- It Is Not About Terror
-
- Proof A: No connection has ever been shown between Iraq
and al-Qaeda; in fact, there is long enmity between their leaders.
-
- Proof B: U.S. leaders have clearly used Sept. 11 as a
pretext to attack Iraq. Bob Woodward says in his new book that Donald Rumsfeld
was already calling for Iraq's inclusion in the war on terror on "the
day after"; national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told The New
Yorker she asked her staff "to think seriously about 'how do you capitalize
on these opportunities [my emphasis].' " This is the way that power
thinks.
-
- Proof C (a deduction, but I find it the most persuasive
argument): Attacking Iraq will increase the danger of terror attacks in
the future. The misery of Iraqi civilians, especially kids, due to sanctions
is already closely watched in the Arab and Muslim world. Casualties from
bombing in the "no fly" zones are widely reported, though scarcely
noted here. New, far greater death and destruction will raise further anger,
and lead to more recruits for terror; it's elementary. Besides, even the
CIA says Saddam Hussein is most likely to use biological or chemical weapons
once he is attacked and cornered. You don't eradicate terror by creating
more of it. Surely the American leadership knows this.
-
- It Is Not About Weapons Of Mass Destruction
-
- Proof A: North Korea, whose nuclear program is far more
advanced than Iraq's, and which has the crucial delivery systems. Yet the
U.S. has declared it will not attack North Korea. Evidently, having a real
and credible WMD program exempts you from American attack.
-
- Proof B: Israel, which has had a large nuclear arsenal
for 40 years that scares hell out of its neighbours. Security Council Resolution
687, paragraph 14, calls for removing all WMDs from the Mideast. The U.S.
has never volunteered to enforce that clause.
-
- It Is Not About Democracy
-
- Proof A: Saddam Hussein, whose tyranny the U.S. supported
with military aid, including WMDs, as detailed in Iraq's report to the
UN, up to the time at which he defied not his own people but the U.S. Former
UN relief co-ordinator Dennis Halliday says that, even after the Persian
Gulf war, U.S.-backed sanctions continued to prop up the regime and "weakened
the very people who think about democracy" there.
-
- Proof B, C, D: Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, where
the U.S. has far greater political and economic clout to press for democratic
reform but has never done so. Proof E: Iran, which has limited but real
democratic processes, and which made the "axis of evil" list
nonetheless.
-
- Proof F, G: Turkey and Indonesia, Muslim countries with
some level of democracy that got there on their own or, in Indonesia's
case, despite U.S. support for its dictator. One could go on but one would
run out of letters. The general point? Democracy is not something likely
to be imposed by an invasion. Isn't that kind of obvious?
-
- It Is Not About Preventing Damage To The US Economy As
George Bush Suggested This Week.
-
- This one defies rebuttal. He posits a nuclear, chemical
or biological attack by unproven weapons through non-existent delivery
systems, then worries about the effects on the economy rather than on human
beings. (People lying in the wreckage screaming, Omigod, I lost my job!)
It's the same sensibility he showed in cheerily approving 152 executions
during six years as Texas governor.
-
- So what is it about?
-
- Hard to choose: oil, domination, revenge, punishing an
insubordinate client? Whew. At least we know what it isn't.
-
- Addendum: I'm getting tired of reading in The Globe and
Mail that criticizing Israel has become a cloak for anti-Semitism, as charged
by Clay Ruby, Jeff Rose and Philip Berger, who call anti-Semitism "a
powerful force" in the debate on the Mideast, or even a nuanced observer
such as Shira Herzog, who claims that "some critics of Israel conveniently
focus on Israeli wrongdoings to mask their blatant anti-Semitism."
What I'd like is some specific examples. The former fret over analogies
drawn between Israeli policies and apartheid, but those are made mainly
by South African Jews who moved to Israel and were disillusioned, or blacks
such as Desmond Tutu -- not obvious anti-Semites They refer broadly to
chants at rallies or social slights being on the rise. The genuine anti-Semites,
meanwhile, don't seem to require any masks or cover. David Ahenakew simply
launched a classic anti-Semitic tirade. He included a few swift asides
on Israel, but he clearly needed no camouflage. It's possible the process
has worked in reverse: i.e., criticism of Israel has made anti-Semites
feel freer to speak, but so far I see no problem making distinctions between
them and the conscientious opponents of a particular nation's policies.
