|Anybody else see Saddamapalooza (Frontline) last night?||Dale Brigham|
Mar 18, 2003 8:59 AM
|Over three hours of Saddam, GW1, Bush 41, "Stormin' Norman" Schwarzkopf, Jim "Bake" Baker, the Highway o' Death -- the whole nine yards on PBS Frontline. Highlights for me were:
1) The CIA-backed coup that brought the Baathist Party to power in Iraq in 1963. In those days (maybe it's different now), the CIA could have used "Despots Installed While U Wait" as their motto. How about that list of approx. 800 names of "known Communists" in Iraq that the CIA turned over to Saddam? Maybe that was just part of the torture starter kit that comes with the CIA Coup-in-a-Box.
2) Saddam's idolization of Stalin. I guess everybody needs a role model. This explains the moustache.
3) The decision process leading up to the cease-fire in GW1, and its aftermath. The real concern for avoiding further loss of life (both our's and their's), the negotiation misstep in allowing Saddam to fly armed helios (which he used to brutally suppress the revolts both north and south), and our somewhat belated response to aid the Kurdish refuges were all covered in detail. No villains (except Saddam); just tough situations and decisions.
Got any fave moments?
(Sincerely hoping that the President is absolutely right and that I am completely wrong about how this will all turn out.)
|re: Anybody else see Saddamapalooza (Frontline) last night?||Me Dot Org|
Mar 18, 2003 9:33 AM
|The scene that really got to me was the videotape of the party meeting after Hussein has force the "retirement" of his mentor, Al-Bakr. He says "There are traitors in this room." One by one, he reads the names. Some are people he has known for twenty years. They are escorted out of the auditorium. One stops at the exit to protest to Hussein, whom he has known for many years. The guards push him out.
Hussein is wiping tears from his eyes as his friends are led out to die. Copies of the tape are given to party meetings all over the country, to let them know there's a new guy in charge, and he doesn't tolerate dissent.
|That is definitely one of the more chilling tapes...||Dwayne Barry|
Mar 18, 2003 9:56 AM
|I've ever scene especially when you know they were taken outside and executed (which Saddam went out and watched). I thought the tears were after they returned from the executions not when they were being taken out?|
|re: Anybody else see Saddamapalooza (Frontline) last night?||Spoiler|
Mar 18, 2003 9:57 AM
|The two-camp theory to American foreign policy with Colin Powell vs. Paul Wolfowitz did a good job of explaining what this is all about. Powell opts for the Reagan strategy of using diplomacy etc to convince countries to "Tear down that Wall", while Wolfowitz opts for preemptive strikes, using our military to tear down the walls and actively build democracies. Makes sense. 9/11 provided an open door to restart Wolfowitz's strategy. Looks like Paul has Bush's ear now. South Korea, Iran, Syria, and others are next on the list.
Other moment-Showing the moment Bush found out about 9/11. He's speaking in the classroom to elementary school kids. A man walks in and whispers something in his ear. Bush nods understandingly while looking off into space and bites his cheek.
|Remember after 9/11 when Wolfowitz went on TV to||OldEdScott|
Mar 18, 2003 10:11 AM
|say we were going to 'end states that sponsor terrorism,' and everyone went 'Huh?' and the administration rushed in to clarify, to say he'd misspoken, that he meant to say 'end state sponsorship of terrorism.' Guess what? He didn't misspeak after all.
The radical neo-cons have carried the day, and we're in for at LEAST four more wars/occupations, the deaths of hundreds of thousands, the bankrupting of America, and the breathtakingly quick fall of the American Empire within three or four years of its founding.
Cheery thought, huh?
|Wow, you sure CAN tell the future!||Captain Morgan|
Mar 18, 2003 10:22 AM
|Can you please tell me what the winning Florida lottery numbers will be this weekend, too?|
|OK, Captain. You're the brains of this outfit. So||OldEdScott|
Mar 18, 2003 10:29 AM
|enlighten me. Tell me where I'm wrong.|
|OK, I'll give it a shot||Captain Morgan|
Mar 18, 2003 11:13 AM
|But first, you're not the only one who can use sarcasm to make a point. You, not I, nor anybody else can know what the future will bring. You speak like everything is a definite just because it does not match your liberal agenda.
Anyway, you use the reference "radical neo-Cons." First, just because someone does not share your views does not make them "radical." Secondly, the Conservative position on this issue happens to represent the mainstream in the U.S. currently. Therefore, the liberal agenda appears more "radical" under the circumstances.
Next, you predict "4 more wars." With whom? Why? What would your liberal policy be instead?
Next, you predict "deaths of hundreds of thousands." The same was said about Afghanistan, and it never came to fruition. Anyway, I wonder how many people 10,000 litres of anthrax would kill. Or perhaps they were developing a more constructive use for the poison?
You also predict the "bankruptcy of America." This puzzles me. This subject is so broad that it would take pages to debate. However, I do not think you have anything to worry about.
