From: Eryk Salvaggio
| Hi Wally. A couple of questions and comments for you.
| Firstly, we have numerous experts saying that a war
| with Iraq would be over in several days to two weeks.
| Assuming this is true- or even hypothesized- does this
| justify Iraq as a a threat to world security?
No. And I don't believe it will be over so soon.
| The Gulf War was over almost as soon as it started-
| and some American Soldiers came home with
| unrecognizeable syndromes that the Government
| won't accept at face value, or do anything about.
I don't acept it at face value either. I'm not convinced yet that
"unrecognizable syndromes" can be laid at anyone's door.
| Since then, the Iraqi military is only a fraction of
| that size then- with rumors that even larger mass
| defections are likely if there is a war.
Rumours, eh? Rumours. Foreign policy should be directed on the basis of
| Does this sound like a nation that can threaten
| world security? If not, then what justification do we have?
I do not believe Saddam's regime can threaten "world security". It doesn't
have to threaten "world security" before a trip wire initiates war. It is
sufficient if it threatens regional security, or local security, or the
security of a single nation.
| Second- there are no ties linking Al Qaieda to Iraq.
I don't believe that assertion. There are "rumours" that there are
connections, but excuse me if those are not the rumours you are in favour of
because they do not support your particular bias. For my part, I see no
reason why Saddam's gang or Osama's gang would avoid each other. They may
have differences, but they also share a common bitterness towards the West,
particularly the USA.
| The "War On Terrorism" is one thing- to disperse of a vague,
| unidentifiable and ever changing enemy.
Yes, that is one thing.
| But look at the Axis of Evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
| Please remember that Al Qaieda are militant muslims.
| After 9/11 I remember hearing a slew of reports about
| the unlikely concept of Saddam and Bin Laden operating
| in cahoots with one another, and about Bin Ladens disliking
| of Hussein. Not to mention that Bin Laden fled Saudi Arabia
| - if he wanted to work with Hussein, it's a lot closer to
| Iraq than to Afghanistan.
Of course there is the USA in bed with one of the 20th century"s most
murderous dictators, Stalin, during World War II. The enemy of my enemy is
my friend. Who is the enemy? The USA of course.
| Don't you find it suspicious that we had no evidence,
| and the government even admitted that there was no
| evidence, until they needed to drum up support in the
| UN and Congress, and then, suddenly, there are "ties"
| that cannot be disclosed because of national security
| matters- and even Donald Rumsfield said there was
| not any direct fingers pointing to Iraq, but lots of general
| waving in its direction. When you want to find circumstantial
| evidence, you will be able to. It's a basic rule of human
| psychology- and the people who run the American
| War Machine are human beings.
Well you seem to rely on "rumours." Tell me how much more reliable those are
than the sources of the government. Well, of course, the US Admin is gonna
reveal its evidence in the media, provide specifics to the public for
Saddam's gang to read and snuff out the sources or leaks, and we know that
Saddam's gang is not very specific when it comes to murder -- more often
than not Saddam could care less about his own collateral damage and the
leftwing of the The West could care less about Saddam's collateral damage..
| Third- "What if Iraq got hold of Nuclear Weapons
| and gave them to Al Qaieda?" Why would he?
Saddam is not a peace activist. He desires to continue living. People
willing to die for the sake of mass murder of USAmericans are inside Osama's
gang. In any event -- I don't believe there is any imminent threat in this
| His country would be annihilated if there was
| ever any direct evidence pointing to him. I mean
| look at what is happening now without any
| evidence whatsoever.
Very doubtful that "his country would be annihilated". His regime would
certainly be vigoroursly and violently pursued.
| Psychologically, the man is a narcissist, who
| throws nation-wide birthday parties for himself
| and renames the television network "Birthday
| Television". Seriously. Does any megalomaniacal,
| self-loving despot want to be annihilated? I don't think so.
I don't think so either. I am sure he considers himself quite secure.
