The United States of America has gone mad [Emetic!]

The Times of London ^ | January 15, 2003 | John le Carré

[vbmoneyspender]

BTW, I am still trying to understand the logic of your position. If I understand you correctly, your position is that we shouldn't go to war with Iraq now because we previously abandoned the Kurds? If that's not your position, please let me know what is your position because I am unclear about what you are trying to say.

[dead]

Your position is nonsensical and your defense of it is so completely circular, it's a waste of time debating you.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Thank you for your civil response. I believe people who respond with fact and reason are a credit to FR and our country.

Let it be known that I have never said I am 100% correct on everything I know about the whole situation. Up to this point I still have not been satisfied with what I have seen and read about the whole mess.

I realize that Sadaam is a menace and a murderer. Where I have the problem is the way we responded to this menace.

You say that looking back and letting Sadaam stay in power was a mistake. I agree with that. You say what happend to the Kurds was a flat out shame. I also strongly agree with that. You say it was a snafu. So do I.

As a police officer I do understand what you mention. However I have to believe it is the right thing to do before I march off and do it.

It seems to me we built Sadaam up to be the menace to the universe and then left him in power after we had him defeated. Alot of uannswered questions make this trip to the Gulf questionable.

Also, I say let the evidence we have be put out where it can be seen. Tell me the truth so I can believe in the mission. "Yeah, he's probably behind it" is not good enough for me, especially when things have been so confusing up to this point. For me anyway.

[Cap'n Crunch]

What did you expect from a 'high school graduate with a badge?'

Debate? Did I miss something? Show me some facts. Sway me to your side. WIN THE DEBATE. SHOW ME WHERE I'M WRONG. I'm not so proud or ignorant that having been shown some facts I can't change my mind.

Enlighten me Oh-Great-one.

[new cruelty]

You noted that things have been confusing up to this point. Yet you outlined a few key reasons for this new mission:
sadaam is a menace and a murderer
letting sadaam stay in power was a mistake
wrongs were committed againts the Kurds after the Gulf War
iraq had plotted to assassinate GHWB

You ask to be told the truth so you can believe in the mission. You are smart to have some reservations. But when is it enough? I don't know if there will ever be a tangible document or witnessed event that will satisfy everyone.

[lucysmom]

And lastly, I've had some discussions with people here about the Kurds, whom if I remember correctly, we promised to defend in Gulf War I. It seems to me we didn't and I haven't seen or heard anyone explain why we didn't.

What puzzles me is that after encouraging rebellion, following Desert Storm, against Saddam, Bush then gave Saddam permission to put down the rebellion.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Here is my opinion and the story as I know it.

Sadaam comes on the scene and is a monster. Sadaam invades Kuwait. Sadaam does terrible things in Kuwait.

We proclaim Sadaam a monster and a menace who must be stopped. We liberate Kuwait. We promise to help the Kurds fight against and overthrow Sadaam. We don't. We let the Kurds get killed. We set up a no fly zone to keep the monster of the Universe in his corral.

Sadaam in the meantime makes a mockery of the UN and us by continuing to shoot at our planes (to his loss) and make weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, under Clinton we were in darkness.

Why then didn't we get rid of Sadaam the first time we were there? I've heard 'well, the mission was this, the mission was that.'

That does not make a bit of sense to me. In WWII, should we have just stopped at the borders of Germany and left Hitler in power?

After we promised to help the Kurds, why didn't we? And please don't tell me that we set up a no fly zone. After we left the Gulf Sadaam went after the Kurds and butchered them. What did we do? Set up a no-fly-zone and left him in power. That makes no sense to me. Makes me think some folks weren't telling the truth.

Now we have the President saying that Sadaam is "probably" behind terrorism. I say quit half-stepping, put the evidence on the table, give us the evidence so that we can tell the whole world to give it a rest, and they can't say it's for revenge and oil. Which, after 10 years in power since the Gulf war, it looks to alot of people, including me.

I said "huh?" After the first Gulf War because of the things we did. I'm still wondering why we left Sadaam in power for all these years after he's continued his games.

Now it just doesn't make sense that we're going after him because he was "probably" behind terrorism.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Thank you. It seems to me you are right. I just don't get it. I remember those Kurds on the news being slaughtered and hunted, asking "where is the United States? where is George Bush?"

I asked the same thing.

Makes me wonder who the monster is.

We gave them our word. And people say, 'well we made a mistake.' Those were people's lives who depended and acted on 'our word.'

Our word then did not appear to be good. Now it is not unreasonable for people to doubt our word today.

[Cap'n Crunch]

I agree with you, we are at war. People and governments want us destroyed. I can't figure out why we keep giving them the means to do it. Sometimes I think we have as many enemies inside the gates as we do outside.

[lucysmom]

In the twisted minds of the anti-war goons, all war against America is justified. Even if we are hit with weapons of mass-destruction -- Even if millions of Americans are slaughtered in their beds -- It is justified. It is for this reason that we must shun the anti-war goons. If they are Americans they are traitors; if not, they are enemies. They believe America deserves to be brought to it's knees, deserves to be crushed like a tin can -- they don't care how many Americans perish. Far from altruism, the anti-war goons are driven by the darkest of human emotions -- jealousy and hatred.

If a serial killer is operating in the neighborhood, who is protected by arresting and convicting the wrong guy? Perhaps we have made ourselves feel safer until the next series of murders. Perhaps we have satisfied our need to make someone pay, but we have accomplished nothing. You probably would "twist" my concern the the real killer was the one on trial to mean that I was "soft on crime".

[carton253]

Now it just doesn't make sense that we're going after him because he was "probably" behind terrorism.

If you would like, I could give you some excellent books on the subject (Iraqi terrorism)... not to force my views on you, but to give you some facts and things to consider.

[ohioman]

Point well taken. I am just so sick and tired of hearing of too many so-called conservatives who will not support a fight for our freedoms and security.

[ohioman]

Two of my best friends are cops and we get along great. I realize that it is a tough job dealing with the scum of society. I would NOT make a good cop I admit. :)

[Bernard Marx]

Then we had him. We had him defeated and we let him go and Sadaam killed the Kurds. Why didn't we go back THEN?

It would help a lot if you got your history straight. Do you recall the near-solid Democrat opposition to the Gulf War? Do you remember the contortions Bush Sr. had to go through, in SPITE of Congress, to put together the UN coalition? The UN-coalition mandate was to stop Iraq's incursion into Kuwait, not to eliminate Saddam. Had Bush Sr. done so there would have been the damndest political donnybrook imaginable.

It's easy to Sunday morning quarterback, especially with the perspective time puts on things. We tried to nail Saddam by making him a "war casualty." But we took heavy flak for designing special bombs to hit what we thought was his air raid shelter. We killed citizens instead, sadly, and that was the ammunition the Democrats, media and Hollywood Peaceniks needed to thwart more ambitious plans to eliminate Saddam.

[Cap'n Crunch]

I'm very open to books and facts. You can refer them to me and I can pick them up at the library.

Thank you.

[Cap'n Crunch]

I volunteered to be an infantryman in the USMC and did so for 4 years. I was chomping at the bit to fight for my country. I was upset because I missed Vietnam.

After the Clinton administration and after seeing a few things that opened my eyes a little bit, I first want to see what the game is before I jump in.

[jo6pac]

You two and your sanity-laced posts are refreshing.

[justaguy]

Bump. Good summary of what did happen, not the Captain's revisionist version..

[jpl]

The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was he who made it possible.

The Times of London is a respectable newspaper. It's sad to see them giving a voice to someone who is suffering from acute paranoia. This tirade would be more appropriate in a rag like the Village Voice.