Lastly, you predict the "fall of the American empire." Just because the country does not share your liberal agenda does not mean it will fall apart. If we were to institute liberal economic reforms, for instance, we would be in significantly worse shape. Take a look at the economies of France and Germany today.
Other than this, you made some great points.
|Well, let's see ...||OldEdScott|
Mar 18, 2003 11:40 AM
|As a leading conservative thinker, surely you know there is a split in the conservative movement between the 'regulars' and a radical crowd of neo-Cons who have pretty aggressively advocated an imperialist foreign policy for the United States. The neo-Cons have been so, yes, radical in their positions that they even scare other conservatives. Wolfowitz is a leading neo-Con. Cheney is right in there with them too. Rumsfeld. In the struggle for GWB's conservative soul, the neo-Cons seem to have won. That's a fact that conservatives talk about amongst themselves. It's not liberal prattle coming just from me. Again, I assume you know this.
Let's see, four wars? If the neo-Cons have their way, we will in short order have 'regime change' in Iran, North Korea, and Syria. Plus, probably at least one other small backward country that harbors terrorists, Yemen maybe. Who knows? Might be more than four. But mark my words, that's the neo-Con agenda. And if you don't think hundreds of thousands will die in this collection of imperialist invasions/wars, you're delusional. Hundreds of thousands will die in Seoul alone, my learned friend.
And if you don't think this insane projection of military power/occupation will bankrupt America -- well, I guess we'll just go ahead with a trillion dollar tax cut on top of it and see what happens.
And if you think a bankrupt, exhausted and militarily overextended America can hold its occupied empire together in the face of fierce and universal world resistance, simply because God and Dick Cheney say so -- wait, that means you're neo-Con too!
|Well, let's see ...||Captain Morgan|
Mar 18, 2003 12:46 PM
|Are you implying that all Conservatives should favor the same economic and foreign policies? You will never get that -- in Republicans, Democrates, or whatever. I see it as a positive that there is a group of diverse individuals, each with different ideas, which the President can rely on for a variety of opinions. Perhaps you would prefer a bunch of pansies walking around D.C. patting each other on the back?
Also, I would like to note that Clinton was in favor of overthrowing the Iraqi regime. On Frontline last night, they talked about Bush originally wanting to be an isolationist, but when the Clinton camp went to Austin to prep him for the presidency, they told him that they had been working on and recommended regime change. So I guess Clinton is a radical neo-Con too.
Conservatives have their Buchanans and Wolfowitzes, and Liberals have their Sharptons, Jacksons, and Kennedys.
P.S. If war comes to SK, I agree that more than hundreds of thousands will die in Soeul. The U.S. has already talked about reducing our military personnel in SK as well as providing food aid to NK. I do not see how you can claim that the U.S. is instigating a war. C'mon now.
Mar 18, 2003 1:43 PM
|It seems to me that America heavily financed the Allied effort in WWII, a much greater, longer and more expensive war, and America didn't go bankrupt.
It seems to me that America heavily financed the Allied effort in Korea, a much greater, longer and more expensive war, and America didn't go bankrupt.
It seems to me that America heavily financed the Allied effort in Vietnam, a much greater, longer and more expensive war, and America didn't go bankrupt.
Gulf War 1, Panama, Greneda, Kosovo, etc., didn't bankrupt America. But war in Iraq will? How?
Mar 18, 2003 4:31 PM
|Whose morals? (nm)||Captain Morgan|
Mar 18, 2003 4:59 PM
|America's, though "principles" may be a better word. (nm)||czardonic|
Mar 18, 2003 6:11 PM
|Not just the war in Iraq||OldEdScott|
Mar 19, 2003 7:01 AM
|Multiple wars (as cited above), multiple concurrent long-term imperial occupations and trillion dollar tax cuts.|
|A coupe of references.||czardonic|
Mar 18, 2003 11:56 AM
|If you indeed identify yourself as a "Conservative", you might want to check out Pat Buchanan's American Conservative magazine (http://www.amconmag.com/) on one hand and National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/) on the other before you make any generalizations or assumptions about what Conservativism really means.
Specifically, check out Buchanan's agreement with OldEdScott about the neo-con's plan to wage more wars in the near future: http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html. I don't typically endorse Buchanan's views, but I don't doubt his conservative bona fides.
|A great, scary piece by Buchanan nm||OldEdScott|
Mar 18, 2003 12:17 PM
Mar 18, 2003 12:28 PM
|When did I question what Conservative means? I questioned his use of the word radical. Just because something does not fit your individual preferences does not make it radical. As George Carlin once said, anyone who drives faster than me is a lunatic, and anyone who drives slower than me is an imbecile.|
|You didn't question it. . .||czardonic|
Mar 18, 2003 12:37 PM
|. . . I was simply suggesting that you should. (And if you can come up with a concise answer, kudos to you).