rsalutin@globeandmail.ca
-
-
-
- As someone who has been accused of being an anti-Semite
(I'm not) for criticizing Israel's horrific behavior, I was tempted to
participate in this survey, but didn't out of fear of unforeseen recriminations
and other hassles I just don't want to consume my time, which this subject
tends to do. But I do feel profoundly betrayed and insulted by Jews who
choose to suspend their belief in honesty and morality, who choose not
to be functioning members of the human race, when it comes to Israel. See
survey at
-
- http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0211/article/021111f.html
-
- jk
-
-
-
-
- David Wright wrote:
-
-
-
- PRINT EDITION What this war is not about
-
-
- By RICK SALUTINGlobe and Mail, Canada
-
- Friday, January 3, 2003 - Page A13
-
- Four things the coming war against Iraq is not about:
-
- It is not about terror. Proof A: No connection has ever
been shown between Iraq and al-Qaeda; in fact, there is long enmity between
their leaders. Proof B: U.S. leaders have clearly used Sept. 11 as a pretext
to attack Iraq. Bob Woodward says in his new book that Donald Rumsfeld
was already calling for Iraq's inclusion in the war on terror on "the
day after"; national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told The New
Yorker she asked her staff "to think seriously about 'how do you capitalize
on these opportunities [my emphasis].' " This is the way that power
thinks. Proof C (a deduction, but I find it the most persuasive argument):
Attacking Iraq will increase the danger of terror attacks in the future.
The misery of Iraqi civilians, especially kids, due to sanctions is already
closely watched in the Arab and Muslim world. Casualties from bombing in
the "no fly" zones are widely reported, though scarcely noted
here. New, far greater death and destruction will raise further anger,
and lead to more recruits for terror; it's elementary. Besides, even the
CIA says Saddam Hussein is most likely to use biological or chemical weapons
once he is attacked and cornered. You don't eradicate terror by creating
more of it. Surely the American leadership knows this.
-
- It is not about weapons of mass destruction. Proof A:
North Korea, whose nuclear program is far more advanced than Iraq's, and
which has the crucial delivery systems. Yet the U.S. has declared it will
not attack North Korea. Evidently, having a real and credible WMD program
exempts you from American attack. Proof B: Israel, which has had a large
nuclear arsenal for 40 years that scares hell out of its neighbours. Security
Council Resolution 687, paragraph 14, calls for removing all WMDs from
the Mideast. The U.S. has never volunteered to enforce that clause.
-
- It is not about democracy. Proof A: Saddam Hussein, whose
tyranny the U.S. supported with military aid, including WMDs, as detailed
in Iraq's report to the UN, up to the time at which he defied not his own
people but the U.S. Former UN relief co-ordinator Dennis Halliday says
that, even after the Persian Gulf war, U.S.-backed sanctions continued
to prop up the regime and "weakened the very people who think about
democracy" there. Proof B, C, D: Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, where
the U.S. has far greater political and economic clout to press for democratic
reform but has never done so. Proof E: Iran, which has limited but real
democratic processes, and which made the "axis of evil" list
nonetheless. Proof F, G: Turkey and Indonesia, Muslim countries with some
level of democracy that got there on their own or, in Indonesia's case,
despite U.S. support for its dictator. One could go on but one would run
out of letters. The general point? Democracy is not something likely to
be imposed by an invasion. Isn't that kind of obvious?
-
- It is not about preventing damage to the U.S. economy,
as George W. Bush suggested this week. This one defies rebuttal. He posits
a nuclear, chemical or biological attack by unproven weapons through non-existent
delivery systems, then worries about the effects on the economy rather
than on human beings. (People lying in the wreckage screaming, Omigod,
I lost my job!) It's the same sensibility he showed in cheerily approving
152 executions during six years as Texas governor.
-
- So what is it about? Hard to choose: oil, domination,
revenge, punishing an insubordinate client? Whew. At least we know what
it isn't.
-
- Addendum: I'm getting tired of reading in The Globe and
Mail that criticizing Israel has become a cloak for anti-Semitism, as charged
by Clay Ruby, Jeff Rose and Philip Berger, who call anti-Semitism "a
powerful force" in the debate on the Mideast, or even a nuanced observer
such as Shira Herzog, who claims that "some critics of Israel conveniently
focus on Israeli wrongdoings to mask their blatant anti-Semitism."
What I'd like is some specific examples.
-
- The former fret over analogies drawn between Israeli
policies and apartheid, but those are made mainly by South African Jews
who moved to Israel and were disillusioned, or blacks such as Desmond Tutu
-- not obvious anti-Semites They refer broadly to chants at rallies or
social slights being on the rise. The genuine anti-Semites, meanwhile,
don't seem to require any masks or cover. David Ahenakew simply launched
a classic anti-Semitic tirade. He included a few swift asides on Israel,
but he clearly needed no camouflage. It's possible the process has worked
in reverse: i.e., criticism of Israel has made anti-Semites feel freer
to speak, but so far I see no problem making distinctions between them
and the conscientious opponents of a particular nation's policies.
<mailto:rsalutin@globeandmail.ca>rsalutin@globeandmail.ca
-
-
- Comment
-
- From mvp
- 1-6-3
-
- Jeff,
-
- According to Webster's Dictionary and I quote verbatim:
-
- Semite: A member of any of a group of Middle Eastern
peoples, esp. Arabs and Jews.
-
- I am shocked at the number of journalists do not know
this and still more befuddled that most Jewish folks either are completely
ignorant of that fact or simply choose to ignore it!
-
- An avid reader of the Rense site!
|
