:57 PM
dola

I also find it very interesting that no one except me has answered the guy's question.

Tarkus

astralhaze
03-29-2003, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by Tarkus
They were shouting her down because she wasn't answering the question that was asked. She was just going into some canned statement she'd probably said a thousand times.


How do you know what she would say? They wouldn't let her even finish a sentence. The question was unfair in the first place. You will disagree I'm sure and I'm not going to debate the point. In any case, I don't think this one radio show with one guest and one caller proves anything one way or another. That much I am sure we can agree on.

astralhaze
03-29-2003, 10:59 PM
The answer to the question is that it won't. I don't think this is even in dispute.

Tarkus
03-30-2003, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by astralhaze
The answer to the question is that it won't. I don't think this is even in dispute.
Thank you. That's all she had to say and they could have continued the discussion. And I know I've said this many times already, but I'll say it once more. I do believe there's an argument to made that we should not be in this war, and it would be difficult to disagree with that. Where I tend to be at odds with people is what is the alternative. To me, I think the choices are you either do what we are doing or you leave Saddam and Iraq alone. I don't think keeping inspectors there for another 10 years or continuing sanctions for another 10 years would accomplish anything. Plus you'd reach a point where Saddam could say you've searched for years and still not found anythng, enough already. So in my mind the choices are either war or leave Iraq alone and take whatever consequences may eventually come your way. I just don't think there is a peaceful solution to disarming Saddam that will work.

I am concerned about where you join the line. First Iraq, then what? North Korea? Syria? Iran? I don't want to see the US going to battle with large segments of the world, even if I think those governments are really dangerous.

I also think it's important for people to evaluate where we are and take action based on that information. If you want to peacefully protest the war, go for it. But don't do something illegal while you're at it. And don't put us more at risk of additional terror attacks by the actions you take (BTW, the "you" I'm using in all this is not you personally but anti-war folks in general). Also, since our troops are already there I feel you need to support them. Wishing the troops dead or hoping they kill their commanders or hoping we lose the war is just not appropriate. Neither in my mind is sticking up for people who believe that even if they have a right to feel so.

So, I'm more than willing to discuss whether we should be at war, but where I'm not open to discussion is when someone consistently takes a view that is detrimental to the country in which they live.

Tarkus

astralhaze
03-30-2003, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by Tarkus
I am concerned about where you join the line. First Iraq, then what? North Korea? Syria? Iran? I don't want to see the US going to battle with large segments of the world, even if I think those governments are really dangerous.


That is one of the two main reasons I am against the war. The "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive defense sounds all well and good in theory, but, as you say, where do you draw the line?

The other main reason, and this is tied right in with the first, is that I think we are making a huge mistake in thumbing our nose at the U.N. and the bulk of world opinion. It's all well and good to say fuck the U.N., we're the United States and we do what we want, but I think that is quite short-sighted. The United States does not exist in a vacuum. We are the most powerful country in the world, but we do need other countries to, if not like us, at least cooperate with us. Telling them to shut up and let us do what we want is not exactly going to help with that.

On the other hand, the only reason I would support the war, all other things being equal, is the fate of the Iraqi people. Even at that, I question how "free" and "democratic" the Iraqi people are going to be under first U.S. military occupation and later a U.S. installed puppet, but it will be better than Saddam so that is obviously a good thing. One of the many stupid things the left is doing in this war is trying to make it seem as though the civilian casulties in this war are equal to the killing by Hussein and his cronies. This is just idiotic. Any rational person realizes just how brutal the Iraqi government is, and the events of the was have confirmed this. The left is trying to fight on this ground when they should be focusing on the points mentioned above, as well as many others. For almost every argument for the war there is a very good argument on the other side, except for this one. Conservatives like yourself have it right in pointing out how silly the left looks by arguing the human rights angle.

Tarkus
03-30-2003, 01:59 AM
I agree with everything you said except the UN part. I really think the UN is a worthless organization, and there are many reasons for this. I will give you just a few.

All the nations, especially those on the Security Council and including the US, have their own agenda, and this often gets in the way of common sense. I just have to believe that France didn't want to go to war for reasons well beyond what is best for Iraq and the rest of the world. Assuming this general concept is true and given the fact that the permanent members have veto power I think it's always going to be difficult to get them to agree on much of anything that's really important.

I also believe that getting anything accomplished in the Middle East is made even more difficult by the fact that the region is so rich in oil. It's such a valuable resource in today's world that it tarnishes everyone's view on what going on there. I truly believe that if Iraq had zero oil resources we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Another reason I'll point out, and here's where we may have the most disagreement, is that there are 60 muslim nations in the UN. This, and much anti-semitism throughout world will make it very difficult for the US and certain other countries to ever get anything accomplished of any significance. I believe the UN can serve a role in the world arena, but only as far as providing support after major issues have been resolved.

Finally, another problem with the UN is that it either doesn't have the authority or is not willing to back up it's own resolutions. Even assuming those resolutions are fair and unbiased the UN does almost nothing to back them up. There have been numerous resolutions regarding the Israeli/Palestinian issue where both sides have basically snubbed their nose at those decisions with no repercussions. The fact that it took twelve years for anyone to do anything about Iraqi disarmament is a joke.