However I think he is much much more than a narcissist.
| Fourth. If this war occurs [which it will]
| then what is the next step?
Good question. Lots of speculation on that score. Some say it will spread
instablity in the Middle East. Well, hell, how stable is it anyway? Who is
worried about instablity? The dictators in the region are concerned about
it -- and rightly so.
| We as Americans have opened a can of shit by not
| voting George Bush into office. The man who holds
As I understand it, Saddam is also one to hold grudges, deadly grudges, if
we believe the reports that he has organized an assassination hit on Bush
| More than likely there will suddenly be evidence
| linking Iran to Al Qaieda. After that there will be
| evidence linking North Korea to Al Qaieda.
So you believe in the domino thoery.
| And probably Germany now that the Chancellor is
| on Bushes shit list. It is not a conspiracy theory-
It's not a theory, it's fantasy. I really question your credibility when you
inject this ludicrousmess into your arguements.
| it's just that we gave an idiot power, and he is
| insulated against outside opinion, and he will do as
| he pleases- we already abandoned several
| agreements and treaties because Bush didn't like
| them, have told the world they are with us or against
| us, and now we are, as far as I am concerned,
| in a state of political anarchy.
Oh what a crock of shit that is. I've heard that sort of stuff for decades
from your ilk. Political anarchy? Examine the 1960's if you want to see
politics in turbulence.
| We have a leader who was not elected,
There was an election. Gore Bush Gore Bush Gore Bush. Tweedle dee Tweedle
dum. He was elected.
| deciding to destroy the last 8 years of American
| Policy and return to the policies that his father
| put into effect,
Bullshit. His father didn't finish the job.
| and on top of that, we are going to bomb the
| people we don't like- especially the guy who
| tried to kill our leader's Dad.
It also happens to be the leader of a great democracy, and the killer is a
| In the first Gulf War, did you know we bombed
| out Iraq's water distribution system? It's right there
| in the cia docs if you want to take a look. We
| knocked out water treatment facilities in a region
| that is- you know, a desert- leaving people with
| brackish water, which we knew would lead to
Malaria? In the desert?
| and other diseases- not to mention thirst.
| There's thousands of children who have died from this;
| and you can say "well, Iraq is a rich, oil producing
| country, they could restore it" but part of our
| sanctions against Iraq [and part of the reason we are
| going to war, don't forget, is also that Iraq has been
| attempting to violate these sanctions] are against- guess
| what? Water treatment equipment, and Chlorine- a
| necessary part of desalinization. Apparently, it can also
| be used to build chemical weapons. One has to wonder
| if we have sanctions against Iraq buying aluminum or nails?
So what is the problem? Saddam's regime has managed quite well to circumvent
the sanctions. Why isn't he taking care of his people?
| So you say "What for Saddam to Kill them first" but
| we're already killing the families of Iraqi soldiers who
| were gracious enough to surrender in Gulf War One,
Graciousness had nothing to do with it.
| and swallowing horse and carriage every "evil man"
| that the Bush family says needs to be stopped seems
| short of a good reason to send people to war.
If that were the case, I agree with you.
| Also- it just confounds me when people who are not
| in the army say what a great idea it is to "simply" go to war,
I did time in the Canadian army back in the 1960's. A Mickey Mouse affair to
be sure -- Canada would be hard-pressed to repel a flock of butterflies
nowadays. Be that as it may, I have had some experience. I might add also,
that my father went to Europe during World War II to fight against the
nazis. When he came back, he suffered from war dreams and it contributed, I
believe, to his suicide when I was 13. So let me tell you something, I don't
regard war as a "great idea" nor is it simple.
| to "simply" have hundreds of thousands of american
| lives put on the line. If it was your life, do you think
| you would feel as resolute that this war was necessary?
At this very moment, I am in neither camp, peace camp or war camp. I take it
seriously and I scrutinize the words of the state as much as I scrutinize
the words of peace activists.
| I don't know your history with the armed forces
| or outside of the armed forces, and don't take this
| as overly-confrontational, but it doesn't seem to me
| that you are enrolled in any branches of the military.