I agree that it is silly to write off anyone who disagrees with you as a "radical". But, it is equally silly to assume that anyone who agrees with you is not a radical. A "radical" is a radical, and the cabal of Neo-Cons directing Bush's foreign policy is radical. I suspect that even they would embrace that term (as an indication of the "boldness" of their vision).
|All kidding aside ...||OldEdScott|
Mar 18, 2003 12:41 PM
|Read the Buchanan piece czar linked to above. Tell me if you think the neo-Cons are, by any definition you care to use, radical. When you see their full agenda, I believe you'll conclude they are.|
|I read it and don't buy it||Captain Morgan|
Mar 18, 2003 1:18 PM
|I do not believe there is a hidden agenda to go to war with several countries for war's sake. Nor do I believe that our foreign policy is run by Israel. Is this article totally off base? No. I am sure some people have these feelings and goals, but yet again on the flip side some people support socialism as well.
As I stated before, the regime change in Iraq was worked on for 8 years under Clinton and the two Bushes on either side, as well as U.K. and is not due to any neo-Cons currently.
And LIBERALS call CONSERVATIVES paranoid? (not necessarily you -- I know this is a typical czardonic comment)
|No offense, but it isn't for you to "buy".||czardonic|
Mar 18, 2003 1:41 PM
|This agenda and its support among Administration officials and advisors is a matter of record. Also, it is not war for "war's sake". It is war for U.S. hegemony in the Middle East.
Obviously, any ideology has its proponents, and that in itself is not worrisome. When those proponents are given key leadership and advisory positions, you can no longer ignore them.
To say that neo-Cons don't have a hand in the plans for Iraq is to say that the Whitehouse and the Pentagon themseleves are not involved. Would that they weren't! You'll also note that many of theses characters date back to the Reagan administration, so it means little that the plan has been in the works since Bush 41.
|You don't have to "buy" that Iraq has WMD||Captain Morgan|
Mar 18, 2003 1:45 PM
|It is a matter of record as well.
This world will always have extremists -- on the right AND the left. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle (perhaps a little right of the middle!).
|P.S. Kurds link||Captain Morgan|
Mar 18, 2003 1:46 PM
|By the way, did you see the pics of gassed Kurds that was posted here yesterday?|
|But I <i>do</i> buy it.||czardonic|
Mar 18, 2003 2:20 PM
|Saddam's determination to give them to Al Queda or use them himself in an unprovoked attack, I don't buy.
As for the Kurds, the means to gas them were provided by right-wing American extremists.
|the first "reasonable" explanation for an Iraq war so far...||PdxMark|
Mar 18, 2003 1:19 PM
|Gulp. Never thought I'd be so entralled by Pat B....|
|Wow, you sure CAN tell the future!||Spoiler|
Mar 18, 2003 10:55 AM
|I think our leaders are willing to take the long-term approach. We'll wait for the next opportunity before moving on to democratizing another country. It's clear that they have America's best interests at heart, I'm just not sure whether it will work.
It's clear that strong-arming will isolate us from the rest of the world. The way we're going about it will unify Middle Eastern countries against us, turn Europe against us, and weaken our economy. This policy cost costs BIG money. In my selfish point of view, I can't help but see every troop deployment and military operation as big dollar signs that are being taken away from domestic health care, social security, education etc.
I think we can show a love for democracy and believe it's superior without forcing it on other countries. Our current policy is turning the world against us. It's also turning us against ourselves. Look at this board as an example. It's forcing us trade our civil liberties in exchange for supposed security.
People learn a hell of a lot and become better people when they take the opportunity to travel outside the US. I'd like to be able to travel around the world without being hated. I admit it, I care what other people think about me.
Mar 18, 2003 11:25 AM
|You make some interesting points. However, there might be a different outcome of the current policy.
I have been reading some research reports that suggest that France might be the country that ends up being isolated. In my post yesterday, I listed many Arab countries and clerics who are now calling for a holy war against Saddam. France underminded the U.N.'s diplomatic efforts, and they and the U.N. will pay a consequence. Even as we found WMD in Iraq in the 1990's, france continually lobbied on behalf of Iraq to get rid of sanctions. In my opinion, France's reputation will hurt internationally from this.
I understand the concern that this will cost big money. However, the damages inflicted on 9/11 alone (over $100 billion) were greater than the cost of this war. Also, you saw how a few anthrax particles can shut down a building for months. Imagine what a dirty bomb or thousands of litres of anthrax could cause. I do not want to find out.
Our reputation will be all right. In a few days, you will see Iraqis dancing in the streets with American flags and WMD will be uncovered.
Your points do represent risks; however, I view them as downside risks, not most-probable risks.
|I wonder if it would be possible to get a copy of it.||Kristin|
Mar 18, 2003 1:57 PM
|Also, do you think that it is all accurate? So much coverage becomes pro or anti war propaganda. Its okay if its biased, but I'm just hoping its all true.|| |