For all these reasons I really feel the UN is irrelevant when it comes to solving world issues. I'm sure there are examples where they've actually accomplished something of import but they are probably few are far between. For all these reasons I really don't have a problem with US bypassing the UN. Again, whether we should have gone to war is still an issue, but I don't think the UN should have factored into that decision. In fact I think if the UN had been strong and actually backed it's own resolutions regarding Iraq there may have been a chance we would not have reached the point at which we now find ourselves.

Tarkus

mrskippy
03-30-2003, 02:16 AM
What a bitch!!!

mrskippy
03-30-2003, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by Tarkus
I really think the UN is a worthless organization,

Amen, brother!!!

The UN ain't worth shit. Never has been. Never will be. It is basically run by a group of pacifists, who use their veto power to endanger the world, rather than make it safer.

What the UN has done in this crisis, is basically said its OK for a tyrant to be a tyrant. Qadafi, Bashir Assad, Yasser Arafat, and others ... without action ... become more powerful.

Nobody gets that. If we'd have let Saddam go, these tyrants would only become more powerful. In the case of Assad and Arafat that would be troubling for Israel.

tucker342
03-30-2003, 10:20 AM
wow am I having deja vu? Didn't we just have a thread about this?

dread
03-30-2003, 12:22 PM
The U.S. seems to have no problem with tyrants just as long as thier on our side or serve our purpose as Saddam did prior to the invasion of Kuwait. When Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iran, I failed to hear much furor over it from the U.S.leadership. We gave Iraq much help and are fairly responisible for Iraq having much of thier arsenal including chemical and biological weapons.

RonnieDobbs
03-30-2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by dread
We gave Iraq much help and are fairly responisible for Iraq having ... chemical and biological weapons.

:rolleyes: Source? Or do you just know this?

mrskippy
03-30-2003, 01:20 PM
The U.S. seems to have no problem with tyrants just as long as thier on our side

Examples? ... and please don't say Israel. They are defending themselves from tyrant Arafat.

When Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iran, I failed to hear much furor over it from the U.S.leadership.

Saddam was an enemy than too. But ever heard of our enemy is your enemy. That was the case there. However, it was found that we did give Iran weapons at some time.

We gave Iraq much help and are fairly responisible for Iraq having much of thier arsenal including chemical and biological weapons.

We gave them weapons. But not WMD. France has given them the ability produce WMD, in exchange for oil.

astralhaze
03-30-2003, 01:39 PM
U.S. chemical sales to Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true)

Bee
03-30-2003, 01:46 PM
I find it fascinating that people think those against the war are for Saddam. To me, that's like saying people for the war are in favor of killing babies (and yes, I've heard that said as well and thought it was just as asinine).

RonnieDobbs
03-30-2003, 03:38 PM
Thanks for the link astralhaze. That was quite the interesting article. Color me more informed.

Originally posted by Bee
I find it fascinating that people think those against the war are for Saddam. To me, that's like saying people for the war are in favor of killing babies (and yes, I've heard that said as well and thought it was just as asinine).

Bee, I agree. Nobody in their right mind is for Saddam. Having read through most of the war-related material here, though, I haven't seen one compelling argument for what we should do instead. JGs arguments about lifting sanctions didn't convince me of anything.

So a WM will see this (granted, not the best logic, but still): PN are against war. War will get rid of Saddam. There is no other way to get rid of Saddam. PN are for Saddam. Obviously not correct, but the kicker is finding another way to get rid of Saddam. And don't just say diplomacy, we've done that for 12 years with no success.

NoMyths
03-30-2003, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by RonnieDobbs
Obviously not correct, but the kicker is finding another way to get rid of Saddam. And don't just say diplomacy, we've done that for 12 years with no success.
Tiny little robot weasels. With little berets.

ice4277
03-30-2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by NoMyths
Tiny little robot weasels. With little berets.

You mean there are French robots?

Bee
03-30-2003, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by RonnieDobbs

Bee, I agree. Nobody in their right mind is for Saddam. Having read through most of the war-related material here, though, I haven't seen one compelling argument for what we should do instead. JGs arguments about lifting sanctions didn't convince me of anything.

So a WM will see this (granted, not the best logic, but still): PN are against war. War will get rid of Saddam. There is no other way to get rid of Saddam. PN are for Saddam. Obviously not correct, but the kicker is finding another way to get rid of Saddam. And don't just say diplomacy, we've done that for 12 years with no success.

So the reason for the war is to get rid of Saddam? So even if he had destroyed his WMDs and followed the UN resolutions, we'd have attacked anyway because he'd have still been in power and still been a sadistic bastard?

Or is the fact we want to get rid of Saddam because he wouldn't destroy his WMDs? The WMDs that are dwarfed in comparison to many other countries that are probably a greater threat to the US than a beaten down Iraq was? The WMDs that he hadn't used in the preceding 12 years despite his hatred for the US and his neighbors?