Throughout the 1980's I often went in and out of the east European countries
on various smuggling operations. I did this freelance, deliberately avoiding
any contact with the state. (In fact, during the 1970's I was the focus of a
lot of news in Canada involving my busting of the RCMP Security Service for
intercepting my mail art, so on and so forth, involving the Peoples Republic
of Poetry) I smuggled literature, music, art, currency, gold, printing press
parts, and other like stuff in and out of the communist bloc and between
bloc countries. I don't do any of this stuff any more because I am no longer
physically competent to perform such stuff.
| I don't think many people in the military would
| choose to go to war if they had a choice,
People in the military are volunteers. They made their choice. A free choice
| and they speak when it's necessary to- people
| signed up for the military after 9/11, wanting to
| go to Afghanistan. This war is not to simple and
| clear cut and not so necessary.
Agreed in general.
| Fifth. Clinton did not seem to find Hussein a
| threat to the world for over 8 years, as far as
| I can tell.
He was more into getting blow-jobs at his desk, and squandering a
multi-million dollar cruise missile to blow up an empty tent in Afghanistan.
Clinton seemed blissfully ignorant or indifferent to the signs and signals
of development happening in the Middle East.
| It's Bush, and the Bush people- the cabinet now,
| consisting of numerous people who were hands
| on for the Bush vs Hussein fight the first time
| around. So why do we hear nothing from these
| people on the idea of "coercive inspection?"
I like the idea.
| Why not have surprise-visiting inspectors backed
| up by tanks that would only work to barge their
| way into blocked locations?
I like that.
| "Because the weapons are being made in secret?"
| We have satellite imagery of every square inch of
| Iraq, and anything resembling a "plant" could be inspected.
Things can be hidden from satellite view.
| Six. I think it was Cheney who suggested "the nuclear
| option" against Saddam Hussein in Gulf War One.
| Are you willing to let this guy do "whatever is necessary"
| in Iraq? Do you want a nuclear bomb dropped on Iraqi
| civilians to protect against a nuclear bomb being
| dropped on Israeli civilians?
No I don't. It hasn't been proposed.
| Because in both cases, people are going to die.
Yes, people will die in the instances of coercive inspections. There will be
resistance by forces under Saddam's control. I have no problem having them
| And the second option might not happen. But a war
| with Iraq will- and that means people are going to
| die, with absolute certainty.
Of course. It is to be expected.
| So we're going to kill people who might kill people,
| to assure that people do not get killed?
Perhaps it is better to wait until those people actually do kill people
before we kill them. Actually, they already have a proven record of killing
people. They killed hundreds of thousands of people when they attacked Iran.
(lots of collateral damage in that one). Oh, and then there is the killing
of people (civilians) with chemical weapons, and those civilians were of a
different expendable race than Saddams's people. And then there was the
terror killings of the Shiite's in southern Iraq who dared to rise up
against the racist Saddam, and so came the no-fly zone, which also protected
the Kurds in the north from Saddam's killings. Of course, none of that
killing seems very important to you.
| We can't go around arresting people before
| they are proven guilty. It's not "American",
| it's like the most un-american thing. I don't
| have problems with all "unamerican" things,
| either- I download music, for example, and
| I have no problem with people smoking pot,
| even though they are supposedly "aiding terrorists"
| and all, but I happen to like the "innocent until
| proven guilty" idea.
Hitler had never been proven guilty either, but the USA joined in the war
against him. Tsk Tsk.
| I mean, in the most simplistic form, if we don't
| kill a bunch of people to prevent the killing of a
| bunch of people, a bunch of people won't die.
| People are not their governments.
Focussed violence -- target the uniforms, target the gang.
| I wonder why Saddam dropping chemical gas
| onto Israel and killing Israelis is worse than us
| destroying the water system and killing Iraqis,
Israel is a democracy.
| or out bombs blowing up civilians; which happens
| pretty much all the time, as well.