Or maybe we needed to get rid of Saddam because he tortures and kills his own people? Kind of brings into question the whole, "get rid of your WMDs and we'll be happy" argument in the UN. Of course, maybe that "real" argument that Saddam was a tyrant wouldn't work considering who else is in the UN, you know the countries that kill and torture their own people. Lord knows there are enough countries that do that who are members of the UN.

War might have been the only answer, but to be honest no one ever convinced me that it was. And to me, I think before committing to a war it should be up to those in favor of military action to prove its the only option, not up to those against it to prove something else will work better. Obviously, Bush failed to convince the UN it was the only option. He even failed to convince many countries that are our long term allies. In some cases, even his "financial" aid to those countries failed to convince them.

Of course, now we are committed to the war. At this point I am convinced going forward with the war is better than stopping the attack. Just like everything else I've said, it's just my opinion and maybe another action is better. But at this point for me the burden of proof falls on those who would want us to stop before completing the job since the war has started. We've started down this road and it's too late to turn back now. To do so, IMO, would be disastrous. Of course, IMO the road ahead doesn't look too bright either.

Killebrew
03-30-2003, 05:13 PM
Is Saddam more evil now than he was when Rumsfield was filmed shaking his hand & smiling at the camera's 15 years ago, at about the same time Saddam was unleashing gas attacks on his own people with US supplied equipment. If FOFC were around then it would likely be the "little peaceniks" demanding justice for Saddam's human rights violations while the forum hawks defended Reagans middle east policies. I understand the world has changed in the last 15 years but it is still painful to watch Rumsfield act so indignant about the crimes of Saddam after seeing that 15 year old footage where they seem to be getting along fabulously.

CamEdwards
03-30-2003, 06:11 PM
Killebrew,

I suggest you find out what Rumsfeld said after he returned home. It's one thing to be diplomatic when meeting face to face (we'd probably smile and shake Kim Jong Il's hand as well). It's another to speak out against dealing with the man when you return home.

astralhaze
03-30-2003, 06:21 PM
When did he speak out against him when he got home? Link please.

astralhaze
03-30-2003, 06:27 PM
This article suggests that Rumsfeld said nothing about Hussein until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait. That seems awfuly conventient.

"Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq’s use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special. "

Link (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm)

dread
03-30-2003, 07:27 PM
Mr. skippy my main example of the US supporting a Dictator is Saudi Arabia. Easily one of the most oppressive regimes in the world towards its citizens rights. Go to basically any website devoted to Human rights violations and you will always see Saudi at the top of its list. We have been close allies with Saudi Arabia for about 60 years. Saudi Arabia has even generously allowed Idi Amin asylum in thier country for the last 20 years. I'm sure we are all aware of this man's great contributions to the people of Africa. With this in mind its not a suprise that King faad has also extended a welcome to Saddam Hussien for asylum at the onset of the war. What I do find suprising is that is that although the majority of 911 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, we have seemed to focus on almost every country except Saudi Arabia.

mrskippy
03-30-2003, 11:25 PM
Mr. skippy my main example of the US supporting a Dictator is Saudi Arabia. Easily one of the most oppressive regimes in the world towards its citizens rights. Go to basically any website devoted to Human rights violations and you will always see Saudi at the top of its list. We have been close allies with Saudi Arabia for about 60 years. Saudi Arabia has even generously allowed Idi Amin asylum in thier country for the last 20 years. I'm sure we are all aware of this man's great contributions to the people of Africa. With this in mind its not a suprise that King faad has also extended a welcome to Saddam Hussien for asylum at the onset of the war. What I do find suprising is that is that although the majority of 911 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, we have seemed to focus on almost every country except Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia also has turned into one of our better allies in the Middle East, Kuwait and the Emirates (Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, UA) being right up there.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, it should be noted that it is an Islamic state in the purest form. Islam is the only legal religion, women don't work, they must wear burkas, only Muslims may go to Holy sites, media is fully censored, etc.

Such things as adultery and homosexuality are considered crimes. The punishment is death. But the laws also are on the books. And Saudis against those kinds of laws are free to leave, unlike Iraq where dissidents face death for trying to leave.

It also should be noted that there has been a shift, with some very limited tourism allowed and an increased sincerity towards Westerners. They've turned on the Internet, etc.

Iraq is a secular Islamic state, where women work, Western fashions are OK, and they've attracted some Western ideals. Kuwait is split 50-50. Iran is a pure Islamic state. Egypt and Jordan are increasingly more Western, though the Islamic clerics still hold firm in Egypt.

It's widely believed that when the King Fahd of Saudi Arabia dies, his much younger, Western-friendly, sons will shift things dramatically. That has been the case in Kuwait and those old Emirates.

Also while Bin Laden is a Saudi, he was booted from the country as have been many others. Instead you attack the country harboring those terrorists (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.)

Lastly, most of the Arab states have offered Saddam asylum. But Saddam refused --

-- The country giving him asylum would likely turn him over to The Hague
-- Those Arab states have no love for him and he would face increased assasination attempts, without his bodyguards.
-- Anyone close to Saddam remaining in Iraq would be killed

I believe a few of our Arab and even non-Arab allies in this war indeed gave asylum offers to Saddam. For obvious reasons he refused all offers.