But not as badly as when other countries do it. No one seems to be getting
their nose out of joint at what Russia is doing in Chechnya. Where are the
leftie demonstrations about that? The violence going on there far exceeds
what the USA is currently doing. The violence there is almost all collatoral
damage. No one seems to be upset about this. No one marches to demonstrate
outside the Russian embassy. Why is that? Really? Can you explain it?
| The worse case scenario if we don't kill people
| is that other people will be killed. So who gets
| killed? Is that what this war is about? People get killed.
| If they happen to be born in the area that is now
| considered within Israeli Borders, or if they happen
| to have been born within a section of land now
| considered Iraq or Iran, or if they happen to be
| born in Sioux Falls, Minnesota or Ottawa Canada
| or Paris, why is death any different? If you were born
| in Palestinian Territory or , like, North Korea for
| example; do north koreans deserve to die because
| their- your- government was Communist? Because
| if they did, then everyone in the World Trade Center
| did too, everyone who is a person becomes just a
| national symbol and nothing more- no emotional
| complexity, no lives, no treasured anything, just walking
| flags, born into one geographical region and stamped
| with that flag, so that whenever the 6% of the population
| with that flag on their foreheads makes a decision for the
| rest of you, you are a "rational target" to be killed if you
| are in the way. Or at a wedding, or at the afghan red
| cross, or going to work in a skyscraper, or going to
| skate in the Olympics.
How wonderfully simplictic it all is.
| To me, this notion is absurd, and so is the idea of
| pre-emptive strikes.
Murder must not be prevented. There should be no pre-emptive action taken by
the authorities until the man actually murders his wife. Then there will be
reason for action.
| I don't want anyone to die.
Yes, you do. Your acts of omission permit ten of thousands of people to die.
You are letting them die in Chechnya while you and your artistic ilk sit on
your ass and avoid protesting outside the Russian embassy. No one is
innocent today, not me, not you. So if consider yourself so pious, I suggest
you put your mouth where you feet are and start walking to the Russian
embassy with a placard.
| Let's just first and foremost not get people killed
| anymore, hows that for a priority?
My highest priority is democracy. Democracy in this world must not only
survive, it must prevail. Generations of people over the centuries shed
their blood and shed the blood of others, so that democracy would develop
and find its place as a method of governing on this planet. While it is not
perfect, it is far better than dictatorshit, absolute monarchy, sultanates,
etc. I will not betray those generations by surrendering a single inch to a
| Because we are sacrificing the people of Iraq to a
| vague suspicions in the mind of the boy whose
| daddy was almost killed by this despot, a boy who
| holds grudges and never went to war, who sees the
| ordering of thousands of kids to go shoot rifles at
| each other as an extension of his fist.
| That's why I don't agree to the war. That's why I
| won't participate, and that is why I will support
| any voice in public that speaks out against it, and
| if enough of us do it, then we can just get Bush out
| of elected office and back in the baseball stadiums
| for 2004. Because I think running the Texas Rangers
| is a perfect place for Bush to be. I have no problem,
| at all, with him leading the Texas Rangers.
That's the democratic way. So how can we get Saddam to lead the Muslim
Wally Keeler wrote:
A simple image that aptly describes useful idiots.I don't join in on
Save-The-Dictator movements.From: "Michael Szpakowski" <email@example.com
Well!- that's a decisive argument- you must beschooled in all the arts of
rhetoric, Wally.--- Wally Keeler <firstname.lastname@example.org
From: "furtherfield" <email@example.com
all the groups & more who are at the STOP THE WARmarch today in London.
a herd of sheep
+ AFK, tornado-> post: firstname.lastname@example.org-
> questions: email@example.com-
to Rhizome are subject to the terms
set out in theMembership Agreement available online athttp://rhizome.org/info/29.php